The National Geographic web site has a ton of links to articles on Global Warming. Most are predicting dire consequences for the future, floods, droughts, the usual scenarios, and many are pointing their finger at those damn dirty humans. A couple caught my eye....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html
This is why I object to people saying Global warming is man made. I don't deny we are contributing, maybe significantly, but how much and what can we do to make a significant improvement?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...alwarming.html
That's a surprise, the soil is losing carbon? I wonder if that was because of the loss of plants that mulch well? If the plants encouraged by higher temperatures don't return carbon to the soil like the plants that grow in cooler climes?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...7_warming.htmlOf course they're making the assumption that what appears to be a comparatively small contribution from burning fossil fuels, has significant effect on the big picture. That would indicate the "balance of nature" is much more delicate than we suspected. More delicate also means less predictable. I've a feeling that humans have had a much larger effect on the changes in Global warming than the burning of fossil fuels. We've literally altered the earth and it's ecosystem in ways that can't be undone without eliminating billions of humans. Hopefully Bush won't do that.

Bruce, when I read this report I thought of you. Basically it says that dramatic changes in the Earth's climate have occurred in the past (in this study they are targeting the Cretaceous Period). Note that they are not dismissing man's influence on the current warming event.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/4057.html

Your error of logic is that you are trying to apply engineering methodology to climate study. You can't take a few figures and apply simple mathematics, and then draw a conclusion. It is just not that simple.

If I gave that impression, I misstated my thinking.

We know the climate is changing.
We know the temperature is rising.
We know it's happened before.

We don't know how far it will go.
We don't know if it's really a bad thing.
We don't know all the natural interactions that cause it.
We don't know how much humans have contributed.
We don't know which things we do, if any, are significant.
We don't know if we can do anything about it.
We don't know if we ever could have done anything about it.

Because of all the things we don't know, when somebody finds something going on they can't explain, they invariably blame human activity. Everything I read makes way to many assumptions, on cause and effect.

I was looking at numbers that tell me, human generated CO2 is a very small contributor, and was looking for someone to poke holes in the numbers. That hasn't happened, so I feel we should be looking somewhere else for solutions. Solutions isn't the right word....maybe answers is. Answers to the question, what can we do to make a significant difference.

There's a lot of hand wringing and doom forecasting without much evidence we can do anything but go along for the ride. :smack:

You can use filtered water instead of bottled :)

The most important things we can do about this problem:

- promote the intelligence of humanity
- promote the education of science
- preserve and protect civilization world-wide, so that productive ideas are adopted and shared by all

With a greater intelligence level on the planet, and the political ability to make changes, we can solve this and any other problem.

While I'm far from a global-warming, the-end-is-near, hand-wringer I think we are in for some major unwelcome adjustments over the next 100-500 years. Earth was covered in miles-thick ice before we got here and it will be again. Heck, we can't even predict the weather 72 hours from now but we know enough to constructively intervene in order to alter the climactic cycles of the entire planet? Cycles that were already well-established when dirt was a toddler? Humanity's record of predicting the effect of intevening in chaotic systems is... well... we get an F.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but not only are we not in charge here, I'm not even sure we have the slightest inkling of what we are up against. Earth is about 13,000 degrees on the inside and nearly zero degrees at the edge of our atmosphere. Any engineer will tell you that a temperature extreme of that magnitude is nothing short of a thermodynamic powderkeg. And the idea that such thermodynamic volitility can be fine-tuned to keep it in a state of indefinite equilibrium is as utterly unrealistic as the idea that we know which of the thousands of knobs to turn and which way to turn each knob.

Sometimes we just need to accept that we are not in control of everything.

