Study Proves: You can be smart, and question global Warming:

For the past ten years global warming skeptics like myself have been called stupid religious flat earthers, and those with power and class were ripped apart on tabloid magazines and left leaning websites.

It's true, the word skeptic in itself is a negative connotation! So to help reverse the damage done by the liberal media, I will call myself, "Someone who questions global warming," After all, it's usually the left who wants to be politically correct.

A new study from Yale University found that climate change deniers don’t hold those views due to a lack of scientific understanding!

www.foxnews.com...

www.globalpost.com...

reply to post by jjf3rd77



The thing is the earths weather systems have changed since the introduction of weather on this planet.
Funny that.

I wonder what the variations of weather was 100,600 to 100,400 years ago.

In my opinion it is all speculation. based of a small period of recorded weather. In total not even a blink of the earths entire history. Variations we are seeing could have happen many times before.

Ether way we humans do not really care, because if we did we would act. but we don't so we don't act.

Yep

my idea is... to be smart you must question everything.

very odd that society takes such confidence in whatever that imaginary thing called public opinion is and why they need a study to figure out that thinkers which will naturally doubt things by default arent stupid for questioning something in a world of relativity.

think about it, "global warming is fact....relative to what?"

they promote the theory of relativity and all that is stands for and has given to modern technology research and education, but fail to realise the implications of the metaphor that is relativity.

language and sociology are the bane of human existence.
and im not thinking in binary, rather ternary

my theory of everything

yes. no. and change/decision.


another matter check out this report on media and their manipulation, of us into tyranny.

watch in HD if you can and a good sound system will all be put to good use.

I already posted this

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Tell those who believe GW is real they must demand their government force manufacturers to make products last for 20 years.
Thats a perfectly sound idea. It would cut resource and energy use by 75%

That way we can all benefit from this BS.

Questioning things is good. Blindly believing things is dumb.

Many who blindly believe in 'global warming' with little critical analysis are exhibiting a lack of intelligence.

Just as those who immediately disbelieve 'global warming' with equal lack of critical thought are also displaying a lack of intelligence.

There are, without a doubt, agendas at work at both ends of the spectrum, and the Al-Gore-bots are no stupider than the most ardent deniers.

reply to post by stanguilles7


I think most deniers have done their research.

Research.
For many this is watching the tv or buying a book. For me its gathering information from as many sources as possible, and I continue to do so.

I actualy believe there is a very SLIGHT warming, but when we know that all the other planets have also warmed by the same miniscule amount I think I know what I choose to believe.

Something I came across while researching.
A field of corn will use all the co2 within 1 meter of the ground every five minutes. That means we could easily reduce the co2 and feed the world at the same time, all we have to do is plant lots of corn.

Originally posted by VoidHawk
reply to post by stanguilles7

 

I think most deniers have done their research.

"Most" is a stretch. There are some educated, researched looks into the problems with different aspects of the data presented. And there are MANY people parroting oil industry lies.

Something I came across while researching.
A field of corn will use all the co2 within 1 meter of the ground every five minutes. That means we could easily reduce the co2 and feed the world at the same time, all we have to do is plant lots of corn.

Do you know how much land has to be cleared to grow corn? And that clearing that land creates CO2? Or how much CO2 has to be burned (via diesel tractors, harvesters, etc) to grow an acre of corn (or ten thousand)?

Furthermore, most plants absorb CO2. No need to just use corn. Native trees are actually FAR better at sequestering carbon, and dont require the massive inputs of monoculture agriculture.

Might wanna check your 'research' a bit more thoroughly.

The quiz, containing 22 questions about both science and statistics, was given to 1,540 representative Americans. Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of them right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

What i find funny about the church of climatology,it is a product of the same ideology that created the DOE that has "educated" Americans since the days of Carter.

And now they try to mock those who they created.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


I don't really need a study to validate my rejecting cronyism in big science just like cronyism in capitalism.

reply to post by stanguilles7


Trees take a long time to grow. Growing corn would feed people and it doesnt have to be done using tractors.

Clearing land only has to be done once.

What do you think of this idea. Force manufacturers to produce products that last 20 years instead of 5 years?
That would result in a 75% reduction of used resources and energy.

I believe we are having a severe negative impact on the Ecosystem, not limited to global warming alone. Taxing people to pay for global warming is just a scam. Ecology is cheap and simple, something that is not evident in our American society today. It's easy to fix this Ecosystem, quit subsidizing the Airline industry and tax the hell out of airfare. Ration gas, not tax it. Tax huge users of electricity not the residential customer. Quit pushing Capitalism and tourism that's far away so much and get rid of all the chemicals we are using. Simplify life instead of complicating it. Make everyone spend a week in a tent at a rustic campground so they can see how easy we have life. We have lost appreciation for mother nature, all we see is dollar signs from her resources.

People who quote global warming as our major problem aren't too smart. Usually people blame others when things go wrong. This problem is a lot bigger than global warming, they are trying to shift our focus to a small part of the problem once more. This is well structured deceit at high and powerful levels. We are messing up the magnetic field by all the mining of metallic crystal formations, We need to regulate this. The chemicals we are creating are not good for our Ecosystem. We are preventing the earth from healing itself and this isn't good. If we don't stop we will create another Venus or Mars.

reply to post by VoidHawk


Force manufacturers to create some products that last fifty years and ban planned obsolescence all together. A shovel should last a lifetime, sell handles cheap for tools. Toasters should last for fifty years and never go out of style. Going out of style is good for capitalism but creates much of the destruction of the world. Paying to go green is a scam, remodeling your home to be green is a scam. One congame on top of another.

reply to post by stanguilles7

One problem with your data, the trees, grass, and corn can absorb the CO2 from autos. The emissions from Jets high in the atmosphere is a different thing. There are too many Jets in the air, they are the cause not power plants. More efficient cars is great for conservation, how come our cars in the USA are such pigs on gas compared to other countries? If you get fifty miles to a gallon verses 25 miles to a gallon the emissions are going to be less. Somehow the paperwork is twisting things around so we are using more fuel and polluting more. They aren't look9ing at something right in this country unless their motive is to get us to buy more fuel.

the fact this was even studied says a LOT

what baffles me is when people see it as a political issue

even on a scientific examination there are only 3 choices;

people and their activity have a beneficial impact on the earth's environment
people and their activity have a net 0.0000000% impact on the earth's environment
people and their activity have a negative impact on the earth's environment

and by activity I mean it all. you can't just reduce this to Carbon. It's methane, deforestation, clearing land for blacktopped roads, black tar roofs, nitrous oxide

how can you honestly say it's beneficial or a net 0.00000000% impact ?

of course there are natural cuases, and ways the earth absorbs the gasses. but it has always had a natural balance, and the system took millenia to change.

we are seeing changes in 150 years. significant changes

and the sun you say ? hmmmmm glad you mentioned it

Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

how can you honestly say it's beneficial or a net 0.00000000% impact ?

You can't, but a lot of people are lazy, irresponsible or selfish, and they would rather destroy the planet than change any of their habits.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Using Fox News as a science source...you're kidding, right. Why not go directly to the Heartland Institute and get your biased data from there?.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Using Fox News as a science source...you're kidding, right. Why not go directly to the Heartland Institute and get your biased data from there?.

well your not going to find ANY information about this study from the liberal media, that I will bet on!

I see global warming/climate change as being real. I don't particularly think people are the true driving factor for it however. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future. But because I don't believe we are what is fueling it doesn't mean I think we should run around acting irresponsibly to the environment. We as a species aren't toddlers and children just learning our way anymore, we have become young adults and with all our knowledge and know how comes the responsibility of keeping the house in order.

Home → Fox Distorts Nature Climate Climate Change Study's Findings In Order To Promote Climate-Change Skepticism

FoxNews.com ran a story entitled "Global warming sleptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers." According to the article "people who are not that worried about the effects of global warming tend to have a slightly higher level of scientific knowledge than those who are worried.” But Fox failed to note that the questions asked by the study it was citing had no relation to climate change and that the study considered more variables than Fox decided to mention.

The study, published by the Nature Climate Change journal, attempted to determine, via a series of questions, whether scientific knowledge correlated with trust or distrust of climate change. Fox said, "the study notes: 'Respondents who were relatively less worried about global warming got 57 percent of (the questions) right, on average, just barely outscoring those whose who saw global warming as a bigger threat. They got 56 percent of the questions correct'."

What was missing however, were the details. First, the survey was NOT a climate change survey, but a general knowledge survey about subjects probably learned in middle or high school, on topics ranging from thermodynamics to genetics.

Some of the questions were:

The center of the Earth is very hot (True/False)

Electrons are smaller than atoms (True/False)

All radioactivity is man-made (True/False)

It is the father's gene that determines if the baby is a boy or girl (True/False)

Not a single one of those questions touches on climate change, or on close subjects such as the water cycle or pollution.

more at link:

www.newshounds.us...