It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'No Sun link' to climate change

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Tbh i dont think we can stop GW. Instead of all of this effort into stopping global warming i think we should focus on chemicals, heavy metals getting into the enviroment and stopping the destruciton of habitats. Something can live when it is hotter but something cant live if it is poisoned.




posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
But comparing the ozone depleting abilities of CFC's to the "greenhouse effect" of carbon dioxide is misleading. CFC's directly interact with the ozone layer. Carbon dioxide and its potential effects involve far more complex processes.


I wont argue with the subtleties of your statement, but mine was not made to say the GW and the ozone issue were equal. I made the statement to show that human activity can effect global systems.



For instance, the most popular way to explain it is that increased carbon dioxide traps more heat....now, going off the top of my head, if I remember right, the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment is around the scale of 0.3%. As you can see, that does give some difficulties with having enough particle density to have a greenhouse effect.

Also note, as show here man made carbon dioxide comprises a very small amount of the actual carbon dioxide level. What does this tell us? One, that carbon dioxide has little to do with warming trends, and two, that man-made carbon dioxide isnt the problem. If you want to address rising levels, proper action would be to stop the destruction of rainforests, etc. That is where the rise in carbon levels comes from, more than anything. What we contribute is merely a drop in the bucket.


It is highly amusing to me that it was so easy for you to prove that GW has no anthropogenic carbon factors. It only took you one paragraph yet so many people around the world are caught in a debate over the issue still to this day. Amazing. Sure your point that there is only a small percent of carbon in the atmosphere, to the best of my knowledge is truthful, if not perfectly accurate. Still to dismiss the ability of a minute part of the atmosphere to have strong impacts across the entire system is silly.



Why would there be so many scientists saying otherwise? Well, lets see...where does funding come from? Politicians...and who are the greatest proponents of GW? Politicians...it's politics, people, not truth.


This is easily proven false. Please read: link

[edit on 1-2-2008 by Animal]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:13 AM
link   
You give me a link to an article about the IPCC...A POLITICALLY ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATION, funded by...the UN....which is what? A political organization. Who recently refuted the claims of the IPCC? Former scientists who said what? That it was all political...

Who else? Various other groups and unions for various fields that are what? Interest groups that meddle in politics. Look up what these organizations do, and who backs them.

Most of all, LOOK AT FACTS. Science does not support man-made global warming. If it does, bring on the science. Let me make a bet...it will be along the line of the "hockey stick" falsified graph, or perhaps like the one I linked, where it pointed out the "official" research left out water vapor...which has a lot more to do with warming than carbon dioxide.

People believe a lot of asinine things for a lot of ignorant reasons. I dont care WHO it is that believes it...if they don't have valid, unbiased science to back it up, Im not buying. Yes, it took me a paragraph to disprove it. That would be because there is no hard science behind it. Its like evolution...a few small truths and a lot of "inference." Christians infer that god smites the unworthy...should I believe them, too?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
oh, and i should add...that article is on the website of the AAAS....a more biased politically motivated organization doesnt exist. The will have their creation myth and apocalypse shoved down the throat of the world at any cost. A little advice...if it comes from the AAAS, get five references before you even think about accepting it as fact. Inference is not science. Science is not adaptable to faith, creed, or political leanings.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
And there is no link between calories and obesity.

Or smoking and lung cancer.

Or drinking and driving fatalities.

Perhaps there is little link between sun spot cycles and cloud formation in the upper atmosphere, but failure to find a link between those two things doesn't rule the sun out of all other factors involved in climate change as the study asserts.

Now that doesn't absolve humans from our destructive practices. Clear cutting lands, Mountain top removal-valley fill in, over fishing the oceans, over population etc. But totally denying the sun plays any factor in driving climatic differences over time is misleading and ignorant. Cue a showing of Thank You for Not Smoking.

The link earlier in this thread about water vapor was very enlightening. I always knew water vapor was 10x's the greenhouse gas that CO2 is, but had never seen it broken down that way, props to the linker.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


Funny did you read the article? Rather than simply dismissing the article because you don't like the source is pointless. The purpose of this site, ATS, is to debate or discuss topics. Let me pull out some of the information that you must have missed as you obviously did not read the article. Link to the Article



IPCC is not alone in its conclusions...Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).