That's certainly true....but....looking at New Orleans after a year, I'd say we have a better shot, hoping for a benevolent God, than counting on that happening. :rolleyes:
Yeah, we don't even know extent or rate of entropy changes yet. They are discovering new cause/effect relationships that are contributing almost every day. Discovering may not be the right term....maybe are being revealed is more like reality.
With all due respect to the scientists and researchers working on this, I'm picturing a bunch of guys in white lab coats, standing around with jaws agape, saying, "No shit?....no SHIT?.....NO SHIT?, as the whole thing goes down. :lol:

Bottom line is not refuted. Humans are creating global warming. Even the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has been abandoned by it strongest advocates who now admit more and stronger hurricanes are due to manmade effects.

The only questions remaining are how much and how bad.

Meanwhile, one need only return to the 1960s to learn who gets wealthy and more jobs from learning the science. America in the early 1960s admitted to massive air pollution and problems associated. Therefore America started solutions to that problem. Cleaned the air significantly AND created both jobs and wealth by selling those innovations everywhere in the world. For those who need an example: EGR valve - required on every car and an innovation that added to American wealth.

Same is true of those who confront global warming. Solutions to global warming also mean other advantages such as less energy dependency, more jobs, more wealth, and a longer life expectancy for mankind.

Reasons opposed to air quality standards in the 1960s are promoted in the same ostrich reasoning of another reality - global warming. You would think man would learn from history. But then how many here were cognizant when the 1960 environmental movement exposed the dangers we faced then? Today, those who insist global warming does not exist also do not have basic science reasoning and have names such as George Jr and Rick Santorum. Their ranks are dominated by the same wackos that insisted Saddam had WMDs, would destroy an anti-ballistic missile treaty to spend $billions on a system that does not work, almost got us into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane, completely ignored a million tsunami victims, and now advocate torture. Somehow political extremists know more than science - that mankind is not creating any global warming problem or that global warming does not exist?

An America that addresses global warming will also be a more prosperous America as the entire world comes to America for solutions. But then MBA mentalities fear science and innovation - automatically promote the status quo. MBA reasoning routinely destroys the innovations that solve problems and that create the new and future jobs.

Thank you Rush Limbaugh.
C'mon, tw. You know damn well the Earth has warmed and cooled over and over again. How many "Ice Ages" have there been? What was it, 15, 12, maybe 10 thousand years ago the glaciers melted in Ohio? The Earth's climate has been warming ever since.

Now we're pretty sure that Human actions have hastened the process in the last couple hundred years.
Whether Human actions will push the cycle further than it would have gone naturally, we don't know.
What we can do about it, beyond preparing for the onslaught of changes, has yet to be defined, except for "feel good" measures.

BUT, "Humans are creating Global Warming", is something a lying president or an MBA would say, not an engineer. :eyebrow:

We can't predict the future, so technically you are right. But how can we not be making it worse than it would otherwise be? We are adding carbon to the equation that never would have been there otherwise.

You have the carbon cycle, where living things take carbon out of the "biosphere" and return it to to "biosphere" as they grow and die. This remians pretty much constant, although it does fluctuate some.

Then we have volcanoes which add carbon to the equation.

And we have humans who take carbon from a hole in the ground and add it to the equation.

If we are adding to the system, we have to be contributing to it.

I'll admit we don't know a lot. But that much we do know.

And . . . his noodley appendage ( :fsm: ) returns that carbon to its earthly resting place!

And in each case science has explained it. Meanwhile, why is this warming period 59 times faster than the fastest warming period ever on earth? You post half facts like Rush and ask questions manipulated to spin a lie. Those are damning numbers.

If your questions come from so much knowledge, then why is a shortage of scientists to agree with you? Not only is it a slam dunk fact that mankind is creating global warming. But the movement of those still with doubts towards that same conclusion is massive.

The earth’s climate has changed due to external events. Since these events took tens of thousands of years, the changes in less than 100 years are also explained by same reasoning? Get me a brain, Bruce. I cannot find a single logical reality in your assumptions - that are only assumptions and fly contrary to the massive amount of science and scientist.

