Global Warming advocates, step inside...

[CorvallisBMW]

what percent of annual carbon dioxide emissions are man made?

come on we know you can look it up

here, let me help

<5%

and there has been no GW for over 10 yrs now, in spite of atmospheric CO2 rising

I'd really like to see where you got this number from. Do you have a source?

[u3b3rg33k]

This thread, it's like real politics, only with more honesty.

[joshh]

#1. Can't ANYTHING be a pollutant when the presence of too much of it upsets a system?
#2. Data?
#3. Data? Previous peak according to Antarctic ice records was @300PPM 325,000 years ago. That coincided with a period of "less ice". We are now at 388PPM according to the Mauna Loa station and the evidence of ice melt is absolutely irrefutable. You can argue causation, but not correlation at this point. Higher concentrations of CO2 are strongly correlated with periods of "less ice".

Where's your data about where the CO2 was created without mankind creating it?....back then. I hope you have a really good answer because man is the cause of GW than the earth better have a good way to produce the huge amounts we create....without our help of course.

I suppose the Little Ice Age was the lessening of CO2 then? Can you explain that?

Oh wait, you mean the earth has variations of temperatures without mankind having a thing to do with it...IT CAN'T BE!!!!!!

[kronus]

Because as usual that's all they have to hold onto.

No, I was actually making a point that turned out to be too subtle for you ;)

[HarryPotter]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20110106/brian-deer-autism-110106/

Cause shit like this couldn't happen to scientists studying GW.... To much faith in humanity you guys have.

[Fusion]

The problem with scientists, for or against GW is that when they study back in time, their work is more and more guesses. For example the study of the ancestry of man kind often changes due to new discoveries. There are facts to go along with the theories, but never is it "case closed", same with the dinosaurs. But I really support science in things like nano technologies, health science etc. etc.

So those scientists going back before temperatures and CO2 levels were recorded on a daily basis should be very carefull with what they say about the earth thousands of years ago. They may find a rock that could support lower CO2 levels 10000 years ago, but next year they could find a different rock that will negate that.

I think that if all these scientific efforts (and money) went towards more realistic things like Tesla's free energy, we would all be far better off than arguing about farting cows.

[HarryPotter]

I think that all these scientific efforts (and money) went towards more realistic things like Tesla's free energy, we would all be far better off than arguing about farting cows.

Yes. A big YES.

[Bill 84 318i]

The problem with scientists, for or against GW is that when they study back in time, their work is more and more guesses. For example the study of the ancestry of man kind often changes due to new discoveries. There are facts to go along with the theories, but never is it "case closed", same with the dinosaurs. But I really support science in things like nano technologies, health science etc. etc.

So those scientists going back before temperatures and CO2 levels were recorded on a daily basis should be very carefull with what they say about the earth thousands of years ago. They may find a rock that could support lower CO2 levels 10000 years ago, but next year they could find a different rock that will negate that.

In what way (aside from inconvenience) is this a "problem"? What you described is simply the nature of science, and anything investigative in nature. Of course things change as you continue to look, but hopefully they should change less often and less significantly. Then things become solid and become "scientific theories."

Clearly there are no conclusions on the AGW debate, and anyone on either side that's unflappable in their opinion is foolish.

First off, the studies we read are skewed. Depending on where on the earth temperatures are measured, and where on earth co2 is recorded we can see different "patterns" of warming and cooling. This means that scientists can manipulate the findings to form a graph that supports their argument. If you think about this... it makes sense. The earth is pretty large and obviously temperatures are going to change from region to region.

Another thing, I have yet to see evidence linking CO2 to temperature.
-Yes CO2 levels are high
-Yes temperatures are high
Can someone show me evidence linking these two things? Not just proving each of these things individually.

I hope you don't look at your first paragraph as some sort of problem with no solution. Complicated and beyond our grasp, sure...but worth investigating.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=correlation+of+co2+to+temperature

[87e30]

I hope you don't look at your first paragraph as some sort of problem with no solution. Complicated and beyond our grasp, sure...but worth investigating.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=correlation+of+co2+to+temperature

clever... but I haven't seen anything.

Temperature has been directly correlated to the sun, however CO2 has not really proven to predict temperature in any way. Therefore... how are we saying they are correlated?

[z31maniac]

Temperature has been directly correlated to the sun, however CO2 has not really proven to predict temperature in any way.

And the student becomes the master.

Precisely why I started this thread.

[gwb72tii]

I'd really like to see where you got this number from. Do you have a source?

here's one, and i'm wrong, its about 3.5%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

i used to have a bunch of bookmarks on this stuff that were lost when i got a new mac about 2 yrs ago.

here's something else to consider, the 800 year lag in CO2 and GW

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

i'll get more links for you to ponder
the whole point is this;
the most vocal proponents of AGW have political aims. that in and of itself should create doubt in your mind as to the validity of their arguments. its like al gore's movie. its so full of 1/2 truths and outright misstatements that nobody with any analytical ability can endorse it as anything but propaganda. even if you believe the AGW argument.
and if you dig into al gore, what do you find? a hypocrite to the nth degree. so why would he put out such a misleading movie? he was a principal in a company set up to buy/sell carbon credits. he and his bud, the real first black pres, clinton, tried and failed to set up carbon cap and trade legislation, as did the current admin, which would have made fat albert more rich than he already is.

here's a rule of thumb in life and in my business
when everyone is headed in one direction (the AGW crowd), it pays to go the other way

[87e30]

And the student becomes the master.

Precisely why I started this thread.

I used to do quite a bit of reading on the topic but I eventually became frustrated for the reasons I've already stated.



What scares me about "global warming" is the way individuals use it to push political agendas. If the copenhagen treaty would have been signed by the US we would have been signing away the people's right to vote and make decisions on the issue. So much for personal freedom and representation.

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alternative means to the ultimate goal of wealth redistribution form the rich countries to all the poor ones. And also from those individuals that have to those that dont



Ahhhhh and we have come to the real crux of the matter.


The huge glowing radiation orb in the fucking sky. This is where the answers lay

[mar1t1me]

Where's your data about where the CO2 was created without mankind creating it?....back then. I hope you have a really good answer because man is the cause of GW than the earth better have a good way to produce the huge amounts we create....without our help of course.

I suppose the Little Ice Age was the lessening of CO2 then? Can you explain that?

Oh wait, you mean the earth has variations of temperatures without mankind having a thing to do with it...IT CAN'T BE!!!!!!

What part of "correlation, not causation" didn't you get?

I never said it (GW) was man made.

[joshh]

What part of "correlation, not causation" didn't you get?

I never said it (GW) was man made.

That data is far from perfect. Even the correlation can be questioned. Their estimation of time is even questionable (previous to the 20th century). Add that to different regions and them trying to match up time based on that same time estimation (flawed) with those different regions.
How possible is it that one region has more CO2 in their samples than other areas at the same time. How do they know? Maybe the earth does something that leaves more CO2 in the ice at different parts of the world.
There have been so many things that have gone on with this planet for scientists to pull a bunch of ice plugs from icebergs and lay down a concrete idea of what happened at a certain time with a certain temperature. When half of our science is guesstimating.
Scientists just love to fail to have an answer and find the next best thing and plug the hole with that data. And that's exactly what these Scientists have done. Let alone the horrible data collection otherwise.
Scientists also believe that the little ice age could have been caused by volcanic activity. Shit some scientists believe we're simply just recovering from the Little Ice Age still. Guessing is fun!