http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GaFrUFCVQg

3_Series;221294 wrote:
People need to realize that global warming isn't a debate, but a real issue going forward. There is very little debate in the scientific community, (you know, the people that study this sort of stuff for a living) as to whether it is being caused (or perpetuated) by man or not.

But on a lighter note yes, we could use some right about now.

shit lets all move to alaska now to beat the rush of ppl...

3_Series;221294 wrote:
People need to realize that global warming isn't a debate, but a real issue going forward. There is very little debate in the scientific community, (you know, the people that study this sort of stuff for a living) as to whether it is being caused (or perpetuated) by man or not.

But on a lighter note yes, we could use some right about now.

You're cracked. Whether or not global warming is an issue is still up for debate

Consider this: the overwhleming majority of "scientists" are government employees who have to put forward proposals to secure funding every year. If they say "nothing to see here", where's the money coming from? If they say "the sky is falling", the money flows freely.

If you read the IPCC (international panel on climate change, the UN-sponsored body that has collected the "consensus" on warming research) most recent paper, the climate model they're using relies on some dubious assumptions. Notably, the predicted warming comes not primarily from atmospheric CO2, but from feedback loops assumed to be present in the model. That is, if we double the atmospheric CO2, that may result in a 1C increase directly (and note that the greenhouse effect is demonstrated and not up for discussion), but the IPCC paper says that the additional 2-4C of warming comes from side effects like cloud changes, water-borne CO2 recapture, etc that are side effects / feedback loops in the world-climate system.

Now here's the rub -- there are only 2 or 3 papers, written by 2-4 guys, that discuss the modelling parameters for these feedback loops. And these papers (and the IPCC report) admits that they're not even sure if the feedback loops are additive or not. Yet the model relies primarily on the feedback loops, and assumes that they are positive, to show its alarming warming predicitions.

The "controversey" shouldn't be about whether the greenhouse effect is real or not (it is), but what the nature of the feedback systems in the world climate model is and what the CO2 sensitivity of those loops are. Nobody is talking aobut it, and the IPCC findings are based on seriously juts a couple of papers by a couple of people.. and those papers offer nothing conclusive and nothing with broad experimental support.

You and I are too young to remember this, but in the 70s, there was worldwide panic over global cooling and the next coming ice age. Glad the consensus of scientists was wrong that time also.

You should also note that invariably, people banging the climate-change drum want far-reaching government powers, and coercive behavior modifications over other parts of the populace. For many people, environmentalism in general, and lately, climate change, is just the latest way to try and gain power over others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere

Yeah yeah, it's Wikipedia. The articles sources are listed at the bottom if you truely care to follow up on them.

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

But on a lighter note yes, we could use some right about now.

amicheze;221197 wrote:
Psh. It's all a giant conspiracy anyway.
but... but.... Al Gore said so......