Global Warming advocates, step inside...

[joshh]

Thank you for completely dodging all my questions. It only further proves you have nothing to back up your claims.

I, however, have lots of evidence to back up what I'm saying. Apparently the thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed and published research papers don't exist in your world, so I'll leave these here for you to read:

"Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

"But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels. Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today"

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

"It is scientific fact that carbon dioxide concentrations are growing rapidly and accelerating. The observed concentration rise is through multiple lines of evidence directly attributable to the use of gas, oil and coal."

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

"Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified".
http://web.archive.org/web/200709260...pa20071880.pdf

"A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil... had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on"
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/t...ut-denial.html

"A new report details what it calls an "enormously successful" disinformation campaign by ExxonMobil that used tobacco-industry tactics to fund groups who cast doubts and deceive the public on the scientific consensus regarding global warming. The UCS report found that between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil has funnelled about $16 million to 43 advocacy groups and 16 individuals in an effort to "manufacture uncertainty" and ultimately stall government action that would require a mandatory cut in greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide."
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Bus...2767979&page=1

All HAIL Global Waring. They say it is so therefore it is so!!

(regardless if the science has had many holes punched through it)


Does the money have to go to the scientists for this to be true? I wasn't even referring to the scientists....
But let's see...if we give grants to only those scientists who are for GW and not to those against it...gosh what would happen? It's not about getting rich it's about a paycheck.
Want to argue that GW doesn't pull in millions upon millions?


"In the 2001 report they said, “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate state is not possible.” James Lovelock, Gaia hypothesis speculator said, “It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think that we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.” Kevin Trenberth, IPCC author and CRU associate said, “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system… This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.”

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25387



"The degree to which the IPCC and their supporters have fooled the world is amazing. As Jean-Francois Revel said: “How is it possible for a theory, which is false in its component parts, to be true as a whole.” In the case of ‘official’ climate science he could add that many parts of the whole are simply omitted. He explained the mentality that has pervaded the AGW supporters when he wrote, “A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence” His book titled, The Flight from Truth: The Reign of deceit in the Age of Information” tells it all. "

[//MPower]

Climate change started long before Al Gore...

Climate change exised long before man ever walked the Earth.

[/thread]

[kronus]

All HAIL Global Waring. They say it is so therefore it is so!!

All HAIL the lack of Global Waring! joshh says it isn't so therefore it isn't so!

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nice troll, nick picking typos as usual ehhh ;)

[CorvallisBMW]

He makes a perfectly good point, his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[gwb72tii]

ok corvallis, here's your big chance to prove you know what you're talking about

here's a quote from your above post

"Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today"

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

so, one of the arguments on your side is to roll back man made CO2 something like 20%, which would be catastrophic economically for not only the USA but the globe

somehow al gore and his friends think this will help, right?

lets do the math again

20% of 5% is................drumroll..................1%

your side advocates and is willing to trash the world economy to reduce annual CO2 by 1%

tell me please how 1% will help? not the mumbo jumbo of "gosh we have to start somewhere and do something", but scientifically just exactly what a 1% reductuion will do?

let me help again. it will do...................drumroll.................noth ing, nada, squat.

all in the name of non consensus man made mathematical environmental models that have failed so far to predict anything at all. what is happening today in england (coldest winter in 1000 years) was not supposed to happen per your sides mathematical models, and was not predicted anywhere.

how do explain all this.

[joshh]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nice troll, nick picking typos as usual ehhh ;)

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

[z31maniac]

what is happening today in england (coldest winter in 1000 years) was not supposed to happen per your sides mathematical models, and was not predicted anywhere.

Drag up some of the brit newspapers articles from back in 2000. It's pretty funny to read all a ton of stuff about how they will never have winter again, Europeans will never see snow again, etc etc.

[Fusion]

lets do the math again

20% of 5% is................drumroll..................1%

your side advocates and is willing to trash the world economy to reduce annual CO2 by 1%

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

:nice:

Btw: You could theoretically also argue that stepping on a flower is devastating the planet.

[Massive Lee]

your side advocates and is willing to trash the world economy to reduce annual CO2 by 1%

Your only argument is that a change of 1% means nothing. Let's try something.

Change by 1% the diameter of pistons in your engine.
Put 1% mercury in your drinking water.
Chop off 1% of your body.

Suddenly 1% means a lot.

Basically, all your saying is that in order to support money makers, we should allow them to trash nature's balance. Great. How much money will you need when you can't get anymore clean water, food or air?

[gwb72tii]

Your only argument is that a change of 1% means nothing. Let's try something.

Change by 1% the diameter of pistons in your engine.
Put 1% mercury in your drinking water.
Chop off 1% of your body.

Suddenly 1% means a lot.

Basically, all your saying is that in order to support money makers, we should allow them to trash nature's balance. Great. How much money will you need when you can't get anymore clean water, food or air?

i'd say three things
#1 CO2 is not a pollutant
#2 you have to understand the effect of CO2 as a green house gas. its non-linear, its logrithmic. to double whatever effect CO2 is having you'd have to quadruple its concentration.
#3 there are times in the past when CO2 concentrations were much higher than today and the planet was warmer......................and colder.

[mar1t1me]

i'd say three things
#1 CO2 is not a pollutant
#2 you have to understand the effect of CO2 as a green house gas. its non-linear, its logrithmic. to double whatever effect CO2 is having you'd have to quadruple its concentration.
#3 there are times in the past when CO2 concentrations were much higher than today and the planet was warmer......................and colder.

#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".

[Fusion]

[ck_taft325is]

Keep pressing GWB, they're on their heels. Lee even managed to get a spine and attempt something to the likes of a logical retort. Granted, he still used some obscure misdirection with a question about your question, but still.. he should be recognized ;)

[87e30]

I'll agree with whoever said that we probably don't know enough of the situation to have a firm understanding of the actual research.

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 watched this video some time ago and found it to be quite good. I realize most of us probably don't have an extra hour or so to watch it but if you're interested, as far as I coudl tell, it's a pretty good source of information.

Great Global Warming Swindle: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0191369613647#

Although I'm sure it's possible that information in this video is fabricated too. I don't like science, it's always changing.