So what do you consider to be sufficient proof for mankind causing global warming?
Perhaps records that date back to the beginning of the Earth.
That's like having all of the data for one small village out of the whole world. You couldn't make any generalizations about everyone on the planet unless you had data from the whole population.
Actually you can use computer modells to extrapolate. That's how they get their numbers.
So in other words, there is no way anyone can ever proof to you people that global warming either exists or is man made...
Who says they are not able to prove it? Common sense, and a lack of presentable evidence which conclusively proves we (humans) are causing a so called "global warming". Read the report. Most of their "evidence" is computer models of how they expect the climate to turn out in a hundred years, and guesses about how the climate used to be hundreds of years ago. They can't predict the weather an hour from now, but they think they can tell us what it will be in a hundred years?
You are citing the report as "clear proof". It is no such thing. It is still a consensus. You seem to be swallowing the propaganda the media is spoon-feeding the public. Read between the lines. They use vague language like "it is very likely" and "we strongly believe". It is very likely aliens exist, and some people strongly believe in them, but I have yet to see anyone prove their existance either.
Nuclear Winter is the EXACT same kind of trashy science that Global Warming is. EXACT. Look up the formula for how they starting modelling nuclear winter. It had something like 20 variables of which we knew precisely ONE number. So they guessed the rest and starting plugging their guesses in to computer models. Guess what? THAT'S how they are "proving" global warming.
Junk science is akin to religion, so again, it's pointless to debate this. Some people are just going to swallow anything their religious leaders feed them and zealously defend their faith, so why bother trying to inject logic in to the discussion. I'm not saying it isn't possible that we are causing global warming, or that trying to limit our enviromental impact is a bad thing, I'm simply saying that we do not have the "proof" that people seem to think we do.
By the way, Nazi Germany "proved" many things "scientifically" to its populace. You know where that ended up. Do you really want to blindly follow along with anything, knowing what could happen if you do? I'm sure the good citizens of the 1930s era Germany thought many of their fellow citizens were "wacko conspiracy theorists" too. Whoops.
Can't I say the EXACT same thing to you? The side that believes in Global Warming has delivered countless pieces of evidence that can really only be disproved by ignorance, which is exactly what you just accused them for. All you hear is what some scientists who have been paid, very well, to come up with counter theories so oil companies can keep making their money.
Even if you decide to not believe the hard evidence and blow it off with your doubts. Almost the entire scientific community agrees with this theory and that's really hard to argue with. So what if Global Warming isn't true, don't you think it would be nice to have cleaner air? Wouldn't it be nice to have healthy animal populations again?
Maybe Global warming wasn't "caused" by humans, but i seriously doubt we're helping the earth pull itself out of the spin. You can't honestly deny that the icecaps are melting and you can't deny that hurricanes are getting worse and that summers are getting hotter. Come say something when the majority of the scientific community disagrees with Global Warming, I'll rethink my stance then
So what do you consider to be sufficient proof for mankind causing global warming?
Perhaps records that date back to the beginning of the Earth.
That's like having all of the data for one small village out of the whole world. You couldn't make any generalizations about everyone on the planet unless you had data from the whole population.
Actually you can use computer modells to extrapolate. That's how they get their numbers.
So in other words, there is no way anyone can ever proof to you people that global warming either exists or is man made...
It is when I hear the word "extrapolate" in science that my ears perk up and I get suspicious.
You base enough of your findings on extrapolations and "educated" guesses, and it stops being science.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Looks like the news out of Paris pretty much skuttles the whole "Humans have nothing to do with Global Warming" or "Global Warming is a myth" arguments, eh?
Not really. The report basically says they THINK and VERY STRONGLY BELIEVE that humans are causing a "global warming". The scientific consensus is that global warming is a man-made disaster that needs to be averted.
Keep in mind, they can't prove it with hard evidence. The records only go back about a hundred years, so they are basically guessing.
Keep in mind that prior wonders of the world that the "scientific consensus" have brought us are: The flat earth theory, Eugenics, Nuclear Winter, and racial descrimination. The scientific consensus was that nothing would grow at Hiroshima for hundreds of years. 1 year later crops were springing up. The scientific consensus was that nuclear testing could be done above ground with only trenches for shelter. Most of those present at the testing were irradiated and suffered for it.
