Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you continue with your insulting behavior, I will report you.Then why are their cycles? What is behind the warming and cooling cycles?
Let me just humiliate you for a moment…If 938 out of 938 reports concluded that man is contributing to global warming, do you think your opinion matters? Do you think all the reports would ignore the point you are trying to make? You truly have not absorbed the information in the film have you? Go do some research. 😆
Originally posted by Hydrono
Let me just humiliate you for a moment…If 938 out of 938 reports concluded that man is contributing to global warming, do you think your opinion matters? Do you think all the reports would ignore the point you are trying to make? You truly have not absorbed the information in the film have you? Go do some research. 😆
How do you know what I am getting at? You have not answered my questions. Man is contributing to global warming, but what is causing global warming? Do you have any idea? I have an idea what it is, and I'm not telling you until you try to answer.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do you know what I am getting at? You have not answered my questions. Man is contributing to global warming, but what is causing global warming? Do you have any idea? I have an idea what it is, and I'm not telling you until you try to answer.
Factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases etc. What is your point?
Originally posted by Hydrono
Factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases etc. What is your point?
Why did it take you so long to get to those answers? 🙄
Solar activity is the 800 lbs gorilla setting in the room. We have always thought that the sun was stable and never changing. Here is an article to consider:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why did it take you so long to get to those answers? 🙄Solar activity is the 800 lbs gorilla setting in the room. We have always thought that the sun was stable and never changing. Here is an article to consider:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html
Did that reply take any longer than my other replies? I have never denied that there are other factors in global warming...Notice how the info in the link you gave was posted on 30 September 2005. This is not a new scientific breakthrough, yet you assume I have not heard of it. The fact remains, 938/938 reports conclude man is contributing to global warming, to deny it is pathetic. You have just lost this argument.
Originally posted by Hydrono
Did that reply take any longer than my other replies? I have never denied that there are other factors in global warming...Notice how the info in the link you gave was posted on 30 September 2005. This is not a new scientific breakthrough, yet you assume I have not heard of it. The fact remains, 938/938 reports conclude man is contributing to global warming, to deny it is pathetic. You have just lost this argument.
"lost this argument"? Your priorities are misplaced.
Man is a small part of the problem. I'm all for cleaning the air, but when I see people singing the praises of the alarmists, I just shake my head. It is like a person handing out flyers in support of the lumber harvesting probation. The paper they are handing me is made from wood, and they are oblivious to that fact. How much green house gases were created in making the movie An Inconvenient Truth? The truth is that movie has little to do with science, and everything to do with money and politics.
Originally posted by Hydrono
The film addresses many points that I have already forgotten. I’m assuming you haven’t had a look at it? About the film being bias, you should not let other members sum up the film for you (they could be bias themselves). Have a look at it yourself. I’m just stating the major points the film made, you will only find the finer details when you watch it for yourself. All these questions are not going to be solved on a forum, that’s why there is continuous debate. As I have said before, I can’t continuously speak for the film (taking much of my time) If I were I would have to watch it many times. I am merely the voice for the film and that's it...
the film conveniently misses out many MANY valid arguments against mans contribution to global warming
the simple questions can be asked
has there been global warming and cooling before industrialisation?
answer...yes
has there been a warmer atmosphere than todays climate with less CO2 in the atmosphere?
answer....yes
will global warming continue even if man entirely ceased CO2 production?
answer...yes
The truth is that movie has little to do with science, and everything to do with money and politics.
a truely excellent point by shaky...perhaps more than he knows
the entire debate about global warming is hinged around politics and money
when the inevitable rise in sea levels due to global warming occur (regardless of the reason) and finally the developed countries have done something to minimise their CO2 outputs (even though it would have no effect on slowing global warming) and the seas swamp many costal cities causing economic devastation to these countries...they will no doubt argue that it was the fault of developing countries such as china and india...who just so happen to have such fast rising economies that they are said to rival and overtake the US within 20 years...
hence europe and america will have a "valid" reason to fine these countries back into the stone age for doing exactly what they did themselves not 30-40 years ago
😆
Originally posted by jaden101
the entire debate about global warming is hinged around politics and money
Isn’t everything 🙄. We don’t get anywhere with that argument.
