Originally posted by Gameloading

www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

What ever excuse you have used to convince yourself Global Warming is fake, it's probably answered right here.

Just went through a couple of dozen, and he doesn't really answer any of them. Fail.

EDIT: To make what I said more clear -- he acts as if the burden of proof is on the skeptic. That's crap.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

What ever excuse you have used to convince yourself Global Warming is fake, it's probably answered right here.

 

Just went through a couple of dozen, and he doesn't really answer any of them. Fail.

EDIT: To make what I said more clear -- he acts as if the burden of proof is on the skeptic. That's crap.

 

How can anyone argue with you? Its pointless to debate someone who doesn't read what you post.

Originally posted by jackwhite

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

What ever excuse you have used to convince yourself Global Warming is fake, it's probably answered right here.

 

Just went through a couple of dozen, and he doesn't really answer any of them. Fail.

EDIT: To make what I said more clear -- he acts as if the burden of proof is on the skeptic. That's crap.

 

 

How can anyone argue with you? Its pointless to debate someone who doesn't read what you post.

umm... Fisher and Game Have been going at it for a verry long time... they really dont need to read it because they know what both will say.

Originally posted by jackwhite

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

What ever excuse you have used to convince yourself Global Warming is fake, it's probably answered right here.

 

Just went through a couple of dozen, and he doesn't really answer any of them. Fail.

EDIT: To make what I said more clear -- he acts as if the burden of proof is on the skeptic. That's crap.

 

 

How can anyone argue with you? Its pointless to debate someone who doesn't read what you post.

I read quite a bit of it, and I think I made a rather fair assessment of what he was talking about. His whole tactic was.: skeptic makes a statement. Make the skeptic prove his statement. End of discussion. He never really addresses the skeptic at all, just plays a Socratic game by shifting the burden of proof.

That's a crap way to argue. The burden of proof is on the guy who wants to take away freedom and tax us to hell in the name of this chimera.

I'll repeat.

First, one needs to prove global warming is significantly man-made and not mostly nature and cycles.

Second, after one has proved that it is substantially man-made, one needs to prove it is bad. In other words, if we have the power to warm our earth, is that a bad thing? what are the benefits (longer growing seasons, increased arable lands) vs the costs (sea levels rising and so on)?

Third, if it's more bad than good, will the cirrent "solutions" proposed actually help matters? what will we have to give up, is the cost worth it?

I have been asking people these questions for years. So far, we have been bogged down with question one. No one can sufficiently prove that one. I'm still waiting.

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by jackwhite

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Gameloading

www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

What ever excuse you have used to convince yourself Global Warming is fake, it's probably answered right here.

 

Just went through a couple of dozen, and he doesn't really answer any of them. Fail.

EDIT: To make what I said more clear -- he acts as if the burden of proof is on the skeptic. That's crap.

 

 

How can anyone argue with you? Its pointless to debate someone who doesn't read what you post.

 

umm... Fisher and Game Have been going at it for a verry long time... they really dont need to read it because they know what both will say.

However I did read a lot of it -- enough to see that the guy DOESN'T actually answer  MY questions.

The vast majority of scientist agree that global warming is real and that mankind has a big hand in it.

denying the existance of global warming is much like denying evolution. It's often the same group of people that denies both, a pattern has formed.

Originally posted by Gameloading

The vast majority of scientist agree that global warming is real and that mankind has a big hand in it.

denying the existance of global warming is much like denying evolution. It's often the same group of people that denies both, a pattern has formed.

Nonsense. The scientists that do not accept man-made global warming aren't Christians. I believe in evolution and am not convinced man is warming the planet significantly. I would say that is the vast majority of skeptics. let's see you prove your BS statement.

Plus the vast majority disagree on how much of a hand man has in it, which makes all the difference. Your deliberate use of teh fizzy term "has a big hand in it" shows you actually know this but can't face close scrutiny.

