Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 00Spy
Joined: 4/13/2013
Msg: 26
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking placePage 2 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
What has been the trend over the last 10 years for temperature?
What was the temperature trend thought the 80's and 90's?
What has been the trend for temperatures the last 200 years?
What has been the trend for temperatures the last 20,000 years?
What is the trend for greenhouse gasses produced the last 10 years?
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 27
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/29/2015 8:04:54 PM
Now you know that they will just call you a lot of names, Spy.
Ha!

I simply wanted to know what people thought, given the amount of conflicting information and opinions,particularly about recent weather. But once again, people who don't like people or conversing with them without yelling got carried away again. ( Go thee to wiki!!) I was watching criminal minds and imagined some people here who are always so angry and accuse people of things that they haven't said or done ( delusions?) as the unsubs. . .

I know, bad, bad, bad. LOL!

Anyway, what do you think and why, Spy?

( By the way, any lurkers from Geneva? Taking a temp post there next year. Email me with knowledge and suggestion, pleeease. Thanks).
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 28
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/30/2015 8:41:17 PM

I simply wanted to know what people thought, given the amount of conflicting information and opinions.


Conflicting information? Okaaaaaay, lol!


"They keep talking about how ‘the’ 97 percent study is wrong," Doran told PolitiFact in an interview. "Well it turns out, we never know which study they are referring to because there have been three peer-reviewed studies of late that have arrived at this 97 percent number in different ways and by different people."


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/

I'd say read the original, but anyone who still thinks that there's "conflicting information" is really really really unlikely to do so, eh?
 raxarsr
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 6:39:55 AM
i remember back to jr high science class................at that time.........supposedly.the earth was getting colder................strangely enough.............for the exact reasons that are being used now to explain why its getting warmer....................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 30
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 6:54:18 AM
No, actually you're lying. You don't remember that, because everybody had forgotten about that one Newsweek story until some oil industry lackey found it. It was one badly written story that misrepresented one study.

I'm roughly your age. I remember David Suzuki talking about global warming when I was in junior high. Same time that Exxon was covering up their study showing global warming. But somehow every time this issue comes up all these old guy have "recovered memories" of being told all about global cooling in school. Did you have to go down to the local RNC office for the hypnosis to recover that memory?
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 31
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 7:22:52 AM
Too true HTD...I was in school around the same time as both you and Rax, and I have no recollection of global cooling being taught.


[W]e should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends—and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. -- Science Dec 1976
The paper surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) predict global cooling. So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. -- Connelly, Peterson, & Fleck
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 32
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:24:16 AM
Apparently there was global cooling alarmism in the 60's and 70's. I can't remember what I ate yesterday, so couldn't begin to remember what I was taught in school at that time. See: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

And then, of course, there's stuff like this thrown in the mix: http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/12/09/its-a-chinook-leo-albertans-respond-to-dicaprios-climate-experience-while-filming-the-revenant
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 12:06:21 PM
deetristate:

I have a friend who travels often to Iceland who tells me that I should go and visit soon before it has changed so much that the ice is an afterthought. Some say the same about Alaska.

Several years ago I saw photos showing how much a particular glacier in California had retreated in the last hundred years. To be honest, I was surprised that people would find this surprising.... for someone living several hundred miles further north than 95% of Canadians I had always thought (without ever really thinking about it at all) that California would be glacier free.

...at any rate my guess is that the glaciers in Iceland will be completely safe in our lifetimes.

I think it's a natural tendency for people to believe that the weather that is happening to them is quite unusual... when they hear that temperatures have risen by 0.6 degrees in thirty years they're telling anyone who will listen "oh yeah... I can definitely tell the difference... can't you feel all that heat?"


woobytoodsday:

Conflicting information? Okaaaaaay, lol!

"They keep talking about how ‘the’ 97 percent study is wrong," Doran told PolitiFact in an interview. "Well it turns out, we never know which study they are referring to because there have been three peer-reviewed studies of late that have arrived at this 97 percent number in different ways and by different people."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/

I'd say read the original, but anyone who still thinks that there's "conflicting information" is really really really unlikely to do so, eh?

...did you read this article?... because there is obviously conflicting information given by Doran whom is mentioned in your quote.

To give more context, I've expanded on the quote you used:

The study Santorum is attempting to describe is a 2009 survey by Peter Doran, a professor of earth science at Louisiana State University. About 90 percent of around 3,000 surveyed earth scientists said they think climate change is happening, and about 82 percent said human activity is contributing to it.

