Skip Nav
Valentine's Day
To All the Single Women Spending Valentine's Day Alone
Relationships
Kaitlyn Bristowe and Shawn Booth Have Some Excellent Dating Advice For You
Henry Cavill
17 of Hollywood's Hottest Get Brutally Honest About Sex Scenes

Pictures of Climate Change Day Grave Protest

Picture It: Once Upon a Midnight Dreary

Nevermore was the message scientists sent today in Coventry, England as a New Orleans-style funeral march was staged to mourn lost generations of the future. It comes on UK's Climate Change Day of Action when the protest leader, NASA's director of the Goddard Institute For Space Studies, said scientists have a moral obligation to become politically involved.


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Source

Around The Web

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
It made the case that CO2 is a naturally occurring event, that has historically been even higher then now, and that if anything it assists in growing crops.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 6 years
Just to inject a little irony, from RedState.com A few days ago, your humble correspondent noted the story of a trio of British “explorers” who were on a “global warming” icepack survey in the Arctic - and who had become marooned by (surprise) frigid Arctic weather conditions. The story was too hard to pass up, since it had been given the deadpan-irony headline of: Global Warming Team Stranded by Cold Weather. http://tinyurl.com/cxuctj
stephley stephley 6 years
The article talks about whether CO2 is the cause of temperature variations, and doesn't deal with whether we're overloading the planet with C02.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
You said "Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can absorb it." . That case is being refuted in the above article.
stephley stephley 6 years
"Nice try at obfuscation, but it does not sell here." I'm-not-researching-manmade-global-warming-because-I've-repeatedly-said-I-have-no-interest-in-arguing-a-position-I've-never-taken. "The article quotes actual scientists,with their Curricular Vita." Dude, just about any article you google on global warming names at least one scientist and where they're from. One guy in Ferrara's article is said to be the 'winner of numerous prestigious Science awards" which is nice and vague isn't it? At least Al Gore can be clear on his CV that his big award is a share of a Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee probably doesn't understand science as well as Ferrara though and that's why they didn't notice that the UN study was "couched in terms that were meaningless, and in no way supported the published conclusions." The science prize winners that year probably were afraid if they said anything their prizes would be taken back. :oy:
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
Peter Ferrara wrote that article, wow.. Peter Ferrara is not a scientist double wow. Did you figure that out from reading the name of the guy off of the article , and the fact there was no letters after his name? The article quotes actual scientists,with their Curricular Vita. Since you went this far in your googling the author, it is safe to assume you could find no credible authority to support man made global warming, nor anything to impinge the authority of the scientists quoted. Nice try at obfuscation,but it does not sell here.
stephley stephley 6 years
This is your pattern: you decide you know what I think and then tell me to defend a position that I've NEVER taken. It's not incumbent on me to do anything and the article you copied here is a biased screed, not science. The author, Peter Ferrara, is not a scientist. According to the American Spectator's website - where your article appears - Peter Ferrara is director of budget and entitlement policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation - a "think tank" that emphasizes free markets and limited governments. That means Peter Ferrara sees global warming in terms of cost and regulation. And at least one of his "brilliant" scientists consults for major polluters like EXXON, Shell, Unocal, Sun Oil, ARCO, Lockheed, Martin-Marietta, McDonnell-Douglas and tobacco companies.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
know = no
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
Steph, stop making excuses for the fact you believe in man made global warming without a shred of credible scientific documentation you can point to. You should no that you can never prove a negative. It is not incumbent on a non believer to prove anything. It is the responsibility of the believer to provide irrefutable evidence. That is what the article i referenced did , it is asking GW hysterics, to show a model that explains past climate fluctuations that shows the man made effect. You should do that before you ruin an already troubled economy with additional burdens to profitability, and without saddling consumers with the resultant price increases to offset increased cost.
stephley stephley 6 years
Well google some more. Go to Greenpeace, go to Union of Concerned Scientists, go the the Sierra Club... think of a group that you oppose and go to their sites and see what reports they link to. You're the one intent on proving a point. Since I believe that people should clean up after themselves whether the world is about to melt or not I don't need to read and analyse every report until I'm convinced.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
I want a report with someone actually putting his/her name on it.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
Steph, I have tried google that was how i found and read the UN report, not just the MSM Summary. The actual report, did not support the summary at all.
stephley stephley 6 years
If you want the names, google the articles and read them. It's silly for anyone to cut and paste the names and credentials of people neither of us knows so you can argue about them. Your claim that the UN study was 'couched in terms that were meaningless and in no way supported the published conclusions' is another 'why bother' statement - you're clearly intent on simply negating anything that doesn't fit your view. You just want to throw rocks.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
I posted an article with names, and evidence that showed flaws in global warming hysteria. Please find me the study, that takes into account those Global temperature changes, and how man made global warming is different.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
