If a Picture Paints a Thousand Words . .

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 26 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
If a Picture Paints a Thousand Words . .

. . why not choose a picture that illustrates your point . . TWICE?

Sea level rise isn’t just happening, it’s getting faster

SOURCE
_________________________________________________________________

Click on the link to see the picture. Look to the right and see the same picture used in a 'related story'.

The picture has NOTHING to do with either story except it's deceptiveness. If they sense a need to lie to make a point, how strongly can they honestly believe the point?

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
Taxfoe ,I read the same

Taxfoe ,I read the same article earlier.I continue to ask the same question.If the sea level is rising at such an alarming rate ,why doesnt the government place a ban on any more construction in at peril cities.....and coastal communities? The article does raise an interesting point ,about sinking land because of ground water withdrawal.I wonder about effect of all of the water that is being pumped and dumped for human consumption either for agricultural use or sanitary purposes.
the land under the Great Lakes continues to rise recovering from the weight of the last glaciers.....how much water is that forcing back into the oceans? Plenty of other sources of sea level rise besides that Prius...

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
A few months ago, it was

A few months ago, it was below zero, there were feet of snow. Now the temperature hovers in the eighties... proof of global warming.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 26 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
What lies beneath? Diver

What lies beneath? Diver films bizarre and beautiful GLOWING sea creatures lurking in the sub-zero waters under Greenland's ice caps

SOURCE
_____________________________________________________________________

Under what?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
I'm just curious - what kind

I'm just curious - what kind of scientific evidence would you have to see to believe that climate change is real?

Or is it just that it would have to be evidence coming from an article on Info Wars or some equally conservative news site?

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 26 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
The climate has a long

The climate has a long history of changing. Seashells in the Rockies was good enough for me. Geologists like to speculate whether the oceans ever rose that high, the shells were carried aboard shifting plates or were deposited by passing glaciers. I'll be content to endorse the winner, either way.

For your amusement:

Fossils Found In Tibet Revise History Of Elevation, Climate

INFO WARS

"Establishing an accurate history of tectonic and associated elevation changes in the region is important because uplift of the Tibetan Plateau has been suggested as a major driving mechanism of global climate change over the past 50-60 million years," said Yang, an associate professor in FSU's Department of Geological Sciences and a researcher at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory. "What's more, the region also is thought to be important in driving the modern Asian monsoons, which control the environmental conditions over much of Asia, the most densely populated region on Earth."

(emphasis added)
__________________________________________________________________________

Still, it's only science . . the art of what we think we know, so far.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"I'm just curious - what kind

"I'm just curious - what kind of scientific evidence would you have to see to believe that climate change is real?

Or is it just that it would have to be evidence coming from an article on Info Wars or some equally conservative news site?"

Info Wars is hardly a site that I would go to for evidence of just about anything--why, it's only one notch above the New York Times.

As for "scientific evidence", how about the most basic scientific evidence that there is: a baseline? In other words, what the optimum mean temperature of the Earth should be? Because without this most basic fact, there is no way to know if A) man-caused climate change is happening in any significant way, and B) there is no way to tell that if it is happening, it is positive, negative, or neutral.

This in turn means that all the dire pronouncements of imminent doom from people who fly to global warming conferences on their private carbon-spewing planes are at least highly suspect if not outright fraudulent, especially when they promote policies that involve increased government spending, more government intervention into the lives of individuals, and the almost total ignoring of the real sources of environmental destruction, such as China and Africa.

You want me to accept "scientific proof"? Make a scientific case, and maybe I'll start paying attention to you.

Al Amoling
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 07/07/2004 - 12:01am
When we get the ice age

When we get the ice age promised in the 70s, I'll consider whether climate change caused by humans is real.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
"As for "scientific evidence"

"As for "scientific evidence", how about the most basic scientific evidence that there is: a baseline? In other words, what the optimum mean temperature of the Earth should be? Because without this most basic fact, there is no way to know if A) man-caused climate change is happening in any significant way, and B) there is no way to tell that if it is happening, it is positive, negative, or neutral."

