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…
so why keep mentioning it?...the film isn't any different from any michael moore film...it takes part facts and truths that are generally out of context...dont show the opposing evidence and present it as if it is unbiased...hence its about the least credible source of evidence for a debate that you could possibly get...its actually a stretch to claim its a documentary
On what have you humiliated me?
you're right...you did it all on your own...well done
What are you talking about? I just showed you the unreliability of your source.
says the man who uses a film as a source of information
Originally posted by jaden101
so why keep mentioning it?...the film isn't any different from any michael moore film...it takes part facts and truths that are generally out of context...dont show the opposing evidence and present it as if it is unbiased...hence its about the least credible source of evidence for a debate that you could possibly get...its actually a stretch to claim its a documentary.
Did I ever say the film is unbiased? 😆 idiot. In one of my first posts I even said to you that the film could be biased. An Inconvenient Truth was the most popular Documentary at the 2006 Brisbane International Film Festival. Yes, it is a documentary.😆 You F*cking idiot. Owned
Originally posted by jaden101
you're right...you did it all on your own...well done
Well, go ahead, show me example where you humiliated me.😆 Owned
Originally posted by jaden101
says the man who uses a film as a source of information
I admitted in one of the first posts in this thread that the film could be biased. 😆 (I know you got a problem with reading but try, just try) And I have got the IPCC report to back up my claims. You post incredibly awful information and you don’t even admit that its not just bias, but thick as shit. 😆 Owned
Originally posted by Evil Dead
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.
Actually, when the majority of climatologists and researchers in closely related fields accept that man is contributing to global warming, doesn’t that say something to you? 😆 Owned.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
owned.
Did I ever say the film is unbiased?
so once again...why keep refering to it as if it is a valid place to get information
Well, go ahead, show me example where you humiliated me.
hahaha...you did it again...
And I have got the IPCC report to back up my claims.
the IPCC doesn't actually back up your claims though does it
for example it found that CO2 atmospheric concentrations were only about 30% higher now than in pre-industrial times.
it also says methane has only went up 12 parts ber billion in the last 15 years...
nitrous oxide has only went up 49 parts per billion since pre industrial times
not to mention this lovely little tidbit that you failed to mention
Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect
true.
what's funny is that when you look at the arguments...they're both essentially the same...only the degree of what effects global warming more is disputed...and the IPCC report doesn't make bold claims one way or the other.
it states that it's likely but not conclusive that humans are accelarating global warming...but it is happening regardless so only the time scales are debatable and even then they are relatively short time scales over meteorological and geological relativity.
it states that there are likely political upheavals as a result...which is the driving force behind most desicions being made...
Originally posted by Alliance
Global warming is more of a long term thing. You have to think more than a day or two ahead and behind, which can be difficult for some people.Global warming also doesn't mean that everyplace onteh globe gets warmer.
true...quite the opposite in places....reduced salinity in the gulf stream would mean that western Europe, which relies on the warm water from the south atlantic to create its temperate climate, would be plunged into the same temperatures as Northern Russia and Canada
Originally posted by jaden101
so once again...why keep refering to it as if it is a valid place to get information
Like I said, it offers scientifically accepted information but the conclusions they got off those results may have been a bit inaccurate. The fact remains that the graphs etc are accepted scientifically. It is a good place to get a general idea of the science behind global warming in general. The graph you posted a couple of posts back is total utter bullshit, yet you posted it…. (By the way, the film was closer to the IPCC report that your report)
Originally posted by jaden101
hahaha...you did it again...
Let me put this clearly. You speak as if you have proven me wrong on something… Please give me an example where you have proven me wrong or admit that you have not proven me wrong…
Originally posted by jaden101
the IPCC doesn't actually back up your claims though does itfor example it found that CO2 atmospheric concentrations were only about 30% higher now than in pre-industrial times.
it also says methane has only went up 12 parts ber billion in the last 15 years...
nitrous oxide has only went up 49 parts per billion since pre industrial times
Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect.
Please give me an example where I have denied any of this. Please give me an example where you have proven me wrong….You are running in circles buddy even though this debate is finished (and you know it wink1)
but the conclusions they got off those results may have been a bit inaccurate.
exactly...so shut the **** about it then
Let me put this clearly. You speak as if you have proven me wrong on something… Please give me an example where you have proven me wrong or admit that you have not proven me wrong…
i never mentioned anything about proving you wrong...i said you're making yourself look like an idiot...which you are continuing to do with every post you make
you keep saying the IPCC report is backing your claims...despite me posting quotes from that report that show that not to be the case...they dont whole heartedly back any claims...
Originally posted by jaden101
exactly...so shut the **** about it then
Like I said, the film was closer to the IPCC report than your source.wink1 (makes you think about what you just said, doesn't it?)
Originally posted by jaden101
i never mentioned anything about proving you wrong...i said you're making yourself look like an idiot...which you are continuing to do with every post you make
Making myself look like an idiot by showing your stupidity throughout this entire thread?
Originally posted by jaden101
you keep saying the IPCC report is backing your claims...despite me posting quotes from that report that show that not to be the case...they dont whole heartedly back any claims...
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations." When a report says greater than 90%, there is a preferred opinion. With this post I say, jaden, you have failed....
