Global Warming: Humans or Nature?

Originally posted by doan_m
So tell me did you even bother reading all of that article or not? especially that part of the article which coherently gives a list of people who say that the global warming process is natural? Or were you to quick to jump the gun and go mudslinging just so you can?

Hang on buddy, you said, “It certainly does matter when the majority of meteorologist oppose the idea that global warming is man made.”

From your own link…….

"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. These main points are accepted by most climate scientists and those doing research in closely related fields.”

The majority of climate scientists accept these points. You said that the majority don’t. You are simply wrong, stop making excuses for your obvious stupidity.

Originally posted by Hydrono
Hang on buddy, you said, “It certainly does matter when the majority of meteorologist oppose the idea that global warming is man made.”

And it still does. Most of the meteorologist that I have seen on the net still cry bullocks over this matter and says its all politics. They also say that people don't know how this really works. Some of them who do speak out are being directly oppressed.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
this article comes straight from a meteorologist himself who had to say this:

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. [B]This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

The majority of climate scientists accept these points.

Under what circumstances? Remember, most climatologist needs money direct from the government in order to stay alive. Otherwise you will be stripped of your title like this guy:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

You said that the majority don’t.

Global Warming (from my point of view): 65% humans / 35% nature.

'nuff said.

Originally posted by doan_m
And it still does. Most of the meteorologist that I have seen on the net still cry bullocks over this matter and says its all politics. They also say that people don't know how this really works. Some of them who do speak out are being directly oppressed.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
this article comes straight from a meteorologist himself who had to say this:

Under what circumstances? Remember, most climatologist needs money direct from the government in order to stay alive. Otherwise you will be stripped of your title like this guy:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

The majority of those who are not being fed money through an umbilical cord.

Is that the only argument you are left with? 😆 That they are being paid to lie... 😆 Do yourself a favor and go read how the bush administration is funding scientists to debunk The ICPP report. "According to an article in the Guardian, scientists and economists have been offered large bribes by a lobbying group funded by ExxonMobil. The offers were extended by the American Enterprise Institute group, which apparently has numerous ties to the Bush administration. Couched in terms of an offer to write 'dissenting papers' against the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, several scientists contacted for the article refused the offers on conflict of interest grounds." According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns.

Who cares of you have the opinion that more scientists believe it is 'bullocks". The fact is, the majority accept the three point given forward. Now that we have finished this "umbilical cord" debate, you have no argument left...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the trend of BOTH of those lines is up...
900 scientific articles were taken at random, and 0 of them were saying global warming is not real. The same survey was done with social articles, and about half of them said it was not real.

This shows that we are doing something differently.

Originally posted by Hydrono
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.😆

so "an inconvenient truth isn't propaganda?...yes it clearly is...it has a political agenda and was made by a politician...therefor its propaganda

and once again...if your going to cite the IPCC report...dont just disregard the parts that just happen to dispute your claims

not to mention current % of greenhouse gases, including water vapour, of both human and natural emission

you will also notice that the reports you are citing only agree on one thing...that global warming is occuring...and i've never disputed that...

the earth has been in a state of warming, with small variations, since the last ice age...its still warming now...hardly a surprise there is it

forgive my lapse in definition..but your facts still aren't facts...because picking and choosing bits of information to suit your argument is idiotic

so once again i'll quote it

Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level would continue for centuries no matter how much humans control their pollution

solve the paradox

Originally posted by Hydrono
[B]Is that the only argument you are left with? 😆 That they are being paid to lie... 😆

Do yourself a favor and go read how the
bush administration is funding scientists to debunk The ICPP report. "According to an article in the Guardian, scientists and economists have been offered large bribes by a lobbying group funded by ExxonMobil. The offers were extended by the American Enterprise Institute group, which apparently has numerous ties to the Bush administration. Couched in terms of an offer to write 'dissenting papers' against the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, several scientists contacted for the article refused the offers on conflict of interest grounds." According to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, oil company ExxonMobil 'has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.' The report compares the tactics employed by the oil giant to those used by the tobacco industry in previous decades, and identifies key individuals who have worked on both campaigns.

Who cares of you have the opinion that more scientists believe it is 'bullocks". The fact is, the majority accept the three point given forward.

Now that we have finished this "umbilical cord" debate, you have no argument left...

articles were taken at random, and 0 of them were saying global warming is not real.

Originally posted by True Geek
This shows that we are doing something differently.

The problem with this gas is that it merely states the rise in temperature but does not even address the CAUSE of the rises.

Your info is stating that water vapor is contributing to 95% of the greenhouse effect.

From my own links…

“Today, water vapor produces two-thirds of the world’s greenhouse effect. All of the other gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons, etc. – contribute the other third.”

(Wow, now its 66.6%)

From a separate website…

“The major role of water vapour in absorbing thermal radiation is in some respects balanced by the fact that when condensed it causes an albedo effect which reflects about one third of the incoming sunlight back into space.”

And another…

Some researchers (e.g. Stott et al. 2003) believe that the effect of solar forcing is being underestimated and propose that solar forcing accounts for 16% or 36% of recent greenhouse warming.

Wow, what’s going on here buddy? In your report it mentions none of this. Your report says 95%. Oh, I find another report that says its 66% (that’s a drop of 29%) and another report that says water vapour reflects about one third of incoming sunlight into space when condensed. Your report does not mention this. You do the math. Your report does not mention solar activity. On top of that, your report is over 6 years old. Your information is not to be trusted.

Originally posted by jaden101
Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level would continue for centuries no matter how much humans control their pollution

solve the paradox

you will also notice that the reports you are citing only agree on one thing...that global warming is occuring...and i've never disputed that...

From the 4th IPCC report

“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.”

I will simplify this for you so you can understand it…

Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in manmade greenhouse gas concentrations. You are wrong.

The IPCC report states that increase in temperature is very likely due to manmade greenhouse gas.

And you said,

Originally posted by jaden101
“Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level would continue for centuries no matter how much humans control their pollution, solve the paradox”

I will now get the full paragraph from the ICPP report… “Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.”

There is no paradox… I’ve never said that the earth is not naturally heating. You’ve based your entire argument on the assumption that I’ve denied that the earth is naturally heating.

You can’t leave out information to make a point.

Originally posted by doan_m
No one is denying global warming. There merely denying that its manmade.

And no one is arguing that global warming is manmade… What I am arguing is that humans are contributing to global warming…

Originally posted by jaden101
so "an inconvenient truth isn't propaganda?...yes it clearly is...it has a political agenda and was made by a politician...therefor its propaganda.

You’ve got this opinion that because the film has Al Gore in it, it can’t be true. Who gives a shit if he is using information to promote himself, it still remains information… You’ve got an idiotic argument that says, “Al Gore is in it, it can’t be true.” This is wrong.

Originally posted by doan_m
care to bring up proof that no one is being payed to lie?

Care to bring up proof of the words “paid to lie’ appearing anywhere in those two articles?

Originally posted by doan_m
And just exactly how does this even refute my argument? The only thing it points out is that there are more people siding with dissent over man made global warming. What just because Bush is behind it, its automatically a bad thing?

This is my exact point. If you can be skeptical about where money is going, so can I. Just because scientists are being funded, does it make the results false? The answer is no.
I have just shown you the stupidity about accusing everything on money, you just drift away from the science. In the end, we just accuse everything of being politics. I agree with everything the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report is stating. What jaden is doing (like most skeptics) is conveniently misinterpreting the information.

There are even skeptics that say the IPCC is far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually under-stated them.

I’ve shown both of you that you lack the ability to understand the language you are using and simply stating things that are false. I’ve got the IPCC reports to back up my claims and you have some lone nuts to base your argument on. As I have said before, you have lost this argument.