The 97 percent figure comes from a subsample of climate scientists in Doran’s study, and Santorum correctly describes its small size: 74 out of 77 respondents said they agreed that climate change is man-made.


Beyond his and Cook’s study, a 2010 study of over 1,300 climate researchers and their work also showed a 97 to 98 percent consensus.

"They keep talking about how ‘the’ 97 percent study is wrong," Doran told PolitiFact in an interview. "Well it turns out, we never know which study they are referring to because there have been three peer-reviewed studies of late that have arrived at this 97 percent number in different ways and by different people."

...so you were happy to see that this article does declare Santorum as being untruthful and you didn't pay attenton as to what else was said?

Why is it so important to some people that the number of scientists is 97% instead of the more accurate 82%?... don't some of you wonder as to why you are being lied to?... why is it that you are so eager to eat it up?


HalftimeDad:

No, actually you're lying. You don't remember that, because everybody had forgotten about that one Newsweek story until some oil industry lackey found it. It was one badly written story that misrepresented one study.

I'm roughly your age. I remember David Suzuki talking about global warming when I was in junior high.

To my recollection, at about the time I was in grades three, four and five we did a unit on dinosaurs, another on Holland (that's what we called the Netherlands), and another on the plains indians.

It's possible that I'm misrememembering this but I DO seem to remember there being talk about a coming ice age at this time (you don't think that articles in Time and Newsweek would create some sensation?).

I DON'T remember David Suzuki talking about global warming.... therefore, by your own logic, it must be you who is lying here.
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 1:26:37 PM
Ah yes, climate change. [sarcasm]We haven't talked about this one before.[/sarcasm]

This is one of those subjects in which one can pretty quickly find out who has ill-intentions or dishonesty...not because of what knowledge or information they do or don't happen to have, but because of how they think and what their attitudes are according to what kinds of arguments they use for or against.

This can also demonstrate just how dangerous, in a very real and practical sense, people can be by nurturing and defending the wrong attitude, ignorance, and the right to be wrong without knowing it. What may be at stake is the whole planet and our future...I'd call that pretty damned important and dangerous.

deetristate :

I simply wanted to know what people thought...But once again, people who don't like people or conversing with them without yelling got carried away again. ( Go thee to wiki!!) I was watching criminal minds and imagined some people here who are always so angry and...

There's a term that they use in basketball called "flopping". Let us go thee to wiki -

"In basketball, a flop is an intentional fall by a player after little or no physical contact by an opposing player in order to draw a personal foul call by an official against the opponent. The move is sometimes called acting, as in "acting as if he was fouled". Because it is inherently designed to deceive the official, flopping is generally considered to be unsportsmanlike. Nonetheless, it is widely practiced and even perfected by many professional players."

I've seen a lot of floppers in the POF forums.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 35
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 3:06:09 PM
427--ya, I did read the whole article. Did you?


Santorum’s claim confuses several points. First, the critic of the 97 percent he’s referring to isn’t the "head" of the UN’s climate panel, but an economist who has collaborated with but has since left the IPCC.

Second, the 97 percent doesn’t come from one specific survey — it appears in at least three. And finally, the study Santorum describes isn’t the one the economist objects to. Moreover, Tol himself doesn’t refute the notion of broad scientific consensus on man-made climate change.


The consensus is so sure, so reliable, that it leaves the like of Rooshlimppaw and ilk to go back to the 70's to find 8 paragraph speculations by science reporters in national news mags to attempt refutation.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 36
because the oil companies think so
Posted: 12/31/2015 4:11:24 PM
why gosh and golly...the Seven Sisters might have even believed in climate change. And, hey, when has an evil corporation ever been wrong? Sure hate to watch right wing Republicans say a corporation doesn't have a clue:

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/31/exxons_climate_cover_up_just_got
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 4:31:16 PM

What has been the trend over the last 10 years for temperature?
What was the temperature trend thought the 80's and 90's?
What has been the trend for temperatures the last 200 years?
What has been the trend for temperatures the last 20,000 years?
What is the trend for greenhouse gasses produced the last 10 years?


Misleading questions.

There has never been a single authority charged with monitoring "temperature trends," to begin with.

Question four is completely ludicrous, since record keeping of any kind was unheard of 20,000 years ago.

Finally, the fact that there are a number of different factors can lead to temperature changes, does NOT NOT NOT mean that any single ONE of them is invalid, and can be ignored.

