Proof Global Warming Exists!!!!

[Humerox]

Reasons Venus is so hot:

* Its atmosphere is 92 times thicker than Earth's
* Its crust is thinner than the Earth's allowing the internal core heat to reach the surface


As far as it being closer to the sun:

Energy per unit area at Venus = (92.9 E6)^2 / (67.2 E6)^2 =
1.91 times the energy per unit area on Earth

In other words, Venus gets about two times as much energy per unit area as the Earth.

I will concede that there is huge disagreement on the relativity of Venus to the Sun. But my opinion is that it has a direct bearing.

Nice kiddie page you linked, tho. Pretty colors.
Watch the documentary I linked. It's even unbiased...and Canadian.

IMPORTANT STUFF TO KNOW BEFORE LOOKING SILLY

[girth]

Originally Posted by taxi

Lol the weather was so hot up here that when rain finally broke out 4 days later it looked like i was at the high seas lookin out the window outside. Ive never seen anything like it in my whole life, we dont have hurricanes here.

Right back at ya, someone said that it is only in the united states where people take Rush Limbaugh more seriously than 99% of climate scientists out there (1% being oil industry shills). Only stupid people dont care about being guinea pigs in a global climate experiment when we know CO2 is a warming gas. I hope when youre 85 and realize how wrong you were youll be apologizing to your grandchildren for fighting against them having a viable future, since youre so smart and all that and will have kids.

I never said whether or not I believe in global warming. I sure as hell don't listen to radio and fuck Rush Limbaugh.
I just said I hate it when people say something moronic to the effect of: "I believe global warming, i mean shit go outside, its so hot this year"

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by girth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never said whether or not I believe in global warming. I sure as hell don't listen to radio and fuck Rush Limbaugh.
I just said I hate it when people say something moronic to the effect of: "I believe global warming, i mean shit go outside, its so hot this year"

Well... isnt it? im 35 years old and i can tell its getting warmer simply by comparing my youth in the 80s to the 2000s, that doesnt prove CO2 warms an atmosphere by trapping energy, but its anecdotal evidence.

[Humerox]

Is the argument whether or not there is global warming at the present?

If that's the case, then yeah...sure it's warming.

It's warming up from the coldest point in the last 10,000 years...which was 140 years ago...a period known Little Ice-Age.
There have been many warmer global periods than we're experiencing now in the last 10k years.

I thought the argument was about man-made global warming. My bad.

[Daywolf]

...but isn't "climate change" all the new rage? Too many peeps figure out global warming is a hoax, well "that's ok lil'fella cuz we just renamed it climate change" [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Us morons will nevah-eveh figure it out *chuckles*

[guineapig]

Also from the same Nasa link:

The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf.

[guineapig]

To use this as any sort of official evidence of any kind would be to ignore the obvious bias slant that is clearly plastered all over the article. Also, it was written in a very childish manner.

NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

By Bob Ellis on June 5th, 2009
(Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

Click to enlarge (Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

From DailyTech, we have still more evidence that any warming occurring on planet earth is coming from natural sources and is cyclic in nature–NOT from the evil capitalism that Al Gore, the UN politicians at the IPCC and other socialists love to blame.

From the article:

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

If our media, culture and a large portion of the “scientific” community were really honest, it would be the worshippers of the religion of anthropogenic global warming who are called “skeptics,” wouldn’t it?

Because it is those pushing this silly theory that our puny SUVs and power plants are causing earth to warm up when the most obvious source of heat hangs over their head every single day.

AGW simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Nor does it line up with the objective data.

sunspot_numbers
Click to enlarge (Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

As this graph shows, solar activity has been cyclic in nature going back hundreds of years. Solar activity is also increasing, and we are coming out of the “Little Ice Age” of just a few hundred years ago. Of course the planet is warming–we’re coming out of a cold spell! The Maunder Minimum period of diminished solar activity coincided with the Little Ice Age when Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters.

About 1,000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize and grow vineyards. Today Greenland is almost entirely covered in ice. Tell me: is the earth warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago? Did they have SUVs and coal power plants in the days of the Vikings? This isn’t tough to figure out, people.

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents. Try as they might, they just can’t do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

Things like cyclic solar data, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter just don’t line up with the suppositions of the AGW worshippers. They craft all manner of complex calculations and “what ifs,” but in the end the best they can do is say things like, “Well, we can’t prove it now, but by the time we can, it’ll be too late.”

And we’re supposed to watch our electric bills go up 40% and see our economy devastated on what-ifs and a bunch of garbage that not only doesn’t match the evidence but doesn’t even pass the smell test?

I’m not as gullible as these shysters seem to think I am, and I don’t believe most of the American people are either.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also from the same Nasa link:

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To use this as any sort of official evidence of any kind would be to ignore the obvious bias slant that is clearly plastered all over the article. Also, it was written in a very childish manner.

lol you criticize/dismiss the opinion of one link calling it biased but you post a link for the opinion of scientists linked to the UN and think they are not biased. LOL the UN is the most biased and backwards organization in the ENTIRE world! Ohhhh no agenda theeeere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And what scientists? Like elementary school scientist teachers? Need a small list of names that say it's bunk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming There are an enormous amount of actual scientists that refute global warming actually.

Here is the link that just says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfVwEBkuqts [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Overcast [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Government - to me is just about the LEAST trustworthy source of information anymore. So - yeah, I'd be inclined to believe some third-party site first.

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol you criticize/dismiss the opinion of one link calling it biased

Yes, I do dismiss it. By the very nature of how it was written. Note the areas I put in bold, I don't think much else needs to be stated.

Trying to concentrate on the link in the Nasa article does nothing for your attempt to defend the poorly written agenda-laden Bob Ellis article.

It is a common practice however, to try and redirect people when you can't defend your original point.

[Overcast]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.

Who wrote whatever government page, and what's the agenda?
Do you know who really wrote it? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How often are politicians honest?

Who has PROVEN they can't be trustworthy. To me - the government has done a fine job - if nothing else - at proving - they can't be trusted.

But no - I wouldn't just take one third part page at face value either.

Most of everything out there - at all, is agenda/money driven anyway. There doesn't seem to be room for 'honesty' at all anymore in politics or 'science' - unless it somehow benefits the bottom line.