Tubbsalot wrote:Camicon wrote:Forgive me for pointing this out, but the Cretaceous was marked by sea level temperatures 17oC degrees warmer then current levels. That's 42oC boys and girls. And as you should all know, it takes a shit-ton (pardon the language) more energy to warm water then it does to warm air.
I never said we don't need to limit our impacts on our environment. What I said is that we are not going to be able to stop the warming and cooling trends of the Earth, that previous attempts to create an environment in stasis have failed miserably, and resulted in unexpected outcomes. We need to shift our focus from stopping global warming, to limiting the immediate and harmful effects we have on the environments around us.
Your argument is that the Earth naturally changes temperature... so we should ignore that we are changing the temperature now, that this change represents a threat to our quality of life, and that we could prevent this change with relatively little effort.
Just because we're not godlike masters of the universe, with raw power flowing straight from our eyes, doesn't mean we should knowingly ignore a major threat which we are capable of preventing or mitigating. In fact, I'd imagine it should be just the opposite.
How about you re-read my first post. It has a counter point for every argument you just raised.
Free Soviets wrote:Camicon wrote:The fact of the matter is that the Earth has undergone, since it could be defined as we now know it, cyclic changes in temperature and atmospheric gas concentration. This is also evidenced by Arctic and Antarctic ice-core data. If the pattern holds true then the temperature of the Earth is increasing, regardless of what we try and do to reduce CO2 emissions. These are facts that have been around since the fifties.
The only evidence I take as unbiased with regards to the Global Warming debate are ice-core results. Analysis of them has long since been mastered, and the interpretation of their data is rock solid. There are no conjectures and guesswork that essentially every other method contains. There is no opportunity for the researchers to make a biased interpretation of data. I sincerely don't trust a person who can't tell me what the weather will be like at my city in a month, but who has the gall to tell me what the global climate will be like fifty years down the road.
you don't appear to know much about what the ice core data say, let alone about anything else involved in climate research. i mean, you don't even know the difference between weather and climate, for fuck's sake (hint - i can tell you with certainty that in the northern hemisphere it will be warmer on average in july than it is now, but i can't tell you what days to bring an umbrella then).
anyways, there is nothing in the ice core data that suggest we should be warming regardless of CO2 emissions. not a single damn thing at all in the slightest. like, you'd have to never have learned about them at all to even begin to think that.
Everything you just said, sir, is completely and utterly wrong.
I know the difference between weather and climate, but just as I don't trust a psychic that can't tell me what I ate for breakfast and then tries to tell me I'll be a millionaire in ten years, nor will I trust climate scientists that try to predict the outcome of an immensely complex system that they will never fully understand. Chaos Theory tells us as much.
That point aside, the ice-core data shows that the Earth has undergone warming and cooling cycles for as long as we have had ice at the poles. Should the pattern hold true as it has in the past, it tells us that the Earth has entered a period of warming. What we can take from this is that the Earth has warmed, cooled, warmed, cooled, warmed, and cooled again, and again, and again, long before primates even entered the fossil record. It shows that the current change the Earth is experiencing is not the most dramatic, either in temperature or in the rate of increase, that the Earth, or life on Earth, has ever experienced. And by virtue of the fact that our planet is teeming with life, it tells us that this change is survivable. The cycles also tells us that the Earth's global climate is self-regulating. Since life appeared on the surface of the planet, the climate has never become so extreme that everything died.
Please, next time you try to invalidate what I've said read up on the subject a little.
Goodbye everyone. I don't enjoy debating with people that don't understand the subject matter.
but when the sources that most people see are manipulated for politicals, then thats when people start disbelieving it. (or not caring.)
