ATS Poll: How concerned are you about "Global Warming"?

originally posted by: C0bzz

We eat, but we aren't getting what we need.

Who exactly is "we"? If you are in a western country, then yes, you are getting effectively what you need to eat.

No. The food is becoming less nutritious. And genetically modified foods are a bomb getting ready to go off. The soil is becoming less fertile with less nutrition. So even if people eat, a lot of what we are eating isn't as nutritious as it used to be. And there isn't even enough of the food that there is for the people of the planet.

originally posted by: C0bzz
Hypocritical! Chicken little! Lazyness! The world would be better off with less opinions that are lazy, hypocritical, that think the sky is falling.

Oh brother. I'm not being hypocritical or Chicken little or lazy. I'm being realistic. The planet is overcrowded. It's becoming more so every day. And the hoards of people coming along aren't the brightest bunch. The Earth can't sustain humanity like this. That's reality. Give it a try sometime.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: C0bzz
Hypocritical! Chicken little! Lazyness! The world would be better off with less opinions that are lazy, hypocritical, that think the sky is falling.

Oh brother. I'm not being hypocritical or Chicken little or lazy. I'm being realistic. The planet is overcrowded. It's becoming more so every day. And the hoards of people coming along aren't the brightest bunch. The Earth can't sustain humanity like this. That's reality. Give it a try sometime.

Truthfully, if all the land reserved for governments and the super rich were redistributed there would be plenty of land to go around for every man, woman and child. To think otherwise is believing exactly what they want you to think. If companies were held responsible for creating garbage instead of sustainable quality goods we wouldn't need to act like slaves either. To think otherwise, is believing exactly what they want you to think.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Whether someone at some time predicted "a new ice age" is entirely irrelevant.

The ice age, or global cooling, was presented every year in the text books. As I recall the teacher never mentioned the ice age because it would take time to explain it to everyone. Every year in the first chapter of physical science, or earth science, or geology, or geography, there was a picture of a penguin or a polar bear or a snowy mountain and a dire remark about global cooling and the need for new sources of energy.

Are textbooks Irrelevant?

Let's be honest here, very few of anyone is going to give up burning fossil fuel if there isn't an alternative. No one is going to stop flying. No one is going to stop using their car. So, what's the point about worrying about climate change when no one has the will or the desire to alter their lifestyle? What will be...will be, and we all have to accept the consequences for whatever impact on the environment and planetary dynamics we made.

a reply to: Grimpachi

When you say leaked out..err does that mean you didn't bother to read them.

Information costs money. The studies actually making the case for global warming are probably paid subscription only.

What ever is available for free makes reference to the paid studies so is not convincing in itself.

There could be self-evident facts about the data or the mechanisms in favor of global warming. I have seen none presented here. Only conversation that assumes global warming is happening.

That said, the Earth has had at least one life caused permanent change. (top soil would be another) All of the oxygen in the atmosphere was put there by clorophyll, a process which uses which uses carbon dioxide. Less co2 could lead to less o2 as well. More co2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth, and less co2 in the atmosphere.

All ecosystems and organisms are based on steady state input and negative feedback control.

co2 is an input to the ecosystem at large.

"not worried at all" ... in 1992 I was contemplating the possibility of global climate change, and meditated on it ... during the meditation, I was shown a vision or a tree in a storm ... the wind had gusted and bent the tree very severely ... and then the gust stopped and the tree snapped back, and in the process broke in two ... I took this to mean that the climate instability will actually lead to a mini ice age, or perhaps a long one

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Information costs money. The studies actually making the case for global warming are probably paid subscription only.

When you say "probably" does that mean you haven't bothered to look for yourself which would mean everything else is only an assumption on your part.

Maybe you should actually look for the information first if you do I think you would be surprised to find how available it actually is.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The Myth of the 98 Percent

Do 98 percent of climate scientists really believe in man-made global warming? A little research reveals that the often-cited figure is a confused and erroneous reference to two different studies that both fail to prove what those who cite them believe or allege.


A fun project folks can do is match up who gets published the most .... and it's the alarmists who get published. Scientists get paid to find something and then only get published if they do. Does publishing bias contribute to the numbers of scientists who believe in man made global warming? Maybe.

Majority of Meteorologists Say Climate Change is Natural Event - George Mason University Finding

75% of Meteorologists Reject UN Global Warming Claims

Global Warming Petition Project
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition including 9,029 with PhDs.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”


in 2006 the National Registry of Environmental Professionals found 41 percent disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,”.

James M. Taylor is a paid propagandist from the Heartland Institute and the Managing Editor of Environment & Climate News, a Heartland Institute publication. He has a legal degree and no formal science training. The Heartland Institute has been funding a global warming denial campaign (read: paying for opinions just like big tobacco did) for some time. Here's some information about that and also here and here.

The study that he cited in one of your sources and that you also linked to (George Mason University of course) of TV weatherman who were meteorologists.

Specifically:

A total of 571 respondents completed at least some portion of the survey, a minimum response rate of 42%, and an adjusted response rate of 52%.

Was so misrepresented that:

Predictably, many climate contrarians have already misrepresented this paper. In fact, the Heartland Institute (of Unabomber billboard infamy) misrepresented the study so badly (and arguably impersonated the AMS in a mass emailing), the AMS executive director (who is a co-author of the paper) took the unusual step of issuing a public reprimand against their behavior.

The misrepresentations of the study have claimed that it contradicts the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The prior studies that have found this high level of consensus were based specifically on climate experts – namely asking what those who do climate science research think, or what their peer-reviewed papers say about the causes of global warming.

Most significantly:

The AMS on the other hand is not comprised primarily of climate experts. Some of its members do climate research, but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it's mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it's equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed). Just 2 percent of AMS climate experts said global warming is mostly natural, 1 percent said global warming isn't happening, and the remaining 4 percent were unsure about global warming or human causation.

source

Now let's look at this petition site. At least they were courteous enough to provide a breakdown of the qualifications of the petition signers:

Of the 31,487 signers we have:

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
Medicine (3,046)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102) - 322 metallurgists! (ROFLMAO)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
Computers & Math (935)

The remaining categories are:

Chemistry (4,822)
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

Here are the only signers that might have some sort of claim to an expert opinion on this issue:

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)

That's less than 2% of signers. Of those, the majority are meteorologists who are, again, not climatologists. In fact out of the 31,487 signers, only 39 of them are even claimed to be climatologists. That's what? 0.001% or so of the signers? What is this supposed to prove about what 97% of climatologists agree on?

My biggest worry about "global warming" is that I believe we are actually headed for an ice age and the blithering idiot money grubbing morons who have bought Al Gores global warming stupidity are actually doing things in the atmosphere to promote cooling.

Al and his horde of incredibly naive earth loving followers are going to be responsible for the deaths of millions upon millions of people.

a reply to: theantediluvian

That's less than 2% of signers. Of those, the majority are meteorologists who are, again, not climatologists. In fact out of the 31,487 signers, only 39 of them are even claimed to be climatologists. That's what? 0.001% or so of the signers? What is this supposed to prove about what 97% of climatologists agree on?

Handy windows calculator says 0.0012386064089942 but 0.001 is close enough.

lol

Not surprised one bit the majority of ATSers are so frigging selfish. Pretty much goes in pair with being an American and into conspiracy theories.

Not in my backyard.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

How about the great big planet that is going to flip our polar magnetic shifts?

The "gov't liars" are starting to let this story out - it can't be hidden much longer -

Do they care about anything, except building their underground bunkers?

I don't think so.

Really, look what they are working on, and what they seem "worried" about.

Basically - F&)* you people - give us more money and we hope you all die.

originally posted by: Happy1
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

How about the great big planet that is going to flip our polar magnetic shifts?

