Science & Technology

Rave

New Study Prooves Global Warming Once Again

Posted 7 months ago|28 comments|398 views
Arctic Sea Ice Disappearing
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
Once again an independent study has proven that global warming skeptics don't have a leg to stand on.

"This study represents that most comprehensive independent review of historical temperature records to date."

"Compiling more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, the University of California, Berkeley researchers reaffirmed that global warming is occurring. More specifically, they found evidence indicating several key issues global warming skeptics claim actually have little to no effect on altering global warming figures." http://www.thestatecolumn.com/health/stu...

This past year had more billion dollar climate change related disasters than ever before. http://www.grist.org/climate-change/2011...

All over the globe the evidence is clear to see. Arctic ice is disappearing opening up a northern passage where none existed before. Glaciers are disappearing, Coral reefs are dying, forests are burning up, creatures are moving north and to higher elevations. Every where you look the evidence is plain.

And yet more people are skeptical of climate change than before. Why is that?

I think it is because of the effectiveness of the corporate media and the right wing propaganda machine. Plainly put the corporate powers are afraid of any regulations that will curtail their pollution so they have invested millions in the propaganda that 98% of the scientists in the world are running a big scam.

This propaganda machine has so demonized Al Gore - the biggest booster of climate science, so much that he may actually be doing the educational efforts harm, because the skeptics refuse to consider anything he says. http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/...

The United States is the only nation which denies science in this manner. This has become more and more political with only 30% of Republicans believing in Anthropocentric Global Warming compared to 70% of Democrats. http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/...

It is mostly the radicals in the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry that are deniers but they are dragging the more rational members of the Republican party down with them. Soon denial of scientific facts will become a litmus test separating the true Republican Do Nothing, Know Nothing, party from the RINOS. Then we will see who are the real puppets of the corporate propaganda machine.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
7 months ago: Title should be - New study by labs wanting Grants show false GW again".
7 months ago: Come on Al. You can't even admit your wrong when it was proven like my liitle task in your "Vindication" post. Now we are to believe a single word you post?
7 months ago: Nice picture non-Altruist. Did these folks miss the fact that...

"The polar bear can swim as far as 60 miles without resting and can swim at speeds of up to six miles an hour. It can dive to depths of 15 feet and can stay under water for about two minutes."

Yep. that polar bear looks like it is in distress. Read more Polar Bear facts at...

http://www.nhptv.org/natureworks/polar.h...

It proves they (progressive greenies) lie.
7 months ago: Keep it up Al.

Keep it up please.

The whole thing on human caused global warming is a HOAX Al.

You liberals/ statists show your true colors pushing this HOAX Al.

You've been done in Al.

ANSWER ONE QUESTION AL.

JUST 1.

Why did they find tropical snail fossils in deep core drillings off of Greenland?

Huh?

Because Algur put them there?

Keep it up Al.
7 months ago: Red, you ask...

Why did they find tropical snail fossils in deep core drillings off of Greenland?

The answer is...

Long range Pelican bird poop.
7 months ago: Really Al? Are you being Altruistic?

"Compiling more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world, the University of California, Berkeley researchers reaffirmed that global warming is occurring. More specifically, they found evidence indicating several key issues global warming skeptics claim actually have little to no effect on altering global warming figures."

When was the first digital outdoor temperature reading available?

20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago? This is another bogus report with non-reliable non-scientific data sets that could fluctuate 2 or more degrees simply by changing the angle the reader is using on the 1850's outdoor thermometer.

Why don't they post the Federal Grant amount the received to compile a bogus data set?
7 months ago: "Scientific facts" my lilly white @$$.

Get some sleep Al.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: You don't need a scientific study to prove that the Earth is warming. It's been warming for 18,000 years. However, global warming has significantly slowed during the past decade. Data compiled over a hundred year period pales in comparison.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: The Competitive Enterprise Institute is doing a good job of brainwashing all of you flatworlders. http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp...

Must be tough for you though to consider a world without scientific facts. How can you dare fly? The science of aeronautics couldn't possibly make a 600,000 lbs. of metal and fuel fly!

You are probably all faith healers that refuse to take medicines or have any surgery because those medical scientists are obviously in a conspiracy.

You probably still drive horse drawn buggies because the automotive scientists can't possibly improve on them.

