Still no proof of Global Warming

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by pra3t0r

You know that the IPCC was created and supported by politicians, not scientists. In fact, this supposed IPCC coalition of scientists supporting the global warming theory if you interviewed them individually they don't even believe in it. Their names are being used without their permission and many cases without their knowledge to support global warming theory. The IPCC is made up primarily of politicians.

The IPCC is a coalition of scientists and they generally agree that global warming is occuring. Some members (though, importantly, few) disagree on the cause(s).

Just to clarify, are you arguing that the earth isn't warming or are you arguing about the cause of the warming?

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by sir tex

you should expand that graph a couple hundred thousand years.

I'd pull up more graphs but you seem to be arguing about the cause of global warming (e.g.: cyclical trend) and that doesn't appear to be what this thread is about.

jubjub and pope are taking the position that there is no warming trend. It's an odd position, in my opinion, as there are plenty of other (more supported) ways to attack global warming theory, but so be it.

EDIT: removed praetor from the list of people who don't think the earth is warming.

[MisterKinish]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

Just to clarify, are you arguing that the earth isn't warming or are you arguing about the cause of the warming?

I definitely believe the earth is warming but it will eventually cool again as part of a natural cycle of our planet and has no link to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Originally Posted by pra3t0r

I definitely believe the earth is warming but it will eventually cool again as part of a natural cycle of our planet and has no link to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

That's a good start.

On what grounds do you think it will start cooling again?

[Xayd]

Originally Posted by MC

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025



They try and spin it in the article (it is NPR, afterall) but fail miserably.

The conclusion? Greenhouse gasses aren't playing as big a role as previously thought

thanks, please leave your name and address to ensure proper delivery of your commission payable for spamming forums with the same crap over and over again.

should you have any questions feel free to contact the office.

regards,


the republican party of skullfuck, kansas (and stoltenborg)

[Fuckyouformakingmeregister]

Suppose the cause of global warming is increased solar radiation. Based on this, you might predict that no one area of the globe would get hotter faster than any other location. Or, if you knew anything about differences in day length across latitudes and/or the effect of the sun's angle on climate, you might predict that the lower latitudes would heat up faster than the higher latitudes.

The data does not support such predictions:


Source: www.ipcc.ch

What we see, in fact, is higher latitudes (which get less of the sun's heat and have shorter days) heating up faster than lower latitudes - good grounds for rejecting solar radiation as a cause of warming.

Of course, I doubt many of the opponents of global warming theory on this board blamed solar radiation but I gave the example to show you the sort of thing these scientists did. They came up with alternate explanations, ran the numbers, and gradually disproved them one by one until they were left with CO2 levels as a likely cause.

[kudos]

i refuse to go green until it isnt so fucking expensive.

[Tom Kazansky]

There was also a decrease in solar activity as well last year, apparantly.

More greenhouse gasses will lead to an increase in temperature. That is really something you can't dispute. There are other factors at play, however, that affect the planet's climate. A year where the temperatures go down doesn't necessarily mean injecting a large amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has no effect on temperature.

That said, I still stand by my previous position that disagreeing with global warming does not make it a good idea to refuse to reduce pollution levels. Also, hippies, the world isn't going to end in 50 years due to a massive flood from the melting ice caps, get over it.

[Tom Kazansky]

Originally Posted by kudos

i refuse to go green until it isnt so fucking expensive.

It's becoming more economically viable thanks to increased funding for research. At any rate, true or not, that is a large benefit stemming from global warming paranoia that I welcome quite frankly.

[wingedbuttmonkey]

I think the earth is a fucked up beast and there's nothing we can do to stop it from doing what it pleases.

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister

No, it doesn't show that. You can't look at one graph like that and say that correlation = causation. Significantly more evidence is required for any such statement (whether it be for or against global warming).

sorry shithead paleoclimatology shows co2 increas ALWAYS lags temp increase by hundreds of years.

[Jason]

But the CO2 increase is still the cause! An increase of CO2 causes the increase of temperatures hundreds of years before! Why can't you see it!?!?

[PopeKevinI]

Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky

That said, I still stand by my previous position that disagreeing with global warming does not make it a good idea to refuse to reduce pollution levels.

Agreed. Even if global warming turns out to be nonexistent or completely beyond our control, there are plenty of other reasons to cut back on pollution.

[TheMorlock]

Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky

There was also a decrease in solar activity as well last year, apparantly.

More greenhouse gasses will lead to an increase in temperature. That is really something you can't dispute. There are other factors at play, however, that affect the planet's climate. A year where the temperatures go down doesn't necessarily mean injecting a large amount of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere has no effect on temperature.

That said, I still stand by my previous position that disagreeing with global warming does not make it a good idea to refuse to reduce pollution levels. Also, hippies, the world isn't going to end in 50 years due to a massive flood from the melting ice caps, get over it.

actually you can dispute it. if the gas does not CAUSE global warming then it is not a greenhouse gas.

greenhouse gas
–noun
any of the gases whose absorption of solar radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, including carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and the fluorocarbons.

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by TheMorlock

actually you can dispute it. if the gas does not CAUSE global warming then it is not a greenhouse gas.

greenhouse gas
–noun
any of the gases whose absorption of solar radiation is responsible for the greenhouse effect, including carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and the fluorocarbons.

I wonder did you even notice what you did, you stupid blithering fucking idiot