ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
How many of us posting here are climatologists? Great minds of science are having the same back and forth we are. They too don't agree. If you accept AGW, so be it. I don't.
Over 90% of worldwide scientists accept climate change, so why not Americans?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
I am handier turning on ladies.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my point exactly.
demonstrably false. you're choosing to believe in a lie or are simply a bad consumer of information.
echelon1k1
New Member
I'd say earth's around 4.5b years old, Humans have been around in one form or another dating back 6-7m years, modern humans 200,000 years. Climate data goes back 300 years maybe 400, if, you're lucky. I think i read those facts in the bible...
[video=youtube;rIE2GAqnFGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIE2GAqnFGw[/video]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
have you never heard of ice cores?I'd say earth's around 4.5b years old, Humans have been around in one form or another dating back 6-7m years, modern humans 200,000 years. Climate data goes back 300 years maybe 400, if, you're lucky. I think i read those facts in the bible...
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I was going to post the video. Now I won't until you suck my dick, asshole!
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
AGW is currently between hypothesis and theory. There is much to recommend it but nothing conclusive.
However I will tell you something else that is fact: even as the carcinogenicity and other serious health harms from cigarette smoking became sound theory, the Tobacco Institute said no no no no. I have greater faith in the idea that interested parties will lobby science ad absurdum than that the folks speaking against AGW are brave contrarian warriors of truth. Impossible? No. Probable? Also no. My opinion. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Solar luminosity was appx. 5% lower, meaning that extra CO2 was useful in maintaining global temps.
It's currently thought that the emergence and spread of green plants during the Ordovician lowered CO2 and induced cooling.
This is interesting because it is an instance of CO2 levels influencing temperature, apparently contradicting the dogma of the ice cores: that CO2 responded to temp and not the other way around. cn
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/abs/ngeo1390.html
canndo
Well-Known Member
It is wished by some that you believe that "great minds are arguing" when in reality that time is mostly past. Nor, does everyone have the right to their own reality as you seem to imply.
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
Great minds aren't having the same back and forth we are and you can demonstrate this is false? I'd like front row seats to the show. Ever perused the petition project? Read quotes of scientists that have become skeptical? The debate rages.
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
The climate's changing. That's demonstrable. It's caused by man? Specifically that carbon causes warming? That's not demonstrable! There is no evidence of it. No heat signature. Ice cores show CO2 following warming. The earth has warmed much greater and faster than now, in very recent history, before industrial revolution, without man adding carbon!!! Carbon's not explaining temperature rise. I replied above to Uncle Buck as to the debate within the scientific community. It continues.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
Strength in numbers? That makes Fact!
canndo
Well-Known Member
LOL
You see, this is what I am talking about, we are being led to believe that there is significant debate -
And in the same thread arcticgranite scoffs "Strength in numbers - that makes it fact"? No, it does not make it fact but what it does do is refute your claim that the debate "rages".
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
thought you said the debate was raging in the scientific community
now either one side is pulling their punches in an astronomical way
or they never had shit to begin with
canndo
Well-Known Member
There is a well explained mechanic for co2 - a greenhouse gas being the cause of global warming. There is no such mechanism for an explaination for Co2 increases following some unknown cause of warming. That the earth has warmed in the past has no bearing on this argument. Solar activity has been ruled out, cycles being what they are mean nothing in this instance - we just "happen" to have been pumping unheard of amounts of green house gas at the very same time as the beginning of a warming cycle. Coinsidences are rare in nature but that is what you are contending. Certainly we have seen past warming cycles attached to solar activity and perhaps even vulcanism but in the scheme of things those are just noise obscuring the genuine data.
As I have said, the "debate" is artificial, injected into the public discourse for political and economic reasons. Canna and I have both pointed out that a very real parallel to our current situation is the scientific debate surrounding the causality of cancer with regard to tobacco. Scientific findings were delayed by 50 years in the interest of a cigarette status quo. This is no different and we can trace this institution of doubt by self interested and monied forces.
If the vast majority of peer reviewed research resolves that there is indeed an occurance of man made global warming and there are very few pointing the other way, one could hardly call that a "raging debate". Those same self interested organizations are perfectly happy to entertain your belief that there is a "raging debate".
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Anyone who doubts man is hurting the ecology of our planet needs to drive across the Rouge bridge on 75 going into Detroit. 30 years ago it was hold your breath bad, now it just smells like rotten eggs (so it's a little better). You can't possibly breath that air in and think it's not damaging something.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Canndo,
And in 50 years when AGW is found to be bullshit, will you say, "woops, sorry, we were being safe rather than sorry!" Will you and your fellow global alarmists pay back 50 years worth of stolen tax money to those who will tell you, "told you so?"
Before you say what if I'm wrong, that's not how burden of proof works. The burden of proof is on the hypothesis (AGW) not the null hypothesis (it's cycles, some natural process beyond our control, etc).
And in 50 years when AGW is found to be bullshit, will you say, "woops, sorry, we were being safe rather than sorry!" Will you and your fellow global alarmists pay back 50 years worth of stolen tax money to those who will tell you, "told you so?"
Before you say what if I'm wrong, that's not how burden of proof works. The burden of proof is on the hypothesis (AGW) not the null hypothesis (it's cycles, some natural process beyond our control, etc).
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
1. And that mechanism is?
There is no sign of a "hot spot" warming pattern caused by GHG. IPCC contends carbon is causing warming and GHG will leave a heat signature. Where is it? Ice cores show temps pushing up co2 and co2 lagging significantly behind temps. Not the other way around. Temp rise has been fairly flat for some time not following the modeled increase.
2. Agreed, possibly release of co2 from a warmer ocean.
3. Hmm! Just because the earth naturally warmed in the past doesn't prove it is naturally warming today. But- because the earth is warming today and we are emitting carbon that proves we are the cause?
4. Man's co2 contribution of carbon at arguably 50 of the +/-400 ppm. Yes that is an "unheard" of amount of carbon contribution. It's the first time in history man has been emitting. But even 400 ppm is only 1/10 of what earth was naturally at times. The temp was a lot warmer and sea levels higher too. And it wasn't man caused.
5. I'm not at all suggesting coincidence. Earth's natural history validates large fluctuations of temp and carbon.
*The coincidental logic of suggesting temp rise with co2 emission is squarely in the AGW reasoning!
Fact- there is no proof/evidence/record/sign/observation of CO2 "causing" warming.
Concession- perhaps raging is too strong a term but debate ensues, yes?
ArcticGranite
Well-Known Member
Consensual science operates on the precautionary principle!