Do you ever wonder if the sun will come up in the morning? After all the theory that the earth goes around the sun is dis-proven by the bible.
7 months ago: AL!

What is your scientific consensus on my question?

Why did they find tropical snail fossils in deep core drillings off of Greenland?

Will you answer the question Al?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: Oh, I stand stand corrected and appropriately abashed.

But just to make sure I have it right:

Aeronautic engineers have proven that airplanes can fly, therefore anthropocentric global warming is proven to be a fact.

Automobiles are more advanced due to the efforts of automotive engineers, therefore anthropocentric global warming is proven to be a fact.

Medical science can cure quite a few more diseases than 100 years ago, therefore anthropocentric global warming is proven.

Satellites have been shot into space and we observed what appears to be the round Earth rotating around the Sun, therefore anthropocentric global warming is proven.

Does that about sum it up?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: Are people really skeptical about climate change? I think most people are very aware that the climate is changing, and it will not stop changing simply for man's comfort.

If anyone who believes in man-made global warming has the courage of his convictions, he will advocate for the complete non-interference by man in any of Earth's systems. That means no burning of anything by man, but also it means that any naturally caused fires must be allowed to burn without interference from people.

No manipulating any of the gases that make up our atmosphere. No more compressed CO2 for CocaCola, (or Pepsi, if you are a Liberal) . No more compressed oxygen for torches, breathing machines, or rockets. No more HCFC for air conditioning.

I'll leave it up to the individual to decide if he is an organism of the earth that desrves to breathe and produce methane and carbon dioxide.
7 months ago: Box. Most of them live in the North and don't know what an Air Conditioner is used for. You might ask if they burn heavy fuel or natural gas to heat their homes.

Either way your suggestion would ban it. Which would produce a whole bunch of popcicles. Then again that might be their natural state as most of them already have a stick inserted into their....
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: Oh snort, I just blew milk out of my nose!!!
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: Only digging up fossil fuels and burning them increases the CO2 content. Fires don't add to the overall because more trees grow (unless we cut them all down).

Anyone that has gone to college realizes that the more that they learn the more there is that they don't know. It is very humbling.

We engineers do not have time to do all of the specialized scientific research necessary to make all of the engineering possible. We do our jobs and we rely on the scientists to do theirs, and they do. Science works! It is a proven system of checks and balances and peer reviews and checking each others work.

If we doubt the work of all life scientists (evolution) and all geologists (all of the fossil indications of global warming) and all of NASA and astrophysicists who contribute more to prove Global Warming exists than any other agency (Red's favorite agency) and all of the climatologists, than any science is in doubt because they all rely on fellow scientists work in other areas.

If you doubt what 98% of climate scientists and all of life scientists are agreed upon than NOTHING is safe because the engineers that made those airplanes, cars, trains, and the very computer you are reading this from depended on those scientists.

You are just showing your ignorance and arrogance if you think you know more than millions of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of truth and the furtherance of human knowledge and understanding.

Red I am not a geologist. I rely on the scientists. If you send a link telling me about your snail fossils and what on earth that has to do with global warming I will try to make sense of your question.
7 months ago: Al.

Thanks for taking a stab at it.

The operative words were "tropical" and "Greenland". You left those words out.

A big difference between you (liberals/progressives/statists/...) and me (ignert/conservative/hayseed/...) is WE THINK FOR OURSELVES.

I reiterate "BIG" difference.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: "If you doubt what 98% of climate scientists and all of life scientists are agreed upon than NOTHING is safe because the engineers that made those airplanes, cars, trains, and the very computer you are reading this from depended on those scientists."

I don't follow you. Can you explain why an aeronautical engineer would have to rely on a life scientist's work to get his job done? The two fields are totally unrelated, unless the planes are believed to have evolved from spontaneously from some primitive state.

Why would a silicon valley engineer depend on a climatologist to develop a new microchip? I know Gates would love to have them rain down out of the sky, provided no one but him was allowed to gather them up, but hey, the odds of that happening are pretty small.

I don't doubt the work of all life scientists. I only doubt the ones who claim that they have it figured out and that they can prove it. The ones I'll listen to use words like "theory, may have, could have", and "we think ________ happened".

As well, I don't doubt the work of all geologists either. I'm just not fond of band-wagons. Claims that all geologists who disagree with the elite consensus are paid by the fossil fuel industry are unfounded.