The "gov't liars" are starting to let this story out - it can't be hidden much longer -

Do they care about anything, except building their underground bunkers?

I don't think so.

Really, look what they are working on, and what they seem "worried" about.

Basically - F&)* you people - give us more money and we hope you all die.

Polar shifts happened countless time in history and it goes very smoothly:

The rate of reversals in the Earth's magnetic field has varied widely over time. 72 million years ago (Ma), the field reversed 5 times in a million years. In a 4-million-year period centered on 54 Ma, there were 10 reversals; at around 42 Ma, 17 reversals took place in the span of 3 million years. In a period of 3 million years centering on 24 Ma, 13 reversals occurred. No fewer than 51 reversals occurred in a 12-million-year period, centering on 15 million years ago. Two reversals occurred during a span of 50,000 years. These eras of frequent reversals have been counterbalanced by a few "superchrons" – long periods when no reversals took place

Also Lol how can I take you seriously when you believe nibiru is coming and the cause of geomagnetic reversal, in that case how is it not perfectly cyclical?

You are just as deluded as your average conspiracy theorist (even believing in bunkers lol). You tote bought the lies from the "specialists" funded by big petrol companies, like the majority of uneducated Americans.

It's actually the "sheeples" who believe there is no warming. It's the most common belief among the less educated people.

Tells a lot actually.

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

I'll guess we all will eventually see.

originally posted by: Happy1
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

I'll guess we all will eventually see.

don't hold your breath

a reply to: FlyersFan

I'm not being hypocritical

Your criticism of those who want action on global warming was "vested interests". This is even though you used sources funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is hypocrisy. What's worse, the report from your own source is fraudulent. And you do use questionable reports created by the fossil fuel industry, despite thinking that "The Earth can't sustain humanity like this". No, FlyersFan the earth cannot sustain humanity if that is the way people behave.

No. The food is becoming less nutritious. And genetically modified foods are a bomb getting ready to go off. The soil is becoming less fertile with less nutrition. So even if people eat, a lot of what we are eating isn't as nutritious as it used to be

Fix it then. Also despite food being less nutritious, I'm not convinced most people actually suffer from malnutrition. The big problem is people being too lazy or effectively addicted to sugar to eat properly. I'm also betting there is very little government regulation or economic push for food that is particularly nutritious. Either way, if there is a large problem then clearly there is also a rather large opportunity to fix that problem. I find prospects like that exciting.

And there isn't even enough of the food that there is for the people of the planet.

So people will starve. Is this really different to any other point in human history? At least the proportion of humanity who is starving has/is decreasing.

And the hoards of people coming along aren't the brightest bunch.

Population in most western countries is relatively stable. Have you actually gone to places where the population actually is rapidly growing? Further, lower socioeconomic conditions typically result in a lack of education, contraception, and healthcare. This also results in higher birthrates. So of course it's going to seem like the "hoards of people" are not the smartest. This seems like a rather stark case of your own lack of knowledge of social factors, in itself particularly dangerous because it means less effort will go into eliminating these factors.

So add dangerous and classist to the list.

I'm not being hypocritical or Chicken little or lazy.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Proof of global warming from the Nasa



Proof of Global Warming

The propaganda cartoon graph says no other CO2 spikes lasting 100th of a pixel on the screen, like the magnified to distortion line at the right end.

Have the climate change experts explained any of the sharp increases at 125,000 ya 225000 ya, or 325000 ya?

How do they know there weren't higher spikes back then?

Assuming that the data isn't bogus for political "necessities".

Well I say if the sea levels do rise then the people who denied global warming should be put down because they are defective, they should not be allowed to contribute to the gene pool any longer because they are a danger due to their ignorance.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
According to the graph, a propaganda cartoon, 1950 was 25,000 years ago.
...
Assuming that the data isn't bogus for political "necessities".

Huh? I think you need to read graphs better.

If you think the data in this graph was manipulated, provide a source to counter it that shows higher than 300ppm CO2 concentrations prior to ~1950.