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

  • kudabux findthe... 2012/05/05 13:32:16
    kudabux
    +2
    A true American puppet! LOL
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/06 03:24:51
    A Woman's View~JLA
    +1
    Chemical inhalation is far worse than Tobacco. Smoking can cause large cell Cancer, which if caught early the person can be healed from it. Chemicals cause small cell cancer and it's fatal.

    Don't believe everything that so called self-appointed scientists and vigilante special interest left-wing groups report as truth. It's all propaganda.

    +
  • findthe... A Woman... 2012/05/06 21:45:05
    findthelight2000
    I quite agree. There are many air contaminants that we can easily eliminate from our human needs. The only reason there is a denial of global warming and refusal to switch to clean, renewable fuels is because of the money being thrown by the oil companies for faux scientists and a huge anti-global warming pro-oil campaign. Get it? Pro-oil!
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/06 22:08:23
    A Woman's View~JLA
    +1
    You do realize don't you that things such as solar panels actually produce more pollution to make them? They also use more energy to manufacture them.

    The energy efficient light bulbs that we now have to buy contain Mercury? You can't just throw them away in your refuse, they need to be discarded in a contamination receptical. If you happen to break one at home....you should vacate the area for 15 mins. so that no one breaths in the mercury dust....sweep up with a broom and dustpan...can't vaccuum as every time you use it afterwards, you will contaminate the area.

    The wind turbines...kill birds and can not be used if too windy or not enough wind...basically not a reliable source of energy production.

    As for pro-oil...Better go to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and get them to listen to your Global Warming theories. Tell them they have to clean up their Oil manufacturing sites! They have the highest Carbon output than anyone else.
  • findthe... A Woman... 2012/05/07 00:53:35
    findthelight2000
    "You do realize don't you that things such as solar panels actually produce more pollution to make them?"

    That is the biggest bunch of bull I ever heard! Let me guess, you got that info from a right-wing talker?

    You have a lot of complaints about and animosity against safe, renewable energy. Too bad you prefer to continue to go with the same energy sources that will cause our waters to be so contaminated that we could never safely drink it, and our air to become so bad that we will probably be extinct by the 22nd century. Congratulations!!!

    BTW: when the oil no longer is wanted, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela will probably be the only people still using oil. Also..., don't think that the cost of oil won't keep going up. All corporations do all they can to see an increase in profit, and if there is nowhere else to cut they make it up in price hikes. So, renewable energy might be expensive now, but in the long run it will be much less expensive than oil.
  • A Woman... findthe... 2012/05/10 09:02:29
    A Woman's View~JLA
    Find out for yourself....I didn't get my information from any Right-wing talker. Do some research on it....I'm not going to do it for you.

    BTW....why do you think oil will no longer be wanted? Who's going to say no to oil when there is an abundance of it? Ever heard of supply and demand? Who controls the price of oil right now? Any clue? Ever heard of OPEC? Stop funding Saudi Arabia for her oil ( which goes to fund terrorism) and the Price of oil comes down.

    Solar panels and windmills will always be expensive!

    +
  • RogerCo... Theresa 2012/05/05 00:28:55
    RogerCoppock
    +1
    Nope, THE SUN IS NOT WARMING, period.
    (If anything, satellite radiometer measurements show the sun has been very very slightly cooling since 1975)



    (Click twice to enlarge graph.)


    New Data Show Solar Irradiance Continuing to Slowly Fall
    By Roger Coppock 03/11

    ABSTRACT:
    An analysis of newly available satellite Solar irradiance
    measurements from 1976 to 2011 shows a small but statistically
    significant decrease of -0.0124 - 0.0004 Watts per square
    meter per year, or about -0.0009% of mean solar irradiance
    per year, over the 36-year period.

    PROCEDURE AND RESULTS:
    The location of the data's end points within the Solar cycle
    biases a simple linear regression and produces an incorrect
    result. (1.3 times the correct magnitude, or
    -0.0162 - 0.0005 W/m^2 per year.) Therefore, the analysis
    required a non-linear curve fit to a 'line plus sine'
    expression:

    B1 B2*Year B3*SIN(B4 (Year*2Pi)/B5)

    where the determined coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5
    are known as the intercept, slope, amplitude, phase, and
    period respectively.

