97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[DiamondDave]

Its pays to remember that bush supporters and rightwingers were catastrophically wrong about global warming in the 1990s. They spent that entire decade whining and denying that global warming was even happening at all..

For being so catastrophically wrong on the subject before, it takes a lot of balls to claim that this time you'll be right on global warming; that man has nothing to do with it.

And enviro nazis were emphatically then wrong about their last theory of global cooling... what then makes you take their theories so easily now then? Paleontologists popularly screamed that T-Rex was a super carnivore, and now a newer more popular theory spouts that it was most likely a vulture like scavenger.. You now completely discredit all those paleo's?

THEORIES CHANGE.. popular thoughts on theories change....

Does not make a theory fact because one is now suddenly more popular

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Its pays to remember that bush supporters and rightwingers were catastrophically wrong about global warming in the 1990s. They spent that entire decade whining and denying that global warming was even happening at all..

For being so catastrophically wrong on the subject before, it takes a lot of balls to claim that this time you'll be right on global warming; that man has nothing to do with it.

Please back up your claim to make me believe you.

 

[Chris]

Please back up your claim to make me believe you.

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

 

[FistyTheBadger]

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

That really doesn't address the claim, and it actually suggests that global warming is a good thing.

 

[Andrew2382]

70- Global Cooling
80- Acid Rain
90- O-Zone Layer
00- Global Warming


The Earth didn't become an popsicle
We didn't melt from Acid Rain
We didn't melt from the Sun's rays
And it was 29 degrees in Miami last night


But hey

I guess weather recordings for the past 2-300 years is a good sample for a planet that is 2 billion years old

 

[Old Rocks]

And enviro nazis were emphatically then wrong about their last theory of global cooling... what then makes you take their theories so easily now then? Paleontologists popularly screamed that T-Rex was a super carnivore, and now a newer more popular theory spouts that it was most likely a vulture like scavenger.. You now completely discredit all those paleo's?

THEORIES CHANGE.. popular thoughts on theories change....

Does not make a theory fact because one is now suddenly more popular

What theory of global cooling? Some referances please. Such as an article from the National Academy of Science.

 

[Old Rocks]

70- Global Cooling
80- Acid Rain
90- O-Zone Layer
00- Global Warming


The Earth didn't become an popsicle
We didn't melt from Acid Rain
We didn't melt from the Sun's rays
And it was 29 degrees in Miami last night


But hey

I guess weather recordings for the past 2-300 years is a good sample for a planet that is 2 billion years old

No, the earth did not become a popsicle, and just who said that it would? Could it be that you are refering to this;

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

 

[Old Rocks]

70- Global Cooling
80- Acid Rain
90- O-Zone Layer
00- Global Warming


The Earth didn't become an popsicle
We didn't melt from Acid Rain
We didn't melt from the Sun's rays
And it was 29 degrees in Miami last night


But hey

I guess weather recordings for the past 2-300 years is a good sample for a planet that is 2 billion years old

No, we didn't melt. But our forests have sustained and are still sustaining considerable damage from acid rain;
Damage From Acid Rain Pollution Is Far Worse Than Previously Believed

 

[Old Rocks]

70- Global Cooling
80- Acid Rain
90- O-Zone Layer
00- Global Warming


The Earth didn't become an popsicle
We didn't melt from Acid Rain
We didn't melt from the Sun's rays
And it was 29 degrees in Miami last night


But hey

I guess weather recordings for the past 2-300 years is a good sample for a planet that is 2 billion years old

By didn't melt from the sun's rays, I assume that you are talking about the thinning of the Ozone layer. Once again, you appear to have very little real knowledge about the subject that you are posting on. Here is some real information;

Ozone Layer

 

[Old Rocks]

70- Global Cooling
80- Acid Rain
90- O-Zone Layer
00- Global Warming


The Earth didn't become an popsicle
We didn't melt from Acid Rain
We didn't melt from the Sun's rays
And it was 29 degrees in Miami last night


But hey

I guess weather recordings for the past 2-300 years is a good sample for a planet that is 2 billion years old

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall average that is warming. Seems that you cool night is right in line with that prediction.

And the Earth is approximately 4.53 Billion years old, not 2 Billion. Not only that, we know the climate for about 650,000 years through the ice cores that we have obtained. And now climatologists and other scientiest are studying a core that will take that figure past 1 million.

 

[del]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall average that is warming. Seems that you cool night is right in line with that prediction.

And the Earth is approximately 4.53 Billion years old, not 2 Billion. Not only that, we know the climate for about 650,000 years through the ice cores that we have obtained. And now climatologists and other scientiest are studying a core that will take that figure past 1 million.

so you're saying that one can make valid extrapolations based on a sample that is .00014 the size of the whole. and that's using the 1MM yr core that you allege exists. and you call THAT science?

 

[Chris]

so you're saying that one can make valid extrapolations based on a sample that is .00014 the size of the whole. and that's using the 1MM yr core that you allege exists. and you call THAT science?

No, the science is that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years.

 

[del]

No, the science is that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years.

blow it out your ass, chris. you've already admitted you can't quantify either the 40% figure or the effect. your only purpose here is to make old rocks look intelligent, and you're not doing such a great job of that, either.

 

[Chris]

blow it out your ass, chris. you've already admitted you can't quantify either the 40% figure or the effect. your only purpose here is to make old rocks look intelligent, and you're not doing such a great job of that, either.

You deny facts with opinion and insults.

The science is undeniable.

 

[del]

You deny facts with opinion and insults.

The science is undeniable.

there ain't nothing scientific about a .00014 sample size, ace.
but you stick to your guns, kirky.

 

[Chris]

there ain't nothing scientific about a .00014 sample size, ace.
but you stick to your guns, kirky.

No, the science is that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years.

 

[Red Dawn]

so you're saying that one can make valid extrapolations based on a sample that is .00014 the size of the whole. and that's using the 1MM yr core that you allege exists. and you call THAT science?

Yes, that called science, and anyone who went to college and took a statistics class, or has any college level background in math or science understands the concept of probability and representative sampling.

I did a quick calculation, and New York City uses over a billion gallons of water a day. And you know what they do when they want to test the water quality for public safety? They take 100 milliliter samples of the city water. If my arithmetic is correct, that's a sample size of about 0.0000001 of the city's water. And its considered standard garden vareity science that produces good results. Let me ask you, when the doctor wants to give you a blood test, do you demand that he take all 20 liters of your blood just "to be certain"? Or do they draw a small 10 milliliter sample which is considered, in terms of statistical probablity, to be a representative sample of your blood chemistry?

 

[del]

Yes, that called science, and anyone who went to college and took a statistics class, or has any college level background in math or science understands the concept of probability and representative sampling.

I did a quick calculation, and New York City uses over a billion gallons of water a day. And you know what they do when they want to test the water quality for public safety? They take 100 milliliter samples of the city water. If my arithmetic is correct, that's a sample size of about 0.0000001 of the city's water. And its considered standard garden vareity science that produces good results. Let me ask you, when the doctor wants to give you a blood test, do you demand that he take all 20 liters of your blood just "to be certain"? Or do they draw a small 10 milliliter sample which is considered, in terms of statistical probablity, to be a representative sample of your blood chemistry?

that's great, but how does that correlate with extrapolating not just quality now, but quality over the course of 4.5 billion years?
good effort though
well, not really.

 

[Chris]

Yes, that called science, and anyone who went to college and took a statistics class, or has any college level background in math or science understands the concept of probability and representative sampling.

I did a quick calculation, and New York City uses over a billion gallons of water a day. And you know what they do when they want to test the water quality for public safety? They take 100 milliliter samples of the city water. If my arithmetic is correct, that's a sample size of about 0.0000001 of the city's water. And its considered standard garden vareity science that produces good results. Let me ask you, when the doctor wants to give you a blood test, do you demand that he take all 20 liters of your blood just "to be certain"? Or do they draw a small 10 milliliter sample which is considered, in terms of statistical probablity, to be a representative sample of your blood chemistry?

that's great, but how does that correlate with extrapolating not just quality now, but quality over the course of 4.5 billion years?
good effort though
well, not really.

Going back 600,000 years is enough.

What is remarkable is that we have increased CO2 levels by 40% in such a short time, and this increase is accelerating. Soon we will have DOUBLED the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

We are using the earth's atmosphere as a giant lab experiment. We know we are warming the earth, and when the force multiplier of arctic methane kicks in, we will see even bigger changes.

 

[Old Rocks]

One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall average that is warming. Seems that you cool night is right in line with that prediction.

And the Earth is approximately 4.53 Billion years old, not 2 Billion. Not only that, we know the climate for about 650,000 years through the ice cores that we have obtained. And now climatologists and other scientiest are studying a core that will take that figure past 1 million.

so you're saying that one can make valid extrapolations based on a sample that is .00014 the size of the whole. and that's using the 1MM yr core that you allege exists. and you call THAT science?

What do you call science, Del? Snappy sophmoric one line comebacks? Come on, I have given you many links to the science supporting global warming theory. Have you no valid links that effectively debate the points raised by our present scientific establishment? Or do you consider your function to be the brainless joker?