The Case For Global Warming Stronger Than Ever. (Pennsylvania, economic, Chicago)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is true; not everything is in a text book. However, I need something stronger than what appears to be no more than a hypothesis. Bring on the data.
Its funny they based it on simulations... cause the simulations aren't even able to predict climate/weather patterns next year and have been wrong many times when they tried... typical same global warming BS bunk science with bunk evidence...
That is true; not everything is in a text book. However, I need something stronger than what appears to be no more than a hypothesis. Bring on the data.
Can't prove something before it happens. That's not to say it will or it won't, but some educated people have placed it in the realm of possibility.
Its funny they based it on simulations... cause the simulations aren't even able to predict climate/weather patterns next year and have been wrong many times when they tried... typical same global warming BS bunk science with bunk evidence...
And you, of course, are an expert.
There is a reason why the US regularly falls behind other countries in science schooling. It is the uneducated skepticism and ignorance when REAL science is debated in the public sphere, which belittles their work and discourages students from entering into the field.
Next thing you're going to tell me is that the moon is not made out of green cheese but cream cheese.
Can't prove something before it happens. That's not to say it will or it won't, but some educated people have placed it in the realm of possibility.
Exactly. And this is the problem with the whole thing. Too many policy decisions are being made without indisputable data to show that what is being hypothsized is actually fact.
See, I don't have a problem with being responsible toward the ecology and environment. However, major decisions that affect every man, woman and child are being made based on a "hunch" or possible misinterpretation and, in some cases, questionable manipulation of the data (and that is coming from both sides). Too many knee jerk reactions. In a sense, reactionary policy is akin to being told by evangelizers, "Isn't it better to accept Jesus as savior now and find out that there is no hell than to not accept him and find out you're wrong?" Same principle. To base national policy on faith is just a step beyond for me.
Exactly. And this is the problem with the whole thing. Too many policy decisions are being made without indisputable data to show that what is being hypothsized is actually fact.
See, I don't have a problem with being responsible toward the ecology and environment. However, major decisions that affect every man, woman and child are being made based on a "hunch" or possible misinterpretation and, in some cases, questionable manipulation of the data (and that is coming from both sides). Too many knee jerk reactions. In a sense, reactionary policy is akin to being told by evangelizers, "Isn't it better to accept Jesus as savior now and find out that there is no hell than to not accept him and find out you're wrong?" Same principle. To base national policy on faith is just a step beyond for me.
It is quite a bit more than a "hunch" or faith that is the basis of global warming. There is evidence that has been evaluated and generally accepted.
If you do a quick web search on smoking and cancer, you will find that there are many skeptics, even by a greater number than that of global warming. And, many of the same arguments are used - 'yes, smokers get cancer more than non-smokers but smoking is only one risk factor and not the cause.' Yet, the common thread in the vast majority of the cancers are cigarettes and their constituents.
The fact that the world is getting warmer since the industrial revolution has been shown by evidence. The fact that atmospheric CO2 is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect is indisputable. The fact that the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere is accelerating due to man made combustion products has been observed based on the evidence. The change in the rates of CO2 and heating beyond what was historically seen and predicted is indisputable. Whether it is an outlier from historical expectations may be challenged, but it is highly unlikely that man made CO2 is not the contributor. The effects of continued CO2 increase on atmospheric heating are subject to debate, but in general the bulk of the debate is whether such predictions are too conservative, and heating will take place faster.
And we need to understand this because changes are occurring now, and will continue to occur in our lifetime. Russia and Canada have already built bases and harbors in ice-locked Arctic areas in anticipation of the opening of new shipping routes. If CO2 buildup occurs too rapidly, then there is concern that people may not be able to adapt to these changes in time, and the effects could be catastrophic to a large population. The fact that there is a capability to minimize the effects, which are happening, could make the difference between successful adaptation or widespread destruction.
Or, we could ignore it all and accept our self-made "fate."
Thank you. That graph correlates fairly well with the extent of the polar ice sheets. They are covering vast areas of land and sea when cO2 concentrations are below 250ppm or so. When they get above that the world has an interglacial period like we have experienced for the last 12,000 years.
What the climate will do with the current CO2 concentration is still slightly uncertain but I am willing to bet it is neither stay the same or get cooler anytime soon.
your theory is not valid. the CO2 levels have been a response to climate not a driver.
the position of the earth as it rotates on its axis and the path the earth takes around the sun (from ellipse to circle) have driven earth’s climate for hundreds of thousands of years.
there is no evidence what so ever that CO2 had any impact on Earth’s temperature.
An educated authority is EXACTLY who people should be listening to rather than accept the uninformed judgment of non-scientists. And it is not just one authority, but multiple science and education organizations worldwide.
The "gray literature" as you say does not invalidate the study, or the theory, or global warming. The "manipulation" as you call it is normal evaluation of raw data by the scientific community in order to come to a better, consensual understanding of data. Regarding "assumptive and inconclusive" data, that is typical for most, if not all real-world data set collections, and the conclusions of the data assessments always include some uncertainty. The uncertainty of this study is 10%, which is small in the scale of such things. In betting terms, it is a 9 to 1 shot that the theory and scale are correct. That global temperatures have risen is 100% certain - the uncertainty is the prediction of future change.
If anything, the results of the IPCC study have been criticized by many scientists as too conservative - i.e. they may have UNDERESTIMATED the EFFECTS of global warming.
The IPCC was touted as the authority due its "peer reviewed" claims. There are over 500 references within the IPCC study to which as I stated, is referenced to gray literature, that which is not even remotely supported scientifically and much of which is outright manipulation in its claims.
Not only that, but the core position to which the IPCC's stands is based on research that has been shown to be in incorrect in its assessment.
Also, there are political workings within the IPCC who have manipulated the review process to allow for material that is absurd in its display.
21 chapters rated an F in their ability to properly reference peer reviewed material. It is disgusting and keep in mind this is from a source that was claimed to be the strictest authority and reliable!
Every time anyone brought up a counter point to the AGW position, people like you would wallow at the feet of your authority and strike down all that were in contention as not being as worthy using "peer review" and "robust" as your catch words to disregard.
The game is up, we found out you lied, you were playing politics, not science.
Also, your response is no different than every time an error was found with the research used by the IPCC. Jones and his "well, it doesn't change the end result" and his very political responses for FOIA requests of "Why would I give you that, you are simply going to try and find something wrong with it!"
Seriously, your position is a joke, there is no respect for the IPCC, they have been consistently found with their pants down. This isn't news, when the AR4 was being reviewed, many of these problems were being brought up, but your political spin machine still had the public eating out of your hands with your fanatical causes.
They were found out and it didn't simply stop with simple issues with citation, it involves issues of doctoring the display of the data.
Or are you going to tell me the above is a proper manner in display? Do you apply such application? Please, go ahead and tell me that the very grounds of mathematical fact are wrong. Is it a mistake? Hardly, it was slid in after the review so it could evade review.
So please take your junk science and political propaganda to the idiots who would bow to authority. You have no clue of what you are talking about.
Oh, and btw, many of the objections to the IPCC's reports were done by the very scientists it proclaims supports them. You go ahead though and post me fancy administrative statements that attempt to "sum up" the position of all. Spin, and ignorant spin at that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
