So the only thing stopping warming in the US was pollution?

[oblivionx]

Who are the primary targets of the UN global warming carbon scam?

It's primarily "western culture", you thought that was a coincidence?

This is the same UN that had Ghadafi's Libya on the human rights committee, and prior to that Saddam's Iraq.

[eriseis]

Who are the primary targets of the UN global warming carbon scam?

It's primarily "western culture", you thought that was a coincidence?

This is the same UN that had Ghadafi's Libya on the human rights committee, and prior to that Saddam's Iraq.

You're waaaaay off-topic, take your conspiracy theories to another thread.

[Deleted]

Because colonization of other planets is not a waste of money when it comes to the immediacy of the problem you claim it will help solve?

There is no immediacy to the problem.

The only immediate issue is food production. And reducing CO2 emissions isn't gonna help feed starving children in Africa.

Colonization of other planets is merely a long term solution to the earths natural temperature cycles.

[Zecora]

You appear to be angry.

Isotope Hydrogeology, Carbon Accounting, Meteorology and almost every specialty listed there is relevant to climate change. The problem is that you are looking at it from the viewpoint of a small child.

"Daddy, when will doctors find the cure for cancer?"

When actually climate change, and nearly every other branch of science is multi-faceted and requires aggregated knowledge from a large number of specialties in order to come to any sort of conclusion. Climatologists can not, in isolation, come to any meaningful conclusions about climate change.

Your attempt to discredit the signatories is misplaced. Instead you should be asking yourself why climate change is being propelled to the forefront when the scientific data shows that the earth has natural temperature cycles and that these cycles occur over thousands of years. This is not the first, and it certainly won't be the last.

Reading up on the subject may help you.

Oh dear, such a smokescreen...and yet, everyone can see that the emperor is naked.

Want that in clear text?

You can try as hard as you want, a PhD in Economics makes you about as qualified to "debunk" anthropogenic climate change as any other random person with no knowledge of climatology. And even if all of those on your much-flaunted list HAD been climatologists, that will NOT change the thousands that agree that anthropogenic climate change IS a reality.

LOOOOOOOOOO.....................ooooooo................OOOOOOOOOOOO.........OOOOOOOOOOOOL

Al Gore is a major shareholder of Occidental Petroleum.

You fail.

And I should care about Al Gore becaaause...?

I've never read anything by him, I've never watched anything he's been in...my sources is scientific.

No.

We would have essentially wasted billions of dollars into non-essential technology, which will still not stop the increasing of global temperatures. When instead the same money could have, and should have been invested in ways to cope with climate change. While also researching into permanent solutions such as colonization of other planets.

Stop trying to put a band-aid on a grenade wound.

As opposed to waiting until the oil has run before creating alternatives. Wow...yes, let's be short-sighted. Climate lies will serve no purpose, except protecting the goose that lays the golden egg for the oil companies. We need to act to limit the damage while the planet still has a chance to absorb some of the excess CO2 we've squired into what WAS a finely-tuned system.

Stop trying to make the wound bigger.

[eriseis]

There is no immediacy to the problem.

The only immediate issue is food production. And reducing CO2 emissions isn't gonna help feed starving children in Africa.

Colonization of other planets is merely a long term solution to the earths natural temperature cycles.

And throwing billions of dollars into space is gonna help?

[oblivionx]

You're waaaaay off-topic, take your conspiracy theories to another thread.

Take a look at the breakdown of who would be paying according to the UN.

Or just call me a racist and say I don't have a right to speak.

[semaphore]

Isotope Hydrogeology, Carbon Accounting, Meteorology and almost every specialty listed there is relevant to climate change.

Only in the most superficial way, and has no credibility when it comes to determining whether there climate change exists or not in the first place. And either way you're still effectively arguing that the words of 100 randoms should take precedence over the thousands who agree climate change is real.

Besdies, you made a specific claim that "nearly all" names on that list were climate scientists. Trying to argue that all these random unrelated fields are "relevant" is just blantantly trying to evade the reality that you are quoting non-experts.

[Deleted]

You appear to be angry.

Isotope Hydrogeology, Carbon Accounting, Meteorology and almost every specialty listed there is relevant to climate change. The problem is that you are looking at it from the viewpoint of a small child.

"Daddy, when will doctors find the cure for cancer?"

When actually climate change, and nearly every other branch of science is multi-faceted and requires aggregated knowledge from a large number of specialties in order to come to any sort of conclusion. Climatologists can not, in isolation, come to any meaningful conclusions about climate change.

Your attempt to discredit the signatories is misplaced. Instead you should be asking yourself why climate change is being propelled to the forefront when the scientific data shows that the earth has natural temperature cycles and that these cycles occur over thousands of years. This is not the first, and it certainly won't be the last.

What you're saying there is that instead of trying to investigate the validity of their claims based on the claimants professional ability and field, he should have completely agreed with your opinion and focus on a train of thought based solely on the assumption that you're right. This was an interesting discussion, but you've debased it by sarcastically questioning his maturity for no reason.

As for Al Gore's shares, Al Gore is not the only person in the world to have the opinion that he holds. Nor is he the world leading expert in the field. Al Gore's interest in global warming is primarily political, anyone thinking otherwise is fairly naive. His hypocrisy does not disprove anything other than possibly his own moral integrity, something I think everyone can agree that nobody cares about.

And finally, no amount of realistically achievable space travel will make up for the need for renewable energy and cleaner air. To say that spending money on those two pursuits (at least) is a waste is just foolish.

[Zecora]

And throwing billions of dollars into space is gonna help?

Well, since some seem intent on f**king up our environement so badly that it's beyond any chance of recovery, space might be our only option.

[semaphore]

There is no immediacy to the problem.

And you know this because?

