New study finds 99.999 percent certainty humans are causing global warming

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

Do you have a chart proving your assertions that climate change is mad-made going back from the last Ice Age?

If not, then all you have is words and a very biased opinion.

Hold up. Just saying that there have many many papers and links posted here saying that many scientists are telling us that Global Warming is man made and there have been many posts linking data going back to the ice ages ...all of them..in their study of climate. Just saying, that believing in Man Made Global Warming is a valid stance backed by all kinds of data and scientific studies. Yeah?

a reply to: Greven

So do you have anything, any data from the last Ice Age that would convince a skeptic like myself that climate change is man-made?

The study from the OP went aaaaaaaall the way back to 1951.

Now I'm almost positive that the earth was formed in 1943, but I just want to make sure before I jump on the higher-taxes, "we all gonna die" bandwagon.

Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

Do you have a chart proving your assertions that climate change is mad-made going back from the last Ice Age?

If not, then all you have is words and a very biased opinion.

Hold up. Just saying that there have many many papers and links posted here saying that many scientists are telling us that Global Warming is man made and there have been many posts linking data going back to the ice ages ...all of them..in their study of climate. Just saying, that believing in Man Made Global Warming is a valid stance backed by all kinds of data and scientific studies. Yeah?

I'll look for these "links" and will spend some time to make sure it's not just environmental-masturbation referencing each other's work in a climate-change circle jerk.

a reply to: beezzer

The fact that you either cannot understand the simple logic behind what I wrote or are simply choosing to ignore it wholesale precludes me from caring one whit about convincing you of anything.

You do not counter it, because you cannot. You ask for something else as if that somehow invalidates the logic.

I frankly don't care what you have to say about anything. You take at face value an unsourced chart that is so obviously wrong or outdated that you are beyond reasoning. Your sarcasm poorly hides your bias.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

Do you have a chart proving your assertions that climate change is mad-made going back from the last Ice Age?

If not, then all you have is words and a very biased opinion.

Hold up. Just saying that there have many many papers and links posted here saying that many scientists are telling us that Global Warming is man made and there have been many posts linking data going back to the ice ages ...all of them..in their study of climate. Just saying, that believing in Man Made Global Warming is a valid stance backed by all kinds of data and scientific studies. Yeah?

I'll look for these "links" and will spend some time to make sure it's not just environmental-masturbation referencing each other's work in a climate-change circle jerk.

This is what climate scientists do.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Greven

We're in a website that doesn't believe in ANYTHING, yet some scientists regurgitate some data, reference other's works, interpret and then reinterpret, and we're all supposed to sit back and say, "Hee-yuck! I bee-leeve it aaaaallll!"

pffft!

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

We're in a website that doesn't believe in ANYTHING, yet some scientists regurgitate some data, reference other's works, interpret and then reinterpret, and we're all supposed to sit back and say, "Hee-yuck! I bee-leeve it aaaaallll!"

pffft!

It's more than that though. I will agree that sometimes it's hard to navigate the truth of Climate Change/Global Warming.

However, you have to admit that there is so much scientific data/papers/research/articles that if I say "I think I'll believe that there is Man Made Global Warming." You have to at least respect that opinion because it's based on actual scientific research. Sure there's a chance I could be wrong and my opinion is that I'm not but...I am backed by actual research when I say It or say that I believe it. I'm not just listening to a couple of kooks.

a reply to: beezzer

Here and now, back this up beezzer. You wrote this not but a few posts ago:

originally posted by: beezzer
Do you have a chart proving your assertions that climate change is mad-made going back from the last Ice Age?

This is a strawman. You cannot quote me saying that, as I never made that assertion.

And you still cannot argue the simple fact that that chart's "present day" is either before 1950 or it is flawed. Do so now if you disagree.

