Scientists: 'No question' that man-made warming exists'

[BigDyl]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.talks.ap/index.html

 

[DOMS]

For the most part, this report, as usuall, is full of shit.

They say crap like, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level. There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

I'd like to see a 1 to 1 correlation that makes this a fact.

The only interesting thing was that they said this, "And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries."

Yet the fail to mention that the reason for the unstoppable rise is that it's a natural trend.

Once again, it's nothing more than facts mixed with implications and lies of ommission.

 

[Dero]

...and yet another post about lies and deceptions.

 

[zombul]

Anyone posted any topics on global warming lately?

 

[Dero]

Anyone posted any topics on global warming lately?

I'll do "a search", 'cuz offhand I can't tell you.

 

[DOMS]

...and yet another post about lies and deceptions.

It is what it is. If you want to to believe in it, knock yourself out.

 

[Arnold]

it's obvious why many people, organizations, etc. would want to deny that global warming exists, but I am failing to see what would be gained from everyone that is claiming it is fact, what is their motivation?

 

[DOMS]

it's obvious why many people, organizations, etc. would want to deny that global warming exists, but I am failing to see what would be gained from everyone that is claiming it is fact, what is their motivation?

Not wanting to be lied to? Not wanting to be manipulated?

If I wanted more of that, I'd have listened to Bush's state of the union crap.

 

[Dero]

It is what it is. If you want to to believe in it, knock yourself out.

When I reffer to lies and deceptions, I reffer to the facts that most politicians are trying to hide the facts about global warming.

 

[Dero]

For the most part, this report, as usuall, is full of shit.

They say crap like, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level. There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."

I'd like to see a 1 to 1 correlation that makes this a fact.

The only interesting thing was that they said this, "And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries."

Yet the fail to mention that the reason for the unstoppable rise is that it's a natural trend.

Once again, it's nothing more than facts mixed with implications and lies of ommission.

Ok,if it is a natural trend, why help it and make it happen faster then it should happen?

 

[Arnold]

Not wanting to be lied to? Not wanting to be manipulated?

you did not understand my question.

I am asking what do the global warming advocates have to gain?
Why are scientists standing behind this and making their theories be known?
What is their motivation?

 

[DOMS]

Ok,if it is a natural trend, why help it and make it happen faster then it should happen?

Show me the 100% definitive proof that humans are accelerating the process.

You won't, because you can't, because it doesn't exist. What you'll end up doing is linking to a page that points to CO2 graphs and temperature graphs that fall apart at the right edge. That's the best you'll be able to do, with plenty of room for doing worse.

 

[DOMS]

I am asking what do the global warming advocates have to gain?

Funding, votes, and money; just to name a few.

 

[Dale Mabry]

The only interesting thing was that they said this, "And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries."

I think the inference that is being made is that our fuck up will last for centuries, so the effect from stopping now won't be felt for centuries, not that there is no reason to stop because it is inevitable.

I honestly don't know if we are accelerating it for sure...I have an idea we are, just like I have an idea that if I jumped off a 200ft bridge I would die. I don't know for sure, but I have an idea.

 

[DOMS]

I honestly don't know if we are accelerating it for sure...I have an idea we are, just like I have an idea that if I jumped off a 200ft bridge I would die. I don't know for sure, but I have an idea.

The difference being that jumping from a 200 ft. bridge will likely lead to death it 100% provable and repeatable; whereas "mankind is affecting global warming" is not.

But "Yeah!" for feelings...especially when they lead to wasting resources and billions of (perhaps even a trillion or more) dollars.

 

[Dale Mabry]

The difference being that jumping from a 200 ft. bridge will likely lead to death it 100% provable and repeatable; whereas "mankind is affecting global warming" is not.

But "Yeah!" for feelings...especially when they lead to wasting resources and billions of (perhaps even a trillion or more) dollars.

The only way to prove it would be to do it oneself. I am sure that at least 1 person has fallen 200ft and lived, that 1 out of a million still leaves the chance one will survive. Again, it is all about where you draw the line as to how powerful the research is. With global warming data, you can never truly prove the science because there is no control group to compare the study data to. The only way to prove it would be to end the world, start over, and then see what happens without human interference. Not gonna happen.

 

[DOMS]

The only way to prove it would be to do it oneself. I am sure that at least 1 person has fallen 200ft and lived, that 1 out of a million still leaves the chance one will survive. Again, it is all about where you draw the line as to how powerful the research is. With global warming data, you can never truly prove the science because there is no control group to compare the study data to. The only way to prove it would be to end the world, start over, and then see what happens without human interference. Not gonna happen.

