Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Climate Change (Rasmussen 12/7-8)


Rasmussen
12/7-8/09; 1,000 adults, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

National

The Environmental Protection Agency has formally concluded that greenhouse gases are endangering people's health and must be regulated. This ruling enables the agency to implement greenhouse gas regulations without Congressional action. Do you agree with the Environmental Protection Agency's assessment that greenhouse gases are a health threat?
41% Yes, 41% No

Should the EPA be able to implement greenhouse gas regulations without Congressional approval? 24% Yes, 53% No

 

Comments
Field Marshal:

What a load of crap this climate change garbage is. I can't wait until the dems try cap and tax and force people to cut back on CO2 emissions. Its going to be funny how fast they get gutted from congress.

____________________

Xenobion:

Broken even on a conservative pollster. Not too shabby.

____________________

Stillow:

I for one give Al Gore credit. The people at the top running this hoax are becoming multi millionaires of the pure stupidity of there left wing followers. Give them credit for gaming the system and getting rich off liberal sheep. That is what we used to call a power move.

With the Saudi's and Russians now catching ont o climategate its only a matter of time befor ethe hoax is revealed for what it is, total lies so a small group of loons at the top of it can get ultra wealthy.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

I believe climate change is happening but its mostly through natural earth cycles. Emissions could have sped up the process a bit but not to significant levels. People do need to do much more to make the Earth greener. Barriers for green technologies should be broken down to give them much more competitive with oil, coal, and gas. Less littering, wasting energy, and other stuff like that is a responsibility people need to take. But Al Gore and those people and the way they have profited off of whats happening by lying half the time is awful.

____________________

Xenobion:

Al Gore isn't a scientist and I don't believe he sets himself up to be one. He takes real scientific studies to show issue with global warming. Its far more credible than say Rush Limbaugh who does not understand or cite any contradictory study. They both have their agendas and make money off of it. Its just who seems more right and convincing. Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard that really has no understanding of basic science.

____________________

ChicagoKid:

Limbaugh is an entertainer, Gore is a politician who ran for president... there is a difference. Al Gore is not a scientist, but he took data that was forged and that he expanded in an Inconvenient Truth. Not too big on that..

____________________

obamalover:

@everyone

And you guys wonder why scientists tend to be liberal with all of your science bashing:
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549

81% of scientists are democrat/lean democrat

____________________

Stillow:

I bet if you polled Democrats 99.9 percent of them would think that famous picture of the polar bear floating on a broken piece of glacier is real...when it was done in photoshop. Heheheheh, left wing ignorance is both humerous and dangerous.

____________________

Xenobion:

"Limbaugh is an entertainer, Gore is a politician who ran for president... there is a difference. Al Gore is not a scientist, but he took data that was forged and that he expanded in an Inconvenient Truth. Not too big on that.."

So why do people take Limbaugh's position as legitimate? That's not very convincing Chicagokid ;p

What was forged about Gore's work as well?

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

I bet if you polled conservatives 0% would know that polar bears have begun to cannibalize each other because their habitat is disappearing.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/060612_polar_bears.html

____________________

ChicagoKid:

WHy do people take Olberman or Maddow's positions seriously? Its the same thing on both sides, Limbaugh and Hannity are just better at it....

____________________

Farleftandproud:

History will be the final judge! If the US Doesn't start taking more steps on climate change laws, the evidence will continue to mount internationally that climate change is real. In 2000 the number of GOP politicians never used the word climate change, and by 2008, I heard James Baker, Bob Dole, John Mccain, all using the phrase climate change. If America turns against making stricter regulations, than we will likely fear the wrath of other countries. What polluters do in America does affect climate change in other countries. Perhaps China would be our best allie because the Chinese and many brainless Americans who were revealed in this poll will have an unholy alliance.

You can argue with a progressive on economics, but the more and more scientific proof we have for climate change, anti-environmentalism will be a tougher policy issue for conservatives.

____________________

obamalover:

@ ChicagoKid

Olberman is a grandstander like Limbaugh and Hannity. But Maddow is nothing like them. I take great issue with you lumping her in with the rest of them.

____________________

Stillow:

Look around, global warming??????????? Last night is 29 degrees here, when normal and average for this time is 42................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was snowing in dallas a couple weeks ago. it was snowing in Houston last week, earliest on record. The Earth hasn't warmed for seveal years now......only libs are arrogant enough to think they have the power to control nature. Some years are warm, some are cold. Billions of years this has happened and now all of a sudden its mans fault...........those damn cavemen and there evil suv's.