Events that caused climate change over tens of thousands of years means same caused changes in but a hundred years? That is your reasoning that makes sense as long as we ignore numbers.
http://www.cellar.org/attachment.php...&d=1059007053]

What was a gentle temperature increase and not much CO2 change is suddenly a massive temperature increase and CO2 levels never before seen on earth. Explain that? Tell us how man had nothing to do with these radical and unprecedented changes? To post as you have, then you must deny numbers. Temperature changes over tens of thousands of years can explain a temperature change in but 100 years? That is what you have just posted. Explain that since most of science does not understand your logic. Most of science slam dunk disagrees with what you are posting. Even your own numbers don't agree with your conclusions. Explain that?

Meanwhile, when you were posting more logically, you asked: A self defeating question. We cannot answer it right now, therefore in classic George Jr logic, we can't stop it. Bull. Entire issue of Scientific American for Aug(?) 2006 was chock full of ideas. Ironically most all those ideas also address other problems such as excessive energy consumption. Solutions that cannot happen with an extremist and defeatist MBA educated and lying president. Lying - he said global warming does not even exist. You don't even make that claim. But then to identify why enemies would stifle a solution - notice those who most dispute Global Warming also routinely lie.

A first article defined 15 slices to the pie. Something like 5 slices of that pie must be accomplished to obtain a useful goal. Goals and proposals all provided with numbers. Numbers not provided so that xoxoxoBruce can provide those numbers. You have much reading to do, Bruce. In Scientific American are some major numbers and targets that must be achieve AND that are achievable if we condemn those who think as your last post - and instead start innovating.

Innovation - you do remember the thing that solved 1960s air pollution, made jobs, and made so many patriotic type Americans (those who innovate rather than cry woe is me) wealthier. Whereas xoxoxoBruce advocates giving up, science instead advocates innovation and solutions.

It's all a repubican conspiracy. Blue states on the coasts, melt ice caps, ocean rises, no more blue states!

Yes, but we may be just making the Global warming happen faster and not making it more intense. You know, making the maximum more maximum.
We may never know that either, because we don't know how far it will go or how far it would have got without us helping it along. :confused:

Well Bruce, lets say that you are at least partially correct (for the sake of the argument). What effect would you think that greatly speeding up this warming event is having? None? I suspect that even you will admit that dramatic change is more drastic than gradual change. We already know that we are losing plant and animal species at a faster rate than ever before (outside of the famous cataclysmic events - eg. a comet or meteor hitting the Earth). In fact, some scientists are saying that we should be considering this warming event as one of the great cataclysmic events (on a par with the end of the Cretaceous Period, or worse still, the end of the Permian Period - predates the dinosaurs).

The problem with fast changes in the climate, is that plants and animals do not have the time to evolve in order to cope with the change. At least we humans have some chance of preparing. This is why I said at the end of one of my previous posts, that we need to get away from the arguing, and get on with dealing with the inevitable change, while still working towards improving man's impact on the environment, or course.

I don't know and neither do you. Unfortunately the climate scientists don't either, apparently.
"Some scientists" are saying a lot of things. But even if those scientists are right, that doesn't mean we made it happen( which I doubt) or made it worse.
As far as plants and in some cases animals not adapting, is that bad?
In one of the National Geographic articles I linked, they talked about plants migrating in test plots. They didn't like the plants that replaced the ones lost, as much, but said it was only a test plot and wouldn't be necessarily be the general case.
But other than the, some plant may prove to be the cure for cancer, some day, scenario, does it make a difference if the plant life as we know it changes? Hasn't that been changing continuously?
I agree, but by doing what? That's how this thread started....questioning just what we do that really impacts Global warming?
Where do we get the most bang for the buck in making changes?
What do we have to do to deal with the "inevitable changes"?
Do we even know what they will be, really?
I'm reminded of Mom standing on a chair screaming, Do something, do something.................... WHAT? :confused:

Why talk like George Jr. It is well understood that man has contributed to massive environmental change. Only an ostrich would deny that fact. The serious questions are how fast, and how destructive. Nowhere do those questions even imply what was posted and what George Jr lies to misrepresent. Mankind is without a doubt causing climate change. Furthermore, many solutions exist to advert so much of man's contribution. Somehow extremists spin that into 'we don't know if global warming exists'. That spin is akin to Saddam's WMDs - a lie. We know global warming exists AND we know mankind is contributing to the problem.