You're correct; it's all about where you'll draw the line. Considering the ramifications of the "deciding" that man is affecting global warming, I'd need some fairly concrete proof that this is in deed a fact, and not someone's opinion. Just look at the garbage that has sprung form this so far. Read up on the waste that is the Kyoto Protocol.

Also, you don't need a control group to prove something to a point of credibility.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Also, you don't need a control group to prove something to a point of credibility.

You don't prove, you disprove all other theories until there is one left. Again, it is where you draw the line. What exactly would you need to be shown in order to believe global warming exists?

 

[DOMS]

You don't prove, you disprove all other theories until there is one left. Again, it is where you draw the line. What exactly would you need to be shown in order to believe global warming exists?

I'd like a 1 to 1 correlation of pollution (of any kind) to the average ambient temperature. I've seen the CO2/Temperature graph and it falls apart at the right edge.

I certainly am not going to buy into the "hottest days ever" garbage either.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I'd like a 1 to 1 correlation of pollution (of any kind) to the average ambient temperature. I've seen the CO2/Temperature graph and it falls apart at the right edge.

I certainly am not going to buy into the "hottest days ever" garbage either.

So pollution charted against temperature? I would imagine some types of pollution would make no difference so you would need to figure out which aspect of pollution would cause it. Then, you would need to figure out the magnitude of change it would bring. Maybe not in degrees per day with relation to the time of year, but it would be small over time period, maybe 100ths of a degree. I don't think anyone would say it is going to effect us tomorrow, but more over the long term, over 100s of years. So if you care that in 100yrs it will be 5 degrees warmer, the data may be important enough for you to care.

 

[DOMS]

So pollution charted against temperature? I would imagine some types of pollution would make no difference so you would need to figure out which aspect of pollution would cause it. Then, you would need to figure out the magnitude of change it would bring. Maybe not in degrees per day with relation to the time of year, but it would be small over time period, maybe 100ths of a degree. I don't think anyone would say it is going to effect us tomorrow, but more over the long term, over 100s of years. So if you care that in 100yrs it will be 5 degrees warmer, the data may be important enough for you to care.

So, there is no such relationship then? Or, at least, it can't be proven. So we just need to take it on faith that the pro-global warming people have it right...

Even the pro-global warming people estimate that the most the temperature will increase in the next 100 years is about 1.1 degrees. Have you ever looked at the long term trend of the global temperature? You should, because just such a rise is inline with the temperature rise that started 10,000 years ago.

 

[Dero]

So, there is no such relationship then? Or, at least, it can't be proven. So we just need to take it on faith that the pro-global warming people have it right...

Even the pro-global warming people estimate that the most the temperature will increase in the next 100 years is about 1.1 degrees. Have you ever looked at the long term trend of the global temperature? You should, because just such a rise is inline with the temperature rise that started 10,000 years ago.

DOMS, are you running for office somewhere, you seem to talk like a politician. (seriously)
Let me get this right, you're saying that with all the polution there is and all the wasted energy around,primarly caused by the industrial sector, we are not heading for self destruction, that this is a natural trend.
How can YOU prove what you are saying, this cycle has never been done before. This is the first time that society as we know it, is going through this phase.

 

[NeilPearson]

So pollution charted against temperature? I would imagine some types of pollution would make no difference so you would need to figure out which aspect of pollution would cause it. Then, you would need to figure out the magnitude of change it would bring. Maybe not in degrees per day with relation to the time of year, but it would be small over time period, maybe 100ths of a degree. I don't think anyone would say it is going to effect us tomorrow, but more over the long term, over 100s of years. So if you care that in 100yrs it will be 5 degrees warmer, the data may be important enough for you to care.

It doesn't really matter then. 100 years is a long time at todays rate of technological progress. People take one little aspect of science / technology like global warming and isolate it and make predictions based on that. The truth is that without looking at the whole overall trend of technology and exponential rates of progress, it is meaningless. People look at a technology that could make people live forever and predict overpopulation. The problem with this is it fails to factor in how this same or similar technologies also exponentially increase how many people the planet can support.

Here is a response to global warming (source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/14/DI2006061402086.html ):

Columbia, Md.: I have been following your career with great interest since my office acquired one of your first reading machines. And I have been fascinated by the SINGULARITY IS NEAR. I am also impressed with Al Gore's arguments that the global warming problem should be near the top of everyone's agenda. He claims that climate scientists say we have only about ten years, absent a concerted effort and political will to solve the problem, before the planet has reached a point where it's too late to prevent catastrophic consequences. Do you believe, given your arguments about progress acceleration, that these scientists are unduly pessimistic? Do you think that accelerated technology alone--even without political will to solve the problem--will save the planet?