The biggest caus eof man made global warming is all the hot air you libs spew out every day.

____________________

Stillow:

Its been below 32 for 4 nights in a row here...all of last year it never got to 32....this year I am freezing my ass off out there warpping my newly planted trees in burlap this year. Weather is unpredictable. It changes every year. It goes in cycles. Its done this for BILLIONS of years.

Now if you libs are prepared to show me evidence that cavemen were driving Hummers and using 100 watt light bulbs then I will jump on board with you.

____________________

Xenobion:

I even had to lol at this one Stillow. Its snowing outside is your comment? What deductive science you've all given us. lol...

____________________

Stillow:

X - What are you talking about? You libs are telling me the earth is in a frying pan....yet we have record cold temps all across the country right now...snow seasons starting earlier and lasting longer....................when I left for work this morning it was 27 degrees....I wish global warming was real damn it, cus its flippin cold outside this year. Last years low temp all winter here was 33. And that was i nthe coldest month in mid january, we are in early decmber still and its 27 last night...

Global warming my arse........

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

"Look around, global warming??????????? Last night is 29 degrees here, when normal and average for this time is 42................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This is what passes for scientifically sound statistical analysis in the conservative community. If you made that statement to any statistician they would laugh in your face.

Anyhow you are just flat out wrong:

"# NOAA scientists project 2009 will be one of the 10 warmest years of the global surface temperature record, and likely finish as the fourth, fifth or sixth warmest year on record.
# The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record,"

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report

And reality (science) smacks you again in the face Stillow.

____________________

Xenobion:

Stillow its called CLIMATE CHANGE. As in your abnormal Winter being cold is a sign of the problem although I'm not going to say that your localized problem is truely it. The average temp for the year will be up and the seasons will be more radical.

The results stem from looking at glaicer melt and desertfication. Having more 20 year floods than in say... 20 years.

____________________

Stillow:

obamalover

mmmm hmmmm....are those sceintists freinds with the other "scientists" who just got caught forging evidence, lying about actual data and manipulting computer models to show a result that is false....and then tryign to find ways to cover up the truth?

Look around......winter storms started earlier this year and are goign to last longer.

Do you realize how lame you guys look when your telling me its warming and then you look around and all across the country we have record lows and snow storms showing up earlier than ever?

____________________

Stillow:

Ahhhh yes, I forgot the libs dropped global warming when it started cooling and now it scalled climate change. So when it cools its man made global climate change, when it warms its man made global climate change.

LOL....you guys kill me. As I said, we've warmed and cooled for BILLIONS of years, but poooof, all of a sudden its man made global warming, I mean global cooling, darn it, I mean climate change.

How do you guys keep al lthe lies straight on this issue? You keep changing the terms to fit that particular years weathe rpattern.

We're all going to burn to death....ooops, I mean freeze to death. Damn it, I meant burn again.

This is a huge laugh watching you guys change the terms, blame man for what sbeen going on for billions of years....we're burning, we're freezing....how do you guys keep it up?

Its a hoax, your own bogus scientists were cuaght admitting its a hoax.

Hmmm, well now I cannot decide if I am hot or cold.

____________________

Xenobion:

Do you understand how lame you look when you look at the fact that you can almost go around the Artic Cirlce year round, how there is no snow on Mount Kilimanjaro, ect. ect. But wait Stillow I'm not sure, your previous position was that warming was natural and now you're saying that warming isn't happening. Which argument is it going to be?

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

Do you realize how lame you look when you disregard scientific studies on GLOBAL climate in favor of merely looking out your window?

Do you even care that conservatism has become synonymous with anti-science?

____________________

Xenobion:

I don't believe you understand the difference of Global Warming and Climate Change. Both are independent of each other. Another instance of not knowing the facts.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - Woudl those be the "scientific" studies your side just got busted forging? And coming up with ways to hide the fact that global warming is not real?

X - My argument is again, that for BILLIONS of years we have warmed and cooled. Do you not understand that? We have had multiple ice ages in our history and multiple warming cycles. The earht is doing what it has always done, warms and cools. Some years are warm, some are cold. some decades are warm, some are cold. How do you explain billions of years of this where man didn't exist? Why all of a sudden is it mans fault? Hmmm?

Explain to me in your enlightened way why the Earth has done this for billions of years, but now al lof a sudden its mans fault? One decade your wcky side tells me we are going to burn, another I am told I will freeze. You can't even make up your minds on what it is. Your science is bogus, you can't explain why this has happened since earth was formed, yet all of a sudden its mans fault.

