How about that Global Warming / Climate Change?

[Duwelon]

I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

Your post starts off really well by calling people lunatics.

1.) I would be very interested to know what sort of experiment you would suggest that would give such a standard of evidence on a WORLD WIDE CLIMATE. Also, the scientists studying our climate would be extremely interested as well, so when you come up with one you should contact them immediately.

2.) Solar Variation theory has been studied thoroughly. As mentioned in at least a dozen other anti global warming threads on here, the correlation between solar output and the earth's temperature is significant, but it does not explain the degree of warming seen in the past 30 years.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

Your post starts off really well by calling people lunatics.

1.) I would be very interested to know what sort of experiment you would suggest that would give such a standard of evidence on a WORLD WIDE CLIMATE. Also, the scientists studying our climate would be extremely interested as well, so when you come up with one you should contact them immediately.

2.) Solar Variation theory has been studied thoroughly. As mentioned in at least a dozen other anti global warming threads on here, the correlation between solar output and the earth's temperature is significant, but it does not explain the degree of warming seen in the past 30 years.

This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?

And i defend calling Al Gore a lunatic. When he won't go debate critics of Global Warming he's obviously either insane or just outright dishonest. He is making a profit off of Global Warming.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

Your post starts off really well by calling people lunatics.

1.) I would be very interested to know what sort of experiment you would suggest that would give such a standard of evidence on a WORLD WIDE CLIMATE. Also, the scientists studying our climate would be extremely interested as well, so when you come up with one you should contact them immediately.

Are you saying there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide has an effect on climate?

2.) Solar Variation theory has been studied thoroughly. As mentioned in at least a dozen other anti global warming threads on here, the correlation between solar output and the earth's temperature is significant, but it does not explain the degree of warming seen in the past 30 years.

[/quote]

Oh I get it, another one of these threads, oh no...

What evidence have you seen where we knew that the temperature based on the solar output should be x but it was y?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

Your post starts off really well by calling people lunatics.

1.) I would be very interested to know what sort of experiment you would suggest that would give such a standard of evidence on a WORLD WIDE CLIMATE. Also, the scientists studying our climate would be extremely interested as well, so when you come up with one you should contact them immediately.

2.) Solar Variation theory has been studied thoroughly. As mentioned in at least a dozen other anti global warming threads on here, the correlation between solar output and the earth's temperature is significant, but it does not explain the degree of warming seen in the past 30 years.

This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?

If that's the case that's good, but you probably should expect people to consider it an anti GW thread if you call it "global warming crap".

Any system as large as the earth obviously cannot be reproduced in the lab, so you are reduced to searching for causal factors and measuring their correlation based on the principles you do understand. So while there is certainly evidence that CO2 has an effect on climate, it is again evidence based upon physical principles and correlative analysis. It would appear that you are asking for a standard of proof that it literally impossible on a global scale.

As far as solar output goes, here's a good paper for you that should explain a lot on solar variation theory. Long story short: It has an undeniable effect on the climate, but does not account for the warming trend we've seen. Here you go.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

Your post starts off really well by calling people lunatics.

1.) I would be very interested to know what sort of experiment you would suggest that would give such a standard of evidence on a WORLD WIDE CLIMATE. Also, the scientists studying our climate would be extremely interested as well, so when you come up with one you should contact them immediately.

2.) Solar Variation theory has been studied thoroughly. As mentioned in at least a dozen other anti global warming threads on here, the correlation between solar output and the earth's temperature is significant, but it does not explain the degree of warming seen in the past 30 years.

This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?

And i defend calling Al Gore a lunatic. When he won't go debate critics of Global Warming he's obviously either insane or just outright dishonest. He is making a profit off of Global Warming.

Maybe because he'd rather let the scientists speak for themselves? He's said himself he isn't an expert on climate change, he's an advocate for further research and action.

And somehow, I'm willing to guess that you're not particularly interested in "fact finding" in this thread, just name calling.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...

There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.

But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.

If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...

There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.

But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.

If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.

I lead with those questions because they're the most obvious questions that need answers. If there is no proof that global warming is occurring because of my light bulbs, neither you or anyone else has no right to tell me i can't have them in my home.

You've obviously got your mind made up though, so what's another debate?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

Your post starts off really well by calling people lunatics.

1.) I would be very interested to know what sort of experiment you would suggest that would give such a standard of evidence on a WORLD WIDE CLIMATE. Also, the scientists studying our climate would be extremely interested as well, so when you come up with one you should contact them immediately.

2.) Solar Variation theory has been studied thoroughly. As mentioned in at least a dozen other anti global warming threads on here, the correlation between solar output and the earth's temperature is significant, but it does not explain the degree of warming seen in the past 30 years.