In other words, saying that since climate change can be caused by massive volcano eruptions, or by unusual behaviors in the sun, and that therefore we should poo-poo human's involvement....

is as idiotic and irresponsible as saying that the fact that people can be killed by earthquakes, means that we should poo-poo terrorists.

Very ingenuous, to say the least.
 aj7125
Joined: 11/28/2014
Msg: 38
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 5:30:48 PM
Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!




These are just a few facts, some are very obvious but the fact that the planet has been much colder and much hotter long before cars and the Industrial Revolution should be obvious to everyone. Feel free to look around our site, we hope you'll walk away feeling you've learned something. We don't go into great details on the subjects but we try to cover what we feel is necessary. If you want more of the science behind our facts and studies we highly urge you to visit our friends at the bottom of every page. These guys are mostly scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the environment, and do it because they enjoy it. They are the true champions of saving this planet from misinformation.

If you wish to know detailed information on any subject please visit any the following companies. Thanks for visiting Global Warming Lies

CO2 Science Friends of Science Ice Age Now John Daly Climate Audit NASA Volcanoes Clear Light British and Global Warming

GlobalWarming.org John Daly

Global Warming Lies © 2006-2007

_______________________________________________________________

Can we be smarter as far as the air we breathe? Absolutely. But to go off and ignore the many reasons that there are many causes for the changes in weather and climate is ridiculous. Ask Al Gore...........no, don't ask one of the biggest polluters on earth..........hypocrite.

Here are 9 Gore lies:

Posted by Dr Sircus on April 20, 2010 | Filed under Climate, World News

Al Gore is the principal prophet of doom in the global warming debate, and the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is his gospel to true believers. But Gore has misled them.

Two years ago, British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore’s film as "alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was "one-sided" and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore’s attempt at "political indoctrination."

The judge based his decision on nine inaccuracies in the movie. The Gore-loving U.S. media largely ignored the story, but starting premiere night Oct. 18, Americans will hear it in Not Evil Just Wrong. To set the stage, here is a recap of Gore’s claims and why they are flawed:

The claim: Melting in Greenland or West Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise up to 20 feet in the near future. The truth: The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change concluded that sea levels might rise 20 feet over millennia — and it waffled on that prediction. The IPCC envisions a rise of no more than 7 inches to 23 inches by 2100. Gore’s claim is "a very disturbing misstatement of the science," John Day, who argued the British case, says in Not Evil Just Wrong. The judge said Gore’s point "is not in line with the scientific consensus.
The claim: Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice. The truth: Justice Burton noted that the only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Day says in Not Evil Just Wrong that the appeal to polar bears is "a very clever piece of manipulation."
The claim: Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The truth: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that," Burton wrote in his ruling. A May 2007 piece in New Scientist refuted the Katrina argument as a "climate myth" because it’s impossible to tie any single weather event to global warming.
The claim: Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide. The truth: Burton questioned the two graphs Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. Gore argued that there is "an exact fit" between temperature and CO2, Burton said, but his graphs didn’t support that conclusion. Recent data also do not support it: The global temperature has been declining for about a decade, even as CO2 levels continue rising.
The claim: The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming. The truth: The melting has been under way for more than a century — long before SUVs and jumbo jets — and appears to be the result of other causes. Justice Burton noted that scientists agree the melting can’t be blamed primarily on "human-induced climate change."
The claim: Lake Chad is disappearing because of global warming. The truth: Lake Chad is losing water, and humans are contributing to the losses. But the humans in the lake’s immediate vicinity, rather than mankind as a whole using fossil fuels, are to blame. Burton cited factors like population, overgrazing and regional climate variability.
The claim: People are being forced to evacuate low-lying Pacific atolls, islands of coral that surround lagoons, because of encroaching ocean waters. The truth: By their very nature, atolls are susceptible to rising sea levels. But Burton said pointedly in his ruling, "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."
The claim: Coral reefs are bleaching and putting fish in jeopardy. The truth: In his ruling, Burton emphasized the IPCC’s finding that bleaching could kill coral reefs — if they don’t adapt. A report released this year shows that reefs already are thriving in waters as hot as some people say ocean waters will be 100 years from now. Burton also said it is difficult to separate coral stresses such as over-fishing from any changes in climate.
The claim: Global warming could stop the "ocean conveyor," triggering another ice age in Western Europe. The truth: Once again, Gore’s allies at the IPCC disagree with that argument. Burton cited the panel in concluding that "it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor … will shut down in the future." The fact that the scientific understanding of how the conveyor belt works remains unsettled further exposes the flaw in Gore’s claim.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 39
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 8:06:11 PM
Kinda interesting, aj, I hadn't noticed anyone had brought up Gore, or Gore's information, or Gore's arguments. Why you? Only because there's a hate Gore industry out there to do your work for you?

