Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

GOP-funded research CONFIRMS global warming

PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 2:09:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.latimes.com... -

A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated.

But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 2:20:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
not many people are denying that the earth is getting warmer over the last few thousand years. most of the arguments are "are humans a primary factor" and "what are the real concequences of increases in temp."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 2:25:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 2:20:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
not many people are denying that the earth is getting warmer over the last few thousand years. most of the arguments are "are humans a primary factor" and "what are the real concequences of increases in temp."

The GOP heavily denies there is global warming at all. The vanishing glaciers and the arctic ice cap are fraudulent conspiracies to them, I guess.

The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 2:51:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 2:25:33 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 2:20:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
not many people are denying that the earth is getting warmer over the last few thousand years. most of the arguments are "are humans a primary factor" and "what are the real concequences of increases in temp."

The GOP heavily denies there is global warming at all. The vanishing glaciers and the arctic ice cap are fraudulent conspiracies to them, I guess.

No they don't. They hold that it is likely a natural cycle, not caused by humans or (pending which GOPers you ask) that the disasters are grossly over exagerated.


The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.

not even close to the theory of gravity.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 3:13:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 2:25:33 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 2:20:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
not many people are denying that the earth is getting warmer over the last few thousand years. most of the arguments are "are humans a primary factor" and "what are the real concequences of increases in temp."

The GOP heavily denies there is global warming at all. The vanishing glaciers and the arctic ice cap are fraudulent conspiracies to them, I guess.

The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.

You just compared global warming, evolution and gravity in one breathe.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 3:30:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 2:51:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.

not even close to the theory of gravity.

Only correct in that the theory of gravity is still stuck searching for the basic particle responsible (the graviton), whereas we are familiar with the molecules dumped into the atmosphere on a colossal scale by humans, such as carbon dioxide, that are known greenhouse gases and would cause global warming. Studies prove there has been a huge rise in the carbon content of the atmosphere, on the order of doubling over the past couple centuries in a reversal of carbon dioxide content decline over eons. The simplest and most obvious explanation is the simultaneous dumping of massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the massive global decimation of the earth's forests that have helped strip carbon out of carbon dioxide to create free oxygen.

In that sense, anthropogenic global warming is a more strongly-developed theory.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 3:45:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 3:30:24 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 2:51:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.

not even close to the theory of gravity.

Only correct in that the theory of gravity is still stuck searching for the basic particle responsible (the graviton), whereas we are familiar with the molecules dumped into the atmosphere on a colossal scale by humans, such as carbon dioxide, that are known greenhouse gases and would cause global warming. Studies prove there has been a huge rise in the carbon content of the atmosphere, on the order of doubling over the past couple centuries in a reversal of carbon dioxide content decline over eons. The simplest and most obvious explanation is the simultaneous dumping of massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the massive global decimation of the earth's forests that have helped strip carbon out of carbon dioxide to create free oxygen.

In that sense, anthropogenic global warming is a more strongly-developed theory.

What's the colossal percentage of global warming caused by humans.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 4:02:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 3:30:24 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 2:51:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.

not even close to the theory of gravity.

Only correct in that the theory of gravity is still stuck searching for the basic particle responsible (the graviton), whereas we are familiar with the molecules dumped into the atmosphere on a colossal scale by humans, such as carbon dioxide, that are known greenhouse gases and would cause global warming. Studies prove there has been a huge rise in the carbon content of the atmosphere, on the order of doubling over the past couple centuries in a reversal of carbon dioxide content decline over eons. The simplest and most obvious explanation is the simultaneous dumping of massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the massive global decimation of the earth's forests that have helped strip carbon out of carbon dioxide to create free oxygen.

In that sense, anthropogenic global warming is a more strongly-developed theory.

You're failure of comparing molecules to bosons is an insult to science.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 4:38:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 3:45:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:

What's the colossal percentage of global warming caused by humans.

Considering that there is no natural explanation for the climate change, the amazing coincidence that the rise in carbon dioxide has been since the Industrial age is the most reasonable explanation. By simple observance of Occam's Razor, anthropogenic causation is the most likely explanation.

The question of how much of human-caused global warming is caused by humans, then, is a ridiculous question.

