Global warming or not?

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Keep in mind that it wasn't too long ago that they were crying out that we had to take drastic action to avoid a new ice age.

The facts are we know that the world has warmed 0.76 C in the last 159 years. We also know that the earth has always had considerable variations in temperature. We know that the sun plays a large part in the climate. We know that the CO2 that everyone is over reacting to is one of the least important greenhouse gases. Some of them are many times more effective as a greenhouse gas.

Other than that we know very little. So for anyone to say that this is mainly caused by man is to show that you are just as ignorant of the science behind the issue as those that they look down on. They argue based on a belief that has not been shown to be true anymore than the people who believe in God. The only difference is the person who believes in God is less likely to be as smug and condescending.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts, no matter how laughably ignorant they may be.

And may I add, you have been as smug and condescending as any Atheist I have ever known.

Far more.

130/95

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Uh... Bullshit?
Back up that claim with verifiable facts.

Please.

I ask politely.

Politely??? You would not know it if you saw it. You have been rude and insulting the whole time to cover up your own ignorance.

As for backing up the facts, why don't you check this week's news. The emails from climate scientist released by either a hacker or possibly a whistle blower are the proof. They show that these scientist have not only worked to keep other scientist who disagreed with them from being published. They also showed that the scientist massaged the data to show what they wanted. This included talking about hiding the decline in temperatures the last couple of years.

I will say again, we know that there has been a very small increase in temperature over the last 159 years. Other than that, we really don't how significant this will turn out to be. Nor do we know how much man has contributed to this. We do know that not all the answers are in due to the fact that the climate models do not work properly. Since they don't, we know that we are making errors in the theories being used.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts, no matter how laughably ignorant they may be.

And may I add, you have been as smug and condescending as any Atheist I have ever known.

Far more.

130/95

Two things. Everything I have stated can be backed up 100%. What you have said can't. I don't have my "own facts" I use the facts that every single scientist can agree upon.

Two, the simple evidence that this is basically a religion to you is your constant insults and your pointing out your blood pressure. If you had an open mind neither would occur.

I keep an open mind on the subject just like I do with most things. In this case, the only thing that have been proven are what I mentioned in the last few posts. At this point it has not been proven to what degree man is affecting global warming. It may turn out to be the main cause in the end. At this point we just don't know.

However, your insulting those who disagree with you and claiming that anyone who disagrees is ignorant and/or doing it on religous grounds does nothing to make your case. It only shows you to be someone who's parents did a terrible job at teaching them both manners and logic.

[Donnageddon]

Fascinating. What else is being held back by these damn underpaid scientists?
BigFoot?

Real? I knew it!

Oceans on Venus? Why do they lie to us Those damn scientists from every country!

Earth 6000 years old... double damned scientists all over the globe with their evil scientist ways! They deny it!

will say again, we know that there has been a very small increase in temperature over the last 159 years. Other than that, we really don't how significant this will turn out to be.

keep saying it, there are a lot of ignorant sheep to be sheared!

Too bad about the rest of intelligent humanity. But don't let that sway you from spreading ignorance.

Damn scientists anyway. With their lying ways.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Two things. Everything I have stated can be backed up 100%. What you have said can't. I don't have my "own facts" I use the facts that every single scientist can agree upon.

DEAL!

Go for it.

Boring nonsensical bullshit will null and void the deal.

Life is too short to deal with religious PT Barnums.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Katti's Cat

I know that - but it still doesn't cover the whole period to the beginning of time. Not that many trees around that are million of years out.

Using soil or other bore samples has actually shown that there have been extreme temperature movements and cycles.

Nevertheless - back to what I said previously: I won't hurt us to look after the world we live in. It's only on loan to us from future generations.

my point was to focus on the manmade effect on global warming. if you looked closely at my post you would have picked up on my statement regarding it being necessary to walk much lighter on this earth in every fashion

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This here dumb reneck would like y'all to explain the following things

Why things were so warm around 1000ad? Nobody was creating extra greenhouse gases then.

Why did the Maunders Minimum correlate with the Little Ice Age?

We have had 4 Ice Ages in the last 2 million years, with big warm-ups in between. Could somebody explain why the wild cycles, and why the current period is different?

Gee, since the science is so definitive, I expect good, detailed, answers to all the question in just a few minutes.....

you know, trying to explain that to people who get all foamy at the mouth and soapboxy just never works (not meaning you do), so many of the rational explanations get swept away in the hype

Originally Posted by scveteran

Only to a certain degree. Looking at each of those things has more to do with rainfall than temperature. While temperature does affect the rainfall, it is not the only thing so the idea that we can accurately tell how much the world has warmed by those things is false.

The total estimated global warming warming since we began monitoring the temperature in 1850 has been a grand total of 0.76 C. Not even one degree. To say that we can measure that small an amount of temperature change in a tree ring is just not believable.

I've done a lot of focused work in the southwest in archaeological digs. what they can get out of tree ring dating that helps date drought vs. non drought years is both fascinating and VERY educational

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

DEAL!

Go for it.

Boring nonsensical bullshit will null and void the deal.

Life is too short to deal with religious PT Barnums.

now see!? y'all are gonna get this thread spanked by some monitors! kiss and play nice now boys

[Donnageddon]

I am just kidding scveteran! I am just here to make jokes about the Kindle and the astak PP.

I couldn't give a tinkers damn about global warming, As long as my pickup don't freeze, and the Hansom dam don't fail, I am good.

Let's let the children deal with the consequences of our decisions,

Party! Yeah!

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

now see!? y'all are gonna get this thread spanked by some monitors! kiss and play nice now boys

Right you are. I apologize for giving a shit.

Oops!

[AprilHare]

Sit down children! Let me tell you a true story.
A long, long time ago, when the earth had lots of CO2 and was very hot, sealife went nuts absorbing it. Dead spots formed where life simply used up all the resources, and the death formed what eventually became oil, natural gas and coal.
Then we come along one day, dig it up and burn it, releasing the CO2 and heating everything up again.
GG, big oil.

[GeoffC]

As with everything there is data providing useful clues and ammunition for both sides of the spectrum; believers/non-believers/who-knowers....

After all, at this moment in time, it is still just a theory....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by scveteran

We know that the CO2 that everyone is over reacting to is one of the least important greenhouse gases.

Is there a source for this?
Most of what I've read suggests CO2 is an important factor.
E.g. according to the 'Brittanica Guide to Climate Change' (2008) -
"Of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is most significant ... The total radiative forcing by anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial age is approximately 1.66 watts per square metre."

Has scientific opinion changed recently?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

..
Meanwhile, reality, and the laws of chemistry and physics, rolls on to its inevitable conclusion.

Yes,

The universe doesn't care what you believe, it just is.

[HarryT]

Donnadeggon,

Please familiarise yourself with our posting guidelines, which are to be found here, in particular the parts about not being rude to other members. It is fine to disagree with someone's viewpoint; it is not acceptable to be rude in your response.

Thank you.

[Moderator]

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is there a source for this?
Most of what I've read suggests CO2 is an important factor.
E.g. according to the 'Brittanica Guide to Climate Change' (2008) -
"Of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is most significant ... The total radiative forcing by anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial age is approximately 1.66 watts per square metre."

Has scientific opinion changed recently?

Co2 is an important gas, but others, such as methane are more important because they absorb more heat at lower concentration. Water vapour is, perhaps, of greater significant because it also generates heat as clouds form.

[Ham88]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

As with everything there is data providing useful clues and ammunition for both sides of the spectrum; believers/non-believers/who-knowers....

After all, at this moment in time, it is still just a theory....

You point out that is just a theory, the problem with this is that much of what makes up science are theories, like Einsteins theory of relativity, it still a theory though last I checked no one was arguing its credibility.

Originally Posted by scveteran

They show that these scientist have not only worked to keep other scientist who disagreed with them from being published. They also showed that the scientist massaged the data to show what they wanted. This included talking about hiding the decline in temperatures the last couple of years.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11074
Hmm this article, though dated, seems to show the exact opposite of what you're saying. Additionally here is an article from the NY Times which seems to explain away much of what you've been saying http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/sc...warming&st=cse