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/news-room/news/polar-bear-myths-just-wont-quit

And happy New Year!
 aj7125
Joined: 11/28/2014
Msg: 40
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 12/31/2015 10:22:30 PM
Not a hate Gore argument at all wooby but thanks for trying to put a spin on it. Gore is part of the problem, part of the BS so yes, he should be mentioned. A for effort though wooby.

Happy New Year to you also!
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 41
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/1/2016 6:34:54 AM

Two years ago, British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore’s film as "alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was "one-sided" and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore’s attempt at "political indoctrination."

Justice Burton ALSO said:

Justice Burton's written judgment was released on 10 October 2007. He found that it was clear that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme."

And

The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'"

To repeat, (because it's worth saying twice!):
"He found that it was clear that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact", and 'Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.'
Funny how some people only read the words they want, and completely miss erm...others....

Costs and funding

Dimmock's legal costs were said to be around £200,000.[33] He was awarded only two-thirds of his costs and is reported to have received a bill of more than £60,000 for the remainder.[2]

The question of the lawsuit's funding was raised in September 2007, even before the case had concluded, by a report in The Daily Telegraph which wondered "Where will the money come from?". According to Stewart Dimmock's solicitor, it was "a private matter for him". However, the Telegraph noted that Dimmock was a member of the New Party, a small right-wing party with a record of climate change scepticism. The party declares that "political opportunism and alarmism have combined in seizing [the IPCC's] conclusions to push forward an agenda of taxation and controls that may ultimately be ineffective in tackling climate change, but will certainly be damaging to our economy and society".[14] The New Party was reported to be backing Dimmock.[34] It issued a press release on 1 October 2007 in which it publicised the case and declared, somewhat prematurely, that "it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the film will ever be shown as intended."[35] In March 2008, the New Party's manifesto-writer Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley acknowledged he had prompted an unnamed wealthy friend to fund the case and that he had himself been heavily involved in the litigation. The Observer reported at the time that Dimmock's backers were "a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies."

Read more at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

"lord" Monckton is barking mad in my learn-ed opinion.

He was even sacked by UKIP., a party especially formed, and run by the terminally mad.
Read some of his views about homosexuals, and AIDS here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
A "devout catholic", he specialises in spouting BS.
The man's an idiot.
I've no doubt that some people admire his views though, as my Latin Teacher used to say: "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"

Context is everything.
HTH
HNY!
 SLAFFA
Joined: 8/13/2007
Msg: 42
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/1/2016 8:28:45 AM
This one is a slam dunk for anyone with an OPEN MIND, who is not a Religious zealot or political nut of some kind. The problem with this topic, like all topics, is that some folks are quite happy to read just ONE article from ONE source and become easily convinced one way or another. Or they can become quite passionate about this or any other topic and have absolutely zero knowledge and/or experience on the matter. It's apparent in the very first minute of a conversation with them on the topic in question. I have found it generally best to nod and grunt at what they have to say and walk away or simply change the subject.

Another problem is that many folks will insist that every person and every source has some sort of agenda. Yes, today most things ARE driven by the almighty dollar.

But not everything.
 ChaoticSphere
Joined: 11/13/2015
Msg: 43
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/1/2016 11:38:10 AM
I believe Climate Change is taking place and has throughout the history of the earth. The earth has always fluctuated (natural cycle) between Ice Ages and warmer periods (Medieval warm period and the Holocene period). A recent fascinating discovery off the coast of India (120 feet underwater) is a 9,000-year-old lost city.

What I find objectionable is the declaration that “the argument is over”. The labeling of those as heretics (Galileo) who question the unquestionable facts of today is dangerous. We need those nonconformist to question “established fact” to grow and advance. Data is manipulated all the time and not just by big business. I would argue that the climate change has become big business, religious, and a global political movement. A noble endeavor that has been corrupted by government, business, greed, and wealth.

I’m skeptical of the climate change movement but I do think it’s important to protect the environment. It’s a balance of a higher standard of living enjoyed today and protecting the environment for future generations.
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/1/2016 10:42:39 PM

Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!