Also, the tide is turning and the supposed "consensus" is undergoing a shift, specially as evidence accumulates and there is MORE and MORE peer review, and also since all the models are turning out wrong.

Plus the vast majority of money behind this thing comes from people who have a vested interest in global warming being man-made (big governments and big corporations who stand to profit from bug government money). That money dwarfs that of the skeptics. I find that interesting.

Either way you are making an appeal to authority, which is irrational -- and you are using sources which may be corrupt. This is why we must evaluate the evidence OURSELVES and decide.

Let's see you prove it yourself, right here and now.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

90% of scientists agree that global warming is ocurring.

82% agree that humans have affected the climate.

Is it time to trust the minority?  Or is it all agenda driven.  LOL at the fact that petroleum scientiests disagree.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Well majority of perople agreeing about something doesn't make it true, truth isn't democratic.  If you are to believe something it should be because of evidence not the number of people that agree with it.

Because using the majority thinks this so it is true arguement is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.

I am not saying global climate change isn't occuring or isn't being affected by human actions just that your arguing point isn't a good one.

Originally posted by outfctrl

you don't reduce your carbon footprint This is in Australia.

 

Hey excuse me! This is NOT in Australia, it was reported by a newspaper called 'The Australian'. This advertising campaign was made and aired in the UK.

Originally posted by Gameloading

The vast majority of scientist agree that global warming is real and that mankind has a big hand in it.

denying the existance of global warming is much like denying evolution. It's often the same group of people that denies both, a pattern has formed.

No mate you are 100% incorrect.

The vast number of scientists do not agree that global warming is real.

They agree that global cooling is real.

Welcome to the 21st centruy mate. It seems you have some catching up to do.

Just as the Global Warming denialists would deny it's very existance, the Global Cooling denialists now do the same.
 

You might have noticed that the whole term "global warming" has been dropped by the scientific and political community and "climate change" is the new buzz phrase. Events forced them to rebrand.

In fact, climate change has been with us all along. The scientific communoity at large is not attempting to persuade us that significant climate change is man made at all. Just those total pillocks with all the egg on their faces after Global Warming turned out to have ended even before they started warning us of it's dangers.

Global Warming is over. The models were proved to be wildly inaccurate by their creators, and the opposite of all the predictions based on them came true.

It's over mate.

You can still save some face by arguing about "climate change" if you like. But don't expect to be taken very seriously after that last bout of total stupidty you were engaged in.

The bottom line is this, Cost.  Who is going to pay for this crap?  We are. Our electric bills will skyrocket.  That BS that gore said about "a postage stamp a day" is horse shit.

Everything we consume will go up, everything.  Why?  All because of inconclusive evidence and scare tactics.  50 years from now, our ancestors will be laughing at us.

Cap-and-trade will depress home prices

That bill contains 397 new regulations. One of them would affect almost everyone who buys or sells a home. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, homes for sale that qualify as “federally related transactions” — which is almost all of them — would be required to undergo an environmental inspection.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

I don't read up much on this climate stuff but isn't methane supposed to be worse than CO2? Anyone have any unbiased nonpropaganda info??

 

Unfortunately that's the problem. There no longer is unbiased nonpropaganda info. On the "green" side, we have a bunch of scientist who get more money from the government if they promote big government, plus we have all those corporations lining up for that 'green" money from the governments of the world. On the other, we have a few big companies who are paying for research on the other side.

The big money is on the "green" side, and predictably, that's where most of the "science" is.

There is no nonbiased science now. It's all about funding.

 

 

 

There is plenty of unbiased science.  It's just that those who disagree with it will claim otherwise.

 

Show me any science done anywhere where they don't depend on funding from someone. Either it's corporate or government or both. there is bias built into the system.

However I look forward to seeing you prove anything you are saying here in this thread. Thus far you have ignored all challenges.

No proof of manmade global warming (surveys prove nothing but reflect people's opinions). No proof that if there IS manmade global warming, it's a bad thing. No proof that measures suggested will have any effect on the supposed problem.