____________________

Xenobion:

Wait so the earth is warming naturally but its not because its snowing outside your window. I'm confused so you're saying we're about to go into an Ice Age?

____________________

Stillow:

The Earth is extremely complex. we know very very little about. Perhaps these warming and cooling cycles which have occured for billions of years are needed for the Earth to survive. Since its happened since the Earth was formed, that tells me that its probably a required function of the planet. You can't just ignore history. Climate change? Of course the climate changes, every year is different. Some years you get heavy snowfall for example, some years not so heavy. This is perfectly normal for the climate to change and go thru various cycles.

Nature after all is run by a woman...and any of you who are married know that women go thru mood swings like you cannot imagine. So its normal for Mother Nature to change from year to year, decade to decade, century to century, etc. Only self lothing liberals think man is to blame and use it as an excuse to further control people and generate more revenue for liberal programs.

____________________

Xenobion:

So what you're telling me is global warming is just Mother Nature having a menstral cycle. It all makes sense now!

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

No. These studies come from an organization that had nothing to do with CRU in East Anglia. CRU is not the king of all climate scientists. There are many many scientific organizations besides this place in England. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So far in this discussion you have shown nothing but disdain for the scientific community. And you wonder why liberals view conservatives as troglodytes.

____________________

Stillow:

X - Give me a explanation why billions of years of warming and cooling cycles should be ignored.....because of a sudden its mans fault. As I said above which you guys seem to not want to address, were cavemen driving suv's? What logic tells you that for billion of years this occured, warming and cooling, but now all of a sudden, man and all hsi arrogance thinkits his fault...and not only that, but he can control it.

You guys ignore the obvious. You modify the science and the terms to fit a particular years weather pattern. You make scary movies in Hollywood. You photoshop pictures.

A changing climate is both normal and healthy. Been that way for billions of years and it will be that way for billions more....liberal arrogance is off the scale on this issue.

____________________

obamalover:

@Stillow

No. These studies come from an organization that had nothing to do with CRU in East Anglia. CRU is not the king of all climate scientists. There are many many scientific organizations besides this place in England. Sorry to burst your bubble.

So far in this discussion you have shown nothing but disdain for the scientific community. And you wonder why liberals view conservatives as troglodytes.

____________________

Xenobion:

I've pretty much concluded that global warming is a warm and fuzzy children's story book from this thread.

____________________

Stillow:

OL - your cat in the hat has been let out of the bag. Your science has been exposed for the fraud it is. Its a hoax. Trying to blame man for soemthing that has gone on for billions of years is simply foolish on your part.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

Just because you do not believe in a conclusion that is THEORETICAL and not been fully proven does not make you anti-science! That is pure garbage to say that conservatives are anti-science and the usual blah blah blah.

Secondly, the Earth has warmed and cooled naturally hundreds of times over the last 10,000 years. Stating this time its caused by humans is both laughable and arrogant (to think man can change the temp of the Earth).

That comes to my third point. There is a difference to believing in Global Warming and Man-made Global Warming. I believe in the former, not the latter. BUT, that does not preclude me from wanting a cleaner environment; clean air, water, and soil.

Third, the polar bear scenario is nonsense. The polar bear population has increased every year for the past 15 years according to World Wild Life.

Lastly, how did we get into cable commentators? Maddow i equate to OReilly while Olbermann is to Hannity. All are opinion commentators. For real news, i listen to the Fox Report with Shep Smith and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Get both sides of the stories that way.

Also, Stillow, I'll take your 29 degrees any day as it was 16 BELOW zero this morning in Denver.

X,
It has only been Climate Change in the last few years as the warmers realized they were wrong and the Earth has been cooling since 1998.

____________________

Stillow:

X - I'll make you a deal. Show me a real scientific study that is not controlled by politics or g'ment grants that gives an explanation to why climate change is man made and why we should ignore 4.5 billion years of the same thing happening. I want a actual reason why billions of years of historical evidence shoudl be tossed out and for some reason warming and cooling cycles are now no longer normal and are man made.....if you can do that I will send $1,000 to your favorite charity and send you the recept so you know its legit.

____________________

Stillow:

Sorry, I mean a copy of hte recept, I will want the tax write off :)

____________________

Xenobion:

FM Climate Change has been coined in scientific papers since the late 80's global warming a bit earlier by Dr. Wallace Broecker in 1975. Its a developing science and rather than understand these reports most people combine both these terms and disregard them. The hippy liberal agenda has been at it since the 1970's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

____________________

Stillow:

FM - My question is simple. I simply want to know why for billions of years it was perfectly nomral to have warming and cooling cycles. But now, all of a sudden in the 21st centuray it shifts from normal to man made. Everyone beleives in climate change, becasue history has shown us the Earth goes in cycles.

