 bferman says: I've often wondered why I haven't heard much in the way of evidence for man made global warming in the news. Finally, here is the explanation! I have read numerous reports of man made emissions of one kind of another increasing, but never any evidence linking those emissions to global warming. Simply saying that a scientist thinks this or that is not evidence. Real science is backed up with reliable data from reliable sources. global warming is real........humanity is simply not the cause. Real or not - isn't it a good thing to stop pushing poisonous gases into the air - of course some us of think that would be good, but others... I have to agree. Science shows that global warming and cooling has always happened to the Earth in cycles long before any human laid eyes on the planet. I also agree that it is a good thing to reduce pollution, but I think it should be done in a responsible way. Lets work to reduce pollution without breaking our economy. I'm gonna check that page out.....the one about "debunking global warming". Also, I just can't see or hear about anybody debunking Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Maybe I'll find it on that page. I'm just gonna click here and check it out! You might want to check out the documentary Inconvenient Truth ...... Come on somebody! Lets here some DEBUNKING! It's impossible to debunk a fact. http://www.pewclimate.org/document.cfm?documentID=668 http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/index.cfm Of course understanding facts means you have to do more than just read biased headlines or articles supporting one side or the other of the issue. It requires time and effort; reading data and scientific papers in peer review journals. Most people would rather just read a few opinion pieces and assume what they read is factual, when it's not even close. If you haven't personally done the reading, then you are uninformed or illinformed. FYI: OISM is a sham. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war. The OISM is locat... It's a combination of factors. Every few hundred years, there is a natural spike in carbon dioxide, caused by the earth. But because the earth was saturated with carbon dioxide when man started to produce it himself, all of the gas produced stayed in the atmosphere. So our concern should not be so much on reducing our output, but on absorbing our existing carbon dioxide. We are on uncharted territory. The ride will probably be a bit bumpy. Real science is backed up with reliable data from reliable sources.That's why real science says there is no global warming. The materialist's push consensus as their proof. It seems those that do their homework on this issue are starting to see the light. I've found that almost all that believe in anthropogenic global warming are the most ill-informed about the science. They have no idea that the evidence against it is much more solid than the evidence for it. Your use of the word "debunking" is wrong. It is debunked. The pavlovian flate-earthers just have not given up. The Medieval Warm Period is not the only obstacle. They have to explain at least 10 ice periods for last 100,000 years and at least 10 complete ice-melting events with the level sea rises more than 120 m. And those temperature changes up to 2-3 grad C per age against 0.6 grad C for last 100 years. By the way, what about the precision of their temperature reconstructions for last 100 years? So what is the GLOBAL warming? It is true that most people-alarmists don't ask themselves about. By the way, what about the precision of their temperature reconstructions for last 100 years?This is a good point. However, why worry with that. The accuracy of today's global temperatures is, at best, an inexact science. |
View the Top Clips from January 28, 2007
|
||
|
|
|||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||
