AGW Skepticism and Rationale (Warning: Long)

[Chris]

We are almost up to 390ppm........

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

 

[Charles_Main]

Charles, do you even read what you post?

The guy says that CO2 levels have leveled off in recent years. How hard is that to check? Please look at the link below. He is lying....

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

yeah yeah, it has to be him lying right. Jus like the 31500 scientist who signed the petition are all liars on the bank roll of Oil companies right.

What ever kirk, Just because your mind it completely closed to any point of view other than yours does not mean everyones is.

Get over yourself. I read everything I can on the subject, not just the hand picked sources you choose to read.

 

[Chris]

yeah yeah, it has to be him lying right. Jus like the 31500 scientist who signed the petition are all liars on the bank roll of Oil companies right.

What ever kirk, Just because your mind it completely closed to any point of view other than yours does not mean everyones is.

Get over yourself. I read everything I can on the subject, not just the hand picked sources you choose to read.

If he is lying about the numbers at Mauna Loa, what else is he lying about?

 

[Charles_Main]

If he is lying about the numbers at Mauna Loa, what else is he lying about?

You say he is lying, that does not make it so, he says appears to be leveling off, he did not say they were. Maybe he has access to info you don't. It is ok, you can just ignore him and call him a liar if it makes you feel better. I will continue to read, and consider everything I can find on the matter, instead of just those sources that reinforce my view.

 

[Charles_Main]

I guess we should all ignore everything you say now, since when you first saw my post, you lied and said I was posting stuff from a "Competitive Institute" When I posting something from "the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand"

Your problem is you think Mauna Loa numbers are the only ones out there, like they are the only ones studying it, and they are incapable of being wrong or lying themselves

 

[Chris]

I guess we should all ignore everything you say now, since when you first saw my post, you lied and said I was posting stuff from a "Competitive Institute" When I posting something from "the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand"

Your problem is you think Mauna Loa numbers are the only ones out there, like they are the only ones studying it, and they are incapable of being wrong or lying themselves

De Freitas is one of the Competitive Institute's scientists.

So, you are saying the the Mauna Loa numbers are wrong?

Now you are just being silly.

 

[Charles_Main]

So, you are saying the the Mauna Loa numbers are wrong?

no I am saying you do not believe the possibly could be, and that you refuse to look at anything that does not agree 100% with your views on the subject. Like I said you keep looking at only those studies that agree with you, and I will keep looking at everything I can find on the subject.

Despite what you say about him, he makes several rational arguments on the subject.

 

[Chris]

no I am saying you do not believe the possibly could be, and that you refuse to look at anything that does not agree 100% with your views on the subject. Like I said you keep looking at only those studies that agree with you, and I will keep looking at everything I can find on the subject.

Despite what you say about him, he makes several rational arguments on the subject.

He is flat out lying about the CO2 increase. He has no credibility.

 

[Charles_Main]

He is flat out lying about the CO2 increase. He has no credibility.

So you say.

I realize it is much easy to dismiss him out of hand, because one of the things he says may be wrong, than to actually consider all his points.

You have to be one of the most closed minded people I have ever come across Kirk.

 

[BrianH]

If he is lying about the numbers at Mauna Loa, what else is he lying about?

Kirk,

I've debated numerous GW alarmist on these threads and all of them (whether they realize it or not) have the same argument...that all of our sources are not credible and that they're all liars. Why is that anyone who disagrees are liars? You assume that they're all liars simply because they say something different. What makes your source so much more credible?

GW alarmist on these threads have a bad tendency of discrediting valid information by good scientists, and calling everyone else liars.

 

[Charles_Main]

Kirk,

I've debated numerous GW alarmist on these threads and all of them (whether they realize it or not) have the same argument...that all of our sources are not credible and that they're all liars. Why is that anyone who disagrees are liars? You assume that they're all liars simply because they say something different. What makes your source so much more credible?

GW alarmist on these threads have a bad tendency of discrediting valid information by good scientists, and calling everyone else liars.

Good post Brian, did you visit the link I put up, despite what Kirk says about the guy, he makes several valid and convincing points.

I personally will not longer engage Kirk in any debate at all, His mind is hopelessly closed on the subject. No point in even talking to him about it anymore.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

 

[Chris]

Kirk,

I've debated numerous GW alarmist on these threads and all of them (whether they realize it or not) have the same argument...that all of our sources are not credible and that they're all liars. Why is that anyone who disagrees are liars? You assume that they're all liars simply because they say something different. What makes your source so much more credible?

GW alarmist on these threads have a bad tendency of discrediting valid information by good scientists, and calling everyone else liars.

Post a link with CO2 numbers for the last 50 years, please..

 

[BrianH]

Post a link with CO2 numbers for the last 50 years, please..

I've looked at many sites, and all say that over half of all CO2 emissions of humans are naturally removed from the atmosphere by the carbon cycle. Now, that automatically throws your number down by half at least. It is not my job to prove your point, it's your job.

 

[Charles_Main]

Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » CO2 Levels
CO2 measurements

2. Variations due to local circumstances:
There are several local conditions which can interfere with the measurements. In some locations, this is the influence of nearby (local/regional) vegetation and/or combustion of fossil fuels. In other cases, volcanic outgassing may interfere. This is the case for Mauna Loa. From the same source [1]:

Possible ambient error sources at Mauna Loa include volcanic, vegetative, and man-made effects (e.g., vehicular traffic, and industry). Daily peaks in measured concentrations occur because of complex wind currents. Downslope winds often transport CO2 from distant volcanic vents causing elevations in measured CO2 concentrations. Upslope winds during afternoon hours are often low in CO2 because of photosynthetic depletion occurring in sugarcane fields and forests. Vehicular traffic problems (since corrected) caused exaggerated elevations in 1971. Despite these sources of error and contamination, considerable effort has been made to alleviate and detect these sources.

Just a couple links on CO2 levels, Draw your own conclusions from it, I included the above quote for that guy who is so in love with the Mauna Loa graph.

 

[midcan5]

I don't think you've correctly characterized the argument against GW in this thread. The argument is based on the FACT that the earth heats and cools in cycles and at different rates. Considering the earth has heated and cooled many times before at completely different rates, without human help or interference, it is impossible to pin-point the exact reasons now. Why, all of a sudden, is global warming attributed to humans, when the globe has done it before without the help of fossil fuel emissions?

This documentary was on national geographic tonight. It shows the effects of global warming, a situation so real, denying it is like denying reality. A single degree of warming has major impact and we have done that already. The time frames of change prior to today were thousands of years between change. The people who live in places that show the damage realize this, the naysayers argue from their armchair without an iota of contradictory information. Watch it if you are serious about understanding GW. Or get the book sounds interesting.

Six degrees could change the world… MarineBio Blog

National Geographic Channel - Animals, Science, Exploration Television Shows

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216776532&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet: Mark Lynas: Books[/ame]

 

[Charles_Main]

This documentary was on national geographic tonight. It shows the effects of global warming, a situation so real, denying it is like denying reality.

I only see very few, if anyone on this board, denying the Globe is warming.

 

[Chris]

Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » CO2 Levels
CO2 measurements



Just a couple links on CO2 levels, Draw your own conclusions from it, I included the above post for that guy who is so in love with the Mauna Loa graph.

Did you even look at the link you posted? It has a graph of CO2 levels for the last 30 years from 4 different stations on the globe including Mauna Loa, and their yearly averages are all within 5ppm of each other.

You just proved my point. Thank you.

 

[Charles_Main]

Did you even look at the link you posted? It has a graph of CO2 levels for the last 30 years from 4 different stations on the globe including Mauna Loa, and their yearly averages are all within 5ppm of each other.

You just proved my point. Thank you.

Your welcome, like I said, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am simply trying to find everything I can on the subject.

however did you even read about all the factors that can effect Co2 measurements, or any thing else they had to say. Or did you just look at the pretty little pictures and then come running to scream "I am right I am right"

I would have to guess you did not, since I posted the link, and I am still reading it, because it has A LOT to say on the subject.

 

[Chris]

Your welcome, like I said, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am simply trying to find everything I can on the subject.

however did you even read about all the factors that can effect Co2 measurements, or any thing else they had to say. Or did you just look at the pretty little pictures and then come running to scream "I am right I am right"

I would have to guess you did not, since I posted the link, and I am still reading it, because it has A LOT to say on the subject.

So the averages go up and down on a daily basis. I knew that. The point is we are now close to having increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

 

[Charles_Main]

So the averages go up and down on a daily basis. I knew that. The point is we are now close to having increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

LOL, dude it says a whole lot more than that, but forget about it.