originally posted by: da pickles
a reply to: tothetenthpower
How can most of you people not believe that the human race is behind global warming. The human population has exploded in less than 200 years. Every person creates heat and waste. We had the industrial revolution where the very air we breath in cities was so polluted it caused tens of thousands of deaths. During the revolution massive factories with engines churned out power but with effeciencys of little more than 15% . Most households relied on ineefecient coal fires for heating and cooking, lighting was provided by candles, millions of candles. Then we move forward in time a little and the civilised world is powered by gas and oil. Gas street lighting, gas heating 45% efficient. In the name of progress wild fires are started around the globe to allow for more pasture land. Then we move on a bit more and we start lobbing bombs at each other, start gassing each other, start burning each other. Then some bright spark invents a weapon with the power of the sun, and he lets it off, not once, not twice but hundreds of times. Then we really start to populate like rats and to keep us happy they let us have big engines in our cars and heating systems that can turn our houses into a sauna. Factories start spewing mega quantities of pollutants into the air and sea. Farming becomes a systematic intense protein process on a massive scale. Air travel becomes affordable to the masses with thousands of aircraft in the air at any one time. The world is in a boom. Well most of it . Africa is suffering from mass droughts. Africa, the bread basket of the world .
WHAT YOUR ALL MISSING IS THAT HEAT ENERGY ISN'T DESTROYED, IT MOVES, IT DISSIPATES BUT IT'S STILL THERE. FROM THE MOST BASIC CHARCOAL STOVE IN AFRICA TO THE GUY WITH A 50KW BOILER AND A A V8 CAR . FROM THE FIRST EXPERIMENT WITH GUNPOWDER TO THE MULTI MEGATON NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS, THEY ALL GENERATE HEAT AND POLLOUTION. HEAT THAT DOESN'T DISSAPEAR, HEAT THAT MOVES, HEAT THAT IS INSULATED BY THE POLLOUTION WE PUT IN THE ATMOSPHERE. EVERY LIGHTBULB, EVERY CIGARETTE, EVERY COAL FIRE, EVERY COOKER ADDS TO THIS .




AND YOU THINK IT'S NATURAL ?

Your whole rant sounds like you don't understand entropy.

I respect your position, and agree with a good amount of how you framed up man's unabated destruction of our environments.

However, the Earth is not a closed system. Energy is not destroyed and is conserved in a closed system, which the planet is not. The heat that you are saying is still there from eons ago, from nuclear bombs, etc. is not true. It dissipates into the atmosphere and out into space.

You might want to look into what role convection plays in carrying heat OUT of the atmosphere, which is where it will eventually go because of entropy and the planet not being a closed system.

Guess what powers convection, which is the main mover of heat? THE SUN.

The sun acts like a pump for our atmosphere, pumping energy into it in varying amounts. This pumping of energy creates heat (duh, it's the sun)... and drives convection. Convection leads to wind and ocean currents, which leads to the movement of energy and heat out of the oceans and atmosphere.

Can you show me a computer model, or formula anywhere, that can properly measure that process over any part of the planet on any given day?

If weather is the measurement of air temperature, moisture level, cloud cover, wind speed, air pressure, etc. for a given place and a given point in time.... and we can't predict it with a great deal of accuracy for a 48 hour period in a given place and time.... and climate is based on how weather varies over the entire planet for extended periods of time... I fail to see how anyone can arrive at the conclusion that anyone, anywhere on this planet, can in any way whatsoever, predict the climate of the planet when we can't even accurately measure and predict the weather, which is far smaller scale with almost the same set of variables.

~Namaste

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

We're in a website that doesn't believe in ANYTHING, yet some scientists regurgitate some data, reference other's works, interpret and then reinterpret, and we're all supposed to sit back and say, "Hee-yuck! I bee-leeve it aaaaallll!"

pffft!

It's more than that though. I will agree that sometimes it's hard to navigate the truth of Climate Change/Global Warming.

However, you have to admit that there is so much scientific data/papers/research/articles that if I say "I think I'll believe that there is Man Made Global Warming." You have to at least respect that opinion because it's based on actual scientific research. Sure there's a chance I could be wrong and my opinion is that I'm not but...I am backed by actual research when I say It or say that I believe it. I'm not just listening to a couple of kooks.

The opposite is also true.

There are lots of papers that refute other global warming papers, and ones that show very strong arguments against global warming all by themselves.

It goes both ways, and there isn't a side to choose. Do the research, watch for the immediate signs of bias and words like "believe" and "may" and "might" and "perhaps", etc.

Read the arguments on both sides, apply your own critical thinking and come to your own conclusions.



~Namaste

a reply to: amazing

You are reasonable, so I will reply with all candor and reason.

SO and Springer are planning (still, I hope) to have a Climate Scientist on AMA here.

I will continue to read actual data. Not referenced and re-referenced work (that irritates me to no end).

When I am convinced, one way or another, I'll stop being a skeptic or will be one of those folks sure that it's not man-made.

