Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
Man Made Global Warming is a Media Made Myth
- Thread starter Daryl95
- Start date
Oerdin
Deity
Crikey - had to check the profile to see if Pontiuth Pilate has come back
Even if they're 20% out, then that still doesn't stack-up as being a republican-only thing on these numbers.
BTW: I can't get to youtube, and even if I could, how is 'youtube' any more credible than a professional polling company?
The point is somewhat moot however; science is not settled by public opinion.
The link is to a radio show out of LA which also does webcasts. The poll cited was done by ABC News & Washington Post. In any event Rassmusen is a very biased source which does push polling to get desired results rather then accurate results. It's well known for it.
He does it in the first 8 seconds!
Oerdin i cant seem to find that poll he was talking about would you be so kind as to post a link to it because im finding myself rather skeptical of the claims (75% of americans think global warming made by man is real) and i would like to look at how thay conducted this poll.
oh and the remaining 25% happen to be republicans that still support bush.
oh and the remaining 25% happen to be republicans that still support bush.
Oerdin
Deity
Did you read the post directly above yours?
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
Then it was slashed, burned, and desertified.
Merkinball
Deity
Nope. It's settled by people who finance their entire lives on government grants. Surely there cannot be a conflict of interest there...
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
No. It's settled by evidence of which there's plenty.
I'll point out again that a very large number of scientific unions agree that there is a cause for concern. These are organisations run by near-experts that use a variety of methodologies to come to their conclusions.
As well, the scientific press competes with each other, and there is still broad consensus that AGW is happening. In fact, the only credible objection I've seen that AGW might not be as fast as we expect is that clouds might increase their albedo after increasing temp increases humidity: though I've only seen the theory and no data.
Meanwhile, we're grinding through our oceanic ice buffer (that will buffer the temp changes). In the last 5 years, because of the temp rise, Canada might have turned from a net sequesterer of GHGs into a natural emitter.
Finally, the utility of our natural parks to maintain biodiversity lowers if the climate changes so that species can no longer thrive in their previous habitats.
As well, the scientific press competes with each other, and there is still broad consensus that AGW is happening. In fact, the only credible objection I've seen that AGW might not be as fast as we expect is that clouds might increase their albedo after increasing temp increases humidity: though I've only seen the theory and no data.
Meanwhile, we're grinding through our oceanic ice buffer (that will buffer the temp changes). In the last 5 years, because of the temp rise, Canada might have turned from a net sequesterer of GHGs into a natural emitter.
Finally, the utility of our natural parks to maintain biodiversity lowers if the climate changes so that species can no longer thrive in their previous habitats.
Merkinball
Deity
You should come here some time and get some of the down low at the facility I work at. Your opinion might change on that one...
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
Homeopathic science is the new rage. It's the belief that the minority position in the scientific community is probably the right one. Especially if it's the majority position in whatever media you chose to consume.
Get on the bandwagon now and get a free morphic resonance generator!
****
It was the hippies. It was the long-haired tree-hugging sort who first really pushed the "GW is a concern" thing. There are a lot of people who default to "If the hippies think it's true it must be wrong.". Defending that snap-judgment has become a profitable business. Beyond "Look at the new gadget!" the general media often gets completely un-controversial science significantly wrong. So there's always some new misunderstanding you can push about science.
I heard a really brilliant one recently. I'm not sure how long it's actually been floating around, but I've seen it multiple places in the last few weeks. Basically:
"CO2 is good for plants. How could it be bad? The more CO2 we get the more plants we'll get. Plants consume CO2, so it's a self-balancing system, and one that just makes things *better* as we pollute more. Not that CO2 is a pollutant, mind you. Cutting down on CO2 would be a bad thing, as a matter of fact - won't anyone think of the crops???!!!"
admiral-bell
Chronic Lurker
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2005
- Messages
- 730
TBQH, I still don't know what your point is.
His statement in bold is relative to the last 1 million or so years.
The situation 55 million years ago is of interest because back then the [CO2] was about twice as much it is today at ~500 ppm. We are currently at 380 ppm and it is expected to climb to 550 ppm by 2100. There were no ice caps back then.
That period also saw a 'sudden injection' ("..occured over decades or years..") of CO2 that raised the [CO2] from 500 to 2000 ppm by the release of some subterranean natural gas reserves ignited by magma. Killed everything in the deep-ocean yadda yadda..
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
And another one 635 million years ago:
Luckily our methane clathrates aren't as extensive as they were back then. So we'd "only" get a few degrees C rather than a few 10s of degrees, if we make this mistake.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
The Ozone depletion which FYI one part opened right up over Australia has been repairing itself. Scientist put that as proof positive thanks to new laws regarding recycling CFC such as unused refigerators, Buy back programs and tough fines for dumping.
The damage itself hasnt been completely repaired yet that will probably take a long time for complete recover.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
A lot of the deniers are soaked in corporate money. If there was real evidence against manmade global warming, it would be out already and the proponents would be discredited.
But there isn't.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I would contend the scientific perspective is that the subject is still open for debate and subject to further research, instead of pretending that everything has already been completely resolved with no room for dissent merely because there is 'consensus' amongst a number of scientists and prominent laymen with their own obvious political agendas.
Such is the way with real science as opposed to sophistry. The bottom line is that science isn't a democracy. It doesn't really matter how many people believe one particular interpretation of the facts. Just ask Copernicus and Galileo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
