malo2 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Its pretty clear that the planets climate is changing, but we have little evidence that a major part of it is affected by man kind, this is a lot more likely a natural part of the planets life. The problem is that the media has done such a great job pressing this idea on everybody that now such a large number of people are positive about it. Alot of the scientific community is corrupt today (dosent mean they're liars), and no not every credible scientist believes in global warming, unless you only classify globabl warming supporters as credible. Lastfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 It would seem you agree with this guy from what I'm getting,so I'll give you an opportunity to present evidence for your case i.e. an opportunity for an open debate. 1. I'm not completely sure where I stand on the issue yet. There is not enough proof one way or another at this point for me to claim I KNOW the answer. If you want me to play Devil's advocate to your position I can if you want. 2. Can it be proven global warming is 100% caused by man? Can it be proven that global warming is 100% not a chance of a cyclical climate on Earth or other factors? Remember, Galileo was the one man standing in the face of accepted science at one point as well... Remember at one point Galileo had also not gathered all his data to show his position was correct so what you said about this guy would apply to Galileo as well. Just because everyone believes something that isn't proven doesn't make it true. So where's your evidence? If you go against the overwhelming majority of the scientific community then the onus is on you to provide proof. Or is what you believe just because you feel sorry for the guy standing up for his views against the opression of others? Where are your sources of evidence and the names and titles of the scientists that wrote the papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Its pretty clear that the planets climate is changing, but we have little evidence that a major part of it is affected by man kind, this is a lot more likely a natural part of the planets life. The problem is that the media has done such a great job pressing this idea on everybody that now such a large number of people are positive about it. Alot of the scientific community is corrupt today (dosent mean they're liars), and no not every credible scientist believes in global warming, unless you only classify globabl warming supporters as credible. Firstly, where do you get information like that? Secondly what would thier motivation to be corrupt be? Most of them work for bodies independant of companies with an agenda to keep. So I think you should back up your claim with some kind of source. Perhaps you should have a browse through this site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video_Tycoon Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 It's here and it's fine...we didn't even have a flood like in 2K4! \ My mom bought a shirt saying "I survived the 2004 flood!" :lol: (200 posts for meh! \) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzimatt Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 the report from soem scientist about global warming that comes out in a few months is wrong the scientist ahev already said to politicians that they will change the science to match what the ppoliticians are saying plus if its global warmign why the hell have 13 people died recently fromt he cold and why did i ahve no school on mon cuz it was -20 global warming is a problem but what is whinning going to do about it if ur concerend dont drove your car or heat your home electric cars arent the answer either where do u think u get ur power from?? ill tell you its that coal power plant a few miles from your house there is almost no way to stop the problem unless people are willing to spend billions of solar, fusion, and wind technologys so until then stop compalinging Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 the report from soem scientist about global warming that comes out in a few months is wrong the scientist ahev already said to politicians that they will change the science to match what the ppoliticians are saying plus if its global warmign why the hell have 13 people died recently fromt he cold and why did i ahve no school on mon cuz it was -20 global warming is a problem but what is whinning going to do about it if ur concerend dont drove your car or heat your home electric cars arent the answer either where do u think u get ur power from?? ill tell you its that coal power plant a few miles from your house there is almost no way to stop the problem unless people are willing to spend billions of solar, fusion, and wind technologys so until then stop compalinging Yes, of course, the scientists are regulated by the biased governments, its all lies and theres nothing you can do. I might as well not even be concerned. Thanks for your useless input. Seriously, try and structure your reply with at least sensible grammar and provide sources for what you claim. If you don't it's nothing more than propoganda. Give me a source that states that scientists are biased by the governments money rich polluting industries and I will believe you. Edit: Since some people are coming up with the ideas that scientists have got this all wrong, I thought I'd provide a highly credible source which states otherwise - the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Recently the panel (consisting of hundreds of world leading scientists from 150+ countries over the world) released thier 2007 report and below I have provided a summarised version (which is actually quite large) of said report. If you are serious about the issue, at least have a browse through the document (read the entire first page at least). IPCC Report, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ " The science " behind global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 the report from soem scientist about global warming that comes out in a few months is wrong the scientist ahev already said to politicians that they will change the science to match what the ppoliticians are saying plus if its global warmign why the hell have 13 people died recently fromt he cold and why did i ahve no school on mon cuz it was -20 global