Yes it’s definitely been proven. We know the radiative forcing of carbondioxide and we know the amount we put into the atmosphere. The only uncertain factor is us and how our emissions will look like in the future. As I said, it’s up to us to say whether we climb between two and six degrees.
The charts showing the relationship between temperature change and CO2 levels, show tat CO2 levels follow temperature change, no the other way around.
Does that include the big massive one off eruptions that may only happen once a life time, that was what I was hinting at, I was ‘taught’ they dwarf our emissions on the rare occasions they happen but it was an engineering course not an environmental course…
And what doubt are you able to cast over the prevailing scientific literature to the contrary?
The “extra” that we produce isn’t catastrophic or even a problem, since the natural CO2 that is produced isn’t tat high to begin with. It’s like pouring a a glass full of fuel into a half full gas tank - the tank still isn’t full. Water vapor comprises about 97% of all greenhouse gases in the air. CO2 produces around 2%, with the rest being CFC’s, N2O and methane. There just simply isn’t enough.
I don’t understand your analogy, please explain it. What would constitute full?
And most of the world’s carbon is trapped in sedimentary rock, not the atmosphere.
This is irrelevent and is you grasping at straws.
If I need to explain to you that at one time plants and other vegetation were more plentiful then they are now, you are a lost cause.
Yes, at serveral points during geological history. Which one?
This is what the current “alarmists” (like Al Gore) are in it for. Spreading fear and concern (falsely) to persuade congress to pass legislature that appears to be good for the environment, but really only benefits the elite.
Aha, you’re a conspiracy theorist. The scientists and the elites are colluding (or the former are being deceived/coerced by the latter) so that Al Gore/the liberals/the UN can control you.
Do you subscribe to Alex Jone’s version of this theory or some other whackjob?
Sen please be a bit less antagonising, this is finally a fun discussion.
Yes but then the CO2 isn’t our worry, it will be the aerosols bringing us into an ice age. We’re already considering this effect to offset global warming by manually entering aerosols into our atmosphere. This type of geo-engineering is full of diplomatic traps though (hint for a sequel to Brink…)
That’s because it takes a few centuries for the carbon captured in the snow to be compressed into the ice layers.
Also when we’re considering our climate on a paleo scale we need to take into account the milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles . This is our climate being dictated by our elliptical orbit around the sun. When the earth cools down due to this, then yes, the carbon levels will drop as well.
Do you subscribe to Alex Jone’s version of this theory or some other whackjob?
No, Alex Jones is an idiot. Also, a conspiracy theory is only theory if no evidence can be produced. Since there is evidence of special interest in using the “global warming scare,” as a way to push legislation through congress, it is no longer a conspiracy theory, and but a conspiracy possibility or probability. This is true for 9/11 as well.
The financial interest of ignoring this problem far outweighs any interest in (falsely) advocating it as an issue.
Well, I follow a study Earth Science at my university and every professor that gives lectures agrees that humans have a big cause in global warming and false information is being spread by people who have interest in evading this problem for financial benefit. I don’t know but I trust the professors at my university that they’d be well informed with trustworthy information.
Oh and +1
There are respectable dissidents, but they’re not denying, their criticism mainly lies in the accuracy and integrity of the way the research is conducted.
But yeah, fossil fuel companies have A LOT to lose if carbon is going to be taxed this is similar to tobacco companies in the last century. And surprise surprise, the same institutes that advocated doubt and uncertainty concerning the health consequences of cigarettes are now casting confusion on global warming.
These guys are advocates, not scientists.
The scientific community is split on whether global warming is caused by man or nature. There is no cut and dry, end-all answer amongst scientists. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
A good majority of the scientists that claim it is man made, are scientists hired by government agencies, like the UN, to produce findings that suit there needs. They tell them they will continue to give the scientists grants for research, as long as their data is to their liking.
Using that kind of language, you can say theres a split like theres a split between Neo-Darwinian Synthesists and Creationists. That is accurate and to deny it would be lying. Its also failing to acknowledge that one group is much larger. While the science behind climate change is much younger than Evolutionary theory with substantial areas needing thorough investigation and much that will turn out to be plain wrong, there is a high level of confidence among scientists that human activities are influencing global climate.
A good majority of the scientists that claim it is man made, are scientists hired by government agencies, like the UN, to produce findings that suit there needs. They tell them they will continue to give the scientists grants for research, as long as their data is to their liking.
Right, and were the scientists investigating acid rain/ozone depletion in the 80s and prior also lying? Or is it just climate change scientists from recent years?
Do you understand the peer review and publishing requirements that make the collective collusion you’re accusing all the scientists of very difficult?
Using that kind of language, you can say theres a split like theres a split between Neo-Darwinian Synthesists and Creationists. That is accurate and to deny it would be lying. Its also failing to acknowledge that one group is much larger.
It’s actually not. The split is pretty close to 50/50. It is all in the vid I posted. In fact, they conducted a debate between members of the scientific community who believed global warming was man made and those who believe it is naturally occurring. Before the debate, 44% of those witnessing the debate believed it to be man made. Afterward, only 22% did. When people are presented with both sides, it apparently becomes clear which is the truth, or at the very least, more probable.
