physorg.com— Global warming has plunged the planet into a crisis and the fossil fuel industries are trying to hide the extent of the problem from the public, NASA's top climate scientist says.
Apr 7, 2008View in Crawl 4
I figure it this way: Option 1: The problem is real. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle saves the planet. Well ... actually it just keeps it habitable by us human types. Or at the very least puts off the end of human life until well past my involvement with it. Option 2: It is all BS. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle doesn't hurt anybody. Is a more responsible use of resources. And it makes me feel a little better inside. So what's the problem?
Try quoting me accurately next time. I didn't say "you've been bombarded...", I said "IF you've been bombarded.". And you completely ignore the fact that I entertained that notion due to your insistence that anthropogenic global warming is a proven phenomenon --which, as I have said, lacks any scientific evidence, and indeed, breaks down under such scrutiny.A shorter way of saying what I just said: Scientific data time and again, refutes anthropogenic global warming. It is your oft-mentioned journalistic sensationalism that claims warming to be an issue. So when you ignore the science, what am I supposed to believe? If you want to talk about arguments being trite, I would suggest that you think again about your CO2 argument. Humans are only responsible for roughly 3% of the CO2 cycle, and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir. The other 97% -99% consists of natural emissions. You underestimate the resiliency of our home planet --CO2 dissolves quiet effortlessly into water... the marginal amount that we do put in is literally a drop in the ocean. Your sites on CO2 measure anthropogenic CO2 emissions against previous anthropogenic emissions. This presents a problem, as it ignores both naturally occurring CO2 emissions, and the atmospheric reservoir. Indeed, it ignores essentially all variables AND constants on Earth. You're attempting to measure the effects of human emissions on the environment whilst ignoring the environment. This interpretation of the data is inherently flawed, and downright wrong. Indeed, the data itself is useless, when looked at in this fashion.The biggest problem with the CO2 idea, is that correlation does not equal causation. Cause must precede effect, and data set after data set point to rises in temperature occurring well before a rise in CO2 --in many cases, by a good 800 years. As Dr. Bob Carter puts it, to say that CO2 is the primary cause of temperature change is like saying that lung cancer causes smoking. Keep in mind the 3000 year average which has been quite well maintained over the past 100 years, and your CO2 theory looks weak... at best.Never mind the fact that (historically) many of the thermometers used over the long term have been unable to discern between genuine global climate change, and the urban heat island effect. I hope you're beginning to see my point about variables. They're small, yes... but they add up.You go on to claim (wrongfully so, I might add) that: "Human breath doesn't produce a net change in the Earth's atmosphere, while fossil fuel consumption does."Wrong. Just... wrong. Fossil fuel consumption, human breath, and natural emissions all produce the same CO2. You can't pick and choose which source of the gas effects the atmosphere, and which doesn't. It doesn't work that way.Have you ever thought of methane? Methane heats the planet 23 times as much as CO2. Nitrous oxide heats it up 296 times as much as CO2. Instead, you're taking shaky interpretation on shaky data, narrowing down to CO2, and saying "Aha! We have our smoking gun!"No sir, we do not have our smoking gun.
Just like predator-prey models, the specific outcome of a chaotic system (weather) is unpredictable, but the forces involved CONSTRAIN the solutions, so the trend or average outcome (climate) is very much predictable, if the forces are adequately modelled.
As sad as it may seem, there are economically/politically motivated "scientists" that argue that the anthropogenic contribution is negligible, despite the evidence gathered. These guys love to lie, distort, twist information to fool people, specially americans. Though their arguments do not stand critic nor evidence, they get lots of attention from the media.
bluezombieApr 7, 2008
I figure it this way: Option 1: The problem is real. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle saves the planet. Well ... actually it just keeps it habitable by us human types. Or at the very least puts off the end of human life until well past my involvement with it. Option 2: It is all BS. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle doesn't hurt anybody. Is a more responsible use of resources. And it makes me feel a little better inside. So what's the problem?
walls750Apr 8, 2008
you got it all wrong...it's global humidity
Closed AccountApr 9, 2008
Then why is it getting colder, is that another one of your trite duplicitous fluff arguments that you so despise?
crunchydeluxeApr 11, 2008
Try quoting me accurately next time. I didn't say "you've been bombarded...", I said "IF you've been bombarded.". And you completely ignore the fact that I entertained that notion due to your insistence that anthropogenic global warming is a proven phenomenon --which, as I have said, lacks any scientific evidence, and indeed, breaks down under such scrutiny.A shorter way of saying what I just said: Scientific data time and again, refutes anthropogenic global warming. It is your oft-mentioned journalistic sensationalism that claims warming to be an issue. So when you ignore the science, what am I supposed to believe? If you want to talk about arguments being trite, I would suggest that you think again about your CO2 argument. Humans are only responsible for roughly 3% of the CO2 cycle, and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir. The other 97% -99% consists of natural emissions. You underestimate the resiliency of our home planet --CO2 dissolves quiet effortlessly into water... the marginal amount that we do put in is literally a drop in the ocean. Your sites on CO2 measure anthropogenic CO2 emissions against previous anthropogenic emissions. This presents a problem, as it ignores both naturally occurring CO2 emissions, and the atmospheric reservoir. Indeed, it ignores essentially all variables AND constants on Earth. You're attempting to measure the effects of human emissions on the environment whilst ignoring the environment. This interpretation of the data is inherently flawed, and downright wrong. Indeed, the data itself is useless, when looked at in this fashion.The biggest problem with the CO2 idea, is that correlation does not equal causation. Cause must precede effect, and data set after data set point to rises in temperature occurring well before a rise in CO2 --in many cases, by a good 800 years. As Dr. Bob Carter puts it, to say that CO2 is the primary cause of temperature change is like saying that lung cancer causes smoking. Keep in mind the 3000 year average which has been quite well maintained over the past 100 years, and your CO2 theory looks weak... at best.Never mind the fact that (historically) many of the thermometers used over the long term have been unable to discern between genuine global climate change, and the urban heat island effect. I hope you're beginning to see my point about variables. They're small, yes... but they add up.You go on to claim (wrongfully so, I might add) that: "Human breath doesn't produce a net change in the Earth's atmosphere, while fossil fuel consumption does."Wrong. Just... wrong. Fossil fuel consumption, human breath, and natural emissions all produce the same CO2. You can't pick and choose which source of the gas effects the atmosphere, and which doesn't. It doesn't work that way.Have you ever thought of methane? Methane heats the planet 23 times as much as CO2. Nitrous oxide heats it up 296 times as much as CO2. Instead, you're taking shaky interpretation on shaky data, narrowing down to CO2, and saying "Aha! We have our smoking gun!"No sir, we do not have our smoking gun.
giningininMay 8, 2008
Just like predator-prey models, the specific outcome of a chaotic system (weather) is unpredictable, but the forces involved CONSTRAIN the solutions, so the trend or average outcome (climate) is very much predictable, if the forces are adequately modelled.
giningininMay 8, 2008
As sad as it may seem, there are economically/politically motivated "scientists" that argue that the anthropogenic contribution is negligible, despite the evidence gathered. These guys love to lie, distort, twist information to fool people, specially americans. Though their arguments do not stand critic nor evidence, they get lots of attention from the media.
giningininMay 8, 2008
There is plenty of evidence, look for scientific research, here are a few;<a class="user" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5727/1431">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/572 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844264320314105/">http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h84426432 ...</a><a class="user" href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/abs/349500a0.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/ab ...</a>You will find that the AGW theory is quite established and there is not one observation (that got published in scientific journals) that refutes it.
giningininMay 8, 2008
Who are the guys being interviewed? Are they climate scientists? How would they know ANYTHING about what is being expected/discussed?