sciencedaily.com— Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems according to a recent study.
Dec 31, 2009View in Crawl 4
The corruptive influence is only on the denier side of the debate. Most of the denier scientists are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industries. During the Bush Administration scientists were forced to alter their data when it confirmed the existence of Global Warming. The deniers are no more scientifically legitimate then the creationists.
Sure, Cats suck. And its not like a lefty has never unfairly compared Bush to Hitler. But seriously, its no coincidence that the reds have taken over the green movement. That's why they call them watermelons in Europe. Green on the outside and Red on the inside. So its not an association fallacy.
Fine, you "trust" the experts. I will remain skeptical of the "experts". That was an excellent explanation of the fraction. I see where we are missing each other now. You take a leap of faith that the total amount of carbon has doubled in the last 150 years. That assumption doesn't even discriminate which carbon came from a volcano, a cow fart, or a smoke stack. That is not in the article. I am only discussing THIS ARTICLE. If you have something that shows that carbon has doubled, then cite it, but don't complain about something that ISN'T THERE. There is no money in proving global warming wrong. There is a lot of money in government grants to prove it right. A lot more money than oil companies have. There are also careers at stake. and now thanks to the East Anglia emails, there is documented proof that there is a cabal as well. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
The numbers in my post were just for the sake of explanation. The real numbers have been stated somewhere else in the comments by another poster, but I didn't bother to find them because they weren't relevant to my point. According to wiki, it increased from 284 to 387 ppm between 1832 and now. So while the exact numbers differ from my post, the concept is still there.And there is absolutely money in proving it wrong. Anything that's new and groundbreaking like that would be gets research money out the anus. When there were a few scientists in the '70s who thought there might be global cooling instead of global warming, they got a ton of money to do research. Their research didn't support their hypotheses, but they were able to do the research because it was groundbreaking. If there were sound science behind debunking forty years of research, the scientists investigating it would be well-funded. And those e-mails didn't prove anything of any real importance, least of all a conspiracy. Occam's Razor, man. Forty years of research by tens of thousands of scientists is either pretty accurate or a giant conspiracy between tens of thousands of people, all of whom have kept their mouths shut and not written tell-all books for the millions of dollars breaking such a story would net them. Which one makes more sense?
@prm79: Well, it's good we've reached a point of civil disagreement. As far as the e-mails go, I found the explanations of what was really being said compelling enough, especially the ones by other scientists before those directly involved came out with their explanation. If there's some sort of proof to the contrary, I'll be open to it.As far as the Big Oil vs. Big Gov't thing, the government gives research grants. They don't have a profit motive and it's not like the scientists are going to become rich off research money. Just because a lot of money is going their way doesn't mean much of it ends up in their bank accounts. But oil companies, on the other hand, stand to profit from global warming being debunked, and could easily give personal money to scientists who provide them good evidence.
@newsgetsold: this isn't a court of law, it's a matter of science. When one side constantly provides evidence to support its position, while the other (i.e. deniers) doesn't, then there's not much of a debate there in the first place.
mulligasDec 31, 2009
The corruptive influence is only on the denier side of the debate. Most of the denier scientists are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industries. During the Bush Administration scientists were forced to alter their data when it confirmed the existence of Global Warming. The deniers are no more scientifically legitimate then the creationists.
prm79Jan 1, 2010
Yes, NASA you climatard! You probably don't even know who that partisan hack James Hansen is. God, your stupidity is only amplified by your self confidence.<a class="user" href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/re ...</a>
prm79Jan 1, 2010
Sure, Cats suck. And its not like a lefty has never unfairly compared Bush to Hitler. But seriously, its no coincidence that the reds have taken over the green movement. That's why they call them watermelons in Europe. Green on the outside and Red on the inside. So its not an association fallacy.
boottoJan 1, 2010
you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about...