So you basically asking for scientific evidence that a warmer planet is worse for us? Because, "the temperature the Earth should be" really means "the temperature that provides the most benefits for the most people" (though one could argue it should mean, "the temperature that benefits my nation the most".

A warmer temperature might spell certain doom for Bangladesh or Florida because of flooding but would be incredibly beneficial for Russia (who craves warm water ports) or Canada (for whom it would increase farm output).

On a more local level, it would be good for the Maine restaurant industry (longer season, more tourists), but bad for the fishing/lobster industry (warmer water holds less oxygen, and depletes marine activity, reducing overall fishing production).

As I've stated many times before, the science behind man made CO2 warming is pretty solid. There will always be people who don't believe in it - there are still people who believe the Earth is flat (shout out to Kyrie Irving) and that vaccines cause autism, and that humans didn't evolve from apes, despite overwhelming evidence, so I'm not really holding my breath.

That being said, the question, "what happens when shit gets hotter?" is a less investigated question. I would think that we would want to dig into that question in greater detail, as how warming affects us compared to Europe/Russia/China is a pretty important question. But until people acknowledge that warming is real, I don't see how we're going to get there.

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 26 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
Push the Tibetan Plateau back

Push the Tibetan Plateau back down and . . and . . well, we'll have to settle for some otherwise unknowable point from within the past 50 or 60 million years. You figure it out and maybe they'll rename the Himalayas after you.

xxxx

Smoke and magma mark the spot! From Japan to Germany, the world's newest islands revealed

SOURCE

These newly-formed islands emerging from plumes of smoke and bubbling magma reveal how the earth's surface is constantly changing.

Over the past decade, several significant land masses have been confirmed, most recently a sandbar off the coast of North Carolina nicknamed Shelly Island.  

Scroll down for some of the newest places making their marks on the map, with many more set to be discovered...
___________________________________________________________________________

So one, we have displacement raising the sea level and two, all that smoke and ash frigging with the oceans and atmosphere. And they say it's been going on for a long time! Damn science, again. Alarming, isn't it?

I like crabs and oysters. Yesterday, NPR ran a story about the glorious, post 'at will pollution era' recovery of Chesapeake Bay. The notion that the bay must be getting hotter, bigger and deeper never came up. How can that be? NPR is a big advocate of 'zero airtime to climate deniers' ideology. But they forget, sometimes.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"So you basically asking for

"So you basically asking for scientific evidence that a warmer planet is worse for us? Because, "the temperature the Earth should be" really means "the temperature that provides the most benefits for the most people" (though one could argue it should mean, "the temperature that benefits my nation the most"."

No. I am asking for someone to show what the mean temperature of the Earth should be. I don't know the answer to that question--do you? Because until you do, all pronouncements about the climate are meaningless. If all these scientists are claiming that the "science proves that human caused climate change is occurring and is harmful", then those scientists should be able to demonstrate from science the "proper" temperature of the Earth.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
"No. I am asking for someone

"No. I am asking for someone to show what the mean temperature of the Earth should be. I don't know the answer to that question--do you? Because until you do, all pronouncements about the climate are meaningless. If all these scientists are claiming that the "science proves that human caused climate change is occurring and is harmful", then those scientists should be able to demonstrate from science the "proper" temperature of the Earth."

That doesn't make any sense - there isn't a "right" temperature, because there are so many different climates. An increase affects different people differently.

So what we want to know, is how climate change affects *us* as a nation. Are we as a nation better off or worse with a warmer climate?

If you are Russia, the answer is unequivocally "better off". Being able to ship via northern ports 12 months out of the year is a huge economic boost for them.

If you are a poor nation that's below sea level, the answer is unequivocally, "worse off".

Trying to apply a categorization of "the right temperature" of the Earth falls woefully short of the complexity of the situation.

Coincidentally, I just found this:
https://www.axios.com/southern-inequality-likely-to-strengthen-due-to-cl...
(Maine comes out ahead! Woohoo!)

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
Given that the Earth spends

Given that the Earth spends most of its time in Ice Ages (we're living in an interglacial period), the normal temperature of Earth isn't just colder... it's MUCH colder.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"That doesn't make any sense

"That doesn't make any sense - there isn't a "right" temperature, because there are so many different climates. An increase affects different people differently."

Climate alarmists want it both ways--you claim that there is destructive man-caused climate change, yet when pressed to provide the optimum temperature of the Earth, you say it's impossible to answer the question; which begs the question, how then can you insist that humans are destructively warming the Earth if you can't tell us how warm the Earth is supposed to be?

"Trying to apply a categorization of "the right temperature" of the Earth falls woefully short of the complexity of the situation."

Yet you tell us (simplistically) that we're warming the Earth's climate harmfully. You deride us for not accepting "science", yet when asked for direct scientific proof you say that to ask that is to not comprehend "the complexity of the situation". And yet I suspect you wouldn't hesitate to label those of us who are skeptical of the climate alarmism "deniers".

I am skeptical--I am of the firm opinion that we don't know what's going on, that the climate is far more complex then we can presently understand, and that therefore taking actions to change something we don't understand is useless at best and destructive at worst. I also don't link creating and using alternative sources of energy with fanciful speculations about the climate (two different subjects in my mind). Until we know what we're doing, trying to manipulate the climate is wasteful of resources and potentially harmful to human life.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
"Yet you tell us

"Yet you tell us (simplistically) that we're warming the Earth's climate harmfully. "

I would first just like you to accept that we are warming the climate because of man-made CO2 and CH4 emissions.

Most of the people on AMG don't even believe that. They believe that all the science are lies, that there's some evil liberal cabal out to manipulate the national dialogue so that they can get more research dollars (when, if they really wanted to be rich, they would just get jobs on Wall St.)

Whether or not the warming is detrimental is a completely different discussion, but frankly it is one that we can't even start to have if half the country believes in Creationism and that the climate science community is an evil cabal.

Edit: Just to be clear, I want the discussion to be targeted towards "is it detrimental", rather than, "all climate science is junk". I've had this exact same discussion with mainemom earlier in the global warming megathread.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"I would first just like you

"I would first just like you to accept that we are warming the climate because of man-made CO2 and CH4 emissions."

Not without more proof than has been presented. Not without being told what the mean temperature of the Earth should be. "I'm a scientist and I'm smarter than you" does not constitute proof.

Is it at all possible that people are not accepting "man caused global warming/climate change/(insert the new trendy scary phrase here)" not because they're Creationists or they "believe all science is lies", but because you and your fellow travelers are not terribly convincing? You certainly have done nothing to convince me--instead, you've made me more skeptical and less inclined to listen to you, especially with remarks about "info wars" and "believing all science is lies" and "creationism".

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
"Not without more proof than

"Not without more proof than has been presented. Not without being told what the mean temperature of the Earth should be. "I'm a scientist and I'm smarter than you" does not constitute proof."

So this goes back to my original question, which you avoided by changing the topic to "what is the right temperature of the Earth":
"Specifically what kind of scientific proof would you need to see to get you to believe the Earth is warming?"

What studies would you need to see published that would change your mind? What kinds of things measured would you need to see before you decided that it was real?

taxfoe
Offline
Last seen: 26 min 2 sec ago
Joined: 03/22/2000 - 1:01am
I thought there was no such

I thought there was no such thing as a stupid question. For once, a_c has proven me incorrect.

You are aware that there are many honorable scientists who have arrived at conclusions which are incompatible with yours, right? We don't need more science from you. We need the other scientists to keep redoing their work until they arrive at the same conclusions as you.

Don't hold your breath . . wait . . have you tried that experiment?

Mainelion
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 08/11/2005 - 12:01am
If they want to be trusted

If they want to be trusted then the climate scientsts could stop pulling things like this...

NOAA scientists upwardly adjusted temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

The NOAA study in dispute claims the scientists found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming. They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming the temperature record from 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale.”

