Global Warming = A JOKE!!

Ashley Madison wrote:

And look at the polar ice caps that have retracted by over 15% since 1960. Stupid ice caps!

False! Depends on which ice cap/glacier is studied. Plus, it's a fact that this has been occuring since the beginning of time, before the human race was on earth. But, then, I'm sure it was Bush's fault then also . . .[/quote]

False to you, too. It does not depend on which ice cap/glacier you look at. If you read what was said, the 'polar ice caps' are the ones on the oceans, not glaciers over land. The ice caps fluctuate every year, melting in the summer, freezing in the winter. The summer minimums and winter maximums have been steadily decreasing since the '60s. Sure, we have a little more this year that we had last year, but that's called weather. Not climate. People get so caught up in "It's cold out! Global warming is not happening!" We're not talking weather here, we're talking climate. We're talking about long term averages, not individual outlying data points. A depressed person can be happy one day, but on average they are always sad. Just because they are happy today does not mean they are not depressed overall.

Think, people, think! We have brains for a reason.

white lightening wrote:

...Think, people, think! We have brains for a reason.

And what would that reason be?

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

While I am a believer in free markets, that's not my religion. If I have a religion it's that people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't harm someone else. Free market capitalism is the only economic system I know that allows this.

And there is the rub. Unrestricted free markets tip the scales toward those with money and power to privatize profits and publicize costs.

Who isn't a believer in free markets? We just differ in our faith in markets as an all-encompassing ideology or worldview. I don't think the broad belief in relatively free markets means that they regulate every public good consequence on their own. Canada has free markets, Britain has free markets, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway have free markets. And them we move to the question of why people want what they want and do there wants change based on lack of information, the illusions created by the market, etc. I dont' feel my freedom is greatly imeriled when it is a matter, say, of a simple consumer good choice.

Hence your belief in free markets makes you want to ignore and misrepresent the evidence, just like a person with a pre-existing belief in God Almighty and Genesis interacts with the evidence with that preference in mind. Free Market lovers don't much like the ambiguity thrown into the system when private rights carry public costs.

Blowing:

You realize that when something is a factor, it is a cause, right? So when you say A (CO2 emissions) is a factor in B (rising temperatures), you're saying CO2 emissions causes a change in temperature. It might not be the ONLY cause, but it is A cause.

So, given that you accept that CO2 is "a" cause, we must answer the question of "how much" has CO2 caused the recent bout in global warming.

I rely on the studies performed by thousands of scientists on the matter. Scientists isolate the given factors (CO2 and whatever else may contribute - El Nino, for example) and determine how much has the rise in CO2 caused this bout of warming. And you know what, when scientists did this, they determined it was a very significant factor.

You, on the other hand, reject the science performed by the vast majority, and rely on the science performed by the distinct minority and conclude it is negligible. You cite a few arguments against the majority that everyone is aware of and claim it is conclusive. You defend yourself by simply stating "it's not settled." Well of course it's not settled. But that doesn't mean it cannot be true. The weight of authority is against you. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but the weight of authority is against you.

It seems to me that we often take the consensus of the scientific community and organizations like the National Academy of Science to be the best information we have at any given moment. Do you really go through life skeptical (I mean skeptical in the immediate sense, not philosophical skepticism) of all consensus-type scientific statements? Do you acquaint yourself with the studies and mechanisms of every single scientific consensus? Cna you tell me, for example, how specific chemo-therapeutic agents work, why quinelone antibiotics fight drug-resistant pneumonia, how exactly anabolic steroids work in the body? Or do you reckon that the relevent questions and skepticism has taken place by people much more equipped than you are to evaluate it and that the scienfic peer review process, faulty as it may be, is much better than your bias-ridden interaction with the evidence? I have read explanations of climate scientists and I always find that the "anti" community is ALWAYS tainted with a pre-existing bias againt regulating private industry and this is what motivates their dissent. Trying to find a anit-global warming person who has no ideological problem with government regulation and would welcome it if the evidence called for it is like trying to find a non-dogmatic religionist who questions the evidence for evolution. Neither seem to exist.

Well put, Brian.

Al Gore is an idiot wrote:

Hey you global warming imbeciles! Look outside. Yeah, it's snowing 3ft + in Virgina and Baltimore. HAHA! Tell that to Al Gore now! Global Warming is bullshit.

___________________________________________

Part of the global warming statement is that while many cold weather areas will show signs of warming trends, some warm climate locations will experience unusual cold trends. Just like you are seeing now.

Anything else?

You seem to know a lot. Show me the science that shows human produced CO2 is the cause for global warming. I've asked for this evidence over and over again on these boards, nobody has ever produced any. I've scoured the internet and read many books on the subject by authors who both support and reject the notion of anthropogenic warming. I have yet to see any evidence that current warming is caused by people. I'm not rejecting the science that shows this because there isn't any. There's loads of evidence that it's a natural process. If you're aware of evidence that humans are the main cause, point me to it.

Yes human CO2 is a factor, an insignificant one. I've already shown you how minor it is. Even natural CO2 is insignificant by itself. That's why there's no correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. The amount of sleep you got last night will affect your race this weekend, but if you run a minute slower than you expected will it be solely because you got 7-1/2 hours of sleep instead of 8?

Brian, science depends on forming hypotheses and trying to knock them down. Some like the theory of gravity or evolution stand up to repeated attempts to prove them wrong. Others like cold fusion are knocked down almost immediately. Science is based on skepticism. Finding flaws in the consensus view is how science advances.

Politics directs policy. It has nothing to do with the truth.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The amount of sleep you got last night will affect your race this weekend, but if you run a minute slower than you expected will it be solely because you got 7-1/2 hours of sleep instead of 8?

False analogy. Without getting to the fact that human psychology enters your analogy (while it doesn't in global warming), it is obvious that 7.5 hours of sleep instead of 8 would not cause me to run a minute slower. By contrast, thousands of scientists have isolated the factors and determined that CO2 emissions are a substantial cause of the recent warming.

So if CO2 is not a substantial factor in the recent global warming, then what is? Tell me what scientists have attributed it to. Point to some specifics. I want to hear it. All you've done is say "well, it's not CO2" by referring to what caused a warming period thousands of years ago. Yeah, we already knew that. But what caused it "this" time? And I don't want to hear a generalized answer like "natural forces" (because that begs the question and merely says "not human CO2"). Show me that you, Blowing Rock Master, know something that all the scientists don't. Show me that you, Blowing Rock Master, have performed the complicated task of isolating the factors, determined what are the causes, and determined what are the extent of the causes.

I've already given you a list of several factors. Reread the post. None of this is original on my part, it's all drawn from research done by thousands of scientists. I've already given you several links. Here's one to Dr. Roy Spencer, director of the Climate Research Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

"thousands of scientists have isolated the factors and determined that CO2 emissions are a substantial cause of the recent warming."

Great point me to it. So far you've just parroted the popular media.

Blowing:

We both agree that many things influence the climate, or that there are many factors. We both agree that in all previous periods of climate change, natural forces were the causes (or it was all factors other than man's CO2 emissions). We also both agree that man's CO2 emissions are at least a factor in the Earth's warming. You have conceded this several times.

We only disagree on the "extent" that man's CO2 emissions have caused this warming. I say its significant. You say its insignificant.

In support, neither of us have pointed to any specific evidence that shows either man has caused "X" amount in the 1.6 degree C of heating. I haven't shown all the statistical studies. You have not shown me statistical studies that show it is the other things.

I point out that although I cannot provide it here for you now, I know that scientists don't make claims without substantiation. I know scientists abide by rigorous standards, are subject to peer review, and test their studies over and over. At the end of this process, the vast majority concluded man has caused global warming.

You think all these scientists suddenly strayed from their rigorous standards and made scientific claims without substantiation. You claim scientists are saying "man caused global warming" without any proof, after centuries of them being very skeptical and very meticulous about their processes. You then trust the dissenting scientists, somehow assert they relied on most trustworthy processes and methods, and think we're all fooled.

Now, objective observers: who is more believeable. Me or Blowing Rock Master?

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I've already given you a list of several factors. Reread the post.

You've only pointed out factors in previous warming periods. What are the factors in THIS period and what are the extent of them?

outsidethebox wrote:

Blowing:

I noticed that you have no reply to what I said above.

And let me ask you something, just because I'm curious. What are your thoughts on evolution?

You nazis need to get over yourselves. Whether or not someone believes in evolution should not have any involvement in this debate. Evolution is not a prerequisite to being heard. Nowadays people like you are trying to simplify everything to fit your own worldview, and you are checking for belief instead of looking at science. You say belief in evolution is a must, but why does this have to be so? My complaint here isn't about the theory of evolution, it is about the using of this theory to check people for believing in the right things before they can have any legitimacy. It needs to stop because it is not scientific and you know it.

He doesn't "say" it's insignificant. He has shown it's insignificant, and yet you ignore the facts and simply tell him he's a big fat liar. I want to know what you, outsidethebox, have to refute the science that Blowing.Rock Master is giving. Stop saying "thousands of scientists" and give us an analysis and actual facts for once. "Thousands of scientists" doesn't mean jack squat when there's someone like you simply using it as a magic bullet instead of actually discussing the relevant points, which are:

How big is the majority?

Who decided that there's a majority?

Can this majority be demonstrated?

Does CO2 cause global climate change?

What is wrong with the science that has been done? There's almost always something.

Show us what YOU have.

And those are only a few of the factors that need to be discussed.

HELLO!!! Water Vapor causes most of everything!

global warming is for yellow bellys

shut up wrote:

He doesn't "say" it's insignificant. He has shown it's insignificant, and yet you ignore the facts and simply tell him he's a big fat liar. I want to know what you, outsidethebox, have to refute the science that Blowing.Rock Master is giving. Stop saying "thousands of scientists" and give us an analysis and actual facts for once. "Thousands of scientists" doesn't mean jack squat when there's someone like you simply using it as a magic bullet instead of actually discussing the relevant points, which are:

How big is the majority?

Who decided that there's a majority?

Can this majority be demonstrated?

Does CO2 cause global climate change?

What is wrong with the science that has been done? There's almost always something.

Show us what YOU have.

First, he hasn't "shown" or "proven" anything so far. His substantive points so far are: (1) factors other than rising CO2 caused the Earth to warm in the past (obvious reply: that doesn't mean it isn't the cause this time; and scientists have demonstrated it is the cause this time); (2) the Earth started warming 300 years ago (reply: the vast majority of that warming has occurred in the last 60 years though).

Second, I told him to prove it to me because the burden of proof is on him. HE is the one going against the grain.

Third, a recent poll that surveyed over 10,000 climatologists from all over the globe said 97% have concluded man is a substantial cause of global warming. I'll provide the cite if you need me to. Even if you don't buy that poll or any poll, how could you POSSIBLY claim there's not a majority favoring man-caused global warming.