Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Ok, average global temperature, it's 'global' right? I haven't referred to temperature "s".

Excellent, so we finally are getting somewhere. So we'll be averaging here. Over the 'globe' presumably, and that would be another way to refer to Earth. Now if you tell me how exactly it has to be measured and we can move forward to discussing whether it is changing and in what direction.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Sing me the blues baby, my whole life's work is about temperature and controlling it.

This is very strange, because you are making money controlling something that I don't think you understand. So, what is temperature?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

it seems that 15,000 science scholars now coming out about the false info is not good enough.

Nope, not good enough. Your data is flawed, if you attempt to make money with statistics you will be hungry.
Didn't I tell you earlier that I can provide you with plenty of examples where the vast majority of scientists were wrong in what they believed and once they did the proposed experiments they changed their mind.

BTW did you bother to read some of the arguments in that link of yours? Stuff like 'The money spent on that research should be spent on my research'... You should ask ControlFreak1 what does it mean.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

no matter what is shown to most they dismiss it without even trying to comprehend the papers that are shown to them. i try to give info and info on the webpages, but to no avail.

As I said I am more than happy to discuss scientific papers, but so far most of you seem to be skirting that type of discussion and instead you are presenting political arguments. Quoting somebody else's opinion does not convince me at all, this is a playground level argument 'my dad's bigger and stronger' vs. 'my dad can beat up your dad'.

Really, if you guys want real discussion please bring real facts and correct logic to the table. If we'll be talking about science you have to bring scientific papers which you have read and understood and be ready to read and understand equal amount of scientific papers with the opposing conclusions. If we'll be having political arguments let's make that clear and stick to the form where everybody states their opinion and that's the end of the story, because there is nothing else to be done with these. It's a matter of me thinking A is more important than B and you thinking the opposite.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

CAN'T WE COME TO A GENERAL CONCLUSION ON THIS WITHOUT DESTROYING EVERYTHING WE HAVE WORKED FOR ????

worked for what? i've worked for many things and none of them have been destroyed.
i will not agree to something that i haven't gotten a single good argument for, and i don't think anybody should.

Originally Posted by gugi

Nope, not good enough. Your data is flawed, if you attempt to make money with statistics you will be hungry.
Didn't I tell you earlier that I can provide you with plenty of examples where the vast majority of scientists were wrong in what they believed and once they did the proposed experiments they changed their mind.

BTW did you bother to read some of the arguments in that link of yours? Stuff like 'The money spent on that research should be spent on my research'... You should ask ControlFreak1 what does it mean.


As I said I am more than happy to discuss scientific papers, but so far most of you seem to be skirting that type of discussion and instead you are presenting political arguments. Quoting somebody else's opinion does not convince me at all, this is a playground level argument 'my dad's bigger and stronger' vs. 'my dad can beat up your dad'.

Really, if you guys want real discussion please bring real facts and correct logic to the table. If we'll be talking about science you have to bring scientific papers which you have read and understood and be ready to read and understand equal amount of scientific papers with the opposing conclusions. If we'll be having political arguments let's make that clear and stick to the form where everybody states their opinion and that's the end of the story, because there is nothing else to be done with these. It's a matter of me thinking A is more important than B and you thinking the opposite.


worked for what? i've worked for many things and none of them have been destroyed.
i will not agree to something that i haven't gotten a single good argument for, and i don't think anybody should.

you seem to have missed the entire basis of this thread, i asked if you believed in global warming/climate change. this not a conference on science. you have been shown where the very people who once supported it have now changed their minds. link after link show this taking place. yet you insist on using your science that is not EXACT it is only conjecture at best. the opinion of climate change is changing against the whole idea and you still want to argue with flawed science that even Al Gore and others will not respond to and when confronted. just like the examples i gave of what was once to be thought to be FACTS at the time and later was proven wrong. it does not matter that all believed it, it was believed by a section of people, just like global warming is believed by a section of people and not by most.
i am saying that this science that is supposed to be proof of the warming and climate change is flawed and IMO will be proven wrong.
you make the claim that nothing will be destroyed, even the president says there will be hardships on most people if the measures to cut back emissions of green house gas take place. most with extremely high utility bills, curtailment of manufacturing and cutbacks on automobile usage. if not being able to pay your utility bills and being out of work is not loosing everything, then what is? ask him where he gets his data that he is using and you get a vague answer even from him...
again i would like to state, are we as mankind willing to make the changes to stop so called green house gas and stop the particulate matter from going into the atmosphere? when in fact it may be a natural cause that we may or may not be able to change. we need definite exact proof before we jump off the edge of the cliff and do grave damage to our economy and the worlds economy.
in closing i submit that we need more studies. we need to take only steps that are sure and deliberate for the good of all mankind.
Gugi you, i am sure are a great fellow and a great help to all who have questions on straight shaving and we all have taken info from your previous posts here. but on this one i think you may have actually driven more away from you ideas than you have brought to you side.(notice i said may as i do not have the scientific paper written on that subject yet, it will be part of my upcoming thesis)

Sorry Gugi I hope you don't mind me fielding this one.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

you seem to have missed the entire basis of this thread, i asked if you believed in global warming/climate change. this not a conference on science.