These are just a few facts, some are very obvious but the fact that the planet has been much colder and much hotter long before cars and the Industrial Revolution should be obvious to everyone. Feel free to look around our site, we hope you'll walk away feeling you've learned something. We don't go into great details on the subjects but we try to cover what we feel is necessary. If you want more of the science behind our facts and studies we highly urge you to visit our friends at the bottom of every page. These guys are mostly scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the environment, and do it because they enjoy it. They are the true champions of saving this planet from misinformation.

If you wish to know detailed information on any subject please visit any the following companies. Thanks for visiting Global Warming Lies

CO2 Science Friends of Science Ice Age Now John Daly Climate Audit NASA Volcanoes Clear Light British and Global Warming

GlobalWarming.org John Daly

Global Warming Lies © 2006-2007

_______________________________________________________________

Can we be smarter as far as the air we breathe? Absolutely. But to go off and ignore the many reasons that there are many causes for the changes in weather and climate is ridiculous. Ask Al Gore...........no, don't ask one of the biggest polluters on earth..........hypocrite.

Here are 9 Gore lies:

Posted by Dr Sircus on April 20, 2010 | Filed under Climate, World News

Al Gore is the principal prophet of doom in the global warming debate, and the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is his gospel to true believers. But Gore has misled them.

Two years ago, British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore’s film as "alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was "one-sided" and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore’s attempt at "political indoctrination."

The judge based his decision on nine inaccuracies in the movie. The Gore-loving U.S. media largely ignored the story, but starting premiere night Oct. 18, Americans will hear it in Not Evil Just Wrong. To set the stage, here is a recap of Gore’s claims and why they are flawed:

The claim: Melting in Greenland or West Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise up to 20 feet in the near future. The truth: The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change concluded that sea levels might rise 20 feet over millennia — and it waffled on that prediction. The IPCC envisions a rise of no more than 7 inches to 23 inches by 2100. Gore’s claim is "a very disturbing misstatement of the science," John Day, who argued the British case, says in Not Evil Just Wrong. The judge said Gore’s point "is not in line with the scientific consensus.
The claim: Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice. The truth: Justice Burton noted that the only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Day says in Not Evil Just Wrong that the appeal to polar bears is "a very clever piece of manipulation."
The claim: Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The truth: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that," Burton wrote in his ruling. A May 2007 piece in New Scientist refuted the Katrina argument as a "climate myth" because it’s impossible to tie any single weather event to global warming.
The claim: Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide. The truth: Burton questioned the two graphs Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. Gore argued that there is "an exact fit" between temperature and CO2, Burton said, but his graphs didn’t support that conclusion. Recent data also do not support it: The global temperature has been declining for about a decade, even as CO2 levels continue rising.
The claim: The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming. The truth: The melting has been under way for more than a century — long before SUVs and jumbo jets — and appears to be the result of other causes. Justice Burton noted that scientists agree the melting can’t be blamed primarily on "human-induced climate change."
The claim: Lake Chad is disappearing because of global warming. The truth: Lake Chad is losing water, and humans are contributing to the losses. But the humans in the lake’s immediate vicinity, rather than mankind as a whole using fossil fuels, are to blame. Burton cited factors like population, overgrazing and regional climate variability.
The claim: People are being forced to evacuate low-lying Pacific atolls, islands of coral that surround lagoons, because of encroaching ocean waters. The truth: By their very nature, atolls are susceptible to rising sea levels. But Burton said pointedly in his ruling, "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."
The claim: Coral reefs are bleaching and putting fish in jeopardy. The truth: In his ruling, Burton emphasized the IPCC’s finding that bleaching could kill coral reefs — if they don’t adapt. A report released this year shows that reefs already are thriving in waters as hot as some people say ocean waters will be 100 years from now. Burton also said it is difficult to separate coral stresses such as over-fishing from any changes in climate.
The claim: Global warming could stop the "ocean conveyor," triggering another ice age in Western Europe. The truth: Once again, Gore’s allies at the IPCC disagree with that argument. Burton cited the panel in concluding that "it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor … will shut down in the future." The fact that the scientific understanding of how the conveyor belt works remains unsettled further exposes the flaw in Gore’s claim.

I'm reposting this ^ whole thing, because this post is a great exhibition of a good handful of arguing techniques brought together which are deceptive, manipulative, and irresponsible. Some of us in here are so tired of spelling out the malign flaws in people's reasoning, and I'm not sure I feel like spelling it all out here again...but I'm highlighting this ^ anyway because it's about time that more people can do it for themselves - instead of me or any others of a similar stance doing the refuting or explaining, I'd really love to see others (not the ones who usually do it) show that they can break the spell of this collection of tricks and explain how it's all flawed and not useful. So here it is, reposted, easy to find for the moment, in "black and white", for all to study.