    After correcting for the appropriate cycle of the SIN()
    function, (B3>0.0 and 2*Pi>B4>=0.0), and removing 32
    outlier observations 3.5 sigma outside the model, the
    results of the 11811-point curve fit are as follows:

    Irad ~ beta1 beta2 * Year
    beta3 * sin(beta4 (Year * 2*Pi)/be...


    >
    <
    <
    <

    <






















































































    Nope, THE SUN IS NOT WARMING, period.
    (If anything, satellite radiometer measurements show the sun has been very very slightly cooling since 1975)

    Solrad jpg

    (Click twice to enlarge graph.)


    New Data Show Solar Irradiance Continuing to Slowly Fall
    By Roger Coppock 03/11

    ABSTRACT:
    An analysis of newly available satellite Solar irradiance
    measurements from 1976 to 2011 shows a small but statistically
    significant decrease of -0.0124 - 0.0004 Watts per square
    meter per year, or about -0.0009% of mean solar irradiance
    per year, over the 36-year period.

    PROCEDURE AND RESULTS:
    The location of the data's end points within the Solar cycle
    biases a simple linear regression and produces an incorrect
    result. (1.3 times the correct magnitude, or
    -0.0162 - 0.0005 W/m^2 per year.) Therefore, the analysis
    required a non-linear curve fit to a 'line plus sine'
    expression:

    B1 B2*Year B3*SIN(B4 (Year*2Pi)/B5)

    where the determined coefficients B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5
    are known as the intercept, slope, amplitude, phase, and
    period respectively.

    After correcting for the appropriate cycle of the SIN()
    function, (B3>0.0 and 2*Pi>B4>=0.0), and removing 32
    outlier observations 3.5 sigma outside the model, the
    results of the 11811-point curve fit are as follows:

    Irad ~ beta1 beta2 * Year
    beta3 * sin(beta4 (Year * 2*Pi)/beta5)

    Parameters:
    Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
    beta1 1.391e 03 8.362e-01 1662.987 <2e-16
    beta2 -1.241e-02 4.193e-04 -29.592 <2e-16
    beta3 4.589e-01 5.631e-03 81.498 <2e-16
    beta4 -1.400e 00 2.433e 00 -0.575 0.565
    beta5 1.062e 01 2.190e-02 485.026 <2e-16

    Residual standard error: 0.422 on 11806 degrees of freedom

    Please note the large standard error on beta4, the phase
    of the sine function. Only three cycles of high variance
    data produce this. As an exercise, try to locate the
    peeks and valleys of these data in this graph. Please see:

    http://members.cox.net/rcoppo...

    The data are black. The linear component, both intercept
    and slope, is green. The total 'line plus sine' function
    is red.

    The curve fit was performed by the "R" statistical package
    for Intel Mac OSX, Version 2.10.0.

    The dual cavity radiometer Solar irradiance data come from
    PMODWRC. They cover the period from 01/12/1976 to 02/02/2011.

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.ph...

    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data...

    A preprocessing program converted month and day information
    into fractional years and removed data marked by PMODWRC as
    invalid.


    DISCUSSION:
    Global warming 'skeptics' often claim that increases in Solar
    radiation reaching the top of Earth's atmosphere, not rising CO2
    concentrations in the atmosphere, are responsible for the observed
    climb of the global mean near surface temperatures in the last
    thirty years. This argument was not supported by the facts.
    Now it is even less so. When the solar cycle was statistically
    removed, prior data showed no significant long term change in
    Solar irradiance large enough to explain the warming, (about an
    3 W/m^2 increase over the last two centuries is needed.) Present
    data actually show a very small but statistically significant
    decrease in solar output over the last three solar cycles. It is
    very hard to support any claim of a solar cause for global warming
    when measurements clearly show decreasing solar output.

    For more information, please see:

    http://www.terradaily.com/rep...

    http://environment.newscienti...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sc...