There is no paradox… I’ve never said that the earth is not naturally heating. You’ve based your entire argument on the assumption that I’ve denied that the earth is naturally heating.

i'm simply countering your points...which so far have been entirely composed of blaming man for global warming

Wow, what’s going on here buddy? In your report it mentions none of this. Your report says 95%. Oh, I find another report that says its 66% (that’s a drop of 29%) and another report that says water vapour reflects about one third of incoming sunlight into space when condensed. Your report does not mention this. You do the math. Your report does not mention solar activity. On top of that, your report is over 6 years old. Your information is not to be trusted.

did i quote an entire report?...no...merely one table from one set of findings

you critice my report for being 2 years older than the report you cite...2 years...its a long time in meteorology isn't it?...no...it isn't

You’ve got this opinion that because the film has Al Gore in it, it can’t be true. Who gives a shit if he is using information to promote himself, it still remains information… You’ve got an idiotic argument that says, “Al Gore is in it, it can’t be true.” This is wrong.

read my last post again....i said it has a political agenda...so stop paraphrasing...you're making yourself look silly...and a liar...again

Originally posted by jaden101
read my last post again....i said it has a political agenda...so stop paraphrasing...you're making yourself look silly...and a liar...again

I made the comment because you just accuse the film of being “propaganda” and you don’t address the technical aspects of the film itself at all.

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm simply countering your points...which so far have been entirely composed of blaming man for global warming

Let me humiliate you AGAIN!

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?

Originally posted by Hydrono
Factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases etc

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.

Originally posted by Hydrono
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."

Originally posted by Hydrono
I can't continuously speak on behalf of the film, that’s why I recommend that you watch it. My vote was both contribute.

In all these posts I acknowledged that man is not the only factor in the heating of the planet. You are WRONG AGAIN!

Originally posted by jaden101
did i quote an entire report?...no...merely one table from one set of findings

you critice my report for being 2 years older than the report you cite...2 years...its a long time in meteorology isn't it?...no...it isn't

Actually I got that info from three different sources. WRONG AGAIN!

How many times do I have to say this?

I made the comment because you just accuse the film of being “propaganda” and you don’t address the technical aspects of the film itself at all.

the technical aspects of the film, from a scientific standpoint, are completely null and void due to conflict of interest...they may be entirely accurate...but using them as "evidence" is completely useless...because conflict of interest is a major factor in determining what is credible...hence a film with a clear political agenda isn't a credible source

Let me humiliate you AGAIN!

no...allow me to humiliate you

do you think your opinion matters?

very little of what i've posted has been my opinion...its been thouroughly researched by respected scientists throughout the world...

Actually I got that info from three different sources.

way to miss the point genius...

posted by King Nothing
My question is, is it absolutely sure that this harmful consequence from global warming will never happen in this generations life time? Today 20 year olds and younger are safe from it, right?

i watched "5 ways to save the world" last night...some weird and wonderful ideas from some top scientists

here's a brief summary

http://www.a2mediagroup.com/?c=137&a=12958

i particularly liked the synthetic trees idea

although they would likely be as controvertial as wind farms...why not just mix them with wind farms...alternate windmill and "tree"

They look like giant kitty litter scoopers.

I voted for both but I think Humans have a larger impact.

Originally posted by jaden101
the technical aspects of the film, from a scientific standpoint, are completely null and void due to conflict of interest...they may be entirely accurate...but using them as "evidence" is completely useless...because conflict of interest is a major factor in determining what is credible...hence a film with a clear political agenda isn't a credible source.

You are slow aren’t you? I’m talking about the fact that the film shows info, it does not mean the info is unreliable. I may not agree with some of the conclusions of the film but I take and accept the scientific information. The film is merely taking scientifically accepted information and putting it into well presented documentary. The film may have a political agenda but that does not mean the information is not accepted by the scientific world… If the information he uses is accepted scientifically, I will accept it. I’m not even basing my argument of the film…

Originally posted by jaden101
no...allow me to humiliate you

On what have you humiliated me?

Originally posted by jaden101
very little of what i've posted has been my opinion...its been thouroughly researched by respected scientists throughout the world...

way to miss the point genius...

What are you talking about? I just showed you the unreliability of your source.

am I the only one who thinks "Hydrono" is Al Gore's message board screen name?

Let's all hope he doesn't watch the Terminator........then come in here talking about how a war with machines is coming. He'd take the movie as truth........after all, Arnold Schwartzenegger is a politician.