However, this does include one thing that I will at least hint at. It is something about all of this which is magically wisked away into effective nonexistence and unnoticeability: Through all of the distracting bickering over evidence or proof (not to mention the other tricks as in the quoted post above), this is a case in which evidence or proof isn't what should be of primary importance in the first place. For all practical purposes, evidence and proof almost have no relevance anyway. This dilemma is a different kind of dilemma, and should be treated with a different approach. Can anybody other than us few non-pretentiously "scientific" types tell me what that is?
 aj7125
Joined: 11/28/2014
Msg: 45
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/1/2016 11:02:33 PM
Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!




These are just a few facts, some are very obvious but the fact that the planet has been much colder and much hotter long before cars and the Industrial Revolution should be obvious to everyone. Feel free to look around our site, we hope you'll walk away feeling you've learned something. We don't go into great details on the subjects but we try to cover what we feel is necessary. If you want more of the science behind our facts and studies we highly urge you to visit our friends at the bottom of every page. These guys are mostly scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the environment, and do it because they enjoy it. They are the true champions of saving this planet from misinformation.

If you wish to know detailed information on any subject please visit any the following companies. Thanks for visiting Global Warming Lies

CO2 Science Friends of Science Ice Age Now John Daly Climate Audit NASA Volcanoes Clear Light British and Global Warming

GlobalWarming.org John Daly

Global Warming Lies © 2006-2007

_______________________________________________________________

Can we be smarter as far as the air we breathe? Absolutely. But to go off and ignore the many reasons that there are many causes for the changes in weather and climate is ridiculous. Ask Al Gore...........no, don't ask one of the biggest polluters on earth..........hypocrite.

Here are 9 Gore lies:

Posted by Dr Sircus on April 20, 2010 | Filed under Climate, World News

Al Gore is the principal prophet of doom in the global warming debate, and the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth is his gospel to true believers. But Gore has misled them.

Two years ago, British High Court Justice Michael Burton characterized Gore’s film as "alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." The court, responding to a case filed by a parent, said the film was "one-sided" and could not be shown in British schools unless it contained guidelines to balance Gore’s attempt at "political indoctrination."

The judge based his decision on nine inaccuracies in the movie. The Gore-loving U.S. media largely ignored the story, but starting premiere night Oct. 18, Americans will hear it in Not Evil Just Wrong. To set the stage, here is a recap of Gore’s claims and why they are flawed:

The claim: Melting in Greenland or West Antarctica will cause sea levels to rise up to 20 feet in the near future. The truth: The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change concluded that sea levels might rise 20 feet over millennia — and it waffled on that prediction. The IPCC envisions a rise of no more than 7 inches to 23 inches by 2100. Gore’s claim is "a very disturbing misstatement of the science," John Day, who argued the British case, says in Not Evil Just Wrong. The judge said Gore’s point "is not in line with the scientific consensus.
The claim: Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice. The truth: Justice Burton noted that the only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s. Day says in Not Evil Just Wrong that the appeal to polar bears is "a very clever piece of manipulation."
The claim: Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The truth: "It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that," Burton wrote in his ruling. A May 2007 piece in New Scientist refuted the Katrina argument as a "climate myth" because it’s impossible to tie any single weather event to global warming.
The claim: Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide. The truth: Burton questioned the two graphs Gore used in An Inconvenient Truth. Gore argued that there is "an exact fit" between temperature and CO2, Burton said, but his graphs didn’t support that conclusion. Recent data also do not support it: The global temperature has been declining for about a decade, even as CO2 levels continue rising.
The claim: The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming. The truth: The melting has been under way for more than a century — long before SUVs and jumbo jets — and appears to be the result of other causes. Justice Burton noted that scientists agree the melting can’t be blamed primarily on "human-induced climate change."
The claim: Lake Chad is disappearing because of global warming. The truth: Lake Chad is losing water, and humans are contributing to the losses. But the humans in the lake’s immediate vicinity, rather than mankind as a whole using fossil fuels, are to blame. Burton cited factors like population, overgrazing and regional climate variability.
The claim: People are being forced to evacuate low-lying Pacific atolls, islands of coral that surround lagoons, because of encroaching ocean waters. The truth: By their very nature, atolls are susceptible to rising sea levels. But Burton said pointedly in his ruling, "There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened."
The claim: Coral reefs are bleaching and putting fish in jeopardy. The truth: In his ruling, Burton emphasized the IPCC’s finding that bleaching could kill coral reefs — if they don’t adapt. A report released this year shows that reefs already are thriving in waters as hot as some people say ocean waters will be 100 years from now. Burton also said it is difficult to separate coral stresses such as over-fishing from any changes in climate.
The claim: Global warming could stop the "ocean conveyor," triggering another ice age in Western Europe. The truth: Once again, Gore’s allies at the IPCC disagree with that argument. Burton cited the panel in concluding that "it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor … will shut down in the future." The fact that the scientific understanding of how the conveyor belt works remains unsettled further exposes the flaw in Gore’s claim.

