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.
- NOx, SOx, COx concentrations
- global average temperatures
then consider the timing of these along with the timing of human population growth, mass farming (so mass landuse change), and the "industrial revolution". what do you make of this? now, check some of the links earlier in this thread for paleorecords - plots of temperature and CO2 concentrations over the past 500000 years. zoom back into the CO2 record from the beginning of the industrial revolution to now. zoom out again, and look at a few other 200 year periods. look back at temperatures for the globe (on average). are you beginning to see anything a little odd about the past 200 years relative to the last 500000? what do you make of that?
Much of these estimates are problems with models. That is why the hockey stick was in contest. Scientist will agree (even those for global warming as man made) that the models lack the needed data to properly asses change. Also, monitoring stations are in big question due to their locations. Some are right next to the streets in urban areas to and they have a tendency of showing extreme highs (suggesting urban land mass influence).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello-world
what do you make of photos of glaciers from around the world showing that, indeed, there a few glaciers that are growing, yet there is a preponderance of glaciers that are receding, many of which at truly fascinating rates? and the global average of sea level rise? and THEIR timing relative to our own? how about the FACT that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas? have you done some calculations to see what happens with CO2 alone doubled or tripled relative to 50 years ago? how about some with the other complications such as clouds, H2O vapor, etc? what do you see? now, keep looking into it. from your previous perspective. from others' perspectives. from your evolving perspective. maybe even sacrifice decades of what could have been a much higher salary to do so. because you really want to know. let us know what you find. and let us know what the simple exercise outlined here leaves you with.
As for glaciers, we don't know what is causing it. Most scientist agree we are warming. Also, there are a lot of facts on the issue that show some of these glaciers receding and growing over many years. That is, climate changes, it always changes. The problem is in the data. We are trying to measure all these changes with equipment that can't properly measure all the variables and supporting clauses don't seem to add up either such as major glaciers being "claimed" to have receded drastic amounts, yet no evidence of it in terms of sea level in some areas which some scientist claim should be apparent. What happens when you only take a partial reading? Do you not sometimes get misleading results? This is the problem right now.
Co2 is not a harmful gas to the planet, in fact it is required for the planet to exist. H2o vapor is one of the largest contributers to green house gases, but did you know that we have no accurate models to properly measure it?
All of your questions are actually explained in several of my links as to what they question about the issue. As I said, they do a much better job of explaining them than I do. Remember that long link I gave you. Think of some of these questions you as asking and scroll down through it. They break it up into what you are basically looking for. I believe there is a section called "Ice Sheets" which explains some of the ideas they have concerning the issue.
Keep in mind, all of these links are attempting to claim they are right and global warming is wrong (though some are listed as arguments simply as a matter of completeness in the academic challenge to the "believed" consensus), but rather that the claims that this is a settled issue, that the facts are indisputable is incorrect.
Nomander you are starting to freak out again...easy...I'm sorry I missed your original reference earlier, you went back about 6 posts as is your tendency to jump around...I was still focused on the Little Lord Fauntleroy piece you submitted. I noticed you cut and pasted your rebuttal , to avoid providing your original silly blog source. Oreskes stands by her piece.
You can continue to post comments attacking those pointing out the obvious...but as others have already shown, you really have no clue what you are talking about and your painful attempt to act knowledgeble about the topic is just digging you into a bigger hole. You have nothing.
Ok, so first you didn't know who she was. Which only goes to show you don't read much of what you proclaim to be truth.
Second, she can stand by it all she likes. Mr. Moore stands by his claims even when he has been slapped in the face directly with his devious methods of research.
You have not proven anything. She has not proven anything. Again, you seem to support an "essay" that has been researched and shown to be lacking. Heck, in a way, she had her peer review and well.. it failed.
You are in "denial". Suffer with the ignorance you spread. Take a science class would you?
Again, maybe you can explain to me what the "Scientific Method" is and how it works, and why? Again, like last time, I thought so. Run along, we are discussing the topic, not pushing propaganda. You are already sold on your master, go worship it and dig that hole and live in it.
Personally, I would love to be around when the actual facts become known. They will, and my guess you will be nowhere to be found.
Again, run along. You waste my time. Your credibility on the issue is destroyed. Accept it and move on.
Has there been any "official" agreement between a large body of SCIENTISTS only that global warming has been caused by man? I mean, I know we have the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change that said there's a 90% chance we caused it. This is a governmental controlled body that doesn't even allow all of its contributing authors to have an equal voice in the final drafts and assessments.
Outside of that, its pretty much been Al Gore and other politicians along with the media who keep referring to the "consensus". To my knowledge, the government 90% is the closest thing to a consensus that has been put forth. Sure there are individual scientist who say they agree with the consensus, but there are many who disagree.
Since we haven't even made it all the way to a true consensus on whats really causing it, I'm amazed at how supportive some people are at signing over our energy supply to a world government in belief they will stop us from all dying from a warmer planet.
Has there been any "official" agreement between a large body of SCIENTISTS only that global warming has been caused by man? I mean, I know we have the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change that said there's a 90% chance we caused it. This is a governmental controlled body that doesn't even allow all of its contributing authors to have an equal voice in the final drafts and assessments.
Outside of that, its pretty much been Al Gore and other politicians along with the media who keep referring to the "consensus". To my knowledge, the government 90% is the closest thing to a consensus that has been put forth. Sure there are individual scientist who say they agree with the consensus, but there are many who disagree.
Since we haven't even made it all the way to a true consensus on whats really causing it, I'm amazed at how supportive some people are at signing over our energy supply to a world government in belief they will stop us from all dying from a warmer planet.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head.
Shame it will be disregarded though.
Look! The witch! Get the witch! My friends brothers mothers dead cousin said she looked at him with lust and was trying to seduce him! Our mighty council of the inquisition has said so, it must be true, we all agree as well. They even said anyone who disagrees is probably a witch as well! Burn them!!
We think ourselves so evolved, so intelligent. We are so arrogant in our beliefs that anything can be made truth. Fact is, we are nothing more than gullible uneducated sheep who chase after the rest of the mob as a dog takes to a bone. Sickening beyond words.
Has there been any "official" agreement between a large body of SCIENTISTS only that global warming has been caused by man? I mean, I know we have the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change that said there's a 90% chance we caused it. This is a governmental controlled body that doesn't even allow all of its contributing authors to have an equal voice in the final drafts and assessments.
Outside of that, its pretty much been Al Gore and other politicians along with the media who keep referring to the "consensus". To my knowledge, the government 90% is the closest thing to a consensus that has been put forth. Sure there are individual scientist who say they agree with the consensus, but there are many who disagree.
Since we haven't even made it all the way to a true consensus on whats really causing it, I'm amazed at how supportive some people are at signing over our energy supply to a world government in belief they will stop us from all dying from a warmer planet.
The vast majority of the world's scientific research organizations have come out and stated that people are causing global warming, and that we need to do something about it. All types of national science institutes, the American Meteorological Association, etc.
The vast majority of the world's scientific research organizations have come out and stated that people are causing global warming, and that we need to do something about it. All types of national science institutes, the American Meteorological Association, etc.
You are full of it. I have already showed you that this is not the case. Continue to believe your own ignorance. Seriously, you "act" as if you are attempting to "find truth" but all you do is cling to your view.
Here is how silly you sound. You INSIST that they are correct, they are fact, they are right and REFUSE to accept any objection to the science EVEN when it attempts to show where these issues are.
Your position:
The matter is settled, we have all the facts we need to come to a conclusion. We should act on these conclusions!
My Position:
We do not know the facts of the issue. The results are in contest. The science is new in this field and subject to mistakes and misleading results. We should make sure we have proven the results via scientific principals before we attempt to make judgment or act on what we "believe".
Sorry, but you are irrational. You are biased to the point of extremist measures. You follow the folly of biased thought throughout history which takes a "want" of something to be true and ignores all else to make sure it is exists as true.
That again as I said is not science, that is pure stupidity. Wallow in it.
The vast majority of the world's scientific research organizations have come out and stated that people are causing global warming, and that we need to do something about it. All types of national science institutes, the American Meteorological Association, etc.
And have they done the research themselves? No. They have read the positions of the IPCC and at the most, the "Summary for POLICYMAKERS", you know the one that brushes over the science while outlining how we are to go about getting the whole world involved in answering to the UN about how we use energy?
As for any of these organizations that have said such a thing, did each individual scientist say so? Or did their "spokesperson" or such make the call?
Usually you will find that they have taken a position only after pressure to do so has occurred.
Either way, I don't care. I like the idea of a warmer planet with higher CO2 levels. I think it will be a lush, green paradise compared to the other direction, which is return to glaciation. Its gonna happen sooner or later. Not so sure why people think we can stop a fake disaster from happening, and even if we could, how we could prevent a future one that would shift the climate to what would truly be dangerous, global cooling.
Much of these estimates are problems with models. That is why the hockey stick was in contest. Scientist will agree (even those for global warming as man made) that the models lack the needed data to properly asses change. Also, monitoring stations are in big question due to their locations. Some are right next to the streets in urban areas to and they have a tendency of showing extreme highs (suggesting urban land mass influence).
As for glaciers, we don't know what is causing it. Most scientist agree we are warming. Also, there are a lot of facts on the issue that show some of these glaciers receding and growing over many years. That is, climate changes, it always changes. The problem is in the data. We are trying to measure all these changes with equipment that can't properly measure all the variables and supporting clauses don't seem to add up either such as major glaciers being "claimed" to have receded drastic amounts, yet no evidence of it in terms of sea level in some areas which some scientist claim should be apparent. What happens when you only take a partial reading? Do you not sometimes get misleading results? This is the problem right now.
Co2 is not a harmful gas to the planet, in fact it is required for the planet to exist. H2o vapor is one of the largest contributers to green house gases, but did you know that we have no accurate models to properly measure it?
All of your questions are actually explained in several of my links as to what they question about the issue. As I said, they do a much better job of explaining them than I do. Remember that long link I gave you. Think of some of these questions you as asking and scroll down through it. They break it up into what you are basically looking for. I believe there is a section called "Ice Sheets" which explains some of the ideas they have concerning the issue.
Keep in mind, all of these links are attempting to claim they are right and global warming is wrong (though some are listed as arguments simply as a matter of completeness in the academic challenge to the "believed" consensus), but rather that the claims that this is a settled issue, that the facts are indisputable is incorrect.
Please, just look and answer your own questions.
you're digging yourself a hole and typing nonsense. e.g., "Much of these estimates are problems with models. That is why the hockey stick was in contest." is simply vague and easily arguably nonsense. what models? "much of these estimates"? which ones? what's incorrect about them, and how "incorrect" are they? take the evidence as a whole - not just observed glacial retreat, not just temperature trends, not just emissions trends and the fact that CO2 IS a significant greenhouse gas attributable to us, not just the timing with industrialization and human population. do your homework rather than reading and regurgitating spinster headlines - or simply making things up - and there might be something worth talking about. "All of your questions are actually explained in several of my links as to what they question about the issue. As I said, they do a much better job of explaining them than I do."; if you can't begin to explain what you're reading, might it seem to the rest of us that you haven't a clue what you're talking about?
Last edited by hello-world; 10-26-2007 at 02:39 PM..
[quote=tnbound2day;1837394]This is a serious question:
Has there been any "official" agreement between a large body of SCIENTISTS only that global warming has been caused by man? I mean, I know we have the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change that said there's a 90% chance we caused it. This is a governmental controlled body that doesn't even allow all of its contributing authors to have an equal voice in the final drafts and assessments. QUOTE]
tnbound, can you provide your data suggesting that the IPCC research is being manipulated or controlled by governments in any way? I ask because their website suggests they proceed using only peer reviewed and credible science, that their research prior to publishing goes through several levels of reviews by other teams of scientists, with governments allowed only to "provide comments" on the results. It makes it clear they look for any credible opposing views to consider and include in their reports.
So if you have something that suggests this is not in fact the case, that would be interesting to review.
And have they done the research themselves? No. They have read the positions of the IPCC and at the most, the "Summary for POLICYMAKERS", you know the one that brushes over the science while outlining how we are to go about getting the whole world involved in answering to the UN about how we use energy?
As for any of these organizations that have said such a thing, did each individual scientist say so? Or did their "spokesperson" or such make the call?
Usually you will find that they have taken a position only after pressure to do so has occurred.
Either way, I don't care. I like the idea of a warmer planet with higher CO2 levels. I think it will be a lush, green paradise compared to the other direction, which is return to glaciation. Its gonna happen sooner or later. Not so sure why people think we can stop a fake disaster from happening, and even if we could, how we could prevent a future one that would shift the climate to what would truly be dangerous, global cooling.
what if it's NOT a "lush green paradise"? you question a perspective without claim to your reasoning or any evidence, yet you assume it will be wonderful and pleasant? if you distrust the science suggesting it may not be pleasant, how can you trust it will be pleasant?
really, what if it is deeply unpleasant? desertification where your bread basket was. flooding of coasts which harbor huge economic engines. are these absolutes? impossible to say at the moment. do they seem like distinct possibilities based on decades of thousands of very capable people's work? yes. why ignore that?
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.
