Global warming consensus?

The lobbyists are putting up great pressure to deny the findings of climatologists. Look for more of these "many distinguished scientists" (who are nevertheless often anonymous and rarely authorities in climatology) press releases designed to counter the evidence.

But it's a hopeless struggle. Many former skeptics are now accepting the reality of global warming:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chief executives from such major corporations as General Electric and DuPont teamed up with environmental organizations Monday, urging U.S. lawmakers Monday to pass sweeping legislation that would ultimately cut greenhouse gas emissions.
"The time has come for constructive action that draws strength equally from business, government, and non-governmental stakeholders," said Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric, who participated in the program
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/news/companies/climate_emissions/index.htm?postversion=2007012215

Evangelicals join Global Warming initiative
Despite opposition from some of their colleagues, 86 evangelical Christian leaders have decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/n...998565b07f9657&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

While people with a financial stake in denying global warming are presenting it as a public relations problem, reality is much different. Scientists were alarmed recently to find that the melting of continental glaciers is proceding much faster than earlier models had indicated. That's bad news in a lot of ways.

 

Most people who accept this global warming claim I would be willing to bet also believe in the theory of evolution. If that is the case then what are they afraid of? Wont man eventually adapt to his slowly changing environment? And if global warming is such a major catastrophe why are over 1000 people a day moving to Florida?

 

One doesn't "believe in" theories. One accepts or rejects them on the evidence. "Not believing in" is what makes the deniers possible. Evidence is the enemy of ignorance. I'd say that the more likely one is to accept the evidence for global warming, the more likely one is to accept the evidence for science generally.

Hotter weather in most places. Wider desertification. Stronger storms. Even some places getting a lot colder. Stuff like that.

Um, we are talkling about changes in a century or two. This is a good example of what I was talking about.

Florida might get a lot smaller, (five meters would wipe out most Florida cities) and a lot more people might die from storms, but it won't get drier.

One of the things that brought me around on this one, was the surprising results on continental ice caps. They are melting far faster than previous models indicated. And we aren't sure yet how much more the increasing temps will affect the rate in the future.

 

Depends on the planet. Mars, for example, is at its perihelion (closest point to the sun) now, and so it's warmer. Pluto is moving outward (it was actually closer to us than Neptune), and so it's warmer now, but will cool off again.

It is, but Earth's orbit is less eccentric than most other planets, and so there is very little difference between the perihelion and the aphelion for the Earth, and practically no difference in warming. In fact, Earth is very close to its aphelion right now; by their estimation, it should be cooling off.

Didn't the guys who told you about the "warming planets" know that? Sure they did. But they correctly guessed that you didn't. That's how they work. Does that make you angry? It should.

And now you know the truth. They lied to you again.

 

Climate happens.

 

NOW THAT IS FUNNY!!!!

 

This statement shows why laypeople who don't understand evolution can't be trusted on global warming either.

 

If the socialists were pushing global cooling they would be pointing out how the extremely cold weather that is occuring meant that we would all freeze to death.

This "humans are casuing climate change" nonsense is just another way for the socialists to push their agenda now that their crowning achievement, the Soviet Union, is in the dustbin of history.

 

PS1204_33: //And if global warming is such a major catastrophe
why are over 1000 people a day moving to Florida?//

Snort is cheaper in Flordia than in the Rust Belt.

 

Only on the BB can someone connect global warming to the collapse of the USSR.:laugh:

 

They didn't even spell his name right. It's Frederick Seitz not Freidrich.

He seems not to be above deception himself:

 

That's the thing - it is not changing slowly any more, in geological timeframe. Species have been wiped out before.

 

When that starts to happen, and it will eventually, we will probably need greenhouse gases. The goal is climate stability.

 

It sounds like alot of you just dont have any trust in God's Providence. As usual the liberal mindset is man-centered.

Calm down Galatian. It is all in God's hands. I wouldnt lose any sleep:sleeping_2: over it. I am on my way to heaven so I could care less about this evil old planet. Sit down tonight and read the Book of Revelation.

Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within the natural range of known temperature variation over the last 15,000 years. The earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries, a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

 

Originally Posted by The Galatian
Depends on the planet. Mars, for example, is at its perihelion (closest point to the sun) now, and so it's warmer. Pluto is moving outward (it was actually closer to us than Neptune), and so it's warmer now, but will cool off again.

It is, but Earth's orbit is less eccentric than most other planets, and so there is very little difference between the perihelion and the aphelion for the Earth, and practically no difference in warming. In fact, Earth is very close to its aphelion right now; by their estimation, it should be cooling off.

Didn't the guys who told you about the "warming planets" know that? Sure they did. But they correctly guessed that you didn't. That's how they work. Does that make you angry? It should.

And now you know the truth. They lied to you again.

They lied to you about that, too:
Mars' elliptical orbit leads to planet-wide changes in atmospheric and surface temperatures over the course of a Mars year. During perihelion, when Mars is closest to the sun (summer in the southern hemisphere), the planet receives 40 percent more sunlight than during aphelion, when it is farthest from the sun (summer in the northern hemisphere).
http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/MartianSunTimes/docs/mars_stats.html

That would be an interesting fact. Got any evidence for that? The evidence shows that Mars, when you account for seasonal variations, is at a low point in historic temp cycles.
http://filer.case.edu/dmb34/Research/Relevant Articles/Larsen 1999.pdf

Even more importantly:

INTERANNUAL VARIABILITY OF THE MARS THERMOSPHERE: NEW​

SIMULATIONS AND COMPARISONS WITH RECENT MARS DATASETS.​

S. W. Bougher, J. M. Bell, ​

​

AOSS Department, University of Michigan, USA, (bougher@umich.edu), J. R. Murphy,Department of Astronomy, New Mexico State University, USA (murphy@nmsu.edu), R. Lillis, Space Science Laboratory, University of California Berkeley, USA (rlillis@ssl.berkeley.edu)​

Key findings indicate that observed temperatures are quite repeatable from one Mars aphelion season to the next.
http://www-mars.lmd.jussieu.fr/granada2006/abstracts/Bougher_Granada2006.pdf
(report from 2006)

Evidence is what counts. As you see, they lied to you yet again. Warming on Mars is not different than it was on previous perihelia.

 

Liberals do tend to care about mankind, true enough.

Yes, range of temperature is well within the natural range, but the rate of change is disconcerting and bodes ill for future generations.