Until then, I will remain highly skeptical.

Hell, people can't agree on the Moon landings, 9/11, or chemtrails.

This isn't settled science by any stretch of the imagination.

a reply to: beezzer

There's a difference between being skeptical and completely making up what someone else wrote like a coward.

Oh, and then bemoaning science for allegedly doing exactly what you just did.

Are you shying away from that? Perhaps you would apologize for your strawman, hm?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

We're in a website that doesn't believe in ANYTHING, yet some scientists regurgitate some data, reference other's works, interpret and then reinterpret, and we're all supposed to sit back and say, "Hee-yuck! I bee-leeve it aaaaallll!"

pffft!

Yes. When it comes to physical science---you do NOT know as much as the collection of people who do it for a living, and you're probably even ignorant of the depth of your ignorance.

Nobody would say anything so ridiculous as the quote about, say, neurosurgery. If you had a brain tumor, what would you do?

We're in a website that doesn't believe in ANYTHING, yet some surgeons regurgitate some cases & videos, reference other's papers and textbooks, interpret and then reinterpret x-rays and MRI's, and we're all supposed to sit back and say, "Hee-yuck! I bee-leeve it aaaaallll!"

Hee-yuck, I ain't gonna believe them neurosurgeons! They're in it for the money!

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: beezzer

There's a difference between being skeptical and completely making up what someone else wrote like a coward.

Oh, and then bemoaning science for allegedly doing exactly what you just did.

Are you shying away from that? Perhaps you would apologize for your strawman, hm?

Dude get over it different strokes for different folks stop taking it personally.

If this whole alleged man made global warming is true then there is nothing you or anyone can do to change it the population of the world is increasing not decreasing.

originally posted by: beezzer
Hell, people can't agree on the Moon landings, 9/11, or chemtrails.

This isn't settled science by any stretch of the imagination.

I assume that this is subtle, snarky sarcasm.

To those who don' t get it: The facts are overwhelming that men landed on the moon using equipment designed by NASA, 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists who hijacked aircraft, and chemtrails are a nonexistent paranoid fantasy. And accumulation of excess greenhouse gases from human activity warms the climate by increasing the infrared emissivity of the upper atmosphere. All fact.

a reply to: thesaneone
He made it personal. It's not about a difference of opinion at this point.

If someone accuses you of something, do you take them to task or ignore it?
If someone says you said something you did not, do you take them to task or just ignore it?

No.

He'll just keep doing it, again and again - elsewhere to other people - if he can get away with it.
He'll do like he just did and handwave away the callout with some random statement as if it invalidates anything.
Oh and lots of stars for him it seems, from people who weren't reading the thread I guess. That simply encourages said behavior.

beezzer has explicitly claimed I'd written something that I did not write. If he is too immature to apologize, that's quite frankly not my fault. He even accused me of bias and a lack of facts. He doesn't just get to say these things without a response.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Greven

Do you have a chart proving your assertions that climate change is mad-made going back from the last Ice Age?

If not, then all you have is words and a very biased opinion.

He made up an entire strawman argument, whole cloth, then tried to get me to defend it by accusing me of being biased and without facts.

Are you just going to hide, beezzer, or will you stand by your words?

a reply to: Greven

Show me the charts dating back from the last Ice age. Show something that backs up your assertions.

Prove to me that you are right and I am wrong.

Otherwise, you are just another follower who will believe whatever it is to support your own ideology.

a reply to: mbkennel

Enough.

Okay?

Where's your degree in climate science?

MMM?

Nonexistent?

a reply to: beezzer

You made up the claim yourself, do it yourself.

You accepted - without question - a flawed, unsourced chart which I critiqued, then fabricated entirely an assertion that you attributed to me to discredit me rather than find any flaw in my argument.

Find it, quote it, or apologize. I owe you nothing, nor does your behavior merit any discussion beyond demanding an apology for your accusations and strawmen.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: beezzer

You made up the claim yourself, do it yourself.

You accepted - without question - a flawed chart which I critiqued, then fabricated entirely an assertion that you attributed to me.

Find it, quote it, or apologize. I owe you nothing, nor does your behavior merit any discussion beyond demanding an apology for your accusations and strawmen.

That chart showed more data than anything else!

Say, for argument sake, that the earth is 100 years old.

Most of the data I've seen is 10 seconds worth, taken yesterday.

Show me "100" years worth of data.

If you can.