Posts: 4
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Conservatives point out - correctly - that global warming has occured regularly in the past with periods of warming and cooling. They do however ignore one thing: the global warming that is now occuring is happening at an alarming and unprecedented rate, and all statistics show that the global warming is rising side by side with rising carbon dioxide emissions.
Why do most conservatives acknowledge that global warming is a natural process that has occured for billions of years, but yet most ignore the very different type of global warming we have today?
Posts: 13
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Because our scientists don't agree with yours.
Posts: 4
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
corrolation doesn't prove causality
The earth has been warming since the last ice age, as it did following previous ice ages
Fact
Posts: 8
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Because you are just plain W R O N G !!!
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Because it has been "occuring at an unnatural and unprecedented rate" for the last 30 years and nothing has changed climate wise.
Posts: 6
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Because there is no proof that we have a "very different type of global warming" than we have had in the past.
Posts: 8
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Plain and simple, it is not.
Posts: 11
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that your guys cooked the data in an effort to convince you that what you're saying above is in fact what is happening.
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Because the vast majority of gases being emitted into the atmosphere come from volcanic activity, and there is absolutely nothing that mankind can do to alter that.
Posts: 11
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
earth has its cycles.
what explains the ice age when carbon didnt exist?dinosaurs with matches?
Posts: 15
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
For the same reason I ignored the ice-age and the period of warming after that. It's a natural phenomenon.
Posts: 12
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Is it really? Hasn't it pretty much leveled off over the last 10 years?
Also, are you sure about unprecedented?
Seems to me there was a rapid warming period starting around 1100 AD.
Posts: 13
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
In their opinion Its an Act of god well for one God don't exist so what does god have to do with Big Oil killing our way of life nothing, and for two they want people to die because they are Church leaders and Oil executives and contributors to Koch Brothers hatred towards Obama and George Soros they hate science these people I'm talking about they think GOD is hurting them when In Reality Its MAN.
They are lost in Space.
Posts: 3
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Because Global Warming is nonsense. The people who started it have admitted as much. Al Gore jumped on it to make LOTS of money from mindless dummies that can't think for them selves.
Posts: 13
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
because in historic times when there have been even greater emissions, the temperature has not risen proportionately...
the idea that carbon emissions have any real effect on naturally occurring global warming or cooling is flawed logic and unsupported.
Posts: 5
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Only 2% of Scientists are conservative. It is very difficult to be a Scientist and believe in Conservative economic policies.
Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Because efforts to curb our output of gases and compounds that contribute to global warming is costly to companies and their shareholders. If eliminating these kinds of things was beneficial to their bottom lines, you would see more action in the business and government arenas. Conservatives are pro-business and liberals are pro-worker. Unfortunately the worker class is getting screwed.
Some will continue to deny the affect of man (and livestock) is having on the planet, but I do not. While I agree that Earth goes through warming in cooling cycles, what if the temperature, without our influence would have actually dropped? In that scenario, we are warming a cooling cycle and when the Earth's natural warming cycle hits...
Oh, and it's just not carbon. Methane (from aforementioned livestock) is one source, but the melting tundra could unleash a lot more of this gas, which is a lot more affective at warming the planet.
Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Anti intellectualism. The same reason they don't believe in evolution. There is a growing suspicion among the conservatives of scientists and science. It is very sad Americans are becoming the worlds biggest ignoramuses.
Posts: 12
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
You know what's funny. Man made carbon dioxide emissions only account for about 3% of the Atmospheres Carbon Dioxide. The rest is created via naturally occurring phenomenons.
Some things you should consider. We have only been keeping semi accurate weather records for about 100 years and that's being generous.
We can't even predict the next days weather yet. We just make assumptions based on patterns we see in the radar. It's accuracy rate is very low I believe less the 10%. So you're telling me you can't predict the next days weather but you can predict global climate change?
The biggest influence on the Earths Weather is ocean currents.
The biggest influence on ocean currents is the moon and it's gravitational pull on the Earth.
There have been some studies of the surface temperatures of Mars and Venus (our closest neighbors) some of these studies are suggesting they too are having the similar increases in Temperature.
The earths Climate has never been stable or steady. It has consistently swayed back and forth from hot to cold. We have been in a "warming" trend for quit some time.
The Polar ice caps have been melting long before man had a carbon foot print. Do you not remember learning about the Glaciers that formed the great lakes? or the ice bridge the used to connect Siberia and Alaska?
The Ice core samples are not as accurate as people claim for telling the earths temperatures. They are a few square inch sample of one section of the globe. You can drive 20 miles south or north and have a 3-5 degree change in Temperature. Basing an entire regions temperature off of such a small sampling is foolish.
There is a reason some people want a carbon market or cap implemented. It will create a trillion dollar industry. You've got to buy the energy you need now you will have to pay to use it. This basically gives them a cut of the energy market.
It will have little to no effect on Carbon Emissions especially from businesses. Factory Equipment uses specific amounts of energy and it can't be altered or changed. Up grading the equipment to more efficient equipment often has little to no effect it's also extremely expensive for a business to do. Equipment is expected to last 20-30 even 40 years or longer. Equipment isn't like your air conditioning unit at home you can't turn it up 3-4 degrees and decrease the amount of energy it uses.
Posts: 6
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
It is ignorant to assume that only conservatives disagree with some of the evidence that has been presented by some in their case of man-made global warming. Plus, many of the concepts proposed to reduce the role of human consumption of finite resources are not practical and would result in no net change in rates of global warming.
Mass production of electric cars is not the answer unless you have a way to handle the extra demand on the grid.
Posts: 9
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
There are sooooooooo many other factors that those chanting the "CO2" mantra is starting to look rather ignorant and/or uninformed.
Just one: This earth is deeply affected by events in space, especially by the action of the sun. For example, astrophysicists have reported that there is a huge solar event expected within the next two years. If worst-case scenarios play out, it will take out our electrical grid for at least weeks, if not months or years. The magnetic field around the earth has be changing for quite some time, making us even more vulnerable.
Volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, etc. also affect the environment profoundly.
The greenhouse gasses theory has merit, but does not stand up to deeper scrutiny.
Personally, I am deeply suspicious of narcissistic politicians who keep pushing the CO2-reduction plans which promise little measurable change besides the destruction of the economy.
If CO2 were REALLY the issue, wouldn't there would be a massive plant-a-tree effort by the government, since plants cleanse the air and produce oxygen as a byproduct? Somehow, I don't think the underlying issue is greenhouse gasses.
Posts: 13
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.
In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia ’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.
The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.
About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.
The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.
Posts: 12
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
Darlin', we ignore it because the so-called stats proving this "warming" have been PROVEN to be highly suspect. You put garbage data into your computer models and you get garbage computer models.
|