^^^^^^^^^^^ I also wanted to re-post this to help "spell" out part of the problem. Mr Gore is a Hypocrite for one thing. And by the way, the polar bear count is doing quite well.
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 46
Why do you believe or not believe in Santa Claus or that Jesus was European
Posted: 1/1/2016 11:26:59 PM
actually, when someone just shot holes thru your argument....restating it doesn't undo the fact that facts have shot holes thru your argument. its best to go find a better argument. Assuming there's plenty out there to choose from. If the problem is that there's very few to choose from...then that "97% agree" argument makes logical sense as to why there's so few contrarian "Science" out there to find.

but it was nice of you to help.
 Jo van
Joined: 5/23/2009
Msg: 47
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/2/2016 6:49:48 AM

What I find objectionable is the declaration that “the argument is over”. The labeling of those as heretics (Galileo) who question the unquestionable facts of today is dangerous. We need those nonconformist to question “established fact” to grow and advance.

I don't really think that Galileo's "heresy" is a valid analogy, because his 'heresy' was based on (his) observed evidence, which contradicted the accepted "faith" that the (entirely un- evidenced) writings of the bible were "true".

It's a clever ruse (IMO) by those with a vested interest in continuing to burn fossil fuels, at an ever-increasing rate, to try to 'spin' the stance of the opponents of all of the evidence, and the now overwhelming consensus of specialist experts in their fields, as "nonconformists".
-A term 'loaded' with romantic notions of the lone (but "correct" individual, steadfastly standing against the oppressive (and "incorrect") state, and the premise that the public's opinion has somehow been manipulated and "controlled", by "the big state", and by "the media".
The gun lobby uses a similar 'trick'; - everyone fancies themselves in the role of "hero".
It is of course, bollux, the reality is the exact opposite.

The clues are everywhere. For example; the organisation which funded Mr Dim-mock's failed attempt at having Gore's Film removed from schools, (posted above,) says:

However, the Telegraph noted that Dimmock was a member of the New Party, a small right-wing party with a record of climate change scepticism. The party declares that "political opportunism and alarmism have combined in seizing [the IPCC's] conclusions to push forward an agenda of taxation and controls that may ultimately be ineffective in tackling climate change, but will certainly be damaging to our economy and society".

(my bold)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

"Right wing" parties work only for the best interests of corporations, they "sell" the notion that the interests of "the economy" somehow benefit "society", when all of the evidence shows that it only benefits a very small percentage of society, at great cost to the vast majority of people.
The last 30 years of mainly sustained growth have shown us that the only thing that "trickles-down" to the bottom, from a booming economy, is shit.
It's quite laughable to see people with "right-wing" views, thinking of/describing themselves as "nonconformists", when the very definition of the right-wing (conservative") agenda, is the perpetuation of the ''status quo", the interests of the 1%, and the opposition of all change (lest it "damage the economy").

ALL "right-wing" parties are funded by very-rich individuals, and the only changes they want to see, are those which favour them; opposition to any forms of unions, worker's rights, minimum wage, human rights, any legislation which obstructs or limits their growth, (like environmental obligations etc) and of course lower taxes (for them, the rich) but therefore higher taxes for everyone else.

The real "heroes", (IMO) the real "nonconformists", were actually the first scientists who battled to bring this information to the public's attention, against well-funded and therefore "media-controlling", "big-business" interests, who have done their best to suppress it.

I was a sceptic too, initially, so I did my own research, to see if I could find out the truth.
I did the same with religion.

This is a good place to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming


In May 2013, it was reported that readings for CO2 taken at the world's primary benchmark site in Mauna Loa surpassed 400 ppm. According to professor Brian Hoskins, this is likely the first time CO2 levels have been this high for about 4.5 million years.[79][80] Monthly global CO2 concentrations exceeded 400 p.p.m. in March 2015, probably for the first time in several million years.


