I don't understand why he thinks that the global temeperature would go up at the exactly the same time as CO2 concentrations do.

2/19/2007 7:00:11 PM

Because if you fill a bucket up, it doesn't mean that there's a waterfall over it.

Duh.

2/19/2007 7:02:00 PM

but at the time you pour into the bucket it is not filling up

2/19/2007 7:07:30 PM

That's where the parent buckets come in.

And then you fill up the child buckets.

2/19/2007 7:08:50 PM

Quote :

"Republicans are politicians. Scientists are not. There's nothing to indicate that the scientists are wrong"

wow

THE SCIENTISTS DONT NEED MONEY TO LIVE

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 8:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 7:46:12 PM

You would happen, perchance to be a holocaust denier as well?

2/19/2007 7:48:51 PM

yeah that makes a lot of sense

was the consensus in the 70s that it was jews who had sent the nazis to concentration camps?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 7:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 7:50:26 PM

Dude.

One peer-reviewed article.

That's all.

It's shouldn't be this hard.

2/19/2007 7:51:59 PM

journal articles dont come to any conclusions as generalized as "humans cause global warming" or "humans dont cause global warming"...you cant do a specific enough experiment that encompasses something that widescale...your problem is you dont even know what you're asking for

why dont you show me one single peer reviewed scientific journal article that says humans are causing catastrophic global warming, that should be really really easy if thats the consensus, right?

2/19/2007 7:56:08 PM

Well, while we are on the topic of showing how business interests will use disinformation to refute even the most commonly accepted and scientifically proven research:



PS Yes I know this example was cited in the movie, but its not like it isn't true

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 7:59 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 7:57:42 PM

Quote :

"why dont you show me one single peer reviewed scientific journal article that says humans are causing catastrophic global warming, that should be really really easy if thats the consensus, right?"

Alright, that's true.

So

Quote :

"Dude. One peer-reviewed non-op-ed article That's all. It's shouldn't be this hard."

no canadafreepress prz.


(Here's where he comes up with an article on something having something to do with temperature, but ironically lacking any causation with climate change)

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 8:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 8:03:11 PM

so you're admitting that there are no scientic journal reports that say humans cause global warming since you cant find any

because that kinda completely shuts down your entire argument

2/19/2007 8:09:46 PM

No, I'm agreeing that there probably aren't any peer-reviewed scientific journals that say there's a 100% connection between human activity and climate change. As you've said, that's not what they do.

However, the preponderance of all the research done in these articles has lead all major scientific organizations to accept anthropogenic climate change.

Meanwhile, you have that guy from canadafreepress in your corner.

2/19/2007 8:13:11 PM

Ok, I lied. I'm back for one last stab.

Quote :

"Dude. One peer-reviewed article. That's all. It's shouldn't be this hard."

Find me one peer-reviewed article that even TESTS something dealing with global warming caused by other factors. You might find a few, but the fact of the matter is that there is a disproportionate amount of research on all sides. The bulk of the research is a bunch of scientists rushing to get funding to be the first to prove, without a doubt, that global warming is 100% the cause of humans. You get your name on a paper like that, you get famous.

The fact of the matter is that if you don't get funding to test something, you don't get an article. On the other side, if you look hard enough for something, you will find something that you can use to prove your point, no matter how far from the facts it is. You will also get gems like these
"The scientists wrote the report, based on years of peer-reviewed research; government officials edited it so that it would receive the required unanimous approval by world governments." FuX0ring the data much?

Really, you can chalk this up to conspiracy theory if you want, but the fact remains that science, much like every other field, is a dog-eat-dog world where politics and money drive it all the way home to the bank.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 8:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 8:15:16 PM

^^so what is it exactly that you're trying to argue? that the consensus thinks humans are causing global warming? and that thats good enough for you?

2/19/2007 8:15:52 PM

It's 1324526x's better than the alternative.

That is, your argument.

That is, "I "interacted with" this professor once during undergrad studies who says otherwise. Also, see this canadafreepress article if there's any doubt left."

2/19/2007 8:19:37 PM

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/DATA_ANALYSIS/heatcont04.pdf

Quote :

"In terms of the causes of the observed increase in ocean heat content we believe that the long-term trend as seen in these records is due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere as stated in earlier work (Levitus et al., 2001). In fact, estimates of the net radiative forcing of the earth system (Hansen et al., 1997) suggest the possibility that we may be underestimating the warming of the world ocean."