warming is a problem but what is whinning going to do about it if ur concerend dont drove your car or heat your home electric cars arent the answer either where do u think u get ur power from?? ill tell you its that coal power plant a few miles from your house there is almost no way to stop the problem unless people are willing to spend billions of solar, fusion, and wind technologys so until then stop compalinging People like you need to understand its worth spending the money on! What are you gonna spend the money on when one of the ice-caps melt? Are you gonna pay it to cool up again? HUH? It comes to a crossroad : You either go to the money side, or the global warming side. People who don't even contribute to stopping global warming shouldnt even deserve to live on this earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 @ Sharef, yea, I agree. It's ironic how governments and industries around the world are so focused on money-making yet when global warming does it's damage, the worlds economy will be in ruin and the value of thier money will be many times less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ " The science " behind global warming. You don't agree with it? I do agree with it 200%, just showing it to people who don't want to agree with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ " The science " behind global warming. I've always thought of global warming as self-evidant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ " The science " behind global warming. You don't agree with it? I do agree with it 200%, just showing it to people who don't want to agree with it. Sorry, I edited my post, couldn't quite tell your stance on the issue but now its all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktmcf121 Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 yeah, well, i have in my possesion a chart that blows all other global warming theories out of the water. enjoy being proven wrong, everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Just to clear this up for people who don't know, Global warming isn't only from cars! Many countries burn oil for their electricity. Plastic is also made from crude oil. One of the most harmful parts would be deforestation. Trees hold in Co2, but they are being cut at an alarming rate. The earth was once 14% rain-forest, it is now 6% http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Just to clear this up for people who don't know, Global warming isn't only from cars! Many countries burn oil for their electricity. Plastic is also made from crude oil. One of the most harmful parts would be deforestation. Trees hold in Co2, but they are being cut at an alarming rate. The earth was once 14% rain-forest, it is now 6% http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm Coal is a big polluter too. Natural gas is aswell, yet not so much. I think the point you make about deforestation and it's links to global warming is a very valid one. It shifts the climates carbon cycle balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 warri0r: So where's your evidence? If you go against the overwhelming majority of the scientific community then the onus is on you to provide proof. Or is what you believe just because you feel sorry for the guy standing up for his views against the opression of others? Where are your sources of evidence and the names and titles of the scientists that wrote the papers. Like I said earlier I don't feel I or science has enough information at this point to say we KNOW what is going on. In this response I focus on man made possible causes first and then on natural possible causes. I'll try to get around to giving you actual papers and links later if you still want it. A lot of this is just common sense though. All focus on global warming appears to be on the gasses released from combustion. This would include cars, power plants, etc. That is a big problem I have with the way it is presented now. It seems waaay too agenda based and not enough real science on the issue. Why does no one talk about the thousands upon thousands of miles of new black asphalt roads that have been constructed in the past 100 years? Imagine how much heat that absorbs from the sun over the course of a year. Roads get so hot they will burn your feet in the summer. These roads replaced tree canopies that would absorb and convert the solar radiation thus keeping temperatures lower. Think about all the millions and probably billions of houses and buildings built in the past 100 years. A large number of these have black or dark colored roofs. Imagine how much heat is absorbed from that. Why no talk on this? Ever noticed on a cold night if you are out in the country it is literally about a 10 degree difference than if you drive into a city on the same night? A large part of that is heat retention of all the black roofs and roads as well as waste heat from houses. Don't you find it funny how one volcano can put out about all the CO2 that humans have in our history? The Earth has functioned well for thousands of years with volcanos going off all the time. Why would a little bit more gas in the air all of a sudden destroy the Earth's climate? The Earth has shown it can compensate for these things with the way it does with volcanos. Do you believe that temperature stays constant and climates stay the same without human interference? What ended the last ice age? Why did the Earth warm up then? How do we not know it isn't a natural occurance? It's not like we have a long history of data about the Earth's climate and causes for weather shifts. Do you think our scientists know enough or have enough data at this point to rule this out? Why does it seem like anyone that raises this option is attacked vehemently? Did you know as recently as 1975 I believe it was Newsweek(might be wrong but I think it was them) was running an article on global cooling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 We seem to hate any change that might inconvenience us as a species, and can't seem to understand that now matter how many protocols we sign up to, the ice caps will melt at some point in the future. Surely by going ecofriendly we're only procrastinating the inevitable? "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 warri0r: So where's your evidence? If you go against the overwhelming majority of the scientific community then the onus is on you to provide proof. Or is what you believe just because you feel sorry for the guy standing up for his views against the opression of others? Where are your sources of evidence and the names and titles of the scientists that wrote the papers. Like I said earlier I don't feel I or science has enough information at this point to say we KNOW what is going on. In this response I focus on man made possible causes first and then on natural possible causes. I'll try to get around to giving you actual papers and links later if you still want it. A lot of this is just common sense though. All focus on global warming appears to be on the gasses released from combustion. This would include cars, power plants, etc. That is a big problem I have with the way it is presented now. It seems waaay too agenda based and not enough real science on the issue. Why does no one talk about the thousands upon thousands of miles of new black asphalt roads that have been constructed in the past 100 years? Imagine how much heat that absorbs from the sun over the course of a year. Roads get so hot they will burn your feet in the summer. These roads replaced tree canopies that would absorb and convert the solar radiation thus keeping temperatures lower. Think about all the millions and probably billions of houses and buildings built in the past 100 years. A large number of these have black or dark colored roofs. Imagine how much heat is absorbed from that. Why no talk on this? Ever noticed on a cold night if you are out in the country it is literally about a 10 degree difference than if you drive into a city on the same night? A large part of that is heat retention of all the black roofs and roads as well as waste heat from houses. Don't you find it funny how one volcano can put out about all the CO2 that humans have in our history? The Earth has functioned well for thousands of years with volcanos going off all the time. Why would a little bit more gas in the air all of a sudden destroy the Earth's climate? The Earth has shown it can compensate for these things with the way it does with volcanos. Do you believe that temperature stays constant and climates stay the same without human interference? What ended the last ice age? Why did the Earth warm up then? How do we not know it isn't a natural occurance? It's not like we have a long history of data about the Earth's climate and causes for weather shifts. Do you think our scientists know enough or have enough data at this point to rule this out? Why does it seem like anyone that raises this option is attacked vehemently? Did you know as recently as 1975 I believe it was Newsweek(might be wrong but I think it was them) was running an article on global cooling? I'd like to see some sources for what you claim, particularly the whole roofs and roads absorb heat thing. If you think about it rooftops and roads take up an unbelievably insignificant surface area of our planet and wouldn't really have an affect (unless you provide a source that states otherwise). The biggest absorber of heat on the planet is the ocean. I reccomend any of the reports done by the IPCC (Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change) as they aren't run by any particular government, they have world leading experts from 150+ countries and they do not have an agenda. All in all, I would like to see some sources for what you claim. Edit: @bold1: For clarification, are you saying tree canopies absorb more heat or roads that replace them do? @bold 2: Ice core samples. @bold 3: If you are attacked for your views it's either a non-scientist attacking them or it's because the evidence is stacked against you. It's nothing personal and science actually thrives on you and others questioning the norm. It's productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron8000 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 yeah, well, i have in my possesion a chart that blows all other global warming theories out of the water. enjoy being proven wrong, everyone. Well done that poster for exposing the flaws of correlational arguments. Also as to the whole snow melting/water vapour/CO2 debacle we seem to be focusing on CO2 as the only greenhouse gas - methane, sulpherous gases and indeed water vapour all have a similar effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I reccomend any of the reports done by the IPCC Is NASA good enough for ya? http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast20oct_1.htm This article goes into a lot of detail about how we really don't know what is going on. It also provides ice core sample data. This supports the idea that it is just natural variation of temperatures. The general trend of average global temperatures from Precambrian time -- to the present. Notice that average global temperatures vary by roughly 10 degrees Celsius between warm and cool periods. Image courtesy of Dr. Chris Scotese. There's lots of good stuff in that article like this. I suggest reading it. The rooftop and asphalt road effect is called the Urban Heat Island(UHI). A lot of the sites I looked at blow it off as negligible but this Australian site makes some very good points. Those few of us greenhouse sceptics who understand global temperature records will be gratified that 95 years after the formation of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) they have acknowledged the existence of the urban heat island (UHI) in very small towns of ~1000 population. Possibly prompted by the PhD research carried out by Christopher J.G. Morris. We live in hope that the BoM might discover and publish the extent that UHI bias has contaminated century long temperature trends in Australia. This is a good point at which to remember that the USA climate research team that put together the GHCN set their rural cut-off at 10,000. This can now be seen for what it is, a ridiculously high figure that has ensured that much UHI bias remains in the "Rural" series of the GHCN. Basically it talks about how even in a town of a few hundred people there are UHI effects that mess up the data received from that town. As the town grows and gives it's temperature readings they will go up as population increases. This gives the appearance of wide scale warming because most towns grow over time. They said the US takes Data from towns with 10,000 people and that these have a lot bigger UHI effect that would totally mess up the data. http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/seozuhi.htm Also don't just look at the IPCC. They definitely aren't above politics. The recent resignation of Dr. Christopher Landsea, a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, has cast new doubt on the integrity of the IPCC's policies and procedures. In an article at Tech Central Station (TCS 1/31/2005) titled "A Dishonest Broker?" writer Iain Murray reports that: "Most recently, IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri publicly endorsed a particular policy agenda that contradicts the IPCC's role as 'policy relevant but not policy prescriptive'" Mr. Murray continues: This is an entire article questioning motives of the IPCC. You might find it interesting. http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-24/ipcc.htm The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless. Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming as in the last three decades, and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster. In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims. We know that atmospheric carbon is increasing. We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that started in 1850 at the end of what is called the Little Ice Age. It is scientifically impossible to prove whether the subsequent warming is natural or man-made. Article on how we were being told global cooling was the next big scary thing 30 years ago and how when it really comes down to it we don't know one way or another. Good read. http:// http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 034077.cms That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster. The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs. Let me know if you want me to dig up more of this stuff. There is tons of it out there. Like I said before... If someone says they completely know what is going on they are full of it. At this point no one really knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktmcf121 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Well done that poster for exposing the flaws of correlational arguments. i didnt make that poster, but it's good to know that SOMEONE got it..... i havent seen much more than purely circumstantial evidence on this topic, anywhere. you can't convict a criminal based on circumstantial evidence, and you CERTAINLY can't PROVE a far-fetched scientific theory with it. in fact, it's nearly impossible to prove any scientific theory 100%, but it only takes one correct experiment to disprove a theory. so until someone shows me evidence that my theory has been disproven, i'm sticking to it. the lack of pirates causes global warming! blame it on the pirates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Thanks for your sources Ambassadar. I'll check them out later. Edit: I have read the NASA site so far. Interesting picture from the nasa site and I don't doubt that there may be a long term natural variation in temperature, yet it seems the basic conclusion the site comes to is 'we're not sure yet' or 'we need a better consensus and only time will tell,' correct? I'll dig around for some sources as a rebuttal, but off the top of my head, from what I've heard, the majority of world leading scientists are 90% sure human contributions are speeding up the heating of the planet. Anyway don't quote me on that untill I can find some sources. Edit2: I have read into your UHI site. It seems reasonable to suggest that radiant heat in populated areas can give inaccurate readings of actual temperature (irrespective of there being a city in the area of measurement) and it would seem that such an affect may give us the illusion of global warming over a period of time (say the amount of time a city takes to become more populated). Having said that, the greenhouse affect is real and many sources claim CO2 levels are at thier highest point in modern human history, such that an increase in current trends could actually have a very damaging affect of the human race. Besides this, I'm sure people who have actually thought thris through more than you or I would have taken UHI into account. Again, don't quote me on that untill I can find some sources. Edit3: I have now read your site critiquing the IPCC. One thing struck me after reading it. You say the IPCC is swayed by the government, and thier results (the IPCC's) are basically quite gloomy and basically frown upon fossil fuel use, correct? Why would any government endorse information that damages such a key industry? Perhaps I've misinterpreted something, I'm not sure. And as for the dishonest member of the IPCC that resigned, I'm not surprised really. There are dishonest people and any population you analyse, it's human nature. Would you say that all of the many scientists from over 150 countries working for the IPCC are dishonest too? Again, I'm haven't started finding sources to back up my claims yet. Perhaps I will tomorrow if I get time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agunimon979 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Mmmhmmm, the world is drying up so quick, it's too bad inland New York had 100 inches+ of snow. Oh whatever shall we do. Al gore was proven to be an idiot, ahhh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktmcf121 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Mmmhmmm, the world is drying up so quick, it's too bad inland New York had 100 inches+ of snow. Oh whatever shall we do. Al gore was proven to be an idiot, ahhh? yeah and he recently announced that he might run for president again in '08 :ohnoes: god help us all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agunimon979 Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Mmmhmmm, the world is drying up so quick, it's too bad inland New York had 100 inches+ of snow. Oh whatever shall we do. Al gore was proven to be an idiot, ahhh? yeah and he recently announced that he might run for president again in '08 :ohnoes: god help us all! Pssssh he's probably too busy getting attention for global 'warming' to run for president. I'd never elect him, isn't he like liberal, democrat or something? Can someone please tell me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now