Thread: Climategate!

Originally Posted by gugi

huh? we've been at this before and so far you have failed to show any level of competence on the scientific data and its analysis. it's not like i haven't asked, i keep doing it, but so far all you guys can offer is name callings and politics. so, i have reached the conclusion that you don't even know what 'truth', 'fact', 'observation' etc. is, and i am not interested in a pointless shouting match, which appears to be your preference for arguing.

if the 'proof is out there' how come you keep hiding it? you've had at least few dozen posts on this topic and never bothered to present it (hint: blogs, opeds, and such are not proof, scientific research is).

gugi,
i cannot believe what you just wrote. i have linked you several times to data as have others and you again dismiss it because of your "logic".
sorry but you are on the loosing creditable side....

Gugi,

Re: Actual scientific arguments:

As I said, there is tons of the stuff all over and you could, if you thought it would make a difference, Google it on your own.

But in the spirit of cooperation, here is one place to start. It summarizes about 132 references, some are "popular" books and articles but the raw data is (I think) ALWAYS from a peer-reviewed or industry source, as appropriate: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Originally Posted by 59caddy

gugi,
i cannot believe what you just wrote. i have linked you several times to data as have others and you again dismiss it because of your "logic".
sorry but you are on the loosing creditable side....

If by 'data' you mean the following links:
Are the ice caps melting? • The Register
Global warming explorers in Arctic get nasty shock: polar ice caps blooming freezing – Telegraph Blogs
More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth by Douglas Houts -- Capitalism Magazine

which as far as I can find are the only ones you provided, then yes my understanding of science and my logic is rather different from yours. I wouldn't want to measure to your standard of credibility for sure.

Originally Posted by TexasBob

But in the spirit of cooperation, here is one place to start. It summarizes about 132 references, some are "popular" books and articles but the raw data is (I think) ALWAYS from a peer-reviewed or industry source, as appropriate: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Finally something really relevant!
Now let's all go read the referenced papers and the ones that reference them and we can finally start having a meaningful argument.
And remember, cherry picking only the observations that support your preferred theory is bias, when there are seemingly opposite observations you have to figure out the reason for that. Not as easy as just claiming 'but I don't like what they see, so they are surely liers'.

Originally Posted by gugi

If by 'data' you mean the following links:
Are the ice caps melting? • The Register
Global warming explorers in Arctic get nasty shock: polar ice caps blooming freezing – Telegraph Blogs
More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth by Douglas Houts -- Capitalism Magazine

which as far as I can find are the only ones you provided, then yes my understanding of science and my logic is rather different from yours. I wouldn't want to measure to your standard of credibility for sure.



Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! Finally something really relevant!
Now let's all go read the referenced papers and the ones that reference them and we can finally start having a meaningful argument.
And remember, cherry picking only the observations that support your preferred theory is bias, when there are seemingly opposite observations you have to figure out the reason for that. Not as easy as just claiming 'but I don't like what they see, so they are surely liers'.

you seemed to conveniently forget to mention the others that were also linked to you by others. it seems no matter what i say, you are at odds with it. i could say it is daylight at 12 o'clock here where i am and you would swear it was pitch black without even finding out "where" i am located at the present, or what time zone i am in.....

Originally Posted by 59caddy

you seemed to conveniently forget to mention the others that were also linked to you by others. it seems no matter what i say, you are at odds with it. i could say it is daylight at 12 o'clock here where i am and you would swear it was pitch black without even finding out "where" i am located at the present, or what time zone i am in.....

I really hate to be saying stuff people should've learned from their parents, but just pointing to the relevant links would be so much more effective (and useful) than claiming I'm this or that... Yes I already said what I think of this type of arguing, so I'm not going to be repeating myself.
Ball's in your court, give it another try, you just got the coaching and a perfect demonstration, let's see if you can replicate it.

Edit: I really must have read a bit too much into your use of 'I have'. No doubt you noticed the 'hint' in that post of mine you were responding to, because you quoted it just before making the statement.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

gugi,
i have linked you several times to data as have others and you again dismiss it because of your "logic".
sorry but you are on the loosing creditable side....

I probably should amend the image in my signature with 'but can be a real meanie too'.

As the risk of taking this discussion in an entirely different direction...

What do those who contend AGW is a hoax make of the fact other countries, including economically-booming China, have made commitments to reduce their CO2 emissions? If reducing CO2 output is basically a plot to undermine our economy, why would countries that are in economic competition with us be willing to do commit to action that would be inimical to their economic interests? Particularly in the case of China, wouldn't they have a much easier time of things, economically-speaking, if they just continued to use coal fired plants for the majority of their power needs? If they truly believed AGW was a fabricated issue, why would they be willing to commit to reduce their CO2 output?

maybe all you genius brains can answer a question. if CO2 is heavier than air how does it get into the atmosphere? causing all this damage.

Originally Posted by 59caddy

maybe all you genius brains can answer a question. if CO2 is heavier than air how does it get into the atmosphere? causing all this damage.

actually CO2 is a component of the air, a rather small one. if you're asking why doesn't it separate to the bottom of the atmosphere, the answer is related to brownian motion, entropy, temperature, those kind of things. or if you prefer - the maxwell daemon stirring the air.

Originally Posted by gugi

actually CO2 is a component of the air, a rather small one. if you're asking why doesn't it separate to the bottom of the atmosphere, the answer is related to brownian motion, entropy, temperature, those kind of things. or if you prefer - the maxwell daemon stirring the air.

thanks for the answer. if it is in fact such a small component of the air, then where are most of the molecules that are man made located?
ALSO, i think we all owe the owner of this thread an apology for taking it so far off course from his original thoughts and question. we as a group have went far astray from answering his question and into a debate of a different color.

I'd just like to point out this channel on YouTube which debunks climate nonsense with proper science, for those interested.

Cheers.