Global Warming - A Different Approach

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Nope, what you have are theories based on computer models (that
>are flawed) and claims that temp and CO2 graphs prove something.

And now we have real data showing increases in CO2 and increases in temperature as predicted. That's why the deniers are going to be taken less and less seriously as time goes on. As the predictions that they claim are false come to pass, their credibility will steadily decrease.

It seems that in the last six months or so, manmade GW skeptics have been coming out of the woodwork. The latest is Allegre. Or maybe what is being reported are respected climate experts, who don't support the majority, are now taking heat for not toeing the line.

[rushmc 23]

Also, ty this one

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/443-gwrfa.html?gclid=CK2Ko6vC6IoCFR6AWAodPR61pw

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,481]

Got it. Thanks.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>Is that really all that they agree on? That isn't very much.

You may accept those things; many deniers do not.

>Agreeing on those things does nothing to prove that warming is
>happening, how much it is happening, or how much of it is due to the
>influence of humans.

"Prove that warming is happening" - It is. That's a fact borne out by climactic records.

"how much it is happening" - also easy to discover. Attached are a few graphs showing warming over the past few decades. By examining these you will be able to answer your own question.

"how much of it is due to the influence of humans" - _that_ is what most of the discussion centers around. Numbers I've seen range from 80% to 125% (the 125% assumes some negative feedback.) There is a lot of reasearch going on right now in trying to nail that number down.

But despite what deniers claim, the results are not converging on zero.

Why do you suppose the scientists 35 years ago could have been so wrong?

http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

It is a newsweek article, not a Glenn Beck creation.

Why should we believe that assertion that only the scientists that are in the pockets of the big corporations are in disagreement with the conclusion that the trend is so ominous, and that humans are to blame for most all of it? Making such baseless attacks is not part of the scientific method.

Climatologists at the time 'conceded' that some solutions proposed (intentionally melting the ice caps with black soot or diverting arctic rivers cause more problems than they solve.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,107]

>Point? Highs and lows make the "average". In and of themselves they mean nothing.

I agree, and here's a new data point to consider:

--------------------------------------
Sign of the Times - '07 World's Warmest Winter on Record
AP
03/16/07 8:09 AM PT

This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday. The combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.
---------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Point? Highs and lows make the "average". In and of themselves they mean nothing.

I agree, and here's a new data point to consider:

--------------------------------------
Sign of the Times - '07 World's Warmest Winter on Record
AP
03/16/07 8:09 AM PT

This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday. The combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.
---------------------------------------

Saw that.
Still, the fact that many (maybe some) scientists are very skepitcal of the the methods of the measurments still has to be considered.

And again, the climate changing is not the debate. Who or what the cause is.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

>Point? Highs and lows make the "average". In and of themselves they mean nothing.

I agree, and here's a new data point to consider:

--------------------------------------
Sign of the Times - '07 World's Warmest Winter on Record
AP
03/16/07 8:09 AM PT

This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday. The combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.
---------------------------------------

Saw that.
Still, the fact that many (maybe some) scientists are very skepitcal of the the methods of the measurments still has to be considered.

And again, the climate changing is not the debate. Who or what the cause is.

Isn't it funny how the right accuses libs of using PC terminology, yet they do the same thing when it suits their agenda? Libs call it "global warming" which describes what is happening - the Globe is Warming. The cons decide that term sounds wrong, so they rename it 'climate change' which is also accurate, but lessesns the impact of the message and dilutes the issue.

why not just call it what it really is? Climate change could mean just about anything. Springtime is 'climate change' for crying out loud!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,107]

>Still, the fact that many (maybe some) scientists are very skepitcal
>of the the methods of the measurments still has to be considered.

So you're saying that whether the climate is warming or not is still open to debate.

>And again, the climate changing is not the debate.

And now you're saying that whether the climate is warming or not is NOT the debate. I think that claims like this is why many people do not take climate-change deniers seriously. They seem to have no firm position other than "you're wrong."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Point? Highs and lows make the "average". In and of themselves they mean nothing.

I agree, and here's a new data point to consider:

--------------------------------------
Sign of the Times - '07 World's Warmest Winter on Record
AP
03/16/07 8:09 AM PT

This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday. The combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.
---------------------------------------

Saw that.
Still, the fact that many (maybe some) scientists are very skepitcal of the the methods of the measurments still has to be considered.

And again, the climate changing is not the debate. Who or what the cause is.

Isn't it funny how the right accuses libs of using PC terminology, yet they do the same thing when it suits their agenda? Libs call it "global warming" which describes what is happening - the Globe is Warming. The cons decide that term sounds wrong, so they rename it 'climate change' which is also accurate, but lessesns the impact of the message and dilutes the issue.

why not just call it what it really is? Climate change could mean just about anything. Springtime is 'climate change' for crying out loud!

Now here is a post worth reading........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Still, the fact that many (maybe some) scientists are very skepitcal
>of the the methods of the measurments still has to be considered.

So you're saying that whether the climate is warming or not is still open to debate.

>And again, the climate changing is not the debate.

And now you're saying that whether the climate is warming or not is NOT the debate. I think that claims like this is why many people do not take climate-change deniers seriously. They seem to have no firm position other than "you're wrong."

Why do you insist on twisting words and muddying the debate.

Yes the climate is changes (which means warming) No, I do not think or believe man is the cause. (and neither to many many scientists and more are changing positions to agree with this) Also notice how I do not say "most" or "majority" or "nearly all" or imply only the smart or informed ones do not agree with man as a cause of GW

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,593]

Quote

Also notice how I do not say "most" or "majority" or "nearly all"

Of course you don't, because most, the majority, nearly all climate scientists disagree with you

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Also notice how I do not say "most" or "majority" or "nearly all"

Of course you don't, because most, the majority, nearly all climate scientists disagree with you

Ah yes, science by consensus, the new rage.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Also notice how I do not say "most" or "majority" or "nearly all"

Of course you don't, because most, the majority, nearly all climate scientists disagree with you

Ah yes, science by consensus, the new rage.

You would prefer science by the industry-funded minority?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Also notice how I do not say "most" or "majority" or "nearly all"

Of course you don't, because most, the majority, nearly all climate scientists disagree with you

Ah yes, science by consensus, the new rage.

You would prefer science by the industry-funded minority?

Point completly missed.

Oh, and you had better take a look at who/what is sponsoring the other side .........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,107]

>Why do you insist on twisting words and muddying the debate.

Remember back when you claimed that global warming stopped in 1998? When you change positions that often, the waters get very muddy indeed!

>Yes the climate is changes (which means warming) No, I do not think or
>believe man is the cause.

Do you "believe" that humans who burn hydrocarbons are responsible for the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Why do you insist on twisting words and muddying the debate.

Remember back when you claimed that global warming stopped in 1998? When you change positions that often, the waters get very muddy indeed!

>Yes the climate is changes (which means warming) No, I do not think or
>believe man is the cause.

Do you "believe" that humans who burn hydrocarbons are responsible for the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere?

First, as I learn more I adjust. As for if I believe we increase CO2? Irelavant. In order for your agrument of man, CO2 and the GWing hype to be true you have to go to this "simplification" of the cause and relationship.
So, in the context (or framing) of the question you asked, considered in relation to the issue, I will not answer your question directly because it serves not purpose but to support your spin.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,107]

>As for if I believe we increase CO2? Irelavant.

If that's truly what you believe, then you simply do not understand any of the science behind global warming.