Less than half of all published scientists agree with global warming Options

[FORSAKENR320]

global warming isnt "pop culture" the fact that the majority of environmental scientists, and climatologists support it is pop culture?

re-read the article and the title of the thread before you start trying to spew false statistics

[Testm0nkey]

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

The Institute for Scientific Information keeps a database on published scientific articles, which my research assistants and I used to answer that question with respect to global climate change. We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated

it follows the original article but gives more insight into the spin
look it up

[Mommy]

The environment and 'green issues' are increasingly a part of the White House daily briefing. For those of us who have been a part of the press corps for decades, this new commitment to the environment is quite revelatory. From recycling to carbon emission caps to clean coal technologies, we're all starting to believe that the administration truly cares about the state of the planet, which I suppose is good.

Anyway, as Press Secretary Dana Perino–who I'm still not quite used to, by the way–was discussing the current concern over glacial melting around Greenland, it occurred to me that if sea levels continue to rise, we will all be traveling around in boats, which could be fun, but there might be some danger ahead. In cities like New York, Chicago, and Dallas, skyscrapers rise so tall that the waters might not totally cover them, and the huge spears on top of some buildings could pose a significant danger to our boats. Maybe instead of wasting time, money, and energy to stop global warming, we should be more proactive about protecting our future by building stronger boats or shaving off these destructive skyscraper tops…before it's too late.

what the shit are you talking about? "For those of us who have been a part of the press corps for decades"... umm ok, didnt know you were a journalist but whatever. Is this post a joke? It's seriously assinine

[Oasis]

what the shit are you talking about? "For those of us who have been a part of the press corps for decades"... umm ok, didnt know you were a journalist but whatever. Is this post a joke? It's seriously assinine

Obviously I didn't write it.

[Mommy]

Obviously I didn't write it.

then quote it

[Oasis]

then quote it

No

If you're that interested in where it came from or what it is figure it out yourself

[Mommy]

No

If you're that interested in where it came from or what it is figure it out yourself

ok, ill just copy and paste that nonsense into google and see what comes up

dumbass

[pebkac]

It was kinda hard to find CO² output numbers for other types of animals so I just did cows and humans. No doubt the total amount of CO² output by all animals would be pretty staggering. Pretty interesting numbers IMHO.

The problem is that nature also has a mechanism to deal with naturally produced CO2. Man produced CO2 unbalances the equation though. Thus, you have a gradual build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[impala454]

The problem is that nature also has a mechanism to deal with naturally produced CO2. Man produced CO2 unbalances the equation though. Thus, you have a gradual build up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So what would have happened if we'd never built a single machine? How much is the "equation" unbalanced? Remember those numbers showed human beings with 5.7 and cows with 5.4 billion metric tons of CO2 per year just in respiration. That is only two species on the whole planet. What do you think it would add up to from all animal life? 100 billion metric tons? 500? Suddenly the 3.1 output by cars doesn't look quite as significant. If we completely destroyed all of our industry tomorrow, how would it help the earth? Lower the planet's temp by a degree over the next 30 years? The point is, in the grand scheme of things, we're just not that significant.

[pebkac]

One more time:



That's more than a degree difference.

You're also forgetting that the earth has mechanisms to deal with the natural CO2. Man-made CO2 gradually builds up as our earth can only deal with so much CO2. So the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 made by cows won't stay in the atmosphere. The 3.1 billion tons emitted by cars will. Over 50 years, that's 150 billion tons (assuming that we continue to create CO2 at our current pace.

[GOB]

One more time:



That's more than a degree difference.

You're also forgetting that the earth has mechanisms to deal with the natural CO2.

great. that one chart shows what you're trying to argue. thanks for posting it for the 5th time.


somebody get this gay man a cookie.

Man-made CO2 gradually builds up as our earth can only deal with so much CO2. So the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 made by cows won't stay in the atmosphere. The 3.1 billion tons emitted by cars will.

i love how you say this like you have absolutely ANY fucking clue you know what you're talking about. there's not a god damned difference between the natual and man-made. more = not a difference. more = more. is english your first language?

i could state anything as 'fact' and it would be true because i believe in it... exact same thing you're doing.




also, why is this asshole a mod? you're vehemently against what most (both) serious and joking techsans are posting about. guess lance sympathizes with and understands the gays...

[Testm0nkey]

i dont think cows produce enough CO2 to even talk about at least in comparison to other problems and sources. what animals and animal by products produce is methane which also occurs naturally and doesnt seem to be as big of a problem(but still a problem) as CO2 (due to the sheer amount of CO2 that is produced now)

difference between man-made and natural CO2 is from the source of course, sheer volume that is produced, and man-made CO2 comes along with a bunch of happy friends like other toxic gases and airborne particles (pollution).

edit: OMG did someone earlier say that coal wasnt dirty? coal is worse than oil refineries. we have the technology to make it clean but its not cost effective so america doesnt use it. the propaganda for coal being the great new friendly energy source is a crock by this administration because america just so happens to have the largest natural resource of coal = $$$$$
because you may be able to walk into a coal refinery and breath without a respirator doesnt mean anything. coal use is the biggest reason why china is so disgusting. coal and porn

[Dogmeat]

SURPRISE! GOD PLAYED A TRICK ON ALL YOU GREENIE BASTARDS!

http://cdfe.org/religion.htm

[pebkac]

great. that one chart shows what you're trying to argue. thanks for posting it for the 5th time.
somebody get this gay man a cookie.
i love how you say this like you have absolutely ANY fucking clue you know what you're talking about. there's not a god damned difference between the natual and man-made. more = not a difference. more = more. is english your first language?

i could state anything as 'fact' and it would be true because i believe in it... exact same thing you're doing.
also, why is this asshole a mod? you're vehemently against what most (both) serious and joking techsans are posting about. guess lance sympathizes with and understands the gays...

Are you going to actually argue anything I've said or are you just going to ad hom me all day?

[Dogmeat]

GOD FUCKED YOU GREENIE LIBERAL COMMUNISTS OVER HAHA!