What happened to global warming?

Its still there, but scientists are just realizing now that its natural cycles, instead of too much human tinkering.

But that being said, we need to cut down on our pollution and stop this human wrecking ball from draining all our resources until we have none left. That is the very serious and very real threat - not "global warming."

Our resources? I didn't know we were in a corporation, Volkov. When did I sign up? :P

At 10/12/2009 10:53:38 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Our resources? I didn't know we were in a corporation, Volkov. When did I sign up? :P

To put it more succinctly, I meant the resources on this planet to which if too many individuals abuse, there will not be enough for other individuals to use.

And yes, I'm aware that there is no responsibility for an individual to care about another individual unless that is their goal, and that those that cannot receive charity have the right to take up arms, etc.

We need to cut down on resources which are finite. Although oil will always be there, it is finite and shouldn't be relied on. Besides, I'm not comfortable with huge black clouds emptying into our skies.

The years highest global temperatures is, of course, 2008...No? 2007? Nope. 2006? Try again. Actually, 1998 was the warmest year on record. Hmmm, how about that - wasn't Miami supposed to be underwater by now? Global temperatures are not rising, but there is one thing that is rapidly increasing: Al Gore's net worth. In 2000, the goofy VP was worth about $2 million. Now he's worth over $100 million and stands to make much more off new 'green' technologies. Just another case of Jack and his magic beans, apparently.

At 10/12/2009 10:49:48 AM, Volkov wrote:

But that being said, we need to cut down on our pollution and stop this human wrecking ball from draining all our resources until we have none left. That is the very serious and very real threat - not "global warming."

My sentiments, exactly.

It is sad when non-scientists try to define a word by guessing.

Global warming does not imply a year-by-year increase in average temperatures in America.

I do not know why the hell the BBC allowed such a terrible piece to be run on their website, but I assure you that there is very, very little science behind it.

If you look at this graph;
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

You'll notice that year-over-year change in global temperatures maybe fluctuate, but the 5-year average shows a strikingly obvious fact; the world is heating up. That being said, a rise in overall temperatures may very well imply that North America becomes much colder. To sit in your backyard and say "It's getting chilly therefore global warming is a hoax." is flagrantly unscientific, fallacious and plain stupid.

Furthermore, consider our CO2 output in relation to global temperatures;

http://www.docbrown.info...

And the proven correlation between the two;

http://www.celsias.com...

It is disingenuous to just come in, post a link, then stop posting. A very common and effective tactic used by anti-climate change people is to very casually sow the seeds of doubt, even when there is no science behind it. For example, the idea that 'sun spots' are to blame for climate change has been floating around the internet for a long time, despite being disproven years ago. One person posts a graph showing sun spots correlating with temperatures, and it is instantly as reputable as the mountain of evidence to support man-made global warming. How is that scientifically justifiable? Men caused global warming. It sucks; deal with it.

The fact that 1998 is the hottest year on record does not disprove global warming, and I've yet to see a shred of real evidence that says so.

Your whole argument was cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your report: "attempts to correlate global warming to carbon emissions. ... If Matthews and his team are correct in their calculations" Your report is presented in a biased manner with inconclusive evidence. Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%.

and I've yet to see a shred of real evidence that says so.

The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, not the ones rebutting.

At 10/15/2009 1:00:05 PM, Nags wrote:
Your whole argument was cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your report: "attempts to correlate global warming to carbon emissions. ... If Matthews and his team are correct in their calculations" Your report is presented in a biased manner with inconclusive evidence. Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%.

and I've yet to see a shred of real evidence that says so.

The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, not the ones rebutting.

It is only cum hoc ergo propter hoc assuming there is no other evidence. I didn't provide it, and I do not intend to.

You came in here, indirectly made a fallacious claim and did not back it up. I called hyou out on it, corrected your intended conclusion with fact, then you chide me for not proving global warming. Your originally assertion (through means of the story) was that there is no rise in global temperatures, and subtly that global warming is a hoax. I pointed out that your initial supposition was wrong.

The onus of proof is on you, not I. I never claimed that I would establish a case for global warming, nor do I intend to, because there aren't enough hours in the day for me to waste them arguing you.