This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?

And i defend calling Al Gore a lunatic. When he won't go debate critics of Global Warming he's obviously either insane or just outright dishonest. He is making a profit off of Global Warming.

Maybe because he'd rather let the scientists speak for themselves? He's said himself he isn't an expert on climate change, he's an advocate for further research and action.

And somehow, I'm willing to guess that you're not particularly interested in "fact finding" in this thread, just name calling.

Way to avoid the topic because of one thing you didn't like that had nothing to do with the actual argument.

I want to know why our civil liberties are going to get stripped away, and i'm not going to accept someone like Al Gore's "theories".

You think he's an advocate for further research huh?

Google "Climate Change Deniers". It seems to me that Al Gore is for science that pads his agenda and bottom line. Any other evidence that comes out against climate change goes ignored by the likes of Gore (where are the debates anyway?).

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.

However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.

Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that

1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.

2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?

Your post starts off really well by calling people lunatics.

1.) I would be very interested to know what sort of experiment you would suggest that would give such a standard of evidence on a WORLD WIDE CLIMATE. Also, the scientists studying our climate would be extremely interested as well, so when you come up with one you should contact them immediately.

2.) Solar Variation theory has been studied thoroughly. As mentioned in at least a dozen other anti global warming threads on here, the correlation between solar output and the earth's temperature is significant, but it does not explain the degree of warming seen in the past 30 years.

This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?

If that's the case that's good, but you probably should expect people to consider it an anti GW thread if you call it "global warming crap".

Any system as large as the earth obviously cannot be reproduced in the lab, so you are reduced to searching for causal factors and measuring their correlation based on the principles you do understand. So while there is certainly evidence that CO2 has an effect on climate, it is again evidence based upon physical principles and correlative analysis. It would appear that you are asking for a standard of proof that it literally impossible on a global scale.

As far as solar output goes, here's a good paper for you that should explain a lot on solar variation theory. Long story short: It has an undeniable effect on the climate, but does not account for the warming trend we've seen. Here you go.

Honestly, that's scary. There was once a concensus that the earth was flat. There wasn't a way to prove it at the time, but people held on with murderous fervor to their notions.

Here we are adopting what is basically a "belief" in global warming when we can't even prove the hypthesis. I'm sure the earth does fluctuate, i mean I've heard of plant fossils found in Greenland... the place was obviously warmer than it is today at some point in history. Maybe it was aliens?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...

There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.

But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.

If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.

I lead with those questions because they're the most obvious questions that need answers. If there is no proof that global warming is occurring because of my light bulbs, neither you or anyone else has no right to tell me i can't have them in my home.

You've obviously got your mind made up though, so what's another debate?

There are answers, there is proof. The fact that you seem able to cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening" doesn't change reality. You know when my mind gets made up on something? When a bunch of experts in the field get together and agree on something, and no serious expert opposes it.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...

There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.

But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.

If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.

I lead with those questions because they're the most obvious questions that need answers. If there is no proof that global warming is occurring because of my light bulbs, neither you or anyone else has no right to tell me i can't have them in my home.

You've obviously got your mind made up though, so what's another debate?

There are answers, there is proof. The fact that you seem able to cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening" doesn't change reality. You know when my mind gets made up on something? When a bunch of experts in the field get together and agree on something, and no serious expert opposes it.

Scientific evidence? Provable? Demonstrable?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy


If that's the case that's good, but you probably should expect people to consider it an anti GW thread if you call it "global warming crap".

Any system as large as the earth obviously cannot be reproduced in the lab, so you are reduced to searching for causal factors and measuring their correlation based on the principles you do understand. So while there is certainly evidence that CO2 has an effect on climate, it is again evidence based upon physical principles and correlative analysis. It would appear that you are asking for a standard of proof that it literally impossible on a global scale.

As far as solar output goes, here's a good paper for you that should explain a lot on solar variation theory. Long story short: It has an undeniable effect on the climate, but does not account for the warming trend we've seen. Here you go.

Honestly, that's scary. There was once a concensus that the earth was flat. There wasn't a way to prove it at the time, but people held on with murderous fervor to their notions.

Here we are adopting what is basically a "belief" in global warming when we can't even prove the hypthesis. I'm sure the earth does fluctuate, i mean I've heard of plant fossils found in Greenland... the place was obviously warmer than it is today at some point in history. Maybe it was aliens?

How does that scare you? Does geology scare you? Most of that is studied in the same way. If you have a problem with conclusions based on correlative observation then you've got a problem with a LOT of science.

