Global warming - its finally been proven

[eyeeatingfish]

No it doesn't. What that chart shows is the deviation from the average temperature. You may note that on average since a big spike in 1998 that the temperatures average deviation is about 0.2C How is that possible? Shouldn't it be going constantly up? It's not like China is polluting any less.

The chart showed a gradual increase in temperature. 1 degree centigrade is a pretty significant rise in temperature, and if it happens every 20 years then it doesnt take too long before we are in trouble. Spikes up and down does not mean that the earth isnt warming. The chart shows a rise in temperatures.

Umm why not? Are you saying people are never motivated by the desire to gain power? Are you suggesting that environmentalists don't want to be able to tell other people what to do?

Im not saying that they are immune from wanting power. In fact they do want power. They want the power to protect the environment. That is not an ulterior motive. No one has shown an ulterior motive of this group. To say that they become environmentalists in order to gain power is a very weak argument especially since the green party has never gotten significant votes for president.

No. Overall they try to accomplish things that protect the environment. People they don't really care about so much. That's the true believers. Then of course there are those like algore who are simply cynically using environmentalism for fun and profit. I guess you didnt' know that algore owns a big stake in a company that sells carbon credits?

Thats the best conspiracy theory you can come up with? That is a stretch. What is so hard to believe that people out there want to protect the environment whether it is profitable or not?

I don't believe anyone has ever been able to prove that a single life was ever saved because of that... but it's pretty irrefutable that thousands have died of malaria.

And? You are going to try and discount numerous good acts with one that backfired? Im not claiming them to be perfect or anything, but overall they do good work.

[eyeeatingfish]

I'm sorry this just shows a lack of knowledge of history. It was most definitely was the accepted scientific consensus of its day.

No it was not scientifically based. Science is a method of studying something. The method that they came to believe that the earth was flat was not a scientific method.

[/QUOTE]No, it's a scientifically verifiable fact that gravity exists. You can prove it. Can you prove that global warming is man made?[/QUOTE]

Its a fact that something pulls stuff to the ground but the how and why are acutally quite unknown still.

No to argue that something holds weight merely because it is a consensus is a rather weak arguement, because without proof someone can come along and blow it up with actual proof. Just like Galileo did with the "heavier weights fall faster" consensus.

No one is arguing that global warming should hold weight simply because it is a concensus. People are saying global warming should hold weight because there is all sorts of evidence for it and experts in relevant fields are saying it.

[eyeeatingfish]

Evidence that I have seen is strongly in favor of climate change. Climate always has and always will change, whether mankind exists or not. What I don't see is any evidence whatsoever that climate change... warming or cooling... is a result of man's activities.

No one is saying that climate change doesnt happen naturally. Climate can and does change naturally over time. However its abnormal change that can be directly correlated to measurable human impact on the earth that shows that we are having an affect on climate change. It shows that it is changing faster and/or more drastically than natural.

[Codger_64]

...No one is arguing that global warming should hold weight simply because it is a concensus. People are saying global warming should hold weight because there is all sorts of evidence for it and experts in relevant fields are saying it.

Yes, quite a few people, even here in this forum are arguing for science by consensus, and drastic action on the belief (faith) in that consensus and the conclusions drawn from it. What constitutes the "all sorts of evidence for it" that you refer to?

[Codger_64]

No one is saying that climate change doesnt happen naturally. Climate can and does change naturally over time. However its abnormal change that can be directly correlated to measurable human impact on the earth that shows that we are having an affect on climate change. It shows that it is changing faster and/or more drastically than natural.

A huge problem that I see with this hypothesis is that no one really knows what is "natural" relating to climactic cycles. Measurable human impact? What small part of human impact can be measured cannot be defined conclusively as to it's relevance to climate change. From the studies I have seen, Carbon in the atmosphere was more often than not a result of, rather than a cause of historic (prehistoric actually) climate changes.

IMHO, looking at short term climate changes is really very deceptive and not at all conducive to understanding the true science of climate cycles. Using conclusions drawn from short term sampling to predict future events is the product of a very flawed logic.

[powernoodle]

No one is arguing that global warming should hold weight simply because it is a concensus.

This is demonstrably false. The supposed consensus is the primary argument in favor of so-called global warming that the left relies on. The rest of us are told to shut up when we do not agree with this nonexistent consensus, and are literally compared to Holocaust deniers. This is why you have never once - not ever - seen Al Gore engage in a debate on the issue. By repeatedly saying there is a consensus (which is untrue), it eliminates the requirement that the left engage the issue dispassionately and intellectually.

However its abnormal change that can be directly correlated to measurable human impact on the earth that shows that we are having an affect on climate change.

As has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated - and evidenced by the left's repeatedly flip flopping as to whether the earth is warming or cooling - there is no "abnormal change" and certainly no trend either up or down. As such, there is nothing with which to correlate the supposed human impact. For years we have be told the myth that the earth is warming. Now that the data demonstrates otherwise, even the name of "global warming" has been changed to "climate change" to obfuscate this fact.

The only real trend we see is that the left's wishful thinking and prognostication regarding temperature trends has been 100% wrong, 100% of the time. How many times do you have to be wrong before the left acknowledges that trend?

[thombrogan]

Eyeeatingfish,

There is no "the environment," so anyone desiring to protect the environment is misguided at best. If you look at suggestions; ones that include the use of nickel cadmium rechargeable batteries and nickel-contain batteries for hybrid vehicles and mercury-containing fluorescent lightbulbs, a large part of 'saving' the environment involves reducing carbon use now to increase metallic pollution a little later.

I'm a big fan of the ni-cad and lithium batteries, but out of selfish concern for my environment (which includes digital camera use), not for some poor anopheles mosquito or for the unjustly villigied EEE virus it carries.

Are you aware of what environmentalists did to the Klamath water basin in Oregon? If you like stories of livestock starving and dying so a mudskipper like fish could flourish that end with people saying "to hell with that rare fish" when they realized preserving the fish's environment was causing birds including bald eagles to die from starvation, you can see the good of saving the environment.

And then there's the DDT issue again. Malaria was nearly eradicated before DDT was banned. Now, thousands of children in Africa and South America die each year from malaria and other mosquito-borne vectors. If infanticide isn't your "thing," then maybe environmentalists suck.

As for DDT being a potential carcinogen, everything under the sun; including radiation from the sun; has the potential to cause cancer in individuals who are susceptible and face enough exposure. The folks who dropped the Agent Orange form of DDT during the Vietnam war; the ones with the highest and most prolonged levels of exposure; have lower cancer rates than other military personnel during that time period who served their tours at sea. I'm not arguing that exposure to DDT lowers rates of cancers, but I am saying that its harmfulness to humans has been greatly exaggerated for political gain.


Blannelberry,

Your argument is one based in faith; a religion; so my rebuttal is "my religion is better than your religion and it doesn't masquerade as an abortion of science." You've abdicated the use of logic and you've abdicated the use of facts. Should the conclusion of your lofty pronouncements ever be proven correct, it is not because of the explanations you've brought forth. Like gamblers with a "system," your shadow religion will fail you more oft than not.

[timcsaw]

So if 90 experts in a certian scientific field of study reported that evidence supported a certain scientific theory you are going to disagree just because it is considered a concensus? Its not jsut some opinion based concensus, its a scientifically based concensus. Its possible they are all lying, but not probable.

No, of course I am not going to disregard a consensus, JUST because it's a consensus (that would be stupid).

What I would do (and have done by the way), is examine the minority opinion (minority consensus if you will) just as vigorously to gain a better understanding of the WHOLE... both sides of the... issue (to refuse to do so would also be stupid).

In the case of "Global-Cooling-Warming-Climate-Change (GCWCC), there is ample scientific evidence available (much of which you have been provided in this thread), which logic demands MUST be reviewed (if one is to be truly "open minded") that will, at a minimum, cause one to have doubts about the majority consensus opinion... or , to even doubt it's validity entirely.

The earth warms and cools cyclically. If mankind had NEVER done anything to change the physical makeup of our atmosphere, mankind would STILL have to prepare itself to survive in those temperature extremes that the earth herself would throw at us.

Because GCWCC is a politicized pseudoscience, it causes mankind to focus it's efforts in the wrong place. Mankind's real focus concerning Climate Change SHOULD be on "How to survive climate change and still prosper DURING climate change as IT IS inevitable".

=============================

It's like putting your hand on a red-hot stove burner... and while your hand sits there smoking, and causing terrible pain, you spend the next 20 minutes trying to solve the "problem" which is causing your hand to burn to a crisp.

"Ah-HA! I see that the knob which controls the heating of the burner is ON FULL! That's the 'problem'! (No bonehead --- The knob is functioning properly, as its designed and, as it always has!)

"Lets study the 'problem' of the red-hot stove burner then! We need to fix that burner! ("Hey idiot's --- the stove burner is operating as it's designed to work! Nothing wrong with the burner.")

"Well, then let's study the "problem" that my human flesh isn't surviving the touch to a six hundred degree stove burner! We need to fix human flesh!!" (Hey stupid --- your human flesh is functioning properly within known limits!")

This idiot is studying and analyzing the SYMPTOMS, and NOT the problem itself (Lift your hand off the stove stupid!)

If I'm a scientist... a climatologist or geologist perhaps.. who receives my livelihood from study grants to prove or disprove GCWCC, I'm in a win-win industry aren't I?

=============================

I assume that you have figured out that the "consensus" described in my earlier post... the consensus which was supported so many "notable people, scientists and institutions" was eugenics right? And that because of this "eugenics consensus" countries around the world performed mass, FORCED sterilizations (and worse) of those persons that scientific eugenicists deemed "unfit to reproduce"?... Forced sterilizations in countries into the 1970's based on a "consensus" based on a politicized pseudoscience?

You realized that that was the "consensus" I outlined right?

How many will be killed as a result of this latest generations "politicized pseudoscience", GCWCC? (yes "killed", as in starving.. Have you noted the increase costs in wheat based goods? "Grow wheat? Nah.... Growing corn is all the rage now that it's good for making "fuel" and that that "fuel" is more "green-house" friendly. Ohhhh YEA, less carbon emissions!!! YEA!!!......)

=============================

Don't read everything you believe eyeeatingfish.

ON EDIT: Please understand that the "idiot", "stupid" or other pejoratives were NOT directed at eyeeatingfish or any other forum members.

[Triton]

And ignoring the stronger scientific evidence in favour of the opinions of a few fringe scientists is called what then?

What evidence?

[Pshrynk]

What evidence?

Denial much?....... yeah there is absolutely no evidence -- all those Phd's are just making it up.

[Triton]

But why should they have to move at all? Why should they give up their land they worked hard for because some company wanted to pollute?

Therein lies the rub doesn't it? You want to kill the economy by arbitrarily assigning the "green" standards that you happen to feel are necessary. How is it that you get to decide what the standard is? Stuff happens a whole lot of it naturally. Those folks that lived in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius why should they have had to move at all?

[Triton]

The chart showed a gradual increase in temperature. 1 degree centigrade is a pretty significant rise in temperature, and if it happens every 20 years then it doesnt take too long before we are in trouble. Spikes up and down does not mean that the earth isnt warming. The chart shows a rise in temperatures.

Look again. Since 1998 the temperature has remained nearly completely constant. The spikes up and down you are seeing are seasonal differences. Again I have to ask you, how is this possible? How is it that the temperature has not appreciably changed in the last 12 years, despite increased carbon pollution?

Im not saying that they are immune from wanting power. In fact they do want power. They want the power to protect the environment.

Gee, Lenin wanted power, the power to make everyone equal...

Thats the best conspiracy theory you can come up with? That is a stretch. What is so hard to believe that people out there want to protect the environment whether it is profitable or not?

Conspiracy theory? It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a verifiable fact. algore does in fact own a sizeable percentage of a company that sells carbon credits... and algore lives in a house that generates far more "carbon pollution" then does the average American house and algore is NOT taking a prius to the airport. You can draw what conclusions you will but do these really sound like the actions of a true believer?

And? You are going to try and discount numerous good acts with one that backfired? Im not claiming them to be perfect or anything, but overall they do good work.

I'm pointing out that often the theories of environmentalists lead to unexpected consequences that are not all for the good of humanity.

[Triton]

No it was not scientifically based. Science is a method of studying something. The method that they came to believe that the earth was flat was not a scientific method.

We weren't talking about the Earth being flat, we were talking about the geocentric theory of the solar system. The scientists of the day demostably believed that the Earth was in fact the center of the Universe. They even had a consensus of that (or would have had they had the internet) that did not of course make them correct.

Its a fact that something pulls stuff to the ground but the how and why are acutally quite unknown still.

That's right, it's a scientific fact that the "something" exists. I believe that's what I said. You can even do experiments to demonstrate it consistently. Tell me can you do an experiment to demonstrate the generation of global warming?

No one is arguing that global warming should hold weight simply because it is a concensus. People are saying global warming should hold weight because there is all sorts of evidence for it and experts in relevant fields are saying it.

Really? What is this evidence again?

[Triton]

Denial much?....... yeah there is absolutely no evidence -- all those Phd's are just making it up.

You didn't answer the question, what evidence are you referring to?

[thombrogan]

You didn't answer the question, what evidence are you referring to?

Something he saw on MTV Cribs?

[timcsaw]

Something he saw on MTV Cribs?

Didn't he provide proof?

You mean a bear covering it's eyes with it's paws, ISN'T proof-positive that humans are responsible for Global-Cooling-Warming-Climate-Change??

[Ken Cox]

Denial much?....... yeah there is absolutely no evidence -- all those Phd's are just making it up.

What evidence have the "Phd's" made up?

Post it.

In the meantime:

All four of the world's major global surface temperature datasets (NASA, GISS, RSS, UAH) show a seven year decline in temperature.

The world has shown the greatest decline in temperature, between January 2007 and January 2008, since the beginning of this type of record keeping in 1880.

The year 2008 so far matches the year 1980 in global temperature, and no net global warming has occurred since 1995.

And this despite the fact that a solar Grand Maximum occurred over the past 70 years, which represents an 11,400 year high for solar activity.

Based on geological records, this pattern suggests that we stand on the edge of a little ice age, which the same climatologists who predict Global Warming today predicted throughout the 1970's and 80's.

So, show us the evidence.

We've seen all the charts on this forum before, several times.

When you assemble ALL the information, several things become clear:

1) this planet has continually, in terms of climate, swung back and forth between warming and cooling;

2) warming precedes an increase in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around;

3) cyclic (over time) solar events coincide with warming and cooling, and have the highest probability of determining climate;

4) cyclic (over time) orbital and planetary axis perturbations coincide with warming and cooling and have the second highest probability of determining climate;

5) the little ice ages repeat like clockwork and a slight warming spike precedes them;

6) in terms of time line, we stand on the edge of another little ice age;

7) atmospheric CO2 has an itsy-bitsy teeny-tiny impact on temperature, especially compared to water vapor and METHANE (cow farts, swamp gas and tundra gas); and,

8) man's activities add such a small percentage to the total atmospheric CO2 produced by the non-human portion of the environment, so as to make the whole idea of human-caused global warming mildly humorous if not for the political football it has become.

=====

Bring on the evidence, and lets compile all of it here, again, for the third or fourth time.

C'mon.

Show us.

[Pshrynk]

Yeah I'll just scan and post the thousands of peer reviewed journal articles.

Anyone who says there is NO evidence is utterly in denial and their argument fairly worthless.

There is tons of evidence pro man made climate change -- however I am still not completely and unequivocally convinced it is anywhere near conclusive -- however to deny it's existence is utter folly.

[timcsaw]

I don't doubt at all that the climate changes (I like to call it "weather").

[Codger_64]

Yeah I'll just scan and post the thousands of peer reviewed journal articles.

Thousands? If not hyperbole, that is quite a consensus. It should'nt be too hard to select the "best of the best" and post a half dozen or so. Or link to them if you found them on line.

Anyone who says there is NO evidence is utterly in denial and their argument fairly worthless.

Anyone's opinion which doesn't agree with your opinion is worthless?

There is tons of evidence pro man made climate change -....

Well, any direct evidence shown would be an improvement. The arguement that (A) there is a problem (unproven) and (B) man is the cause (unproven) and (C) man has the ability to reverse the problem, doesn't carry much water in my opinion in the absence of proof of A, B, or C. All I am seeing is a profit potential for the Prophets.

...- however I am still not completely and unequivocally convinced it is anywhere near conclusive .. .

Good. So you can see how many people are far less convinced of A, B, and C than you are.

...- -- however to deny it's existence is utter folly.

IMHO, to base broad social and economic changes on an unproven hypothesis is a bigger (the utterist?) folly.