As far as NASA goes, they can't make up their minds what is going on. They certainly aren't proposing man made global warming as the only possibility.

To a germ sitting on the hour hand of a clock saying "This is the hottest year I can remember" doesn't really mean much. Going back to the 1800's and collecting ata doesn't mean much. in the 1970's, the Earth was supposedly going into an ice age. I guess global warming was doing that whole masking thing then too.

"....Anyone that has gone to college realizes that the more that they learn the more there is that they don't know."

I really hope that was supposed to be some kind of philosophical sentiment, because on its face, it is an outright lie. (well, maybe not, because I swear college dumbs down the majority of folks). I think it places reasoning disabilities on some people that they can never overcome.
But technically, the more you learn, the more you know, therefore it leaves less that you don't know, not more.

:-)
Charlie 19K
Charlie 19K
Victorville, CA
Content Removed by Charlie 19K
Charlie 19K
Charlie 19K
Victorville, CA
7 months ago: Al, let's just say that global warming is 100% true. It would take the entire world changing back to primitive times to fix the problem. No country is going to do that, especially those that are developing. So what is your suggestion; let's sacrifice our economy as a symbolic gesture that is not going to have a real world impact? Do you think that is going to make the huge polluters like China, India, or Mexico change? No, so we need to look for real and sustainable solutions rather than the draconian ideas the Democrats have in mind. This is going by the assumption that what the global warming "experts" are saying is true—which is a dubious contention. While I do believe our climate is changing, this is nothing new to our planet. Our planet has been intolerably hot and frigidly cool numerous times in its history…is that not true??
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
Content Removed by Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
7 months ago: Good post: Now if only the study would have been done by University of (insert random backwoods hick state) . Then maybe the backwood, afraid of change, uneducated scared of books hicks would believe it.
7 months ago: Sorry bro... I'll need to repost your original thought that you deleted because it made you look like a backwards hick. I have to ask... The university of (DOT)?

Where is that?

Here is your original....

Good post: Now if only the study would have been done by University of . Then maybe the backwood, afraid of change, uneducated scared of books hicks would believe it

No?

You seem to believe you have a higher standing. We are OK with you thinking that you know best for all. We are not OK when you spew your ill informed, non-provable, non-scientific, grant money grabbing, tax dollar sponging, and total loads of BS.

Git bac ta worc ya dumm sissy. Learn a trade besides pushing paper.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
7 months ago: I accidentally tried to use the "" characters instead of "()"...my bad.

Independent research seems to be proving you wrong every day...yet you ignore it (probably because they write with too many big words for you to understand).

"dumm sissy"...It's truly amusing how many different pathetic insults you have to come up with to make your self feel better about the fact that you are an ignorant, racist, un-educated, scared of change hick.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: The "independent" study, promoted by Novim, and Muller and Associates, Richard A. Muller, is pushing a program of geo-engineering. That would be program they would be willing to implement, at a price of course.

Ah I can see it now. Fleets of thousands of ships manufacturing sulfur dioxide and spewing it into the atmosphere to slow down the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. Other sulfate aerosols can be deployed into the stratosphere by every commercial jet airplane. (contrail experiments?)

Novim and Muller aren't the first to suggest seeding sulfates into the atmosphere to combat the threat of global warming. But the downside far outweighs the temporary reprieve it could give. First off, it would have to be a permanent process, continually adding gasses for ever, or at least until we had stopped emitting greenhouse gases for about 125 years.

It would also decrease rainfall to most of Africa and Asia. That would produce drought and decreased agriculture in areas that depend heavily upon it.

It would cause more acid rain, acidification of the oceans, depletion of the ozone layer, and less sunlight for green plants.

Reduction of sunlight coming through the murky atmosphere would also dim prospects for solar power developments.

The sky would no longer be blue, it would be white even on the clearest cloudless days. But the sunsets would be violent displays of deep reds.

And who decides what temperature the thermostat is going to be set?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: "...propaganda machine has so demonized Al Gore - the biggest booster of climate science, ..."

Well, add one more to the propaganda machine. The one who led the study in this article , Richard Muller, speaks at UC Berkley on 3/19/2011:

"Politicians (like Al Gore's polar bear tale) put in things that they consider a real danger, what represents what they consider to be reality, doesn't matter if its "technically" true or not..."