I think Rainsford was right, this does have all the hallmarks of leading questions to a prepared point you felt like you wanted to make.

EDIT: Oh, and the "scientists used to think the earth was flat" thing is the same tired crap that the creationists trot out. I don't think you should be taking cues from their playbook.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Way to avoid the topic because of one thing you didn't like that had nothing to do with the actual argument.

I want to know why our civil liberties are going to get stripped away, and i'm not going to accept someone like Al Gore's "theories".

You think he's an advocate for further research huh?

Google "Climate Change Deniers". It seems to me that Al Gore is for science that pads his agenda and bottom line. Any other evidence that comes out against climate change goes ignored by the likes of Gore (where are the debates anyway?).

I'm so sick of having to say this, but Al Gore isn't the global warming messiah. He is a concerned citizen but his opinions hold no special place in the climate science community. The opinions and observations of scientists who are dedicating their careers to studying the climate hold far more weight than Al Gore's views, and climate change deniers are constantly using Al Gore as a straw man to attack the views of legitimate climate scientists.

This thread is clearly nothing but a troll thread. This chump is interested only in espousing his own opinions regardless of the facts and his contention that he is searching for facts is a blatant lie. I doubt he has even read the abstract from the paper posted by eskimospy but he will continue to vomit his solar-warming rhetoric without regard for the science. He is yet another dishonest, shameless partisan hack.

If you want to have an honest and frank discussion on climate change, myself and many others here are more than willing to comply. If you're unwilling to do some basic reading and continue to retort with the same nonsense we debunk over and over again then why should we bother?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Topic Title: How about that Global Warming / Climate Change?
Topic Summary: ... of hoaxes and fake science?

You, sir, are the hoax and fraud. :thumbsdown:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...

There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.

But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.

If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.

I lead with those questions because they're the most obvious questions that need answers. If there is no proof that global warming is occurring because of my light bulbs, neither you or anyone else has no right to tell me i can't have them in my home.

You've obviously got your mind made up though, so what's another debate?

There are answers, there is proof. The fact that you seem able to cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening" doesn't change reality. You know when my mind gets made up on something? When a bunch of experts in the field get together and agree on something, and no serious expert opposes it.

Scientific evidence? Provable? Demonstrable?

Yes! Look up the IPCC reports for some interesting facts. But honestly, climate science is like any other science...if it's not your field, the chances of you understanding the science behind the facts is pretty low. So we sort of have to take their word for it. Which is fine, considering almost every serious expert supports the idea of humans causing global warming.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Way to avoid the topic because of one thing you didn't like that had nothing to do with the actual argument.

I want to know why our civil liberties are going to get stripped away, and i'm not going to accept someone like Al Gore's "theories".

You think he's an advocate for further research huh?

Google "Climate Change Deniers". It seems to me that Al Gore is for science that pads his agenda and bottom line. Any other evidence that comes out against climate change goes ignored by the likes of Gore (where are the debates anyway?).

I'm so sick of having to say this, but Al Gore isn't the global warming messiah. He is a concerned citizen but his opinions hold no special place in the climate science community. The opinions and observations of scientists who are dedicating their careers to studying the climate hold far more weight than Al Gore's views, and climate change deniers are constantly using Al Gore as a straw man to attack the views of legitimate climate scientists.

This thread is clearly nothing but a troll thread. This chump is interested only in espousing his own opinions regardless of the facts and his contention that he is searching for facts is a blatant lie. I doubt he has even read the abstract from the paper posted by eskimospy but he will continue to vomit his solar-warming rhetoric without regard for the science. He is yet another dishonest, shameless partisan hack.

If you want to have an honest and frank discussion on climate change, myself and many others here are more than willing to comply. If you're unwilling to do some basic reading and continue to retort with the same nonsense we debunk over and over again then why should we bother?

It's obvious Al gore isn't a scientist. He's hardly a straw man though because he is the loudest voice for those pushing the so called evidence that man is causing global warming.

I asked a simple question and here you are turning me into a straw man because you don't like my methods. I recognize i'm abrasive but the point of the thread is the same.

Where is the evidence that man is causing global warming? Where is the evidence? That's all I want to know... is there scientific (Demonstratable, Repeatable) evidence that CO2 is causing the earth to heat up?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Way to avoid the topic because of one thing you didn't like that had nothing to do with the actual argument.

I want to know why our civil liberties are going to get stripped away, and i'm not going to accept someone like Al Gore's "theories".

You think he's an advocate for further research huh?

Google "Climate Change Deniers". It seems to me that Al Gore is for science that pads his agenda and bottom line. Any other evidence that comes out against climate change goes ignored by the likes of Gore (where are the debates anyway?).