Don't get confused, the use of the title IPCC in this article does not mean that this is a IPCC document. Notice what it says? That other well known and respected scientific organizations AGREE with the IPCC, it is simple really.

Now this is the part that was intended for you.



The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.


So to clarify what this is saying...A study was done of scientific liturature. 928 papers were selcted at random to determine what percent DISAGREE witht he consensus view (in science) that there is a case for anthropogenic global warming. The result was NO ONE was dissenting. They may be studying other causes but no one disagreed that humans were playing a roll. Now the final part in this that I intended for you is this...



This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.


So my point is this. Your statement:



Why would there be so many scientists saying otherwise? Well, lets see...where does funding come from? Politicians...and who are the greatest proponents of GW? Politicians...it's politics, people, not truth.


Is provably false. It is not scientists that disagree it is the politicians, the media, the economists, and unfortunately people who have been listening to the wrong sources.

Finally...



You give me a link to an article about the IPCC...A POLITICALLY ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATION, funded by...the UN....which is what? A political organization. Who recently refuted the claims of the IPCC? Former scientists who said what? That it was all political...


Could you provide some evidence to support this? How about scientific evidence of your other claims as well? Thanks that would be really great. You make claims about how co-oped everyone else is, yet you provide very little to support your claims. If you want to convince people that their point of view is incorrect you have to do more than simply state, "oh why believe them, they are shills for so and so". I am more than willing to learn and as such my beliefs are not static.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Animal]


[edit on 2-2-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Animal]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
But you see, of everything you just quoted, none of that is any sort of proof. Its like me saying that all my buddies think the patriots are going to win tomorrow, so anyone who disagrees has a misconception of reality. Again, a failure of understanding the nature of the scientific community is showing. Views that dissent with the prevailing opinion on matters involving politically charged topics, especially ones like climate change, which probably draws more funding than anything else right now, are rarely approved for publication by peer review journals. That does not make the science less valid. I already posted a link regarding the science of climate change. (which, btw, could be construed as an article supporting the claims of the AAAS article...since it does say that there is man-made carbon dioxide. Note the definition used to qualify assent in the article you linked.)

As for organizational bias and political motivation...here's a link to the AAAS policy statements...which contains a number of political views they back. For the IPCC....this link has a some further links concerning the dissent with the views put forth by the IPCC at the Bali conference. Bias by the AMS? Here is their policy page...which is all environmental and climate science. Somehow I don't think they will be saying it's all nothing to worry about anytime soon, else all that funding goes away. And the fact that these organizations have their hands in the politics, alone, should make you look at everything they say in a very suspicious manner. Unless you're naive enough to think politicians and lobbyists are honest people looking out for our wellbeing?

Another point on that article you linked...can you tell me any theory of a similar nature to climate change (ie, containing inference) that all scientists agree on? Don't you think the fact that all 900 and whatever articles chosen are said to agree? That reeks of the claims made about evolution, as well. All scientists agree on evolution, because any scientist who doesnt, is not considered a scientist by those who do, and no material that dissents is allowed for publication in science journals. That doesn't make it true. I'll state it again..that first link I posted makes it pretty clear how insignificant the human contribution to greenhouse gases are. Thats without even getting into the science of how much effect carbon dioxide levels could even be having. The fact alone that man-made carbon is such a low percentage DOES show that rainforest destruction has more to do with rising carbon than SUVs and factories, because it shows an increase in natural carbon levels.

Again, examine the facts, not the spin, not the conjecture, not the inference. Read that article you linked again, with a critical eye. All it says is we and our buddies agree that we are right, and since we say we have the opinion that matters, we're right, so screw you guys, we're going home. That's a whole lot of nothing.