prm79Jan 3, 2010
Fine, you "trust" the experts. I will remain skeptical of the "experts". That was an excellent explanation of the fraction. I see where we are missing each other now. You take a leap of faith that the total amount of carbon has doubled in the last 150 years. That assumption doesn't even discriminate which carbon came from a volcano, a cow fart, or a smoke stack. That is not in the article. I am only discussing THIS ARTICLE. If you have something that shows that carbon has doubled, then cite it, but don't complain about something that ISN'T THERE. There is no money in proving global warming wrong. There is a lot of money in government grants to prove it right. A lot more money than oil companies have. There are also careers at stake. and now thanks to the East Anglia emails, there is documented proof that there is a cabal as well. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
ddrskataJan 3, 2010
The numbers in my post were just for the sake of explanation. The real numbers have been stated somewhere else in the comments by another poster, but I didn't bother to find them because they weren't relevant to my point. According to wiki, it increased from 284 to 387 ppm between 1832 and now. So while the exact numbers differ from my post, the concept is still there.And there is absolutely money in proving it wrong. Anything that's new and groundbreaking like that would be gets research money out the anus. When there were a few scientists in the '70s who thought there might be global cooling instead of global warming, they got a ton of money to do research. Their research didn't support their hypotheses, but they were able to do the research because it was groundbreaking. If there were sound science behind debunking forty years of research, the scientists investigating it would be well-funded. And those e-mails didn't prove anything of any real importance, least of all a conspiracy. Occam's Razor, man. Forty years of research by tens of thousands of scientists is either pretty accurate or a giant conspiracy between tens of thousands of people, all of whom have kept their mouths shut and not written tell-all books for the millions of dollars breaking such a story would net them. Which one makes more sense?
isoptera4Jan 3, 2010
The article supports global warming if anything you dumb f**k. Learn to read and get your head out of your ass!
ddrskataJan 3, 2010
@prm79: Well, it's good we've reached a point of civil disagreement. As far as the e-mails go, I found the explanations of what was really being said compelling enough, especially the ones by other scientists before those directly involved came out with their explanation. If there's some sort of proof to the contrary, I'll be open to it.As far as the Big Oil vs. Big Gov't thing, the government gives research grants. They don't have a profit motive and it's not like the scientists are going to become rich off research money. Just because a lot of money is going their way doesn't mean much of it ends up in their bank accounts. But oil companies, on the other hand, stand to profit from global warming being debunked, and could easily give personal money to scientists who provide them good evidence.
flashingcurserJan 4, 2010
@dazWikipedia is as good as any, you can google it some more. <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_%28chemistry%29" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction_%28chemistry ...</a>
Closed AccountJan 5, 2010
Reading the responses here, it's clear that liberals refuse let go of this massive con. Well, they aren't raging imbeciles for nothing.
johnnysoftwareJan 18, 2010
@srsgd8: 1) it does not seem to be at equilibrium, 2) it does not seem there is enough of a buffering effect.Oceans are acidifying:1.) Data shows it is <a class="user" href="http://www.mbari.org/highco2/" rel="nofollow">http://www.mbari.org/highco2/</a> 2) we are well aware how much we CO2 we spew out in addition to natural processes and it is a lot <a class="user" href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/A-Swim-Through-the-Oceans-Future.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/A-Swi ...</a> 3) we have a branch of the government that monitors the ocean and they are measuring the effects of massive amounts of CO2 hitting the water and the life such as coral reefs <a class="user" href="http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/</a> 4) we know that the ocean is getting more acidic and we know that even slight increases in acidity is killing coral reefs and harming other species as well <a class="user" href="http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/acidification/</a>
archiesteelApr 9, 2010
@newsgetsold: this isn't a court of law, it's a matter of science. When one side constantly provides evidence to support its position, while the other (i.e. deniers) doesn't, then there's not much of a debate there in the first place.
archiesteelApr 9, 2010
Actually, there is lots of measurements showing an increase in overall CO2, so it has nothing to do with theory.