I'm so sick of having to say this, but Al Gore isn't the global warming messiah. He is a concerned citizen but his opinions hold no special place in the climate science community. The opinions and observations of scientists who are dedicating their careers to studying the climate hold far more weight than Al Gore's views, and climate change deniers are constantly using Al Gore as a straw man to attack the views of legitimate climate scientists.

This thread is clearly nothing but a troll thread. This chump is interested only in espousing his own opinions regardless of the facts and his contention that he is searching for facts is a blatant lie. I doubt he has even read the abstract from the paper posted by eskimospy but he will continue to vomit his solar-warming rhetoric without regard for the science. He is yet another dishonest, shameless partisan hack.

If you want to have an honest and frank discussion on climate change, myself and many others here are more than willing to comply. If you're unwilling to do some basic reading and continue to retort with the same nonsense we debunk over and over again then why should we bother?

It's obvious Al gore isn't a scientist. He's hardly a straw man though because he is the loudest voice for those pushing the so called evidence that man is causing global warming.

I asked a simple question and here you are turning me into a straw man because you don't like my methods. I recognize i'm abrasive but the point of the thread is the same.

Where is the evidence that man is causing global warming? Where is the evidence? That's all I want to know... is there scientific (Demonstratable, Repeatable) evidence that CO2 is causing the earth to heat up?

I could care less that you're abrasive, but you're also being intentionally stupid...and THAT gets really old really fast.

Edit: I'm not saying you ARE stupid, you're just ignoring what's in front of your face because it's convenient to do so.

 

[OrByte]

If you are looking for evidence you shouldn't be looking here in a politics and news forum on a techie website.

IF you are really looking for evidence...

Im losing faith that this is really the case.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: OrByte
If you are looking for evidence you shouldn't be looking here in a politics and news forum on a techie website.

IF you are really looking for evidence...

Im losing faith that this is really the case.

It's my obvious attempts at gaining some real evidence isn't It? I knew it....

 

[OrByte]

you knew it....well I'm glad you did.

Maybe you should try like a science website or something.

good luck.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I could care less that you're abrasive, but you're also being intentionally stupid...and THAT gets really old really fast.

Edit: I'm not saying you ARE stupid, you're just ignoring what's in front of your face because it's convenient to do so.

This is correct.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy


If that's the case that's good, but you probably should expect people to consider it an anti GW thread if you call it "global warming crap".

Any system as large as the earth obviously cannot be reproduced in the lab, so you are reduced to searching for causal factors and measuring their correlation based on the principles you do understand. So while there is certainly evidence that CO2 has an effect on climate, it is again evidence based upon physical principles and correlative analysis. It would appear that you are asking for a standard of proof that it literally impossible on a global scale.

As far as solar output goes, here's a good paper for you that should explain a lot on solar variation theory. Long story short: It has an undeniable effect on the climate, but does not account for the warming trend we've seen. Here you go.

Honestly, that's scary. There was once a concensus that the earth was flat. There wasn't a way to prove it at the time, but people held on with murderous fervor to their notions.

Here we are adopting what is basically a "belief" in global warming when we can't even prove the hypthesis. I'm sure the earth does fluctuate, i mean I've heard of plant fossils found in Greenland... the place was obviously warmer than it is today at some point in history. Maybe it was aliens?

How does that scare you? Does geology scare you? Most of that is studied in the same way. If you have a problem with conclusions based on correlative observation then you've got a problem with a LOT of science.

I think Rainsford was right, this does have all the hallmarks of leading questions to a prepared point you felt like you wanted to make.

EDIT: Oh, and the "scientists used to think the earth was flat" thing is the same tired crap that the creationists trot out. I don't think you should be taking cues from their playbook.

You don't like the analogy because it's untrue / doesn't fit or you won't acknowledge it because you don't like the people who used the analogy before? If the latter, I don't see what it has anything to do with my use of it.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...

There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.

But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.

If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.

I lead with those questions because they're the most obvious questions that need answers. If there is no proof that global warming is occurring because of my light bulbs, neither you or anyone else has no right to tell me i can't have them in my home.

You've obviously got your mind made up though, so what's another debate?

There are answers, there is proof. The fact that you seem able to cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening" doesn't change reality. You know when my mind gets made up on something? When a bunch of experts in the field get together and agree on something, and no serious expert opposes it.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like your saying that "no serious expert opposed the theory that CO2 causes temperature fluxuations". Is that accurate based on what you wrote?

 

[OrByte]

eskimospy, rainsford. I'd ignore this bait. Just how many baiting threads do we need around here?