mrjamwin wrote:Saywer your own hyporcrisy is evident. You could never debate anything with an American Consverative because you couldn't answer the factual truths to a debate and would rely totally on emotion.
One recent example discrediting your above sentence: April 8, 2011, R-Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl said that abortion services comprise 90% of Planned Parenthood. Despite the actual numbers being 3% and a spokesman for Sen. Kyl says that his remark was "not intended to be factual a statement."
mrjamwin wrote:I'm sorry Matt, but not all peers in the scientifice communtiy agree only those peers who want to believe in global warming because with faking it.
The sentence was a little confusing... either way. Belief in something is generally not things that blend well with the Scientific Community. I don't know where the assumptions are that the majority of scientists are against Climate Change or that they believe in Climate Change. Each scientific field has some direct (meteorologist & geologist for example) and indirect (Ecologist) studies on Climate Change and it generally accepted that Climate Change (Global Warming as sub category) is part of the Earth's History. The proper term for your stance should be: Anthropogenic Climate Change. Meaning that your view is that humans have no effect on the climate of the planet in the past and future, so we should not worry about it and continue with our current lifestyle. Right?
mrjamwin wrote:These scientist would never have a paycheck and I'm not going to spend my time using Wikipedia which is not a true factual based informative website.
Several scientists indeed do not receive paychecks for their research, some doing it for fun/hobby to help out with the research regardless of their views on Climate Change. Wikipedia was never intended to be used a scientific source, but it can give one a short over view and help with the general concepts and simple understanding of Climate Change. In turn, no wiki should be used as a source for facts, that includes other wikis like Conservapedia (which is even less factual).
@ Niterunner81: Every slightest decrease in temperature disproves Climate Change (in your terms Global Warming)? These are short term variables, most temperature readings are done with averages over a year up to several decades. The problem with using chemicals on crops is that it inadvertently affects not only insects but animals as well. As the chemicals get absorbed through the ground (by rain), they can be transported to areas we would generally not want them to go. For example into underground aquifers where we get our drinking water, or into lakes/rivers where fish, birds and mammals can be affected. Some households do not wash fruits/vegetables prior to consuming them, inadvertently ingesting these chemicals. Organic farming hopes to reduce these effects by avoiding these harmful chemicals and using more natural forms to protect the crops.
burzerker wrote:If you look at the so called UN group on climate change you can see that the "scientists" that are involved in it for the most part aren't even climate scientists. Try looking at what Richard Lintzen has to say on the subject, his credentials are hard to argue with, unlike the guy that headed the UN panel (from India I believe) who has NO background at all. CO2 is a following factor of temperature increases, not a cause. As the temp rises more CO2 is emmited from natural sources, nothing to do with what little we humans add to it. It accounts for .03% of the atmosphere, to lower that a tiny fraction would require us to live like cavemen. Everytime a volcano erupts there is more carbon emmitted than is put out by a country in a year.
Current data do imply that CO2 concentrations do follow temperature increases like influx of solar radiation over several decades or centuries can increase decomposition in Boreal ecosystems, releasing CO2. Other factors can be due to increased fires from the rise in temperatures. What we are currently experiencing is the reverse, CO2 concentrations are rising (at a much higher rate than from natural causes) before temperature increases. Also, Corpse and I mentioned the absorption spectra concerning CO2. With volcanoes contributing to CO2 emissions is true, but there is a difference. Volcanoes existed over the course of Earth's history, within the past several thousand years, the emissions of volcanoes have not changed significantly and data showing that CO2 levels before the Industrial Revolution have been mostly steady/constant. After the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is when CO2 levels have begun increasing significantly. CO2 is not the only gas that can affect temperatures, I mentioned like methane and ozone also contribute. Each of them have experiencing increases in concentrations since the Industrial Revolution. Adding them up could have an effect on temperatures.
Cheers
Yanoda
I live a better, cleaner life style now by using less energy, not sending everything to landfill by recycling and caring about the environment I live in and thats down awareness. I cant say for sure that the climate problem is 100% true, but if my actions and others how ever small help to inprove were we live that can only be a good thing.