[edit on 2/2/2008 by saturnine_sweet]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I can respect that you have no interest in considering other points of view than the one you hold, that is fine it is your prerogative to do what you will. In the future you wont have to bother with me countering your statements as it is clear where you stand.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Animal]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I back up my statements per your request, so you take the ball and go home? I'm open to new information. However, the information presented so far clearly backs my perspective. You're welcome to refute it.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by saturnine_sweet
 


The reason I am done discussing the topic is because I feel like you have done little more than try to dismiss the sources I use as non-credible because they have an agenda. An agenda I see as publishing scientific research and which you see as politically driven propaganda.

The only piece of actual science or fact extending beyond your point of view was the piece on moisture in the atmosphere, which while is it widely agreed to be the largest greenhouse gas, the consensus seems to be that it is a feedback and not a source of forcing.

You backed up opinion with opinion making this little more than bickering.

My actual reply which I edited out of this post shortly after posting it can be found as a comment in my profile. I am tired of what seem to me to be pointless arguments.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Animal]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Somehow I don't think they will be saying it's all nothing to worry about anytime soon, else all that funding goes away.


I think you are wrong here. I think you don't understand the way science works. Indeed, this comes across in your posts consistently.

If I wanted to ensure funding, I don't say that we now understand enough to make a conclusion. I say that we don't really understand this phenomena, it needs more study, and therefore give me money.


That reeks of the claims made about evolution, as well. All scientists agree on evolution, because any scientist who doesnt, is not considered a scientist by those who do, and no material that dissents is allowed for publication in science journals.


Like what? The intelligent design creationists have their own journal in which they have published not one article since 2005.

Are scientists stopping them publish in their own journals? They have nothing but hot-air and posturing. No-one says that Michael Behe is not a scientist, he's just a naff one that can be easily pwned by a lowly graduate student.


that first link I posted makes it pretty clear how insignificant the human contribution to greenhouse gases are. Thats without even getting into the science of how much effect carbon dioxide levels could even be having. The fact alone that man-made carbon is such a low percentage DOES show that rainforest destruction has more to do with rising carbon than SUVs and factories, because it shows an increase in natural carbon levels.


This is just full of fallacies.

The human contribution is not insignificant at all. We can take the blame for the vast majority of the increase in CO2 since the 1800s. That's an increase of around 100ppm. CO2 can account for about 9-26% of the greenhouse effect, thus about 3-8% of the current greenhouse effect is due to human activity. We are at a level of CO2 which has not been seen for at least 650,000 years according to ice-core data.

You can ramble on about water vapour, but it's pretty much an impotent factor in climate, it is controlled by other factors due to its very short residence time in the atmosphere. CO2 readily accumulates.

I don't get what you are on about with rainforest destruction vs. fossil fuels, both are human activity. Indeed, releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 that has been locked out of the carbon cycle for millions of years is not a good thing.


Again, examine the facts, not the spin, not the conjecture, not the inference.


You seem to be pretty fact free so far. You started with muaddib's solar system warming canard, and it went downhill from there.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I give up. Its like talking to a room full of parrots. Or, more accurately, evangelists. Here's a fine example...melatonin just stated that humans, by his data, are responsible for 3-8% of warming. Well, the global temperature has changed .4 C vs the "average' (which is, in and of itself, inferred and shaped by opinion) since 1860 (which is the oldest data I came across.) Thus, we are responsible for a .012 C - .032 C change in 150 years. The world is going to end, indeed.

As for not understanding science, sure I do. Some funding goes to climate research when there is a possibility for concern. BILLIONS will be going into it if these interest groups (like IPCC) can sell their apocalypse! So yes, it certain DOES benefit them to sell their myths. They can have limitless funding AND save the world! Hurrah for manbearpig!

Not going to get further into that whole ID vs evolution bit, since I didnt say about ID. Thats just the usual deflection in the face of fact. Genetics and thermodynamics and information science all refute dawinism, neo-darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. My point was that man-made climate change is along the same lines, in that its an unassailable faith in the eyes of the vocal majority of the science community. However, "sanity is not statistical."

My point with rainforest destruction vs "fossil fuels" is that all the political action to stem the "coming apocalypse" is bent on penalizing the successful, not stopping deforestation, even though that is obviously more of a problem. I was thinking you might see the obvious, but in case you missed it...thats more evidence of political motivations. Who pushes climate fear the most? Socialists. Who do socialists target? The "unjustly" wealthy of the world. Even though they, themselves, are usually amongst that group. But no, there's no political motivation....



