New Proof of Human Effect on Climate Change.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Geronimo
What I want to know is how we are certain that a warmer world will be worse off overall than a cooler one.

Ask the 100s of millions of people whose homes will be underwater when melting polar ice causes rises in sea level.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
It's not the ONLY possible cause, but it's the damn hell most likely.

You still haven't justified 1) your statement in your attempt to answer my question and 2) that it has any relevence to the question I asked, specifically, HOW is it that other things could not have caused the observed warming (not merely that they are unlikely compared to human CO2, but that somehow what was observed in the study somehow ruled them out).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Ask the 100s of millions of people whose homes will be underwater when melting polar ice causes rises in sea level.

I've never understood why they all want to crowd there in the first place.

[Sava]

I find it hilarious that right wingers deny the effects of humans on the climate citing there's not enough proof... but when it comes to religion? OOOOH BOY... those morons line up and go to church to pray to Jesus without any proof whatsoever.

Quite frankly, I'm not concerned about Global Warming. I don't deny it's happening, but I just wonder what all the fuss is about. Global temperatures were much higher during the time the dinosaurs lived. It's not like the planet hasn't experienced that before.

If anything, human activity is just accelerating a natural process.

We should strive to decrease pollution, but for other reasons than Global Warming.

[Agathon]

That's right Kuci, God is breathing on the world to make it warmer.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
HOW is it that other things could not have caused the observed warming (not merely that they are unlikely compared to human CO2, but that somehow what was observed in the study somehow ruled them out).

The article stated that they ran a multitude of models based on all possible factors, and that only greenhouse gasses matched the actual data. Not only that, but they matched with a great deal of precision.

I find it amusing that DanS is so quick to dismiss the models, when he himself hasn't read the study.

[Kuciwalker]

I find it hilarious that Sava has to put up strawmen despite the fact that I've merely pointed out that the article makes completely unsupported statements (and expressed the desire to see the actual results of the study), and that he managed to somehow connect it to religion despite the fact that I and many of the other right-wingers here are atheists...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The article stated that they ran a multitude of models based on all possible factors, and that only greenhouse gasses matched the actual data. Not only that, but they matched with a great deal of precision.

That's not an answer. That's just saying "it didn't fit".

[Odin]

That's right Kuci, God is breathing on the world to make it warmer.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DanS
These conclusions are based on models of unknown validity. This doesn't constitute "proof" in any reasonable, scientific sense of the word.

What scientific conclusions are not based on models of unknown validity?

[Sava]

geez, kuci, do you have sand in your vagina today?

here's a clue, because you need one (actually more than one, but for this case, just one)... if you aren't a religious right-winger... then MY statement about religion and religious right wingers wouldn't apply to you.

Now go grow some pubes and get out of my face.

[Agathon]

That's not an answer. That's just saying "it didn't fit".

No. It's saying that the favourite excuses of the right-wing nature rapers didn't fit, but the favourite excuses of the glorious sexy greenie girls who put out all the time did fit.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin

That's right Kuci, God is breathing on the world to make it warmer.

<- unlike Aggie, you seem to have forgotten that I'm an ATHEIST

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's not an answer. That's just saying "it didn't fit".

It certainly is an answer. If the other models don't fit, but one does, what other conclusion is one to make?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I've merely pointed out that the article makes completely unsupported statements

But you don't know that they are "unsupported." The article is citing the conclusions of the study, which you haven't read. So why not just hush up until you've had a chance to read it?