I keep seeing the number of scientists listed, but never their names education, background or accomplishments. I want the names of the scientists and the studies done that reached the global warming conclusion. The UN study was couched in terms that were meaningless, and in no way supported the published conclusions.
stephley stephley 6 years
But, let's make the fallacy of the "dearth" issue clear: "Scientists say global warming real Published: Jan. 19, 2009 at 5:23 PM CHICAGO, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- A wide range of Earth scientists say humans contribute significantly to global warming, suggests a poll conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago. The poll should dispel doubts by some that a consensus about global warming exists among scientists, said Peter Doran, a University of Illinois professor who conducted the poll with students last year. The 3,146 Earth scientists interviewed around the world overwhelmingly agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200-plus years and human activity is a significant factor, Doran said in a statement released Monday. The scientists, chosen from the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, were asked two questions via e-mail: if mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and if human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. About 90 percent of those polled agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second question, Doran said. " ---- Sunday Times of London 3/15/09: "It follows last week’s climate science summit in Copenhagen where 2,500 leading climate scientists issued a stark warning to politicians that unless they took drastic action to cut carbon emissions, the world would face “irreversible shifts in climate”. They warned that global temperature increases averaging more than 4C were now possible and that HUMAN-GENERATED CO2 could also acidify the world’s oceans, wiping out life-forms ranging from tiny plankton to coral reefs."
stephley stephley 6 years
I'M NOT LISTING A BUNCH OF NAMES WITH TITLES. THAT WOULD BE STUPID AND USELESS AND SIMPLY OPEN A NEW ARGUMENT OVER EACH INDIVIDUAL!! If that makes you the winner then yes, you are King Reasonable Science :notworthy: Actually Carrie, I agree with Hypno - I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE the extremes, I said that way back at #20. I just think people should clean up after themselves.
amybdk amybdk 6 years
This is funny! "All I ask is for a credible response as to why those conclusions are wrong, and with citations from Scientists in the field of science that can address climate change in a scholar manner. " ... considering... well, nevermind.
Carrie-Sue Carrie-Sue 6 years
Nice tryy, Hypno, but I don't think they're listening. What's more, I don't think they're even reading each other's posts! :)
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
So, you can't give me a credible list of scientists, and you have no cogent response, Steph. If you had any you would have posted your list, and answer the points made in the article. I repeat what i have said before "Perhaps calling views you disagree with “extreme” and/or accusing those who hold them of having dishonorable motives is just a clever way of saying that you don’t want an “honest conversation” at all." If you have answers, then answer. STOP FINDING EXCUSES for not responding. I notice that is your pattern on too many posts. I am sorry for getting personal, but it just has to be said, after reading a year of your comments.
stephley stephley 6 years
Sorry, I'm not responding to a screed from a seriously partisan publication. How can you claim you want a scholarly discussion when you post an article that includes lines like these? "This was the most important point made by the brilliant scientists from around the world who attended the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York City last week. Those scientists included, among many others who deserve to be household names: S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, and the founder and first director of the National Weather Satellite Service..." "Environmentalists just respond to the arguments of these careful, logical, soft-spoken scientists with ridicule and derision, claiming quite wrongly that the scientific debate is over, and these "deniers" should just shut up, or be shut out." "To think after inventing the Internet, all these years later, Gore would show up in a completely different profession, as a Drama Queen in his own performance of George Orwell's classic, 1984. I say Drama Queen because even this self-deluded fool knows that his answer is just an act, he is just pretending that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, to preempt any debate, so he can go straight to GO and collect his $200."
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
Hypno, I presented fully annotated refutation of man made global warming alarmists. All I ask is for a credible response as to why those conclusions are wrong, and with citations from Scientists in the field of science that can address climate change in a scholar manner.
Grandpa Grandpa 6 years
Well, let's see some cogent posts, addressing the points brought up in my posting #13. I notice how you refuse to address the actual points raise,
stephley stephley 6 years
G'pa when you make comments like "that there is a dearth of credible scientists with the requisite background supporting Global warming" I just give up. According to that claim, everyone who believes there is evidence that there is a global warming threat lacks credibility and ONLY the people with whom you happen to agree are credible. Why would anyone want to play your game? I could produce a list of credible scientists who work with the U.N., the U.S. and other governments, government agencies worldwide, major environmental groups worldwide to match your guy who works for major corporations and has a website, and you'd say 'no they're not credible' and we would argue over what determines a scientist's credibility; then we would argue over which scientific areas should be considered credible when it comes to global warming; then we could break down each detail used to support global warming claims and argue over whether it's simply cyclical, caused by humans or exacerbated by humans - we would, of course, disagree on everything. Like several others here of your ideological bent, you declare winners and losers as you please. Since only time will tell who's right I'm not interested or impressed by those declarations, but if it makes you feel superior, be my guest and crown yourself king.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
Grandpa and Stephly I just feel that if we argue one extreme vs. the other we're missing the forest for the trees.
Latest Love
X