Everyone also wants cleaner air, water, etc. But that can be done without massive new taxation and regulations which will criple our economy and standard of living.

My question is simple....the warmers, the coolers or whatever they call themselves this year have no answer.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

There has been a rapid increase in global temperatures over the past 70 or so years unlike any in the earth's history. Yes there has been GRADUAL increases and declines in temperatures, but nothing this rapid. It is precisely this RAPID increase that makes our current situation so dangerous. And there is mountains of scientific data to back it up.

Secondly, this (2000-2009) is the hottest decade ever. Yes 1998 was an unusually hot year. But one year a trend does not make. Any statistician would laugh in your face with your assessment.

As for polar bears I believe you are confused. There is one sub population of polar bears that is increasing, but most polar bear sub populations are either stagnant or declining.

Fact of the matter is no major scientific organization disputes that man has had a significant effect on global warming. This is precisely why conservatism is viewed as anti science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

____________________

Xenobion:

I have 3 scientific articles I posted. They have to wait for approval though. I guess its because the links look so rediculous.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL, there are numerous scientists that have come out saying global warming is not happening including the former head of NASA, NWS, and founder of the Weather Channel. Not to mention numerous meteorologists and professors. Now, if these people who see the same data come to a different conclusion, then there obviously isn't scientific consensus.

In addition, i don't constitute consensus as a fact. Its when its proven beyond a reasonable doubt that i will accept it and "man-made" global warming is far from proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, a poll on here recently said that fewer than 30% of people believe in it.

Lastly, if you disagreed with the Isaac Newtons theory on the motions of planetary bodies, were you discredited and mocked and told "it's consensus!" among other things until 1919 when you were vindicated in being proved right by Einstein.

Again, its not proven until its really proven. Not by someone models that have a ridiculous amount of assumptions in them but proven completely by science.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

There are always going to be a VERY SMALL number dissenters. But the vast vast majority know global warming is happening.

Furthermore, We have hard data. There wasn't analogous data back in Newton's time because calculus was invented until... Newton discovered it. Before Newton's discovery of calculus the "consensus" was largely hypothetical (not even theoretical). We have hard numbers and data with regard to global warming. This is undeniable.

And unlike you, Sir Isaac Newton was well educated in the field and had the scientific training to discern that the "consensus" was wrong. You are no Newton.

Anyhow, soon after Newton's proof, Newtonian Physics did become the consensus. Hence the title "Sir."

Conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of Luddites.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

I skimmed over your paragraph on Newton and as a result misread it. Let me rephrase. Albert Einstein and his colleagues were able to come to their conclusions and form a new consensus because they had scientific evidence explaining a discrepancy in Newtonian physics that had been known about for a long time. You have no such evidence and there is no such unexplainable descrepancy.

Furthermore, Albert Einstein was well educated in the field and had the scientific training to discern that the "consensus" was wrong. You are no Einstein.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I hope that when Inhofe goes to Copenhagen to give his pointless speach, I can't wait to see the reaction, as he calls climate change of any degree a hoax. I doubt the crowd will stay quiet. He will be percieved to be the epitome of the "ugly American". Watch out for some Arab environmentalists, they may throw a shoe at him.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I am not arguing my case for Climate change to win political points and I never really wanted to believe that climate change is the truth. It has in fact been a issue that shouldn't be a liberal concern but a human concern. When I see people who are conservatives with a causes like a couple of evangelical pastors I have known, have passed out literature promoting recycling and promoting recyclable problems, and respecting God's earth. I applaud these people. The Catholic church has taken an even greater stand to fight climate change. It is clearly not a issue that either side should use to win political points; it is up to more people to accept the truth and work to change it. In my opinion I don't think any political candidate has gotten elected on environmental activism. I wish that both sides can come together on this issue, and stick to issues like taxes, healthcare reform, and terrorism to debate. Our planet is too precious to ignore.

____________________

Bigmike:

I don't believe MAN MADE climate change has been proven. Having said that, there are many legit reasons to support energy conservation and green technologies.

There is dollars and cents. There are numerous energy saving technologies that have a relatively short pay back.

There is all of the oil we import. It just doesn't make sense to me to enrich people who will use the money to try to kill us.

Anyone not in favor of clean air and clean water please raise your hand.

We don't need this phony Al Gore political crusade to make a case on this. Use real arguments and people might listen.

Farleftandproud

Why should we need to debate terrorism. Is anyone in favor of that, other than the terrorists?

