An inconvenient truth

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by headsplice

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.

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.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

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

[Flint]

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!

[headsplice]

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.

[Hippikos]

Remember what those who deny global warming also said.

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?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why would the White House intentionally have lawyers rewrite science papers? xoxoxoBruce - it is called propaganda and you are falling for it.

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.

[Hippikos]

The question is how much and how bad.

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.

Some still insist that man is not complicit - when a chart for the past 400,000 years demonstrates how obvious the problem is.

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

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

...scientists...with their own agenda...

Science?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

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.

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.

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

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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]

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist.

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:

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?

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?

Temperature changes over tens of thousands of years can explain a temperature change in but 100 years?

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

But scientists don't have agendas.