Not when it says "over 100,000 year intervals." This interval we have going here is taking place over a few decades. That's not normal, now is it?

And you obviously didn't read the second page, where it says:

"Since the 1860s, increased industrialization and shrinking forests have helped raise the atmosphere's CO2 level by almost 100 parts per million—and Northern Hemisphere temperatures have followed suit. Increases in temperatures and greenhouse gasses have been even sharper since the 1950s."

and

"Human activities, burning fossil fuels and clearing forests, have greatly increased concentrations by producing these gases faster than plants and oceans can soak them up. The gases linger in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even a complete halt in emissions would not immediately stop the warming trend they promote."

So uh... Yeah, have fun arguing with that.

You didn't read all of that one, either.


It would be easy if humans weren't so lazy. And even with us being lazy, it's a lot easier than saving Africa.


But it doesn't say it was global. It says an angel used the sun to burn people, and that's about it.

This post has been edited by The Reincarnate: May 17 2007, 05:56 PM

Hmm.. if people don't have a heart for trying to save people in Africa, you actually think they'll try to save the planet, from "global warming?"



i don't see that happening.. i also dont see our planet being pwned by heat..

I think we do need to save natural environment though.. but i still do not buy the theory of 'global warming' ..

OK so if global warming does happen.. it happens before the second coming of Jesus.. WHAT HAPPENS!??!.. does nothing happen?

.. i wish for someone to answer that, i need to know.. desperately

This post has been edited by iamfilipino89: May 17 2007, 06:57 PM

Why are you so reluctant to believe in global warming?

And the reason people would care more about that than Africa is because Africa has no effect on our daily lives. Global warming will.

that is where compassion comes in.. people who actually care for others that need our financial help for africans to live past 5 yrs of age...

But the well-being of the entire planet is still more important than that of a single continent. And people aren't very compassionate - they pursue things that affect their own well-being before that of others. Therefore, they'll care about global warming before they care about Africa in any case.

With pleasure.

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts
Lifting the Global Warming Gag Order
Fuzzy Climate Math

Can't you give me any explanation for that? Why should I take the word of those conservative columnists (not even real journalists, mind you) who don't even cite sources, over that of National Geographic?

-
From this article not even National Geographic is sure which one to endorse and believe:



<3MC

^^
that flip pwned us with an article



actually very few care about Africa, even christians..and few care about global warming because natural environments are getting destroyed and are made into factories and crap like that.. soo.. yeah.. Its a lose/lose situation..

This post has been edited by iamfilipino89: May 18 2007, 04:01 PM

National Geographic didn't take any sides there. You're simply reporting on one person's ideas.. which go against the rest of the science community. Also, it says that Mars's CO2 ice caps have been melting for three years. We've been experiencing ours for half a century.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
Global warming debunked

-
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

This post has been edited by SoCalPinay: May 19 2007, 04:59 AM

That article made me laugh. It's acting like a simple farmer from New Zealand knows what he's talking about. It cites no sources other than this one guy who thinks he knows more than climatologists. Riiiight.

Oh and then they say the green house effect is supposed to be there, therefore it can't be bad! Well it's obviously good to an extent. But when you leave a baby in your car on a hot, sunny day with the windows rolled up... is that good?

^The Reincarnate, are you even finishing the stinkin' articles? The one just posted cited specifically said it was quoting a meteorologist, not a "simple farmer from New Zealand." Of the onces I cited, one was from a former professor of Climatology, and the other was from well-known columnist George Will, and had links to all of the articles and statistics he mentioned. I see no reason to continue talking to someone who ignores all articles cited by their opponents, instead making inaccurate claims about the authorship of the articles.

First, that last post of mine was in reference to SoCalPinay.

And you are aware the columnists aren't real journalists, right? They write their opinions, and that's it. They're like bloggers, but get paid for it.

Also keep in mind that nobody is going to take you seriously in a debate if you don't do any of the arguing yourself. Simply posting links is not debating.

Now lets take a look at your articles. The first one probably holds the water, because it quotes a real climatologist. However, it seems he just wants to hear himself talk, with all the "listen to me, I'm actually a climatologist!" junk (he does pretty much say that). And then the article acts like alllllll the climatologists in the world have been saying for over 20 years that global warming isn't caused by humans! Is that true? Well no, because the vast majority of climatologists firmly state that it is (Click here, look specifically at "scientific consensus"). And then it compares the global warming issue to global cooling in the 1970s? Global cooling had absolutely no scientific backing, and was ignored by almost everyone. That's not the case with global warming, they can't be compared. The "global cooling" was miniscule in comparison to this, in which we can actually see the effects already. And then the rest of the article is him whining about being "attacked" and how nobody listens to him, so we can leave it there.

Now, the second article is by that columnist of yours. It cites a few sites, such as globalwarminghysteria.com, which with their obviously enormous biases, shouldn't even be used in a debate. It also says that antarctic temperatures didn't rise as much in the 20th century as predicted. Well, so what? They still climbed. It's still obvious by other signs in other parts of the world that it's happening (like melting glaciers and rising sea levels), so you really can't say that this isolated piece of evidence is a sign against global warming. Then it talks about how cruel it is that people don't want huge oil companies funding anti-global warming ("truth seeking") organizations, and whines for the rest of the article. With no reliable sources cited.

And your last one really doesn't matter, because it acknowledges that global warming exists, the author simply doesn't think we can do much to stop it.

There, happy?

This post has been edited by The Reincarnate: May 19 2007, 10:32 PM

I reckon trying to clean up is worth it just to get rid of the gross pollution in so many cities. I had really bad asthma in China (Shanghai especially) when I went there simply because of the pollution. And the air looks so gross and it's really depressing not to get burned eyes when you look at the sun because the pollution is so bad. I've heard LA is similar. But apart from that, we don't have to be worried about being wiped out from rising waters and choking air etc. because God's got lots of big, fiery, apocalyptic death planned for us. It'll be much more spectacular lol.

only 20% of emissions comes from cars and factorys world wide.
( if some 1 seid that already sry )

He doesn't specifically acknowledge human-caused warming. Either way, the article points out that the massive costs of trying to prevent global warming would have little or no effect. The Kyoto Protocol, as he pointed out, would be rather unhelpful because it excludes many "developing countries" that make increasingly large amounts of emissions, including China, India, and Brazil. Moreover, the cost of adopting these types of policies would be massive, taking money that could be better used towards more tangible effects, such as improving health care, getting clean drinking water, etc.

As has been pointed out at other points in this thread, CO2 emissions are only a tiny portion of what causes warming. Even if they could be cut in half, this would still only make a tiny impact on temperature change.


Not really. I still find your rather juvenile debating tone rather startling, as well as the way you deliberately made misleading claims about the credentials of those who wrote the articles I linked to.

global warming.. booo ..

we should call up ice man to make things colder.. that's what i think

He doesn't quite acknowledge our role, but he doesn't deny it either. In fact, most of what he says indirectly admits it. Also, China and India are plenty developed. They could definitely afford to clean up their acts a bit. As for Brazil, they really don't make that many emissions. And making those changes would be expensive at first, but the long run effects make it worth the money both environmentally and financially. It's expensive to build a large solar or nuclear plant, but once you have it, you no longer have to pay for the cost of fuels.

It's been pointed out without any reputable sources to back it. But we're making progress here, you're now admitting that we do play some role.


I didn't make misleading claims, what I said was true. Why am I juvenile?

So this is the 500th thread about global warming, and it's inspired by the poll in the polls section, which sort of bothered me when I read all kinds of responses saying it's exaggerated, or it's a cycle, blah blah gibberish.

One such response said the earth has been warming for 15,000 years - that being since the ice age. Now of course the earth has warmed since the ice age, after all, the ice age did end. However, the entire earth has warmed a total of five degrees celsius since the height of the ice age, and one of those degrees warmed over the last ten years (Click here and scroll to the graphs in the middle).

So what do we make of that?

If you'd like to contribute, provide evidence, not just your opinion.

This post has been edited by Jman: Feb 16 2008, 07:35 PM

Well the nature of the article worries me as it uses disputed "facts" to support its evidence.

E.g. the temperature graph known as the hockey stick graph, the controversy is shown on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

E.g. hottest yeras on reccord which are still disputed due to improper mathamtical calculations
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1...ottest_yea.html

Also if you want to see more studies try climateaudit.org, which shows disputes on things your article claim as fact. Those two examples are just the two I know most about, so I won't comment on the others since I know very little about them.

As for it being exaggerated in the media, well that is undeniable, even the IPCC's evidence shows this. E.g. Al Gores "an inconvienient truth" stating sea levels will rise 20 feet in our near an eminent future, when actually the IPCC estimates less then a foot in the next 100 years. So yes, it is deffinatly overexaggerated, but then again sensationalizing news is what sells, which is why you shouldn't primarily rely on the meida for information in a scientific field.

Showing me the fact that there's a controversy really doesn't prove anything, because controversies are disputes, not facts and conclusions.


I'm not sure what he's trying to prove there. Now aside from the fact that this is a blog, which is always an opinion article making it 100% biased, all he seems to do here is trying and prove NASA's calculations wrong and say that the hottest recorded year was 1934. So... that puts 1998 in second place, big deal. 1934 was already in second, all they did was switch them around.

My article includes scientific research done by all kinds of geologists and climatologists alike. What's climateaudit.org? Another biased organization out to get global warming?


Actually, IPCC says 2 feet. But nonetheless, that's enough to completely and permanently flood all kinds of coastal communities around the world, including Florida. Also, Al Gore was saying that the sea levels would rise 20 feet if the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica break off (which is very likely). IPCC didn't include that assumption.

A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide." That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.

"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."

"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

well if global warming is fake, dont you think we should still cut back with all the pollution just so we can live in a cleaner world. I mean God gave us the world to take care of, not to pollute. plus look at all the animals we are killing from pollution and from taking away thier homes by chopping down the rainforests and such.

I don't think it's fake, I only think we over emphasize and exaggerate its effect and its prominence. If you think about it, if Delta is right then our earth warmed 5 degrees in 10,000 years. So i don't think we're in that big of a rush. yes, we need to take care of the world God gave us, i do believe that...