AGW is a lie

[Greatcloud]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Alarmist beware the word is out

 

[Avatar]

I'm not grounded enough in the science to decide one way or the other. What I do know is that glaciers are retreating and my wife's people in the arctic are watching the permafrost that has been frozen for thousands of years melt under them, with disastrous results for their infrastructure. Somethings up.

 

[Greatcloud]

Global warming is true we do have high global temperatures. AGW is not true it has not been proven. AGW is man caused global warming . Read the article.

 

[Avatar]

Global warming is true AGW is not. AGW is man caused global warming. Read the article.

Don't condescend to me. I do not comment on articles without reading them.

 

[Greatcloud]

I was not condescending I was being brief.

Can we discuss the article ?

 

[Avatar]

I was not condescending I was being brief.

Can we discuss the article ?

If you'd like. I've already said I do not know the science well enough to make a determination. I submit that applies to well over 99% of the population.

So what are we left with? Who to believe. The voice in the wilderness or the thousands of scientists who blame CO2? Maybe that lone voice is right, but how am I (or the majority of others) to make that determination? Spend 8 years in university? Or flip a coin?

 

[Greatcloud]

AGW has never been proven if it was everyone would know it.

Here is what we are to do we wait while the disasters don't happen,do you know of any that have happened ? WE WAIT TIL SCIENCE FINDS THE ANSWER.

 

[Washington]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
never mind

 

[Greatcloud]

The lie is that AGW is proven it is not.

Mr. Washington if it is true you go ahead and prove it.

 

[juvenissun]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Alarmist beware the word is out

The earth has been warm and has been much warmer. So, now the warming of the earth is not new even it is true. I do not know what caused the warming many many times in the past. It might be CO2, might be CH4 or could be some other reasons.

Even the greenhouse gas is increasing, even we contributed some CO2 into the air, it may still not be our fault for the warming earth. just like we do not know the reason of glaciation, we do not know the cause of global warming.

Any one who claimed that we know is purely political in motivation.

 

[3sigma]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Alarmist beware the word is out

If you want a little more information on this, you could read this comment at RealClimate.org, the responses embedded within that comment and the links within those responses. In fact, you could read the RealClimate web site in general, if you want some further information.

 

[exxxys]

I believe in Global Warming, but not in Al Gore's movie. If we don't eliminate all the pollutants within four years and the temperature will spike 14 degrees?

I think I may be exaggerating, but the movie has about 11 main points been proven false thus far.

 

[Tomk80]

The earth has been warm and has been much warmer. So, now the warming of the earth is not new even it is true. I do not know what caused the warming many many times in the past. It might be CO2, might be CH4 or could be some other reasons.

Even the greenhouse gas is increasing, even we contributed some CO2 into the air, it may still not be our fault for the warming earth. just like we do not know the reason of glaciation, we do not know the cause of global warming.

Any one who claimed that we know is purely political in motivation.

Not really. Given that modern day CO[sub]2[/sub]-levels increase before the global temperature increase, and that modeling gives the most accurate representation the temperature increases if we include anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in them rather than only using the natural forcings that we are aware of, the best supported conclusion at this point is that global warming would not be happening, or at least be happening at a slower rate, without anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. Concluding this is valid given the evidence, regardsless of the politics.

 

[Tomk80]

I believe in Global Warming, but not in Al Gore's movie. If we don't eliminate all the pollutants within four years and the temperature will spike 14 degrees?

I think I may be exaggerating, but the movie has about 11 main points been proven false thus far.

It has. Are you referring to the points that were decided on by a judge in England. And have you read the judges decision on that?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Reducing the worlds reliance on dwindling fossil fuels is a good idea even if it does not effect global warming.

Are you saying that we should not even attempt this one small step in not polluting ourselves out of a planet?

 

[juvenissun]

Not really. Given that modern day CO[sub]2[/sub]-levels increase before the global temperature increase, and that modeling gives the most accurate representation the temperature increases if we include anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in them rather than only using the natural forcings that we are aware of, the best supported conclusion at this point is that global warming would not be happening, or at least be happening at a slower rate, without anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. Concluding this is valid given the evidence, regardsless of the politics.

That may be true. But the argument is that even without the human contribution, the greenhouse gas could still rise, but at a slower pace.

So, what would be the difference? What would be the difference for a coastal area which get flooded within 100 years or within 500 years? In my opinion, the sooner it happens, the better. If it happened 1000 years ago, not much care would be paid to it. People just moved away.

 

[Blayz]

Well, I find myself wavering on this issue now. On the one hand we have a movie with an ex politician, and on the other an article in a newspaper from some guy that used to work in an office.

If only we had some form of peer-reviewed objective based system for reporting the evidence, we would not be forced to present someone's grudge or agenda as proof.

 

[Greatcloud]

CO2 is not a toxic gas we breathe it out all the time,it has come into the news because some scientist state, but can't prove their theory, GHGT. These people are called Alarmist. Show me one disaster from ^ co2 .

This one small step, so called, could cause worldwide recession if done in a rush.

 

[3sigma]

Show me one disaster from ^ co2.

Lake Nyos.

 

[corvus_corax]

That may be true. But the argument is that even without the human contribution, the greenhouse gas could still rise, but at a slower pace.

(emphasis mine)
And that is quite the point.
Although a point you apparently don't care about

So, what would be the difference? What would be the difference for a coastal area which get flooded within 100 years or within 500 years?

Ummmmm, well let me think about that for less than one second
Ah Yes! The difference is 400 years, nearly twice the age of the USA. 400 years allows for a much greater potential for changes and adaptation than 100 years does. It's a no-brainer

In my opinion, the sooner it happens, the better.

Typical "Humans should subdue the planet" attitude prevalent amongst so many Christians.
Do you defacate on your dishes? Do you urinate in your living room? No that's not sacrcasm.... it is the reasonable conclusion one should reach when one holds an attitude you have.

If it happened 1000 years ago, not much care would be paid to it. People just moved away.

Yeah, lol, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. 1000 years ago things were a bit different. Humans weren't dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans weren't dumping into their rivers and oceans like we are now. Humans, read this carefully, weren't driving cars all around the globe.
Speaking of "moving"-
How many people living east of the SA fault have moved? How many people living in "tornado alley" have moved? How many people living in southern florida have moved? How many people living in the shadow of Mt Rainer have moved?
And if you don't get the point of those last four questions, I'll be willing to spell it out for you (with pictures if necessary)