Where do we get the most bang for the buck? Many solutions from fifteen pie slices are possibilities we must attempt or study also for so many other reasons - ie thermodynamic efficiencies. But those same technologies that would also make America a future world leader are stifled by political extremists with an MBA attitude towards innovation. For example, use CO2 to backfill oil wells. Reduce the massive and wasteful energy consumption in buildings - because even gasoline at $3 per gallon is so ridiculously cheap as to discourage smarter solutions (and no, I did not even imply raising the price of gas - as an extremist would proclaim I said spin more lies and confusion).

You are screaming that a ship is sinking - therefore we should not do anything. Innovators instead say, "Maybe we should first close the water tight doors between compartments". Many of the solutions are that simple. Then you say, "Why? We are not really sinking?" Which is it?

Those who address global warming will have the new jobs and future wealth for all other nations dependent on those innovations. Global warming is also a new, future, and necessary industry - literally meaning new innovative buildings, machines, and products. Just another point that xoxoxoBruce ignores along with a reasoning that says, "Nobody in the Cellar can tell me exactly what we must do; therefore no solutions will exist." One who was smarter said If science and logic was being discussed, then we would be quantifying how fast and how destructive. But that means science, innovation, jobs for people who are smart at the expense of dumb extremists. So what did the mental midget president do? Cancels innovation - from quantum physics and the Hubble Space Telescope. Canceled something like nine satellites that would better answer those global warming questions - for George Jr's legacy - a Man on Mars. The legacy of anyone who opposes a reality called global warming is 'ostrich'. Same ostrich now denies the US is attacked every 15 minutes in Iraq is somehow an expert on global warming?

George Jr and others just as anti-American would even stifle research to deny a reality - Global Warming. xoxoxoBruce - you would locate yourself with those fools? Apparently. Half your posts are, "we can't do anything and therefore should not try". Classic logic from an MBA named George.

Bruce, you seem to think that those involved in climate research are blaming you personally. That is not the case. There are filing cabinets bulging with scientific research, from around the world, that in total, point to man's involvement. Are you saying we should throw this research away, and just forget the whole thing (hoping that the problem will go away)?

As I said once before, you want engineering answers, and you are simply not going to get them. Unfortunately this fuels your pseudo-religious anti greenhouse beliefs.

I understand exactly the points you are making. Unfortunately there is no easy means of explaining how the research points to man. You have to process each piece of research, correlate them, and then draw conclusions. Often the research uses computer models with real data acting as the seed. I have to concede that sometimes the models get it wrong, but they are being improved constantly. It is unlikely that we will ever get to the point where we will have an equation that says: x=y, thus satisfying your engineering needs.

I know that you are a good man, and that you want answers, and that deep down you really want to take an active role in helping the planet. ;)

wtf? Pseudo-religious? Believing the earth has it's own cycles and balance is pseudo-religious? Anti-greenhouse? What the hell is that?

I understand Bush is keeping the data in all those bulging file cabinets from being correlated, just to spite tw, but....;)

When umpteen dozen sources are saying there is a nebulous problem and proffering solutions they admit won't solve the problem, but might help the problem, and at least won't hurt the problem......that's pseudo religious.

The media shills that pass the information to the public are, writing/broadcasting stories at high volume with damn little substance, like a TV weatherman. Sideshow barkers competing for my attention.

Personally I'm tired of "Scientists say this" and "Researchers say that"..... bits and pieces that may be parallel but don't logically fit together and can't be quantified. Even if I take it on faith they are right, How am I expected to put it all together, translate into positive action?
Just saying, have no impact on the Earth is not only impossible..... it's Voodoo ecology.

Do something, do something! ................Do What???
Telling me, we(collective) should reduce our impact(vague) on Global warming, is worse than useless, it's tedious.
It just makes me say, Ho-hum, that old saw again, I'll wait for the "film at 11".....the meat, the details. But the details never come.