Now you need to  prove there is unbiased science.

 

 

All I've said in this thread is that scientist overwhelmingly agree that global warming exists and that man has had something to do with it.

 

I figure the only way I could "prove" it to you is if I spent the next 10 years of my life getting an environmental science degree, investing millions of my own money, and publishing the results.  And even then you would claim bias.  It's a nice little tool that you always have available.  You said in your own words that you believe all science has a bias, and now you're asking me to prove the exact thing you said is always biased?  Isn't that a little contradictory?

 

Here's proof for global warming.  It's impossible to refute that global warming exists unless of course you don't understand the fact that a higher average temperature = warmer.

 

There are plenty of arguments that could be made to argue that man has had an effect on this rise.  Gases released directly proportional to rise in ocean temp, expansion of the oil industry, etc.  All of which I'm sure you've seen, claimed bias, and left screaming "OMG HOAX"

 

So I guess it comes down to opinion.  And people are overwhelmingly supporting the stance that man-made global warming is real.  And guess what?  If temperatures drop in the next 30 years, the global warming side will say that us acting solved it, and those against it will claim it was going to do it either way.  Good luck proving either one.

 

I for one believe in man-made global warming, but even if I was unsure, I'd want to err on the side of caution.  Doing something about it when you didn't need to is just a waste of time and money, the earth got along just fine before we started polluting so us reducing that pollution certainly won't hurt.  However, doing nothing when you should have could be catastrophic.

 

Could you please show me the comparison of this to the sun's cycle , the effects of the earths relation to other space objects, the poles moving, and the gaping hole in the earths electromagnetic field?
 

It is not just a matter of opinion, it is opinion based on partcial information. You cannot solve an equation without all of the information. That is like me  stating " there are a lot of puppies in the room,  some of those puppies have spots" and drawing the conclusion that there are 42 puppies with spots in the room given that information.

It is absolutley shameful what they have been doign with this .. They formed a lynch mob after the chief of Nasa when he told the truth. People get one tiny bit of information and go overboard with it. The Earth has been much hotter and much colder than it is now, and will  continue to do so with or without human interaction. The best thing we can do is learn to adapt to handle these things rather than try to stop something that is inevitable anyways. 

Reducing pollution is great, clearer air to breath, fresh water to drink, but the way they are going about it is all wrong.

Where are the massive ads for planting air filltering plants? where are the massive ads to build artificial habitats to save the "bunnies"? where are the massive ads actually stating something that is realisitically possible to help our situation? I haven;t seen any.. all I have seen are stupid ads qadvertising things that will not make any difference, that will have little or no effect on anything and are encouraging people to buy expensive " green labled products" they do not even need. They can make perfectly environmentally friendly products in their own home that cost less than the regular products, so why would they need to look for a " green" label?

If they wanted to make a difference they would spend their time effort and money making ads that actually will help improve living conditions on this planet and better prepare people for dealing with adaptation and survival of a living changing world.

Out of curiosity.. How many oxygen producing or air filtering plants have you, yourself purchased and planted in  the past year? 

I have filled up my yard and house with them ... Not because of " global warming" but to produce a better environment and better air quaility here at home. It is funny how many many people I have met that harp on about global warming and think that recycling their plastic milk jugs helps in  any way when it has been shown that recycling of plastics actually releases MORE harmful chemicals into the air than creating the product in the first place .. AMAZING!

Originally posted by deviliscious

I have filled up my yard and house with them ... Not because of " global warming" but to produce a better environment and better air quaility here at home. It is funny how many many people I have met that harp on about global warming and think that recycling their plastic milk jugs helps in  any way when it has been shown that recycling of plastics actually releases MORE harmful chemicals into the air than creating the product in the first place .. AMAZING!

 

I tried a garden a few times.  I even installed a sprinkler system, but everything seems to die.  I live in Florida too.

Have no idea what plants I should get. 

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by deviliscious

I have filled up my yard and house with them ... Not because of " global warming" but to produce a better environment and better air quaility here at home. It is funny how many many people I have met that harp on about global warming and think that recycling their plastic milk jugs helps in  any way when it has been shown that recycling of plastics actually releases MORE harmful chemicals into the air than creating the product in the first place .. AMAZING!

 

I tried a garden a few times.  I even installed a sprinkler system, but everything seems to die.  I live in Florida too.

Have no idea what plants I should get. 

You are lucky,( IF your still in Jacksonville) you live in tropical planting zone 9, and have a wide variety of awesome tropical plants available for you to choose from.
 

One of the key things to remember when planting is you must consider the sun, water, and soil requirements of the plants you choose for the location.  Some tropical plants require saltwater, some require freshwater. It is important to make sure to read the tags on the plants and ask any questions at the local nursery on their care before purchase to ensure they are a good choice for your location.

Sunlight:

Depending on how much sun the area where your garden sits receives will determine what kind of plants you can place there. If the area is too sunny for the plants you choose, you can also plant palms, or other trees to help filter the sunlight .  Some plants require morning or afternoon sun, and some cannot have much sun at all, and require shade instead. Some can handle full sun, and cannot handle shaded areas.

Water:

Some plants require moist soil, some require dry soil, it is important to see read what the plants require and make sure you are watering them properly. Often tropical plants such as palms require a saltwater mix and will thrive if you throw buckets of saltwater on the periodically, however other plants have no tolerance to saltwater and this will kill them. It is best to ask someone at the nursery where you purchase the plants what  conditions are best suitable for  those plants, and place compatable plants together in the same area so they will have the same watering requirements. For most gardens, attaching a drip line instead of a regular sprinkler head and running the drip lines through the garden is the best means of watering them. Often the chemicals in the tap water are too harsh for plants leaves and will burn them. The best times to water are latein the evening/ early morning. I live in a dryer area, so during the hotter months my sprinklers are set to come on at midnight and 3 am. 

Soil:

It is important to meet the soil requirements for your plants. The soil where I live is pretty rough, so I completely gut the flower beds before planting and do a complete soil replacement. I use a good moist potting soil mix and in some areas a soil/ sand mix for my tropicals. It is important to remember your plants need food too.In order to get flowers , you must feed them! You can purchase liquid or powdered plant food and depending on the plants you are usually okay feeding them every 3-6 months. I always mulch my plants as well, this helps keep weeds out and the soil moist, as here it is hard to keep the soil moist in our dry summers. It is also good to have a good winter mulch to help protect them from frost in the colder months. Some tropicals, if it gets too cold may to be extra insulated. Some actually require heating to protect them from cold, but you are in a tropcail area, so I do not think that will be a problem for you.

You also need to consider the plants cold/ heat hardiness. Since you are in a borderline planting zone, it would be better to go with tropicals that have some cold tolerance just in case temperatures drop below normal. Using the guide here you can determine how cold tolerant they need to be. You might consider going with the lower temperature hardiness of the bordering zone just to ensure they make it through the winter okay.

Nasa's list of  Best Airfiltering plants and what chemicals they filter:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air-filtering_soil_and_plants

Here are some of the great zone 9 tropicals:

www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn

www.zone9tropicals.com/

Shade gardening zone 9

I hope this helps!

If you have any questions I might be able to help you! just shoot me a pm.  Good luck with your garden!

Originally posted by outfctrl

Originally posted by deviliscious

I have filled up my yard and house with them ... Not because of " global warming" but to produce a better environment and better air quaility here at home. It is funny how many many people I have met that harp on about global warming and think that recycling their plastic milk jugs helps in  any way when it has been shown that recycling of plastics actually releases MORE harmful chemicals into the air than creating the product in the first place .. AMAZING!

 

I tried a garden a few times.  I even installed a sprinkler system, but everything seems to die.  I live in Florida too.

Have no idea what plants I should get. 

Palm trees.

Alright, I've seen enough bullshit climate change threads that I'm actually gonna take a weekend of my life so I can go read all the current papers in the field.

Turns out I even know personally one of the scientists who wrote the "dissent letter" in the OP.  Maybe I'll stop by and talk to him.

One important thing you learn early in science is this:

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm sure you guys are smart enough to figure out how this applies.

Here's what I KNOW that we know:

1) Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions have increased steadily since the industrial revolution.

2) Natural carbon sinks have become dramatically smaller in the same period.

3) The greenhouse behavior of CO₂ is well documented.

Here's where the problems lie:

1) The global carbon transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

2) The global thermal transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

3) models developed with incomplete understanding will give unreliable results.

This is the same issue we have with modeling hurricanes.  Look up sensitive dependence on initial conditions.  When you do not properly account for all of the feedback mechanisms in a system you get bad results from models.

As I have said before, the situation now is analogous to doctors understanding that a certain substance causes a mutation, but not fully understanding the apoptosis and genetic repair mechanisms that affect that mutation.  Likewise, we do not fully understand the other oncogenes that come into play when developing a malignancy.

If you can follow the analogy, global warming due to CO₂ is REAL and MEASURABLE.  It is the other unknowns in the system that we do not fully understand.  The greatest concern is that carbon/ thermal buffering systems will act in a way that is analogous to a pH buffer in solution- I will leave it to someone else who is familiar with volumetric titration to explain what happens there.. and hopefully to explain why the analogy is worrisome with regard to climate.

Oh, and last thing: You would be surprised how many people in research are absolutely dedicated to ethics.  There are of course people who will generate whatever data you pay them to generate, but all the people I've known that try to fudge data one way or another get ripped apart in peer review.  Those of you claiming otherwise please explain your basis for this claim.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Alright, I've seen enough bullshit climate change threads that I'm actually gonna take a weekend of my life so I can go read all the current papers in the field.

Turns out I even know personally one of the scientists who wrote the "dissent letter" in the OP.  Maybe I'll stop by and talk to him.

One important thing you learn early in science is this:

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

I'm sure you guys are smart enough to figure out how this applies.

 

Here's what I KNOW that we know:

1) Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions have increased steadily since the industrial revolution.

2) Natural carbon sinks have become dramatically smaller in the same period.

3) The greenhouse behavior of CO₂ is well documented.

 

Here's where the problems lie:

1) The global carbon transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

2) The global thermal transport and buffering systems are not completely understood.

3) models developed with incomplete understanding will give unreliable results.

 

This is the same issue we have with modeling hurricanes.  Look up sensitive dependence on initial conditions.  When you do not properly account for all of the feedback mechanisms in a system you get bad results from models.

 

As I have said before, the situation now is analogous to doctors understanding that a certain substance causes a mutation, but not fully understanding the apoptosis and genetic repair mechanisms that affect that mutation.  Likewise, we do not fully understand the other oncogenes that come into play when developing a malignancy.

 

If you can follow the analogy, global warming due to CO₂ is REAL and MEASURABLE.  It is the other unknowns in the system that we do not fully understand.  The greatest concern is that carbon/ thermal buffering systems will act in a way that is analogous to a pH buffer in solution- I will leave it to someone else who is familiar with volumetric titration to explain what happens there.. and hopefully to explain why the analogy is worrisome with regard to climate.

 

Oh, and last thing: You would be surprised how many people in research are absolutely dedicated to ethics.  There are of course people who will generate whatever data you pay them to generate, but all the people I've known that try to fudge data one way or another get ripped apart in peer review.  Those of you claiming otherwise please explain your basis for this claim.

Translation for those who did not understand what you just said:

There is evidence that C02 emissions have been rising, there is evidence that man has contributed to this, there is evidence that the earths temperatures have been rising.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basically all things we ALREADY know.  I do not think that people are disputing that, what they are disputing is :

1. that means the earths temperatures will continue to rise from this information alone.

2. that we have the power to stop this from happening.

3. what the best course of action is that should be taken.

We all know that if right now , today, if every person, machine, or man made c02 emitting device just suddenly disappeared from the earth that  this would only slow down the rise in temperature, not stop it.  It would continue to rise regardless of our efforts in that regards. The poles would still melt because the poles are actually moving, and moving faster than usual and in the process of melting and refreezing, which they  have always done and will contnue to do regardless of what man does.

 Instead of people harping on about global warming this and that , why not do things that make sense. For example , encourage people to mass plant air filtering oxygen producing plants to help provide the earth with the natural filtration  to provide us with better cleaner air.

Reduce emissions. I think the best way to reduce emissions would be to encourage businesses to allow more people to work from home. Many jobs these days can be done from home, and allowing people   to not have to commute to do those jobs would make the largest impact on emissions. Doing away with" office buildings" and encouraging the " home office" would be the most effective method. Remove the social stigma and laws that require a business to have a physical commercial address. Through tax breaks and professional acceptance, allow for the "home based" businesses to be the new business model. For those that have to go to a physical address implement the 4 day work week.

Encourage delivery services through tax breaks. It makes more sense for one truck to drive around delivering to 50 people in a day than to have 50 people driving around to one destination in a day. Encouraging the use of delivery services, by allowing tax breaks so that businesses do not have to charge a delivery fee would allow for us to have less people on the roads producing harmful emissions.

Invest in a way to transport Ozone to our stratosphere, as we create plenty of that on the ground level where it is unwanted, and it will not transport itself there on it's own. or figure out a better way to produce it in quantity in space and pump it into the stratosphere. either way, we could actually attempt to "help" our ozone layer repair itself, or find ways to speed the process up to provide the earth with better protection.

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

You know, If they were going to spend money on commercials, they should at least make the best use of their time. Like if they took the guy from "survivor man"  and had him do short segment ads showing things people can do on their own to help the environment like making soap in their own home from natural ingrediants, how to plant and care for air filtering plants, building a rain water recycling barrel and such it would have a much greater impact than the idiotic" STOP CIMATE CHANGE " commercials that make them sound like dumbasses. Those commercials are so stupid because everyone already knows you cannot stop climate change ..

Yea, do some segments with a guy like this showing how to survive on a living changing world and you would have more people listening , and doing than you will have from doing those lame commercials they do now.

www.youtube.com/watch

All good ideas devil, and sorry if my tech speak was annoying to you.  I figure anyone qualified to tell me that global warming doesn't exist is also able to read and understand the primary literature on the subject.  There was nothing esoteric there, and there wasn't anything in that passage that couldn't be deciphered with a few trips to google in any case.  Also the same post would have been three times as long in layman's terms.. you missed quite a few salient points in your synopsis.

To say that global warming due to "man-made" carbon dioxide is not occurring is an irresponsible oversimplification.  At the very least, we have identified the greenhouse mechanism related to carbon dioxide and we have identified a steadily climbing concentration of carbon dioxide.  How that increase in heat trapping is being "buffered" or "absorbed and mitigated" we do not know.

I think I've read that you are a nurse.. so you'll understand the oncology analogy I made- and here is another medical analogy:

Amphetamines cause increase in heart rate at lower doses.  In overdose however, you can see reflex bradycardia or SLOWING of the heart rate by the baroreceptor reflex.  Pressure gets too high, reflex reduces cardiac output by slowing heart rate.  This would be considered a PARADOXICAL or OPPOSITE than expected response.

Complex environmental systems are often analogous to biological systems.  It is quite possible that the short term COOLING cited by so many in this thread is the result of a thermal negative feedback loop initiated by rapid rise in temperature (or hell even carbon dioxide levels- we DON'T KNOW).

We DO know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that we are seeing levels unprecedented in the past million years:

So back to my medical analogy.  If I have a patient with elevated (or low, or even IRREGULAR) heartbeat I'm not going to give him a drug that I know affects heart rate.  If I have a climatological system that I KNOW is out of thermal balance, EVEN IF I don't fully understand the system I will not introduce an excess of a substance that I KNOW causes temperature elevations.  This is nothing more than prudent thinking.

I do not claim that we fully understand the thermal and carbon mechanics of our planet.  As a matter of fact I'm well aware that we DON'T.  But we DO understand one part of it well enough to know that we are adding a potentially destabilizing element in unprecedented quantities.

And the point I never got to in my post above:

What if the negative feedback loop keeping temps steady/ cooling is a seawater density shift controlled by freshwater runoff from melting ice sheets?  If that is the "protective" mechanism, then running out of melting ice will very possibly be like running off of a CLIFF... or it could be any of a hundred mechanisms that we don't fully understand... and we might not know that we are at the very edge of exhausting that buffer until it is gone.

So after all of this rambling, I hope you will forgive me for being irate when people OVERSIMPLIFY the situation by saying things like GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE.

I agree that some of the suggestions for reducing carbon emissions may be absurd, and that there may be better options.  But people saying that our carbon footprint does not matter are speaking directly out of their asses.

There is a LOT more evidence indicating that carbon dioxide levels ARE important than evidence to the contrary.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 Edit- by the way devil do you mind if I put the following in my sig:

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

 I will credit the author of course : )

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

As much as I hate to agree with the Feline Casanova.. you're right on this point.

Regardless of whether we do it or the universe does it, eventually the Earth is gonna be in crisis.  Until we are out among the stars, we've effectively got all of our eggs in one basket.

Originally posted by Enkindu

All good ideas devil, and sorry if my tech speak was annoying to you.  I figure anyone qualified to tell me that global warming doesn't exist is also able to read and understand the primary literature on the subject.  There was nothing esoteric there, and there wasn't anything in that passage that couldn't be deciphered with a few trips to google in any case.  Also the same post would have been three times as long in layman's terms.. you missed quite a few salient points in your synopsis.

To say that global warming due to "man-made" carbon dioxide is not occurring is an irresponsible oversimplification.  At the very least, we have identified the greenhouse mechanism related to carbon dioxide and we have identified a steadily climbing concentration of carbon dioxide.  How that increase in heat trapping is being "buffered" or "absorbed and mitigated" we do not know.

I think I've read that you are a nurse.. so you'll understand the oncology analogy I made- and here is another medical analogy:

Amphetamines cause increase in heart rate at lower doses.  In overdose however, you can see reflex bradycardia or SLOWING of the heart rate by the baroreceptor reflex.  Pressure gets too high, reflex reduces cardiac output by slowing heart rate.  This would be considered a PARADOXICAL or OPPOSITE than expected response.

Complex environmental systems are often analogous to biological systems.  It is quite possible that the short term COOLING cited by so many in this thread is the result of a thermal negative feedback loop initiated by rapid rise in temperature (or hell even carbon dioxide levels- we DON'T KNOW).

We DO know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that we are seeing levels unprecedented in the past million years:

 

 

So back to my medical analogy.  If I have a patient with elevated (or low, or even IRREGULAR) heartbeat I'm not going to give him a drug that I know affects heart rate.  If I have a climatological system that I KNOW is out of thermal balance, EVEN IF I don't fully understand the system I will not introduce an excess of a substance that I KNOW causes temperature elevations.  This is nothing more than prudent thinking.

I do not claim that we fully understand the thermal and carbon mechanics of our planet.  As a matter of fact I'm well aware that we DON'T.  But we DO understand one part of it well enough to know that we are adding a potentially destabilizing element in unprecedented quantities.

And the point I never got to in my post above:

What if the negative feedback loop keeping temps steady/ cooling is a seawater density shift controlled by freshwater runoff from melting ice sheets?  If that is the "protective" mechanism, then running out of melting ice will very possibly be like running off of a CLIFF... or it could be any of a hundred mechanisms that we don't fully understand... and we might not know that we are at the very edge of exhausting that buffer until it is gone.