The scientific consensus means exactly nothing unless they are able to prove it is true. Global warming is less like science and more like a fervent religious belief. You don't believe? Let's crucify him! Witch! Witch! She's a witch! Burn her.
Unbeliveable! This report is as close as anyone is going to get spelling it out for people what the impact that humans have had on the enviroment and they still try to spin it to help keep their illusion that 6 billion humans burning hydrocarbons dosen't have any effect at all . You folks either own stock in coal and oil companies or work for the Bush Andministration. They live in a fantasy world as well. Just ask any General at the Pentagon! No wonder our species is so screwed up and hell-bent towards self-destruction!! When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if we don't deserve it!!! I guess there are always going to be those who enjoy having their heads up their...ummm... in the sand. Just watch out for the rising sealevel.
I would like to, at this moment, extend a heartfelt thank you to all of you who have so steadfastly denied the obvious, made apathetic comments, or even reveled in desires for an apocalyptic end of this world. You are truly a shining example to the children of this world just why this planet is such a mess. Your lack of caring and willingness to leave the problem to their future rather than to accept any blame or do the least little thing to help will, I'm sure, stand out in history as a moment of self centered egotism and hypocracy.
Congratulations on a job well done, nothing I could ever have said or shown a child could possibly have shown it better than your own pathetic words.
I would like to, at this moment, extend a heartfelt thank you to all of you who have so steadfastly denied the obvious, made apathetic comments, or even reveled in desires for an apocalyptic end of this world. You are truly a shining example to the children of this world just why this planet is such a mess. Your lack of caring and willingness to leave the problem to their future rather than to accept any blame or do the least little thing to help will, I'm sure, stand out in history as a moment of self centered egotism and hypocracy. Congratulations on a job well done, nothing I could ever have said or shown a child could possibly have shown it better than your own pathetic words.
Here! Here! Very well said! But alas I feel those that you have directed your comment to have faulty ears and closed minds.
I would like to, at this moment, extend a heartfelt thank you to all of you who have so steadfastly denied the obvious, made apathetic comments, or even reveled in desires for an apocalyptic end of this world. You are truly a shining example to the children of this world just why this planet is such a mess. Your lack of caring and willingness to leave the problem to their future rather than to accept any blame or do the least little thing to help will, I'm sure, stand out in history as a moment of self centered egotism and hypocracy. Congratulations on a job well done, nothing I could ever have said or shown a child could possibly have shown it better than your own pathetic words.
Here! Here! Very well said! But alas I feel those that you have directed your comment to have faulty ears and closed minds.
No wonder our species is so screwed up and hell-bent towards self-destruction!! When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if we don't deserve it!!! I guess there are always going to be those who enjoy having their heads up their...ummm... in the sand. Just watch out for the rising sealevel. There are far more important things on which to worry about. If you spend this angst on global warming imagine what you could do if you were to spend your time and efforts on worrying about the morality of our own company. For the short time we actually spend on this Earth, there are much larger things to worry about while we are here.
No wonder our species is so screwed up and hell-bent towards self-destruction!! When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if we don't deserve it!!! I guess there are always going to be those who enjoy having their heads up their...ummm... in the sand. Just watch out for the rising sealevel. There are far more important things on which to worry about. If you spend this angst on global warming imagine what you could do if you were to spend your time and efforts on worrying about the morality of our own company. For the short time we actually spend on this Earth, there are much larger things to worry about while we are here. Like?
Global poverty. The raising of children. Putting food on the family table. The improvement of ones financial security. Education. Playing games. Creating art. Letting the cat out. Walking the dog. Keeping Mrs Baff in choclates and flowers. Making people laugh and smile. Traveling from A to B, quickly, safely and easily. Central heating. Cheap energy. Cheap industry. Global commerce. Holidays abroad. Taking my old man to hospital. Driving the girls to and fro the airport. My dental appointment. Being on time for work. Picking up the kids from school. Having enough money to retire. Not being burgled. Stopping the sheep from running out into the road. Fixing the roof. Cutting down the raspberry bushes. Mowing the lawns. Surfong the internet.The mastery of tiddlewinks.
Frankly it's hard to think of many things less relevent or important than global warming.
As for the science, I concur with a previous poster. While there is certainly much evidence to support many of the theories on global warming, currently, that's all they are. Theories. In the world of science it is very important not to make judgements based on faith. You may have faith in ascertians made by certain elements of the scientific community, many people may faith in those same elements of the scientific community. But a theory is not a theorum. Opinion is not fact. Supportive evidence is not proof.