I don't feel I'm being personally blamed for Global warming, however I don't deny being part of the problem. That said, speaking only for myself, without being afforded some concrete solutions, I will continue to be...... I'm too old and jaded to run around in circles with no benefit.

- promote the intelligence of humanity
- promote the education of science
- preserve and protect civilization world-wide, so that productive ideas are adopted and shared by all

That's my agenda and I'm stickin to it.

I am the same sceptical guy as Bruce here. It's not a proven fact that the current global warming is caused by man. Climate changes have been around the last 4,5 billion years. As for warming up of the Earth the last 300 years, I can remember the hysterica in the 70's about the start of a new ice age. Well there ya go.

Never the less I am in favor of conserving earth recourses as there is an end to that, and I am in favor of clean air if it was only for the health of the people.

Again, global warming statistics are mostly fed by cherry picked statistics, sensation sensitive tabloid journalists and producers of scare mongering films such as "The Day After Tomorrow". My 13 year old daughter saw this movie and is now afraid our low country will be flooded next year....

That's as clear as mud, but it covers the ground. :haha:

I just noticed Hippikos slipped in between UT and myself.
It was UT's credo I was referring to.

Actually, I was listening to NPR the other day(On The Media's segment called, "Mad Science"[that's an audio link, btw]), and non-scientific Americans are pretty much the only folks who don't believe that global warming is a serious (EDIT) man-made problem. There's not any major scientific disagreement anymore, just industry front groups.

I read Popular Science, Discover, and Scientific American fairly regularly, and I don't recall reading of any supposed debate over Global Warming any more than the supposed debate over Intelligent Design. The dreaded Liberal Media Conspiracy has wrapped its insidious tentacles around science itself!

See, it's broad statements like that, (the media, not headsplice), that make me nuts. There is obviously more to it, but when they blatantly lie like that how can I believe anything they say.

So they don't believe the glaciers melted in Ohio thousands of years ago and it's been warming ever since? And it's a man-made problem they can't quantify?
Seems to me it would be easy to quantify if there was nothing but man involved and the natural state was stable......but then the glaciers wouldn't have melted would they? When they did melt, there wasn't enough people in the entire world to make them melt, if every single person pissed on them.

Now we have enough people and technology to help it along quite nicely but to say it's man made is ridiculous. :eyebrow:

Depends on how you define Global Warming. Is it the total or just our "help" ...? (Seriously, are people even talking about the same thing?)

They (climatologists) can quantify the change (or rather, the rate of change of temperature, which is the real worry). I'm not sure about the attribution, but I'm pretty sure that they can make correllational proofs. I'll see what I can find on the intarnetwebs.

You do know that the White House now has government science papers on global warming rewritten by White House lawyers. That has been reported separately by so many news services. 60 Minutes even provided the scientists original paper and the handwritten changes by the White House lawyer.

Why would the White House intentionally have lawyers rewrite science papers? xoxoxoBruce - it is called propaganda and you are falling for it. Global warming exists even though George Jr said it does not. Mankind is contributing to global warming as has been published in virtually every major and responsible science publication. Furthermore, it is necessary for Project for a New American Century and other extremists to deny such realities - as they also denied ozone depletion and the need for environmental restrictions on automobiles. Or are you going to tell us that environmental laws for autos were also unnecessary?

White House has a political agenda - which means anti-American. Why do you so hate America as to believe science promoted by lawyers?

Remember what those who deny global warming also said. They said torture, international kidnapping, wiretapping without judicial review, war with China over a silly spy plane, and six C-130s to rescue 1 million tsunami victims is sufficient - this to them is good. Would you align yourself with such people? You are only using logic that also said Saddam had WMDs.

Nobody denies that average air temperature raised 0,4 degree the last 30/40 years, but the debate is about whether it is caused by man.

There's another thing, air temperature varies much more than water or ground temperature. I've never seen statistics with these parameters?