Thats where I went wrong, I thought this was about science.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

you have been shown where the very people who once supported it have now changed their minds. link after link show this taking place.

Actually I think its the other way around. You posted a link from 1998 which suggested 15K scientists disagreed with the Kyoto protocol. Now after twelve years and tons more data, all that can be mustered from the scientific ranks disputing climate change are around 700.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

yet you insist on using your science that is not EXACT it is only conjecture at best.

Science is an exact science and further, its community is exact-ing. Meaning that you have to make very solid arguments otherwise they will be refuted when you try to publish by the peer review process, especially in the top journals. Point in fact, have a look at the last link I posted on the Nature article on glacier thinning earlier in this thread. That paper was submitted in October 2008, but was held up in review for almost a year. I am certain that the editors asked for a lot more control experiments and probably the paper was submitted through two or three review cycles. Thats how this type of data is scrutinized. I've published in Nature, I know how difficult they can be. But in contrast, look at how easy it is to write a blog, or publish a website or write a book on the internet. A lot of people don't appreciate the difference there.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

the opinion of climate change is changing against the whole idea and you still want to argue with flawed science that even Al Gore and others will not respond to and when confronted.

Al Gore's hyperboly or his confrontational personality is often used as an argument against the science itself. The truth is, Al Gore could be bozo the clown or hitler, and it really would not change the scientific evidence one iota.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

just like the examples i gave of what was once to be thought to be FACTS at the time and later was proven wrong. it does not matter that all believed it, it was believed by a section of people, just like global warming is believed by a section of people and not by most.
i am saying that this science that is supposed to be proof of the warming and climate change is flawed and IMO will be proven wrong.

This is a good point. Science is self policing, in that there are always scientists out there who are looking to make a name for themselves by refuting your data. Einstein made a name for himself doing just that, refuting the data of his time, and for that reason, he is a role model to many scientists today. So there are many scientists who would love to conclusively disprove the prevailing view that global warming either did not exist or prove conclusively that man did not contribute to it. Heck I wish I had the data (even though I am not a climate scientist) because that would be one of the science papers of the year. But a person could only do it with conclusive data. Out shouting the other person does not work in science the way it might work in politics or TV talk shows.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

you make the claim that nothing will be destroyed, even the president says there will be hardships on most people if the measures to cut back emissions of green house gas take place. most with extremely high utility bills, curtailment of manufacturing and cutbacks on automobile usage. if not being able to pay your utility bills and being out of work is not loosing everything, then what is? ask him where he gets his data that he is using and you get a vague answer even from him...again i would like to state, are we as mankind willing to make the changes to stop so called green house gas and stop the particulate matter from going into the atmosphere? when in fact it may be a natural cause that we may or may not be able to change. we need definite exact proof before we jump off the edge of the cliff and do grave damage to our economy and the worlds economy.

To me, the better analogy is that we are driving off a cliff, and we are deciding whether we should jump before the car goes over.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

in closing i submit that we need more studies. we need to take only steps that are sure and deliberate for the good of all mankind.
Gugi you, i am sure are a great fellow and a great help to all who have questions on straight shaving and we all have taken info from your previous posts here. but on this one i think you may have actually driven more away from you ideas than you have brought to you side.(notice i said may as i do not have the scientific paper written on that subject yet, it will be part of my upcoming thesis)

To tell you the truth, I was a lot more irate about this issue the previous 8 years, when we had an administration which in my view was actually hostile to science. But in the last election, both our choices for president, John McCain and Barack Obama agreed that global warming was serious and that man was contributing to it. Both the republican and democratic presidential candidates agreeing on this... that sure sounds like a popular mandate to me. Democracy is great when you are in the majority, but I do understand your feeling of frustration that your voice now is not getting heard, and that you are feeling disenfranchised. Thats because I felt like that for the last eight years.

So I realize why its important for you to speak your mind on forums like this. I respect that and would defend your right to say what you want here to Gugi, heck even to Lynn. But you probably realize that unless you come up with some kind of convincing science, your citing websites, or books or some political opinion pieces are not going to change my mind. I definitely realize that citing peer reviewed science articles or the views of the top journals or scientific organizations is not going to change your mind or that of Control freak either

I often wonder about those that think man is contributing to "greenhouse" emissions if they even know what gasses make up the interior of a greenhouse. Ask anyone, they will immediately spout off carbon dioxide. I can't blame anyone for that. We're bombarded daily with that. Can they name the other three main contributors? Chances are a big fat "NO!". I have a hard time believing that Captain Planet from Tennessee (our hero Al Gore) can name the other three and the percentages they contribute (please keep in mind that I haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth", the Nobel Prize winning falsehood on "climate change". Maybe he does know, but when there's plenty of lies in it, and they have been researched, I'm not watching). Please, tell me without looking up the data what the other three are. Most of you can't do it without Google to help. I'm sure there are some here that can, but most of you probably can't.