[eriseis]

Take a look at the breakdown of who would be paying according to the UN.

Or just call me a racist and say I don't have a right to speak.

There's a difference between claiming your country will bear a burden and another is to use a sentence like "white nations". I hope you understand that.

[Deleted]

I thought the Global Warming discussion were over and most people by now realized that there is no such thing as 'man made global warming'.

Just look at how all the attention started, Al Gore's 'An Inconvienient Truth', which sadly were based on nothing but manipulative graphs which had no scientific backings. Now, many people surely wants to sprout that 97% of climate researches agree that the global warming is man made, but in reality, its not that hard to get such a high percentage when you only ask people who you know will agree. The fact is that taxes on CO2 emissions have proved to be a very valuable income for the government, the government can't just raise the taxes and tell people 'we want a cleaner earth', that is not the justification people are looking for, but if its for the greater good of our mother earth, surely people won't mind the increased taxes.

Now, show me a graph that clearly shows a direct relation between green house gasses and an increase in our weather temperature. Do such a graph exist? No. Do a graph exist that shows a close but indirect relation between green house gasses and our temperature? Yes, but thats hardly a proof of man made global warming. The truth is, that while a increase in green house gasses COULD be the reason for global warming, it could equally be the opposite that the increased temperature is the reason that we see a higher density of green house gasses.

There are so many factors which could contribute to the global warming as we experience, but all theories are being dismissed as green house gasses is the only profitable suggestion. There are other theories who show a more direct correlation in global warming, which also explains the earths previous 'global warmings'. The convinient truth is that its a cycle which has passed the earth several times in its existance, and this is nowhere near the highest peak of temperature our earth has had yet, how does man made global warming even begin to explain our previous heat cycles?

[Deadvolcanoes]

...and that's why we have a severely divided scientific community when it comes to this matter.

www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

I don't know why that has to be linked so often on every ACC thread. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

" 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC..."

If you are skeptical of ACC, fine, but at least be cognizant of your minorty status.

[Blobfish]

P>S

Re Al Gores Statement Inconvenient Truth...

New Zealand is not full of refugees from the Islands of Tuvulu in the Pacific

[slikvik]

I see a lot of opinions on here and until the information is verified its going to remain just that, Opinions.So how about citing some sources?

[eriseis]

[1]The truth is, that while a increase in green house gasses COULD be the reason for global warming, it could equally be the opposite that the increased temperature is the reason that we see a higher density of green house gasses.

[2] There are so many factors which could contribute to the global warming as we experience, but all theories are being dismissed as green house gasses is the only profitable suggestion.

[1] Um...what?

[2] From the abstract from one of the articles cited in the article Laize refers to"
. Aerosol cooling reduces surface evaporation and thus decreases precipitation along the US east coast, but also increases the southerly flow of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico resulting in increased cloud cover and precipitation in the central US.

[oblivionx]

There's a difference between claiming your country will bear a burden and another is to use a sentence like "white nations". I hope you understand that.

The bulk of the burden to "save the world" and where it lies is overwhelmingly on who?

[Zecora]

I thought the Global Warming discussion were over and most people by now realized that there is no such thing as 'man made global warming'.

Just look at how all the attention started, Al Gore's 'An Inconvienient Truth', which sadly were based on nothing but manipulative graphs which had no scientific backings. Now, many people surely wants to sprout that 97% of climate researches agree that the global warming is man made, but in reality, its not that hard to get such a high percentage when you only ask people who you know will agree. The fact is that taxes on CO2 emissions have proved to be a very valuable income for the government, the government can't just raise the taxes and tell people 'we want a cleaner earth', that is not the justification people are looking for, but if its for the greater good of our mother earth, surely people won't mind the increased taxes.

Now, show me a graph that clearly shows a direct relation between green house gasses and an increase in our weather temperature. Do such a graph exist? No. Do a graph exist that shows a close but indirect relation between green house gasses and our temperature? Yes, but thats hardly a proof of man made global warming. The truth is, that while a increase in green house gasses COULD be the reason for global warming, it could equally be the opposite that the increased temperature is the reason that we see a higher density of green house gasses.

There are so many factors which could contribute to the global warming as we experience, but all theories are being dismissed as green house gasses is the only profitable suggestion. There are other theories who show a more direct correlation in global warming, which also explains the earths previous 'global warmings'. The convinient truth is that its a cycle which has passed the earth several times in its existance, and this is nowhere near the highest peak of temperature our earth has had yet, how does man made global warming even begin to explain our previous heat cycles?

Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" did in NO way start the current acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. That was acnowledged by substantial amounts of scientists years before that movie was released. Furthermore, your barely veiled accusations of rigged numbers need some actual proof to even be worthy of consideration, as does your accusation of government fraud. Proof. It is what the climate scientists have, and the socalled "climate sceptics" lack.

The graphs you want have been shown, numerous times. The climated "sceptics" have tried to expose it as lies, and more studies have shown that it is in fact completely accurate. COULD there be another reason? Of course. Just as the planet might have been created 5000 years ago, and the dinosaur skeletons placed there as god's little joke...there is ALWAYS an element of uncertainty in actual science, but what is important is the overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real. And the consequences of ignoring that is far greater than the consequences if we act now and later find out we didn't have to.

Really, honestly, please read up on actual scientific papers on this issue. Don't just swallow the stuff the climate "sceptics" tell you because it is less scary.

[eriseis]

The bulk of the burden to "save the world" and where it lies is overwhelmingly on who?

Not on racist assholes like you.

Fuck it, your stupidity and low human quality is fucking worth the infraction.

[Zecora]

I see a lot of opinions on here and until the information is verified its going to remain just that, Opinions.So how about citing some sources?

Read through this and other climate threads, you'll see there are no shortage of sources.