George Jr repeatedly declared that global warming did not exist. When polls suggested it was not working, then George Jr changed. George Jr said global warming exists, but that mankind could do nothing about it. Say anything to promote a political agenda - even deny science.

Meanwhile, the man who makes administration decisions - Cheney - continued saying global warming does not exist.

The debate is not whether man contributes. That debate ended in an obvious conclusion. The question is how much and how bad. To impede a solution, George Jr supporters even had science papers rewritten by lawyers to promote myths that we even see here. Some still insist that man is not complicit - when a chart for the past 400,000 years demonstrates how obvious the problem is.

But again, once we eliminate the politics - cut out propaganda from George Jr and other liars - the question is simply how much and how destructive. Yes, George Jr repeatedly insisted that global warming does not exist.

tw, you are not allowed to accuse me of "falling for it" or anything else, until you have read with comprehension, what I wrote.

1 - Global warming is part of a warming /cooling cycle that's been going on forever.
2 - Every time it's happened it has had a profound, if not devastating, effect on the flora & fauna.
3 - This time, human activity influences the natural cycle, but we don't know how much.... it has not been quantified.
4 - We don't know if human activities just speed up the cycle or will also cause the maximum to be more extreme.
5 - We^^ I, don't know what can be done about it, if anything, that's not a futile, feel good, plan.

These are my conclusions. If you have issue with them, care to debate them, you have the right...nay, civic duty....to do so.
But, that said, stick to the point, please. Bush and Cheney, while asshats, have nothing to do with my conclusions. :eyebrow:

I call that a debate. The problem with the whole global warming debate is that it is not approached in a scientific way (as it should) but is poluted by politics, from both scientists and politician with their own agenda. In the current hyped world, accelerated through the Intarnet, all world events are turned into instant doom scenarios to satisfy the human sensation papillae.

How obviousis the problem? Are you suggesting that man is causing the global warming for the last 400,000 years?

Science?

No, grant money.

To do . . . science ???

But scientists don't have agendas. Science simply follows the facts and evidence. It is politicians who are acting as scientists with political agendas - even having White House lawyers now rewrite all NASA papers. I am suggesting you look at the chart for the past 400,000 years that was posted earlier in this thread. And no, that chart is not sufficient as proof. That chart demonstrates to the layman what science has proven elsewhere. Notice what the chart provides and what xoxoxoBruce completely ignores - the numbers.

OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.
I don't see any chart, I don't see any link.
Put up or shut up. :p

*cough* *cough* passes link from post #71 to Bruce under the table http://www.cellar.org/attachment.php...&d=1059007053]
*cough*

[whistles and walks away]

OK, then tell me what kind of thermometers they were using 400,000 years ago? F? C? K?
Did they write it down in pencil or ballpoint pen?
It's strictly speculation, they have no better idea what the temperature was than they do the color of the Dinosaurs.
Extrapolating from co2 levels doesn't work, because there are more variables involved than a direct correlation of temperature and co2 levels.
That's not science, it's voodoo. :eyebrow:

xoxoxoBruce has just proved that he denies by ignoring numbers. He does exactly what a George Jr White House lawyer would do to become a science expert. He has ignored charts and numbers as science proof. The numbers (that chart) were provided which Bruce would have known if he did not routinely ignore numbers in multiple posts.

xoxoxoBruce posted on 2 Oct 2006 at 1255 hours Cellar time no facts (not a single useful number, just disparaging remarks). He said: Well apparently xoxoxoBruce does not know this by first learning numbers. His accusation is what White House lawyers have promoted - without numbers. Well if I was a lying lawyer, then I too would post accusatory and factually irrelevant Rush Limbaugh rhetoric. Bruce did not bother to look at the chart when post after post referred to that chart.

