Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In light of recent events I doubt the validity of both sides of the argument. As usual, I suspect the real facts may be found somewhere in between the polar opposite truths.
Do we have an impact on the environment? Of course. Everything on the planet has an impact and whether beneficial or not depends on the point of view. Throughout time, climate changes that proved great for one species has been bad news for another. Is our impact as great as some claim? I'm doubtful.
In light of recent events I doubt the validity of both sides of the argument. As usual, I suspect the real facts may be found somewhere in between the polar opposite truths.
Do we have an impact on the environment? Of course. Everything on the planet has an impact and whether beneficial or not depends on the point of view. Throughout time, climate changes that proved great for one species has been bad news for another. Is our impact as great as some claim? I'm doubtful.
I am curious, how have recent events made you doubt the skeptical side more?
Are you aware that when Earth was 5C cooler than it is now, thick ice sheets extended as far south as NYC? Temperatures for given locations do fluctuate but for the planet as a whole they are very constant. Do you realize how much energy is required to warm the entire atmosphere globally 2C?
Anyway I don't buy into the global conspiracy thing. Simply TOO many scientists, in TOO many disciplines, in TOO many countries across various political stripes who basically accept Anthropogenic Global Warming for any kind of conspiracy to be believable.
On the other hand, the idea that emission of billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere over several decades will affect climate seems very plausible to me.
Temperatures are not constant. There has always been warming and cooling. Yes it takes a lot of energy to warm the atmosphere. The sun does it everyday.
Regarding the comment that TOO many scientists accept AGW as a fact. There are about 60 that make up the core group of scientists who are shaping public policy on this. 60. How many more are just riding the money train is impossible to tell. But there is an endless amount of money if you tout AGW.
No, I never bought into the concept of man-made global warming to begin with.
Considering the incomprehensible mass of the Earth and the atmosphere it is arrogant to believe that we little tiny humans can have any significant effect on the global average temperature.
Nature is a mighty beast that will take it's course with or without us.
Keep on whistling in the dark - nothing new to see here, folks.
I agree, and I'm surprised at this thread's revival. In response to the original question, my views are unchanged as a result of the scandal, and the e-mails are irrelevant to each camp's case.
Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 12-12-2012 at 07:03 PM..
More interesting is:
In their parting words, the authors note that, although this makes analyzing temperatures from tree rings much harder than previously thought, it also means it’s possible to analyze changes in solar radiation from tree rings!
A prehistoric sunshine record?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