Some of it is direct (fossil fuel combustion in coal/oil/natural gas powerplants and our automobile engines, global destruction of the photosynthesis engine that reduce the ecosystem's ability to scrub that extra carbon from the atmosphere), some indirect (the climate change we cause causes glaciers and tundra to thaw, which releases greenhouse gases that had been trapped, which adds to the effect).

There are occasional seismic events such as volcanoes that dump directly into the atmosphere and earthquakes that release underground pockets of greenhouse gases, but those are minor, have been there all along (long before humans had an effect), and despite their effects (which decrease over time as the earth's core and mantle cool and vulcanism decreases) and, evidenced over a very long time from ice core samples, had been countered by the earth's natural carbon sinks such as forests. There has been no huge rise in volcanic activity in the time period global warming effects have been documented and recorded, no supporting shifts in the tilt of the earth's axis nor orbit around the sun that would cause such a significant rise.

Humans have been chipping away at the earth's natural de-greenhousing for a long time. Even before the Industrial era, massive swaths of forests in Europe were clearcut over millenia by empires as ancient as the Egyptians and the Romans. The vast areas stripped of their ability to de-greenhouse the planet had minute but ever-growing effects. The advent of Industrial age machinery coupled with the skyrocketting consumption of coal to fuel the Inustrial age saw the deforestation spread like wildfire.

To recap, there has been a natural balance of natural greenhouse gas emission (such as carbon dioxide) to natural processes that remove those gases from the atmosphere. Humans have simultaneouly and significantly imbalanced this natural balance by simultaneously dumping a significant amount of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) and destroying significant swaths of natural greenhouse gas removers.

Anthropogenic global warming is the result of both. It isn't just direct greenhouse gas emissions that we are responsible for, but the forests we destroy that were required just to keep up with the natural greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we did not emit a single ounce of carbon dioxide ourselves through our activities, the destruction we wreak upon the natural greenhouse gas removal engine through the decimation of forests on every single continent (okay, not counting Antarctica which hasn't really had a significant forest since it drifted so far south) means we've reduced the planet's ability to scrub natural sources of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

That's something the 'we accept global warming but believe its natural' anthropogenic climate change deniers seem to not grasp, and its just basic simple ecology I studied in college, and I didn't even focus on environmental sciences -- my major was business!
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 4:50:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 4:38:43 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 3:45:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:

What's the colossal percentage of global warming caused by humans.

Considering that there is no natural explanation for the climate change, the amazing coincidence that the rise in carbon dioxide has been since the Industrial age is the most reasonable explanation. By simple observance of Occam's Razor, anthropogenic causation is the most likely explanation.

The question of how much of human-caused global warming is caused by humans, then, is a ridiculous question.

Some of it is direct (fossil fuel combustion in coal/oil/natural gas powerplants and our automobile engines, global destruction of the photosynthesis engine that reduce the ecosystem's ability to scrub that extra carbon from the atmosphere), some indirect (the climate change we cause causes glaciers and tundra to thaw, which releases greenhouse gases that had been trapped, which adds to the effect).

There are occasional seismic events such as volcanoes that dump directly into the atmosphere and earthquakes that release underground pockets of greenhouse gases, but those are minor, have been there all along (long before humans had an effect), and despite their effects (which decrease over time as the earth's core and mantle cool and vulcanism decreases) and, evidenced over a very long time from ice core samples, had been countered by the earth's natural carbon sinks such as forests. There has been no huge rise in volcanic activity in the time period global warming effects have been documented and recorded, no supporting shifts in the tilt of the earth's axis nor orbit around the sun that would cause such a significant rise.

Humans have been chipping away at the earth's natural de-greenhousing for a long time. Even before the Industrial era, massive swaths of forests in Europe were clearcut over millenia by empires as ancient as the Egyptians and the Romans. The vast areas stripped of their ability to de-greenhouse the planet had minute but ever-growing effects. The advent of Industrial age machinery coupled with the skyrocketting consumption of coal to fuel the Inustrial age saw the deforestation spread like wildfire.

To recap, there has been a natural balance of natural greenhouse gas emission (such as carbon dioxide) to natural processes that remove those gases from the atmosphere. Humans have simultaneouly and significantly imbalanced this natural balance by simultaneously dumping a significant amount of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) and destroying significant swaths of natural greenhouse gas removers.

Anthropogenic global warming is the result of both. It isn't just direct greenhouse gas emissions that we are responsible for, but the forests we destroy that were required just to keep up with the natural greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we did not emit a single ounce of carbon dioxide ourselves through our activities, the destruction we wreak upon the natural greenhouse gas removal engine through the decimation of forests on every single continent (okay, not counting Antarctica which hasn't really had a significant forest since it drifted so far south) means we've reduced the planet's ability to scrub natural sources of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

That's something the 'we accept global warming but believe its natural' anthropogenic climate change deniers seem to not grasp, and its just basic simple ecology I studied in college, and I didn't even focus on environmental sciences -- my major was business!

It's 6%, thanks for an answer though.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 4:52:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 4:50:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
It's 6%, thanks for an answer though.

Show how that was computed, kthx.

Thanks for not reading my answer.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 5:46:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 3:30:24 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 2:51:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.

not even close to the theory of gravity.

Only correct in that the theory of gravity is still stuck searching for the basic particle responsible (the graviton), whereas we are familiar with the molecules dumped into the atmosphere on a colossal scale by humans, such as carbon dioxide, that are known greenhouse gases and would cause global warming. Studies prove there has been a huge rise in the carbon content of the atmosphere, on the order of doubling over the past couple centuries in a reversal of carbon dioxide content decline over eons. The simplest and most obvious explanation is the simultaneous dumping of massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the massive global decimation of the earth's forests that have helped strip carbon out of carbon dioxide to create free oxygen.

In that sense, anthropogenic global warming is a more strongly-developed theory.

on the other hand, we have precise equations for making extremely accurate predictions on how gravity will behave well into the future. we can't predict climate to within even 24 hours with that level of precision. climate science is like blindfolded guys feeling around in the dark compared to our understanding of gravity...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 5:56:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 5:46:32 PM, belle wrote:
on the other hand, we have precise equations for making extremely accurate predictions on how gravity will behave well into the future. we can't predict climate to within even 24 hours with that level of precision. climate science is like blindfolded guys feeling around in the dark compared to our understanding of gravity...

Actually, we don't. Recent observations on the expansion of the universe have thrown wrenches into our understanding of gravity and other sources. It may come out that our theories on gravity are okay but there are other forces previously unknown that accelerate the expansion of the universe in defiance of gravity, but it could just as well be that we don't understand gravity as well as we thought. We are still just guessing at the graviton.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 6:21:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 5:56:29 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 5:46:32 PM, belle wrote:
on the other hand, we have precise equations for making extremely accurate predictions on how gravity will behave well into the future. we can't predict climate to within even 24 hours with that level of precision. climate science is like blindfolded guys feeling around in the dark compared to our understanding of gravity...

Actually, we don't. Recent observations on the expansion of the universe have thrown wrenches into our understanding of gravity and other sources. It may come out that our theories on gravity are okay but there are other forces previously unknown that accelerate the expansion of the universe in defiance of gravity, but it could just as well be that we don't understand gravity as well as we thought. We are still just guessing at the graviton.

Yeah, there are other forces other than gravity. We already know of 4, what makes us think that there may not be a 5th?

We already see that there are some forces that we can only see on a subatomic and quantum level (strong interaction and weak interaction). So why wouldn't we think that they could be forces so vast that on a solar level are undetectable, while noticable outside of a galactic level?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2011 9:12:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 5:56:29 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 5:46:32 PM, belle wrote:
on the other hand, we have precise equations for making extremely accurate predictions on how gravity will behave well into the future. we can't predict climate to within even 24 hours with that level of precision. climate science is like blindfolded guys feeling around in the dark compared to our understanding of gravity...

Actually, we don't. Recent observations on the expansion of the universe have thrown wrenches into our understanding of gravity and other sources. It may come out that our theories on gravity are okay but there are other forces previously unknown that accelerate the expansion of the universe in defiance of gravity, but it could just as well be that we don't understand gravity as well as we thought. We are still just guessing at the graviton.

meh, there are a lot of theories regarding that. some say its a problem with gravity, but most support the dark energy/matter hypotheses. modified theories of gravity aren't as empirically accurate. and in any case, our understanding of gravity does not have to be 100% unquestionable for it to be way more accurate than climate science. your original claim was way off...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
JrRepublican
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 4:24:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 2:25:33 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 2:20:48 PM, OreEle wrote:
not many people are denying that the earth is getting warmer over the last few thousand years. most of the arguments are "are humans a primary factor" and "what are the real concequences of increases in temp."

The GOP heavily denies there is global warming at all. The vanishing glaciers and the arctic ice cap are fraudulent conspiracies to them, I guess.
But the University of Illinois Polar Research group found record levelAntartic sea ice for the summer of 2007, at 16.26 million square kilometers, up 1.4 % from the previous record.
The science is sound and well-established over some six decades. Anthropogenic global warming theory is as well-developed as evolution and the theory of gravity.

Six decades? Ha Ha Ha! What about the global cooling scare in the seventies?
JrRepublican
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 4:27:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 4:38:43 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 3:45:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:

What's the colossal percentage of global warming caused by humans.

Considering that there is no natural explanation for the climate change, the amazing coincidence that the rise in carbon dioxide has been since the Industrial age is the most reasonable explanation. By simple observance of Occam's Razor, anthropogenic causation is the most likely explanation.
No natural explanation? Come on, can't you research before you regurgitate? What about the TSI, the AMO, the PDO? That stands for Total Solar Irradiance, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, adn Pacific Decadal Oscillation. For a concise analysis, read Peter ATaylor's book CHILL. Mr. Taylor is a committed environmentalis who refutes anthropogenic warming.
The question of how much of human-caused global warming is caused by humans, then, is a ridiculous question.

Some of it is direct (fossil fuel combustion in coal/oil/natural gas powerplants and our automobile engines, global destruction of the photosynthesis engine that reduce the ecosystem's ability to scrub that extra carbon from the atmosphere), some indirect (the climate change we cause causes glaciers and tundra to thaw, which releases greenhouse gases that had been trapped, which adds to the effect).

There are occasional seismic events such as volcanoes that dump directly into the atmosphere and earthquakes that release underground pockets of greenhouse gases, but those are minor, have been there all along (long before humans had an effect), and despite their effects (which decrease over time as the earth's core and mantle cool and vulcanism decreases) and, evidenced over a very long time from ice core samples, had been countered by the earth's natural carbon sinks such as forests. There has been no huge rise in volcanic activity in the time period global warming effects have been documented and recorded, no supporting shifts in the tilt of the earth's axis nor orbit around the sun that would cause such a significant rise.

Humans have been chipping away at the earth's natural de-greenhousing for a long time. Even before the Industrial era, massive swaths of forests in Europe were clearcut over millenia by empires as ancient as the Egyptians and the Romans. The vast areas stripped of their ability to de-greenhouse the planet had minute but ever-growing effects. The advent of Industrial age machinery coupled with the skyrocketting consumption of coal to fuel the Inustrial age saw the deforestation spread like wildfire.

To recap, there has been a natural balance of natural greenhouse gas emission (such as carbon dioxide) to natural processes that remove those gases from the atmosphere. Humans have simultaneouly and significantly imbalanced this natural balance by simultaneously dumping a significant amount of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) and destroying significant swaths of natural greenhouse gas removers.

Anthropogenic global warming is the result of both. It isn't just direct greenhouse gas emissions that we are responsible for, but the forests we destroy that were required just to keep up with the natural greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we did not emit a single ounce of carbon dioxide ourselves through our activities, the destruction we wreak upon the natural greenhouse gas removal engine through the decimation of forests on every single continent (okay, not counting Antarctica which hasn't really had a significant forest since it drifted so far south) means we've reduced the planet's ability to scrub natural sources of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

That's something the 'we accept global warming but believe its natural' anthropogenic climate change deniers seem to not grasp, and its just basic simple ecology I studied in college, and I didn't even focus on environmental sciences -- my major was business!
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 5:30:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.":

It seems incontestable that the earth is warming, just as it has done a thousand times before in its history. Approximately every 1,500 there is a warming trend followed by a cooling trend. The burgeoning question that global warming skeptics want to know is whether or not it is anthropogenic.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 5:56:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/9/2011 5:30:44 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.":

It seems incontestable that the earth is warming, just as it has done a thousand times before in its history. Approximately every 1,500 there is a warming trend followed by a cooling trend. The burgeoning question that global warming skeptics want to know is whether or not it is anthropogenic.

Not to this degree that we are seeing now.

http://www.google.com...

In the last 11,000 years (please note, that accurate temperature readings, are only good for the last 150 years, but we gotta work with what we got), since the last ice age, temps only swung no more than 2 degrees C (1 degree above average to 1 degree below average). And we were currently on a "warm" side of the that, when it started getting warmer in the last 100 years.

The same is shown for CO2, only it fluctuates about every 120,000 years and we were at the high levels when we started the industrial age (and it began going up higher and faster than our reliable data shows it being before, not to mention that it is currently bucking to predictable trend).

Personally, my belief that it is heavily influenced by man would be a 6 on the dawkin's scale. I just don't buy into the doom and gloom that 100 cat 5 hurricanes are going to come down on us and the entire world will be flooded.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 6:08:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 4:38:43 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 3:45:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:

What's the colossal percentage of global warming caused by humans.

Considering that there is no natural explanation for the climate change
Solar variation, the Tunguska event, whatever caused past climate change....
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 6:08:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
also, fallacy, argument from ignorance.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 6:10:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/9/2011 5:56:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/9/2011 5:30:44 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.":

It seems incontestable that the earth is warming, just as it has done a thousand times before in its history. Approximately every 1,500 there is a warming trend followed by a cooling trend. The burgeoning question that global warming skeptics want to know is whether or not it is anthropogenic.

Not to this degree that we are seeing now.:

In 2006 when I was living in the same city as you now, I happened to personally know the State of Oregon's climatologist. He was the go-to guy for the Governor of Oregon. He and his team were assembled to report back to the governor their findings. Well, their findings countered popular opinion and he was subsequently fired.

The bottom line is that ask 20 climatologist about global warming, 9 of the scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, 7 believe it is a naturally occurring cyclic event, and 4 are still on the fence concerning the data.

There is no objectivity left in the field. They're all suspect of propagating an agenda.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 6:19:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/8/2011 4:52:45 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/8/2011 4:50:24 PM, lewis20 wrote:
It's 6%, thanks for an answer though.

Show how that was computed, kthx.

Thanks for not reading my answer.

I just asked for a simple answer.
Mine came from a google search since you couldn't answer.
Not claiming it to be a reliable source but its better than anything you put forward.
http://www.geocraft.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2011 6:25:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/9/2011 6:10:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/9/2011 5:56:53 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/9/2011 5:30:44 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups.":

It seems incontestable that the earth is warming, just as it has done a thousand times before in its history. Approximately every 1,500 there is a warming trend followed by a cooling trend. The burgeoning question that global warming skeptics want to know is whether or not it is anthropogenic.

Not to this degree that we are seeing now.:

In 2006 when I was living in the same city as you now, I happened to personally know the State of Oregon's climatologist. He was the go-to guy for the Governor of Oregon. He and his team were assembled to report back to the governor their findings. Well, their findings countered popular opinion and he was subsequently fired.

Are you referring to George Taylor? Because Oregon has not had a State Climatologist since the 80's. The problem was that he was using a false, self-appointed title to give more credibility to his views. The governor didn't fire him, because he didn't work for the governor. The governor simply told him to stop using a made-up title.


The bottom line is that ask 20 climatologist about global warming, 9 of the scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, 7 believe it is a naturally occurring cyclic event, and 4 are still on the fence concerning the data.

There is no objectivity left in the field. They're all suspect of propagating an agenda.

Then 7 out of 20 climatologists should be fired (probably more). We can see that it is not a cyclic event (because it is going against what the observable trend is). That is not to say that it is not naturally caused, but it is clearly not cyclic. We should be at the top of the CO2 cycle and at the top of the heat cycle. Meaning that we should start to come down, but we are doing the opposite.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"