Originally posted by Hydrono"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations." When a report says greater than 90%, there is a preferred opinion. With this post I say, jaden, you have failed....
wikipedia says that...the actual report doesn't...so if you're going to quote something please make sure its the actual source rather than second hand information
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m
it makes no attempt to say that human activity is responsible for a certain % of the warming as wikipedia suggests...
so please refrain for doing what you accuse others of...namely citing unreliable information
the report does, interestingly enough, say this
Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gas increases to observed small-scale temperature changes.
the report also said this...albeit only in relation to solar activity and natural volcanic aerosols...not including CO2 or water vapour...
As seen from Figure 6.8d the radiative forcing due to strato-spheric aerosols of volcanic activity has very large year to year variations. The solar irradiance, according to the two reconstructions, generally increases and may have contributed in an important manner to the warming in the 20th century, particularly in the period from 1900 to 1950. Volcanic activity was particularly strong around 1900 and at different times since 1963. Table 6.13 shows a strong radiative forcing due to the temporal evolution of the stratospheric aerosols of volcanic origin during the period 1961 to 1965
only solar radiative forcing alone equals that of all human activity at 4 Wm-2...not with the inclusion of other naturally occuring
their analysis of aerosols was sketchy by their own admission because
But, in the case of short-lived species, notably aerosols, observations of the concentrations over wide spatial regions and over long time periods are needed. Such global observations are not yet in place. Thus, estimates are drawn from model simulations of their three-dimensional distributions. This poses an uncertainty in the computation of forcing which is sensitive to the space-time distribution of the atmospheric concentrations and chemical composition of the species.
so no actual recording of the effects of aerosols (natural or human) were actually conducted
also by the reports own words
The global, annual average forcing estimate for these species masks the inhomogeneity in the problem such that the anticipated global mean response may not be adequate for gauging the spatial pattern of the actual climate change
so yes the report has a lot of interesting information and yes it says that human activity is most likely contributing to warming...but once again it doesn't to which scale in relation to solar irradiance, naturally occuring CO2, naturally occuring aerosols...
so i guess this debate isn't going to go away
interestingly though....the one thing i learned while reading the report that i didn't know was that rises in sea levels has little to do with the polar ice caps melting and far more to do with the sea water expanding as it absorbs heat...common sense when you think about it really...but i'd never really though of it in that context before
Care to bring up proof of the words “paid to lie’ appearing anywhere in those two articles?
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists
And this is from the previous canadafreepress.com article which states the following from a person who was qualified to be a climatology professor at the university of Winnepeg
For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
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.]/QUOTE]
What you are not addressing is the fact that this money comes directly from the government where science is being bastardized into an existence where data is deliberately being fabricated in order to obtain their own goals.[QUOTE]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
Now I don't about you but last time I checked people at around 1000 AD had no means to release as much C02 in the air as we did and yet they seemed to have experienced a severe spike in the temperature.
.
What jaden is doing (like most skeptics) is conveniently misinterpreting the information.
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.
Originally posted by doan_m
I like how you have to resort to smearing fabricated trash on people. Hydrono, you started this argument off so peacefully and civilly. You had appeared to be perfectly rational but when people started debating against you, you resorted to bashing and name-calling to justify your argument which is actually a very poor thing to do. Now does calling Jaden a misinterpreting person seem like a good argument to you? I'm only 17 years old, and raging with hormones like a mad hatter, but I don't jump the gun so easily.
The majority of my “bashing” has been completely justified.
With all the statistical information put to one side, the argument in essence is that we all agree that global warming is happening at this very moment, we all agree that man is contributing to global warming but the effect that man is having on the planet is the only area of disagreement. Now that this discussion has found form, I can finally express myself.
Originally posted by doan_m
The IPCC has a tendency to overstate things and your willing to trust them? Righto..............
The ICPP report is actually the most trustworthy source you can get. Going off topic a little here, but there are some skeptics of the IPCC report that say the report is understating the dangers…So to answer your question, yes, I do trust the IPCC report.
I recall someone asking me about the drop in temperature from 1940-1980.
“Note that the anthropogenic emissions of other pollutants—notably sulphate aerosols—exert a cooling effect; this partially accounts for the plateau/cooling seen in the temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century,[7] though this may also be due to intervening natural cycles.”
In February 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary report for policymakers stating that it is "very likely" (>90% assessed likelihood) that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century was caused by human activity.
Originally posted by doan_m
So you’re using the same reports that overstate that humans are responsible for 90% of the global warming? Last time I checked you specifically said that both contribute. And last time I checked, humans only contribute to less than 3.5% of the global total of CO2.
That comment was not stating the percentage we are contributing, but rather how certain they are that we are contributing. Look at it again…And yes, I have always said that both contribute.
Originally posted by jaden101
wikipedia says that...the actual report doesn't...so if you're going to quote something please make sure its the actual source rather than second hand information
Actually, the report does say that… Follow this link and see for yourself: www. ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Originally posted by jaden101
it makes no attempt to say that human activity is responsible for a certain % of the warming as wikipedia suggests...
Actually, that comment was not stating the percentage we are contributing, but rather how certain they are that we are contributing. Look at it again…
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (greater than 90% likely) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations."
Originally posted by jaden101
so please refrain for doing what you accuse others of...namely citing unreliable information
The info I posted was not unreliable at all and was actually straight from the report. (I would normally have attacked you ruthlessly for this, but I shall remain calm)
Originally posted by jaden101
so no actual recording of the effects of aerosols (natural or human) were actually conducted
Actually, yes they did. Look at the graph titled “Radiative Forcing Components”
From a study by the TAR. www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/160.htm
As you can see, the IPCC has done much work on aerosols…