Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[Jiro]

That's what most scientist are concerned about, exploring and discussing right now.

yes. they need to focus more on impact of global pollution, not global warming. The politicians need to focus more on pollution control & investment in green technology, not Cap-and-Trade.

 

[Jiro]

From the government site:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Kokonut still denies.

from the same link.... interesting find -

4. Are El Niños related to Global Warming?

El Niños are not caused by global warming. Clear evidence exists from a variety of sources (including archaeological studies) that El Niños have been present for thousands, and some indicators suggest maybe millions, of years. However, it has been hypothesized that warmer global sea surface temperatures can enhance the El Niño phenomenon, and it is also true that El Niños have been more frequent and intense in recent decades. Whether El Niño occurrence changes with climate change is a major research question.

plus - many of answers for each question says "little change" and "it is not clear...."

 

[deafskeptic]

hence 99.9% instead of 100%. I don't see many of them speaking out about Earth being round or Earth rotating around the Sun.... you know blasphemy was punishable by death at that time

99.9% I think the number may have been a bit lower than that.

 

[Jiro]

Oh.. Perhaps thats why the plants evolves into bonsais every year...

but bonsai plant is so pretty! <3

 

[Jiro]

99.9% I think the number may have been a bit lower than that.

nah. cuz they were persecuted for blasphemy

 

[flip]

what dies comes a new life. nature's cruel like that.. yet it's magically beautiful

The beauty of nature depends on where you live in this case I guess... If we cared for the nature and was stricter on pollution, I belive the climate would be more stable and famine could be avoided. The environment would also give back more as it was less toxic.

 

[netrox]

from the same link.... interesting find -



plus - many of answers for each question says "little change" and "it is not clear...."

They are NOT the same thing. It merely said that El Nino has nothing to do with global warming. Many people mistakenly assume that El Nino has to do with global warming.

 

[flip]

from the same link.... interesting find -

plus - many of answers for each question says "little change" and "it is not clear...."

Yes, the careful interpreting of information show us how serious those climate researchers are. It's far from political driven as some skeptics belive. This is called SCIENCE.

 

[flip]

yes. they need to focus more on impact of global pollution, not global warming. The politicians need to focus more on pollution control & investment in green technology, not Cap-and-Trade.

I think the scientist know very well themselves know what needs attention. Or do you know something that thousands of scientists don't know? As long the focus is on pollution control and green technology I don't care what people belive. I just don't want politicans and shitty corporations to ruin my world.

 

[Jiro]

The beauty of nature depends on where you live in this case I guess...

true.

If we cared for the nature and was stricter on pollution, I belive the climate would be more stable and famine could be avoided.

the famine has been around far far long before this global warming happened. The famine happened not because of vengeful nature but because of failure to plan ahead on man's part.

The environment would also give back more as it was less toxic.

It is up to us on how to use what Earth has given us. It is us who made our living area toxic so it is up to us to continue to make our environment more or less toxic. Toxic or not - the Earth does not care.

 

[Jiro]

I think the scientist know very well themselves know what needs attention. Or do you know something that thousands of scientists don't know?

They have their own singular focus and a specific agenda. They are as dirty as politicians and corporations

As long the focus is on pollution control and green technology I don't care what people belive. I just don't want politicans and shitty corporations to ruin my world.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, the careful interpreting of information show us how serious those climate researchers are. It's far from political driven as some skeptics belive. This is called SCIENCE.

lol science is always politically-motivated, monetary-motivated, religiously-motivated, etc-motivated. No such thing as pure innocent science.

 

[flip]

the famine has been around far far long before this global warming happened. The famine happened not because of vengeful nature but because of failure to plan ahead on man's part.

Drought in africa and global warming is a known connection. It's next to impossible to plan ahead when one never knows how the weather will be, and this problem is increasing. A Google Scholar search resulted in 7770 articles on this problem (search "famine africa global warming").

 

[flip]

They have their own singular focus and a specific agenda. They are as dirty as politicians and corporations

Shit. That's scary. My uncle is a scientists. I should perhaps stop visiting him.

 

[Jiro]

Shit. That's scary. My uncle is a scientists. I should perhaps stop visiting him.

too late

 

[Jiro]

Drought in africa and global warming is a known connection. It's next to impossible to plan ahead when one never knows how the weather will be, and this problem is increasing. A Google Scholar search resulted in 7770 articles on this problem (search "famine africa global warming").

it's impossible to know when the rain will come. it's impossible to know the locust swarm will come. it's impossible to know when the thief will steal all your food. the list is endless but a man who prepares for failure is a very wise man.

 

[flip]

lol science is always politically-motivated, monetary-motivated, religiously-motivated, etc-motivated. No such thing as pure innocent science.

Everyone have belifs, and it's hard to create an 100% objective hypotheisis, but I think we are exaggerating now. It's a consensus among climate scientists, and according to you, they must share some motivations since the results points in the same directions. Care to elaborate what secret brotherhood they all are belonging to? Or is this consensus accidental?

 

[kokonut]

It was as sucessful and accurate as a scientific survey can be.

"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role"

"..the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."

See? 97 percent of the finest scientists you can find.

Your attempt at disinformation and why.
1) You copied and pasted a section about 97% agreeing.
2) Next, you copied and pasted another section in that same article that includes the number 10,200 experts that were contacted.

With those two sections side by side as you have undoubtedly done you NEVER clarified that the actual number of people who responded was actually 3,146, and not 10,200. That is what we call "intellectual dishonesty" as way to get people to think that 10,200 experts responded that resulted in a "consensus" of 97%. Was it your intention to make the number appear bigger by not clarifying to the readers that poll results was actually from 3,146 respondants....not the 10,200 experts? Yet you ended with a clarifying but snooty remark by saying, "97 percent of the finest scientists you can find." I made a point again and again that by saying "97%" is meaningless and doesn't tell the story nor an accurate picture. And so you if appears you attempted at intellectual dishonesty by purposefully disinforming the readers just so they think it was 97% of the 10,200 experts who concurred.

I ain't dumb so stop playing that game for once. You got caught. At least your error was caught.

 

[flip]

it's impossible to know when the rain will come. it's impossible to know the locust swarm will come. it's impossible to know when the thief will steal all your food. the list is endless but a man who prepares for failure is a very wise man.

Sure, but he still will die, because he has nothing to prepare with.

 

[Jiro]

Everyone have belifs, and it's hard to create an 100% objective hypotheisis, but I think we are exaggerating now. It's a consensus among climate scientists, and according to you, they must share some motivations since the results points in the same directions. Care to elaborate what secret brotherhood they all are belonging to? Or is this consensus accidental?

good. now you're aware of ulterior motivation behind their stance. You'll have to ask them what their ulterior motivation is. I cannot answer that on behalf of them.