Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do 97% of scientific studies agree that climate change is manmade?
1. Consipracy 22 41.51%
2. Scientists are not as smart as average Joe 5 9.43%
3. Scientists don't believe in the bible or the rapture 26 49.06%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:23 AM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,242 posts, read 7,878,049 times
Reputation: 3497

Advertisements

We need a laugh smilie so we can all laugh at coalman.

Hey coalman! What do you think AGW is an abbreviation for and do you think the word "anthropogenic" might actually be describing causation? OK, I'll break down for you since you're obviously not that bright. AGW means, as in the definition of the phrase, that humans are causing the climate change so, yes, when a scientist uses the term Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Global Warming they are telling you that 1) the climate is changing and 2) that humans are the primary cause of it.

If you're going to try to argue against facts and science the least you could do is get the bloody terms correct. :shame:

 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:42 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,816,457 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
We need a laugh smilie so we can all laugh at coalman.

Hey coalman! What do you think AGW is an abbreviation for and do you think the word "anthropogenic" might actually be describing causation? OK, I'll break down for you since you're obviously not that bright. AGW means, as in the definition of the phrase, that humans are causing the climate change so, yes, when a scientist uses the term Anthropogenic Climate Change or Anthropogenic Global Warming they are telling you that 1) the climate is changing and 2) that humans are the primary cause of it.

If you're going to try to argue against facts and science the least you could do is get the bloody terms correct. :shame:
If there is anyone here that should not be commenting on someone else's intelligence it's you, based on your other thread about solar flares it seems you are under the impression that something has to be all or nothing.

The drivers of climate change can be broken down into different categories, the two major ones would be man made or natural and for my explanation here we're going to assume these two factors make up 100% of the possible causes. AGW or man made can be any percentage of the 100, it could for example be 1% with the natural factor being 99%.

Is that clear enough for you to understand? Jusr becsue a paper supports AGW does not necessarily mean it says that AGW is 100% of the cause for climate change.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:45 AM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,190,626 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You're missing the point Don, just becsue a paper endorses AGW doesn't necessarily mean it endorses AGW as the driver of Climate change. Within those papers you're going to find vastly differing views on how much man is effecting climate ranging from negligible to major.

Climate has been changing forever, we don't even have to go that far back in recorded history to see some fairly major events such Medieval Warming period followed by the Little Ice age. These are both fairly large changes in climate that could not have been driven by man.
Forest fires have been occurring before man existed, does that mean man is incapable of causing forest fires?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:50 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,816,457 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Forest fires have been occurring before man existed, does that mean man is incapable of causing forest fires?
If you have a fire does that mean man caused it? See the fallacy of your question?
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:52 AM
 
6,331 posts, read 5,190,626 times
Reputation: 1640
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If you have a fire does that mean man caused it? See the fallacy of your question?
Many are caused by man, but according to you that's not possible because fires existed before man.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 02:54 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,816,457 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Many are caused by man, but according to you that's not possible because fires existed before man.
Now you're trying to put words in my mouth, I never said man couldn't be a factor in climate change.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 06:55 AM
 
3,728 posts, read 4,854,490 times
Reputation: 2293
Here is what I know about the AGW hypothesis:

1) There is evidence that the Earth has increased in temperature over the past few decades.

2) Carbon Dioxide absorbs thermal energy more efficiently than nitrogen or oxygen and that makes it a greenhouse gas.

3) Much of the increase of carbon dioxide is result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels.

Okay. I agree on that much, so technically I am a believer in AGW. However, I still think there is a lot of hysteria about this issue and that a lot of people are just using it as an excuse to go after their political goals that would otherwise be unachievable if they didn't have a crisis to hide behind. There is much we still don't know about climate and climatology is still a relatively new science. If history is any indicator on the issue, there will probably be serious revisions to the AGW hypothesis. Climate is a chaotic system with many known variables (and possibly countless unknown variables) and I think a simple CO2 ratio in the atmosphere is probably too simplistic to cover all the possibilities. Also, considering that we only have reliable temperature data for what, the past 40 or so years? I think the amount of data we have is too small before we start panicking. I'm also not completely sold on the use of tree rings to be of significant evidence of an increase temperature when tenths of a degree are considered major data points.

Also, regardless of the science, I think many of the most vocal AGW supporters are anything, but scientific. The OP for example. He does not delve into the science to explain what the evidence consists of and why it is accurate nor does he explain the likely consequences of Climate Change. It's all about just how smart he is and how stupid people he disagrees with are. I've heard some pretty ridiculous claims and comments from vocal AGW supporters (almost none of whom are scientists). Such as climate change could render the Earth's climate comparable to Venus (which makes sense since Earth's atmosphere is 0.035% carbon dioxide and Venus is 96.5% carbon dioxide and much closer to the sun). And more than a few that have called for Nuremberg style trials for oil executives and "deniers". Also, the whole phrase "denier" has nothing to do with science. It is purely a political charged term attempting to smear those that question (either reasonably or unreasonably) the veracity of the evidence of AGW by conflating them with Holocaust Deniers and that is nothing more than underhanded bulls--t.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:12 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,908,718 times
Reputation: 2618
I posted the problems with the Cook study and if anyone has been around long enough in the other threads, they know the problems with the other papers that claim the same.

Those continuing the false claim are either ignorant or devious.

thecoalman, you know the song and dance. This isn't about facts, it is about misinforming and then belligerently attacking any who do not blindly accept.

They are a joke and a waste of time.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:37 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,908,718 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Forest fires have been occurring before man existed, does that mean man is incapable of causing forest fires?

Yet we can break down how much is caused by man and how much is caused by nature. I think the forestry service reports roughly 80% of forest fires are caused by lightning. So we know how much we contribute.

So, now look at AGW. We know that CO2 accounts for a very small percentage of the green house gases. We also know man contributes a small portion of CO2.

What you seem to suggest is that our small contribution is the primary driver of the process. In fact, that is the CAGW position, that CO2 is what drives climate predominately and any small change is responsible for dramatic shifts in climate.

Problem is, that has never been established and is contingent on modeled belief which has consistently failed when compared to observational data.
 
Old 05-20-2013, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,379,976 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
That's the entire premise of the thread, if you think the thread is irrelevant, why are you posting on it?
The premise of the thread is 97% of the papers on climate change support AGW which is false.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top