NationStates

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 7:58 am**

The Black Plains wrote:Neither: Uncertain. With no proxy data we cannot be sure if it is our fault.

this is wrong a lot for being so short. i mean, first off, we have tons of great proxy data. but even if we didn't, we could still know that climate change is anthropogenic. we do not believe that CO2 is a driver of climate based on historical evidence, but on its chemical properties. we do not know that there has been a lot of CO2 being emitted by comparing it to the past, but by knowing what happens when you burn fossil fuels. we do not know what the various other drivers of climate are doing currently by what sediment layers tell us, but by actually measuring them now.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 8:06 am**

Free Soviets wrote:
The Black Plains wrote:Neither: Uncertain. With no proxy data we cannot be sure if it is our fault.

this is wrong a lot for being so short. i mean, first off, we have tons of great proxy data. but even if we didn't, we could still know that climate change is anthropogenic. we do not believe that CO2 is a driver of climate based on historical evidence, but on its chemical properties. we do not know that there has been a lot of CO2 being emitted by comparing it to the past, but by knowing what happens when you burn fossil fuels. we do not know what the various other drivers of climate are doing currently by what sediment layers tell us, but by actually measuring them now.

Physical properties of CO2. It's chemical properties have jack shit to do with this.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 8:07 am**

Quadrimmina wrote:But if you want to believe that it's just scientists making things up, that's your decision.

I don't believe that it's a lie. I just think it's an idea that does have logic behind it, but is not as serious as many would believe- like Y2k. I believed man-made climate change would be catastrophic for several years.

But I began to look at all the evidence backing everything up, and I came to the conclusion that most-likely (At least from my perspective) we do seem to be exaggerating what may happen.

But that is my opinion, at least.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 8:27 am**

Quadrimmina wrote:Global warming is happening. That's an easily discernable fact, all you gotta do is look at average temperatures yearly and you can see...OMG...they're going up!

The second half is much more debatable. Some people will say it's a hoax by the tree-huggers, others will say that it is created by our own greed and need to turn a profit at the expense of the environment. I believe the latter. However, it's up for interpretation. I believe that there is firmly conclusive evidence of man-made global warming. But if you want to believe that it's just scientists making things up, that's your decision.

Nah. They had the allegedly acccurate proxy data to back it up before, and I even bought it! But now we are finding out that their proxy data is wildly inaccurate. And proxy data such as ice layers actually CONTRADICTED what the CRU was trying to prove and so they discredited it long ago as an invalid source of proxy data. Same with moisture in the dirt. Which I can buy because, like they said, it had a lot more to do with the number of animals in the area and the type of sediment at the time than the weather. But even if it were credible, moisture layers in the dirt also disprove global warming as a proxy source. So moss layers and tree rings have both proven to be inaccurate. They were your main proxies that backed up global warming. Yes you have stuff left like leaf fossils. If the leaf evolved bigger faster or smaller faster et cetera then it could indicate a different climate. Leaf fossils, if you buy what they say about them, can predict an interpretable line of temperatures. However, there is a HUUUUUUUUGE margin for error with them if you have EVER seen a proxy chart of leaf fossil proxies. There's also things like swamp deposits that very mildly support global warming. But basically, when you lost tree rings and moss layers and are trying to argue that proxies like these two cut it, then you are trying to play a game of football without your quarterback and main lineman.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 8:30 am**

Free Soviets wrote:
The Black Plains wrote:Neither: Uncertain. With no proxy data we cannot be sure if it is our fault.

this is wrong a lot for being so short. i mean, first off, we have tons of great proxy data. but even if we didn't, we could still know that climate change is anthropogenic. we do not believe that CO2 is a driver of climate based on historical evidence, but on its chemical properties. we do not know that there has been a lot of CO2 being emitted by comparing it to the past, but by knowing what happens when you burn fossil fuels. we do not know what the various other drivers of climate are doing currently by what sediment layers tell us, but by actually measuring them now.

They're shitty proxies. Like I said above, trying to rely on those proxies is like playing football without your quarterback. They have a large enough margin for error that I can say, "Hey lookie here! I drew ANOTHER line! The temperature is actually three degrees lower than it was a thousand five hundred years ago!" And first of all you apparently do not know what chemical properties are. Those would be traits or characteristic. Physical properties. And if what you say is true then stopping global warming lies in Kangaroo farts.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 8:57 am**

The Black Plains wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:Global warming is happening. That's an easily discernable fact, all you gotta do is look at average temperatures yearly and you can see...OMG...they're going up!

The second half is much more debatable. Some people will say it's a hoax by the tree-huggers, others will say that it is created by our own greed and need to turn a profit at the expense of the environment. I believe the latter. However, it's up for interpretation. I believe that there is firmly conclusive evidence of man-made global warming. But if you want to believe that it's just scientists making things up, that's your decision.

Nah. They had the allegedly acccurate proxy data to back it up before, and I even bought it! But now we are finding out that their proxy data is wildly inaccurate. And proxy data such as ice layers actually CONTRADICTED what the CRU was trying to prove and so they discredited it long ago as an invalid source of proxy data. Same with moisture in the dirt. Which I can buy because, like they said, it had a lot more to do with the number of animals in the area and the type of sediment at the time than the weather. But even if it were credible, moisture layers in the dirt also disprove global warming as a proxy source. So moss layers and tree rings have both proven to be inaccurate. They were your main proxies that backed up global warming. Yes you have stuff left like leaf fossils. If the leaf evolved bigger faster or smaller faster et cetera then it could indicate a different climate. Leaf fossils, if you buy what they say about them, can predict an interpretable line of temperatures. However, there is a HUUUUUUUUGE margin for error with them if you have EVER seen a proxy chart of leaf fossil proxies. There's also things like swamp deposits that very mildly support global warming. But basically, when you lost tree rings and moss layers and are trying to argue that proxies like these two cut it, then you are trying to play a game of football without your quarterback and main lineman.

Climategate is bogus, only some 10 emails. CRU didn't try to prove anything to the contrary of the climate change theory.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 9:02 am**

Lacadaemon wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:we do not believe that CO2 is a driver of climate based on historical evidence, but on its chemical properties.

Physical properties of CO2. It's chemical properties have jack shit to do with this.

yeah. serves me right for posting right when i got up.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 9:33 am**

The Black Plains wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:
The Black Plains wrote:Neither: Uncertain. With no proxy data we cannot be sure if it is our fault.

this is wrong a lot for being so short. i mean, first off, we have tons of great proxy data. but even if we didn't, we could still know that climate change is anthropogenic. we do not believe that CO2 is a driver of climate based on historical evidence, but on its chemical properties. we do not know that there has been a lot of CO2 being emitted by comparing it to the past, but by knowing what happens when you burn fossil fuels. we do not know what the various other drivers of climate are doing currently by what sediment layers tell us, but by actually measuring them now.

They're shitty proxies. Like I said above, trying to rely on those proxies is like playing football without your quarterback. They have a large enough margin for error that I can say, "Hey lookie here! I drew ANOTHER line! The temperature is actually three degrees lower than it was a thousand five hundred years ago!" And first of all you apparently do not know what chemical properties are. Those would be traits or characteristic. Physical properties. And if what you say is true then stopping global warming lies in Kangaroo farts.

Um... sources on ANY of that?

Edit: perhaps I shouldn't just say 'sources', because that's often just a way to shut down another side. Let me expand: the information I've run across, and have provided elsewhere, contradicts EVERYTHING you have said. Can you please provide some backup to your claims, because so far I'm not agreeing with one single thing you've said.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 9:34 am**

Quadrimmina wrote:Global warming is happening. That's an easily discernable fact, all you gotta do is look at average temperatures yearly and you can see...OMG...they're going up!

As to your first part, the Earth has only raised 1 degree Celsius within the past 100 years. And atleast where I live, I've had some of the coldest/longest winters in years.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 9:39 am**

Hassett wrote:
Quadrimmina wrote:Global warming is happening. That's an easily discernable fact, all you gotta do is look at average temperatures yearly and you can see...OMG...they're going up!

As to your first part, the Earth has only raised 1 degree Celsius within the past 100 years. And atleast where I live, I've had some of the coldest/longest winters in years.

Well, since the global average temperature has increased, and temperature around your area has decreased, what do you think is happening in other parts of the world?

REmember: it's GLOBAL, not LOCAL. The US and Europe has had very cold winter. Russia, on the other hand, has had record high winters. That's what averages mean. It doesn't mean that EVERYWHERE has gotten warmer by 1 degree. That actually wouldn't be too bad. Instead, it there's climate change over the world that means some places get colder, and other places get MUCH warmer... and the increase in temperature is greater than the decrease, leading to an average rise in global temperatures over time.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 10:16 am**

The Black Plains wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:
The Black Plains wrote:Neither: Uncertain. With no proxy data we cannot be sure if it is our fault.

this is wrong a lot for being so short. i mean, first off, we have tons of great proxy data. but even if we didn't, we could still know that climate change is anthropogenic. we do not believe that CO2 is a driver of climate based on historical evidence, but on its chemical properties. we do not know that there has been a lot of CO2 being emitted by comparing it to the past, but by knowing what happens when you burn fossil fuels. we do not know what the various other drivers of climate are doing currently by what sediment layers tell us, but by actually measuring them now.

They're shitty proxies.

no, they aren't.

i'd also like to note that you addressed literally none of what i said. i take it that you can't.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 10:42 am**

An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

Posted: **Sat May 22, 2010 10:53 am**

Augarundus wrote:An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

backup your claim or, at the very least, read some of the dmn info posted.

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2010 7:55 am**

Augarundus wrote:An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

I'll let someone else address your second claim but as for the first... I shudder to imagine what you consider an interesting novel if you truly believe that. "Oh my, a one degree rise in average temperature! How the plot thickens..."

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2010 12:24 pm**

Greater Phenia wrote:
Augarundus wrote:An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

I'll let someone else address your second claim but as for the first... I shudder to imagine what you consider an interesting novel if you truly believe that. "Oh my, a one degree rise in average temperature! How the plot thickens..."

Actualy Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" deals heavily with climate change and is a really good book.

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2010 12:58 pm**

The Corparation wrote:
Greater Phenia wrote:
Augarundus wrote:An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

I'll let someone else address your second claim but as for the first... I shudder to imagine what you consider an interesting novel if you truly believe that. "Oh my, a one degree rise in average temperature! How the plot thickens..."

Actualy Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" deals heavily with climate change and is a really good book.

Michael Crichton? A really good book? Haven't read that one. Read a bunch of others. Kind of fluffy with a rush to end it feeling.......

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2010 3:15 pm**

The Corparation wrote:
Greater Phenia wrote:
Augarundus wrote:An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

I'll let someone else address your second claim but as for the first... I shudder to imagine what you consider an interesting novel if you truly believe that. "Oh my, a one degree rise in average temperature! How the plot thickens..."

Actualy Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" deals heavily with climate change and is a really good book.

He was trying to portray environmentalists as terrorists and alarmists.

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2010 3:32 pm**

The Black Forrest wrote:
The Corparation wrote:
Greater Phenia wrote:
Augarundus wrote:An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

I'll let someone else address your second claim but as for the first... I shudder to imagine what you consider an interesting novel if you truly believe that. "Oh my, a one degree rise in average temperature! How the plot thickens..."

Actualy Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" deals heavily with climate change and is a really good book.

Michael Crichton? A really good book? Haven't read that one. Read a bunch of others. Kind of fluffy with a rush to end it feeling.......

Hey, if book quality is based on authors portraying their critics as child molesters in scenes that contribute nothing to the story, then "State of Fear" is the greatest book ever written.

Posted: **Sun May 23, 2010 3:45 pm**

The Corparation wrote:
Greater Phenia wrote:
Augarundus wrote:An interesting idea for a novel.

A stupid, baseless, fictitious idea in real life.

I'll let someone else address your second claim but as for the first... I shudder to imagine what you consider an interesting novel if you truly believe that. "Oh my, a one degree rise in average temperature! How the plot thickens..."

Actualy Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear" deals heavily with climate change and is a really good book.

Michael Crichton hadn't written a good book since Andromeda Strain. Jurassic Park was Westworld with Dinosaurs. Sphere was so awful that I flung it across the room in disgust. The only reason I was even able to finish reading State of Fear was because I was being paid a small amount to do so.

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:30 am**

Global worming is real as i am experiencing it..as i am feeling hotter year by year...i did not require heavy quilts for the last 3-4 years...so, it is real...but definitely not due to co2 rise...it is due to deforestation and urbanisation ( means cement,pavement etc) and population...

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:37 am**

Ammount of scientficaly credited articles that DISAGREE with us causing global warming: 0
Ammount of media articles that DISAGREE with us causing global warming: 50+%

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:39 am**

Not this shit again...

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:40 am**

Novograd IV wrote:Ammount of scientficaly credited articles that DISAGREE with us causing global warming: 0
Ammount of media articles that DISAGREE with us causing global warming: 50+%

^{[citation needed]}

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:40 am**

The Corparation wrote:Actualy Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" deals heavily with climate change and is a really good book.

You should check the sources Crichton gives at the end of the book. A lot of mine-quoting and out of context statements. His argument is not nearly as well supprted as his iron-jawed protagonist makes it out to be.

Posted: **Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:40 am**

Buffett and Colbert wrote:Not this shit again...

isn't it great

NationStates

Global Warming Fact or Fiction

Re: