What is your view of global warming?

dont drink the koolaid wrote:

"Various skin disorders such as acne, scars are the result of global warming and climate change."
http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm...
Another scientific report illustrating the absurdity of the AGW crisis.

Of course it is increasing and no it isn't global warming. People are living longer and they are exposing more skin to the sun on a regular basis. Just like many desises that were unknown are and the number of deaths labeled natural causes (i.e. they didn't really know what did them in) are down.

In 1960 the average man lived in trousers and long sleeve button down shirt along with a hat outside. Women ofter wore hats and long sleeve blouses that covered from the neck to the wrists. The skirs bak tn came down to the mid calf. So they were exposing less skin around the home during the summer than modern women do going to church. Less skin was exposed and unless acne and skin disorders were on the face the public could not tell between those who did and did not.

Tina anne, the olive skinned women who work in the fields in Spain, still cover themselves from head to foot to avoid sunrays as well as biting insects.
The men wear trousers, whether it's hot or cold.
The only item that has changed in 40 odd years is footwear, it used to be sandals, now it's trainers.

Earthling wrote:

Tina anne, the olive skinned women who work in the fields in Spain, still cover themselves from head to foot to avoid sunrays as well as biting insects.
The men wear trousers, whether it's hot or cold.
The only item that has changed in 40 odd years is footwear, it used to be sandals, now it's trainers.

Of course, it is only dressing for the situation. In the past in the US that was one of the reasons why people dressed like that. In the summer you wore long sleeves and high necked clothing to protect yourself from insects in the summer and to help you stay warm in the winter. It is only with the developments in the modern world that things like insect repellant and pesticides have allow people to roam barely dressed in some cases. Which allows the sun rays to reach the unportected skin and cause many skin problems. Add with that the changes in modern diet and the fact people are living longer and they have more skin problems.

It has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with cultural change.

There is no global warming. There is global cooling. Get a clue people. Gore knows little to nothing about what he is preaching while spewing carbon into the atmosphere while he jets around. Talk about a hypocrite ...

If there had been any experimental tests of CO2 and temperature, we'd know how much CO2 reductions would be enough. As it is, we have only guesswork. How will we know that we've reduced CO2 enough? Will we turn blue?

The Great Libertarian wrote:

There is no global warming. There is global cooling. Get a clue people. Gore knows little to nothing about what he is preaching while spewing carbon into the atmosphere while he jets around. Talk about a hypocrite ...

I'll bet he doesn't like capitalism either.

The only thing that's constant is change. That especially applies to the weather. Personally, if it had to be one way or the other, I would prefer global warming over global cooling. It has to do one or the other. I think palm trees on the sandy beaches of the Mississippi at St Louis would be a nice touch.

It's not real. I don't believe it. I get just as cold in the winter and its never too warm in the summer. I haven't seen the oceans rising or prairies turning to deserts. Nothing has changed as far as I can see. Mother Earth is a powerful woman and has always been able to take care of Herself. Lets all just eat, drink, and be merry!!!

Regardless of the factors, I think the best and feasible solution is to go green. I mean plant more trees,learn to use properly the earth's available resources and pressure governments the world over to come up with win-win solutions to solve this growing menace.

Brian_G wrote:

If there had been any experimental tests of CO2 and temperature, we'd know how much CO2 reductions would be enough. As it is, we have only guesswork. How will we know that we've reduced CO2 enough? Will we turn blue?

I take back the part about the lack of CO2's greenhouse effect experimental measurements; I understand they are one third to one sixth of the IPCC forecasts. The difference is the IPCC's idea of feedback; they ignore negative feedback and exaggerate positive feedback.

I think it's fair to say no one has ever done an experimental test on CO2 and climate feedback mechanisms.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
IPCC's idea of feedback; they ignore negative feedback and exaggerate positive feedback.

Again, this is why the IPCC is not fact based science.
Their mandate is to review literature that supports the premise that GW IS CAUSED BY Man and will harm life on the planet.

And before anyone posts a big red X in judgement... please read the IPCC Mandate. The IPCC...

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

There is no room for review of negative feedback of AGW if the IPCC Mandate is embraced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Strange Clouds N Chemtrails

ronnnie wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, this is why the IPCC is not fact based science.
Their mandate is to review literature that supports the premise that GW IS CAUSED BY Man and will harm life on the planet.
And before anyone posts a big red X in judgement... please read the IPCC Mandate. The IPCC...
"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."
There is no room for review of negative feedback of AGW if the IPCC Mandate is embraced.

There are literally thousands of scientific papers on AGW. You just need to do a little search on sciencemag and nature. On the other hand, how many peer-reviewed papers dismissed AGW as real? Far less than you think I'm afraid.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
I take back the part about the lack of CO2's greenhouse effect experimental measurements; I understand they are one third to one sixth of the IPCC forecasts. The difference is the IPCC's idea of feedback; they ignore negative feedback and exaggerate positive feedback.

What is your basis for your assumption? You don't like the results? Or do you have evidence?

Brian_G wrote:

I think it's fair to say no one has ever done an experimental test on CO2 and climate feedback mechanisms.

What "experiments" do you propose? I wonder if you can come up with any "experiment" on a coupled non-linear chaotic system that is as huge as Earth.

A measured release, or capture of CO2 and then temperature measurements. Repeat as necessary.

The laboratory experiments posted on this forum show a 0.5°C increase for each doubling. They don't show climate feedbacks, I suspect there are as many negative feedbacks as positive because the Earth's climate is a long running system, if it were dominated by positive feedbacks it would tend to swing wildly toward extremes, and that's not the beautiful climate I see outside my window.

The ocean emits more carbon dioxide then anything in the world we are just a blip compared to it. Global warming is a natural course this planet takes and the fact that people are buying into the mass hysteria proved profitable to alot of greedy &%cks. People need to open their minds and see the underlying meaning of all this bs, do some real reading and see how the suns activity correlates with what the earth does almost in perfect sync. Im sadden to see that so many people are so stupid they buy into anything the media or your government tells you.
The fact that the world media and most if not all governments tell developing countries to use technologies which are both too expensive and beyond most of their technological grasp (for now). Is both idiotic and cruel in that they tell countries in Africa to use solar panels, wind turbines, and to harness hydro electricity when they have people starving and dying due to lack of electricity. Just think about it how would your life be with out the most basic of things that electricity makes possible. By all means i dont see the harm in people (WHO CAN AFFORD IT) greening up their life style helping a bit is always good but to condemn people to death because a leading power tells em to be "greener" is genocide.

GW is real.
AGW is a hoax

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.ht...
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
So do you think taking out that 6 billion/yr, which we can not as a large majority is from China and other countries, is going to stop 18o billion that is left by nature?

Of course GW is real, the question is: Is GW a threat?

Answer...No,IMO.

You guy should just clean the earth or do sonething idk just fugger something out

Global warming does not exist. The threat of global warming is a communist political effort to control our lives. All the lefties are control freaks. They can not tolerate freedom. Our sun is the source of all energy on earth. The energy output changes over long periods of time. Eventually, the earth will not exist. Hopefully, we should have millions of years remaining. Keep in mind that an astronomical event could destroy us anytime between now and the end of the sun. So, enjoy and just laugh at the lefties !!