“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” wrote climate scientists Dr. Patrick J. Michaels and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of the libertarian Cato Institute on the in the science blog Watts Up With That. “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote on the same science blog. “It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise. Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
The Climate Change Conundrum

The Climate Change Conundrum is composed of three basic assertions. The problem is that these are assumed to be a causative chain simply because the situation has placed them at the same time. This is fallacy: Coincidence does not prove Causation.

The Earth has been warming (or climate changing).
The Earth's warming (climate change) is unprecedented.
The Earth's warming (climate change) is caused by Human Activities.

The basic assertions are based upon a set of theories or assumptions:

The level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been increasing.
Increasing levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere causes climate changes due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Human activities have caused the increase in CO2 in Earth's atmosphere, thus Human activities are causing Climate Change.

There are problems with most of these assertions, the biggest one is that the proof of most of them rely on the others... which are unproven. Mere coincidence does not constitute proof.

Some facts cause skepticism regarding the assumptions:

The Earth's long-term average temperature is much colder than the average temperature during recorded history.
The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age, with interruptions like the Little Ice Age.
The Earth has warmed and cooled many times, before and after each Ice Age at a minimum (the Interglacial Periods).
The Earth has gone through several very strong warming and cooling periods even within the current Interglacial Period.
Human activity had very little to do with any of the climate changes since there simply weren't enough humans.

All of this makes me a skeptic.

I am NOT a heretic or a denier.

Climate Change is science, right?
Climate Change is NOT a religion, right?

Using the dismissive words of religious dogma reveals that people are taking this on faith instead of facts...

Matt
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 44 min ago
Joined: 01/21/2008 - 6:21pm
Toolsmith, how did the earth

Toolsmith, how did the earth come into existence?

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 11 min ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
Looking for the exact date

Looking for the exact date range when the earth was athat perfect ,steady, consistent climate......should be simple to answer seeing that they can predict climate conditions into the future......documenting the historical past should be no problem,whatsoever.

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Mainelion: you beat me to it

Mainelion: you beat me to it!

I was going to (again) post the information that has never been challenged……the global warming scientists are manipulating the data to encourage the belief that the 0.04 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming which has not occurred for approximately 2 decades.

Global warming is a hoax; there is testimony regarding that:

For Terry Hughes of Fort Pierre, now a professor emeritus of earth sciences and climate change at the University of Maine, the way to answer the question of whether human activity is driving climate change isn’t with a “yes” or “no.”
He prefers to answer: “It doesn’t matter.”

……and…….
He said he thinks dire global warming predictions are really all about lassoing federal research funding and votes.
“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,” the glaciologist added.

The professor is possibly misinformed….maybe delusional…..maybe even like….lying?
What do you think anonymous coward?

So mainelion…are you up to speed on that 97% of the science world agrees warming is occurring ….which is a falsehood?

This one: http://truthfeed.com/97-consensus-on-climate-change-completely-debunked-...

There’s only one problem, that 97% statistic is a complete lie.

What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?

Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.
To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
'So this goes back to my

'So this goes back to my original question, which you avoided by changing the topic to "what is the right temperature of the Earth":
"Specifically what kind of scientific proof would you need to see to get you to believe the Earth is warming?"'

It strikes me that you are the one who is avoiding the question--my original question is "what is the mean temperature of the Earth supposed to be", an answer to which you have sidestepped by insisting that I accept an unproven premise. You can demonstrate that the Earth is warming by answering my original question--what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be? Surely, if you are convinced that there is all this evidence that the Earth is warming from human-caused actions, you can point to what the temperature was before this started happening, and point to when it started happening, and demonstrate that it was human actions which started the rise, as opposed to solar activity or other natural fluctuations.

How can you say "the Earth is warming, and humans are responsible" without a baseline by which to measure this?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Toolsmith: "The Earth has

@Toolsmith: "The Earth has been warming (or climate changing).
The Earth's warming (climate change) is unprecedented.
The Earth's warming (climate change) is caused by Human Activities."

You're totally wrong, the source of the climate change science is:
1) CO2 and CH4 absorb and reemit electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum, making them greenhouse gases (confirmed in the laboratory) - I assume you agree with this
2) CO2 and CH4 are steadily increasing over time (also confirmed by the Keeling measurements) - I assume you agree with this as well
3) CO2 is increasing because of the burning of fossil fuels - we know this because of the ratio of isotopes, unless you don't believe in isotopes because you think the world is only 10,000 years old - all scientists agree with this
4) It follows that there will be a temperature increase. ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THIS.

Where they don't agree is how big an increase 4 will be compared to other factors. If you sit down and do the science (which is straightforward, even a non-scientist with some math could understand it), it comes out to pretty much what the IPCC says.

There is no religion or other shit, it's really really simple. But please, for the love of Pete, don't take my word for it, go look at the actual science yourself (not climate science, start with Physics and work your way up).

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@VS:"It strikes me that you

@VS:
"It strikes me that you are the one who is avoiding the question--my original question is "what is the mean temperature of the Earth supposed to be", an answer to which you have sidestepped by insisting that I accept an unproven premise. You can demonstrate that the Earth is warming by answering my original question--what is the temperature of the Earth supposed to be? Surely, if you are convinced that there is all this evidence that the Earth is warming from human-caused actions, you can point to what the temperature was before this started happening, and point to when it started happening, and demonstrate that it was human actions which started the rise, as opposed to solar activity or other natural fluctuations.

How can you say "the Earth is warming, and humans are responsible" without a baseline by which to measure this?"

I didn't sidestep your question, I tried to explain that your question isn't a very good question. It has a different answer for different people. Does that make sense?

My question has nothing to do with yours - my question puts aside "what is the right temperature" just for a second .... what I'm asking is, "regardless of what is the "best" temperature of the Earth, what scientific evidence would you have to see to agree that the Earth is warming because of man-made CO2 increases?"

You do NOT need to know what the "right" temperature is to agree if the Earth is getting warmer. You DO need to know what is "right" to agree if warmer = better or warmer = worse.

To try to make this simpler, if I'm a chihuahua and it's 50F and it warms up to 90F, that's a good thing for me.
If I'm a husky and it goes from 50F to 90F, that's a bad thing for me.
But both the husky and the chihuahua can agree that the thermometer indicates that it's getting warmer.

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
You're saying, "Accept my

You're saying, "Accept my presently unproven premise that man is causing rising temperatures by releasing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and then we can discuss if this is a good thing or a bad thing despite my previous statements that it's a Bad Thing, such as pointing to the drought in California (which has rather decisively ended, by the way). Asking for something as basic as a baseline so we can have a discussion of how much this alleged warming is causing the Earth's temperature to rise is a silly question that has no meaning and will distract us from focusing on the real issues of how bad it is for anyone to own a SUV or run a air conditioner".

Let's make this even simpler: if the chihuahua thinks that it's getting warmer, and the husky doesn't think it's getting warmer, how would the two dogs resolve this disagreement? And if the cat wanders by and isn't sure if it's getting colder, warmer, or staying the same, how would any of them know what the truth is?

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@VS: "You're saying, "Accept

@VS: "You're saying, "Accept my presently unproven premise that man is causing rising temperatures by releasing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere"

No, that's not at all what I'm saying - I'm asking *you*, "what scientific evidence would be required for you to believe that man is causing rising temperatures by release CO2?"

Surely you believe that a current passed through a wire causes a magnetic field, because you've seen the scientific studies that demonstrate it. Similarly, you believe (I hope) that vaccines don't cause autism, because of the studies that have been done on the subject.

So it's not as if you don't believe in all science, it's just you don't believe in man-caused global warming.

But, if you have an open mind, there should be some threshold of evidence that would cause you to change your mind - otherwise your'e just a partisan hack, right?

I'm asking you, VS, what is that threshold?

For some reason you are turning that very very simple question into, "what is the *right* temperature of the Earth", which is completely independent of my question. I honestly don't know why you're dodging the question?

Toolsmith
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/14/2016 - 11:22am
AC once again falls off the

AC once again falls off the wagon...
"@Toolsmith: "The Earth has been warming (or climate changing).
The Earth's warming (climate change) is unprecedented.
The Earth's warming (climate change) is caused by Human Activities."