____________________

Field Marshal:

I did not claim to be an Einstein nor Newton. So your assertion is asinine. The fact is that Newton was wrong but was the given consensus at the time. It wasn't until Einstein came along and proved it that the debate was settled.

It is the same for global warming. Just as in Newtons day, there are probably more scientists that believe in GW than don't. However, as in Newtons day, the evidence is merely theoretical, just as in today's global warming debate. So while they may be proven to be right when the evidence and technologies to do so present themselves, as of today, it is not possible. It is all derived based on modeling that uses the scientists assumptions is bound to be faulty. Once its proven without any of those assumptions, then i will believe in it. Until then, its just theory.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Newton is not necessarily wrong. He just didn't account for other factors that were unknown at the time. Students in schools and colleges use Newtonian equations all the time. Problem is it doesn't account for time dilation and what not, but Newton's equations are still fairly accurate so long as whatever is in motion is not moving relatively close to the speed of light.

Einstein came along and improved upon Newton's theories, and then other people came along and improved upon Einstein's theories.

You don't want to improve upon what scientists have discovered to be true. You are saying all the facts and evidence is wrong.

And you don't know more than the vast majority of climate scientists, and neither do I. That is why I give them deference. You choose to believe in an extreme minority opinion based on little to no scientific training. A minority opinion that ignores scientific data collected over many decades.

There has been a clear trend of a rapid rise in global temperatures the past few decades; the 2000-2009 decade is the hottest ever. And yet there is no global warming? What planet are you and your conservative Luddites living on?

____________________

Bigmike:

obamalover

the 2000-2009 decade is the hottest ever

Do you have a reliable source on that. Seems that I have heard otherwise.

____________________

obamalover:

@Bigmike

Here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report

And may I ask where have you heard otherwise?

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

I love the way liberals discuss thing; so angry and devoid of the ability to debate others without using 5th grade rhetoric and name calling.

Newtons little miscalculation made his formula incorrect. Thats fact.

Second, the Einsteinian universe is still correct. It wasnt an improvement, it was a correction.

____________________

obamalover:

@Field Marshal:

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Much of what Newton stated is correct, but it was not complete as it didn't account for how certain properties change as one's velocity increases, which is insignificant at speeds that Newton could have observed. But at higher speeds these property changes become very significant.

For example, Newton came up with the equation F=ma. It is very accurate at normal speeds. But at speeds approaching the speed of light it becomes necessary include the Lorentz factor. So you get F=(lorentz)ma. That equation is a modification of Newton's earlier work. Hence, improvement.

Einstein didn't ignore Newton's work. What you people are doing is ignoring facts and data from the vast majority of the scientific community, so you can live in you deluded fantasy land where global warming doesn't exist.

____________________

saywhat90:

The fact is noone knows for sure if it is a hoax or not. All I know is this if let's say the winters get longer in a state that normally doesnt have long winters and it happens every year then that is not a natural occurence of mother nature. especially if the changed occurs over a decade and not a millenia.

____________________

saywhat90:

Oh and noone on either has any real proof either way that the other is selling the public a shell game.

____________________

obamalover:

@saywhat90

Wouldn't this be proof?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+Report

I feel like no matter how much scientific data is on our side you people are going to ignore it. You people are like the birthers. The birth certificate was produced and even a newspaper the year he was born announcing his birth, and those birther nut cases still won't buy he was born in America. You people don't care about proof. You just want to live in your fantasy world.

____________________

saywhat90:

Woo Woo. I'm not a denier. What I'm saying this discussion is far from an absolute one on either side. I happen to think there is something going on.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

You clearly don't know the difference between right and wrong and do not have the ability to read my posts. Go back and read them all. I said Newton was wrong in regards to the motion of planetary bodies. He was wrong. Einstein fixed his theory/calculation. But this is not a discussion about Newton. This is about what is known to be fact. I'm sure, in the 200 years between Newton and Einstein, scientists said Newton's calculation was settled, consensus, and fact. It turned out it wasn't. The same could be said about "man-made" climate change. There is still no concrete evidence MAN is the one causing the Earth to warm.

We have warmed and cooled numerous times over the centuries. But this time its Man and its all done using computer models with dozens and dozens of human assumptions. Once there are no assumptions put into the models and they show man is causing it, then i'm prepared to believe it. Until then, it seems to be a money making scam for Al Gore and some scientists to siphon money from grants.

