All because of that liar George Will? Here is what the Science magazine article really said.
"One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80)."
20,000 years. He conveniently left that part out, and all of the other new media just regurgitated it.
I wasn't talking about the Science Magazine quote; that was in 1976. Global cooling was pushed since 1975. The government supported it in '75. In 1975, "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age" was pushed and published by eighteen authors. Newsweek and The New York Times, and I'm sure others, published and spread the idea. In fact, back as far as 1974 the National Science Board, scientists were promoting the cooling theory and were convinced a new ice age would happen within 20-30 years.
There was a frenzy, and George Will didn't create this, nor did the Science Magazine edition of Dec. 10, 1976. However, while the Science Magazine article didn't promote coming global cooling, Science News did March 1, 1975. This isn't a myth. There were people protesting about it. There was a real belief that science proved there would be a new ice age or at least a huge drop in global temperatures.
Maybe if you really want to know, you should research yourself. The science works, and anyone who gets even an elementary knowledge of dendrochronology will know that.
That's an easy way of saying that you have nothing to say.
Yeah, but you see, when more carbon dioxide is coming in, and less carbon dioxide is coming out(since forests are being cut down for strip clubs and cafes), more carbon dioxide stays in the air since it doesn't go anywhere until it condenses and whatnot.
Not only does the cutting down of trees not affect the cycle, it's otherwise not relevant to anything other than ecosystem destruction. The vast majority of oxygen comes from sea algae and not trees. Regardless, trees are always being planted and replanted, and even without intervention nature itself grows trees on its own. And even still, land vegetation isn't limited to trees. The more CO2, the more countless other forms of vegetation are spread. So some insignificant trees are lost in Latin America, meanwhile trees are also being farmed and raised and bushes, flowers, vines, grasses, and the king of Oxygen (algae) are all going to continue growing in number. So no, it's not staying in the air. It's being recycled by land vegetation and the oceans.
Didn't I just say that carbon dioxide wasn't the only thing? You said it yourself when talking about cow farts. There is methane and water vapor, you know.
That's another thing. We've also decided to classify water vapor - that's water in gas form - as a greenhouse gas. Now even the most generous calculations not only show CO2 numbers insignificant, they show water vapor making up darn-near all of the greenhouse contribution. So now nutrients for life to exist, water and CO2, are bad and need to be fought. It's ludicrous, and unless we plan on wiping ourselves out, there's nothing to be done about it. Our impact is insignificant.
Also, what the hell are you talking about? I'd say that the U.S Geological survey disagrees with you and that humans release more than 130 times the amount of greenhouse gases that carbon dioxide emits
It's basic math, and if that's too hard to understand, then maybe the skeptic isn't the uninformed one here. Also ...what? CO2 apparently is a greenhouse gas, so how is a greenhouse gas competing with humans in emitting greenhouse gases? I'll attempt to make some sense of that *thing* you posted. Humans produce greenhouse gases besides CO2 and that altogether exceeds the standalone CO2 emissions. Is that it? That's true, however even together all greenhouse gases from mankind are insignificant and couldn't even breach the 5% line.
but apparently, all the scientists are in one big scheme to take more money out of the people.
No, just some have intentionally mislead people by cooking the books and leaving out data, published findings for political reasons, and tried to cover their behinds, secure their jobs, and secure grants. But hey, tomato tomahto.
f you want to put absurd conspiracy theories on the board, lets just say that George Bush used ninjas to plant bombs in the Twin Towers and blamed it on the terrorists so he could invade Iraq.
Lol, conspiracy theories. Oh yeah, 9/11 Twoof FTW!!!111
But if you do truly believe that the only true scientists are the ones who aren't buying into this 'scam', then I just don't don't know what to say. Science and reasoning don't even phase your conspiracy theory shield. We might as well say that anything in space fake, since NASA and observatories paid so much to check that out.
No, I don't doubt that many scientists believe this. But then I don't doubt that they've believed countless other things over the years. It's just smashing to see you cling to scientific dogma.
What flawless reasoning. Just because someone doesn't go by what they preach doesn't mean it isn't true.
No, but it sure as heck makes me less likely to listen to them or what they have to say, or to take them seriously.
This is more like an attempt at slander and libel rather than logical reasoning.
... How can something be both libel and slander? :cer_blankstare:
The most biased "news" group ever. Wow, all the scientific sites crumble to his conspiracy theories.
Uhuh, yeah yeah Faux News, Fakes News, blah blah Fox sucks. What exactly makes Fox, a station with every point of view from libertarians to socialists, more biased than MSNBC and CNN? Oh right, because they're not and that makes no sense, that's why. I still throw my support behind MSNBC, home of the Olberman, for most biased news group ever.
Did you even read what was there and put down your conspiracy shield for one second to read it?
Yes I did read them, and they said nothing. Here's a summary of what I read:
link 1- Nasa (see: hoax)
link 2- The UN and IPCC are authoritative. Greenhouse gasses are needed for life to exist. Buuuuttt... people gasses=bad. There is no debate on global warming even though there is. Different parts of the planet are warmers, and others are colder. The sun actually does affect the overall temperature.
link 3- Global warming is real. Humans cause it. This is controversial. We need to do something. There are signs of warming. Some parts of the world are warmer, but some aren't. It's warmer. We can't prove temperatures from thousands of years ago. There are gaps we fill in with other things. Computers help scientists make models.
Funny you distrust a new story because it's on Fox which is super fake, but believe United Nations and intergovernmental bodies which are sooo unbiased and untrustworthy.
You want to know dishonest? The big swindle used NASA graphs and it conveniently ended before the crap hit the fan. They also had to quote mine what Dr. Carl Wunsch said in order to support what they said.
That is not being ignorant, that is outright lying.
I'm not even a fan of The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was an out of left field reference to begin with, but there's no proof he was misrepresented or tricked or anything of the sort. There's no more proof he was wronged than that he wronged them. Get real with this quote mine stuff. And in the future please say distorted instead of quote mined. You're not a scientist, so using their jargon really doesn't fit; it's weird dude. Like, for realz.
Anyway, even if you believe some or all scientists/politicians/etc. are scheming to fool us: are you 100% certain they're wrong? A lot of the things that would reduce carbon emissions are good for other reasons like alternative and renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. What specific harm is there in playing it safe and is it worth the risk of being wrong?
Those in support of the global warming stuff always use this point, but that's not the argument. It's a completely different point and argument.
It's like saying we need a series of horrible laws to limit dropout rates because they increase child molestation, and then after that being rebutted, saying it's still a good idea to pass those laws even though the child molestation connection doesn't exist just because we should still want to limit dropout rates anyway.
Alternative energy is a totally separate topic in view. No I don't want to Latin American and Arab dictators holding America's energy supply ransom like in the 70's. That doesn't mean I have to believe a bunch of apocalyptic trash and support massive government bureaucracy and regulation of the economy, business, commerce, transportation, and the individual.
