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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Infidel
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Listen, I don't argue man is having an effect on the environment. I argue the extremity of the affect and the methods used to try to support that caused and effect relationship. I question scientific, statistical, and logical abilities of anybody who doesn't look at all of this "evidence" with skepticism. Only those blissfully ignorant of proper statistical methodologies would accept this as proper evidence of a causation.

You don't quite understand the peer review thing do you? Or the way science/research builds on existing data, and if that data/analysis is flawed it becomes evident pretty quick?

Armchair scientists questioning the veracity of the research of real scientists is amusing, carry on.

/real scientist

Um... real scientists always question the research of other real scientists. IME, it's only the "armchair" e-scientists who put science up on some almighty pedestal of unquestionability.

What are you talking about? All the politicians and man made global warming people have told us the science is over, nothing left to debate!

Lockstep as one and lets get this thing on the road!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: abj13
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Peer review depends on people actually wanting to shoot down conclusions they agree with, which may or may not happen. It also depends on those disagreements getting to the public after refutation of a study, something which doesn't happen often and if it does it's often lambasted by GW advocates.

Let me guess, you also believe in pink elephants because the anti-pink elephant lobby keeps it out of the published primary research? What about flying unicorns? The anti-flying unicorn lobby keeps that out of the news too? This tin-foil, conspiracy theory logic is weak and unpersuasive. If true contradictory evidence against global warming existed... I'd bet there would be plenty of funding to go around, either from the current administration, non-profit groups, or heck, conservative think-tanks. But then the question is, where is that research?

There is plenty of information, as others have pointed out, that indicate that Manmade CO2 != 1:1 correlation to temp increases. Yet, for some reason, these are always ignored or dismissed outright, as pure fantasy and corporatist greed.

Look at Exxon, the second it funds something to the contrary it's a huge deal.

As I have said before, I do believe that there is a correlation between GW and manmade CO2 emissions. I just don't think that it's what everybody makes it out to be. My guess is that the R^2 for it is probably less than 50% and likely less than 30%. There are too many complexities involved in this planet to say that there is a 1:1 and that R2 is 90%+. Now, where I do agree with most GW people is that *ANY* harmful influence we can prevent to this planet in a reasonable way, we should.

However, all of this chickenlittle crap is annoying.
 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
901
136
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
There is plenty of information, as others have pointed out, that indicate that Manmade CO2 != 1:1 correlation to temp increases. Yet, for some reason, these are always ignored or dismissed outright, as pure fantasy and corporatist greed.

Look at Exxon, the second it funds something to the contrary it's a huge deal.

Such as?

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
As I have said before, I do believe that there is a correlation between GW and manmade CO2 emissions. I just don't think that it's what everybody makes it out to be. My guess is that the R^2 for it is probably less than 50% and likely less than 30%. There are too many complexities involved in this planet to say that there is a 1:1 and that R2 is 90%+. Now, where I do agree with most GW people is that *ANY* harmful influence we can prevent to this planet in a reasonable way, we should.

LOL! When are you going to finally sit down and read the Petit article? Never?

"The overall correlation between our CO2 and CH4 records and the Antarctic isotopic temperature5, 9, 16 is remarkable (r2 = 0.71 and 0.73 for CO2 and CH4, respectively). This high correlation indicates that CO2 and CH4 may have contributed to the glacial?interglacial changes over this entire period by amplifying the orbital forcing along with albedo, and possibly other changes15,16. "

Hmmm, there's a strong correlation between CO2/CH4 and global temperatures for the past 420,000 years... today we have elevated the CO2/CH4 concentrations into unprecidented highs in the past 420,000 years, and you are going to still argue there may be other factors we cannot account for? Name them. Show me the R2 values on those. Show me how they break up the strong correlation between CO2/CH4 and temperatures. This shell game of complaining about biased researchers and the lack of accounting for other variables is astounding, especially when you refuse to read the very thing you are questioning. If it is so obvious that there is a disconnect between CO2/CH4 and temperatures, then what is it? Citing that there may be too many complexities is a bunch of vague hogwash, by that logic, we should also question using penicillin on bacteria, simply because we cannot account for all the unknown complexity of the human body, and it doesn't work 100% of the time, nor does it have a correlation of 1 between health and dosage. Its absurd.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
26,968
35,584
136
Following one variable is what i have the problem with.

CO2 content in Mars atmosphere : 95%

Average Temperature of Mars on the Equator : -50f



Now I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that would be a relevant comparison if the distance between the Sun and the Earth were the same as the distance between Mars and the Sun.

And that's just for starters, I highly doubt the huge differences in say, ecology (we have vegetation, huge oceans, etc) and volcanic activity between Earth and Mars wouldn't somehow play an important role on determining the role and later effects of C02 in relation to global warming.

And that's saying nothing of the unique Earthy quality of having inhabitants that have added their own artificial C02 production alongside what this planet produces on it's own.
Sorry, the whole comparison seems a little too much like apples to oranges to me...

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,445
136
I do have an issue with the correlation between CO2 and temperature.

There has previously been no ice on the poles. If we?re using CO2 measurements from ICE cores we have today, then obviously the last time the poles melted the records would have melted away. So the records we have today cannot point to the time before their existence, which happens to be the last time this temperature rise has occurred.

It is happening, it has significance, but it?ll be difficult to sway me as to the source of it.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: kage69
Following one variable is what i have the problem with.

CO2 content in Mars atmosphere : 95%

Average Temperature of Mars on the Equator : -50f



Now I'm no scientist, but it seems to me that would be a relevant comparison if the distance between the Sun and the Earth were the same as the distance between Mars and the Sun.

And that's just for starters, I highly doubt the huge differences in say, ecology (we have vegetation, huge oceans, etc) and volcanic activity between Earth and Mars wouldn't somehow play an important role on determining the role and later effects of C02 in relation to global warming.

And that's saying nothing of the unique Earthy quality of having inhabitants that have added their own artificial C02 production alongside what this planet produces on it's own.
Sorry, the whole comparison seems a little too much like apples to oranges to me...

I agree, but we arent looking at all of the variables, apparently the science of global warming looks at 2. While my comparison looks silly, I was trying to point out EXACTLY what you said.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I guess reading comprehension requires much less skill than posting the same stupid graphs based off of the same stupid "science" which ignores statistical validation.

Ignoring stupidity in statistical methodologies by using multiple independant variable samples, show me a previous time in those graphs where you had a 30%+ spike in CO2 and a 0% spike in temp.

You can't, because it doesn't exist, because the spikes in CO2 are from difference sources. One of which sits on top of an area which produces plethoric amounts of CO2, not because of man, but because of geology. COnsidering Mauna Loa is in the Ring of Fire, it isn't surprising it produces tons of CO2.

All you two do is keep posting the same stupid data.

Arguing with you is like talking to a potato, so I'll stop. But let me conclude by saying:

- I already answered your question above. If you didn't understand the explanation the first time around, feel free to reread it - I'm not going to keep going around in circles and repeating myself.
- all data gives the same picture. Don't believe me? Go ahead - try and find data that says the current CO2 levels are normal compared to the last several hundred thousand years, and that shows there wasn't a rapid increase starting in the 1800s. I wouldn't waste my time of course - you won't find it, because it doesn't exist.
- There is no vast global socialist conspiracy trying to 'keep you down'.

Cheers
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

All of this chickenlittle crap is annoying.

Awwwwwww your heroes have been exposed and your not happy.

Look dude, if you actually had the reading comprehension of a 3 year old you might realize that nobody, on either side of the debate, are my heroes. It isn't surprising that you, the biggest spreader of FUD and fearmongering chickenlittle crap, would respond like this.

You are probably the most foolish person on this board.
 

Jawo

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2005
4,125
0
0
The biggest problem is that there are too many darn people on the planet. If you compare a historical graph of the World's Populationwith CO2 levels, you will see that they match up nicely! Yes Global Warming is real. But there is NOTHING we can do about it...unless we implement my ultimate cure to Global Warming: KILL EVERYONE!! :D ;)
 

Jawo

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2005
4,125
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

All of this chickenlittle crap is annoying.

Awwwwwww your heroes have been exposed and your not happy.

Look dude, if you actually had the reading comprehension of a 3 year old you might realize that nobody, on either side of the debate, are my heroes. It isn't surprising that you, the biggest spreader of FUD and fearmongering chickenlittle crap, would respond like this.

You are probably the most foolish person on this board.


Gee...someone has intelligance! and it only took three pages!
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Jawo
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

All of this chickenlittle crap is annoying.

Awwwwwww your heroes have been exposed and your not happy.

Look dude, if you actually had the reading comprehension of a 3 year old you might realize that nobody, on either side of the debate, are my heroes. It isn't surprising that you, the biggest spreader of FUD and fearmongering chickenlittle crap, would respond like this.

You are probably the most foolish person on this board.


Gee...someone has intelligance! and it only took three pages!

Whatever, you are the fool saying "kill everybody". Spurrious correlations mean nothing. There are too many variables in this universe to conclusively tie anything.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Shivetya
of course its man made...... MAN MADE UP


The real trick is, there is no money in it, research or fixing it, if it were not man made, so what result did you think they would come up with?

Ding ding, global warming has become a big industry for govt researchers. Who the hell is going to come out with findings that will eliminate their job?

If anybody can explain to me why we have more ice on greenland now than they did 1000 years ago and tell me 1000 years ago man caused that warming trend. Then maybe Ill start to really believe in the new religion called Man Made Global Warming.

Otherwise this whole idea we can alter the climate so it doesnt warm sounds about as futile as pissing into the wind. The Earths climate has moved up and down in temperature for billions of years. Only the ego of man can conclude the latest seesaw effect is his own doing and he can stop it.

Do some volume calculations, just simple 'order of magnitude' stuff, and you will see that the CO2 we produce is capable of affecting worldwide levels, and therefore of altering solar energy absorption/reflection ratios.

Perhaps we should stop breathing therefore reducing C02 levels? How about lead by example and go first...
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Even if it is a partially natural occurence.. could anyone believe that we are not helping to speed it along?

tear down forests
pollute the hell out of oceans and raise their temps
build heat conductiing roads everywhere
build giant heat conducting buildings everywhere
pollute the skys and atmosphere

What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Even if it is a partially natural occurence.. could anyone believe that we are not helping to speed it along?

tear down forests
pollute the hell out of oceans and raise their temps
build heat conductiing roads everywhere
build giant heat conducting buildings everywhere
pollute the skys and atmosphere

What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?

I dont think the fact that we, as humans, ARE contributing is at question. The question that no one can seem to agree on is by how much. There is "scientific" data that contridicts even itself, therefore causing environmentalists to cry "its all human's fault!" and staunch capitalist's cries of "There's nothing we can do about it" and everything in between.

It's a pretty worthless argument, IMHO.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,133
219
106
What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?


It's pretty F'en simple.... We could ride bikes or walk to work... We could replace all our light bulbs with CF Bulbs or better yet LED bulbs.

We could replace washer with front loader, not only does it take less energy, uses less water and spins cloths faster (less time in dryer)....

We could replace hot water heaters with solar panels (cheap passive solar solutions)...

OR we could do like china does... China seems to be doing all the RIGHT things while we have heads in the sand as usual....

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/12/content_313964.htm

Plant some god damned trees.... But no......... INSTEAD we have to listen to an idiot all f'en day long preaching about TERROR TERROR and 9/11 who has no damn clue wtf he is talking about....

 

Jawo

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2005
4,125
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Jawo
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

All of this chickenlittle crap is annoying.

Awwwwwww your heroes have been exposed and your not happy.

Look dude, if you actually had the reading comprehension of a 3 year old you might realize that nobody, on either side of the debate, are my heroes. It isn't surprising that you, the biggest spreader of FUD and fearmongering chickenlittle crap, would respond like this.

You are probably the most foolish person on this board.


Gee...someone has intelligance! and it only took three pages!

Whatever, you are the fool saying "kill everybody". Spurrious correlations mean nothing. There are too many variables in this universe to conclusively tie anything.

Well take your sence of humor in for a Tune-up since you aparently didn't recognize my blatent and lame attempt at sarcasm...thats what smilies are for! :roll:
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Even if it is a partially natural occurence.. could anyone believe that we are not helping to speed it along?

tear down forests
pollute the hell out of oceans and raise their temps
build heat conductiing roads everywhere
build giant heat conducting buildings everywhere
pollute the skys and atmosphere

What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?

I dont think the fact that we, as humans, ARE contributing is at question. The question that no one can seem to agree on is by how much. There is "scientific" data that contridicts even itself, therefore causing environmentalists to cry "its all human's fault!" and staunch capitalist's cries of "There's nothing we can do about it" and everything in between.

It's a pretty worthless argument, IMHO.

Would you rather be an environmentalist or a warmongering capitalist?

Anyhow.. what is the worthless argument?

Global warming is real or not real

Humans are responsible for accelerating the rate of Global Warming or not

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Even if it is a partially natural occurence.. could anyone believe that we are not helping to speed it along?

tear down forests
pollute the hell out of oceans and raise their temps
build heat conductiing roads everywhere
build giant heat conducting buildings everywhere
pollute the skys and atmosphere

What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?

I dont think the fact that we, as humans, ARE contributing is at question. The question that no one can seem to agree on is by how much. There is "scientific" data that contridicts even itself, therefore causing environmentalists to cry "its all human's fault!" and staunch capitalist's cries of "There's nothing we can do about it" and everything in between.

It's a pretty worthless argument, IMHO.

Would you rather be an environmentalist or a warmongering capitalist?
Warmongering? no. Capitalist? Absolutely.

Anyhow.. what is the worthless argument?
eh I laid it out pretty clearly. To quote myself "The question that no one can seem to agree on is by how much."

Global warming is real or not real
As I said, that really isnt an argument. Most people accept that it is. See above.

Humans are responsible for accelerating the rate of Global Warming or not
Again, you fail to comprehend. The question isnt whether or not humans DO contribute, the question is how much. And what impact insignificant changes less that 10% of the population of the world would have that acceleration (i.e. ride bikes more, public transit, solar power, etc). IMHO, none.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Even if it is a partially natural occurence.. could anyone believe that we are not helping to speed it along?

tear down forests
pollute the hell out of oceans and raise their temps
build heat conductiing roads everywhere
build giant heat conducting buildings everywhere
pollute the skys and atmosphere

What do we do that would have a cooling effect on the planet?

I dont think the fact that we, as humans, ARE contributing is at question. The question that no one can seem to agree on is by how much. There is "scientific" data that contridicts even itself, therefore causing environmentalists to cry "its all human's fault!" and staunch capitalist's cries of "There's nothing we can do about it" and everything in between.

It's a pretty worthless argument, IMHO.

Would you rather be an environmentalist or a warmongering capitalist?
Warmongering? no. Capitalist? Absolutely.

Anyhow.. what is the worthless argument?
eh I laid it out pretty clearly. To quote myself "The question that no one can seem to agree on is by how much."

Global warming is real or not real
As I said, that really isnt an argument. Most people accept that it is. See above.

Humans are responsible for accelerating the rate of Global Warming or not
Again, you fail to comprehend. The question isnt whether or not humans DO contribute, the question is how much. And what impact insignificant changes less that 10% of the population of the world would have that acceleration (i.e. ride bikes more, public transit, solar power, etc). IMHO, none.


Thank you for the reply. I don't think we will ever be able to get people to agree to make the changes that is why we cannot change the harm we have done
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
ALERT!

CBS News has also broadcasted the recent 3rd annual "Democratic Party Solidarity Meeting" itinerary.

7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Nonreligious prayer and worship. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding-- Barney Frank Presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Reinstate Saddam Rally. Cindy Sheehan-- Susan Sarandon.
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender-- French President Jacques Chirac
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo Bay- Sean Penn
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson Clinton
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented Truth in Broadcasting award, presented by Michael Moore
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
10:00 P.M. How George bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World Trade Center Towers-- Howard Dean
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahnadinejad
11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 P.M. Al Gore perfects cold fusion
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals-- John Kerry
11:30 P.M. Coronation Of Mrs. Rodham Clinton
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
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.

How typical:

'You must live in some pansy liberal dream world with rainbows and faeries and birthday cake for every meal'

Get a freakin clue - the animals I mentioned we drove near or to extinction by hunting; they have nothing to do with climate change, but if you think they became endangered or extinct for any reason other than man and modern technological killing you are fooling yoursef.

No other animal causes the kind of CO2 emissions we do, because no other animal creates CO2 by methods other than breathing.

Things go extinct and climates change, but the current changes are being largely caused by us, and are going to create major issues that could have been avoided if we had taken action 20 years ago when it was scientifically obvious what was going on.

As it is, there is still a chance to reduce the impact, but it's not going to happen, because you're still hoping to be dead before the bad stuff hits.

(snipped)... Yes, I realize that we almost made them extinct by hunting them. Thats what happens, survival of the fittest, preditors eat prey, its called nature. Did animals not go extinct before humans came around? Do you get all up in arms when a lion kills a zebra?
To say hunting animals to the point of extinction is called 'survival of the fittest' is very ignorant.