____________________

Field Marshal:
____________________

Thaddeus:

I fully grant the warming and cooling and natural cycles, however, when CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere from 315 to 385, it's odd to think, eh, that's not going to have an effect. As a country we get caught in the moment of whose right and whose wrong, I'd ask what's the probability that the science is right, that your willing to risk the future of the planet for your kids and grandkids. Or are you willing to wait until it's 100% proven that we're all screwed until you take action. My guess is you wear a seatbelt, have insurance, etc. just in case...

And saying it's 29 outside is the same as me saying I have a job, my wife and family have jobs, what's this recession your talking about?

____________________

obamalover:

@Field Marshall

OMG. You don't understand it is not that there is a warming. There have been gradual warmings and coolings for millennia. The problem is that the global temperature change has been highly accelerated; not gradual. The world's ecosystems cannot adapt to such rapid rise in temperature(oh let me guess you don't believe in evolution either, right?).

There has never been this rapid rise in temperature. Ever. And this rapid rise in temperature has coincided with the massive release of gasses that are known for a fact to cause a greenhouse effect. The correlation is so strong that it is just plain silly to deny it unless you have hard concrete evidence to the contrary, which you don't.

Climate change was known about well before Gore's crusade, so this is not the product of a money making global conspiracy scheme. That is pure paranoia. And in regards to "climategate" the data that they were allegedly trying to hide was reported almost 10 years ago right after these e-mails were produced. So no data has been hidden from the public. Moreover, we are talking about one climate center amongst dozens. Now because a few scientists in one center made some stupid comments between each other via e-mail there is a massive conspiracy amongst global scientific community. That is patently absurd.

There were inconsistencies with Newton's theories known about for a long time (one being mercury's orbit). Einstein came along and fixed that. There is no known inconsistencies here. And like I said you are no Einstein, so you should give deference to people who know more than you. That being scientific consensus.

____________________

Thaddeus:

A funny side note, Kiplinger's did a whole magazine on how to make money off of the Climate change policies. Specifically stating they were not endorsing any position, but were focusing on how governments and consumers were responding to what was happening and how you can make money off of the new technologies, which business were going to get government contracts etc. Basically saying hey if they are wrong or right we can make a boatload of money off of yuppie freaks willing to pay $5,000 more for a hybrid, or $600 more for a HE washer... They were flooded with hate letters and people canceling their subscriptions. Funny how people turn away from their self interest.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Ugh, did i claim to be Einstein? Do you think you are an Einstein? No. What kind of silly post is that?

There is a stronger correlation between solar activity and the rise (and fall) of temperatures than there is between CO2 release and temperatures.

Check out the pic below. Shows that when sunspots were at a minimum, we had a mini ice age. While lately, until 1998, sunspots were very high which correlates perfectly to temperature readings. We can also correlate it going back before 1900 when there was minimal CO2 discharge.

That is consensus as well. But since it doesn't fit in to the global warming/wealth redistribution hoax and is basically settled, scientists and Al Gore will never admit it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

____________________

Field Marshal:

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/

http://www.nipccreport.org/chapter5.html

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/97/19181.html

http://tqe.quaker.org/2007/TQE158-EN-GlobalWarming.html

Seems to be strong consensus between the correlation of solar activity and the planets temperatures. I think i'll stick to my skeptical stance on the whole CO2 thing since that's only been around 150 years while there always has been solar activity. Plus the correlation is higher.

I think i'll keep driving my Hummer and using my gas lawn mower until there is more definitive proof and scientists no longer have to collude and trick the public into believing CO2 is what is causing global temperatures to rise.

____________________

Xenobion:

LOL Field Marshall 4 of the 5 of your articles support greenhouse gas global warming. The 2nd one doesn't dispute it but supports that Solar Irradience is primary but really says nothing about C02.

How bout reading what you post? lol.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

I am saying you are in no position to say that the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong. Einstein was in such a position. Hence, you are no Einstein. Get it?

There are multiple factors that have an affect on the earth's climate. No educated person is saying that only greenhouse gasses have an effect on the earth's climate.

Anyhow, there are so many problems with your contention I hardly know where to begin. Firstly, if this was the cause of the RAPID warming then why hasn't there been similar rapid warmings particularly bordering the Dalton Minimum? The 2000-2009 decade is the warmest on record. Why doesn't this correspond with the decline with the sun spot record? 1950 had the most sunspot activity on record Why is it that global temperatures are so much warmer now? Now sunspots do have some affect on global warming, but it is not the cause to the rapid increase in global temperatures we have seen. That much is certain.

Here is a quote from your own link:

"Solar forcing would provide only about one-fourth as much warming, if the
solar trend persists over the same period," Dr. Willson said. "Solar forcing could
be significant, but not dominant."