The numbers:

1. Water vapor Approximately 70%
2. Carbon dioxide Approximately 7 - 15%
3. Methane Approximately 4 - 10%
4. Ozone Approximately the rest to 99%
5. Other 1%?

These numbers are approximate and I know some of you will tell me that carbon dioxide is a much higher percentage. However, it's not. For those of you that think it is, show me your successful greenhouse without water vapor versus one with water vapor.

The Department of Energy (DOE) does not show water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Neither to my knowledge does the EPA (I could be wrong on that one, I'm not looking it up). Take that as a fact and the other elements of greenhouse gasses make up HUGE percentages of contribution.

Back to carbon dioxide. Where does it come from? Ask Al Gore and the environmental movement and you'd think that man is the sole contributor and that it comes solely from burning fossil fuels. Believe it or not, approximately 96% of it comes from the earth's crust. Look it up, don't take my word for it. We're talking science here........aren't we? There are papers that have been written about it, see for yourself. So, we're left to approximately 4% that's man made out of the 100% output of all CO2 emissions. 6 billion people, 4%. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Wikipedia even erroneously states:

Carbon dioxide is the human-produced greenhouse gas that contributes most of radiative forcing from human activity.

Oh really? It doesn't leak from the earth's crust? That's news to me!!!!!! Source: Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is a horrible example of fact. There is nothing worse than reading that prose only to have to go out and verify that it is in fact the truth. One has to do twice the amount of research to prove any of that stuff.

Overall, man's contribution to "global warming" (and after several harsh winters this has been changed to "climate change" because "global warming" is nonsense, even some of the Al Gore types admit this) is negligible at BEST. Wouldn't it be easier to wrap 2/3 of the earth's surface (oceans) with plastic wrap and cement over the over 50 - 70 current active volcanoes to reduce our "greenhouse output" than to enact "climate change legislation"? This is how ludicrous the argument has become. "Climate change" is the conduit used by nut jobs to control our lives through government intervention, i.e., HIGHER TAXES. It's not about the climate, it's about control.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Funny......the justices who made that decision are polluters! If you honestly believe that carbon dioxide is killing us, should you really breathe at all? Fly jets? Drive a car? Eat meat? Use a computer that's powered by a coal fired power plant?

There is no question that the earth's climate is changing. I can't argue that, no one can.......temperatures differ from day to day, year to year, decade to decade, century to century, millenia to millenia. PROVE TO ME THAT MAN IS CAUSING IT. I dare you. THERE IS ZERO PROOF that I'm doing anything to change climate. If the total concentration of atmospheric CO2 has gone from roughly 300 PPM in the sixties to almost roughly 400 PPM this year yet global temperatures are going down one might assume that CO2 is causing global cooling, not warming. Does it really matter at that point who writes about what? IT'S ALL RHETORIC UNTIL THEY PROVE IT......FOR OR AGAINST "MAN MADE" climate change.

I love the argument that "global cooling" is also a part of "global warming". Let them have their cake and eat it, too.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Just a couple of thoughts (not directed at anyone in particular)... wikipedia should never be used as a citation (ever), neither should blogs, individual scientists, or other websites. If you want to discuss/debate scientific issues without basing your opinions on peer reviewed scientific papers, you are wasting everyone's time.

I'm not sure to what extent, but the fact that mankind has contributed to climate change is certainly supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, it's perfectly logical and predictable that melting of polar ice caps would cause a cooling effect.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Just a couple of thoughts (not directed at anyone in particular)... wikipedia should never be used as a citation (ever), neither should blogs, individual scientists, or other websites. If you want to discuss/debate scientific issues without basing your opinions on peer reviewed scientific papers, you are wasting everyone's time.

I'm not sure to what extent, but the fact that mankind has contributed to climate change is certainly supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, it's perfectly logical and predictable that melting of polar ice caps would cause a cooling effect.

so using your way of thinking, Marconi, Edison and the Wright brothers should have given up debating whether their inventions would work as there was no scientific papers to be reviewed by peers(do you think they would have given up even if there had been opposing scientific papers?)

There are leaders and then there are followers. I think the climate change crowd wants us all to be followers.

I think I'll avoid jumping off that cliff just yet.

Originally Posted by richmondesi

Just a couple of thoughts (not directed at anyone in particular)... wikipedia should never be used as a citation (ever), neither should blogs, individual scientists, or other websites. If you want to discuss/debate scientific issues without basing your opinions on peer reviewed scientific papers, you are wasting everyone's time.

Reasonable advice for scientists, but it makes it hard for us regular folks to talk about things.

I'm not sure to what extent, but the fact that mankind has contributed to climate change is certainly supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, it's perfectly logical and predictable that melting of polar ice caps would cause a cooling effect.

See how hard that advice is to follow?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

so using your way of thinking, Marconi, Edison and the Wright brothers should have given up debating whether their inventions would work as there was no scientific papers to be reviewed by peers(do you think they would have given up even if there had been opposing scientific papers?)

This is silly... they proved that their inventions would work. Prior to them trying it for them to definitively make any claims would have left them open to criticism...

Saying they think it will work isn't the same as making definitive statements affirming something without evidence/proof