2/19/2007 8:22:35 PM

no wonder you majored in history...it requires a lot of assuming so you can get an answer that sounds nice based on your limited ability to fill in blanks

2/19/2007 8:22:58 PM

No wonder you're tech-support.

It requires...

oh wait

2/19/2007 8:25:37 PM

tech support? what are you talking about?

but you did major in history right...you wont even admit its not really an exact science? of course you wont

2/19/2007 8:28:00 PM

(i got you an article btw, with about 3 mins of looking)

2/19/2007 8:28:50 PM

i saw that...but all it says is that we may be underestimating the warming of the ocean...doesnt really talk about anything else

2/19/2007 8:31:30 PM

nothing else

except that humans are causing it

2/19/2007 8:33:02 PM

Quote :

"In terms of the causes of the observed increase in ocean heat content we believe that the long-term trend as seen in these records is due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere as stated in earlier work (Levitus et al., 2001)."

2/19/2007 8:34:32 PM

Here's some climate change bills in the chute for 2007, thanks to the library of congress

1 . Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the need for the United States to address global climate change through the negotiation of fair and effective international commitments. (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.30.IS]
2 . Climate Stewardship Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.620.IH]
3 . Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.280.IS]
4 . Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.317.IS]
5 . Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.309.IS]
6 . TEAM up for Energy Independence Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.182.IH]
7 . Improved Passenger Automobile Fuel Economy Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.183.IS]
8 . National Fuels Initiative (Introduced in Senate)[S.162.IS]
9 . Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.2

2/19/2007 8:41:20 PM

ok i read through it...btw you left out a part...here i'll post it since you forgot

Quote :

"However, the occurrence of the large decrease in ocean heat content starting around 1980 suggests that internal variability of the earth system may very significantly affect the earth’s heat balance on decadal time-scales."

that casts doubt on manmade global warming right there, but any good scientist will acknowledge uncertainty

the article basically says that the oceans temperatures have generally risen over about the past 50 years in the dozen areas they measured at relatively shallow depths...they guessed that greenhouse gases have attributed to much of this warming...however they also noted the regional aspects of the heat cycle which means that emissions in a certain region can affect the temperatures in that region without having much of an effect on other regions...also there was a trend that temperatures had risen more in areas of higher population which makes sense...it also mentions some of the scientists who disagree with certain aspects of their work which boonedocks will undoubtedly attribute to their w-2's from exxon...although its only right for science to have skepticism as that is part of science

the only people who could think this particular article is any kind of solid evidence that we are causing catastrophic damage to the planet are conclusion jumping alarmists

Quote :

"Gregory et al. (2004) have cast doubt on the reality of this decrease but we disagree with their assessment."

Hey heres another instance in the same report of another scientist disagreeing with one aspect

Quote :

"[10] Variability of heat content changes associated with the heat of fusion of the melting (or possible melting) of sea-ice and land ice are relatively small as noted in our earlier work although they may ultimately have larger effects due to feedback mechanisms associated with changes in albedo. Of interest though is the estimate of the decrease in Antarctic sea-ice extent by de le Mare (1997) based on observations of seaice by whaling vessels, a result which has been questioned by Vaughn (2000) although more recent work (Curran et al., 2003) provides support for the work of de la Mare."

2/19/2007 9:04:42 PM

Scientists disagree with the finer points of other scientists' research.

Clearly this means they think anthropogenic climate change is a sham.

2/19/2007 9:11:01 PM

Quote :

"internal variability of the earth system may very significantly affect the earth’s heat balance on decadal time-scales"

did you read that part? i know you didnt read the article but i figured you might at least read right there where they cast doubt on THEIR OWN hypothesis

and when have i ever said its a sham? does being skeptical = disbelieving? are agnostics automatically atheists? you again prove you dont even know what you're arguing

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:15 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:12:53 PM

They aren't saying that it affects climate to the exclusion of greenhouse gasses.

Quote :

"you again prove you dont even know what you're arguing"

I'm arguing against "like omg can we really know anything?"

Which reminds me-- produce an article questioning climate change, prz.


[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:15:23 PM

no shit sherlock, because thats impossible to test

in case you didnt notice...the article that sarijoul posted questioned climate change...so...you're dumb

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:19 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:17:32 PM

so in other words, the quote you pointed out has nothing to do with anthropogenic climate change?

2/19/2007 9:18:58 PM

the quote i pointed out says that natural mechanisms of the earth could significantly affect the temperatures

its a pretty straightforward quote, nothing to read into or assume except for what it says

if somebody says "humans are definitely causing global warming" and i read where a scientist says "natural cycles of the earth can significantly affect temperatures" i dont know who WOULDNT be skeptical

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:21:13 PM

Someone unable to realize that both can be correct?

2/19/2007 9:27:11 PM

I think you mean someone ABLE to realize that both can be correct

And both can be correct

So why are you so adament that its mostly greenhouse gases when natural cycles can cause significant changes?

More importantly, why are you so certain that people are causing horrible damage to the Earth? How come with this one issue you are so certain? Because thats what "everyone says"?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:29:20 PM

Quote :

"So why are you so adament that its mostly greenhouse gases when natural cycles can cause significant changes?"

Scientists are fairly certain (90% probability, according to that last report) that humans are causing significant change to the climate. If the climate is also changing due to natural phenomena, why should we continue exacerbating the situation?

Quote :

"More importantly, why are you so certain that people are causing horrible damage to the Earth? How come with this one issue you are so certain? Because thats what "everyone says"?"

Strawman. We don't know the extent to which we'll end up damaging our environment.

But, to answer the question, I'm fairly certain that probability for significant damage is likely, because it's what pretty much "everyone scientist says."

2/19/2007 9:39:11 PM

well at least you learned what a scientific report was today

maybe in a couple more years you'll get that quote

Quote :

"it's what pretty much "everyone scientist says"

except for S Levitus, JI Antonov, and TP Boyer

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:40:49 PM

Maybe someday you'll be able to produce a respectable article criticizing human contributions to climate change.

Because as of now you've giving us op-eds and passages in articles that demonstrate that scientists are not 100% sure about all the possible causes of climate change, but nothing that refutes humans' role.

^ Are you really trying to tell me that they're refuting anthropogenic climate change in that passage? Damn.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:45:14 PM

Quote :

"In terms of the causes of the observed increase in ocean heat content we believe that the long-term trend as seen in these records is due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere as stated in earlier work (Levitus et al., 2001)."

~ levitus

2/19/2007 9:45:57 PM

BOONEDOCKS

Quote :

"Maybe someday you'll be able to produce a respectable article criticizing human contributions to climate change"

so now you're only claiming that humans contribute to climate change? well nobody has argued that in the first place...the extent has always been argued...you have always argued that we are causing huge damage

please just leave while you're still ahead an idiot

^SARIJOUL

Quote :

"significant damage is likely, because it's what pretty much "everyone scientist says.""

sarijoul where does that mention anything about significant damage?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:47:11 PM

^^BUT THEY SUGGEST THAT THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL CAUSES.

WHICH MEANS THEY DISMISS HUMAN ACTIVITY AS A CAUSE.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:48:01 PM

^^find me a quote where i said any such thing.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

Quote :

"sarijoul where does that mention anything about significant damage?"

i didn't say that.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:48:23 PM

then why did you post the quote when i said the names of the authors? none of them mention any damage, simply observe the oceanic temperatures

2/19/2007 9:50:50 PM

Aha, I see what you did there.

Way to nonchalantly readjust your stance.

"How can we know climate change is caused by humans?"

...

"How can we know the extent of climate change caused by humans?"

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:51:16 PM

wtf are you talking about?

you're the one readjusting your stance...you go from "all scientists agree that humans are the main cause of catastrophic climate change" to "humans contribute to climate change"

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:51:34 PM

no, i never said that scientists are claiming significant damage due to current climate change.

2/19/2007 9:51:54 PM

.

Quote :

"How can we know climate change is caused by humans?""

attention idiot:

when did i ever even imply that humans dont contribute to climate change

^well i still dont know why you posted that quote

Quote :

"Way to nonchalantly readjust your stance"

you still dont even know my stance! my stance has always been i dont know if humans are causing horrible damage or not...you probably still think i think global warming is a myth or something, which goes back to my point about you not know what the hell you are even arguing

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:53:38 PM

because the whole last page people were claiming that there wasn't a correlation between greenhouse gas levels and climate change.


not to mention you said this:

Quote :

"so you're admitting that there are no scientic journal reports that say humans cause global warming since you cant find any because that kinda completely shuts down your entire argument "

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:55:00 PM

global warming != observed regional oceanic temperature increases

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 9:56:26 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10 411 4M3R1C4N 43763 Posts user info edit post so you're admitting that there are no scientic journal reports that say humans cause global warming since you cant find any because that kinda completely shuts down your entire argument"

2/19/2007 9:57:08 PM

holy shit give me time to edit a fucking post

global warming != observed regional oceanic temperature increases

2/19/2007 9:57:56 PM