A reply to xoxoxoBruce was posted on 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours - using facts and numbers - and no disparaging comments. That reply referred to numbers and claims that xoxoxoBruce ignored. The reply noted important numbers which are appreciated by looking at the chart. Apparently xoxoxoBruce ignored the chart AND ignored numerical facts to keep making his global warming claims. Ignoring numbers is a classic Rush Limbaugh tactic.

xoxoxoBruce - you have posted claims without numbers as any junk scientist would do. Numbers from the chart demonstrated why your assumptions were wrong. Now we know why you deny. You ignored that 2 Oct reply. Following replies also referenced that chart ... and you still ignored the chart. Exactly what a White House lawyers must do to deny global warming – as Cheney ordered.

xoxoxoBruce - why should we believe anything you have posted when you did not even bother to look at that chart – and then posted insults? Where was the logic in that – your reasoning? Natural temperature changes occurred over tens of thousands of years – not 100 years. In the past 100 years, environmental changes were 59 times faster than any other in 1 million years. Changes that took tens of thousands of years now occur in only hundreds. Somehow, xoxoxoBruce claims that proves man was not complicit? He can only make that claim by not posting numbers and by ignoring a chart.

A chart referenced in so many replies to xoxoxoBruce is 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours. Same chart has been reposted in the Cellar repeatedly meaning that anyone denying global warming had to repeatedly ignore the chart – as xoxoxoBruce did. If I say xoxoxoBruce is the "bullshit artist', well at least I have posted proof. He even ignored the chart.

But again, Bruce. If you first learned science instead of accusing like a White House lawyer or Rush Limbaugh, then you never asked that silly question. Had you read studies and numbers before making conclusions, then you knew exactly "what kind of thermometers they were using". If you had bothered to first learn about global warning even from one issue of Scientific American - September 2006 - then you already had that question answered. IOW you post as if an expert – and do not even know how data is collected.

Your posts expose a reality. You know global warming does not exist just like a White House lawyer is a scientist. You have just met the definition of anti-American.

Why should anyone believe your accusations when you don't even know how data is collected? You never even bothered to first read any science - and yet somehow you are so knowledgeable? And you call me a 'bullshit artist"? You are better advised to insult yourself for not bothering to first learn numbers. You could not even bother to look at that chart. The word is called credibility.

Opposed to what you think, many scientists are not as objective as they should be...

TW, you were wrong on Oct 2nd at 1603 hours and you still are. You link to a chart with nothing to back it up. Cherry picking an unsubstantiated chart, even if it shows what I've been saying all along about the natural swings in the temperature, is not evidence. It's bullshit, you keep telling the same lie over and over, hoping to convince people by repetition, just like Bush & Company.
How about some real evidence, if you believe that chart, back it up. Where do you get the temperature, 400,000 years ago within 5 degrees? One wild ass guess is not evidence. That's why there is only a chart and nothing to back it up. Ignore the numbers? Yes, when they come without evidence.
Show me the evidence, Rush. :p

Why is that chart an attachment, but linked to, like it was in an article somewhere other than here?

:lol:

That's why we have peer review. Bad science will be exposed and dis-credited.
The scientific community is a self-correcting system with an expansive web of checks and balances.

In order to for "science" to have a "bias" it would require a monolithic agreement among 100% of all scientists, to "pretend" to have proven something and "fool" the rest of us. That's a laughable premise. Occam's Razor...

I know that and many reports used are not peer reviewed. And what does peer review means if peers themselves don't know? I remember Hawking's theory was widely peer reviewed and accepted, however he was forced to admit decades later that his theory was incorrect. Hawking's persona has been constructed and marketed, his story manipulated and controlled, for the purpose of his own glorification and selling his book, and this has occurred, as it could only occur, with his cooperation or at least acquiescence. Many scientists do have their own agenda, being it glorification or or for monetary reasons.

To be correct, one has to be sure what's right and as far as I know re global warming everything is still out.

It means the chance of mistakes being discovered is statistically much greater when information is widely distributed.
Chalk one up for the system working! Rather than hanging on to entrenched ideas, when they were found to be incorrect, they were rejected.
And their public shame will be that much greater when their science is found to be faulty. There is no Hollywood career for these guys.