You're totally wrong, the source of the climate change science is:
1) CO2 and CH4 absorb and reemit electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum, making them greenhouse gases (confirmed in the laboratory) - I assume you agree with this
2) CO2 and CH4 are steadily increasing over time (also confirmed by the Keeling measurements) - I assume you agree with this as well
3) CO2 is increasing because of the burning of fossil fuels - we know this because of the ratio of isotopes, unless you don't believe in isotopes because you think the world is only 10,000 years old - all scientists agree with this
4) It follows that there will be a temperature increase. ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE THIS."

BELIEVE? I don't care WHAT they BELIEVE! This is NOT a RELIGION, this is SCIENCE. I only care what you can PROVE.

#1 How many times do we have to prove that what happens in a lab experiment may NOT be what happens out in the real world? There are so many other things going on that could impact the results. You cannot ASSUME that the result of an experiment in a lab will be duplicated when you add hundreds or even thousands of other MICRO influences, plus a few major MACRO influences. The glacial cycle that has dominated Earth's climate for millions of years didn't vanish because we showed up in the last hundred thousand...

#2/#3 Assuming science can prove CO2 is increasing... has it reached the levels of the earlier epochs when trillions of tons of it were in the atmosphere to be incorporated into coal/oil/gas? Was the Earth destroyed by those much higher levels then?

#4 Once again, coincidence does not prove causation. The Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age. Do we know that any warming that occurs isn't part of that warming? Because you found something else happening, it HAS TO BE the cause?

BELIEVE is a RELIGION word. Just like heretic, denier, etc., etc.

Scientists prove things, demonstrate things, and theorize when they cannot prove or demonstrate. They don't "believe" and then force everyone else to "believe" too...

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
The earth warms up, the earth

The earth warms up, the earth cools down. Warms up....cools down. Happens with or without humans or CO2.

TEMP VRS CO2 VOSTOK ICE CORE.png

Heats up......cools down. All by itself.

Ice core sample data_0.jpg

Humans get involved and change the data. Simple. Lower the temps in the past and guess what...it seems hotter than before. Voila!
Global warming due to CO2.

Brakey MAINE TEMPS_0.png

Vikingstar
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 01/04/2003 - 1:01am
"But, if you have an open

"But, if you have an open mind, there should be some threshold of evidence that would cause you to change your mind - otherwise your'e just a partisan hack, right?

I'm asking you, VS, what is that threshold?

For some reason you are turning that very very simple question into, "what is the *right* temperature of the Earth", which is completely independent of my question. I honestly don't know why you're dodging the question?"

From my point of view, it's you who are dodging my question, which I posed first. You claim it's an irrelevant question, apparently not worthy of consideration. To me it's a foundational question that places the rest of this whole discussion into a context.

But...since you are bound and determined to get an answer from me about "what evidence will I accept that man-caused global warming is occurring"...I have been following this issue for a goodly number of years now. I have seen any number of dire predictions that imminent doom was upon us. I've seen arguments that massive global warming is taking place, rebuttals that there is no global warming, predictions that we're on the bring of a new little Ice Age, and every variation in between. I've seen NASA and NOAA post data that we're having the "warmest summers and winters since we've been keeping statistics", and I've seen data refuting those claims.

What evidence will I accept at this time? NONE OF IT. The reason? It's all been polluted by political agendas and money and by people seeking power over other people for their own purposes. You call me a "partisan hack"? I'm the one stating firmly that I don't know what's going on, and that I strongly suspect no one else does, either. You, on the other hand, have made it clear that you have an agenda, and that you are the one who is a partisan for a point of view.

As for "believing in science"-no, I don't "believe in science". I do believe in the scientific method, which is another reason why I hold all discussion of "climate change" in low regard--precisely because it has been reduced to competing belief systems, and especially in the case of the "man-caused global climate change" belief system, not well thought out ones.

I haven't been dodging your question. Stop dodging mine, if you're not a "partisan hack".

Pages

Log in to post comments