Is there Proof that Man iS causing "Global Warming"?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
divert, etc

response to your baited diversion

You see even the people who were participating are all now diverted into your world WheelsRUS. You think I can't figure you out? You plotted the derailment the last thread. You found one little hole and spurted out a long post with every emotional trigger and diversive line one could. Then people started responding and after they did you stretched those out until I finally stepped in to stop it, and you used my attemptes to for yet more derailment fodder. You rode the entire thread out from teh beginning of page 1 into page 3 from your planted seeds. But last time I made a mistake and mentioned Bush.

This time I left you no room. So you carefully tossed in a couple little short posts to make it appear as if you were actually interested in some data, which is what this thread is about hard data AND NOT POLITICS ETC, and then you went right back into attack mode spewwing heresay and speaking of economics and propaganda etc. Just like in the last thread you destroyed, you haven't even made a single citation or contributed any actual links or data besides something about nazi's which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. You refute things with staunch words, not resources and data.

You lied in the other thread, you lied in this thread about that thread, and then you did again and added more lies, as if you can tell me what I did or didn't say, and you're up to your same exact diversive BS. You're doing this deliberately. Since you haven't even contributed to the thread that supports your view my claim speaks for itself. You're not here to contribute, you're here to derail this thread which opposes your worldview if they can succeed.


PS: You couldn't even quote yourself, how pathetic.


[edit on 13-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

What lies? You can ignore the truth if you want, but the fact (which any reader can see) is I responded to stuff people wrote (making it impossible for me to have derailed the thread).

Originally posted by melatonin
So basically, what people need to do is show that CO2 is not a GHG (and all the human-sourced GHGs), that black carbon will not alter albedo, that contrails do not affect climate, that land use changes are not affecting climate.

Alternatively, they need to present an adequate natural mechanism to account for ALL of the current warming.

Hasn't the Earth warmed and cooled itself for thousands of years though? What makes scientists think the current warming is attributable to CO2?

But I can promise you, they will not be able to do this with science. That is why there is a scientific consensus. It doesn't mean we are 110% certain, science has difficulty in providing such certainties, but there is nothing in the scientific literature to question what the IPCC and almost all the scientific organisations are telling us, that we are affecting climate significantly. There is more uncertainty as to the exact contribution of each variable, whether CO2 is 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% of the contribution for example, but whether this and other human factors are an influence is pretty much settled for now.

What about the 12,000 or so scientists that had signed a petition not to sign Kyoto? I don't think there is as much a consensus as claimed.

Regarding the IPCC, from what I have read they have published and re-published their claims multiple times (meaning they don't know their exact results). The version of the IPCC report issued for reading by policy-makers also was very slanted from what I have read (unfortuantely, I can't provide the sources for this).

Like evolution, they will attempt to pick apart small parts with cherrypicked data, falsehoods, and intellectual dishonesty.

Now this would be an example of something someone said, which I respond to, but then I will get the blame for a thread de-railment. In terms of evolution, evolution works perfectly for very small, simple creatures. For full-on lifeforms like humans, it is a very large debate. There are gaping holes in the fossil record and many areas that scientists claimed would be cleared up by now that have yet to be.

I'm just playing devil's advocate on that, as I don't know what to believe, but evolution is not as viable a theory as many believe.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
No, we cannot. Letting scientists "do their job" is what killed millions of Jews.

BS.

Scientists are human, they are subject to bias, even if they try to avoid it.

Yes, we are human. But the data speaks for itself.

If the science was saying that there is no problem, you wouldn't be batting an eyelid.

Anyway, no more. This thread is meant to be for better things.

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Hasn't the Earth warmed and cooled itself for thousands of years though? What makes scientists think the current warming is attributable to CO2?

Aye, climate can change through natural means.

A proportion of current warming is attributed to CO2. It's physical properties determine that it is a GHG. GHGs absorb IR energy and cause warming.

As for polls, science is not a democratic pursuit. It is pursued by collecting data and getting it published. That is where the scientific consensus is.

As for evolution, take it to the Origins forum and explain human chromosome 2 scientifically.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
BS.

How? The scientists were supported by government and private charity then. They were backed by politicians and celebrities and the general public and any one who criticized the science was deemed an idiot.

Scientists are human, they are subject to bias, even if they try to avoid it.

Yes, we are human. But the data speaks for itself.

But the data collected can be biased because of the collection methods. If not, then why not publish it for public review.

If the science was saying that there is no problem, you wouldn't be batting an eyelid.

Oh yes I would. I am a skeptical person by nature.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Hasn't the Earth warmed and cooled itself for thousands of years though? What makes scientists think the current warming is attributable to CO2?

Aye, climate can change through natural means.

A proportion of current warming is attributed to CO2. It's physical properties determine that it is a GHG. GHGs absorb IR energy and cause warming.

I see, but what about other greenhouse gases, like water vapor and methane? In Crighton's "State of Fear," he says termites emit a lot more methane than humans emit CO2. Now I am not sure of the accuracy of that statement, but if true, can't methane contribute to warming? I have read that methane doesn't remain in the atmosphere as long as CO2 though.

Also, doesn't CO2 make up a very tiny portion of the atmosphere?

As for polls, science is not a democratic pursuit. It is pursued by collecting data and getting it published. That is where the scientific consensus is.

Well consensus from my understanding is not what you go by in science, you go by data. But from my understanding, only results are published, but not data necessarily.

If the consensus is against you, it just means you should re-evaluate your data. But if your data holds true, you should stick to your viewpoint and publish the data for public review.

As for evolution, take it to the Origins forum and explain human chromosome 2 scientifically.

Yeah, I was just making a point. I'm not gonna argue evolution, I think it makes sense anyhow, but the whole argument about half truths in it is thrown back and forth by both creationists and evolutionists. I read a HUGE debate between two scientists, one an evolutionist and another a creationist, and they still couldn't change each other's minds, and they got very scientific. To me, evolution sounds the way it should be, but I don't know enough to truly argue about it.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by melatonin]

So let me get this right Wheels ...... You refute all evidence showing that human activity causes climate change including global warming not because you dispute the science (you've made no attempt to do that) but because 100 years ago some scientists in completely different fields of research believed in something which was later discredited.

Presumably on the same basis you refute those scientists who say the earth revolves around the sun?

But, in any case, the question has to be: do you agree that changes to Earth's albedo can cause global warming? And do you agree that human activity has changed Earth's albedo in any way? If the answer to both is yes, then you have to admit that human activity is causing global warming, if no, please present your evidence in refutation

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Lance: Perhaps if we could get down to the hard numbers and get a clearer picture of how serious this GW thing really is we could decide about thing slike that. If manmade GW is this foggy picture that we might be causing it, or we ddon't have the foggiest about how much we are, then I'd say we're in little position to judge such things.

yes, that would be nice to know, but the true decisions are on another level entirely, namely what are we going to do and what effect is it going to have? i repeat it' impossible to prove a negative, the onus lies with the AGW supporters to show a) that it's happening and b) that their proposed countermeasures aren't more detrimental than what they are trying to prevent. since the negative effects of these (precautionary) countermeasures are already showing, i find it absurd that AGW'ers still insist to continue, unless of course it's just a vehicle for some other goal and 'war on climate' is just smoke & mirrors.

if my points are simply invalid, why not refute them one by one?

reference: www.abovetopsecret.com...



i don't need to know anything about GW to know that burning food crops is negligent, that razing more rainforest to grow sugar cane is insanity and that industrial agriculture, fostered by quality-invariant fuel crops, is devastating on the long run.
see:

www.biotech-info.net/sour.html

taken from: www.abovetopsecret.com...

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...


these issues won't go away, because even if GW was as bad as some people claim, the alledged cure is already much worse.

a tell tale sign of bias is not adressing contradicting or unfavorable data.

something along the lines of

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IOW, should I waste my time with establishing increased plausibility that GW is mostly based on simplification and ignorance, because noone can prove a negative or adress the issues at hand? i made my decision as you all can see.

Originally posted by Essan
So let me get this right Wheels ...... You refute all evidence showing that human activity causes climate change including global warming not because you dispute the science (you've made no attempt to do that) but because 100 years ago some scientists in completely different fields of research believed in something which was later discredited.

No no, I think you missed my point. I never said I refute all evidence of global warming. I said I am very SKEPTICAL of such science because, like eugenics, it can have enormous social and economic implications for people if policies are enacted using this science and it later turns out to be faulty.

Also, it was not "some scientists" 100 years ago. It was virtually every scientist in those particular fields of research, which was very large at the time, along with support from all major celebrities and politicians.

After WWII, when they went and actually looked at much of the research and "science" done to prove that the blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan was the superior race, they found most of it had been fudged.

My fears is this could be happening with modern global warming science, because of the celebrity status many climatologists get, the huge amounts of money going to organizations for research, and also the ability for bias to slip into the peer-review process.

The money also goes both ways, on the one hand is industrial interests, on the other, government and environmental interests.

The other thing is the fearmongering. I think a lot of the fearmongering from the global warming proponents is unnecessary.

For example, yes, maybe scientists can determine that humans ARE in fact warming the Earth.

But even if this is so, how do we know it would cause damage? How do we knwo it won't be beneficial for the Earth?

I read about the potential for droughts, storms, fires, etc...but scientists have trouble predicting the weather for the CURRENT climate, so how can they predict the weather for a future climate that is predicted?

I'm not saying global warming is NOT happening, just the above are reasons why I am much more critical of it.

Presumably on the same basis you refute those scientists who say the earth revolves around the sun?

Nope. Arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun or vice-versa doesn't have huge policy implications, but also when you look at the science to that, you can tell the Earth revolves around the Sun.

But, in any case, the question has to be: do you agree that changes to Earth's albedo can cause global warming? And do you agree that human activity has changed Earth's albedo in any way? If the answer to both is yes, then you have to admit that human activity is causing global warming, if no, please present your evidence in refutation

Right now, I honestly don't know. If I HAD to make a decision though, I would say that I do not think Earth's climate has been changed by humans. Some evidence for refutation I put in the other thread.

Personally I think that the Sun has far more influence on the Earth than humans ever could.

Check it out, an article that says the bird population is declinging.

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=Aos3txBFSyyBGQMKASFADlus0NUE

Originally posted by forestlady
Check it out, an article that says the bird population is declinging.

Q: what does rising CO2 and warming have to do with a decline in bird population?

please elaborate.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
.............
Does anyone have any problems with the sources / data?

How about using this data instead?





There are several natural factors which control the global climate, and some of them are a lot stronger than they have been for a long while. However, it is going to get a lot hotter before it cools down, and then probably melatonin Mann et al can claim, it is the hottest it has been for the past 1,000 years.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Essan
.....................
But, in any case, the question has to be: do you agree that changes to Earth's albedo can cause global warming? And do you agree that human activity has changed Earth's albedo in any way? If the answer to both is yes, then you have to admit that human activity is causing global warming, if no, please present your evidence in refutation

As has been stated so many times before mankind's activities do influences the local environment...but the "global Climate" is controlled by factors which mankind has no control over, hence mankind has not caused "Global Warming", or "Climate Change.

Originally posted by forestlady
WheelsRCool:

The rate at which GW is proceeding is not up for debate. It is also proceeding faster than any such changes that have happened in the past that we know about. They know this thru ice core samples.
...............

......This is not true in the least...several times in the past you have made the exact same claim and I have shown you with facts that you are exagerating once more..

Climate changes in the past have been so fast that they have occurred within a decade....

The current Climate Change/Global Warming has been ongoing since the 1600s at least for most of the world.... That's over 400 years and it is still ongoing.... So it is not "the fastest that we know about"...

Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.

Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earthvs climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.
..................
Scientists have so far identified only one viable mechanism to induce large, global, abrupt climate changes: a swift reorganization of the ocean currents circulating around the earth. These currents, collectively known as the Ocean Conveyor, distribute vast quantities of heat around our planet, and thus play a fundamental role in governing Earth’s climate.

www.whoi.edu...

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Essan
I thought this thread was supposed to be about proving that human activity is responsible for global warming. Which was done in the first few posts without any need for CO2 to be involved ......

.....The first response that this thread got, from melatonin/regenmacher, was to blame anthropogenic CO2 on the current Climate Change/Global Warming, which tells me you have not even paid attention to what has been written in this thread...

Originally posted by Essan
All the subsequent ad hom attacks on scientists who produce research which doesn't say what you want it to say, or which you don't understand, is just pathetic.

No ad hominem attacks except the truth, pointing out that the website RealClimate is linked to Gore is no "ad hominem attack, but rather pointing out the truth....

Originally posted by Essan
Out of interest though, how many people have read the full IPCC AR4 WG1 Report yet? I know I've only read a few chapters myself.
..............

Out of interest, how many of the research which refutes AGW have you read?...some other members and myself have contribute several research work which refutes Mann et al claims.

BTW, you also do know that several of the scientists who were lead researchers for the IPCC report disagree with it's final claim, made by the policymakers, that mankind is responsible for the current Climate Change/Global Warming...right?...

Originally posted by Muaddib

.....The first response that this thread got, from melatonin/regenmacher, was to blame anthropogenic CO2 on the current Climate Change/Global Warming, which tells me you have not even paid attention to what has been written in this thread...

That tells me you haven't been paying attention to what's been written in this thread Look at post no. 3 for example I do know what I've written!

Out of interest, how many of the research which refutes AGW have you read?...some other members and myself have contribute several research work which refutes Mann et al claims.