Currently, they are NOT theories. Look at PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS. It's far from theory.
And by the way, they are right. There's nothing that can be done to change it.
If anyone of you "scientists" care to dispute the facts with me, please send me a PM. I'd be glad to discuss the facts with you.
Afterwards, if you like, you can post them here.
I just want to see how many of you are worth your salt.
Just to emphasize this point. In 2004 there was a study of articles in the pear reviewed journal “Science” . Of 928 articles on climate change 75% explicitly or implicitly endorsed the consensus view on global warming. The other 25% covered topics in paloclimate research and didn’t take a position one way of the other. *Not one* opposed the consensus view that global warming is occurring and humans are part of the cause.
The short version is that most of the people who disagree with the consensus view on global warming are not climate scientist at all and the ones that are don’t bother to take the important step of publishing in pear reviewed journals. In short they are sidestepping the most important step in the scientific review process and taking their discredited junk science to media outlets friendly to the view of the people paying them.
No wonder our species is so screwed up and hell-bent towards self-destruction!! When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if we don't deserve it!!! I guess there are always going to be those who enjoy having their heads up their...ummm... in the sand. Just watch out for the rising sealevel.There are far more important things on which to worry about. If you spend this angst on global warming imagine what you could do if you were to spend your time and efforts on worrying about the morality of our own company. For the short time we actually spend on this Earth, there are much larger things to worry about while we are here.I beg to differ. What we are talking here is a man-made situation that can have serious ramification to just about every living creature on the planet. I hardly think you can think of any "larger things to worry about" than that. When the enviroment starts to turn on you because we have screwed it up, worrying about the morality of our own company will be the least of our problems. I have "this angst" simply because this situation endangers us as a people, a nation and as a species. Not only does it endangers our species but just abour every other species as well. Once they start dropping off due to overpollution or climate change, we won't be far behind. The last I check we have no other means of leaving this world so until then we had better start taking better care of it.
As for the science, I concur with a previous poster. While there is certainly much evidence to support many of the theories on global warming, currently, that's all they are. Theories. In the world of science it is very important not to make judgements based on faith. You may have faith in ascertians made by certain elements of the scientific community, many people may faith in those same elements of the scientific community. But a theory is not a theorum. Opinion is not fact. Supportive evidence is not proof.
Yes global warming is a theory, but in science the title theory is the very strongest statement you can make. Calling something a theory is reserved for only the strongest and most tested ideas in science. There is no higher standard in science then the theory.
The problem here seems to be that you simply dont know anything about science and dont realize you just admitted that global warming has been proved as much as science can ever prove anything. To reject it at this point is to reject science altogether. Then again you are the same guy who though a kettle could draw 5000W, so think we knew beforehand you were not exactly on solid ground in discussions of a scientific or technical nature
Originally posted by keltic1701 I have "this angst" simply because this situation endangers us as a people, a nation and as a species. Not only does it endangers our species but just abour every other species as well. Once they start dropping off due to overpollution or climate change, we won't be far behind. The last I check we have no other means of leaving this world so until then we had better start taking better care of it.
Sans human activity most species would survive global warming just fine. Normally most would migrate northwards and towards the coast until they were in a comparable climate zone. The problems is that human development has isolates plant and animal species making it impossible for them to migrate as the climate changes.
Humans could have it rougher, particularly in places like the US when much food production occurs in continental areas that would become more arid and less productive. Developed countries would also have more trouble then less developed because they have a large amount of important infrastructure on the coast. Less developed countries dont loose anything by simply packing up and moving a little further inland.
Global poverty. The raising of children. Putting food on the family table. The improvement of ones financial security. Education. Playing games. Creating art. Letting the cat out. Walking the dog. Keeping Mrs Baff in choclates and flowers. Making people laugh and smile. Traveling from A to B, quickly, safely and easily. Central heating. Cheap energy. Cheap industry. Global commerce. Holidays abroad. Taking my old man to hospital. Driving the girls to and fro the airport. My dental appointment. Being on time for work. Picking up the kids from school. Having enough money to retire. Not being burgled. Stopping the sheep from running out into the road. Fixing the roof. Cutting down the raspberry bushes. Mowing the lawns. Surfong the internet.The mastery of tiddlewinks. Frankly it's hard to think of many things less relevent or important than global warming.
As for the science, I concur with a previous poster. While there is certainly much evidence to support many of the theories on global warming, currently, that's all they are. Theories. In the world of science it is very important not to make judgements based on faith. You may have faith in ascertians made by certain elements of the scientific community, many people may faith in those same elements of the scientific community. But a theory is not a theorum. Opinion is not fact. Supportive evidence is not proof.
Baff your entire life is just a theory, can you prove to me that you are not just a figment of my or the universe's deranged imagination? No you can't. Sometimes you have to accept that a theory is probably reality.
I normally don't get involved into global warming debates because I'm not a climate scientist and don't want to argue with a bunch of other non-climate scientists who think that they know more than they do...BUT since we have people arguing the semantics of a theory...
A theory in science is not the same as the normal conotation of the word as we regularly use it. A theory in science is a widely accepted and used reason or cause for something, with reasonable evidence to support it. Sometimes they are mighty hasty to apply the term "theory" to something just so that they can say that they have at least a reasonable explanation, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to global warming.
That said though, show me climate records for the Earth that date back more than a few hundred years and I'll talk to you about global warming. The scientific consensus is based upon speculation about what the Earth was probably like hundreds of years ago, before humans started using fossil fuels. When you start to use computer programs to predict what the Earth used to be like, and those computer programs are made by people with an agenda, or even a preconcieved notion about something, then it is no longer science. Science claims that it can track weather conditions, as in, specific hot and cold seasons back from the ice age...do you believe that this is so? I sure don't...but they get away with it because it's impossible to prove them wrong or right. The same is true with Global Warming.
Are humans influencing the environment in some way? I have no doubt...are we doing something that will end life as we know it? I hardly think that global warming is going to be at the forefront of our minds...we as a species really do have much bigger problems to address...even that study out of Paris said that the ocean levels will only rise a few inches over the next 5 or 6 decades, you think that 5 or 6 inches of water are worth putting this much effort and attention towards when we have radical terrorists in the middle east, genocides in Africa, and a crazy dictator in North Korea that is after nukes of his own? A little perspective is nice, isn't it?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
That said though, show me climate records for the Earth that date back more than a few hundred years and I'll talk to you about global warming. The scientific consensus is based upon speculation about what the Earth was probably like hundreds of years ago, before humans started using fossil fuels. When you start to use computer programs to predict what the Earth used to be like, and those computer programs are made by people with an agenda, or even a preconcieved notion about something, then it is no longer science. Science claims that it can track weather conditions, as in, specific hot and cold seasons back from the ice age...do you believe that this is so? I sure don't...but they get away with it because it's impossible to prove them wrong or right. The same is true with Global Warming.
They are using some very well documented proxy indicators. Tree ring data, for example has been tested extensively against documented records and has proven accurate. They also use the chemical composition of ice cores, which in turn are indicators of the global temperature at the time the ice was laid down. Again, for modern times these show a high degree of correlation with the documented global temperatures and climate conditions, and some ice cores go back 150 000 years and like tree rings individual years are identifiable.
In other cases, like the disappearance of ice in the arctic there is considerable geological evidence to suggest we have less ice in the artic then at ay time in the current interglacial period.
So while there may be less confidence in these proxy indicators then in actual measurements they have been thoroughly tested for accuracy before they were used as indicators of paleoclimate. The computer models, in turn line up well with these proxy indicators.
That said though, show me climate records for the Earth that date back more than a few hundred years and I'll talk to you about global warming. The scientific consensus is based upon speculation about what the Earth was probably like hundreds of years ago, before humans started using fossil fuels. When you start to use computer programs to predict what the Earth used to be like, and those computer programs are made by people with an agenda, or even a preconcieved notion about something, then it is no longer science. Science claims that it can track weather conditions, as in, specific hot and cold seasons back from the ice age...do you believe that this is so? I sure don't...but they get away with it because it's impossible to prove them wrong or right. The same is true with Global Warming.
They are using some very well documented proxy indicators. Tree ring data, for example has been tested extensively against documented records and has proven accurate. They also use the chemical composition of ice cores, which in turn are indicators of the global temperature at the time the ice was laid down. Again, for modern times these show a high degree of correlation with the documented global temperatures and climate conditions, and some ice cores go back 150 000 years and like tree rings individual years are identifiable.
