Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL. Yep the strong will survive and start coal plants back up hopefully.
If co2 were really causing all this harm and doom to the planet these folks wouldn't be calling for taxes they would be calling for an immediate halt on it.
You should know there is a difference between weather and climate change.
So water vapor is rising and the planet according to you is heating up to alarming measures but it's the wee widdle co2 % that is the fault of it all.
Yes. And I wouldn't call pumping our billions og tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year a "wee widdle" amount. But hey, you go ahead and play your games if you like.
There is a difference between weather and climate. That doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive. Of course, they are not.
Yes. And I wouldn't call pumping our billions og tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year a "wee widdle" amount. But hey, you go ahead and play your games if you like.
I think he was pointing out that the contribution we have in terms of the climates system and the contribution C02 makes in terms of climate warming is insignificant, but you go ahead and omit that fact, I mean... it is expected from political pundits, after all... politics is king, as the scientists who have been promoting the CAGW scenario have stated repeatedly.
Ice core data is useful but it has a few quirks concerning it as mentioned in the commentary link I provided. There is also research out there that brings into question the accuracy of using the ice cores as well.
If you look at the plant stomata, it isn't ideal either, but it does tend to show that there are high concentrations of C02 at certain time lines (some research suggests it is a better judge of C02 content as well). Its problem is the sparsity in its samples and the requirements needed to get a valid sample. The samples however do show a conflict with the ice cores. Add in the GEOCARB data and you also bring in some questions and issues.
The entire point is that there is no "hard facts" concerning this as the poster was suggesting. The problem in climate science is there are too many "Oh! that looks like it supports my hypothesis! It must be right!" and a lot less objective evaluation and due diligence.
Definition of irony - using Wattsupwiththat.com as a sole source of climate science information, and then questioning the objectivity and due diligence of real scientists.
I think he was pointing out that the contribution we have in terms of the climates system and the contribution C02 makes in terms of climate warming is insignificant, but you go ahead and omit that fact, I mean... it is expected from political pundits, after all... politics is king, as the scientists who have been promoting the CAGW scenario have stated repeatedly.
I know what he was pointing out and he's flat out wrong. by the way, I'm a geologist, and so this is a scientific issue for me, not a political one.
I know what he was pointing out and he's flat out wrong. by the way, I'm a geologist, and so this is a scientific issue for me, not a political one.
Well, they always say that claiming someone wrong is as valid as showing they actually are! Actually, no... they don't say that.
Good for you, am I supposed to be impressed?
Maybe we should all bow down to your internet claim of being an authority?
Nope, I think we will require you to practice proper scientific means. So, get with it and show us your argument. After all, you are so skilled, surely you can break everything down in identifiable means and explain why you are correct right? Or should we expect some more cut and pastes from other researchers work and wiki graphs?
Definition of irony - using Wattsupwiththat.com as a sole source of climate science information, and then questioning the objectivity and due diligence of real scientists.
Source dismissal.
A scientist does not dismiss based on source. They object based on content. Apparently you need to go back to school, take some logic classes, and a heavy dose of hard sciences. By the way, wattsupwith cites EVERYTHING they discuss. In the issue of the link I provided you, it was commentary on the discrepancies between the data from different sources (which are all cited to their original collection). As I said, you can object, but to dismiss is purely political.
What is due diligence? Please, by all means explain it to us. Give us examples of such within the work to which you use? We eagerly await your wonderful lesson on science.
Well, they always say that claiming someone wrong is as valid as showing they actually are! Actually, no... they don't say that.
Good for you, am I supposed to be impressed?
Maybe we should all bow down to your internet claim of being an authority?
Nope, I think we will require you to practice proper scientific means. So, get with it and show us your argument. After all, you are so skilled, surely you can break everything down in identifiable means and explain why you are correct right? Or should we expect some more cut and pastes from other researchers work and wiki graphs?
I only pointed it out because it was claimed that I was making a political issue out of AGW, when I'm not. However, I won't refrain from pointing out when the other camp does.
As for making my argument, I shouldn't have to point out that AGW is (despite the contrarians' claims) the accepted scientific paradigm. As such, it isn't for me to offer support for AGW more than is necessary to strengthen the paradigm. It is up to you contrarians to refute it. That is how the scientific process works. So I suggest you get with it. The information I've provided is based on widely accepted peer reviewed publications. I've yet to see anyone here from the opposing camp do likewise. Wattsupwiththat is not an acceptable peer reviewed publication. It is a political blog with an ultra-conservative agenda. Nothing more. Try again, folks.
Yes. And I wouldn't call pumping our billions og tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year a "wee widdle" amount. But hey, you go ahead and play your games if you like.
There is a difference between weather and climate. That doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive. Of course, they are not.
But it is a wee widdle amount in the grand scheme of things. I think you can figure that out if you tried. Yelling about billions of tons means nothing to the atmosphere which is what we're talking about. It's not your garage.
I only pointed it out because it was claimed that I was making a political issue out of AGW, when I'm not. However, I won't refrain from pointing out when the other camp does.
As for making my argument, I shouldn't have to point out that AGW is (despite the contrarians' claims) the accepted scientific paradigm. As such, it isn't for me to offer support for AGW more than is necessary to strengthen the paradigm. It is up to you contrarians to refute it. That is how the scientific process works. So I suggest you get with it. The information I've provided is based on widely accepted peer reviewed publications. I've yet to see anyone here from the opposing camp do likewise. Wattsupwiththat is not an acceptable peer reviewed publication. It is a political blog with an ultra-conservative agenda. Nothing more. Try again, folks.
Now your going to fall back on your "science" which has been proven wrong over and over and based on falsified data. I guess that is all you have left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
