You are confusing science with politics and the media. No one was screaming about an ice age. There was some data that showed a cooling trend, but the majority of climate scientists still predicted a warming trend.
And your assumption that they will be wrong and figure out it isn't human activity causing global warming because they might have been wrong about their analysis of data in the 60s is as non-scientific as it gets. Based on your logic, anything we understand today will be proven wrong in the future. That's not very scientific, lol.
What everyone in the scientific community does agree on (well 99.99%) is that CO2 traps heat and that CO2 has been rising because of human activity. Those are the simple facts we know. So just based on an understanding of science you can test in a lab, there will be warming. How much warming or what effect that has on the Earth is the big question. But calling the scientific community wrong without any scientific evidence whatsoever is such a sad way to live life.
Come on now, you are better than that.
What's ironic, is all of that understanding has a margin of error and is not 100% fact. They understand that stuff just as well as they understand CO2 in the atmosphere. They probably understand CO2 better than the earths tilt and how it affects the atmosphere. It's hilarious how the stuff you want to believe that scientists are saying you call them facts, but the stuff you don't want to believe you say will be wrong in the future.
Laugh out loud funny.
(Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Often focused on century-long trends, most climate models failed to predict that the temperature rise would slow, starting around 2000. Scientists are now intent on figuring out the causes and determining whether the respite will be brief or a more lasting phenomenon.
Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show.
====
Paul is laughably uninformed, not that bright, and easily misled.
Oh, he's a liar too.
Actually, all that is "proven" is the sun emits radiation. How that heats and cools the earth definitely has a margin of error to it and is much more difficult to understand. Scientists also have proven without greenhouse gasses the Earth would be a big ball of inhabitable ice. So it is exactly how those greenhouse gases work and how the Earth absorbs solar radiation that provides the necessary atmosphere for water and life.
So the argument that the sun warms and cools the Earth isn't even accurate.
You are so fucking dumb it is unbelievable.
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/earths_atmosphere/heat_transfer.html
The heat source for our planet is the sun.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/heat.htm
Seems very difficult to understand.
You are a complete fucking embarrassment.
It is significant that so much carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere because CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is the most important gas for controlling Earth’s temperature. Carbon dioxide, methane, and halocarbons are greenhouse gases that absorb a wide range of energy—including infrared energy (heat) emitted by the Earth—and then re-emit it. The re-emitted energy travels out in all directions, but some returns to Earth, where it heats the surface. Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit). With too many greenhouse gases, Earth would be like Venus, where the greenhouse atmosphere keeps temperatures around 400 degrees Celsius (750 Fahrenheit).
Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are warming the atmosphere. The increased temperature results in higher evaporation rates and a wetter atmosphere, which leads to a vicious cycle of further warming. (Photograph ©2011 Patrick Wilken.)
Because scientists know which wavelengths of energy each greenhouse gas absorbs, and the concentration of the gases in the atmosphere, they can calculate how much each gas contributes to warming the planet. Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent. The rest is caused by small particles (aerosols) and minor greenhouse gases like methane.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are warming the atmosphere. The increased temperature results in higher evaporation rates and a wetter atmosphere, which leads to a vicious cycle of further warming. (Photograph ©2011 Patrick Wilken.)
Because scientists know which wavelengths of energy each greenhouse gas absorbs, and the concentration of the gases in the atmosphere, they can calculate how much each gas contributes to warming the planet. Carbon dioxide causes about 20 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect; water vapor accounts for about 50 percent; and clouds account for 25 percent. The rest is caused by small particles (aerosols) and minor greenhouse gases like methane.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
Well that's enough education for you guys to take in today. I'm sorry I didn't have the time to draw you guys some pictures so you can actually understand what intelligent people are saying... but in the meantime I will leave off with a quote from fellow Republican Jon Huntsman...
"While there is room for some skepticism given the uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change, the fact is that the planet is warming, and failing to deal with this reality will leave us vulnerable — and possibly worse. Hedging against risk is an enduring theme of conservative thought. It is also a concept diverse groups can embrace.
If Republicans can get to a place where science drives our thinking and actions, then we will be able to make progress."
Follow his advice... get smarter!
"While there is room for some skepticism given the uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change, the fact is that the planet is warming, and failing to deal with this reality will leave us vulnerable — and possibly worse. Hedging against risk is an enduring theme of conservative thought. It is also a concept diverse groups can embrace.
If Republicans can get to a place where science drives our thinking and actions, then we will be able to make progress."
Follow his advice... get smarter!
UN Climate Chief: We Are Remaking The World Economy
The United Nation’s climate chief says that reordering the global economy to fight climate change is the “most difficult” task the international body has ever undertaken.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/05/climate-chief-world-economy/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it in black and white, errr, I mean commie red.
These Marxists are evil to the core.
The United Nation’s climate chief says that reordering the global economy to fight climate change is the “most difficult” task the international body has ever undertaken.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, told reporters.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,” Figueres said.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/05/climate-chief-world-economy/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it in black and white, errr, I mean commie red.
These Marxists are evil to the core.
Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science
By Maxim Lott
Published February 12, 2015FoxNews.com
File photo (REUTERS/Peter Andrews/Files)
Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychologyby Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.
The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.
Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.
The study comes on the heels of a 2012 study that found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; the new study specifically quizzed people on climate science.
Climatologists who are skeptical about the extent of man-made global warming say the results don’t surprise them.
“It's easy to believe in the religion of global warming. It takes critical thinking skills to question it,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
Groups that are concerned about global warming say the study results really show that politics is blinding otherwise-reasonable people.
“Climate contrarians know what scientists have found but they’re choosing to reject those findings, usually for political reasons,” Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of
Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com.
He added that things would get better if people heard more from conservatives who worry about climate.
“The public just doesn’t hear often enough from conservative politicians and advocacy groups that are engaging in constructive debates on climate policy,” he said.
The study’s author, Kahan, also says that the global warming debate has become so politically polarized that people pick their side based on politics rather than what they know about science.
“The position someone adopts on [global warming] conveys who she is – whose side she’s on, in a hate-filled, anxiety-stoked competition for status between opposing cultural groups,” Kahan writes in his paper.
Kahan says that if global warming believers really want to convince people, they should stop demonizing and talking down to their opponents, and instead focus on explaining the science.
“It is really pretty intuitive: who wouldn’t be insulted by someone screaming in her face that she and everyone she identifies with ‘rejects science’?”
The author, Maxim Lott, can be reached on Facebook or atmaxim.lott@foxnews.com
:hahahahah
By Maxim Lott
Published February 12, 2015FoxNews.com
Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychologyby Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.
The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.
Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.
The study comes on the heels of a 2012 study that found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; the new study specifically quizzed people on climate science.
Climatologists who are skeptical about the extent of man-made global warming say the results don’t surprise them.
“It's easy to believe in the religion of global warming. It takes critical thinking skills to question it,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
Groups that are concerned about global warming say the study results really show that politics is blinding otherwise-reasonable people.
“Climate contrarians know what scientists have found but they’re choosing to reject those findings, usually for political reasons,” Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of
Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com.
He added that things would get better if people heard more from conservatives who worry about climate.
“The public just doesn’t hear often enough from conservative politicians and advocacy groups that are engaging in constructive debates on climate policy,” he said.
The study’s author, Kahan, also says that the global warming debate has become so politically polarized that people pick their side based on politics rather than what they know about science.
“The position someone adopts on [global warming] conveys who she is – whose side she’s on, in a hate-filled, anxiety-stoked competition for status between opposing cultural groups,” Kahan writes in his paper.
Kahan says that if global warming believers really want to convince people, they should stop demonizing and talking down to their opponents, and instead focus on explaining the science.
“It is really pretty intuitive: who wouldn’t be insulted by someone screaming in her face that she and everyone she identifies with ‘rejects science’?”
The author, Maxim Lott, can be reached on Facebook or atmaxim.lott@foxnews.com
:hahahahah
It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale
Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners have indefinitely postponed a protest that was set for this weekend due to “unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/its-too-cold-to-protest-global-warming-at-yale/