In other cases, like the disappearance of ice in the arctic there is considerable geological evidence to suggest we have less ice in the artic then at ay time in the current interglacial period.
So while there may be less confidence in these proxy indicators then in actual measurements they have been thoroughly tested for accuracy before they were used as indicators of paleoclimate. The computer models, in turn line up well with these proxy indicators.
You really don't want to get into the dating issue debate with me.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I should add: It's primarily because I don't want to turn this into a religious debate that I won't be drawn into the dating method thing...I do my best to not intentionally derail threads where legitimate discussion is taking place.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I normally don't get involved into global warming debates because I'm not a climate scientist and don't want to argue with a bunch of other non-climate scientists who think that they know more than they do...BUT since we have people arguing the semantics of a theory...
A theory in science is not the same as the normal conotation of the word as we regularly use it. A theory in science is a widely accepted and used reason or cause for something, with reasonable evidence to support it. Sometimes they are mighty hasty to apply the term "theory" to something just so that they can say that they have at least a reasonable explanation, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to global warming.
That said though, show me climate records for the Earth that date back more than a few hundred years and I'll talk to you about global warming. The scientific consensus is based upon speculation about what the Earth was probably like hundreds of years ago, before humans started using fossil fuels. When you start to use computer programs to predict what the Earth used to be like, and those computer programs are made by people with an agenda, or even a preconcieved notion about something, then it is no longer science. Science claims that it can track weather conditions, as in, specific hot and cold seasons back from the ice age...do you believe that this is so? I sure don't...but they get away with it because it's impossible to prove them wrong or right. The same is true with Global Warming.
Are humans influencing the environment in some way? I have no doubt...are we doing something that will end life as we know it? I hardly think that global warming is going to be at the forefront of our minds...we as a species really do have much bigger problems to address...even that study out of Paris said that the ocean levels will only rise a few inches over the next 5 or 6 decades, you think that 5 or 6 inches of water are worth putting this much effort and attention towards when we have radical terrorists in the middle east, genocides in Africa, and a crazy dictator in North Korea that is after nukes of his own? A little perspective is nice, isn't it?
I think most of us are aware of all the other problems in the world, most of which are well out of our individual hands, everybody likes to bring up all the other problems like terrorists but face it, the average person cannot single handedly go out and solve all the worlds problems, make everybody happy, and beat up all the bad guys in the world. Simple things like driving a little less or helping to recycle are something the average person can do, and every day. It is a matter of perspective, this is something everyone can do.
Another thing you should realise about perspective, A rise of a few inches isn't like water in your pool, take a good look at most shorelines, they're not steep dropoffs with huge cliffs, they're low flat land, leading on into even more low flat land. A few inches will mean that thousands of square miles of costal regions will be underwater displacing millions of human beings, and other animals. Look at the chaos that has happened in areas where storms have flooded and destroyed even single cities (and of course other surrounding regions). Cities hit by hurricanes (or typhoons depending where you live), or tidal waves, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of people living in refugee camps or displaced to other cities putting huge strains on those city's resources. All followed by decades of rebuilding costing trillions of dollars. Multiply that by a tens of thousands of times for all the worlds coasts and you have a disaster of epic proportions.
Comments
That's like having all of the data for one small village out of the whole world. You couldn't make any generalizations about everyone on the planet unless you had data from the whole population.
Actually you can use computer modells to extrapolate. That's how they get their numbers.
So in other words, there is no way anyone can ever proof to you people that global warming either exists or is man made...
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
The Brave Do Not Fear The Grave
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Can't I say the EXACT same thing to you? The side that believes in Global Warming has delivered countless pieces of evidence that can really only be disproved by ignorance, which is exactly what you just accused them for. All you hear is what some scientists who have been paid, very well, to come up with counter theories so oil companies can keep making their money.
Even if you decide to not believe the hard evidence and blow it off with your doubts. Almost the entire scientific community agrees with this theory and that's really hard to argue with. So what if Global Warming isn't true, don't you think it would be nice to have cleaner air? Wouldn't it be nice to have healthy animal populations again?
Maybe Global warming wasn't "caused" by humans, but i seriously doubt we're helping the earth pull itself out of the spin. You can't honestly deny that the icecaps are melting and you can't deny that hurricanes are getting worse and that summers are getting hotter. Come say something when the majority of the scientific community disagrees with Global Warming, I'll rethink my stance then
That's like having all of the data for one small village out of the whole world. You couldn't make any generalizations about everyone on the planet unless you had data from the whole population.
Actually you can use computer modells to extrapolate. That's how they get their numbers.
So in other words, there is no way anyone can ever proof to you people that global warming either exists or is man made...
It is when I hear the word "extrapolate" in science that my ears perk up and I get suspicious.
You base enough of your findings on extrapolations and "educated" guesses, and it stops being science.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Keep in mind, they can't prove it with hard evidence. The records only go back about a hundred years, so they are basically guessing.
Keep in mind that prior wonders of the world that the "scientific consensus" have brought us are: The flat earth theory, Eugenics, Nuclear Winter, and racial descrimination. The scientific consensus was that nothing would grow at Hiroshima for hundreds of years. 1 year later crops were springing up. The scientific consensus was that nuclear testing could be done above ground with only trenches for shelter. Most of those present at the testing were irradiated and suffered for it.
The scientific consensus means exactly nothing unless they are able to prove it is true. Global warming is less like science and more like a fervent religious belief. You don't believe? Let's crucify him! Witch! Witch! She's a witch! Burn her.
Unbeliveable!
I would like to, at this moment, extend a heartfelt thank you to all of you who have so steadfastly denied the obvious, made apathetic comments, or even reveled in desires for an apocalyptic end of this world. You are truly a shining example to the children of this world just why this planet is such a mess. Your lack of caring and willingness to leave the problem to their future rather than to accept any blame or do the least little thing to help will, I'm sure, stand out in history as a moment of self centered egotism and hypocracy.
Congratulations on a job well done, nothing I could ever have said or shown a child could possibly have shown it better than your own pathetic words.
µV
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
noo.. dont bring it back up again
Good Job guys!
No wonder our species is so screwed up and hell-bent towards self-destruction!! When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if we don't deserve it!!!
No wonder our species is so screwed up and hell-bent towards self-destruction!! When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if we don't deserve it!!!
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Global poverty. The raising of children. Putting food on the family table. The improvement of ones financial security. Education. Playing games. Creating art. Letting the cat out. Walking the dog. Keeping Mrs Baff in choclates and flowers. Making people laugh and smile. Traveling from A to B, quickly, safely and easily. Central heating. Cheap energy. Cheap industry. Global commerce. Holidays abroad. Taking my old man to hospital. Driving the girls to and fro the airport. My dental appointment. Being on time for work. Picking up the kids from school. Having enough money to retire. Not being burgled. Stopping the sheep from running out into the road. Fixing the roof. Cutting down the raspberry bushes. Mowing the lawns. Surfong the internet.The mastery of tiddlewinks.
Frankly it's hard to think of many things less relevent or important than global warming.
As for the science, I concur with a previous poster. While there is certainly much evidence to support many of the theories on global warming, currently, that's all they are. Theories. In the world of science it is very important not to make judgements based on faith. You may have faith in ascertians made by certain elements of the scientific community, many people may faith in those same elements of the scientific community. But a theory is not a theorum. Opinion is not fact. Supportive evidence is not proof.
And by the way, they are right. There's nothing that can be done to change it.
If anyone of you "scientists" care to dispute the facts with me, please send me a PM. I'd be glad to discuss the facts with you.
Afterwards, if you like, you can post them here.
I just want to see how many of you are worth your salt.
Cartman has a big fat ass!
No wonder our species is so screwed up and hell-bent towards self-destruction!! When I read comments like this it makes me wonder if we don't deserve it!!!
Yes global warming is a theory, but in science the title theory is the very strongest statement you can make. Calling something a theory is reserved for only the strongest and most tested ideas in science. There is no higher standard in science then the theory.
The problem here seems to be that you simply dont know anything about science and dont realize you just admitted that global warming has been proved as much as science can ever prove anything. To reject it at this point is to reject science altogether. Then again you are the same guy who though a kettle could draw 5000W, so think we knew beforehand you were not exactly on solid ground in discussions of a scientific or technical nature
Sans human activity most species would survive global warming just fine. Normally most would migrate northwards and towards the coast until they were in a comparable climate zone. The problems is that human development has isolates plant and animal species making it impossible for them to migrate as the climate changes.