"Greenhouse warming, in which gases created by human activity trap more
solar heat in the atmosphere, is expected to increase temperatures on Earth by
about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 50 to 100 years. By contrast, according
to Dr. Willson, solar forcing - the sun's effect on long-term climate - might
account for between 0.7 and 1.4 degrees of warming over the next 100 years, if
sustained at the pace his observations suggest."


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Wow. Kind of screwed your own argument on that one. LOL!

There is definitive proof. You just choose to live in you fantasy land. Where there is no climate change and no evolution. And Jesus rode his dinosaur to church on Sundays. LOL!

____________________

Thaddeus:

FUNNY! The description of the pics say "Changes in carbon-14 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, which serves as a long term proxy of solar activity" Thanks FM for basically saying that carbon affects global temps. But it can't be better said then the posting itself "residual warming due to the sustained high level of [sunspot activity] activity since 1950 is responsible for 16 to 36% of recent warming"...the rest is greenhouse gas emissions. And the Quaker paper which finds that sunspot may account for up to 37% while sunspot and CO2 seems to account for 87% of surface temp changes.

Any other offers of proof to shoot yourself in the foot or are you only carrying a six shooter today?

____________________

Xenobion:

I don't think anyone denies that the Sun shines on the Earth and warms it and that solar flares/winds effect temp. To call it the primary reason of global climate change is dubious though. I have read stories about solar flare patterns somewhat increasing but nothing conclusive to the climate change debate.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Ride my dinosaur to church? What the hell does that mean? Only morons write stuff like this...

UGH... you're kind of think it seems so i'll write this a few times so maybe repetition will help ingrain it.

I didn't say the scientists were wrong. JUST THAT ITS THEORY AND NOT CONCRETE FACT. Einstein proved it through existing data and calculations that his theory was correct. No assumptions needed.

I posted some of those because the science is all over the place. One says one thing while another says something else. You get it? Not difficult but you dont seem very with given the dinosaur to church comment.

And i didn't shoot anything in the foot. My goal was to show there is no CONCRETE evidence. HOW CAN THEIR BE CONSENSUS IF EVERYONE IS SAYING SOMETHING DIFFERENT??

DUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

No go ride your prious into the recycling plant!

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

1. How is it "all over the place" when pretty much everyone agrees sun spots are a contributing factor, but greenhouse gasses are the primary factor for the rapid rise in temperature? You seem very confused.

2. My comment about riding a dinosaur to church has to do with the fact that you conservatives believe dinosaurs existed at the same time as humans [snickers]. I also guess when it rains that means God is crying, huh? BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

____________________

Xenobion:

Ugh Field Marshall you're just digging your own grave. All your studies support Global Warming though C02 emissions. They also show support of "Solar Irradiation" which noone disputes but is not irregular in the warming of the Earth. Its not contradictory from the Global Warming Science debate, the journal articles you show prove that. We've obviously come up with our own articles supporting the science. You're welcome to nitpick them and tell us why they are wrong, but I don't believe you've read something supporting good science supporting your position on Global Warming. If you want to propose you blindly believe that Global Warming doesn't exist that's fine, I believe that is the popular opinion, to reject the science behind it, but please don't claim you have a scientific justification when all your journal articles do not support your position.

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

1. Well, if it was FACT, then all scientists would all be saying that sun spots and CO2 contributed X% and X% respectively. But we don't have that do we because its still theory. That's my point. And until its concrete, i ain't buying it.

2. That is the dumbest thing i ever heard. Where do liberals get this garbage from? Is that like you liberals who believe that Bush was behind 9/11? And that he is the anti-christ?

Your posts are beyond dumb by the way and like AL Gore and Obama, have lost most of your credibility in the last few. BWWHAAHAHAHAHAH!!

____________________

CharlieS:

FM,

Why are you debating with that moron Obamablower?? He is actually repeating a liberal lie about the earth being 6000 years old. No where in the bible does it state that. In fact, that lie is based on some Archbishop in the 17th century who estimated it, obviously incorrectly.

Then some libtard like OL picked up and they all, like the Obama-robots they are, repeated it.

Seriously, is there only one libetard in some back room doing all the thinking for these mindless, ignorant non-thinkers? Its amazing how one talk show host says one thing and they all go around repeating it like its the truth. Its sad and bears noticing how someone like OBama can become president.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

1. Global temperature data are not theories, they are recorded observations. You seem to be having a difficult time understanding that.