As a long time climate sceptic, in regular contact with many of the leading names on the sceptic side, probably a lot more than you think. However, nowadays I tend to direct my attention at aspects of anthropogenic climate change other than the possible warming caused by carbon emissions.

As for Mann - even the IPCC accept that there are valid criticisms of his 1998 sdtudy that resulted in the infamous hockey stick.

BTW, you also do know that several of the scientists who were lead researchers for the IPCC report disagree with it's final claim, made by the policymakers, that mankind is responsible for the current Climate Change/Global Warming...right?...

They disagreed over some of the conclusions, yes. I disagree with some of the IPCC's conclusions too. But not all. Mostly I disagree with the fact that the IPCC - like everyone else - seems obsessed with the only way humans can affect the climate is through carbon emissions.

That which you present in the third post is no proof of "anthropogenic Global Warming, as i have already stipulated an increase of water vapor levels will produce cooling in the stratosphere and warming in the troposphere, exactly what we are observing, and since we are in a warming cycle it is only natural that water levels are increasing which are the mayor cause of Climate Change/global Warming.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
That which you present in the third post is no proof of "anthropogenic Global Warming, as i have already stipulated an increase of water vapor levels will produce cooling in the stratosphere and warming in the troposphere, exactly what we are observing, and since we are in a warming cycle it is only natural that water levels are increasing which are the mayor cause of Climate Change/global Warming.

[edit on 15-6-2007 by Muaddib]

So contrails aren't created by aircraft then?

Or are you saying that cirrus clouds have no effect on temperature?

What about changes to albedo due to soot and/or land use? Presumably albedo has no effect either?

Presumably we can burn all the rainforests we like because rainforests don't create rainstorms and low level clouds after all? And obviously the pollution from the burning also has be effect whatsoever on the climate.

Maybe you could back up such claims with peer reviewed research papers?


(Incidently, the logic of your argument seems to be akin to saying that I couldn't possibly have shot someone, because you'd already stabbed them with a knife, and your attack alone was sufficient to kill them. The smoking gun in my hand and bullet hole in the body being the inventions of wannabe scientists with an agenda ...... Of course I would argue both injuries contributed to the death. )

you are defintely right Essan, we are influencing overall climate, without a doubt. just think of land use. emissions are surely going to affect lifeforms, too, mostly to their detriment.



Has this got anything to do with Carbon Dioxide, though? i don't think so. i fact, carbon dioxide has the potential to benefit the flora, so focusing on it is the peak of ignorance, imho. there are many much more urgent issues at hand that need to be solved. i think it's no coincidence that CO2 is currently being used to 'drown out' all other ecology related discourse.

Originally posted by Essan

So contrails aren't created by aircraft then?

Or are you saying that cirrus clouds have no effect on temperature?

Contrails are also called "vapor trails" for a reason... But that water vapor is not produced by the aircraft, rather the aircraft condensates the water vapor which already exists in the atmosphere, and produces what you see as a contrail.

Not to mention the fact that contrails evaporate quickly and become the water vapor they started up to be....

BTW cirrus clouds are composed of "ice crystals", which do trap and reflect some infrared radiation, but since they are "ice crystals" they also cool the Earth.

High altitute clouds cool the atmosphere, so you can't claim that these clouds are causing Global Warming, because that's simply not true...

Originally posted by Essan
What about changes to albedo due to soot and/or land use? Presumably albedo has no effect either?

What about the fact that we also plant large forests and in many areas the forest lands have been restored and even made better?...

Originally posted by Essan
Maybe you could back up such claims with peer reviewed research papers?

Actually you are the one "apparently" claiming cirrus clouds have something to do with Global Warming....so why don't you provide a "peer-reviewed paper" which ascertains that cirrus clouds cause warming?...

As far as i know, noone has of yet being able to provide such a research...

Originally posted by Essan
(Incidently, the logic of your argument seems to be akin to saying that I couldn't possibly have shot someone, because you'd already stabbed them with a knife, and your attack alone was sufficient to kill them. The smoking gun in my hand and bullet hole in the body being the inventions of wannabe scientists with an agenda ...... Of course I would argue both injuries contributed to the death. )

Some people and their made up "allegories"...

Your "allegory" has nothing to do with the real world, more so when noone has been able to provide any research work which proves cirrus clouds or contrails are causing Global Warming....

One more thing, you seem to forget that low altitute clouds don't cool the Earth, but rather warm the Earth more. Rainforests produce low altitute clouds.

BTW, before anyone starts twisting my statements, i am not proponing to cut down all rainforests....

[edit on 17-6-2007 by Muaddib]