Man Made Global Warming; Does it exist, Yes and its a fact; Is it bad? Not so much...

[yongrel]

 

[Antonius Stone]

global warming is an inevitability; IMO, it stupid talking about trying to curb it or prevent it now

the best thing we can do is prepare for it and adjust to it. That's why I want to buy real estate in Alaska XD

 

[Acala]

Who?

Who ever promised you a stable climate? Never has been one, except in the narrowest, most anthropocentric sense.

 

[electronicmaji]

All the scientists do not say this. There is significant disagreement within the scientific community.

All the data does not point to man made contribution to global warming. In fact, the global warming experts predicted that 2007 would be one of the hottest years on record, and it was the coolest year in 30 years. Further data suggests that we have no even had global warming for 20 years. These experts now predict that there will be a 10-year period of cooling, which is why the term "global warming" has been replaced with "climate change." How about that? A theory that can be manipulated and altered to _ALWAYS_ be "right".

Moreover, in the past 100+ years since these data have been recorded, there is approximately only a 50% correlation of increased temperatures and an increase in greenhouse gases... and CORRELATION DOES NOT equate to CAUSALITY.

There the same scientists that are saying that Evolution isn't real. Paid for by the goverment to spew bullshit.

 

[electronicmaji]

Any scientist who says that human activity IS causing detectable global warming is not doing good science. Period. Why? Because in order to draw that conclusion, a true scientist would have to eliminate all other possible causes - specifically all the causes of global warming that occurred BEFORE human industrial activity. Nobody has done this because nobody even KNOWS what caused earth's prior warming periods.

95% of global warming "science" is computer modeling. Computer modeling of climate is worth exactly squat. Why? Because climate is a chaotic system. In fact weather is the paradigm chaotic system. The whole science of chaos got its start when it was discovered that computer models of weather produced dramatically different results depending on the slightest possible changes in initial conditions. In other words, it was, and is, not POSSIBLE to predict chaotic systems with computers or any other know scientific method because weather and climate are hyper-sensitive to initial conditions. Even if global warming modelers could define ALL relevant conditions related to climate change - which they can't even come close to doing because they don't even know what they are - the computer model would be worthless because it is not possible to define initial conditions in a chaotic system model precisely enough to achieve meaningful results.

IF you could control for changes in solar radiation, tidal force heat, heat from radioactive decay in the earth, and whatever caused global warming periods in the past. And IF you could show that increases in C02 in the atmosphere were the result of human activity and not natural processes. And IF you could show empirically that the green house effect in the atmosphere actually operates in a linear relationship to CO2 concentrations. And IF you could show that natural buffering systems and feedback loops in natural processes did NOT moderate CO2 levels. And IF you could show a LONG TERM trend (like a hundred years of ACCURATE measurements) in global temperatures that closely matched levels of human-generated CO2 after controlling for the above factors, then and only then could you say that there is a high probability that human activity is causing global warming. We are not anywhere even close to being able to make that statement. And anyone who does make that statement is doing bad science.

Are you a scientist? I'm sure your gonna say the same about scientists who follow evolution.

Attacking Man Made Global Warming science is about as smart as attacking evolution . The consensus between scientists on Global Warming is the same in both fields; and the studies are of a complexity no one on this forum can understand.

 

[electronicmaji]

Who ever promised you a stable climate? Never has been one, except in the narrowest, most anthropocentric sense.

No doubt the climate isn't stable. Its neaderthal to think so. Its also neanderthal to think that human beings have zero effect on the enviroment. They do. The amount of effect will forever be debated. You can turn a blind eye on it; but I prefer to trust science and scientists on this. As they tend to be right about things like this.

 

[yongrel]

Whoa! Maji is online! Him plus derpdederp makes 2 trolls 1 forum!

 

[mediahasyou]

Whoa! Maji is online! Him plus derpdederp makes 2 trolls 1 forum!

Personally, Kade is my favorite troll.

 

[brandon]

2 trolls one forum! I love that video!

 

[torchbearer]

I follow the data NASA publically releases, i know for a fact these things.
Our polar caps our melting more each year.
We have increased CO2 levels.
We have active super volcanoes underneath the artic, which is also giving off greenhouse gases, while melting the northern cap.
That mars is losing its polar caps.
That jupiter has gained a 3rd red spot from and increase in solar energy
and comet holmes has flared up due to the increase in solar energy.

You have four things in play here:
natural release of green house gases.
man made release of green house gases.
The reduction in forestation which leads to less carbon dioxide removal
and a solar cycle that may be kicking up into the next gear. the sun goes through cycles we are only beginning to observe and understand.

 

[lucius]

Personally, Kade is my favorite troll.

Same here.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Mathematical Proof

scienceandpublicpolicy.org — Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

* The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
* CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
* Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
* The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
* The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
* “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
* Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
* The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
* It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
* Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
* In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

http://digg.com/environment/Mathematical_Proof_That_There_Is_No

 

[Acala]

Well . . .

Are you a scientist? I'm sure your gonna say the same about scientists who follow evolution.

Attacking Man Made Global Warming science is about as smart as attacking evolution . The consensus between scientists on Global Warming is the same in both fields; and the studies are of a complexity no one on this forum can understand.

I have a degree in chemistry and worked as a toxicologist for a few years so I do have training in science at the University level. But I don't work in science currently.

Evolution is a model with a HUGE volume of evidence supporting it. It is supported by a vast fossil record, by morphology, by DNA analysis, and even by some contemporary observation of the process at work. There are plenty of holes in the model, but there are none better.

Anthropogenic global warming is NOT supported by much evidence and there are contrary models that are stronger.

Now that you have tried to make your point by personal attack, do you wish to try and make a reasoned argument based on the science? Simply saying that "there is a consensus among scientists and nobody here can understand the studies" is ignorant. Unless these "scientists" can explain how they controlled for known and unknown climate change variables, their opinions aren't worth squat.

And don't even talk about computer modeling. A computer model that has not been tested and verified against real data is about as reliable as a horoscope.

The "science" of global warming has been totally perverted by the politics of science funding.

 

[Sarge]

A couple of articles you might want to read,

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/07/shifting-of-pdo-to-cool-mode-global.html

And from the person that started the CO2 accounting theory and has changed his mind,

http://editorialtimes.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-evidence-to-support-idea-that-carbon.html

 

[robert4rp08]

There the same scientists that are saying that Evolution isn't real. Paid for by the goverment to spew bullshit.

Now you're just being silly. The fact is that CORRELATION does not equate to CAUSALITY. Period. Until, causality can be established between rising temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions, then global warming is NOT a fact. And to demonstrate this point, I refer you to the following graph:

The THEORY of global warming is bogus because proponents do not even have a sound basis for this theory. Their damn weather models have been flat-out wrong to the point that they do not even refer to it as global warming anymore.

And by the way, a vast majority of U.S. scientists receive their funding from *drum roll* the government.

 

[Dr.3D]

Now you're just being silly. The fact is that CORRELATION does not equate to CAUSALITY. Period. Until, causality can be established between rising temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions, then global warming is NOT a fact. And to demonstrate this point, I refer you to the following graph:

The THEORY of global warming is bogus because proponents do not even have a sound basis for this theory. Their damn weather models have been flat-out wrong to the point that they do not even refer to it as global warming anymore.

And by the way, a vast majority of U.S. scientists receive their funding from *drum roll* the government.

So does that mean, the hotter it is, the less pirates there are?

How very interesting!

 

[torchbearer]

So does that mean, the hotter it is, the less pirates there are?

How very interesting!

Pirates hate the heat? Why are more pirates reported in warmer climates?
Do they patrol from bases in frigid parts of this planet?
Does that mean ninjas hate the cold?

 

[brandon]

So does that mean, the hotter it is, the less pirates there are?

How very interesting!

It means the opposite. The less pirates there are, the hotter it is. Obviously pirates serve as "tanks" for greenhouse gasses. They take vast amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in their treasure chests. As these pirates have been dieing off, the gasses are released into the atmosphere inducing a warming trend.

 

[Acala]

Rhetorical diversions

Are you a scientist? I'm sure your gonna say the same about scientists who follow evolution.

Attacking Man Made Global Warming science is about as smart as attacking evolution . The consensus between scientists on Global Warming is the same in both fields; and the studies are of a complexity no one on this forum can understand.

I think this post must get the award for the greatest number of rhetorical obfuscations in the smallest space.

We have the ever-popular ad hominem attack on my credentials and intelligence, with the added flourish of an eyeroll .

We have the "anti-evolutionist" strawman, skillfully set up and allowed to fall of its own weight.

And we have the sheepish appeal to authority in which "scientists" of intelligence so great that none of us can even understand their work, must be believed simply because of their vast superiority to us.

Hahahahaha!

Nicely done.

 

[torchbearer]

I think this post must get the award for the greatest number of rhetorical obfuscations in the smallest space.

We have the ever-popular ad hominem attack on my credentials and intelligence, with the added flourish of an eyeroll .

We have the "anti-evolutionist" strawman, skillfully set up and allowed to fall of its own weight.

And we have the sheepish appeal to authority in which "scientists" of intelligence so great that none of us can even understand their work, must be believed simply because of their vast superiority to us.

Hahahahaha!

Nicely done.

Another sociological mind. Ever get into phenomenology?