"....most of what makes the newspaper headlines is either wrong, or backwards, or simply exaggerated." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBGVKOCOa...


He also has derogatory things to say about NASA's James Hansen, and the IPCC.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8s...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
7 months ago: Oh, and his group is receiving funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation. That in itself makes all their findings suspect. Right? http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/14...

Well, Koch Industries is sitting on a gold mine of sulfur aerosols in all the natural gas they own. What better way to make the best of a bad thing, than to make it a good thing, and then sell the same thing they were having to pay to get rid of. Smooth, I must say. Claim, to save the planet, and make a few bucks at the same time.

"Mulller contends that many of the assertions in the 2007 IPCC report on climate change is anecdotal or conjecture—except for the temperature data. He claims that the only reliable indicator of global warming is global temperature data. The data and conclusions that are questionable are claims that there has been an increase in glacial melt (such as the Himalayan glaciers), Arctic and Antarctic polar melt, melt of permafrost in Alaska, forest fires, hurricanes (both frequency and severity), and tornadoes. He asserts these are not reliable indicators of global warming."

http://ecologicalsociology.blogspot.com/...

I'm still looking for the Koch Industries ties to bio-engineered phytoplankton, which will also play a role in bioengineering our environment.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: Charlie The climate scientists never claim that they know everything. They deal in probabilities. It is only ninety some percent likely. Generally scientists are very conservative in their estimates. Thus far EVERY prediction has proven to be too conservative. The earth is getting hotter quicker, the glaciers are melting quicker, the arctic ice is disappearing much quicker than any of the scientists estimated. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/18...

OK so when Dick Cheney was lying about nuclear weapons in Iraq, he said even if there were a 1% chance we should invade. Even if there is a 1% chance that the earth will go into catastrophic climate change the consequences would be far greater than a few nuclear bombs.

What if we act as if climate change is happening and we reduce carbon emissions, but then it turns out the scientists were wrong? We would have cleaner air, more efficient engines, homes, and would be spending less. The entire world would benefit.

On the other hand if the 98% were right, or as it now appears, not nearly as alarmist as they should have been, and we failed to act then millions would die and trillions would have to be spent moving populations and cities away from encroaching coastlines.

Throughout human history CO2 concentrations have not been above 275ppm. Now it is 392ppm. If we can bring the CO2 concentration down to 350ppm we can limit the temperature increases down to 2 degrees C. http://www.350.org/en/about/science

As far as sacrificing our economy, we will be left in the dust if we do not gear up for limiting CO2. China and every other developed country does not share the denialists delusions. They are all moving aggressively to develop and manufacture clean renewable energy. They all have government subsidies to attract all those green jobs we are missing out on.

While China does now produce more CO2 that we do, they know far more than we about how to make clean burning coal plants. They will soon take over as the largest solar and wind users. They are spending billions using five year plans that move the country into the future.

Meanwhile the regressives in this country are not looking to the future at all and are trying to drag us back to the 19th century.

"As China set impressive targets to reduce emissions and increase investment in environmental services, politicians in the United States presented a bill to strip the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The world's two biggest carbon emitters appear to be pulling in different directions on green investment." http://www.chinadialogue.net/UserFiles/F...

Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
7 months ago: Box for once I agree with you that spraying sulfur aerosols may lower temperature but the side effects of acid rain would be terrible, especially since the oceans are already way too acidic from the carbonic acid from all the CO2 it has absorbed. By the way the absorption rate is slowing because the oceans are becoming saturated with CO2.

Thanks for the link that indicates the deniers were half right, the scientists were using flawed data, but the data led them to underestimate the rate of global warming. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/01...

Yes most of the stuff the Kochs fund is suspect, but even they can't change facts. Studies that they funded hoping to disprove global warming instead affirmed the science including Al Gores Hockey stick you all hate. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/201...
6 months ago: Global warming is going to cause some predictable effects. If you look at any specific latitude (that is where you place your finger on a globe and spin it around, your finger traces a latitude). And look at the crops grown there, well, as time goes on those crops will grow more toward the poles. Peaches will grow further north, along with bananas, coffee and chocolate. Pick your favorite yummy, plant your tree now. Your kids will harvest from it, even if it will not produce its fruit at your latitude, today.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
6 months ago: Russia and Canada will do well - Texas not so much.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.