Gleissberg Cycles
 

The editors of the journal Science (2002), however, comment on the increasing number of publications that point to varying solar activity as a strong factor in climate change: “As more and more wiggles matching the waxing and waning of the sun show up in records of past climate, researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change. They have included solar variability in their simulations of the past century's warming. And the sun seems to have played a pivotal role in triggering droughts and cold snaps.”

The impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-3/SW-1.gif



New Ice Age in 2030?

Cool, you can <Ctrl+V>

That took 20 years! And I remember those who doubted Hawking's theories were widely ridiculed same as those who currently question the "climate change" (many scientists changed from "global warming" already years ago).
Well there ya go! Remember Fleischmann and Pons? They had their agenda....

Yep, that's why I mentioned the source...

Science doesn't happen overnight.

I didn't catch your point, you just dumped it there in the middle of our conversation...

Here's the real problem:
climactic research is incredibly complex. There are literally millions of variables that make up global climatalogical changes, which are built on suppositions of regional climatological changes.
Earlier, when I stated that there isn't any causational proof, but there is correlational, this is what I meant:
There are lots of things that are changing on our planet extremely quickly (as such things go): receding glaciers (Mt. Kilamanjaro no longer has a white peak), increasing land and sea surface temperatures, increasing deep-sea temperatures. Simultaneously, there is also proof that the particulate count of CO2 is way higher than it's ever been, and THAT is a direct result of humans burning petroleum and petroleum-based products. So, you have Trend's A-Q (measurable environmental issues) and Trend Z (increase in SO2) and Trend Z should affect the others. However, since there isn't direct causational proof, scientists won't say that's true (that's how science works). The fact that Trend Z is still the most likely cause of the others.
The lack of proof comes down to the fact that all of this data is interpreted and modeled on computers, and we won't get 'real' proof (i.e., more data to prove or disprove the modelling data) until our environment is well and truly fucked because that's how research works.
Oh, and here's some links for people to peruse (a warning, like most scientific data, IT DOES NOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS. It states the data and explains a lot of what I just said, in different language):
Woods Hole Research Center
NOAA's global warming FAQ
National Academies of Science
There's lots more info inside those links. Enjoy!

I can read the paper and watch TV at the same time...

For some people, it does...

Where's the proof? Man produces only 7 of 150 Billion tons of CO2 annually, which is only 4%.

BTW 1% more terrestrial vegetation could take the whole problem away.

So...your point was...???

Remember this? We were discussing the inner workings of the scientific community. Then you dumped a copy/paste about "the impact of solar eruptions on weather and climate" with no commentary as to how you feel this relates to the subject at hand, or explanation as to which subject you were commenting on, and I've asked you to clarify but you refuse. ...oookay...nice talkin' to ya :::wanders off:::

The problem being that the CO2 that mankind produces comes from outside the current carbon cycle (it's been locked underground for millions of years). So, 7 billion tons extra to the carbon cycle each year adds up quickly.
And, speaking as the SO of a scientist: NO. Science does not happen overnight (well, technically speaking, it does happen over the nighttime, but it doesn't happen in a single anything [day, night, month, year, whatever]).

Oh... I'm sorry Flint dear, did you feel left out? For my intermediate message, please read the thread title.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 4% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon, so adding up quickly is not really the case. Correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

It's been a few pages since this question was asked:

So what?


What are we supposed to do about this menace? Stop driving? Stop heating our homes? Stop eating red meat? Where's the evidence that it would do any good, anyway?

I don't have a chart made by some omniscient group of scientists, but the whole issue feels manufactured, like one of those "clinical studies" done by a company that wants to sell beauty products on TV.

I realize that statement reveals what a lowbrow I am. But 99% of us don't care what levels of ADHSF4C9D2 are present in the 8th level of the atmosphere during a full moon. We care whether or not we should put on a coat when we go outside.

The only hard evidence I see is that despite our best efforts, we have failed miserably at destroying the planet. It just keeps doing its thing while we wail about how important and impactful we are.