CBS News Confirms... Global Warming is MAN MADE!

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Wow some of you guys really suck at making logical conclusions. Let me try to follow your logic:

- There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time ever recorded in history.
- CO2 makes the temperature go up.
- CO2 levels are at an all time and have rose exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
- Man is responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore... it's all every other animal and plant's fault that global warming exists, but not humans because... well... because!

Did I get that right?

You missed the point about correlation does not mean causation.
Martins own link showed the earth has been warmer in the past compared to now with a lower Co2 concentration.

So I guess the question that needs to be answered is, why Co2? Why not methane that holds 4x the heat of Co2?

My theory of course is the socialist powers that be decided they cant compete with the western culture and want to artificially level the playing field by forcing them into reducing a direct byproduct of their industrial wealth and thus their ability to keep expanding their economies.

I heard some dimwit introduced legislation in the US senate to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 80% by 2020. That would put as at 1939 levels. Do you think our standard of living will be better with a 1939 level of consumption? Or do you think we will regress to 1939?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Czar
This is our modern day "the world is round" debate. Alot of science against predetermant fools.

Well summarized.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Czar
This is our modern day "the world is round" debate. Alot of science against predetermant fools.

With all this talk about the end of the world and promises of the coming floods. I'd say the current political faction of the warming debate is like the early Church and their witch hunts to silence all that oppose their view of their god.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Czar
This is our modern day "the world is round" debate. Alot of science against predetermant fools.

Yep... and in the meantime, Westinghouse Electric, the world's largest maker of nuclear power... oops, excuse me, CBS/Viacom makes sure we all get the right side of the story

Gee, it sure would be nice if the issue was as cut and dried simple as you're trying to present it, now wouldn't it? But then that wouldn't exactly be scientific, would it?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Wow some of you guys really suck at making logical conclusions. Let me try to follow your logic:

- There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time ever recorded in history.
- CO2 makes the temperature go up.
- CO2 levels are at an all time and have rose exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
- Man is responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore... it's all every other animal and plant's fault that global warming exists, but not humans because... well... because!

Did I get that right?

You missed the point about correlation does not mean causation.
Martins own link showed the earth has been warmer in the past compared to now with a lower Co2 concentration.

So I guess the question that needs to be answered is, why Co2? Why not methane that holds 4x the heat of Co2?

My theory of course is the socialist powers that be decided they cant compete with the western culture and want to artificially level the playing field by forcing them into reducing a direct byproduct of their industrial wealth and thus their ability to keep expanding their economies.

I heard some dimwit introduced legislation in the US senate to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 80% by 2020. That would put as at 1939 levels. Do you think our standard of living will be better with a 1939 level of consumption? Or do you think we will regress to 1939?

Not methane because of simple volume - How much methane is in the atmosphere? Edit - and how much of that is attributable to us?

History matters - our current temperatures are ony directly comparable to other time periods with large polar ice caps. A great deal of the additional solar energy we are retaining is going into melting those caps, keep temperatures relatively lower for now than they might otherwise be.

You really think this is all a plot to trick you into being worse off than you are now?

We're probably no more than a decade away from much cleaner energy than is currently used; nuclear->electric, for example, could provide energy with no CO2 emissions. All we would need is improved public perception, and better long-term waste management (expanded, at any rate). There's going to be shocks to the economy whether we do something about climate change or not, but if we do it voluntarily they can be smaller and less disruptive.

 

[DVK916]

I can't believe people are even arguing that global warming isn't real. These people need to wake up fast, before we see places like this:

http://www.photodonation.org/images/gal...gs%20creek%20false%20hellebore%202.jpg

Dry up and become this:
http://www.qtours.com/images/qcalifornia/regional/deserts/new/desert_wash.jpg

We are currently in the largest mass extinction ever, and something needs to be done to stop it. The climate of the earth is being destroyed by humans and this is a fact. It is now bare in dry in places that use to be lush, and it will only get worst.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Czar
This is our modern day "the world is round" debate. Alot of science against predetermant fools.

Yep... and in the meantime, Westinghouse Electric, the world's largest maker of nuclear power... oops, excuse me, CBS/Viacom makes sure we all get the right side of the story

Gee, it sure would be nice if the issue was as cut and dried simple as you're trying to present it, now wouldn't it? But then that wouldn't exactly be scientific, would it?

You're right, nuclear is probably the first good option we have.

But CBS didn't invent global warming.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Wow some of you guys really suck at making logical conclusions. Let me try to follow your logic:

- There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time ever recorded in history.
- CO2 makes the temperature go up.
- CO2 levels are at an all time and have rose exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
- Man is responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore... it's all every other animal and plant's fault that global warming exists, but not humans because... well... because!

Did I get that right?

You missed the point about correlation does not mean causation.
Martins own link showed the earth has been warmer in the past compared to now with a lower Co2 concentration.

So I guess the question that needs to be answered is, why Co2? Why not methane that holds 4x the heat of Co2?

My theory of course is the socialist powers that be decided they cant compete with the western culture and want to artificially level the playing field by forcing them into reducing a direct byproduct of their industrial wealth and thus their ability to keep expanding their economies.

I heard some dimwit introduced legislation in the US senate to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 80% by 2020. That would put as at 1939 levels. Do you think our standard of living will be better with a 1939 level of consumption? Or do you think we will regress to 1939?

Not methane because of simple volume - How much methane is in the atmosphere? Edit - and how much of that is attributable to us?

History matters - our current temperatures are ony directly comparable to other time periods with large polar ice caps. A great deal of the additional solar energy we are retaining is going into melting those caps, keep temperatures relatively lower for now than they might otherwise be.

You really think this is all a plot to trick you into being worse off than you are now?

We're probably no more than a decade away from much cleaner energy than is currently used; nuclear->electric, for example, could provide energy with no CO2 emissions. All we would need is improved public perception, and better long-term waste management (expanded, at any rate). There's going to be shocks to the economy whether we do something about climate change or not, but if we do it voluntarily they can be smaller and less disruptive.

I dont believe it is a trick, I believe it is very deliberate and blatent. Kyoto applied wo whom again? And the original intent was what? The transfer of wealth via carbon credits. They werent looking to lower the Co2 output but instead tax and redistribute wealth via these carbon credits from wealthy nations to poor ones with little need for the credits. The ultimate example of course is allowing China or India to not comply.

I agree we have much cleaner sources of power but good effing luck getting these same people who beat the man made gobal warming chant to allow anybody to build them.

The thing that gets me is where I lived used to be under an oceans hundreds of thousands of years ago. This was caused by global warming that clearly had nothign to do with men and their industrialization. Yet I am supposed to believe the reason for this period of warming is because of man. And even more outrageous, believe man can stop nature when we have shown over and over we are no match for her.

A lot of this takes a leap of faith much like the religious.

btw carbon density is 338 according to wiki and represents about .038% of our atmosphere. Methane was about 2 ppm.

But this struck me as more instesting. H2O = 1-4%.
Caron Dioxide representing such a small fraction of our atmosphere makes me more skeptical. Imagine a pool with 10,000 gallons at 80 degrees and drop 38 gallons of boiling water into it and note the change in temperature.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
So sad all the people that so vehemently deny that we caused global warming. It's a fact, it's our man made destiny, if you don't believe it, fine, keep your head up your ass, but it's the truth and more information is being disclosed and discovered that confirms this. Check out the front page of USA Today if you get a chance.

Wasn't global cooling a "fact" a couple of decades ago? Wasn't it a "fact" that the world was flat a few centuries ago?

You have a horrible knowledge of history.

Time magazine had an article in I believe 1975 about the scientific communities belief we are about to enter the next ice age.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Wow some of you guys really suck at making logical conclusions. Let me try to follow your logic:

- There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time ever recorded in history.
- CO2 makes the temperature go up.
- CO2 levels are at an all time and have rose exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
- Man is responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore... it's all every other animal and plant's fault that global warming exists, but not humans because... well... because!

Did I get that right?

You missed the point about correlation does not mean causation.
Martins own link showed the earth has been warmer in the past compared to now with a lower Co2 concentration.

So I guess the question that needs to be answered is, why Co2? Why not methane that holds 4x the heat of Co2?

