Why is the climate change debate a political one in the United States?

HAWK

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2013
1,108
0
0
Visit site
Kicking a dead horse gentlemen. We have been through the same nonsense bickering about three weeks ago on the same thread.
 

HAWK

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2013
1,108
0
0
Visit site
I vote the thread should be closed as everyone has done a really good job demonstrating how any discussion can turn political.

Well everyone has a right here to discuss whatever they like as long as it's done in a polite and fair manner. Taking away these threads although I am not a fan of them either would take away The ability to have a voice on certain topics here on the forum. People here in the past have had political debates and have kept them fairly clean. It's up to the people who use these threads to keep them free of name calling, racism, and ignorant comments. If your mature enough to create an account here you should have no problem playing nice and following our simple rules and we'll just be nice.
 

Just_Me_D

Ambassador Team Leader, Senior Moderator
Moderator
Jan 8, 2012
59,711
634
113
Visit site
Well everyone has a right here to discuss whatever they like as long as it's done in a polite and fair manner. Taking away these threads although I am not a fan of them either would take away The ability to have a voice on certain topics here on the forum. People here in the past have had political debates and have kept them fairly clean. It's up to the people who use these threads to keep them free of name calling, racism, and ignorant comments. If your mature enough to create an account here you should have no problem playing nice and following our simple rules and we'll just be nice.

I agree. Unfortunately, some of us who are alleged to be mature lack tolerance and an open mind. Easily dismissing one source in favor of another that agrees with one's personal view shows a good deal of bias and an unwillingness to entertain an opposing view. Of course, the opposition is always the idiots, right? #smh. One side seems to accept the other side's differing point of view even though they may disagree with it whereas the other side flat out have disdain for the differing view and the person with the differing view. #smh again. But hey, that's what makes threads like this entertaining, I suppose....:)
 

Ledsteplin

Ambassador
Oct 2, 2013
50,164
694
108
Visit site
I believe what Dr. Roy W. Spencer says about global warming. But first, about Dr. Spencer.
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA?s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA?s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer?s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA?s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

This is what Dr. Spencer says:

?Global warming? refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group?s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity?s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming?it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they?re not going to find something if they don?t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, ?What else COULD it be?? Well, the answer to that takes a little digging? and as I show, one doesn?t have to dig very far.

But first let?s examine the basics of why so many scientists think global warming is manmade. Earth?s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation ? the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind?s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth?s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth?s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO2, and it will take mankind?s CO2 emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The ?Holy Grail?: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called ?climate sensitivity?. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ?radiative forcing?, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

The ?consensus? of opinion is that the Earth?s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA?s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

You would think that we?d know the Earth?s ?climate sensitivity? by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of?.the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don?t need the sun, or any other ?external? influence (although these are also possible?but for now I?ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ?skeptic? regarding mankind?s influence on climate.

Climate change ? it happens, with or without our help.


Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5.
 

A895

Well-known member
Jan 17, 2014
1,038
0
0
Visit site
So do we not agree that humans can have no affect not he environment. What is being pushed is that humans can't affect the climate but the amount of pollution, and chemicals that go into our environment has to affect it in some way.
 

hydrogen3

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2013
1,056
0
0
Visit site
I find my self attracted to the truth. My source of information comes from. Fox News, infowars.com, mark levin, coast to coast, Andrew wilcow. To name a few.