60 Leading Scientists: Kyoto is Pointless, human impact impossible to distinguish

[JellyBean]

Originally posted by Japher
Used to be? Show me Carbon Dioxide readings that would have statistical signifigance on a global scale.

Easy.

Here or here, or any of a bunch of pages if you google for "carbon dioxide" ppm. The best source is probably here, referring to measurements taken at a station on Mauna Loa, where they've been monitoring CO2 levels continuously since 1959, with a 19.4% increase between then and 2004.

Carbon dioxide diffuses rapidly through the atmosphere - its concentration is a truly global phenomenon. And the amount of data they've taken is quite massive - there's no real chance that the observed trend is due to random error.

Originally posted by Japher
Seeing how that earth is billions of years old, stable for several thousands, I don't think you have enough data to support that claim.

CO2 levels may have been higher in the distant past - and probably have been, judging by ice core samples - but that's irrelevant. Here and now, and for the last century or so, they have been increasing. The climate may have been hotter in the past - but that doesn't mean that we can suddenly shift back into such a climate without mass extinctions, crop failures, migrations, etc.

Originally posted by Japher
and if you needed to sell your house to buy an unbrella?

Then you still might consider it, if it was acid rain.

Tell me, how much would it cost to retool our economy to avoid the use of fossil fuels? Unless you've already worked it out, I'd say that you don't have the right to have made up your mind on this issue, because you don't have the necessary information.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Yes, the human population has increased as global warming has increased. But, so have the number of internet porn sites. Maybe internet porn sites cause global warming?

Hmm, good point. Well, how about this then: the lefties work on cutting down emissions and suchlike (as they always have), and the right wing tries to eliminate pornography (as they always have). That way we'll have both possibilities covered.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This is almost like the fundies who get lists of names who all sign a form agreeing that creationism is the only real anwser and that evolution is from satan. It's just rubbish.

Or perhaps its the 60 person equivalent of Galileo proclaiming the Sun was the center of the solar system in the face of prevailing wisdom.

[Japher]

I'd say that you don't have the right to have made up your mind on this issue, because you don't have the necessary information.

Exactly.

[JellyBean]

Originally posted by Japher
Exactly.

Right!

The important numbers are:

a) The cost of converting all worldwide industry to non-fossil-fuel sources; and

b) The expectation value of the damage to the world economy from global warming.

If (a) is higher than (b), we should continue with our current industry. If (b) is higher than (a), we should quit using oil.

It gets a bit more complex than this when you start allowing for a few additional factors (on the one hand, we'd have to quit using oil when it runs out anyway, so we only have to look at the marginal cost of doing it now instead of later - but on the other hand, global warming should have a few positive effects, like cold areas becoming more temperate and crops growing faster due to higher CO2 concentrations). But, this comparison is the crux of it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I'm quite surprised there's been no coherent rebuttal, actually.

Since you have proven yourself on numerous occasions of being incapable of detecting a coherent rebuttal when presented with one, how could you possible know if you had been presented with one?

[Japher]

jibberjabber doobber dabber dibbitty dibbitty dobity environment...

how's that?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Japher

Used to be? Show me Carbon Dioxide readings that would have statistical signifigance on a global scale. Seeing how that earth is billions of years old, stable for several thousands, I don't think you have enough data to support that claim.

OMFG, are you THAT dense? the natural CO2 level during an interglacial is 280ppm, during a glacial it's 180ppm. It's now 395ppm, a bigger difference from natural interglacial levels than between glacial and natural interglacial levels. It is a proven fact that the increase from 280ppm to 395ppm was cause by humans. It is also a proven fact that increased CO2 levels increases temperature, that fact has been known for over 100 years. Not statiscally significant my ass. Oh, and the "temperatures were far different millions of years ago" is an irrelavent strawman, the current ice age which started 3 million years ago is the relavent time period, not the Mesozoic hothouse.

[Japher]

so if I say "fact" more in my posts I wouldn't come off as dense?

what I see (from a very quick internet search) is glacial-interglacial CO2 differences are 80ppm, not 100. Do we have any evidence of what CO2 levels are between non-human influenced transitions?

[MRT144]

i know this is a fallacy but even if there is not global warming, isnt it a good idea to be stewards of the air land and water anyway and impose enviromental safegaurds?

[Japher]

I found a pretty picture

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




Make that a 1 guy in Seattle and 1 guy in the Atlanta area thinks PA is a closet homo!

EVEN MORE CONSENSUS!!

and 1 guy in Chicago!


3 LEADING "scientists"

and I bet I can go out and get 57 more ppl to agree with us

then we can get a chemistry set, do an experiment, and we can call ourselves scientists...

w00t!

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

Which side are you on cause that applies to both sides.

I'm on the side which weighs up the evidence and comes to the most logical, rational conclusion.

That "side" happens to concur that global warming is a manmade phenomenon.

And PA, you say there's not been a coherent rebuttal, but there's nothing to rebut! A few scientists it seems of little or no professional credulity (otherwise it would surely have been flagged up) are denying a concept support by mountains of evidence and the vast majority of their peers. It sounds rather like the desperate attempts at self-publicity made by pro-creationist/intelligent design scientists.

Unless they present an argument with evidence (which thus far I have not seen, so nothing there to rebut!) they're just being intellectually dishonest and professionally disingenuous.

Those that use scientific method to reach their conclusions demand to see arguments and evidence. As I said earlier, the vast majority of this is in favour of the conclusion that climate change is a manmade phenomenon.

[Japher]

global warming is a manmade phenomenon

So, we get rid of man?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wrong answer it usually is referred to as getting rid of Da man.