Humans could have it rougher, particularly in places like the US when much food production occurs in continental areas that would become more arid and less productive. Developed countries would also have more trouble then less developed because they have a large amount of important infrastructure on the coast. Less developed countries dont loose anything by simply packing up and moving a little further inland.
µV
I normally don't get involved into global warming debates because I'm not a climate scientist and don't want to argue with a bunch of other non-climate scientists who think that they know more than they do...BUT since we have people arguing the semantics of a theory...
A theory in science is not the same as the normal conotation of the word as we regularly use it. A theory in science is a widely accepted and used reason or cause for something, with reasonable evidence to support it. Sometimes they are mighty hasty to apply the term "theory" to something just so that they can say that they have at least a reasonable explanation, but that is neither here nor there when it comes to global warming.
That said though, show me climate records for the Earth that date back more than a few hundred years and I'll talk to you about global warming. The scientific consensus is based upon speculation about what the Earth was probably like hundreds of years ago, before humans started using fossil fuels. When you start to use computer programs to predict what the Earth used to be like, and those computer programs are made by people with an agenda, or even a preconcieved notion about something, then it is no longer science. Science claims that it can track weather conditions, as in, specific hot and cold seasons back from the ice age...do you believe that this is so? I sure don't...but they get away with it because it's impossible to prove them wrong or right. The same is true with Global Warming.
Are humans influencing the environment in some way? I have no doubt...are we doing something that will end life as we know it? I hardly think that global warming is going to be at the forefront of our minds...we as a species really do have much bigger problems to address...even that study out of Paris said that the ocean levels will only rise a few inches over the next 5 or 6 decades, you think that 5 or 6 inches of water are worth putting this much effort and attention towards when we have radical terrorists in the middle east, genocides in Africa, and a crazy dictator in North Korea that is after nukes of his own? A little perspective is nice, isn't it?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
They are using some very well documented proxy indicators. Tree ring data, for example has been tested extensively against documented records and has proven accurate. They also use the chemical composition of ice cores, which in turn are indicators of the global temperature at the time the ice was laid down. Again, for modern times these show a high degree of correlation with the documented global temperatures and climate conditions, and some ice cores go back 150 000 years and like tree rings individual years are identifiable.
In other cases, like the disappearance of ice in the arctic there is considerable geological evidence to suggest we have less ice in the artic then at ay time in the current interglacial period.
So while there may be less confidence in these proxy indicators then in actual measurements they have been thoroughly tested for accuracy before they were used as indicators of paleoclimate. The computer models, in turn line up well with these proxy indicators.
They are using some very well documented proxy indicators. Tree ring data, for example has been tested extensively against documented records and has proven accurate. They also use the chemical composition of ice cores, which in turn are indicators of the global temperature at the time the ice was laid down. Again, for modern times these show a high degree of correlation with the documented global temperatures and climate conditions, and some ice cores go back 150 000 years and like tree rings individual years are identifiable.
In other cases, like the disappearance of ice in the arctic there is considerable geological evidence to suggest we have less ice in the artic then at ay time in the current interglacial period.
So while there may be less confidence in these proxy indicators then in actual measurements they have been thoroughly tested for accuracy before they were used as indicators of paleoclimate. The computer models, in turn line up well with these proxy indicators.
You really don't want to get into the dating issue debate with me.Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I think most of us are aware of all the other problems in the world, most of which are well out of our individual hands, everybody likes to bring up all the other problems like terrorists but face it, the average person cannot single handedly go out and solve all the worlds problems, make everybody happy, and beat up all the bad guys in the world. Simple things like driving a little less or helping to recycle are something the average person can do, and every day. It is a matter of perspective, this is something everyone can do.
Another thing you should realise about perspective, A rise of a few inches isn't like water in your pool, take a good look at most shorelines, they're not steep dropoffs with huge cliffs, they're low flat land, leading on into even more low flat land. A few inches will mean that thousands of square miles of costal regions will be underwater displacing millions of human beings, and other animals. Look at the chaos that has happened in areas where storms have flooded and destroyed even single cities (and of course other surrounding regions). Cities hit by hurricanes (or typhoons depending where you live), or tidal waves, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of people living in refugee camps or displaced to other cities putting huge strains on those city's resources. All followed by decades of rebuilding costing trillions of dollars. Multiply that by a tens of thousands of times for all the worlds coasts and you have a disaster of epic proportions.
A little perspective is very nice to keep indeed.
µV