Originally posted by jaden101
the film conveniently misses out many MANY valid arguments against mans contribution to global warmingthe simple questions can be asked
has there been global warming and cooling before industrialisation?
answer...yes
has there been a warmer atmosphere than todays climate with less CO2 in the atmosphere?
answer....yes
will global warming continue even if man entirely ceased CO2 production?
answer...yes
a truely excellent point by shaky...perhaps more than he knows
when the inevitable rise in sea levels due to global warming occur (regardless of the reason) and finally the developed countries have done something to minimise their CO2 outputs (even though it would have no effect on slowing global warming) and the seas swamp many costal cities causing economic devastation to these countries...they will no doubt argue that it was the fault of developing countries such as china and india...who just so happen to have such fast rising economies that they are said to rival and overtake the US within 20 years...
hence europe and america will have a "valid" reason to fine these countries back into the stone age for doing exactly what they did themselves not 30-40 years ago
Let me make this the last post 😆 You list all these things as if it is new info. Do you think every one of 938 reports would ignore the points you are attempting to make? If so, get your mind checked. If you think you can disprove 938 reports, go ahead 😆 The fact is, you won’t, you never will. If 938 reports come to the same conclusion, and one 27 year old arrogant Scottish boy thinks otherwise, who do I believe? 😆 Yes, you just lost this argument.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"lost this argument"? Your priorities are misplaced.Man is a small part of the problem. I'm all for cleaning the air, but when I see people singing the praises of the alarmists, I just shake my head. It is like a person handing out flyers in support of the lumber harvesting probation. The paper they are handing me is made from wood, and they are oblivious to that fact. How much green house gases were created in making the movie An Inconvenient Truth? The truth is that movie has little to do with science, and everything to do with money and politics.
I hope I don't make myself sound like an ass right now, but I've been reading Voltaire and it's late so I apologize if I say something idiotic.
You can (all, not just Shakya) sit there at your computers all you want and b*tch about how Al Gore's a hypocrite, or about the "alarmists", or about how everything has to do with money and politics, or whatever you want. But doing so won't fix a goddamned thing. It doesn't even matter if you believe in global warming or not, or whether humans are the cause of it. Whichever side of the argument you take, it accomplishes absolutely nothing. No, Al Gore really isn't reading this, and even if he was, it really isn't going to change the fact that a lot of greenhouse gases were probably produced while he was making his movie. You're likely, depending on what kind of electricity your house runs on, doing exactly the same thing right now.
There's no f*cking point in pointing fingers at anybody. Lincoln ended slavery, but he also fought the bloodiest war in American history. Everybody does good things and bad things, and there's nothing to be accomplished in complaining about what other people are doing. All we can do is deal with what we have control over. You could stop driving. Or stop using paper. I doubt if you've done either.
Frankly, the issue isn't even how much of global warming humans are responsible for, it's that the only reason there's an argument is money. I'm not claiming one way or the other whether there are any reasonable objections to humans being the cause of global warming; what I mean is that it wouldn't even be that difficult for us to reduce or eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions. There are lots of clean or at least cleaner technologies that we could all be using were it not for energy and car companies insisting that petroleum is the best source of energy. There's really no reason why we couldn't be running everything on clean energy. So how much of global warming we are responsible for is basically a non-issue, because it would be relatively easy to eliminate even the possibility that we are causing it.
I hope that bore some semblance to a coherent statement...............
Also, out of curiosity, how many of you have actually seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? Not that it represents the be-all and end-all of scientific knowledge of global warming, but if you're claiming all these things about it, you better have at least seen it........ A lot of people in here are saying things that just aren't true, pertaining to knowledge about global warming in general, as well as the film itself....
Originally posted by Hydrono
[B]Let me just humiliate you for a moment…If 938 out of 938 reports concluded that man is contributing to global warming, do you think your opinion matters?
It certainly does matter when the majority of meteorologist oppose the idea that global warming is man made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus
and since when has majority opinion been of any meaning in science? Science is about proof and empiric evidence, not consensus.
Originally posted by doan_m
It certainly does matter when the majority of meteorologist oppose the idea that global warming is man made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensusand since when has majority opinion been of any meaning in science? Science is about proof and empiric evidence, not consensus.
From your own link...
This article lists scientists who have expressed doubt regarding the current scientific opinion on global warming. The mainstream position of the climate science community has been summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and 0.17°C per decade in the last 30 years. [1]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. [2]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures increasing by 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. Related to this will be sea level rise and increases in some types of extreme weather. On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming. [3]
These main points are accepted by most climate scientists and those doing research in closely related fields; however, a small number of scientists actively disagree. This article lists scientists who have, since the Third Assessment Report, published research or made public comments opposing at least one of the conclusions listed above...... (go to the link to see more)[/B]
The three points made were from the mainstream position of the climate science community. These main points are accepted by most climate scientists and those doing research in closely related fields. however, a small number of scientists actively disagree.
