Denying Global Warming

[Hittanryan]

Your definition of sense is rather odd.

Global warming is happening, but why? because of the natural cycles of Earth, there is no evidence to support that Humans are the primary cause, furthermore 2019 is projected to be COLD COLD

Actually, there is evidence to support it. The start of the current warming trend coincided directly with the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning fossil fuels in sizable quantities. Furthermore, I don't care what source you have for 2019 being cold, the temperature and weather of a single year has nothing to do with a climate shift.

I swear, these kind of arguments remind me of the morons who say "How 'bout that global warming, huh?" if it snows once in a year.

[Hittanryan]

Global Warning is the most ultimate myth derived from Liberals and their determined cronies.

1). http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warmin ... h-explodes

2). http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468

3). http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

4). http://www.cnas.org/naturalsecurity?gcl ... QAodoXPJOA

Come back with peer-reviewed journal articles instead of propaganda, then we'll talk climate science.

[Jordsindia]

Well, the Earth cools and heats throughout it's life, so this is probably it's heat cycle.

I mean, how else did the Ice Age end, humans were not there.

But it is possible humans are speeding up the effect.

[Wikkiwallana]

Global Warning is the most ultimate myth derived from Liberals and their determined cronies.

1). http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warmin ... h-explodes

2). http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19468

3). http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9406

4). http://www.cnas.org/naturalsecurity?gcl ... QAodoXPJOA

Your first article is three paragraphs, cites no sources, doesn't even name the study just a single person supposedly responsible for it, and talks about climategate as if it were a legitimate problem and not a manufactured controversy. Should I even bother reading the rest or are they equally worthless?

[Vazdania]

We know it's happening. Whether or not we are causing it is still up for debate, but we should regardless be trying to stop it.

Heck, I've heard the sun might be causing it.

The Sun does have something to do with it. The sun has warm and cool times, such activity would surely have an effect on Earth

[Wikkiwallana]

We know it's happening. Whether or not we are causing it is still up for debate, but we should regardless be trying to stop it.

Heck, I've heard the sun might be causing it.

Sun's been cooling off for the last 10 years or so.

[Hittanryan]

Well, the Earth cools and heats throughout it's life, so this is probably it's heat cycle.

I mean, how else did the Ice Age end, humans were not there.

But it is possible humans are speeding up the effect.

The Ice Age didn't actually end, we're in a warm stretch of an interglacial period right now. Global warming might change all that though.

[Vazdania]

Furthermore, we are possibly experiencing or going to expierence global cooling as an issue

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04 ... e-20111204

[Mavorpen]

Furthermore, we are possibly experiencing or going to expierence global cooling as an issue

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04 ... e-20111204

I skimmed through it... where does it say the Earth is cooling? All it says is that it's warming.

[Wikkiwallana]

Furthermore, we are possibly experiencing or going to expierence global cooling as an issue

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04 ... e-20111204

Way to just read the headline and completely misunderstand. It was saying that people around the world are doubting the US's commitment to doing what it says it will about the climate, not that the Earth is getting cooler.

Edit: In fact, from this very article:

Global temperatures in the last decade were the hottest ever recorded, and greenhouse gas emissions are at their highest levels, according to a report by the World Meteorological Organization. Without more aggressive efforts to reduce emissions, the world will miss the chance to keep the global average temperature from rising to more dangerous levels, the International Energy Agency recently said.

[Aggicificicerous]

Furthermore, we are possibly experiencing or going to expierence global cooling as an issue

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04 ... e-20111204

...

You do realise that the "cooling" in that article refers to the USA's willingness to combat climate change? Did you just grab the first article with "cooling" and "climate change" you saw?

Also from your article:

Global temperatures in the last decade were the hottest ever recorded, and greenhouse gas emissions are at their highest levels, according to a report by the World Meteorological Organization. Without more aggressive efforts to reduce emissions, the world will miss the chance to keep the global average temperature from rising to more dangerous levels, the International Energy Agency recently said.

[Hittanryan]

Furthermore, we are possibly experiencing or going to expierence global cooling as an issue

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04 ... e-20111204

That is what you'd call a metaphor. You see...ah, screw it, you saw the title of the article and cherry-picked it. The article said a bunch of ignorant politicians are going to try to downplay the real issue of global warming, much as you're doing now.

[Wikkiwallana]

Furthermore, we are possibly experiencing or going to expierence global cooling as an issue

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/04 ... e-20111204

...

You do realise that the "cooling" in that article refers to the USA's willingness to combat climate change? Did you just grab the first article with "cooling" and "climate change" you saw?

Also from your article:

Global temperatures in the last decade were the hottest ever recorded, and greenhouse gas emissions are at their highest levels, according to a report by the World Meteorological Organization. Without more aggressive efforts to reduce emissions, the world will miss the chance to keep the global average temperature from rising to more dangerous levels, the International Energy Agency recently said.

How dare you ninja me with a post that appears after mine!

[Mavorpen]

It would seem Vazdania has just lost ALL credibility.

[Hittanryan]

It would seem Vazdania has just lost ALL credibility.

He had credibility?

[Mavorpen]

It would seem Vazdania has just lost ALL credibility.

He had credibility?

Touche sir, touche.

[Farnhamia]

It truly, truly is.

Was it you who posted that comparison of denialist behavior to a stubborn lunatic driving a car with a terrified passenger trying to convince them to turn back in the last global warming thread? I really think that post deserves repeating.

No, it wasn't me. I'd like to see that, too.

[Wikkiwallana]

Was it you who posted that comparison of denialist behavior to a stubborn lunatic driving a car with a terrified passenger trying to convince them to turn back in the last global warming thread? I really think that post deserves repeating.

No, it wasn't me. I'd like to see that, too.

Found it. I was reminded of it by Saiwania's post that amounted to "the free market can handle it".

Edit: fixed tag
Edit 2: fixed URL

[Sociobiology]

do you accept the existence of the greenhouse effect?
do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
do you accept the burning oil releases CO2
do you accept that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate that is more than accounted for by human emissions?
etc.

causality is easy. we know that:
a) we've dug up fossil carbon
b) we've burned enough of it to account for all of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean
c) the increase in CO2 actually is the result of fossil carbon*
d) carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the greenhouse effect
e) changing the amount of energy held in the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect results in changing the planetary temperature
f) other drivers of climate are, on balance, on a cooling trend
and yet
g) the planet is warming by what you get if you calculated the effects of this much carbon increase.

not a single one of these points is disputable. there is a reason that all of the academies of science are on board. it's really that solid and obvious.


* this is probably the least obvious point, but it's really easy for us to know. carbon comes in a variety of isotopes. the isotropic composition of fossil fuels is measurably different from the composition of the atmosphere. as we have added fossil carbon into the atmosphere, we have measured a change that is precisely the change in isotope ratios that you would expect.

I might be willing to reexamine my views if you can get me good sources for all that info.

which one do you need sources for, because a lot of them just need a highschool chemistry or geology book.

[Sociobiology]

do you accept the existence of the greenhouse effect?
do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
do you accept the burning oil releases CO2
do you accept that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate that is more than accounted for by human emissions?
etc.

causality is easy. we know that:
a) we've dug up fossil carbon
b) we've burned enough of it to account for all of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean
c) the increase in CO2 actually is the result of fossil carbon*
d) carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the greenhouse effect
e) changing the amount of energy held in the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect results in changing the planetary temperature
f) other drivers of climate are, on balance, on a cooling trend
and yet
g) the planet is warming by what you get if you calculated the effects of this much carbon increase.

not a single one of these points is disputable. there is a reason that all of the academies of science are on board. it's really that solid and obvious.


* this is probably the least obvious point, but it's really easy for us to know. carbon comes in a variety of isotopes. the isotropic composition of fossil fuels is measurably different from the composition of the atmosphere. as we have added fossil carbon into the atmosphere, we have measured a change that is precisely the change in isotope ratios that you would expect.

Pfft, those are just words on a screen. We need real evidence dammit.

Where's Gil Grissom? He could prove anthropogenic climate change in an hour minus ad breaks. I bet there's DNA on those carbon isotopes.

pick a link

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo
part 1 of a series

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/whatis.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/

[Free Soviets]

do you accept the existence of the greenhouse effect?
do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
do you accept the burning oil releases CO2
do you accept that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate that is more than accounted for by human emissions?
etc.

causality is easy. we know that:
a) we've dug up fossil carbon
b) we've burned enough of it to account for all of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean
c) the increase in CO2 actually is the result of fossil carbon*
d) carbon dioxide is the primary driver of the greenhouse effect
e) changing the amount of energy held in the atmosphere by the greenhouse effect results in changing the planetary temperature
f) other drivers of climate are, on balance, on a cooling trend
and yet
g) the planet is warming by what you get if you calculated the effects of this much carbon increase.

not a single one of these points is disputable. there is a reason that all of the academies of science are on board. it's really that solid and obvious.


* this is probably the least obvious point, but it's really easy for us to know. carbon comes in a variety of isotopes. the isotropic composition of fossil fuels is measurably different from the composition of the atmosphere. as we have added fossil carbon into the atmosphere, we have measured a change that is precisely the change in isotope ratios that you would expect.

I might be willing to reexamine my views if you can get me good sources for all that info.

well, if you want fairly easy to get into, start here and follow their links to get into more specifics:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

after that, you can follow their cites to the literature or head off into stuff from the national academies or nasa or noaa. feel free to ask any question you might have, too.

[Free Soviets]

I thought we'd already established that the politicians had overblown the whole situation...?

no. if anything they are horrifically underblowing the situation. we are up against a bigger threat to our civilization than we have ever encountered. worse than hitler and stalin combined.

see my previous thread for more.

[Nazi Flower Power]

We know it's happening. Whether or not we are causing it is still up for debate, but we should regardless be trying to stop it.

If we aren't causing it in the first place, how would we go about trying to stop it?

[Farnhamia]

We know it's happening. Whether or not we are causing it is still up for debate, but we should regardless be trying to stop it.

If we aren't causing it in the first place, how would we go about trying to stop it?

We could at least try to not add to it.

[Grave_n_idle]

We know it's happening. Whether or not we are causing it is still up for debate, but we should regardless be trying to stop it.

If we aren't causing it in the first place, how would we go about trying to stop it?

We don't have to cause something to stop it. Sandbags and floods, for example.