So after all of this rambling, I hope you will forgive me for being irate when people OVERSIMPLIFY the situation by saying things like GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE.

I agree that some of the suggestions for reducing carbon emissions may be absurd, and that there may be better options.  But people saying that our carbon footprint does not matter are speaking directly out of their asses.

There is a LOT more evidence indicating that carbon dioxide levels ARE important than evidence to the contrary.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 Edit- by the way devil do you mind if I put the following in my sig:

(PS. I have been told that when I use scientific language, it does not make me sound more intelligent, it only makes me sound like a jackass. It makes me appear that I am not knowledgable enough in the subject I am discussing to be able to translate it for people outside the field to understand. Some advice you might consider as well)

 I will credit the author of course : )

LOL! sure you can quote me.
 

I can understand your frustration when people say things like " GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE." Because the truth is that both global warming and global cooling are realities that mankind will have to face sooner or later and that we need to be preparing now for adapting and surviving climate changes or we will not survive  what is to come.

I do believe however, if environmentalists wish to be more effective, they will change their approach and quit making outlandish claims like " stop climate change" or " stop the poles from melting" because it tunes people out at that point when we know that neither of those things can be stopped with our current technology.

The sheer amount of misinformation on both sides of this issue have gotten to the point of being ridiculous. If those that truly wish to help our people and our planet survive what is to come, they must change their methods and messege or they will lose alot of support they would have otherwise gained. By making stupid statements, all they do is get doors slammed in their face and no progress done. People instead bicker about " global warming vs global cooling" and results in endless bickering instead of focusing on the best course of action to take.  Trying to " force people" to do things isnt the answer either, instead offer real solutions with solid reasoning and  you will gain much ground faster.

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Silly. We do not want to " use all the resources up and move on " like a bunch of grasshoppers. we are more intelligent than grasshoppers and can renew resources instead of just devouring them.
 

Yes, space colonization would be nice in the future, but instead of  using , abusing and discarding planets like a bunch of parasitic insects, we create renewable resources and put back into planets what we take out of them. However, we are not advanced to a point that space colonization is even a viable option.

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Silly. We do not want to " use all the resources up and move on " like a bunch of grasshoppers. we are more intelligent than grasshoppers and can renew resources instead of just devouring them.
 

Yes, space colonization would be nice in the future, but unstead of  using , abusing and discarding planetslike a bunch of parasitic insects, we instead create reneable resources and put back into planets what we take out of them. However, we are not advanced to a point that space colonization is even a viable option.

If this be the case, I suggest we build huge Jurassic Parks all over the world, but use them as massive slaughterhouses to turn oil into a renewable resource for the far future and just dump all the dead dinosaurs into a huge pit. Hm?

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by zchmrkenhoff

The solution to global warming is space colonization. It's the time to begin terra-forming the planets around us and begin settling them. Like Agent Smith said, the species most like humans is a virus. We exist in one area, use all of the resources up, and move on. It seems we've almost used this planet up hmm? Time to move on then. We're a race of nomads... let's just migrate ^^

Silly. We do not want to " use all the resources up and move on " like a bunch of grasshoppers. we are more intelligent than grasshoppers and can renew resources instead of just devouring them.
 

Yes, space colonization would be nice in the future, but unstead of  using , abusing and discarding planetslike a bunch of parasitic insects, we instead create reneable resources and put back into planets what we take out of them. However, we are not advanced to a point that space colonization is even a viable option.

If this be the case, I suggest we build huge Jurassic Parks all over the world, but use them as massive slaughterhouses to turn oil into a renewable resource for the far future and just dump all the dead dinosaurs into a huge pit. Hm?

Or we could do this:
 

Oil Creation Theory Challenged by Fuel-Making Fungus

Or this:

Energy from Urban Waste

Converting trash gas into energy gold

In combination with other methods I see this as a viable option.