Warming 'likely' man-made, unstoppable

AP on Yahoo ^ | 2/1/07 | Seth Borenstein - ap

[razorback-bert]

This rubbish will never end.

Yes it will, when "they" get the laws passed and the power "they" want.

[popdonnelly]

Well, them's the breaks. I guess there's no point in selling your SUV.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Ok you libs, its time for a mass suicide on ya'lls part and us conservatives will just take the heat.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

If they predict "2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100" and GW is going to last "hundreds of years" even if we could stop all CO2 emissions today, then let's get serious and hear predictions for the year 2200, 2300 or 2500. Are we in a positive feedback loop where Earth will turn into a planet Mercury by 2500?

If the problem is so serious, I don't understand why the projections don't take a much longer view. 85 years is much too short of a prediction if the true disaster happens 100 or 200 years further in the future. Or does the problem solve itself because we simply run out of fossil fuels in the couple hundred years?

[popdonnelly]

We're all dead in the end, so don't hurry the process.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

"Very likely" is a phrase for fortune cookies and the Magic 8-Ball. Not for science. Not true. Suggest you look up "Probabilistic Risk Assessment" or PRA. It's a systematic and comprehensive methodology to evaluate risks associated with complex engineered systems such as airliners and nuclear power plants. I worked in the energy industry many years and it is widely used to determine how much to invest in redundant systems as well as how to design core systems to avoid failure.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

I used to live in Ithaca, NY (when it was a nice family oriented, middle class town) and we were taught that it was under a mile of ice a few thousand years ago. Now why did it all melt?

[Tarpon]

Plenty of real scientist will tell you the Earth is warming. They will also tell you it's natural and for the most part driven by three things.
1. The variability of the sun's output, caused by sunspots and average output levels.
2. Variation in the amount of cosmic radiation warming the atmosphere.
3. Variability of the Earth's orbit, tilt axis, and wobble.

Man derived CO2 accounts for 0.2 to 0.3% of the total effect of greenhouse gases, clouds account for about 94%. Since clouds are not caused by man, they focus on CO2 which cars emit as exhaust.

Somehow the last ice age melted 15,000 years ago. The sea level has risen about 400 feet since then. Back before the little ice age, 1400-1700 AD, grapes grew in England and English wine was all the rage. Try and fine English wine today. Around 900 to 1000 AD Greenland strangely enough was well, green. History and common sense is your friend.

There is a name for the projections that are currently being made, it's called well within the measurement error. There is no hard evidence that man is causing anything, there are only computer models which change their output depending on who is running them and what data they use.

Start with junkscience.com.

The whole global warming is nothing more than a liberal hoax. In the 70s it was we are all going to die because of the coming ice age. By the time Reagan took office we were going to be out of oil by the year 2000, so said Carter.

With libtards it's one big lie after another until they finally get one that takes so they can implement global socialism, which is the goal.

[mplsconservative]

He's lucky he's cute if you know any Jack Russells. This is Sparky's usual place this time of year. LOL

We plan on burning our fair share of fossil fuels this weekend, as I'm certain you are too. -0 for highs as is usual this time of year. It's a portent for spring as far as I'm concerned. This is just the ugly stuff we have to slog through before the days get markedly longer.

This global warming stuff is so insidious. As another poster questioned above: What caused the last global warming that ended the Ice Age?

It sure wasn't any Homo Sapiens. :)

Argghhh! I am NOT turning down the heat tonight.

[brityank]

Poppycock!

Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%.

[HardStarboard]

We need to leave soon. I'm researching alternatives.

[Cementjungle]

The oceans will rise a bit, increasing their surface area, which in turn will provide increased cooling via evaporation. Perhaps we'll even have a big volcano eruption which tends to cool the earth as bit by dumping radiation-absorbing junk into the atomsphere. It's all cyclical.

On the other hand, one can make a career, fame and fortune on this stuff, so why not cash in on the gullible folks who want to buy bumper stickers, environmentally-friendly toilet paper and a whole bunch of other goodies!

[DustyMoment]

Ever notice that when the winter weather isn't filled with 80 to 4 million feet of snow and ice, the global warming moonbats (AKA 'scientists') claim it's because of global warming. Then, after the snow and ice show up, it's STILL because of GW, but now the regular folks want their global warming back (the WARM global warming, NOT the COLD global warming) because they have less snow to shovel!!

So, in the interests of trying to make my point in this century, is global warming a bad thing? Or, is global warming only a bad thing when the walk needs shoveling???

[KC Burke]

We must cut our CO2 emissions IN HALF. After all since all of the emissions by human activity are 1 and a half of one percent of the global biologic and natural CO2 activity this would make a full 7/10ths of one percent difference and all we need to do to achieve it is elect Algore and return to the Middle Ages. (Oh, I repeat myself)

[rurgan]

Some links here show that global warming is a hoax . And global warming is a lie .

Socialists (democrats) can gain everything by selling Global warming. Global warming is the socialists' magic all powerful weapon. Using Global warming Democrats can scare people into giving up more of their freedom and prosperity to government. So Global warming will get us on the road to serfdom which is what democrats want.

With Global warming Democrats can slay their enemy the "evil" corporations, capitalism , America and Republicans all at one time.

The liberal media says vote for Democrats as "Democrats will save us from global warming". So the MSM are saying if you don't vote for Democrats then you and the Earth will die. Once democrats (Hitlery) gain total control then Democrats can slay those "evil" "polluting" corporations which will really mess up America. Then it's a short way on the road to Socialism, the ultimate goal. Only problem is that Capitalism works while socialism doesn't.

[JennysCool]

Aw sheese, do these people ever, ever quit?

Not when there's grant money to be made. It's like a never-ending PBS pledge drive.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Now why did it all melt?

According to these geniuses, it's because we Americans exist. So what if none of us were around then, we're supposed to feel guilty, pay for it, and stop anything that might cause pollution.

China doesn't pollute. That's because those scientists who study such things don't want to get thrown in prison or suffer a serious beating, so they use data supplied by the Chinese government or none.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

Follow the money. Who has the most invested in "ozone-friendly, environmentally-safe" technologies and products?

It sure as shootin' ain't the conservatives.

The bottom line is that no scientist, absolutely none, can say with any degree of certainty that humans are causing global warming. They know that, too, which doesn't leave many attractive conclusions about their motives.

[conservchick6]

i agree. there is no such thing as unbiased science. i get that they are using the scientific method--but that isn't conclusive. we must always question science. we can't act like what they found is the gospel. after all, it's likely to be found untrue in a few years. too bad we won't be alive in 2100 to gloat. however, i can't get behind junkscience.com. he debunks stuff that isn't science. the scientific method was set up so that we can keep testintg and retesting. i don't think science should stop. if there's evidence that second hand smoke is bad for us, let's keep testing. it's not time to shut down the world, but we can keep testing and refuting and supporting theories, just as the scientifc method intended. i think the message we take away from junkscience.com is to always think critically. but i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water--he gets his money from industries, so it's not exactly unbiased.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

You are wise.