Since you're "in the field" why don't you explain how the data that they have ISN'T just a fraction of the possible data since the earth began.
What's amazing about studying the earth is the ability to understand it without having to read it from someone who lived here before us. That may seem like a bizaar concept to some, but it is in fact true.
I would highly recommend you refining your knowledge on the following topics:
- Bio-diversity
- Geology
- Paleontology
- Evolution
They don't genius, or you know another earth like planet able to support life? They know how it was, how it changed and what changed it and we added the things that changed it.
what are you doing?
he is not worth the time ... he's been posting the same thing for the last few years and in all that time - he has yet to go and do any real reading on the subject ... save yourself the grief ... he ain't worth it ...
the only thing he is interested in is carrying on a conservative agenda ... one that has everyone including bush jump off of ... he'll be left standing there with a few people at the front lines while everyone else hides ...
he is not worth the time ... he's been posting the same thing for the last few years and in all that time - he has yet to go and do any real reading on the subject ... save yourself the grief ... he ain't worth it ...
the only thing he is interested in is carrying on a conservative agenda ... one that has everyone including bush jump off of ... he'll be left standing there with a few people at the front lines while everyone else hides ...
And you are showing your poor reading comprehension and understanding as well (which probably explains where your opinions come from). Just look back in this thread. I'm very much interested in and supportive of pollution reduction. I just do not believe the science of humans' impact on climate change.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And you are showing your poor reading comprehension and understanding as well (which probably explains where your opinions come from). Just look back in this thread. I'm very much interested in and supportive of pollution reduction. I just do not believe the science of humans' impact on climate change.
dude ... this is a thread about climate change ... maybe you should check your reading comprehension ...
dude ... this is a thread about climate change ... maybe you should check your reading comprehension ...
Right, and that's what I oppose. But then when people who have trouble understanding simple concepts automatically assume that means you're not for pollution control, I have to point it out to them that it's two different things...like I did earlier in the thread.
So, your little rant about me pushing the conservative agenda is entirely inaccurate.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Because it's junk science. It may very well be true, but there's just no way these scientist can be sure that it's true. So when they come out with these assertions based upon a miniscule observable timeframe when compared to the history of the earth it's ridiculous.
And no, it's not a bad thing to slow the release of toxins, but then let's just call for that and leave this climate change stuff out of it.
oh, thats right. you know more than the scientific community?
give me a break. the overwhelming scientific information points to global warming, mostly due to the human species impact on the planet and atmosphere
Right, and that's what I oppose. But then when people who have trouble understanding simple concepts automatically assume that means you're not for pollution control, I have to point it out to them that it's two different things...like I did earlier in the thread.
So, your little rant about me pushing the conservative agenda is entirely inaccurate.
again ... i'm talking about climate change ... i never once mentioned pollution ...
he is not worth the time ... he's been posting the same thing for the last few years and in all that time - he has yet to go and do any real reading on the subject ... save yourself the grief ... he ain't worth it ...
the only thing he is interested in is carrying on a conservative agenda ... one that has everyone including bush jump off of ... he'll be left standing there with a few people at the front lines while everyone else hides ...
I started the thread I'll debate him, but if he wants a control group I propose he finds one and we'll compare the data. The retorical conservative routine is growing old. I betrust the search for knowledge to science, I think I can not seriously argue woth somehow who thinks there is truth in creationism. I respect his opinion yet think he doesnt know(1) he is wrong yet.
Man, I'm far from being a conservative, I think it's BS based on concordance charts of CO2 and global temperature.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Scientists have enough training, education, intelligence and research to be able to take an analysis and make an objective prediction in their field. Same with anyone else with that much experience...In Their Field. If you are not in the scienctific field, you cannot logically dismiss their findings "just because" you don't agree with it.
Ok, so do you dismiss the studies of scientists that say global warming (a warming trend that in of itself I think we're all in agreement is happening) is NOT the faul of man, but the result of a natural warming trend? Or that man is a small percentage of the cause, but not the predominant one?
Your statement works both ways, not "just because" you don't agree with it.
Anyway, during the history of the earth, it has had climate changes, warming & cooling. Ice ages came & went. The last ice age was what, in the 1300's? It ended. The ice melted. I'm sure polar bears were tragically (I'm not being sarcastic) stranded on isolated shrinking islands of ice. There was no industrialization. What caused that that warming trend?
Nature did. There are folks, scientists, who believe this as well for the current climate shift.
For those cynical, I don't have an agenda here, the earth is either materially warming due to man or it isn't. If it is, then something needs to be done. If not, then no. Truth is what matters, not politics/agenda.
Ok, so do you dismiss the studies of scientists that say global warming (a warming trend that in of itself I think we're all in agreement is happening) is NOT the faul of man, but the result of a natural warming trend? Or that man is a small percentage of the cause, but not the predominant one?
Your statement works both ways, not "just because" you don't agree with it.
Anyway, during the history of the earth, it has had climate changes, warming & cooling. Ice ages came & went. The last ice age was what, in the 1300's? It ended. The ice melted. I'm sure polar bears were tragically (I'm not being sarcastic) stranded on isolated shrinking islands of ice. There was no industrialization. What caused that that warming trend?
Nature did. There are folks, scientists, who believe this as well for the current climate shift.
For those cynical, I don't have an agenda here, the earth is either materially warming due to man or it isn't. If it is, then something needs to be done. If not, then no. Truth is what matters, not politics/agenda.
The fact is that there are very, very, very few scientists who dismiss climate change and its relationship to human activity. There is no real debate. I'm not saying that there are zero skeptics in the scientific community, but there is such a small percentage that we can say that the debate is over. Similarly, you will find tiny fraction of scientists who dismiss evolution, however the debate in science is largely over in that forum as well. The problem is that the media tries to find some amount of balance when covering these subjects. So, although 95+% of scientists concede that humans are to blame, the other small percentage will be over represented in the media in order to create "balance".
No one here disputes that there has been climatic changes in the past w/o the help of humans, but never has it been this abrupt of a shift. Also, unlike in previous instances there has not been such a dramatic change in atmospheric composition due to a pollutant. (Yes, I know CO2 is natural, but it can be classified as a pollutant if there is an overabundance of it where it becomes damaging).
Do you accept the science behind the greehouse effect?
The fact is that there are very, very, very few scientists who dismiss climate change and its relationship to human activity. There is no real debate. I'm not saying that there are zero skeptics in the scientific community, but there is such a small percentage that we can say that the debate is over. Similarly, you will find tiny fraction of scientists who dismiss evolution, however the debate in science is largely over in that forum as well. The problem is that the media tries to find some amount of balance when covering these subjects. So, although 95+% of scientists concede that humans are to blame, the other small percentage will be over represented in the media in order to create "balance".
No one here disputes that there has been climatic changes in the past w/o the help of humans, but never has it been this abrupt of a shift. Also, unlike in previous instances there has not been such a dramatic change in atmospheric composition due to a pollutant. (Yes, I know CO2 is natural, but it can be classified as a pollutant if there is an overabundance of it where it becomes damaging).
Do you accept the science behind the greehouse effect?
Even if there's never been this abrupt of a shift, they have NOTHING to compare it against. It's not like an experiment where you add humans to the beaker and leave the other beaker alone and see what happens.
This abrupt shift is just replacing the last abrupt shift. At the time the last one happened, it was abnormal.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Good question. I'm not sure I understand enough of it to offer an opinion.
Thanks for being honest . Don't you think that this is fundamental to even understanding the mechanism behind climate change? Sorta like disagreeing with evolution without understanding natural selection.
I have yet to find a scientist (climate change skeptics included) who have disputed that the greenhouse effect does exists. What I don't understand is how you can accept the greenhouse effect AND the fact that the carbon composition of teh atmosphere has increased greatly since industrialization (records of atmospheric carbon records have been traced as far back as 650000 years ago through ice core samples) and still not make the obvious connection that there is a positive correlation. Compounding the effect is that much of the tropical rainforests have been deforested which keep carbon levels in balance.
scientists can't even predict if we're going to have a dry winter, or a snowy one. but we are supposed to put our economy on hold because they think in 90 years the ocean may be 7 inches deeper? the bigger question is, what will the alarmists hang onto next? the population explosion didn't wipe us out. the ice age didn't get us. the hole in the ozone layer caused by hair spray didn't kill us off. AIDS didn't wipe out large portions of our country like they told us. acid rain didn't get us...........
the same people that tell us not to worry about islamic terrorism, tell us to worry about everything else. its almost enough to make you think they may have an agenda.
scientists can't even predict if we're going to have a dry winter, or a snowy one. but we are supposed to put our economy on hold because they think in 90 years the ocean may be 7 inches deeper? the bigger question is, what will the alarmists hang onto next? the population explosion didn't wipe us out. the ice age didn't get us. the hole in the ozone layer caused by hair spray didn't kill us off. AIDS didn't wipe out large portions of our country like they told us. acid rain didn't get us...........
the same people that tell us not to worry about islamic terrorism, tell us to worry about everything else. its almost enough to make you think they may have an agenda.
There is a very big difference between "climate" and "weather". Predicting a trend vs a specific event or season is very different. I don't think the concensus in the scientific community has been so high nor has there been as much public scrutiny than any of the examples you mentioned.
As for the ozone layer, it is a perfect example of how humans have demonstrated their ability to cause massive destruction in the composition of the atmosphere and also a great example of how humans have come to create solution which has been successful.
No one here disputes that there has been climatic changes in the past w/o the help of humans, but never has it been this abrupt of a shift. Also, unlike in previous instances there has not been such a dramatic change in atmospheric composition due to a pollutant. (Yes, I know CO2 is natural, but it can be classified as a pollutant if there is an overabundance of it where it becomes damaging).
Do you accept the science behind the greehouse effect?
What does "there has never been this abrupt of a shift." How much of today's greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is caused by CO2 (and of that, how much of that CO2 was caused by man?)?
Of course I do accept the science behind the greenhouse effect. Without it, there'd be no living inhabitants on the earth b/c it'd be too cold. Venus is one example of way too much greenhouse effect, our moon is an example of no greenhouse effect.
Do you accept that ice ages, periods of heating & cooling, droughts & floods, all occured in the past (and therefore before mankind's industrial endeavors)?
Too me it makes sense to say that we are to blame for the melting but my father in law who is a really intellingent guy makes some good points about how people forget that the last Ice Age ended about ten thousand years ago which is not that long ago when you are talking about the earths life span.
The earth goes thru changes, some more drastic then others.
With that said i do believe we need to start to really make some serious changes in how we live our life.
Get em a Body Bag Yeeeeeaaaaa!
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
The whole nature of science is to continually question and test theories. It's quality control. The UN report stated that it was 'very likely' that humans are responsible for much of global climate change but even then it remains a correlation and open to criticism because there are many other variables which affect climate. Simply because most scientist in a field support it does not change its ability to be falsified or altered.
The "mini-iceage" wasn't really an ice age. There was no large scale glaciation and the global temperature was not dramatically colder. Funny it ended in 1850 about 100 years after some sort of revolution happened... Some sorta industrial revolution.... This was preceeded by a very good couple of years which were very warm in Northern Europe. Right around the time of the Crusades, grapes were grown in England, however despite regional or local temperatures being warmer and cooler during these periods, the global temperature has not deviated nearly as much the amount of warming that we have seen over the last decade or two.
Even the little ice age was a small blip on the map compared to what we are experiencing now. Scientists concur that the increase in temperature is too high and too rapid to be explained by natural factors alone.
scientists can't even predict if we're going to have a dry winter, or a snowy one. but we are supposed to put our economy on hold because they think in 90 years the ocean may be 7 inches deeper? the bigger question is, what will the alarmists hang onto next? the population explosion didn't wipe us out. the ice age didn't get us. the hole in the ozone layer caused by hair spray didn't kill us off. AIDS didn't wipe out large portions of our country like they told us. acid rain didn't get us...........
the same people that tell us not to worry about islamic terrorism, tell us to worry about everything else. its almost enough to make you think they may have an agenda.
Meteorologists can, and do predict seasonal weather conditions. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. Only Mother Nature and atmospheric conditions really determine outcomes and tends to be unpredictable. Like Sourdough said, climate and weather are two different things. Because it's unpredictable, there are going to be two opposing sides to the issue, but to just completely denounce the idea of taking care of our planet and trying to make living conditions better, for the sake of our children, is unexcusable.
Population explosion...we are going to knock out our natural resources one day. Aerosol cans from hair spray were banned, what-, 15-20 years ago. An example of us taking responsibility of our ozone. AIDS still is prevelant, and a problem, especially in poor countries in Africa. With awareness, people have become more responsible for their actions and needle use. Acid rain has killed almost half of the many mountain lakes in the Adirondack Mtns. in NY State. There are no fish in these lakes. It has been proved that this has been caused by industry in the Ohio Valley with the jet stream carrying the pollutants over to the East. Bush was aware of this but did not enforce a guideline for corporations' CO2 output. This is a direct result of not being responsible for our emissions.
And the whole Ice Age thing...it was 18,000 years ago, there were no indusrialization, let alone humans back then. So, cyclically speaking, sure we can have another Ice Age...but we sure won't survive one!
Comments
What's amazing about studying the earth is the ability to understand it without having to read it from someone who lived here before us. That may seem like a bizaar concept to some, but it is in fact true.
I would highly recommend you refining your knowledge on the following topics:
- Bio-diversity
- Geology
- Paleontology
- Evolution
what are you doing?
he is not worth the time ... he's been posting the same thing for the last few years and in all that time - he has yet to go and do any real reading on the subject ... save yourself the grief ... he ain't worth it ...
the only thing he is interested in is carrying on a conservative agenda ... one that has everyone including bush jump off of ... he'll be left standing there with a few people at the front lines while everyone else hides ...
And you are showing your poor reading comprehension and understanding as well (which probably explains where your opinions come from). Just look back in this thread. I'm very much interested in and supportive of pollution reduction. I just do not believe the science of humans' impact on climate change.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
dude ... this is a thread about climate change ... maybe you should check your reading comprehension ...
Right, and that's what I oppose. But then when people who have trouble understanding simple concepts automatically assume that means you're not for pollution control, I have to point it out to them that it's two different things...like I did earlier in the thread.
So, your little rant about me pushing the conservative agenda is entirely inaccurate.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
oh, thats right. you know more than the scientific community?
give me a break. the overwhelming scientific information points to global warming, mostly due to the human species impact on the planet and atmosphere
dont be afraid of science people
why not?
again ... i'm talking about climate change ... i never once mentioned pollution ...
maybe i should listen to my own advice
Because the cross replaced the wheel
No - you said I was pushing the conservative agenda on this issue. And that's false.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Already said why. Go back and read if you like.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Ok, so do you dismiss the studies of scientists that say global warming (a warming trend that in of itself I think we're all in agreement is happening) is NOT the faul of man, but the result of a natural warming trend? Or that man is a small percentage of the cause, but not the predominant one?
Your statement works both ways, not "just because"
Anyway, during the history of the earth, it has had climate changes, warming & cooling. Ice ages came & went. The last ice age was what, in the 1300's? It ended. The ice melted. I'm sure polar bears were tragically (I'm not being sarcastic) stranded on isolated shrinking islands of ice. There was no industrialization. What caused that that warming trend?
Nature did. There are folks, scientists, who believe this as well for the current climate shift.
For those cynical, I don't have an agenda here, the earth is either materially warming due to man or it isn't. If it is, then something needs to be done. If not, then no. Truth is what matters, not politics/agenda.
No one here disputes that there has been climatic changes in the past w/o the help of humans, but never has it been this abrupt of a shift. Also, unlike in previous instances there has not been such a dramatic change in atmospheric composition due to a pollutant. (Yes, I know CO2 is natural, but it can be classified as a pollutant if there is an overabundance of it where it becomes damaging).
Do you accept the science behind the greehouse effect?
Even if there's never been this abrupt of a shift, they have NOTHING to compare it against. It's not like an experiment where you add humans to the beaker and leave the other beaker alone and see what happens.
This abrupt shift is just replacing the last abrupt shift. At the time the last one happened, it was abnormal.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Good question. I'm not sure I understand enough of it to offer an opinion.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
oops wrong thread.
Science is for people who like facts and evidence.
I like imaginary worlds. A world like Miller's
Crikey! Yet you dismiss it?
I have yet to find a scientist (climate change skeptics included) who have disputed that the greenhouse effect does exists. What I don't understand is how you can accept the greenhouse effect AND the fact that the carbon composition of teh atmosphere has increased greatly since industrialization (records of atmospheric carbon records have been traced as far back as 650000 years ago through ice core samples) and still not make the obvious connection that there is a positive correlation. Compounding the effect is that much of the tropical rainforests have been deforested which keep carbon levels in balance.
the same people that tell us not to worry about islamic terrorism, tell us to worry about everything else. its almost enough to make you think they may have an agenda.
As for the ozone layer, it is a perfect example of how humans have demonstrated their ability to cause massive destruction in the composition of the atmosphere and also a great example of how humans have come to create solution which has been successful.
What does "there has never been this abrupt of a shift." How much of today's greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is caused by CO2 (and of that, how much of that CO2 was caused by man?)?
Of course I do accept the science behind the greenhouse effect. Without it, there'd be no living inhabitants on the earth b/c it'd be too cold. Venus is one example of way too much greenhouse effect, our moon is an example of no greenhouse effect.
Do you accept that ice ages, periods of heating & cooling, droughts & floods, all occured in the past (and therefore before mankind's industrial endeavors)?
The earth goes thru changes, some more drastic then others.
With that said i do believe we need to start to really make some serious changes in how we live our life.
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Even the little ice age was a small blip on the map compared to what we are experiencing now. Scientists concur that the increase in temperature is too high and too rapid to be explained by natural factors alone.
Population explosion...we are going to knock out our natural resources one day. Aerosol cans from hair spray were banned, what-, 15-20 years ago. An example of us taking responsibility of our ozone. AIDS still is prevelant, and a problem, especially in poor countries in Africa. With awareness, people have become more responsible for their actions and needle use. Acid rain has killed almost half of the many mountain lakes in the Adirondack Mtns. in NY State. There are no fish in these lakes. It has been proved that this has been caused by industry in the Ohio Valley with the jet stream carrying the pollutants over to the East. Bush was aware of this but did not enforce a guideline for corporations' CO2 output. This is a direct result of not being responsible for our emissions.
And the whole Ice Age thing...it was 18,000 years ago, there were no indusrialization, let alone humans back then. So, cyclically speaking, sure we can have another Ice Age...but we sure won't survive one!