For real: ***CONFIRMED*** & ***OFFICIAL*** Global Warming is REAL!

[Entity]

<< We are a very small cog in the global warming engine. >>


I'll turn the tables here. You always ask for facts when someone makes a claim; consequently: facts?



Rob

 

[jahawkin]

<<

<<

<<

<<

<<

<< Huh?? That quote states that warming will continue due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Just because they can't quantify the exact amount of human greenhouse gas emissions doesn't mean their conclusions are invalid... >>



then it isn't "Official" or "Confirmed" is it? >>



Can it ever be "official"?? No. It can be "highly probable" though. >>



LOL No it can't. Its conjecture at best if you can't even measure the amount of human participation to lay it off on humans. >>



I could come up with estimates on how much human CO2 emission there are in a year. Is that what you need??
Its a theory of global warming. Do you not believe in the theory of relativity just becuase it cannot be proven as fact?? >>



If you give me the CO2 emissions on humans, give me the CO2 emissions from natual phomonea and animals before you can even come CLOSE to making a conlclusion on human intervenetion. >>



This has what you're looking for. Slides 11 through 16 are the ones of most interest. I could find more CO2 budget studies if need be.

 

[Texmaster]

<< LaBang, you offended the LOL-god himself, Texmaster. Prepare to be assaulted with nonsense until you don't even remember nor care what you were originally talking about. Any intelligent conversations about the possibility of Global Warming in this thread are already forfeit >>



I see you are busy contributing to the arguement at hand as usual Scace. LOL

Non run away, the big boys are debating here

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< We are a very small cog in the global warming engine. >>


I'll turn the tables here. You always ask for facts when someone makes a claim; consequently: facts?



Rob >>



I'm not the one making the arguement, your side is

You can't turn the table when its your premise little buddy

 

[Entity]

<< I'm not the one making the arguement, your side is >>


Fist of all, there is no "side" of this argument in which I have sided. Second of all, you made a claim:


<< We are a very small cog in the global warming engine. >>


Now back it up.

Rob

 

[Nemesis77]

<< ***CONFIRMED*** & ***OFFICIAL***
LaBang is a tree hugger who can't use the search button

-LaBang's Nemesis >>



I expect you to pay me royalties for the use of word "Nemesis". Thank you for your co-operation.

 

[killface]

<< you give me the CO2 emissions on humans, give me the CO2 emissions from natual phomonea and animals before you can even come CLOSE to making a conlclusion on human intervenetion. >>


I thought I did this a few posts above yours.

" Carbon Dioxide
Prior to the industrial revolution in the 18th century, the earth's atmosphere was made up of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) CO2. Since that time, the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas), land-use changes such as deforestation and the production of cement have increased that concentration to 355 ppmv"

Or is it just coincidence?

 

[Texmaster]

<< This has what you're looking for. Slides 11 through 16 are the ones of most interest. I could find more CO2 budget studies if need be. >>



And it says that humans produce more CO2 than anything else on earth where....

 

[Entity]

<< I dont mind change but for Many it is blame. And blame leads to programs that cost millions. >>


Yet another claim.

Tex,

I don't know your age, or how well versed in argumentation you are. If you want to successfully attack an argument, you must propose a counter-claim; in doing so, you still have a burden of proof. Consequently, if you are going to say things such as:

for Many [scientists] it is blame...

You have to back that up with evidence. Studies, quotations, etc.

Rob

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< I'm not the one making the arguement, your side is >>


Fist of all, there is no "side" of this argument in which I have sided. Second of all, you made a claim:


<< We are a very small cog in the global warming engine. >>


Now back it up.

Rob >>




I think not even being able to measure the amout human produce is a pretty big factor.

Now, back your BS side up that humans are contributing a signifigant amount to Global Warming.

I know you are trying to dodge your side but it is the argument this thread started under

 

[Entity]

<< Now, back your BS side up that humans are contributing a signifigant amount to Global Warming. >>


Tex,

You've responded to most of the posts in this thread, so I'll just assume that you are forgetful, and not that you can't read.

Here is the end of the first post I made in this thread. Note how I didn't say, and never will say, that humans are contributing a significant amount to Global Warming.


<< Rob (essentially agreeing that we need to take preventative measures but also that global warming will, at best, only be a scientifically accepted theory, and no more) >>

 

[Texmaster]

<<
Yet another claim. >>



LOL That isn't a claim little buddy.

People on your side are demanding the stoppage of all fossil fuel use right now and other organizations want more and more money than they already get to research this.

Pick up a paper once in a while



<< I don't know your age, or how well versed in argumentation you are. If you want to successfully attack an argument, you must propose a counter-claim; in doing so, you still have a burden of proof. Consequently, if you are going to say things such as:

for Many [scientists] it is blame...

You have to back that up with evidence. Studies, quotations, etc.

Rob >>



Lets get this straight right now. The ORIGNINAL poster made the claim. And since you posted in favor of that claim the burden of proof is non you.

If I had started this thread you would have a point but I did not.

Now stop dodging the responsibility.

 

[clarkmo]

Human's' produce more greenhouse gas and c02 than any other source. Here's your greenhouse gas (*) pphhhtt!
Whattaya'll worried about for criminies sake. It's just not that bad. We are not going extinct for some time now. Eons!

 

[Texmaster]

<< Rob (essentially agreeing that we need to take preventative measures but also that global warming will, at best, only be a scientifically accepted theory, and no more) >>



And since I have already said that we do need to stop using fossil fuels I'll assume the same about you

Here's a hint, putting a name (in this case Rob) in front of a quote looks like you are replying to someone else

And if I got you confused with someone else then I apologize but I am replying to 3 people at once here

 

[jahawkin]

<<

<< This has what you're looking for. Slides 11 through 16 are the ones of most interest. I could find more CO2 budget studies if need be. >>



And it says that humans produce more CO2 than anything else on earth where.... >>



I think you're missing the jist of the theory....Here's a good passage from a climatology book:
"About 5 Gt C year (gigatons of carbon per year) are currently released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion, and roughly 2 Gt C year are released by deforestation. Some of this excess carbon is taken up by the ocearn, but the atmospheric content is currently increasing by about 3 Gt C year or about .5% per year. There are rapid exchanges of carbon between the atmosphere and the ocean, so that the particular CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are changed in about 4 years. We may call this the turnover time. The time required for atmospheric CO2 to acheive a new equilibrium in response to a perturbation such as fossil fuel buning is much longer, however, because of the slow rate at which carbon is exchanged between the surface waters and deep ocean. It requires 50-200 year for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to acheive a new steady state."
Get it???
Refrences provided at request....

 

[Entity]

Tex,

I have to go to work now, so I won't respond for a bit.


<< LOL That isn't a claim little buddy. >>


Please stop calling me little buddy. Not only is it condescending, but I don't consider myself to be friends with you. I'd rather keep to the standard formalities of a debate.


<< And since you posted in favor of that claim the burden of proof is non you. >>


I think you mean on me, rather than non me; regardless, I didn't post in favor of the original post. I was more closely aligned with Heyabusrider's post, if you want to find a similarity, but I was not taking one side or another; not everything is that black and white.

Here goes. Each of these statements you have made is a claim, in the general sense of the word. In most threads on this forum, you ask for facts when someone makes a claim. It's your turn to prove that you can do the same.



<< People on your side are demanding the stoppage of all fossil fuel use right now and other organizations want more and more money than they already get to research this. >>

Despite the fact that I don't have a side on this, I'll take this statement at face value. Can you provide the name of the organization who is demanding the stoppage of all fossil fuel right now?


<< We are a very small cog in the global warming engine. >>


Percentages? This is a claim. Denying that it is won't change anything. What percentage are we responsible for global warming?

Don't try to label me on this issue as being on one side or the other. Just consider me to be checking the facts from both sides. I'm seeing a startling lack of them from your side, though the link (provided by Jimbo) is a nice start.

Rob

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<<

<< This has what you're looking for. Slides 11 through 16 are the ones of most interest. I could find more CO2 budget studies if need be. >>



And it says that humans produce more CO2 than anything else on earth where.... >>



I think you're missing the jist of the theory....Here's a good passage from a climatology book:
"About 5 Gt C year (gigatons of carbon per year) are currently released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion, and roughly 2 Gt C year are released by deforestation. Some of this excess carbon is taken up by the ocearn, but the atmospheric content is currently increasing by about 3 Gt C year or about .5% per year. There are rapid exchanges of carbon between the atmosphere and the ocean, so that the particular CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are changed in about 4 years. We may call this the turnover time. The time required for atmospheric CO2 to acheive a new equilibrium in response to a perturbation such as fossil fuel buning is much longer, however, because of the slow rate at which carbon is exchanged between the surface waters and deep ocean. It requires 50-200 year for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to acheive a new steady state."
Get it???
Refrences provided at request.... >>



Are you saying that fossil fuel CO2 emissions hang around longer and therefore that makes up for the rest of nature producing other forms of CO2?

 

[jahawkin]

<<
Are you saying that fossil fuel CO2 emissions hang around longer and therefore that makes up for the rest of nature producing other forms of CO2? >>



No, I'm saying that there was a steady state CO2 budget. Humans started burning fossil fuel, which in turn releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which throws the CO2 budget into disequilibrium. This leads to increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, which has been quantified.

 

[Cyberian]

Tex -


<< They can't even state a majority of greenhouse gas is produced by humans! LOL!!! >>

I can't find where anyone ever made that claim.

Is it your contention that humans do not contribute at all?

 

[skace]

You right Texmaster, I havn't contributed anything to this argument. But, in contrast, all you have contributed was counter-productive and misleading. So which is worse? I take 0 steps, but you took 5 steps back. You gave me the lead the second you put your fingers on the keyboard. The day you begin to provide any argument that actually informs anyone or helps anyone make an informed decision is the day I sh!t gold nuggets.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I think you mean on me, rather than non me; regardless, I didn't post in favor of the original post. I was more closely aligned with Heyabusrider's post, if you want to find a similarity, but I was not taking one side or another; not everything is that black and white. >>



If you did agree with his post then why do you constantly try to picka fight with me when I agreed with him before you did?



<< Here goes. Each of these statements you have made is a claim, in the general sense of the word. In most threads on this forum, you ask for facts when someone makes a claim. It's your turn to prove that you can do the same. >>



You just asked for proof, I gave you a reason for my conlcusions, lack of evidence on another side but predictably you didn't address it.



<< ]Despite the fact that I don't have a side on this, I'll take this statement at face value. Can you provide the name of the organization who is demanding the stoppage of all fossil fuel right now? >>



If you don't have a side on this then your direct confrontations with me must be personally motivated. How said.

Greenpeace right now has already demanded a stoppage for oil exploration

Link

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro

How about the ELF? Earth Liberation Front?


link

They are now #1 on the Domestic Terrorist Group List with the FBI.

They even have on their website how to refuse to help the FBI witha criminal investigation.




<< Percentages? This is a claim. Denying that it is won't change anything. What percentage are we responsible for global warming? >>



You just hit the nail on the head. NO one knows. And since logic dictates if humans were such a major player it would be easy to dectect between industrial and non industrial nations, why hasn't that been proven?

The amount of study poured into this and the incredible lack of evidnece found easily supports my conclusions.



<< Don't try to label me on this issue as being on one side or the other. Just consider me to be checking the facts from both sides. I'm seeing a startling lack of them from your side, though the link (provided by Jimbo) is a nice start.

Rob >>



You know, there is nothing more gutless than someone trying to hide behind a neutral postion because he is afraid to get into a debate.

At least others here who disagree with me have the guts to acknowledge their side.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<<
Are you saying that fossil fuel CO2 emissions hang around longer and therefore that makes up for the rest of nature producing other forms of CO2? >>



No, I'm saying that there was a steady state CO2 budget. Humans started burning fossil fuel, which in turn releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which throws the CO2 budget into disequilibrium. This leads to increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, which has been quantified. >>



But there is no evidence that the CO2 by humans alone is causing any real shift in the world ecology.

 

[Texmaster]

<< You right Texmaster, I havn't contributed anything to this argument. But, in contrast, all you have contributed was counter-productive and misleading. So which is worse? I take 0 steps, but you took 5 steps back. You gave me the lead the second you put your fingers on the keyboard. The day you begin to provide any argument that actually informs anyone or helps anyone make an informed decision is the day I sh!t gold nuggets. >>




I'm proving links and analysis. All you did was flame.

There is a difference little buddy.

 

[308nato]

<< But there is no evidence that the CO2 by humans alone is causing any real shift in the world ecology. >>



The REAL culprit:

Methane
Biomass burning, increased agricultural production in rice paddy fields, digestive fermentation (burps and farts) from cattle and other livestock, and leaks from natural gas pipelines and coal mines have lead to a steady increase in methane emissions. Methane production accounts for 22.9 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.


Link to Prevent Plagiarism Lawsuits

 

[jahawkin]

<<
But there is no evidence that the CO2 by humans alone is causing any real shift in the world ecology. >>



Are an increase in global average temperatures not evidence?? How about global climate models??