    A LIST OF 32 OUTLIER POINTS REMOVED
    The number in the data set (after the data marked by PMODWRC as invalid was removed), the year with fraction, and irradiance values in Watts per meter squared are shown.
    Num Date Irradiance
    1536 1981.5591397 1364.0619
    1537 1981.5618279 1363.9227
    1538 1981.5645161 1363.7736
    1539 1981.5698924 1364.0631
    2257 1984.0698924 1363.4285
    2258 1984.0725806 1363.1992
    2259 1984.0752688 1363.0893
    2260 1984.0779569 1363.4477
    2261 1984.0806451 1364.0151
    2344 1984.3194444 1363.4623
    2345 1984.3222222 1363.2828
    2346 1984.325 1363.2427
    2347 1984.3305555 1363.7501
    3783 1988.4972222 1363.8896
    3784 1988.5 1363.7648
    3785 1988.5053763 1363.8917
    4063 1989.2777777 1367.8666
    4064 1989.2805555 1367.9654
    4065 1989.2833333 1367.8665
    4094 1989.3629032 1368.2434
    4641 1990.8861111 1364.0097
    4982 1991.8198924 1363.8723
    9198 2003.8118279 1363.7460
    9199 2003.8145161 1363.5187
    9200 2003.8172043 1363.4123
    9201 2003.8198924 1363.0110
    9202 2003.8225806 1362.2442
    9203 2003.8252688 1361.8726
    9204 2003.8279569 1362.1225
    9205 2003.8306451 1363.0755
    9639 2005.0376344 1363.5927
    9640 2005.0403225 1363.6945
    (more)
  • Stormy Theresa 2012/05/05 04:13:06
    Stormy
    +3
    That is untrue. Do you know how thin our atmosphere actually is. ? Thin and fragile. An average of only 10 kilometers. If we can do this to crust of the earth, imagine what we are doing to the atmosphere ? mountain top removal US
  • scbluesman13 2012/05/04 19:04:12
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    scbluesman13
    +6
    This topic has been relentlessly mis-framed ever since Al Gore took the national stage to make the argument about humankind's involvement in global warming. Here's the deal: Most of us have little or no trouble acknowledging that global warming is happening. We know that the sea levels are rising, water temperatures are up slightly, that polar ice and other long established glaciers are melting. There's no disputing that. What IS under dispute is whether or not these events are - in part or in whole - caused by humankind's consumption & production habits, or whether it's just another historical trend, which was going to happen irregardless of human's involvement.
  • ack scblues... 2012/05/04 22:03:00 (edited)
  • hayesml47 2012/05/04 18:56:40
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    hayesml47
    +6
    Global Warming or Climate Change, as I like to call it, is real! It is Al Gore that is a HOAX.! This planet has been in a changing phase all of its life and will certainly not stop now. We are mere bugs running around on its surface who have little say in what is happening. We had better heed the changes because they could easily wipe us out or cause us to do it ourselves!
  • Shadow13 2012/05/04 18:46:52 (edited)
    No, Global Warming is REAL!!
    Shadow13
    +10
    The science has been fielded in peer reviewed journals, and the scientific community has reached a consensus linking human activity to increased CO2 levels. These finding will work to discourage unnecessary development and waste, something that no one profits from but we can all benefit. Conversely, those who deny it are supported by industrialist and commercial conglomerates who have everything to gain from continuing the planet on a destructive path.

    Debating the reality of Climate change is akin to people debating a heliocentric solar system. There really are people who believe that the universe revolves around the Earth, but do we give them any credence? Those who deny the reality of climate change and humanity's involvement should be regarded with the same credence of heliocentricity deniers.
  • ALofRI Shadow13 2012/05/04 19:33:53
    ALofRI
    +3
    STOP TALKING COMMON SENSE! It makes you look stupid in the eyes of stupidity!
  • Wahvlvke Shadow13 2012/05/04 22:52:07
    Wahvlvke
    +1
    Spoken like a true goreon.
  • Bucky 2012/05/04 18:44:09
    Yes, Global Warming is a HOAX!!
    Bucky
    +4
    Man made global warming is a hoax!

    global warming hoax
  • findthe... Bucky 2012/05/04 21:15:00

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/27 19:17:31

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals