Global Warming

[Ridlyn]

I don't like the fact that people are just trying to scare every one into believing. Chances are before anything would actually happen we are going to have hydrogen cars be a normal thing.

 

[Enterpriser]

There was interesting thing tried once. A man made an official looking paper with these facts.

The dangers of dihydrogen monoxide include:

* Also called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain;
* Contributes to the greenhouse effect;
* Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape;
* Accelerates corrosion and breakdown of electrical equipment;
* Excessive ingestion may cause various unpleasant effects;
* Prolonged contact with its solid form results in severe tissue damage;
* Inhalation, even in small quantities, may cause death;
* Its gaseous form may cause severe burns;
* It has been found in the tumors of terminal cancer patients;
* Withdrawal by those addicted to the substance causes certain death within 168 hours;

Despite the danger, DHMO is often used:

* Used in many forms of cruel animal research;
* The US Navy has a secret distribution network for DHMO;
* Lakes and rivers all over the world are contaminated with DHMO;
* In the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical;
* As an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products;
* Known to be a component of a number of cancer-causing agents

Nevertheless, governments and corporations continue using it widely, heedless of its grave dangers.

Anyone want to guess what it is? Well as you may or may not have found out it is quite simply water. I think this says that people are easily manipulated when ill informed. "Di" meaning two, "mono" meaning one. 2 hydrogen 1 oxygen or commonly known as H2O

 

[horndude]

Maritime record show a repeating cycle of heating and cooling, going back a couple of hundred years. Same ol', same ol'.

link to data?

 

[HAVOC]

Here's the bottom line for me.

The earth, is not going anywhere. It's been here for millions and millions of years. It's been through a lot of horrible things and survived in existence. There isn't too much, if anything, that us humans can do to destroy this earth. It will be here for a long time after we are gone.

Now, we are the ones that are endangering our own environment and on the planet we survive on. And ultimately endangering our species as well as thousands of others. Think about how much we constantly change and evolve. We are slowly changing the environment that we survive in. (With excessive amounts of C02 and hundreds of other chemicals that we dump into our environment) The facts are all out there for research and study. You'll find that we are changing our environment. I don't think there is much to defend against the fact that we are.

I'm not going to go jump off a bridge and say screw this world it's not fit to live in. I'm not going to jump on the "environmental freak" bandwagon either.

We all need to make the environment a pretty high concern on our list of things to protect and circumvent future destruction. Again, we are not destroying the earth, we are destroying the environment that has allowed us to sustain life and survive.

If you are uninformed you are weak and vulnerable. Why turn your head and ignore the information that people spend their lives researching? I'm not saying you should or I believe everything that is put on the table, but let your logic lead your interpretation instead of your stubborn emotions.

My stance on this all, is "Be Conscious"! Those who walk around and say, "Ah, nothing is going to happen, you're all just scared and trying to scare others... paranoid freaks..."

You'll be the first ones to die...

 

[Enterpriser]

You'll be the first ones to die...

lol

 

[Sui]

14 out of 19 gave the non hippy response, that gives me hope for the future. Pollution is something to be concerned about, as scientists have linked serious health problems to all different types of pollution. Pollution affects us now, and we should be dealing with it like its.... global warming. Global warming is the hippy boogie man, there's no proof that it exists and its generally used as a scare tactic.

BTW children and elderly will be the first ones to die, not the person who doesn't care.

 

[HAVOC]

BTW children and elderly will be the first ones to die, not the person who doesn't care.

Keep telling yourself that. You'll be joining the children and the elderly.

 

[Vybuni]

Global warming is the hippy boogie man, there's no proof that it exists and its generally used as a scare tactic.

Lol

 

[molsen]

Hey what kind of car do you drive molsen?

i drive a toyota camry

Global warming is the hippy boogie man, there's no proof that it exists and its generally used as a scare tactic.

oh.
but didn't you say:

I don't care if every scientist got together and found proof that it was real, I'm still tired of hearing about it.

weird. so it's not that there isn't proof, but rather you'd choose to ignore it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf<---don't read that then. it's full of all kinds of of scientific consensus and proof

 

[molsen]

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Naomi Oreskes* Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.