I note that the Señorita who started the thread, used the term "Climate change", rather than "Global Warming", (which is (usually) 'shorthand' for "Anthropogenic Global Warming", ("AGW"), ie, that which is caused by human activity.)
The two are entirely different.
The OP should really clarify, and also give her own opinions on this, rather than simply asking for ours.
I won't hold my breath....
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/2/2016 9:14:10 AM
Aich. This nonsense goes on and on. People making entirely ingenuous and specious arguments, not because they actually believe (or even understand them, sometimes), because they are angry or suspicious of the people in the other side.

It doesn't matter what you call reality. It's still real.

All of the stubbornly idiotic opponents of making changes have been refuted again and again. This is why they have devolved from their original claim, that no climate change at all was even happening (remember, it was only a decade ago they were pretending that), to admitting that it's happening, but pretending that there's no human involvement.

Now that that too is proving to be false, they are devolving further, and claiming that there's nothing to be done about it, and that therefore we should not take any action at all.

Here's the simplified version of where I am on all this:

1. Humans proved conclusively, a long time ago, and repeatedly, that they could seriously alter the very nature of the environment they inhabit. They killed rivers, destroyed verdant forests, and drove many non-human species out of existence.

2. Humans ALSO proved repeatedly, that when they apply themselves positively, that they can also IMPROVE the environment. They turned deserts into productive croplands, learned to manage woodlands and keep them productive through careful management, and eliminated diseases and other problems which once killed humans and non-humans alike.

1 +2 equals proof that climate change/global warming can very well be made better or worse by what humans choose to do.

3. The vast majority of what has been proposed by people who are NOT intentionally being stupid (i.e. " to reduce carbon dioxide, stop breathing!"), is already known to be in our best interests anyway. We have been trying to reduce harmful pollution for a VERY long time now, simply to make our immediate surroundings more pleasant. And, we have recognized that dependence on resources which are under the control of people who don't like us, is at least dangerous, and at worst, suicidal.

Therefore the only things we SHOULD be arguing about, are the tiny details, involving how we can go about making all the changes we need to, to minimize what we are going to suffer going forward.

So whether you believe that climate change/global warming is a thing or not, you should still want to do the same basic list of things that the people who recognize it is happening, want to do. The ONLY reason that some still pretend as they do, that the existence of what is right in front of them is debatable, is because of ongoing, and entirely unrelated, petty political animosities.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 49
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/2/2016 9:59:47 AM
And by the way, the polar bear count is doing quite well.

Interesting that even a brain molecule challenged individual like our previous President didn't think so. . . . .

U.S. Protects Polar Bears Under Endangered Species Act ...
www.scientificamerican.com/.../polar-bears-threatene...
Scientific American
May 14, 2008 - The Interior Department lists the polar bear as a "threatened" species--one at risk of becoming endangered--due to dangerous declines in their ...
 Walts
Joined: 5/7/2005
Msg: 50
Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place
Posted: 1/2/2016 10:01:40 AM

2. Humans ALSO proved repeatedly, that when they apply themselves positively, that they can also IMPROVE the environment. They turned deserts into productive croplands, learned to manage woodlands and keep them productive through careful management, and eliminated diseases and other problems which once killed humans and non-humans alike.


I will disagree here because I really don't believe humans can "manage" Mother Nature. She does things that even humans cannot truly "understand". Examples of such:

Deserts = productive croplands. They are only "productive" until Mother Nature points out certain things. Underground aquifers DO DRY UP, thus the reason why almond trees are being burned down now in California, even though they could produce, if for not the lack of water, that wasn't lacking only 10 years ago. Right now, in BC there are wolf culls going on. Why? Because the Elk herds that humans decided to transplant(because humans killed and destroyed their habitat) in certain areas, are in trouble, again, because Elk attract Wolves. It's not that the wolves are bad, but, in fact, the Elk habitat is lacking. Those trees that they need got chopped. Wasn't by the wolves but, by human "management". While we seem to solve a problem, we learn later, we created one or two more with our so called "management".

The earth is a huge ecosystem that involves many different parts and pieces. We humans, sooner or later, have to figure out we are only a little itsy piece of the big puzzle. One puzzle that would take a million zillion years to solve, if it's even solvable at all.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Why do you believe or not believe that Climate change is taking place