Thats completely incorrect. Nearly every buoy in North America (the exception - ironically - is Alaska, where melting ice is causing the land to rise faster that the ocean) show gradually increasing sea level. Were talking buoys with periods of record of a century of more..(Lewes, Delaware, Atlantic City, New Orleans, Baltimore, Long Beach, CA) show about 1 foot of SLR in the past century.
It's also worth noting any other factors during a time period with high temperatures. Did it happen during a higher level of solar radiation taking place every 24 years or other factors. All I'm saying is there isn't enough evidence showing that CO2 causes temp change. The evidence can not be just an opinion. It has to be fact and undisputed before passing legislation that will affect the world. After the weapons of mass destruction lie, I'm hoping you agree that things should be debated and we better be sure of their accuracy. I believe the topic still should be debated. We can not take the old saying "I think this causes climate change" and then change our entire world around unproven jargon. Let's see the number/graphs supporting your claim. Can you provide a study or publication proving your point with high levels of other factors (besides CO2) during that period? It's sad that many people just look for changes in CO2 because that's what they want to prove instead of looking at the whole picture and other variables.
Don't get me started on the Greenhouse effect too and Suzuki's admitted lies. Do you know how much man made CO2 contributes to the greenhouse gases? I'll give you a hint, it's less than 1 percent.
I'm going by Dr. Morners studies that look at the last 50 years not 100 years. I'm just going by a former chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change who has extensive knowledge on the matter and was not appointed by corrupt politicans.
you could look at the buoy data itself, instead of what others have to say about it. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstablefc.htm
I'm sure people are tired of my rambling and I'll leave it to others to discuss. My last points. My whole opinion is that things have to be debated. They can not be considered fact just because some scientists or politicians say it is fact. The data has to be analyzed, debated, and tested. Then, there has to be a concensus. I'm dreading the day when there isn't any more questioning and we believe everything we are told. This can happen when we trade freedoms for security or when we can be jailed/fined for not following CO2 regulations for an unproven opinion. That's all. I'm sure many of you disagree with my points, but that's what science is about. Coming together for a common solution. In the end, we are all after the same thing, a healthy planet. Just never be afraid to question anything even when they label dissent as unpatriotic (govt officials are now labeling opponents of global warming as unpatriotic and insane. Just keeping quiet and believing everything that big brother tells you is the only way, lol. I think I'll continue thinking for myself)
Do you have any idea how percentages work? 1% of something measured on a global level comes out as a huge number...
right, scientists with real data, and real background. Which is the opposite of what is going on in this forum. This creates a terrible debate. As a witness, scientists that have been debating this subject and all related studies - have by and large come up with the global warming theory. We are talking about something like 98% of the experts in the field agree that humans are increasing CO2, and that this will cause some significant human induced climate change within the next 100 years. Lets say, 2% of the experts are skeptics (which i think is prob too large of a number), then without understanding the studies, which side of the story should we jump on ? Well, for me, it would be neither. I would have to really understand the studies themselves to actually form a solid opinion. Also, I want to add, that out of the 2%, I dont think anyone disagrees that humans are increasing CO2... I think it just a matter of the data backing up the future consequences.
a little more than 1/2 of scientists agree with global warming/climate change. I guess the other half aren't as intelligent as yourself, master of all.
I agree with your last point. We all believe we are emitting more CO2 based on industry, but I don't agree with the theory that CO2 causes temp change, that's all I'm saying. We need more science. There are over 50,000 scientists that disagree with CO2 causing temp change. I'm not saying which side is right. I'm just forming my opinion based on my research. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and right now it is just an opinion. We need more indepedant studies on the matter.
not even close. The skeptics are a vast minority. But, you are right... the real debate is at the extent of consequences.... And, with this we are talking about something that is very debatable, based on statistical error and unknowns about physical processes. And, I wouldnt pretend to know answers, but just try to understand the studies that have been done and the flaws involved. And, Liam, I'm not sure why you assumed which side I was on.This is what I said in my first post:
Here are some good quotes from global warming skeptics many who once worked for the UN IPCC committe and can now be honest because they aren't receiving money. Interesting one is from Stanley Goldberg of the NOAA that there is only a small amount of opposed scientists. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
There was a recent, publicly released survey done in 2007 asking some 3000+ scientists their stance on global warming: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/ to, the question of whether humans have influenced climate change, about 82 percent agreed. But with scientists that identify themselves as climate scientists, 97 percent agreed. So, maybe my 98% was a little too high, but i knew it was high up there for climate scientists.
I guess it all depends where you get your information from. Anything on CNN, FOX or MSNBC is not really news worthy in my opinion, but that is just me. These corporations are about ratings and are influenced by government. Independant studies are far better than media channels which promote ideas benefiting them and the ones who control them. These media stations only give exposure to Republicans and Democrats causing most Americans to only believe these are the choices. Government and media are linked. That in itself is very scary. I watch public access televison and CSPAN mostly. Then, do my research in other media outlets. Watching Mainstream Media is equivalent to spraying black paint in your eyes. I would rather watch Jersey Shore, lol. I said I would stop rambling a while ago. I'm getting two deep and off the subject. Believe what you want. It's what makes us individuals and we have the right to practice freethinking.
The study was done by "academics from the University of Illinois" as noted in the article. Then, it was reported to the public by the news streams, as in this source, CNN.
"I'm not sure why we had to make personal attacks here." <<< I agree, even though I am good at it>>> "weak clueless sheep that will believe anything told to you."<<<< sorry about that all. I get upset when I know we could solve these issues and all others but those that everyone elects have no real intention of changing anything, or if they do, it will not be a true response to the problem, but more of a way to benefit one group over the masses. I think someone already made the point that we all agree that changes are happening and that we (human) are responsible for some amount of those changes. Hell yes we need to act, and quickly, on many fronts to change our habits and live in better harmony we our environment. You can beileve in the good intentions of those elected officials all you want, more then likely though the first motivation was profit, second was concern how this is going to effect the "WEST", which is tied to bottom lines, <<profit, and how the "WEST" can manipulate the third world countries so that we can ensure that the "West" are going to contiune to be able to exploit those countries and their natural resources. This just the tip of the ICEBERG, there are so many vested interest involved in this, so many different agendas. Population control, Natural resource control, consumption control, energy distribution control, Control, control, control.... It is such a shame that our world could literally be a true paradise for all, and we could solve all these problem very quickly and with minimum expense to all; yet greed and mans desire to dominate his fellow man to his own injury is place above all else. No matter what laws they pass, in the end I really do not believe that the entire planet will follow through. Just like Japan and their willingness to kill and eat every last creature in the ocean, how do ensure everyone is doing their part?
With all the bull being thrown by both sides and the so called scientists who are either deleting results or adding bogus results in, I believe its all part of the push for a New World Order. Cap & Trade is part of this entire scam. The rich will get richer (I'm talking about the core group of people who actually control what goes on in the world). Once Cap & Trade kicks in not only will energy go way up but that will trickle down to everything else we by because it takes energy to make stuff. Do you think China & North Korea will give a rats ass about their polution going into the air. Hell no ! We can't even get Iran under control. Don't believe anything the scum bags in Washington are telling us, their too busy taking bribes and cutting deals to push government health care down our throats. Many of them NEVER held a real job or ran a business. Big government is coming my friends. I know this is not part of the thread but think of the last time you dealt with the DMV or the IRS or whatever branch. Think about waiting for cancer treatment and relying on a government official to give you the ok vs your doctor. Yeah, I know insurance companies suck also but their a picnic compared to big brother.
Congratulations zach, you havent been been brainwashed by this thread. I agree with Barrels4liam and would like to meet him.