Do you understand the peer review and publishing requirements that make the collective collusion you’re accusing all scientists of very difficult?
It’s not all scientists - as I stated, they all don’t see eye to eye.
Do you understand how naive you sound assuming that everything in this world is done by the book?
If scientists wanted to make money they wouldn’t be scientists. The claim that these guys exaggerate the problem (and risk their name and career) in order to get more money for their research (from which very little will go to their personal income) is just pure projection from the the fossil fuel industries. Their profit relies heavily on causing doubt so they can keep shifting the financial burden of the damage they cause to society on the public rather than having to pay for it themselves.
The scientific community is split on whether global warming is caused by man or nature. There is no cut and dry, end-all answer amongst scientists. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
First of all, scientific consensus isn’t a democratic vote. The number of scientists supporting it one way or another doesn’t matter. It’s the weight of the evidence that matters, once scientists are compelled they simply stop arguing, start citing each other and consensus is reached.
Check this out:
The video you posted is titled “Global Warming or Global Governance”. Are you really going to bat for the conspiracy theorists?
Toka has covered the rest of this well.
It’s not all scientists - as I stated, they all don’t see eye to eye.
Do you understand how naive you sound assuming that everything in this world is done by the book?
Pardon me, I missed a definite article. Edited.
So your claim is that the scientific method doesn’t work. What do you think the track record of such a position is?
The video you posted is titled “Global Warming or Global Governance”.
Are you really going to bat for the conspiracy theorists?
Yes, because it is a “conspiracy theory” all the data, scientists, and climatologists must be discredited…typical. And as I explained earlier, it’s conspiracy possibility or probability, not a theory.
So your claim is that the scientific method doesn’t work. What do you think the track record of such a position is?
The scientific method does work, and if the scientific studies you support followed it, we wouldn’t be here arguing.
The bottom line is I have seen both sides of the argument, and the one I support just makes more sense - scientifically and in general.
Yes. When someone alleges that there are a group of elites who can successfully manipulate the wider scientific community into supporting their power grab then they are 1 step away from UFOs and lizard people.
hey man u ever see this film called “Loose Change”? It will change you and blow your miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind
That wraps up my participation in the thread because you’re only tenuously connected to reality if you think there it is remotely possible to dignify the belief that there was a deeper conspiracy on 9/11 than the obvious one of Al Quaeda operatives. You’re very agile at dodging questions about your specific scientific knowledge so you’re really giving nothing to engage with.
hey man u ever see this film called “Loose Change”? It will change you and blow your miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind
Loose Change isn’t that good. You should watch “In Plane Sight.” All they do in the film is take actual, real video and findings, and discredit them 1 by 1.
As for your notion that Al Quaeda Operatives could single handily conduct one of the greatest terrorist acts in history, against the most powerful nation on the planet, then you are the one really giving nothing to engage with. Even if they managed to pull this off, it still doesn’t explain how and why the buildings fall at free fall speed, and why did Building 7 collapse - also at free fall speed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078#
http://www.truththeory.org/al-qaeda-doesnt-exist/
[QUOTE=H0RSE;249228]Loose Change isn’t that good. You should watch “In Plane Sight.” All they do in the film is take actual, real video and findings, and discredit them 1 by 1.
As for your notion that Al Quaeda Operatives could single handily conduct one of the greatest terrorist acts in history, against the most powerful nation on the planet, then you are the one really giving nothing to engage with. Even if they managed to pull this off, it still doesn’t explain how and why the buildings fall at free fall speed, and why did Building 7 collapse - also at free fall speed.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2361717427531377078#
http://www.truththeory.org/al-qaeda-doesnt-exist/[/QUOTE]
Quoting this in case it gets edited.
In this instance I’m going to side with H0RSE regarding so called “man made” global warming, and totally align myself against him on the 9-11 nonsense.
So, back to the topic at hand (or at least within a reasonable distance from the topic). The fact is that the scientific community may be fairly reliable when it comes to most areas of research, but climate change/the environment is NOT one of those areas. First we were all going to freeze in the 70’s from “global cooling”. Then, in the 80’s we were certain that the sun would burn us all to ashes because of a depleted ozone layer. Now we have this. Sorry for being less than convinced by what science has to say about catastrophic environmental changes. What’s next? The moon’s gravitational pull is going to change “catastrophically” and crush our bones to dust? Or, I know. . . the earth’s magnetic field is going to go all out of whack and we’ll all die as a result. Okay Mr. Senator. . . I’ll take that grant money now so I can save the planet.
You know who else has a lot to lose? The American taxpayer. If you think that the government is going to place burdensome penalties and fines on these companies and that new burden ISN’T going to be incorporated into the cost of the goods they supply, then you may be interested in a beautiful island paradise I have for sale. This is a scheme to generate more money for this bloated government to blow on enslaving entitlement programs at the expense of you and I.
Of course this all could have been a minor issue if our leaders would have grown a pair 2 decades ago and made plans and helped facilitate development of more refineries and more drilling for our own plentiful resources. But nah, we’re satisfied to pay 2 or 3 times what we should to any terrorist loving schmuck willing to sell it to us, and Canada.
