Avenger, about the links you posted:

One has no author's name mentioned.
Another one has just a name but no credentials, degrees, etc. listed.
Most of these aren't even in scientific journals/publications. And all, save one, are from strong right wing sources.

Avenger, I'm having a hard time with alot of your statements, they just do't make sense to me For example, how can you say if a scientist works for, say, Monsanto, his findings wont be colored by his employers? If he publishes anything contrary to the corporation's party line,he gets fired, as has been demonstrated again and again. This is just simple logic that everyone knows.

BTW, if you don't mind me asking, who do you work for? University, corporation, etc.?

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by TheAvenger

You may say that many of these links are sponsored by big oil or whoever, but that makes the opinions of the scientists writing them no less valid.\

No actually, it does...

Think about it for a second.

The point is, the persons writing the opposite views may (and likely does) have an agenda as well, and they are very well funded. The writers of these articles deserve respect for their knowledge, exactly the same as anyone else with letters after their name. A scientist's only means of delivering opinions to the public are by writing articles and/or giving lectures, whether live or on T.V./radio talk shows. We scientists are not all whores who will fabricate and sell our views to the highest bidder.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]

So industry is not to be trusted and environmenatal activist groups are? Many of the articles I posted are from academia, if you care for that more. I will try to find an author for whichever has none. I have myriads of material, so it's difficult to know what to post for a widely diverse group such as A.T.S. Have you even watched the lecture that started this post?
I assure you that many posters here have not.

There are two sides to most stories, As to whether you believe what I say or not, that's your choice. Use the ignore button if my comments or the truth about A.G.W. trouble you. I will not be insulted by members here who clearly know little of the subject matter. The fact is, I have asked elementary questions, like how CO2 causes global warming more vs. water vapor and have yet to get a credible answer from anyone.

I work for a private environmental laboratory.



[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
We scientists are not all whores who will fabricate and sell our views to the highest bidder.

No, of course not.

The problem is, however, how do you tell the difference from the ones who are?

Without a peer review process, we don't stand a chance.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
So what do you want? Scientific journals that you likely won't even begin to understand?

Yes. I'll take my chances, even if my neurons are too feeble to understand anything more complex than my occasional need to flatulate.



[edit on 3-4-2007 by loam]

So what do you want? Scientific journals that you likely won't even begin to understand?

Yes, please.

Awww, damn. You edited this...

Can you tell me how science works?

I gather that usually clever scientists use observations and existing theories to form hypotheses. Then these hypotheses are tested, if they are supported by evidence, then we can increase the reliability of related theories.

Correct, yes?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]

TheAvenger, please post specific examples and explain how whatever data you have refutes the theory that humans are causing global warming. That should solve the bickering.

Yes, the scientific method is the generally accepted model taught in most schools. Evidently politics now dictates what is what in science. How nice of all the A.G.W. believers to line up with the government(s) on this issue
to aid them in their quest to impose a "carbon tax". Bend over, here it comes again!

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Yes, the scientific method is the generally accepted model taught in most schools. Evidently politics now dictates what is what in science. How nice of all the A.G.W. believers to line up with the government(s) on this issue
to aid them in their quest to impose a "carbon tax". Bend over, here it comes again!

So, in other words, all you have is an political objection to a proposed mitigation strategy?

I thought you said you had scientific proof supporting your position against anthropogenic climate change.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Yes, the scientific method is the generally accepted model taught in most schools. Evidently politics now dictates what is what in science. How nice of all the A.G.W. believers to line up with the government(s) on this issue
to aid them in their quest to impose a "carbon tax". Bend over, here it comes again!

Cool. Lets try to focus on the science.

So, when in 1989, Roble & Dickenson, followed by Rishbeth (1990) made predictions of cooling in the middle atmosphere related to anthropogenic activities, this was a scientific prediction made from AGW theory of climate change?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]

Avenger, you've done nothing but post videos and sources. You're a chemist; please explain them.

You kind of have to, since this is turning into a "I'm right!" "I'm right!" "No, you're wrong!" "No, I'm right!" "No, I am!" "No, you're wrong!"

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I cannot be expected to prove something does not exist, because there is nothing to prove.

How do you get this? Your position is that there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change. But there clearly is... So challenge it!

Identify with specificity the flaws that render you capable of proclaiming there is "NO EVIDENCE".

Isn't that the basic notion of peer review?


[edit on 3-4-2007 by loam]

Loam, you are a proponent of the global theory, or it appears that you are.

An opponent has to prove the evidence SUPPORTING the theory wrong. The proponent has to find the evidence to prove it to be true.

What you want Avenger to do is find evidence himself to prove wrong. That really doesn't work.

So what you have to do to make this work is explain why you think that global warming is indeed caused by humans.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Johnmike]

If Jesus Christ himself floated down on a cloud and told these people A.G.W. does not exist, they would not believe it. A.G.W. is their religion and Al Gore is the God.

I am at work at the moment. I will respond to some of the genuine
science questions tonight.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by brill
Question. Its been repeatedly mentioned that the oceans are a huge contributor to CO2. Can someone elaborate here a bit, specifically what is the theory involved? Are the oceans being heated more or is there just large volumes of water vapor collecting that is trapping existing greenhouse gases or something else completely different.

brill

Hi Brill,

The oceans are warming and becoming more acidic.

the oceans act as a sink for CO2, the amount dissolved in the oceans is related to temperature (as well as atmospheric concentration). Higher temperatures reduce solubility. Thus the sink has less ability to hold the dissolved CO2.

CO2 is part of a carbon cycle, CO2 is removed by certain parts of the biosphere, and emitted by others. It is usually a fair balance, but it can be affected by external variables. But overall, the oceans are a sink for CO2 - they currently absorb more than they emit, but this could change...

Another problem with the oceans and CO2 is that higher concentrations also affect pH, and pH affects the organisms in the oceans and may destroy certain ecosystems (particularly corals and other calcifying organisms).

[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]

Thanks Melatonin for the reply & detail. So if the oceans are currently absorbing more CO2 than emitting wouldn't the amount of CO2 as greenhouse gases go be less then?

brill

[edit on 3-4-2007 by brill]

Originally posted by brill

Thanks Melatonin for the reply & detail. So if the oceans are currently absorbing more CO2 than emitting wouldn't the amount of CO2 as greenhouse gases go be less then?

brill

It takes time for the system to reach an equilibrium. Thus, if everything was held constant (temperatures and further emissions), the CO2 would reach a new equilibrium, and a lot of what we have produced would be taken up in the ocean. But this takes time. With us producing ever more CO2, the oceans will be unlikely to save the day, in fact, it is possible they may actually make it worse.

The net negative carbon in the oceans is just produced elsewhere. The carbon cycle is a near balance, or it was.




[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
A.G.W. is their religion and Al Gore is the God.

More political nonesense.

A definate sign to me that you have no case.

Too bad. It would be nice to know with certainty that my son's future isn't contingent upon something we failed to try to address.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I am at work at the moment. I will respond to some of the genuine
science questions tonight.

Look forward to it.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
So industry is not to be trusted and environmenatal activist groups are? Many of the articles I posted are from academia, if you care for that more. [edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]

Who said anything about environmental activist groups? Could you please explain why you bring that up? As for your posts being from academia, well, as I said before, it just doesn't look very reputable to me. I mean, where are the major science journals? You're quoting Wall Street Journal, etc.
I think you have it backwards, the govt has been dragging its feet about admitting to global warming. So, it's not like any of us are govt syncophants or believe whatever the govt tell us.