2. The vast majority of liberals don't believe Bush was behind 9/11. Whereas the leader of the conservative movement, Palin, does believe man and dinosaur coexisted:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

____________________

Field Marshal:

LOL Charlie! I thought it was something like that. Looked it up. Its called the Ussher Chronology and is no way connected to the bible or the founding of the church. Just someone making some wrong assertions, kind of like Al Gore!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher-Lightfoot_Calendar

Doesn't surprise me that liberals like to demean things that they dont understand. Its their nature. Sad. They have faith to believe in the theory of global warming no problem but when it comes to a higher being, that mythology! LOL!

I'm reminded of the Simpsons and Kent Brockman who said "If 60 degree days in December are the PRICE we must pay for global warming, then pardon me if i don't get rid of my old Pontiac!" LOL!

____________________

Xenobion:

"1. Well, if it was FACT, then all scientists would all be saying that sun spots and CO2 contributed X% and X% respectively. But we don't have that do we because its still theory. That's my point. And until its concrete, i ain't buying it."

Your studies do say this Field Marshall. They already purposefully quantify the two. Many make claims that the manmade effect is the majoritive effect over solar irradiation, meaning +50%.

Study #1:

"In their latest report the IPCC (Houghton et al., 1995) for the first time stated that the observed increase of the global average temperature during this century is unlikely to be due to natural variations in the climate only. Hence some, although still not quantified, part of the temperature rise is now believed to be the effect of the increase in the concentration of CO2 and other manmade greenhouse gases."

Study #2:

"The role of solar activity in causing climate change is so complex that most theories of solar forcing must be considered to be as yet unproven."

Study #4:

"Solar radiation will not displace the dominant role of atmospheric carbon
dioxide in global warming, but could be a significant contributing factor,
according to the new report, by Richard C. Willson, senior research scientist at
Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research, in the Sept. 26 issue of the
magazine Science."

Study #5:

"Indeed, the relationship between fossil fuel consumption and global mean temperature is strongest* when the fossil fuel series is lagged behind temperature by 25 years."

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Your girl Palin believes in it:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28

Ha!

And if you don't think 60 degree days in december will have serious consequences for the environment you are seriously misguided.

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

First, can everyone take a deep breath?

Second, for the benefit of CharlieS and anyone else that chooses to ignore "intelligent and civil" admonition on the post button, here are some excerpts from our comment policy: "If you can't act like an adult when you comment, please take it somewhere else." Those who continue to post "ugly, profane rants directed at other readers" risk lose their comment privilege on this site.

CharlieS, is that clear?

____________________

Field Marshal:

OL,

Read this link....
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/09/lorne-gunter-the-skeleton-of-climate-change.aspx

Seems that there are 4 major repositories of temp data and the two that do show a steep warming trend, especially in this decade, have been colluding and manipulating the data.
----------------------------------------------


The proof that the current climate summit in Copenhagen is not about environment and science, but rather about politics and ideology, can be seen in that fact that two weeks ago, some young computer programmer’s conscience got the better of him and he released computer code and emails exposing the skeleton of climate change. Yet almost no one in Copenhagen is talking about it.

It doesn’t matter that almost no one outside the climate change industry had heard of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia before the release. The CRU’s centrality to the mystery of Eco faith is undeniable. The CRU and GISS — NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies— are two of the four major repositories of temperature records in the world, the only two that show continuing warming and the two that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies on for its forecasts of disaster.

Scientists from GISS are also implicated in the torquing of climate data revealed in the recent CRU leaks. This is not surprising given that the head of GISS, James Hansen, is Al Gore’s science guru. He testified on behalf of environmental terrorists who attacked a U.K. electrical station, saying they should not be convicted because their vandalism was in the public interest. He has called coal trains “death trains.”

Nevertheless, delegates in the Danish capital have practically glossed over the CRU “Climategate” leaks. That’s partly because they refuse to let the facts get in the way of their cause, but it’s mostly because Copenhagen isn’t about climate change as a physical phenomenon, but rather climate change as an opportunity to regulate people’s lives and incomes on a global scale.

It’s about carbon taxes on rich countries to raise money for the UN to give to poorer countries, regardless of whether that has any impact on climate. It’s about international bureaucrats regulating business and personal decisions in the name of saving the planet. And it’s about giving the outward appearance of caring, about patting one another on the back for the deep moral superiority they are demonstrating as climate campaigners.


____________________

Xenobion:

So are you just fishing for a study or just coming up with propaganda from the other side. Why can't we keep this scientific? Do you still support the articles you used in this thread? I don't care about the CRU, East Anglica, whatever. I await your response.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR