BruceWayne
Rookie
- Jul 9, 2007
- 32
- 2
- 1
Anyway, back to the topic. You can't prove it. You can only assume.
There are lots of things we can't prove, but that doesn't mean we should ignore or dismiss them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Anyway, back to the topic. You can't prove it. You can only assume.
There are lots of things we can't prove, but that doesn't mean we should ignore or dismiss them.
I haven't dismissed anything. I haven't dismissed the fact that the globe is warming. I haven't dismissed the fact that CO2 plays a part. But since it cannot be proven that CO2 is the main cause of global warming (Hence my example of the Ice Age ending--what melted it?--not CO2 emissions) I will not believe it. There are too many other factors in this universe that dictate how this globe acts. All of the other planets in our solar system including Pluto ( I know, not a planet anymore) are warming. CO2 has become "the devil" to some people. I have no problem with "going green" or cleaning up emissions from humans, but the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do. We can't stop climate change anymore than we can plug up all of our springs and stop rivers from flowing. Haven't dismissed CO2 as a contributing source, but it's not the cause. Water vapor may not be a forcing greenhouse gas, but it holds more heat/radiation from the sun's UV rays than any other greenhouse gas.
Exactly. CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - in fact both sides of the climate debate agree that total potential warming from infinite CO2 concentrations is around 1.6C. There is a diminishing return relationship between increased CO2 concentrations and temperature increase, and it actually asymptotes around 1.6C.
All the catastrophic scenarios of runaway warming theory rely heavily on positive feedbacks. Namely, that CO2 increasing temperatures slightly will trigger water evaporation and ice melting that will amplify the warming effect. Of course, negative feedbacks will be triggered as well - increased cloud cover, plant growth, etc.
So which of these effects dominates the other? Well, there is NO (zippy, zilch) empirical evidence to go from. But AGW alarmists argue that the net effect is a large net POSITIVE feedback. That's a giant leap of faith - again, there is NO PROOF. That doesn't sound like good science to me.
In what we CAN prove, the physical world is actually dominated by NEGATIVE feedbacks! Which makes a lot of sense, because systems dominated by positive feedbacks are extremely unstable and not sustainable over time. However, a system kept in balance by negative feedbacks can fluctuate (into ice ages, or warm periods, for example). You know, like when people migrated over the Bering Strait, or when the Vikings landed on an island they called Greenland. The negative feedbacks keep temperatures in that natural range of variation.
So why believe in a net positive feedback effect with absolutely no proof, and based on very questionable assumptions? AGW theory is closer to a religion than it is to science.
I don't think we are any more. In fact this last year was amazingly cold.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/02/11/minnesota.cold.ap/index.html
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
How about their predictions of hurricanes getting worse. And they have yet to say that. I personally thing they are making it up as they go along.
So there is evidence that we are warming and that the rate of that change may be accelerating, but we can't really pin that rate increase on man as opposed to nature.
Exactly. CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - in fact both sides of the climate debate
So why believe in a net positive feedback effect with absolutely no proof, and based on very questionable assumptions? AGW theory is closer to a religion than it is to science.
Then why hasn't anyone clamed the $150,000 being offered up to prove it?
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
I find it curious, that the Global warming crowd do little to subtract from this threatening event.
They get on Jets to fly to these meetings, that they seem to have all around the world.
They are carried from the airports in cars.
Ever stop to think what they do personally? My common sense meter tells me they do very little, and in fact their carbon foot print is probably about the same size as Al Gore's, enormous.
I've grown weary of those that preach the old, "do as I say, don't do as I do" line.
Very easy question to answer. Because the author of the website, Steven Milloy, is an established liar.
Never mind his past as a paid advocate of the Tobacco lobby. Never mind he once claimed smoking does not cancer or that DDT was safe for schoolchildren and public areas. He's showing you the money and that must be good, right?
Milloy has been a liar all his life.
So, get real. Do yourself a favour and research the sources you post. I take it as a reflection of one's character.
Another contrarian enters the arena. I have some issues with your post. Especially the above.
Here's a clue. There is no "both sides" of the debate because there is only one side. There exists a consensus among working climate scientists.
Are you kidding? There's two sides in this thread, this thread is about one side of the argument suing the other side. You should really research your statements before you post.
Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying anthropogenic global warming is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the "very likely" and "strongly indicated" qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.
The rest of the issue -- how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be -- is much less certain.
You haven't the foggiest of the inner workings of the climate science community. Had you done your homework, you would have realized no peer-reviewed studies found in academic journals argue a different position on anthropogenic global warming.
No peer-reviewd studies have yet to prove your assumption.
There are no "both sides" of the debate. It exists only in your head, nowhere else.
Once again, very idiotic of you to assume this, the thread is about a chief meteorologist/scientist suing Gore for his fallacy...looks a bit two sided to me. Of course, you're biased and fail to recognize others' POV
In fact, a study studying the studies was done with 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
That's because none of the papers were about natural climate change smartness. They were about human induced global warming. When you right a research paper on human induced global warming, you don't start explaining all of the aspects of natural climate change and try to convince people that it's natural. That's like going to Burger King and ordering a Big Mac.
We've asked you to prove that CO2 is the culprit behind global warming, and you respond by talking about how other (scientists) think it is because of certain studies. Then you dismiss the scientists that others bring up because you simply disagree with them and are biased.
Now as far as global warming is concerned....Humans are causing the earth to warm (in your opinion). Since you've avoided this question every time....Did humans (emissions) cause the earth to warm at the end of the Ice Age? Did he lack of human (emissions) cause the Ice Age to begin? Why is every planet in the solar system warming also, including Pluto?
You have failed to address these questions (even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the subject).
Wrong as usual.
No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one (not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)
What you are is an idealogue offering political theories based on fraudulent science conducted by paid scientists on the behalf of a non-academic lobby. What you cannot do is offer even one peer-reviewed study supporting your side of the debate.
You cannot offer such a paper, because such a paper does not exist except in the minds of the contrarians.
And your claim that no "No peer-reviewed studies have yet to prove your assumption, " is yet another silly lie. Over 2000 lines of independent evidence support anthropogenic global warming. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.
You, are a liar and a bad one at that. The next time you try to claim no peer-reviewed studies arguing the consensus concerning anthropogenic global warming exist, make sure you actually realize there exists over 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The papers are listed in the ISI database. Check the database. It is in the public record for all to see.
You're lying is getting absurd. You have no knowledge. No credentials and no experience.