Ray Kurzweil: None of the global warming discussions mention the word "nanotechnology." Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can't do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution. Within 20 years, it can provide all of our energy needs. The discussions talk about current trends continuing for the next century as if nothing is going to change. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that's not going to happen. And it's not just environmental concern that will drive this, the $2 trillion we spend on energy is providing plenty of economic incentive. I don't see any disasters occuring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes.

 

[DOMS]

DOMS, are you running for office somewhere, you seem to talk like a politician. (seriously)
Let me get this right, you're saying that with all the polution there is and all the wasted energy around,primarly caused by the industrial sector, we are not heading for self destruction, that this is a natural trend.
How can YOU prove what you are saying, this cycle has never been done before. This is the first time that society as we know it, is going through this phase.

Why should I have to prove that man-made global warming is a farce? It's not like someone just decided one day to say that global warming didn't exist out of the blue. The pro-global warming decided that opinion and theory were not fact and said that man-made global warming was a fact of life.

You, like some many have decided, hilariously so, that if someone doesn't get on the global warming train of idiocy, then they have no good intention towards the environment. There are plenty of real issues concerning pollution and the environment to worry about without having to make shit up.

 

[Dero]

Why should I have to prove that man-made global warming is a farce? It's not like someone just decided one day to say that global warming didn't exist out of the blue. The pro-global warming decided that opinion and theory were not fact and said that man-made global warming was a fact of life.

You, like some many have decided, hilariously so, that if someone doesn't get on the global warming train of idiocy, then they have no good intention towards the environment. There are plenty of real issues concerning pollution and the environment to worry about without having to make shit up.

Hold on right there, where did I say that?
I'm trying to see your side of this discussion and all I'm asking for are proofs of what you are talking about.
So far, you have only attacked(mildly) anybody that does not think like you and you yourself have used that same ploy as for asking proof to back up this theory.
How can you prove to me that while being careless with my waste (garbages) and wastfull with byproducts, I don't contribute to global warming.

 

[DOMS]

Hold on right there, where did I say that?
I'm trying to see your side of this discussion and all I'm asking for are proofs of what you are talking about.
So far, you have only attacked(mildly) anybody that does not think like you and you yourself have used that same ploy as for asking proof to back up this theory.
How can you prove to me that while being careless with my waste (garbages) and wastfull with byproducts, I don't contribute to global warming.

You said " How can YOU prove what you are saying". I was talking about global warming. What was that supposed to mean?

 

[Dub guy]

You people that think this stuff is bull....need a reality check. Its easy to spout off on some gay board that its bull but none of the info any of you have backs up shit.....why not STFU and help fix our earth you ignorant fuck tards.

I hate people like that. Oh let someone else worry about it....im to selfish to believe that......plus dont you know everything now a days is a giant consipracey.

LOSERS!

 

[DOMS]

You people that think this stuff is bull....need a reality check. Its easy to spout off on some gay board that its bull but none of the info any of you have backs up shit.....why not STFU and help fix our earth you ignorant fuck tards.

I hate people like that. Oh let someone else worry about it....im to selfish to believe that......plus dont you know everything now a days is a giant consipracey.

LOSERS!

You need to go back and retake high school...and middle school...and grade school...and probably kindergarten. Fuck it, just go back back in the womb you belched from and be nice and safe.

 

[NeilPearson]

You people that think this stuff is bull....need a reality check. Its easy to spout off on some gay board that its bull but none of the info any of you have backs up shit.....why not STFU and help fix our earth you ignorant fuck tards.

I hate people like that. Oh let someone else worry about it....im to selfish to believe that......plus dont you know everything now a days is a giant consipracey.

LOSERS!

My point is, it doesn't really matter if global warming is a scientific fact or not. Within 20 years, fossil fuel burning will be obsolete anyway. Don't come back and say, "That will never happen in 20 years!"... read the post I quoted and research a little on singularity and exponential growth. I don't feel like explaining it.

 

[Dub guy]

You need to go back and retake high school...and middle school...and grade school...and probably kindergarten. Fuck it, just go back back in the womb you belched from and be nice and safe.

That means so much coming from you idiot.

why dont you spend less time polluting this board....and go learn something about the way you are helping to destroy our childrens future enviorment.....but hell you wont do that your too self absorbed for that.