Quantcast

Is Global Warming a HOAX??!!

BlueRepublican 2012/05/04 18:26:16
Yes, Global Warming is a HOAX!!
No, Global Warming is REAL!!
Undecided
None of the above
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Is it real? Is it a scam? Is Al Gore right or is it just a fabricated political issue to further an agenda? Does the science make sense?
What do you think?
Agree, disagree, have another opinion, vote now!!!
As always feel free to comment, reply, share and RAVE!!!

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Kaleokualoha 2012/05/04 19:43:10
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    Kaleokualoha
    +14
    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outside...






























































    &








    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

    Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]


    2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus on Climate Change

    A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]

    US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]

    American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
    [END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


    3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...

    The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...

    Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.p...

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...

    Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...

    European Science Foundation:

    American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/44...

    World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...

    American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...

    American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...

    NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...

    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...

    4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:

    [QUOTE]
    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]


    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)
    (more)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Bucky tom 2012/05/04 20:45:46
    Bucky
    +3
    LoL I saw that coming ;)
    Climate is definitely changing, but it's not because of us humans!
  • ack Bucky 2012/05/04 22:00:32
    ack
    +4
    I believe in climate change, it's only been happening for about 4.5 billion years.
  • Stormy Bucky 2012/05/05 04:14:07
    Stormy
    +2
    All the evidence points towards us.
  • Wolfman Stormy 2012/05/05 07:07:31
  • Stormy Wolfman 2012/05/05 07:15:55
  • Wolfman Stormy 2012/05/05 07:27:02
  • Stormy Wolfman 2012/05/05 07:39:16
    Stormy
    Well that just doesn't make sense.
  • Wolfman Stormy 2012/05/05 07:48:06
    Wolfman
    +1
    What evidence points to AGW?
  • Stormy Wolfman 2012/05/05 12:26:53
    Stormy
    +2
    The FACT that we have raised CO2 in the atmosphere by one third more than pre-industrial levels by burning fossil fuels.
  • Wolfman Stormy 2012/05/05 16:22:01
    Wolfman
    +1
    We are still increasing and the temperature is flat. Look at the evidence.
  • findthe... Wolfman 2012/05/05 15:30:31 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    air pollution air pollution air pollution air pollution air pollution air pollution air pollution http://blogs.discovermagazine... air pollution

    Need any more evidence?
  • Wolfman findthe... 2012/05/05 16:20:38 (edited)
    Wolfman
    +1
    Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas. Is that what you are showing? LOL
  • findthe... Wolfman 2012/05/05 19:17:59 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    So you even deny that pollution exists? I hope your grandchildren can forgive you!
  • Wolfman findthe... 2012/05/05 19:21:17
    Wolfman
    +1
    I deny that carbon dioxide is pollution. Carbon dioxide is plant food.
  • findthe... Wolfman 2012/05/05 19:58:57 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    It can also kill a life-sustaining planet, imbecile!
  • Wolfman findthe... 2012/05/06 06:19:58
    Wolfman
    +1
    Not if the plants are pumping out oxygen, dumbass.
  • findthe... Wolfman 2012/05/06 21:36:14 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    Ever hear of deforestation? Stand next to a great sequoia and smoke, you'll be causing more pollution than that tree can produce oxygen in an hour. Plant life does not produce enough oxygen to replace the pollution that man creates. Therefore, man must find ways to reduce that pollution.

    Get it, Stupid?
  • Wolfman findthe... 2012/05/06 22:27:24
    Wolfman
    +1
    Produce more carbon dioxide and it provides more food for the tree. A child could understand it.
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/06 03:18:54
    A Woman's View~JLA
    Perhaps if we had more trees then the level of Carbon Dioxide would drop.

    +
  • Wolfman A Woman... 2012/05/06 06:22:24
    Wolfman
    +1
    A high level of carbon dioxide promotes the growth of trees and food. It's all good.
  • findthe... A Woman... 2012/05/06 21:37:40
    findthelight2000
    Not enough..., it is time for man to take responsibility for his careless destruction of our life-sustaining Earth.
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/06 21:56:11
    A Woman's View~JLA
    +1
    Well then perhaps you better tell the Chinese and India...they are the biggest pollutors....they didn't even go with the Kyoto plan....until you get them to cut down on the levels of carbon dioxide they produce, there will be no change! BTW...tell all the volcanoes that they can't erupt! The one in Greenland that caused all the airlines to cancel flights wiped out 5 years of what anyone was doing to reduce their carbon footprint!!
  • findthe... A Woman... 2012/05/07 00:37:47
    findthelight2000
    I hope you have enough sense to know that we can't stop volcanoes. But the Chinese and Indians are working on building solar and wind technology at a greater pace than we are, and if we do not do the same, we will lose out on that economic war due to two things - ignorance and greed.
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/10 08:54:40 (edited)
    A Woman's View~JLA
    It takes more energy to build solar panels and creates more pollution than if you ran your car steady for 2 years.

    Wind technology is not an efficient energy source either....if it's too windy or not windy enough they have to shut them down. They just can't supply the energy reliably. Not to forget...they are ugly to see dotting the landscape and what about the harm they do to the land where they are built?

    I know we can't stop volcanoes from erupting. The point is that even all the work that mankind does to reduce the carbon footprint...mother nature just has a way to screw it up!

    +(edited for spelling)
  • findthe... A Woman... 2012/05/10 22:58:34
    findthelight2000
    "It takes more energy to build solar panels and creates more pollution than if you ran your car steady for 2 years."

    So? It would clean the air much much more! What a stupid analogy?
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/13 23:46:07
    A Woman's View~JLA
    Really...you think it's a stupid analogy? Nope it's not....it's actually the truth.

    If you ran your car steady for 2 years, the pollution off of it would be less than how much pollution comes from making a solar panel....

    Research it out genius!
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/13 23:49:13
    A Woman's View~JLA
    The Chinese are not working on solar nor wind energy.
  • findthe... A Woman... 2012/05/14 02:08:06
  • A Woman... A Woman... 2012/05/14 09:25:39 (edited)
    A Woman's View~JLA
    Findthelight2000...

    Thank you for blocking me so that I can not reply to you.....

    I just have this last thing to tell you....I live in Canada! We don't have the Tea Party here!

    Man ..way to show your intelligence quotient! You are an eejit of the first kind!

    They will still be relying on coal, hydro and nuclear! Only 8 percent of its electricity generation capacity will be from wind, solar and biomass.. by 2020. Coal will still represent two-thirds of China’s capacity in 2020, and nuclear and hydropower most of the rest.

    They are exporting the wind turbines to be used elsewhere in the world....that doesn't mean they are building windmills at a faster pace..it means they are manufacturing them !

    +(edited for spelling)
  • findthe... A Woman... 2012/05/07 00:41:19 (edited)
    findthelight2000
    Carbon dioxide at a high enough level will kill the oxygen-breathing animals before it will eventually kill the trees. Wolfman is brainwashed into believing the lies bought and paid for by the Oil Industry, starring the Koch Brothers, he has no idea what reality is.

    I wouldn't trust Wolfman's "smoke..., it's good for you" ethics.
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/10 08:56:51
    A Woman's View~JLA
    I would tend to disagree with you....Wolfman has probably forgotten more than you even know! I would even bet that he knows more about reality than you.

    +
  • findthe... Wolfman 2012/05/05 15:26:29
  • A Woman... Wolfman 2012/05/06 03:16:02
    A Woman's View~JLA
    +1
    LMAO! Well said!!

    +
  • Wolfman A Woman... 2012/05/06 06:23:48
    Wolfman
    +1
    Thank you.
  • kudabux Theresa 2012/05/04 19:37:29 (edited)
    kudabux
    +3
    What about output by carbon gas?
  • Bucky kudabux 2012/05/04 20:39:26
    Bucky
    +3
    Carbon dioxide is the compound that humans breathe out and plants consume.
    Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
    “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”
  • findthe... Bucky 2012/05/04 21:06:36
    findthelight2000
    +4
    Faux science is fascinating, isn't it?
  • Wolfman Bucky 2012/05/06 06:25:04
    Wolfman
    +1
    Well said.
  • Wolfman kudabux 2012/05/05 07:08:08
    Wolfman
    +2
    Carbon dioxide is plant food.
  • findthe... Theresa 2012/05/04 21:04:55
    findthelight2000
    +3
    Don't you just love those well-paid "scientist" spokesmen?

    http://images2.tobaccodocumen... http://www.crestock.com/uploa...

    This President approves of this "healthy product"!

    Reagan smoking

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/25 23:27:58

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals