Climate change the coming Ice Age .

a reply to: Phage

you have also chosen a topic which would inevitably introduce the manufactured controversy.

Well after all these pages at least you got something right ?

a reply to: Greathouse

Well after all these pages at least you got something right ?

I got a total of one thing wrong.
So far.

a reply to: Phage

No you didn't you're right about the climate will eventually change .

a reply to: Greathouse
I was right about more than that.

a reply to: Phage

You must not be much of a scientist. All the things you presented were hypothesis i.e. predictions. How can you be right about a prediction that hasn't happened ?


Now you can think you're right but you cannot actually be right until your predictions come true.

a reply to: Greathouse

You must not be much of a scientist. All the things you presented were hypothesis i.e. predictions. How can you be right about a prediction that hasn't happened ?

Where have I claimed to be a scientist? More than hypotheses, actually. There is much evidence behind the theory.

How can you be right about a prediction that hasn't happened ?

The theory says that as CO2 levels rise, so will temperatures. That seems to be true. CO2 levels are rising, and so are temperatures.

a reply to: Phage

At least you knew you were wrong on presenting a hypothesis as fact .

There is much evidence behind the theory.

Incorrect there are hundreds of millions of years of evidence for natural climate change.

a reply to: Greathouse

Incorrect there are hundreds of millions of years of evidence for natural climate change.

Ah, so you aren't really ambivalent. You're pretty well convinced it's bullcrap.
But I thought the topic was the media. Or was I wrong? You weren't actually comparing the claims of a few scientists in the 70s to the present.

a reply to: Greathouse

I think your first line is part od the answer "before computers" we collected data dufferently and with modern tech we can nake more accurate models of what is happening.
Just because they were wrong that time doesn't mean they are now.

a reply to: Phage

Actually it is about media. I'm just practicing the same tactics you use .

a reply to: Greathouse

Applying critical thinking is hardly the same thing as "tactics."

a reply to: Phage

It is my understanding that scientists have ice core samples that can show a clear rise in co2 emissions that began around the time of the industrial revolution. If so, we could easily conclude that not only are co2 levels rising, but man had a part to play in it.

Can you comment?

a reply to: boymonkey74



Actually the first line was "This is a history lesson".

originally posted by: Greathouse
This is a history lesson .

....

The lesson here is often history is manipulated.

All you are doing here is trying to cast doubt on what the overwhelming majority of the scientists who study this phenomenon are telling us.

We are changing the climate of this planet. Also there is no compelling evidence that disputes this apparent reality.

a reply to: introvert
There are several data which indicate that observed increases in atmospheric CO2 levels are attributable to the combustion of fossil fuels.

Oh boy here comes the back up . I usually bow out when it becomes three on one you guys have fun .

a reply to: Greathouse

This thread has been pretty much Phage going back and forth between you and several others who apparently do not like the idea that human activity may indeed be causing significant changes to our climate.

Now I post once and you cry foul?

What do you not agree with in this whole climate change 'debate'?

We are pumping CO2 in CH4 into our atmosphere. Both are known to cause radiative forcing so it is logical to deduce that we are causing a warming effect on this planet.

a reply to: jrod

Says the guy who thinks people should be punished criminally for having an opposing opinion.

a reply to: Phage

Since you stopped responding to me I will assume that you have nothing to support your claims.

No hard feelings there Phage, you did your best.

a reply to: jrod

What do you not agree with in this whole climate change 'debate'?

Politics.

I'd be willing to bet that any amount of scientific data would not be enough to convince the partisans that global warming is a possibility, let alone a reality.