My theory of course is the socialist powers that be decided they cant compete with the western culture and want to artificially level the playing field by forcing them into reducing a direct byproduct of their industrial wealth and thus their ability to keep expanding their economies.

I heard some dimwit introduced legislation in the US senate to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 80% by 2020. That would put as at 1939 levels. Do you think our standard of living will be better with a 1939 level of consumption? Or do you think we will regress to 1939?

Not methane because of simple volume - How much methane is in the atmosphere? Edit - and how much of that is attributable to us?

History matters - our current temperatures are ony directly comparable to other time periods with large polar ice caps. A great deal of the additional solar energy we are retaining is going into melting those caps, keep temperatures relatively lower for now than they might otherwise be.

You really think this is all a plot to trick you into being worse off than you are now?

We're probably no more than a decade away from much cleaner energy than is currently used; nuclear->electric, for example, could provide energy with no CO2 emissions. All we would need is improved public perception, and better long-term waste management (expanded, at any rate). There's going to be shocks to the economy whether we do something about climate change or not, but if we do it voluntarily they can be smaller and less disruptive.

I dont believe it is a trick, I believe it is very deliberate and blatent. Kyoto applied wo whom again? And the original intent was what? The transfer of wealth via carbon credits. They werent looking to lower the Co2 output but instead tax and redistribute wealth via these carbon credits from wealthy nations to poor ones with little need for the credits. The ultimate example of course is allowing China or India to not comply.

I agree we have much cleaner sources of power but good effing luck getting these same people who beat the man made gobal warming chant to allow anybody to build them.

The thing that gets me is where I lived used to be under an oceans hundreds of thousands of years ago. This was caused by global warming that clearly had nothign to do with men and their industrialization. Yet I am supposed to believe the reason for this period of warming is because of man. And even more outrageous, believe man can stop nature when we have shown over and over we are no match for her.

We've shown we're no match for individual catastrophic events. We have (or at least had) the chance to prevent this one, because the earth would recover relatively quickly if we could (mostly) turn off the CO2 output.

I agree that Kyoto was a middling effort at best. Cap and trade is retarded, and always will be. The free market can't fix a problem it can't see, and simply stopping the increase in CO2 emissions isn't going to be anywhere near enough.

I don't know if we have a reasonable idea of what level of CO2 emissions would be considered 'sustainable' but I do know Kyoto was never going to get us there. The nicest thing I can say for it is that it was created in ignorance of how bad the problem really is.

Kyoto also is not the be all and end all of environmental thinking, and was a political endeavour, not a scientific one. Much like 'oil for food' doesn't invalidate every foreign aid program, the problems of Kyoto don't mean the correct response is 'do nothing'.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Wow some of you guys really suck at making logical conclusions. Let me try to follow your logic:

- There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time ever recorded in history.
- CO2 makes the temperature go up.
- CO2 levels are at an all time and have rose exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
- Man is responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore... it's all every other animal and plant's fault that global warming exists, but not humans because... well... because!

Did I get that right?

You missed the point about correlation does not mean causation.
Martins own link showed the earth has been warmer in the past compared to now with a lower Co2 concentration.

So I guess the question that needs to be answered is, why Co2? Why not methane that holds 4x the heat of Co2?

My theory of course is the socialist powers that be decided they cant compete with the western culture and want to artificially level the playing field by forcing them into reducing a direct byproduct of their industrial wealth and thus their ability to keep expanding their economies.

I heard some dimwit introduced legislation in the US senate to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 80% by 2020. That would put as at 1939 levels. Do you think our standard of living will be better with a 1939 level of consumption? Or do you think we will regress to 1939?

Well, your "theory" has everything that an crazy conspiracy theorist looks for in a theory, while at the same time explaining absolutely nothing. But you're a conservative, and one can't really expect much else from you people...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Wow some of you guys really suck at making logical conclusions. Let me try to follow your logic:

- There is more CO2 in the atmosphere than any time ever recorded in history.
- CO2 makes the temperature go up.
- CO2 levels are at an all time and have rose exponentially since the Industrial Revolution.
- Man is responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore... it's all every other animal and plant's fault that global warming exists, but not humans because... well... because!

Did I get that right?

You missed the point about correlation does not mean causation.
Martins own link showed the earth has been warmer in the past compared to now with a lower Co2 concentration.

So I guess the question that needs to be answered is, why Co2? Why not methane that holds 4x the heat of Co2?

My theory of course is the socialist powers that be decided they cant compete with the western culture and want to artificially level the playing field by forcing them into reducing a direct byproduct of their industrial wealth and thus their ability to keep expanding their economies.

I heard some dimwit introduced legislation in the US senate to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by 80% by 2020. That would put as at 1939 levels. Do you think our standard of living will be better with a 1939 level of consumption? Or do you think we will regress to 1939?

Well, your "theory" has everything that an crazy conspiracy theorist looks for in a theory, while at the same time explaining absolutely nothing. But you're a conservative, and one can't really expect much else from you people...

Hey hang on... the best evidence of a really good conspiracy is... no evidence at all!

I think GenX is onto something here...

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

1. There is no such thing as "no lag" in the real world - every single system has a lag between input/output, action/reaction ect and generally speaking, the larger the system the greater is reaction time. That is a low resolution image - each pixel represents about 500 years.

2. The previous spike of CO2 took about 10000 years, while the current one took about 200. The reason why you haven't seen this dramatic increase is because of the lag time.

Bad science gets filtered out and discarded by the scientific process itself. There is no vast global socialist-scientists-out-to-get-America conspiracy, its just the way things are.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

You make very valid points, but according to Martin, since you are not one of the "hundreds of the world's top climatologists saying one thing" your opinion is worthless. Wait a minute, unless Martin is one of the "hundreds of the world's top climatologists saying one thing" then his opinion is worthless as well. At least Martin and I agree on one thing. :laugh:

You're right, it would be worthless if I actually had my own opinion, but I don't. I am merely pointing out to the scientific consensus out there. Its you people that are the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a small aside here?
Military (government) intelligent officers believe that Iran may have something to do with the Karbala raid and all the people on the left trip over themselves in claiming the government lies and can?t be trusted.

Government scientists claim global warming is man made and the same people trip over themselves yelling ?see we told you?

Now why is it you believe the government when it comes to high theoretical work on global warming and climate change, and yet totally discount them when it comes to intelligence work? Could it be that you want to believe the global warming story, but don?t want to believe the Iranian connection story? This would seem like a perfect example of internal bias at work here.

I suggest all you Global warming people head over to wikipedia and look up ?ice age? and read about the natural cycle.
Of course none of this excuses us to destroy the earth via pollution. But it also doesn?t mean we should adopt regulations that would cripple our economy. (Even the Clinton administration didn?t like Kyoto because of its effects on our GDP.)

As usual, there's hardly anything that isn't wrong in your post.

1. These climatologists come from all over the world, not just the US.
2. Their work is open to critique and examination. If you ask for proof, they'll give it to you instead of telling you you're a traitor and that revealing anything is a threat to national security.
3. I suggest you read about the differences between natural climate cycles and what is currently happening.
4. I also suggest thinking before you post next time.

As usual you totally missed the point of the post.
The object of my post was to point out a double standard many of the posters on here have.
I am sure if we go to the ?Bush officials misled public? thread we will see a bunch of people upset at what the government tried to hide.
And then if we head over to any Iraq thread we find a bunch of people who don?t believe anything the government says.

Now why is it when the government says something they agree with, global warming is man made, they line up behind that statement like it is gospel. But when the government says something they don?t like, Iran is involved in Iraq, they all proclaim the government can?t be trusted? Simple question.

Personally I believe that climate change is happening. The question in my mind is how much of it is man made. And even more important what types of actions can we take to slow it down that will not ruin our life style.

Also note that the US is becoming less pollutant every year, while China and the rest of the developing world is growing in its pollution output. That is the big problem. How do we get these poor countries to adopt behaviors that will protect the environment in the future when such behaviors will effect their economic growth? It is one thing to tell me to buy a hybrid because it saves gas; it is another to tell a farmer using Ox to plow his fields that he shouldn?t buy a tractor because it hurts the environment.

There is no double standard because researchers are fundamentally different from intelligence services, there is no basis for comparison.

Now, on to the more reasonable parts of your post...

First, the debate you're talking about (" what types of actions can we take to slow it down that will not ruin our life style") is the one the EU has right now. Canada's debate is "should we do anything about it", while the debate in the US seems to be "is this a vast global conspiracy against us, and is the earth really older than 10000 years?".

Second, you cannot hope to influence China or anyone else without you first doing something. Whether it be human rights or climate change, you need credibility before preaching to others.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
So sad all the people that so vehemently deny that we caused global warming. It's a fact, it's our man made destiny, if you don't believe it, fine, keep your head up your ass, but it's the truth and more information is being disclosed and discovered that confirms this. Check out the front page of USA Today if you get a chance.

Wasn't global cooling a "fact" a couple of decades ago? Wasn't it a "fact" that the world was flat a few centuries ago?

You have a horrible knowledge of history.

Care to elaborate?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Wow, I guess no love for the starving polar bears and penguins eh? Didn't you see Happy Feet?

I'm still trying to get over all of the poor dinosaurs that died, did we cause that too?

Nope but we've done a good job on the whales so far, tigers, elephants, etc.

If you still think climate change has nothing to do with us, or doesn't matter (or both) you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

First of all, species go extinct, its how nature works, get over it.

Second, yea, we probably do have something to do with the climate change, as do all creatures on this planet, the debate is how much we have to do with it. If you think that the wolrd would have no climate change and be a great big garden of eden with no species going extinct and everything living in harmony together if humans weren't here then you really do have yourhead stuck in the sand.

Most ignorant attitude, FTL.

Who would you consider ignorant, the ones claiming that global warming is a fact, that we are destroying the world and that we will all die an early death because of it, or the people that keep an open mind, waiting for all of the facts to come in before sounding the "we're all gonna die" alarm? I like to keep an open mind, like I said, I am not discounting global warming, I'm just skeptical as to how much we are affecting it. The ones that discount everyone elses opinion, calling them ignorant because they have a different opinion on the matter, are in fact the ones that are ignorant.


Most ignorant attitude, FTL.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: Czar
This is our modern day "the world is round" debate. Alot of science against predetermant fools.

Well summarized.

But at least things are going the right way. The EU is trying to work out its EU-ETS, "environment" is one of the highest priorities in Canada (and an inadequate environmental plan recently caused a cabinet reshuffle), and in the US some states are trying to do something about it and some companies are calling for a cap and trade system.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Wow, I guess no love for the starving polar bears and penguins eh? Didn't you see Happy Feet?

I'm still trying to get over all of the poor dinosaurs that died, did we cause that too?

Nope but we've done a good job on the whales so far, tigers, elephants, etc.

If you still think climate change has nothing to do with us, or doesn't matter (or both) you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

First of all, species go extinct, its how nature works, get over it.

Second, yea, we probably do have something to do with the climate change, as do all creatures on this planet, the debate is how much we have to do with it. If you think that the wolrd would have no climate change and be a great big garden of eden with no species going extinct and everything living in harmony together if humans weren't here then you really do have yourhead stuck in the sand.

Most ignorant attitude, FTL.

Who would you consider ignorant, the ones claiming that global warming is a fact, that we are destroying the world and that we will all die an early death because of it, or the people that keep an open mind, waiting for all of the facts to come in before sounding the "we're all gonna die" alarm? I like to keep an open mind, like I said, I am not discounting global warming, I'm just skeptical as to how much we are affecting it. The ones that discount everyone elses opinion, calling them ignorant because they have a different opinion on the matter, are in fact the ones that are ignorant.


Most ignorant attitude, FTL.

Learn the facts, stop spewing the crap.

How hard is that, really.

:roll:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Wow, I guess no love for the starving polar bears and penguins eh? Didn't you see Happy Feet?

I'm still trying to get over all of the poor dinosaurs that died, did we cause that too?

Nope but we've done a good job on the whales so far, tigers, elephants, etc.

If you still think climate change has nothing to do with us, or doesn't matter (or both) you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

First of all, species go extinct, its how nature works, get over it.

Second, yea, we probably do have something to do with the climate change, as do all creatures on this planet, the debate is how much we have to do with it. If you think that the wolrd would have no climate change and be a great big garden of eden with no species going extinct and everything living in harmony together if humans weren't here then you really do have yourhead stuck in the sand.

Most ignorant attitude, FTL.

Who would you consider ignorant, the ones claiming that global warming is a fact, that we are destroying the world and that we will all die an early death because of it, or the people that keep an open mind, waiting for all of the facts to come in before sounding the "we're all gonna die" alarm? I like to keep an open mind, like I said, I am not discounting global warming, I'm just skeptical as to how much we are affecting it. The ones that discount everyone elses opinion, calling them ignorant because they have a different opinion on the matter, are in fact the ones that are ignorant.


Most ignorant attitude, FTL.

Learn the facts, stop spewing the crap.

How hard is that, really.

:roll:

There is really no need to be an ass. If you are so knowledgeable of the facts, what is the direct impact of man as far as global warming is concerned. Is it a one hundred percent truth that we are causing one hundred percent of the cooling of the earth? There is not enough data to prove it. Stop blindly following people just because they say its a fact. I'm sure you would have been arguing with colombus about the earth being round, because it was a fact that the earth was flat.

Is it so hard to believe that people can have a valid opinion of their own? Stop being an ass.

 

[OrByte]

I will follow the scientists and what they say. They are the experts, I am not.

so, what are scientists saying these days?

 

[jjones]

Get back to me when they can predict the weather with any accuracy, I'll take a look at this global warming stuff then.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: DVK916
I can't believe people are even arguing that global warming isn't real. These people need to wake up fast, before we see places like this:

http://www.photodonation.org/images/gal...gs%20creek%20false%20hellebore%202.jpg

Dry up and become this:
http://www.qtours.com/images/qcalifornia/regional/deserts/new/desert_wash.jpg

We are currently in the largest mass extinction ever, and something needs to be done to stop it. The climate of the earth is being destroyed by humans and this is a fact. It is now bare in dry in places that use to be lush, and it will only get worst.

Wow, so there used to be a big sea/ocean over the upper part of the midwest. Now there is none. I guess all of those dino-cars and cave-men factories f'd that all up.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: DVK916
I can't believe people are even arguing that global warming isn't real. These people need to wake up fast, before we see places like this:

http://www.photodonation.org/images/gal...gs%20creek%20false%20hellebore%202.jpg

Dry up and become this:
http://www.qtours.com/images/qcalifornia/regional/deserts/new/desert_wash.jpg

We are currently in the largest mass extinction ever, and something needs to be done to stop it. The climate of the earth is being destroyed by humans and this is a fact. It is now bare in dry in places that use to be lush, and it will only get worst.

Wow, so there used to be a big sea/ocean over the upper part of the midwest. Now there is none. I guess all of those dino-cars and cave-men factories f'd that all up.

My guess is that either Algore or Michael Moore is posting here. So who are you DVK916?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

1. There is no such thing as "no lag" in the real world - every single system has a lag between input/output, action/reaction ect and generally speaking, the larger the system the greater is reaction time. That is a low resolution image - each pixel represents about 500 years.

2. The previous spike of CO2 took about 10000 years, while the current one took about 200. The reason why you haven't seen this dramatic increase is because of the lag time.

Bad science gets filtered out and discarded by the scientific process itself. There is no vast global socialist-scientists-out-to-get-America conspiracy, its just the way things are.

1. So then why has it leveled off despite it still going up? There has been no CO2 leveling off, just a dramatic spike.

2. If each pixel represented 500 years, then that spike has been going on for a lot longer. There have been fast spikes before

Bad science doesn't get filtered out. If you look at that graph and can tell me that it is perfectly logical to use Vostok, Siple, and Mauna Loa air samples over 100 years, despite having Vostok for almost all 100 years, then I can tell you that bad science is propegated by people like you who swallow it like candy. You want so bad to be proven right that you will take any evidence.

It makes NO sense to slap-dash frankenstein findings, unless somebody can prove that Vostok was unreliable. Tell me why nothing other than another Vostok core taken in the past year was used? Why just slap another graph onto that one and replace decades of Vostok?

Perhaps because Vostok doesn't show what they want. Perhaps it completely debunks or doesn't support what they want YOU to swallow. Perhaps some moron pissed on the last 50 years of Vostok core and skewed the whole results.

Explain to me why. Otherwise YOU are bad science.