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Just had to toss this in there...a link to atmospheric composition...as you can see, the variable gas CO2 comprises 0.036% of the atmosphere's composition. Now, obviously thats a VERY small amount. Now, look at that deeper. It's variable, both in the amount at any given time, and the amount per location. When talking on the scale of 0.036%, exactly how hard is it, do you think, to skew your results according to where and when and how you obtain your measurements? Not saying it necessarily happened with this measurement, but on that small of a scale, even unintentional error in regards to control measures can greatly increase results.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
I give up. Its like talking to a room full of parrots. Or, more accurately, evangelists.


Oh, that was quick.


Here's a fine example...melatonin just stated that humans, by his data, are responsible for 3-8% of warming. Well, the global temperature has changed .4 C vs the "average' (which is, in and of itself, inferred and shaped by opinion) since 1860 (which is the oldest data I came across.) Thus, we are responsible for a .012 C - .032 C change in 150 years. The world is going to end, indeed.


How do you work that out? I didn't say 3-8% of warming, I said 3-8% of the greenhouse effect.

It's also actually about 0.7'C since 1860.


As for not understanding science, sure I do. Some funding goes to climate research when there is a possibility for concern. BILLIONS will be going into it if these interest groups (like IPCC) can sell their apocalypse! So yes, it certain DOES benefit them to sell their myths. They can have limitless funding AND save the world! Hurrah for manbearpig!


Great, so we move to 'Gorelax sux0rz, ergo climate science sux'. Didn't take long to show your ideological biases. I suppose we can put your problem about politics infusing climate science down to a form of projection.


Genetics and thermodynamics and information science all refute dawinism, neo-darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. My point was that man-made climate change is along the same lines, in that its an unassailable faith in the eyes of the vocal majority of the science community. However, "sanity is not statistical."


In your mind. Thermodynamics is no issue for evolutionary biology, the second law allows complex snowflakes, it also allows complexity in biology.


My point with rainforest destruction vs "fossil fuels" is that all the political action to stem the "coming apocalypse" is bent on penalizing the successful, not stopping deforestation


I don't agree. It is bent on doing both.


even though that is obviously more of a problem. I was thinking you might see the obvious, but in case you missed it...thats more evidence of political motivations. Who pushes climate fear the most? Socialists. Who do socialists target? The "unjustly" wealthy of the world. Even though they, themselves, are usually amongst that group. But no, there's no political motivation....


Errm, OK. You see these things through political lenses, thus you see politics everywhere, even the hands of socialist bogeymen who are coming to take your money away.

Cool. Must be a scary world for you.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Just had to toss this in there...a link to atmospheric composition...as you can see, the variable gas CO2 comprises 0.036% of the atmosphere's composition. Now, obviously thats a VERY small amount. Now, look at that deeper. It's variable, both in the amount at any given time, and the amount per location. When talking on the scale of 0.036%, exactly how hard is it, do you think, to skew your results according to where and when and how you obtain your measurements? Not saying it necessarily happened with this measurement, but on that small of a scale, even unintentional error in regards to control measures can greatly increase results.


So now we have scientists actually implicitly acting dishonestly. Great.

We can measure many elements down to ppb, so don't worry about it. Chemistry is like that.

Thus far, it's like a comedic assassin trying to kill this cool guy called science with a rotten banana.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Now we progress to personal attacks in the face of data.


A link on temperature change, here. .4C against the "average." Yes, you said 3-8% of the greenhouse effect. I was being generous by just comparing to to temperature change. It would be even less, if I were to go through all the steps to convert the hypothetical effect into correlating percentages for temperature increase.


About the inclusion of Gore into it, actually, thats called using an example. His crusade for the environment encapsulates the nature of the beast pretty well. Overblown, inaccurate data and alarmism, mixed with a healthy dose of socialism and humanism.

oh god, PLEASE RESEARCH WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Snowflakes are a result of entropy. For order to spring from nothing, you have to break those laws. Sorry. That argument is a result of philosophical scientists who don't understand the processes of thermodynamics. And, in terms of information science, snowflake do not gain information, either. They lose information (and heat, in terms of thermodynamics,) and their patterns are the result of this.

In the end, Im not seeing science from you. Im seeing opinion. Bring some science, I'll refute it. If you want more specific backing of any particular point I made, ask for it. But personal attacks are what people resort to when they can't refute facts. I have no agenda but truth. I just believe in dealing with reality as it is, rather than making up stories to fulfill my lack of confidence in my own thoughts and perceptions concerning life.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


wow, more personal attacks. backed by your faith in science. No, scientists don't falsify data! There never was a piltdown man....no man named...what was it..Hei Suk Hwang...ever faked cloning...no one ever skewed the "hocky stick" temperature data from NASA...right. Strangely akin to a christian saying god is always good, and if he seems bad, we just don't understand it.

Yes, we can measure elements down to PPB. I know this. This is relevant how? I can measure down to PPB my daily bowel movements, but that doesnt mean there's that much biological waste in the atmosphere.

Where you draw your sample from, esp when dealing with less than a third of one percent of a sample, can massively skew your data. I wasnt saying it has happened...Im just saying..the primary basis of faith in the entire theory is based on your faith that these scientists...most of who are actively trying to prove an hypothesis concerning man-made global warming...are taking samples that accurately reflect the overall atmosphere. I would have to ask how anyone can ever determine what range of samples COULD accurate reflect the total composition of the atmosphere, given that it varies from location to location and from altitude to altitude. And thats not even factoring the effects of one time events (like volcanos) and the influence of weather patterns. Repeatability can ensure some accuracy in many cases, but establishing any control is likely to be as much guesswork as it is hard science.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
I give up. Its like talking to a room full of parrots. Or, more accurately, evangelists.


There is no need to begin passing judgment here man. This is about discussions, disagreeing is common here on ATS.



My point with rainforest destruction vs "fossil fuels" is that all the political action to stem the "coming apocalypse" is bent on penalizing the successful, not stopping deforestation, even though that is obviously more of a problem.


I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually believe the government has it out for the oil industry. IMO it is quite the contrary. It also seems plainly obvious that the government (int he USA for sure) is 90% against supporting the belief in anthropogenic global warming. I agree that deforestation is an immensely important issue as well and that it effects global warming, yet it is hard to believe that it offers a reasonable excuse to ignore our production of other atmospheric pollutants.



I was thinking you might see the obvious, but in case you missed it...thats more evidence of political motivations. Who pushes climate fear the most? Socialists. Who do socialists target? The "unjustly" wealthy of the world. Even though they, themselves, are usually amongst that group. But no, there's no political motivation....



Again with the judgments, poor form man. Is it so hard to believe that some people find the preservation and rehabilitation of our planet so difficult to believe in?


[edit on 2-2-2008 by Animal]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Now we progress to personal attacks in the face of data.


What data? So far all you've done is taken the anomaly compared to the reference period and attempted some naff calculation to show whatever you thought it showed.

Don't be so sensitive, they were simple observations. You have taken a discussion on science in this thread into a claim that it's all about politics, whilst babbling about manbearpig, Gore, and socialists.

That looks like projection. To you it's all about politics, that's why you've steered the thread that way. If you want to talk science, lets do it.


I was being generous by just comparing to to temperature change.


What's generous about it? It was just plain wrong.


It would be even less, if I were to go through all the steps to convert the hypothetical effect into correlating percentages for temperature increase.


Well, go on then. I wait with curiosity.


oh god, PLEASE RESEARCH WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Snowflakes are a result of entropy. For order to spring from nothing, you have to break those laws. Sorry. That argument is a result of philosophical scientists who don't understand the processes of thermodynamics. And, in terms of information science, snowflake do not gain information, either. They lose information (and heat, in terms of thermodynamics,) and their patterns are the result of this.


Heh, snowflakes are an increase in order. From a disordered form of water molecules to a crystalline formation. So, the second law is about entropy, a move to disorder over time in a closed system. This likely can apply to the universe itself, it doesn't to the earth. We have a source of energy to fuel increases in order.

Go to origins & creationism. There are three threads for people to present evidence for creationism, it should be interesting.


In the end, Im not seeing science from you. Im seeing opinion. Bring some science, I'll refute it. If you want more specific backing of any particular point I made, ask for it. But personal attacks are what people resort to when they can't refute facts. I have no agenda but truth. I just believe in dealing with reality as it is, rather than making up stories to fulfill my lack of confidence in my own thoughts and perceptions concerning life.


I just have. You said that human influence on CO2 and the greenhouse effect was negligible. I just presented data that it isn't. If you need an article to back it up, I can easily find it.

What was the personal attack? You're the one babbling about socialists and manbearpig. If you want to talk science, focus. I like to talk science, indeed, I couldn't give a fig about politics. The politics is for the mitigation issue.


Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
wow, more personal attacks. backed by your faith in science. No, scientists don't falsify data! There never was a piltdown man....no man named...what was it..Hei Suk Hwang...ever faked cloning...no one ever skewed the "hocky stick" temperature data from NASA...right. Strangely akin to a christian saying god is always good, and if he seems bad, we just don't understand it.


Look, all you did was attack the integrity of scientists because their findings don't fit your ideological perceptions. Yes, scientists are people and some people are dishonest, but such fraud is uncovered by other scientists.

The 'hockey stick' data was fine, it was not a fraud. The statistics could have been better, but novel approaches tend to use not so optimal methods. The Mann study was the very first of its kind. When the data is assessed using more appropriate stats, nothing changes, the findings are essentially the same. Indeed, the original Mann study has been replicated by almost a dozen other large scale multiproxy studies.

The Mann study is now almost 10 years old, get with the times.


Yes, we can measure elements down to PPB. I know this. This is relevant how? I can measure down to PPB my daily bowel movements, but that doesnt mean there's that much biological waste in the atmosphere.


Eh? The point was that the argument is a naff one. It's just an argument from small numbers. ppb is parts per billion by the way. I'm not sure how that is related to bowel movements.


most of who are actively trying to prove an hypothesis concerning man-made global warming...are taking samples that accurately reflect the overall atmosphere.


No, they're just measuring CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, scientists attempt to falsify their theories. You don't 'prove' hypotheses. We attempt to falsify them. We've been doing that since Popper.


Repeatability can ensure some accuracy in many cases, but establishing any control is likely to be as much guesswork as it is hard science.


I really don't see the point of this, all you're trying to say is CO2 is in small concentrations in the atmosphere, therefore we can't reliably measure it. That's just rubbish.

We can measure stuff at levels of one part in a billion and even less. All these measures have error ranges, but nothing to negate their use.

As I said earlier in more 'colourful' language, you are just trying to assassinate the science in the most silly ways. We are releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 every year. Indeed, we are releasing enough to double the yearly rise in atmospheric concentration we are observing.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Making observations is not passing judgment. Parroting faith is like evangelists. I wasnt getting debate, I was getting parroting.

"Political motivation" does not equate to the government, for one. It equates more to special interests and lobbyists. Secondly, the US is about the biggest resister of this poor science being pushed by socialists. Thats because not everyone in this country has bought the socialist ideals and "scientific" faiths that go with them in the US. Some of us remove the bias, spin, inference, etc and analyze the raw data.

I have no problem with being environmentally responsible. I have a problem with wasting billions of dollars and raising taxes to fight against something that isnt factually supported. It's called being a responsible citizen. Thats my tax money, too. Thats me being raped with taxes, too. Poor science isnt an excuse to rape me further.

Again, evidence of socialist motivations involved in the pushing of global warming ideas isnt passing judgment. It's making an intelligent observation. Are there some people who arent socialists who push it? Sure. The entire population of Germany wasn't insane under Hitler, they just believed his ravings. Im speaking of leaders, not followers.

Again and again, critical thinking seems to be absent from this discussion. That, or its just nit-picking to try to deflect the issue away from the failure of data to support the issue. I notice that no one's bothers to address the minuscule effect of man-made carbon as presented in climate change alarmist data. I suppose there is more dignity in ignoring the egg than acknowledging it enough to wipe it off.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join