Hahahahah 😆 😆 😆 😆 You f*cking idiot... Go kill yourself, you are not needed 😎
You are not very good at following that article are you? Those were the points that the skeptics were making against the article. Those were merely from the IPCC. And to add on to that you have quoted that yourself as well.
The mainstream position of the climate science community has been summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as follows:
Originally posted by Hydrono
😆Isn’t everything 🙄. We don’t get anywhere with that argument.
Let me make this the last post 😆 You list all these things as if it is new info. Do you think every one of 938 reports would ignore the points you are attempting to make? If so, get your mind checked. If you think you can disprove 938 reports, go ahead 😆 The fact is, you won’t, you never will. If 938 reports come to the same conclusion, and one 27 year old arrogant Scottish boy thinks otherwise, who do I believe? 😆 Yes, you just lost this argument.
one thing you'll find with every scientific report is that they all stick to an extremely narrow field in order to control variables
i also think you'll find that the summary of the report also stated
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
this quote is direct from the 2007 IPCC that you are referring to
it actually makes no attempt to state the sources of the emmisions...it does state that human contributions are a factor in anthropogenic greenhouse gases...but not to what extent
it also stated
Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution
as for arguing what was in the reports and what wasn't...i dont have to think they ignored aspects...i know what they looked at what they didn't because, unlike you, i've actually read ithe IPCC report
so in actuality...until you stop basing all your arguments on a piece of propaganda and a news report about the IPCC and actually read the scientific evidence for yourself and have knowlege to understand it then i believe it is you who has lost the argument
so of you pop and go do some actual research into it before spouting your drivel on this page again
Originally posted by Darth Revan
I hope I don't make myself sound like an ass right now, but I've been reading Voltaire and it's late so I apologize if I say something idiotic.You can (all, not just Shakya) sit there at your computers all you want and b*tch about how Al Gore's a hypocrite, or about the "alarmists", or about how everything has to do with money and politics, or whatever you want. But doing so won't fix a goddamned thing. It doesn't even matter if you believe in global warming or not, or whether humans are the cause of it. Whichever side of the argument you take, it accomplishes absolutely nothing. No, Al Gore really isn't reading this, and even if he was, it really isn't going to change the fact that a lot of greenhouse gases were probably produced while he was making his movie. You're likely, depending on what kind of electricity your house runs on, doing exactly the same thing right now.
There's no f*cking point in pointing fingers at anybody. Lincoln ended slavery, but he also fought the bloodiest war in American history. Everybody does good things and bad things, and there's nothing to be accomplished in complaining about what other people are doing. All we can do is deal with what we have control over. You could stop driving. Or stop using paper. I doubt if you've done either.
Frankly, the issue isn't even how much of global warming humans are responsible for, it's that the only reason there's an argument is money. I'm not claiming one way or the other whether there are any reasonable objections to humans being the cause of global warming; what I mean is that it wouldn't even be that difficult for us to reduce or eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions. There are lots of clean or at least cleaner technologies that we could all be using were it not for energy and car companies insisting that petroleum is the best source of energy. There's really no reason why we couldn't be running everything on clean energy. So how much of global warming we are responsible for is basically a non-issue, because it would be relatively easy to eliminate even the possibility that we are causing it.
I hope that bore some semblance to a coherent statement...............
You should really stop read Voltaire before you cut your own throat. The first question that comes to mind is... Why do you give a shit about what people post on this forum? Why do you even get onto your computer? Why ever get out of bed? I know that was three questions. 😆
BTW If you ever say you shouldn’t say something, you shouldn't be saying it.
quote:
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."this quote is direct from the 2007 IPCC that you are referring to
it actually makes no attempt to state the sources of the emissions...it does state that human contributions are a factor in anthropogenic greenhouse gases...but not to what extent [/B]
A dictionary definition of Anthropogenic…
"Anthropogenic effects, processes, objects, or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influences. Anthropogenic sources include industry, agriculture, mining, transportation, construction, and habitations."
To find the sources of human made greenhouse emissions, have a look at wikipedia, douche… and humans can’t be a factor in anthropogenic greenhouse gases, idiot…
Understand the language you are using before using it…. If 938 reports come to the same conclusion, and one 27 year old arrogant Scottish boy thinks otherwise, who do I believe? The only argument you have got is "propaganda" 😆 Yes, you just lost this argument.😆