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.
Every argument countered by real scientific work, with links to decades of peer-reviewed scientific research that proves, beyond question, that the theory of AGW is as sound as it is ever going to get. How any adult, having read the science, can outright deny AGW is beyond comprehension.
(edit: and ignore anyone you see on TV or in the news named Al, Gore, Al Gore, or any variant of the same. His lack of credibility as an AGW communicator is now polarizing and harmful.)
Lets see, did you meet all talking point objectives?
1. Imply that all AGW supported work is "real" science and unsuportive is not.
[Check]
2. Remember to mention "peer-reviewed"
[Check]
3. Restate that the science is settled.
[Check]
4. Liken objections to AGW to ignorant children.
[Check]
5. Call them a denier
[partial check] You said deny, but didn't quite get that "denier" mention out.
6. Act astounded at the idiocy of any objection.
[Check]
7. Link talking point site on how to argue skeptics.
[Check]
8. Distance ones self from Al Gore like he carries the plague while at the same time avoiding mentioning where Gore obtained his information from.
[partial check] You got it in with an edit. Though it is understanding you forgot to initially add it, this new talking point is still being spread throughout the talking point sites.
I would say overall... a B+.
It would be an A as you almost had perfect form, but due to a few mistakes, it pulled your grade down.
The issue to me is not whether the earth is warming- it is- you cannot call that a hoax- just look at the arctic and antarctic to get that answer- my question is whether it is a result of man- that is the only argument as I see it-those that label the whole idea that the earth is warming as a 'hoax' are deluded- and those that would promote pollution are the ones that are the lunatics in my opinion- the idea that the earth is here to serve us in an arrogant, selfish attitude
Arctic and Antarctic?
Let see, when you are at the NOAA site, do you notice that on the satellite imaging for ice thickness of the Arctic that they kind of avoid showing you 2009 in its year comparison? Do you know why that is? (hint: pay special attention to each quadrant. Do you notice anything interesting?)
Also, concerning the Antarctic, what did the NSIDC say recently concerning it? I seemed to have forgot, maybe you could refresh my memory?
Also, what recently published research has a different finding concerning the break up of the ice? What do they say is causing it and how do they come to support this conclusion?
Lastly, what do we know about the history of these areas? Do we have any form of historical documentation concerning them that might give us indication of the conditions of the time which might better help us to establish if this is unprecedented?
It's not. The individual was making a blanket statement that humans can't alter the climate of the Earth in any way. Any change is an alteration in the climate of the Earth, no matter how miniscule. Every time we exhale carbon dioxide, we alter the climate of the Earth in some way - even if it's just temporary. I was just proving that specific point wrong. Don't extrapolate it into any commentary on climate change. It's not.
Key word is significant and concerning the main issue here, we aren't talking about localized effect.
What can not be determined, nor even supported without using "Deep Thought" (oops I made a funny) to interpret for us is that we have any "significant" effect.
If we are micro assessing, then one person passing gas has an effect on the immediate environment. I know this, because it sends me running from the room gasping for air. Talk about the need for the EPA!
Well for what it is worth I did my own thinking It looks to my like soot is a good candidate for starting the worming trend. The burned a lot of coal in England in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. You can dig into the peat bogs and see the soot line. The current warming trend started in about 1730. CO2 release small soot release big.
It's not. The individual was making a blanket statement that humans can't alter the climate of the Earth in any way. Any change is an alteration in the climate of the Earth, no matter how miniscule. Every time we exhale carbon dioxide, we alter the climate of the Earth in some way - even if it's just temporary. I was just proving that specific point wrong. Don't extrapolate it into any commentary on climate change. It's not.
Trying to convince others of global warming is about as hard as convincing people of the need to legalize drugs as this author relates:
"In all of my studies, I concluded that the “war on drugs” masked a war on democracy. I explained my conclusion in Drug Warriors and Their Prey, and then retired from reform activity.
At the risk of being long-winded, I wanted to let you know why I’m not citing any studies here. Reformers know about studies, and opponents disregard them, so I see no benefit in mentioning any. If my previous documented writings fail to establish me as someone whose word is credible, reproducing two or three of my footnotes would hardly be sufficient either.
On these and other points, in my books on drug use I cite scientific studies aplenty. But opponents of reform are no more interested in the mainline scientific consensus than are persons who oppose taking protective steps to reduce risk of climate change. There is no debate, merely theater. Discussing drug policy is like discussing gun control or abortion: facts are irrelevant." Richard Lawrence Miller, historian and author of The Case for Legalizing Drugs, The Encyclopedia of Addictive Drugs, and Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State
Interesting article, along with a graph from 1976 that somehow, miraculously, LOST 70% of cooling when the infamous CRU got their hands on the data.
Quote:
But, three decades later, by the time Brohan and the CRU graphed temperatures in 2006 from the same old time period, the data had been adjusted (surprise), so that what was a fall of 0.5°C had become just a drop of 0.15°C. Seventy percent of the cooling was gone.
Maybe they had good reasons for making these adjustments. But, as usual, the adjustments were in favor of the Big Scare Campaign, and the reasons and the original data are not easy to find.
guess what our co2 levels are currently around 350ppm
co2 levels were over 700 ppm 20 thousand years ago....so what's the big deal
guess what, by science no less...the ideal co2 ppm for most plants is....700 ppm
As the air's CO2 content rises, most plants exhibit increased rates of net photosynthesis and biomass production. Moreover, on a per-unit-leaf-area basis, plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration, as they tend to display lower stomatal conductances. Hence, the amount of carbon gained per unit of water lost per unit leaf area - or water-use efficiency - should increase dramatically as the air's CO2 content rises. In the study of Serraj et al. (1999), soybeans grown at 700 ppm CO2 displayed 10 to 25% reductions in total water loss while simultaneously exhibiting increases in dry weight of as much as 33%. Thus, elevated CO2 significantly increased the water-use efficiencies of the studied plants.
In summary, it is clear that as the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, nearly all of earth's agricultural species will respond favorably by exhibiting increases in water-use efficiency. It is thus likely that food and fiber production will increase on a worldwide basis, even in areas where productivity is severely restricted due to limited availability of soil moisture. Therefore, one can expect global agricultural productivity to rise in tandem with future increases in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration.
so more co2 is actually GREENER
its not theroy, its scientific fact
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-800 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.......yet the global warming people only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
Trying to convince others of global warming is about as hard as convincing people of the need to legalize drugs as this author relates:
"In all of my studies, I concluded that the “war on drugs” masked a war on democracy. I explained my conclusion in Drug Warriors and Their Prey, and then retired from reform activity.
At the risk of being long-winded, I wanted to let you know why I’m not citing any studies here. Reformers know about studies, and opponents disregard them, so I see no benefit in mentioning any. If my previous documented writings fail to establish me as someone whose word is credible, reproducing two or three of my footnotes would hardly be sufficient either.
On these and other points, in my books on drug use I cite scientific studies aplenty. But opponents of reform are no more interested in the mainline scientific consensus than are persons who oppose taking protective steps to reduce risk of climate change. There is no debate, merely theater. Discussing drug policy is like discussing gun control or abortion: facts are irrelevant." Richard Lawrence Miller, historian and author of The Case for Legalizing Drugs, The Encyclopedia of Addictive Drugs, and Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State
Are you trying to suggest that everyone here has ignored the science presented? That would be rather disingenuous to state considering the number of threads to which even I personally discussed the direct issues of their evidence in vivid detail.
It appears that your response is looking to dismiss any contest rather than honestly assess the facts of the issue concerning some of the discussion.
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.
