Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Praeses]

Actually the most extensive study to date has shown no appreciable change in the last decade. Carbon use doesn't correlate with warming of the atmosphere just like it never has during earth's past warming and cooling episodes. Notice how it has changed from global warming to climate change over the years. Everyone knows climates will change so when that happens they claim they were right and ask for more research money from governments. That's not their original position so they were actually wrong.


Seems to correlate with the non-change in temperatures.

Do you not understand the Greenhouse effect?

 

[Swa]

Do you not understand the Greenhouse effect?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

 

[Praeses]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

Please post peer reviewed scientific papers. I couldn't care less what the media has to say.

 

[Cicero]

GLOBAL WARMING!!! - WE DIDN'T LISTEN

 

[Swa]

Please post peer reviewed scientific papers. I couldn't care less what the media has to say.

Funny that the usual suspects would jump up for "peer reviewed" "papers." It would have been peer reviewed if Richard Muller hadn't bungled it up! The graph btw is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation and not some media drivel.

 

[Praeses]

Funny that the usual suspects would jump up for "peer reviewed" "papers." It would have been peer reviewed if Richard Muller hadn't bungled it up! The graph btw is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation and not some media drivel.

usual suspects? I haven't posted in this thread since less than a week ago in months. You didn't even have a MyBB account back then...unless you're using another alias?
I'm a scientist - a graph/media drivel means nothing to me if there's no peer reviewed article to support it (which can be objectively criticized by peers), otherwise it means nothing in the scientific domain.

 

[Swa]

usual suspects? I haven't posted in this thread since less than a week ago in months. You didn't even have a MyBB account back then...unless you're using another alias?
I'm a scientist - a graph/media drivel means nothing to me if there's no peer reviewed article to support it (which can be objectively criticized by peers), otherwise it means nothing in the scientific domain.

I've been here for May and June. During that time you've been posting and unless I'm confusing you with somebody else I also saw your posts before going with scientific "consensus." Hence the usual suspects remark. Never mind there's really no such thing as scientific consensus I've seen how the review process works vs how it's supposed to work so sorry if I rather deal with verifiable facts than subjective opinions.

The data is all there to verify yourself if you really want to. The graph is a direct plot of that data if you consider the Global Warming Policy Foundation reliable. As for no peer-review documents you seem to ignore who it was that sabotaged that process.

 

[Arthur]

Do you not understand the Greenhouse effect?

What a giveaway.

This uncalled-for jab is entirely without warrant. It is condescending and irrelevant. It also betrays your prejudice and undermines any claim you might want to make about 'sticking to the facts'. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem under a veneer of "I know science", and you know it (if you don't, you're not only ignorantly unjust, but stupid to boot). By the way, if you're going to capitalise Greenhouse, then you ought to capitalise Effect, though most scientific literature uses lowercase. Ever noticed that?

 

[Praeses]

What a giveaway.

This uncalled-for jab is entirely without warrant. It is condescending and irrelevant. It also betrays your prejudice and undermines any claim you might want to make about 'sticking to the facts'. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem under a veneer of "I know science", and you know it (if you don't, you're not only ignorantly unjust, but stupid to boot). By the way, if you're going to capitalise Greenhouse, then you ought to capitalise Effect, though most scientific literature uses lowercase. Ever noticed that?

It was an honest question. Sorry to burst your bubble!

 

[Arthur]

It was an honest question. Sorry to burst your bubble!

If it was, can you explain how your question arises from Swa's post (the one you quoted)? Hint: maybe you have a problem with "Carbon use doesn't correlate with warming of the atmosphere"? If so, please give a reasonable accounting for his second clause "just like it never has during earth's past warming and cooling episodes" and how your apparently honest question arises from these points. Hint2: At issue is not the greenhouse effect, but the correlation between carbon use and atmospheric warming. Even if you cite warming from say 1850, you still have to account for prior warmings where anthropic carbon use is clearly not a factor. Or just blowing bubbles?

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

The climate has been changing for millions of years and will continue to change. The only question is if us as humans are making any meaningful contribution to this change, because if we are then it's a problem as the earth has never experienced that before and who knows what will happen. Problem is no one has come close to working this out because frankly no one can work out all the variables of the environment, and don't give me simulation results because they are biased according to whoever is programming the simulation.

My personal view is that we are doing pretty much next to nothing and GW is an example of mans inherent ego to think that we could possibly do anything permanent(remember when earth was the centre of the universe?).

 

[w1z4rd]

The climate has been changing for millions of years and will continue to change. The only question is if us as humans are making any meaningful contribution to this change, because if we are then it's a problem as the earth has never experienced that before and who knows what will happen. Problem is no one has come close to working this out because frankly no one can work out all the variables of the environment, and don't give me simulation results because they are biased according to whoever is programming the simulation.

My personal view is that we are doing pretty much next to nothing and GW is an example of mans inherent ego to think that we could possibly do anything permanent(remember when earth was the centre of the universe?).

Your personal views are irrelevant to the truth. Let me give you an example. I have a dog. Its a male, but your personal view is its female. Your personal view does not change the sex of my dog. Facts are facts.

Fact: The temp of the earth is rising
Fact: CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing
Fact: We are responsible for the majority of the CO2 rise
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution
Fact: We are taking carbon out the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

 

[w1z4rd]

What a giveaway.

This uncalled-for jab is entirely without warrant. It is condescending and irrelevant. It also betrays your prejudice and undermines any claim you might want to make about 'sticking to the facts'. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem under a veneer of "I know science", and you know it (if you don't, you're not only ignorantly unjust, but stupid to boot). By the way, if you're going to capitalise Greenhouse, then you ought to capitalise Effect, though most scientific literature uses lowercase. Ever noticed that?

Nice dodge! I like you you over reacted and went on the offensive there to a pretty arb question. Good move.

My opinion its good to question your science knowledge. You seem to know more than almost all respected science bodies out there

 

[Arthur]

Nice dodge! I like you you over reacted and went on the offensive there to a pretty arb question. Good move.

Having trouble again keeping up with the discussion, ghoti?

I was calling Praeses (which means "leader/governor/bossman") on his gratuitous deflection. It's all there in b&w.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Your personal views are irrelevant to the truth, and based on your comment, you havent even bothered looking at the evidence.

That is true but considering this is an opinions forum you shouldn't be surprised when someone actually gives one. I have looked at the evidence and all it shows is that the climate is changing, which I stated above, if you show me a study which conclusively links human activity to climate change or even simpler atmospheric carbon percentage to climate change I will more than gladly change my opinion. However I know any study you give will be countered by another study because we simply don't know enough yet.

 

[w1z4rd]

That is true but considering this is an opinions forum you shouldn't be surprised when someone actually gives one. I have looked at the evidence and all it shows is that the climate is changing, which I stated above, if you show me a study which conclusively links human activity to climate change or even simpler atmospheric carbon percentage to climate change I will more than gladly change my opinion. However I know any study you give will be countered by another study because we simply don't know enough yet.

I updated my previous post and gave you some facts (and removed some of my bitchyness). I dont believe you have really looked at the evidence beyond a couple of tabloid articles.


Here those facts again:

Fact: The temp of the earth is rising
Fact: CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing
Fact: We are responsible for the majority of the CO2 rise
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution
Fact: We are taking carbon out the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

Which one do you wish to dispute? We can go through them one at a time and prove them all with empirical evidence.

 

[Techne]

Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

By how much? Can we accurately quantify it at present?

And are there more negative effects than positive effects from this simple fact? How can we know if we can't even accurately quantify this effect?

 

[Arthur]

I updated my previous post and gave you some facts (and removed some of my bitchyness). I dont believe you have really looked at the evidence beyond a couple of tabloid articles.


Here those facts again:

Fact: The temp of the earth is rising
Fact: CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing
Fact: We are responsible for the majority of the CO2 rise
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution
Fact: We are taking carbon out the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

Which one do you wish to dispute? We can go through them one at a time and prove them all with empirical evidence.

Then how do you account for well-established pre-industrial warmings? And past coolings? And past CO2 increases (which tend to trail not lead warming by several centuries)?

Your conversion of correlation into cause is premature to say the least.

 

[w1z4rd]

Then how do you account for well-established pre-industrial warmings? And past coolings? And past CO2 increases (which tend to trail not lead warming by several centuries)?

Your conversion of correlation into cause is premature to say the least.

Which of those facts do you want to dispute? Specify directly.

Here they are again:

Fact: The temp of the earth is rising
Fact: CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing
Fact: We are responsible for the majority of the CO2 rise
Fact: CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution
Fact: We are taking carbon out the ground and putting it in the atmosphere.
Fact: Increased CO2 in the earth atmosphere is heating the planet.

Take your pic

 

[nakedpeanut]

I'll just put this here... (strong language)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1325805851224851246