CLimate Change, have the scientists got it wrong again?

Interesting graph, who put it out?...You do know you can't believe everything you read as everyone has an agenda. Plus there is normally a big disconnect between theory & real life , especially when it comes to predictions.

I do not beleive that mankind has the ability or power to alter the earth's climate. We can do all sorts of little things, but in the big picture it cannot change what nature does on it's own. One erruption of a volcano does more to the atmosphere in one day than all the automobiles have ever or will ever do. As I said before, it's all about $$$$$. (Not that we should pollute on purpose)

Joves wrote: So now lets look at the present the name has changed to Climate Change, well quite frankly because we have had a few cooler years which the climate models didnt count on. SO now Climate Change covers everything but, the problem with that is the climate changes four times a year, which is why we have what they call seasons.

I am sorry, I do have to reply to this. And then I am done, since people will believe what they will and they will read what they choose to read.

But this quote here, I am sorry, but the weather where you are may have been cooler in the last few years, but when they refer to "Global Warming" it is an average temperature of the "Globe", not your local weather forecast.

And you are right that any of these "climate models" do not take into account the last few years, and that is because they are models for thousands of years, and a few years of different weather does not affect them.

And they are not calling it "Climate Change" because of the seasons. It is mainly because there are local affects to global warming that may make the local region have a harsher winter, or summer for that matter.

If you look at the historical data (I mean the core samples that have been pulled out of ice sheets), then you can not question that global warming, climate change, or what ever you want to call it, exists. The question is, can humans affect the outcome?

The rise in CO2 in our atmosphere has not been significantly due to our pollution, and you are right on the fact that any one volcano pollutes more then we have as a race in our history, but the one thing that you are not taking into account, that I mentioned earlier, is the devastation that we have recked on the earths forests and oceans. This has severely limited the earths natural ability to regulate CO2 in the atmosphere, and that is why we have seen the spike in CO2 in our atmosphere more then our pollution.

And if you think that no one is making "pornographic" amounts of money on how things are now, then you need to go look at corporate profits in this country, and see exactly how much they actually pay in taxes.

Besides, I would rather look out my window and see some solar panels or a wind turbine, than see a power plant spewing black smoke into the air that I breath. If nothing else we should be doing it for health reasons. And if you can argue against that, then I am not sure what then.

But the one thing that you can not argue with very easily is empirical facts, and the fact is, that CO2 levels are rising, and they are higher then they have been in a very long time (granted it is a short time if you are thinking geologically). The last thing I would add is that this spike did not occur till we hit the industrial revolution, or shortly there after, yes that could be coincidence, but I beg to differ.

No they are now calling it climate change to cover their bases and that is all. They Tired calling it Global Cooling then Glaobal Warming but, when neither of those worked out we go the new name change. The problem with the supposed science is that they have fudged the numbers to promote their agenda and, that agenda is control over all energy scources.

There are far more things affecting the planet than that of human existance. The poles are shifting which will eventually affect many areas. Solar long cycles are coming up which will have more effect than anything we do. The planet is going to warm up some more that is a given but, it will not be due to anything humans have done, it will be from forces that humans have zero control over.

Quote:And if you think that no one is making "pornographic" amounts of money on how things are now, then you need to go look at corporate profits in this country, and see exactly how much they actually pay in taxes.
Besides, I would rather look out my window and see some solar panels or a wind turbine, than see a power plant spewing black smoke into the air that I breath.

Yes, and when Al Gore shows up for a lecture, he arrives in a big jet, travels in a suburban motorcade, and while he is away, leaves the lights and ac on. Also, a few years ago, there was talk of wind mills in the ocean off Martha's Vineyard, and ol' environ"mental" John Kerry (and Teddy K) stopped it because it would ruin their view.
Want to check their tax returns, too?

So you think that about 80% of the world scientists are apart of a huge conspiracy that that is trying to push a global warming/global climate change agenda and that they also think that humans have played a significant role in this? Check out this article . It has almost the same results as every other survey done of scientists across the globe.

And, yes, the majority, though slim, still do not think that climate change poses any great risk, the consensus is still the same. And someone also mentioned that these things failed to make into a certain journal, but they have still made it into every major science journal out there, so that too must be a conspiracy...

The vast majority of scientists that do disagree with human interaction of the global climate, surprise, work for the fossil fuel industry. So believe what you will but the professionals do believe it exists, and they also believe that humans have affected it. The danger may not be there, but the health affects of using fossil fuels still exist, and that is very well documented and can not be denied if you look at the data.

You say that naysayers data is funded by the oil companies & that may be true, but in of itself does not indicate a bias in their findings anymore than the source you listed (Stats.org) which as a research arm of George Mason University , does. After all Colleges are bastions of liberalism & are always looking for grant money for their research. So to dismiss offhand the findings of any other research other than that of which you personally approve of is ludicrous. ( & no, not the artist)

Yes, you are right on that one particular source, but I mentioned that almost all surveys in this area reported similar results. And that was that about 95% of scientists believe that global warming exists, and about 80% of them believe that humans have a direct impact in it. It is also very consistent that a small majority ( about 55%) thing that there is not a significant harm in global warming. When I say almost all surveys, I am referring to ones done by liberal think tanks and conservative. Even Rasmussen, one of the most conservative leaning pollsters, though not at 80%, and more like a simple majority of 55% or so, still leans toward human interaction as a cause.

You're willing to dismiss a difference of 25 points between two major polls regarding the same issue? That disparity should be a clear indication that when it comes to climate change any polling can and will be biased, particularly those from Universities. They have to get their grant money, afterall. I suspect Rasmussin would have an agenda to keep as well. Be careful what stats you're trusting.

Also, can anyone tell me what the symantics of all this really should be? From late 90's to the mid 2000's, it was called global warming. We have half a decade of cooling, Gore is nowhere to be found, and now it's "climate change", because apparently calling it a cooling trend is bad PR for the agenda. Every effort will be made to make it sound like cooling is just as bad for those poor polar bears and diminishing mountain glaciers.

I'm no conspiracy nut, but I know when something uncertain is being made to look like the holy truth - over time it's name will change to fit the bill.

When it comes to polling, I am not dismissing the differences in them, if I was I would not have posted Rasmussen's results here. If you look at just about every poll, except those that are hard line conservative, they all report very similar results, that about 80% of scientists think that climate change is affected by man. The Hard line conservative polls are the only area that you see a drop in this to about 50% of scientists thinking that man plays a role in climate change.

As for the changing in what we call it, it is because it is a science still in its infancy and they are understanding more about it every day. In some areas you will see harsher winters and some areas you will see harsher summers. But the overall affect on the globe itself still remains the same, the earth is warming up, whether we play a role in it or not is another matter. But I still believe that we can affect the climate of the earth, and because of this, we have a moral obligation as a country to produce energy cleanly and cheaply. The United States has led the world in innovation in so many years, and now we are starting to loose our grasp on that. One of the next big sectors where our country could lead the way is green technology.

If you could power your house and transportation for free, and have no emissions of any kind, would you not do so???

Interesting topic, I might need to think about my response.

I remember seeing a show once where they looked at ice samples to see if how the influx of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (that suddenly occurred during the industrial revolution), affected the temperature.

Turns out the industrial revolution (and it's carbon dioxide) resulted in the earth cooling slightly not warming up.