global warming

[Sava]

and me punching you in the face would just be correlative to your face hurting

[dannubis]

Well first of all no one disputes that the globe has warmed. The debate is about the extent of the contribution by carbon emissions.

The skeptics' answer is that there is no known means of showing what contribution carbon has to global temperatures because there is no known means of predicting climate over years. The fact that the globe has warmed over the past half-century or more, and indeed that it has warmed more so in recent years, is not evidence of carbon's contribution as such; it is simply a correlation between those two time periods.

What's more, the British MET office and the head of the UN's IPCC have both frankly stated that there has been no global warming in the past 16 and 17 years respectively. Keep in mind that these groups are quite strident proponents of the view that carbon is a high contributor to climate temperatures. It is not in their interest to accept this data as correct.

The climate models that assume (and do not prove) a high contribution from carbon emissions to global temperatures also predicted a constant rate of warming over the next half-century. Global average temperatures have a lot of warming to do to if they are now to meet even the lowest predicted rate of warming, the supposed "best case" scenario for global warming. Even if they do, it is important to recall that this would constitute a correlation and not proof of a causative link.

A causative link is only possible if the relationship between the various factors that cause warming are ascertained with precision. Volcanoes, the sun, climate events themselves, and any range of other things also affect temperatures. Defining the extent of their contribution seems to me impossible as a layperson but science has done amazing things in the past. But no such definition exists.

What we're left with as a result is a climate movement of rent-seekers who would be left penniless if their chicken little predictions turn to dust. So they keep predicting disasters to keep the billions coming in; otherwise the profession of climate science would be back to where it was before: an irrelevant backwater.

And we all know Zev wants those billions invested in killing brown people.

[Sava]

Water freezing and becoming ice due to colder temperatures isn't evidence that low temperatures contribute to ice. It is simply a correlation. Other factors like pressure can create ice. Thus, cold temperatures do not contribute to ice.

[Sava]

i mean, what kinda ****** is this guy

[Zevico]

Water freezing and becoming ice due to colder temperatures isn't evidence that low temperatures contribute to ice. It is simply a correlation. Other factors like pressure can create ice. Thus, cold temperatures do not contribute to ice.

You misapprehend. Water freezing and becoming ice occurs at observable temperatures. Pressure affects ice to observable extents. These are predictable phenomena. If you were to freeze a pool of water of a given quantity, at a given pressure, in identical conditions, over and over, it would take the same amount of time to freeze.

The climate is not a predictable phenomenon. We have no idea whether the globe will warm next year. I mean, it hasn't warmed for the last 16 or 17 years (depending on which scientist you ask). Heavens, it might even cool. Carbon may or may not contribute significantly to this process; but so do a range of other factors. We cannot observe the extent to which each of these factors contribute to the climate on the present state of scientific knowledge. It is simply not within our capabilities today. Because we don't know any of these things, it is a waste of money to spend money on the assumption that the globe will warm because of man-made carbon emissions. The globe may warm for any number of reasons and we cannot know which is the correct one. For all we know some supervening factor may be the greater cause of warming or cooling.

[Elok]

Here is a Google image search result for "cavemen hunting dinosaurs." You're welcome.

[Zevico]

That cavelady's t-shirt seems remarkably modern.

[Sava]

You misapprehend. Water freezing and becoming ice occurs at observable temperatures. Pressure affects ice to observable extents. These are predictable phenomena. If you were to freeze a pool of water of a given quantity, at a given pressure, in identical conditions, over and over, it would take the same amount of time to freeze.

The climate is not a predictable phenomenon. We have no idea whether the globe will warm next year. I mean, it hasn't warmed for the last 16 or 17 years (depending on which scientist you ask). Heavens, it might even cool. Carbon may or may not contribute significantly to this process; but so do a range of other factors. We cannot observe the extent to which each of these factors contribute to the climate on the present state of scientific knowledge. It is simply not within our capabilities today. Because we don't know any of these things, it is a waste of money to spend money on the assumption that the globe will warm because of man-made carbon emissions. The globe may warm for any number of reasons and we cannot know which is the correct one. For all we know some supervening factor may be the greater cause of warming or cooling.

The weather is moot. Using Mauna Loa data, one can extrapolate the accelerating rate of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. In 140 years, CO2 levels will become dangerously high for plant life. Plants, while using carbon in photosynthesis, are much more susceptible to CO2 toxicity than humans. Around 2,000ppm, they start to produce a lot less protein and nutrients.

Nobody is going to give a **** about a few degrees rise in global temperatures when what humans are left are struggling to grow suitable crops for consumption.

And if we don't starve, a few more decades past that will see the atmosphere become unsuitable for human respiration.

Unsure about the effects of CO2 on breathing? Run your car with the garage closed... see how long you last

****head

[Sava]

You are a world class moron Zevico. At least BK can blame religious fervor for his mental retardation. What's your excuse?

[MichaeltheGreat]

The weather is moot. Using Mauna Loa data, one can extrapolate the accelerating rate of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. In 140 years, CO2 levels will become dangerously high for plant life. Plants, while using carbon in photosynthesis, are much more susceptible to CO2 toxicity than humans. Around 2,000ppm, they start to produce a lot less protein and nutrients.

Nobody is going to give a **** about a few degrees rise in global temperatures when what humans are left are struggling to grow suitable crops for consumption.

And if we don't starve, a few more decades past that will see the atmosphere become unsuitable for human respiration.

Unsure about the effects of CO2 on breathing? Run your car with the garage closed... see how long you last

****head

And there is ****loads of money to be made in scrubbing and sequestration technologies.

When you close the garage door and run your car, it's CO toxicity that gets you before CO2.

[Sava]

WELL **** ME

[Zevico]

The weather is moot.

Is it? That's not what I'm hearing from governments, environmental lobby groups and scientists who argue that the climate is warming because of carbon.

Do the words "anthropogenic global warming" ring a bell?

Here's the chair of the DNC on the importance of this moot issue--

To be clear, climate change is a true 800 pound gorilla in the room. The effects of global warming threaten global environmental upheaval over the coming century. But for South Florida and the Everglades, it could be our death knell if urgent action is not taken.

Here's Al Gore, in his book An Inconvenient Truth:

“Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc: it is us.”

As Thomas Sowell puts it:

Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?

The data has borne out that the globe has not warmed a single bit for either 16 or 17 years. Not one bit.

Using Mauna Loa data, one can extrapolate the accelerating rate of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. In 140 years, CO2 levels will become dangerously high for plant life. Plants, while using carbon in photosynthesis, are much more susceptible to CO2 toxicity than humans. Around 2,000ppm, they start to produce a lot less protein and nutrients.

You say that if carbon levels reach that level then lowered crop yields will follow. What is the empirical evidence for the proposition that they will reach that level, or that if they do, that result will follow? Thus far crop yields have only increased over the years largely as a product of adopting modern farming techniques worldwide and a free market enterprise system.

Extrapolations are not equivalent to empirical evidence.

Unsure about the effects of CO2 on breathing? Run your car with the garage closed... see how long you last

That's carbon monoxide poisoning.

[Zevico]

You are a world class moron Zevico. At least BK can blame religious fervor for his mental retardation. What's your excuse?

The scientific method dictates that we are only to accept as accurate, those observations which have been tested for their accuracy repeatedly in independent testing conditions. The scientific method is simply what scientists have their name for: it's their job to apply the method to various propositions concerning the physical world all day. The scientific method is something anyone can understand to the extent that they can see whether it has been applied or not. I am checking, at the most basic level, whether the scientific method is being applied to the case for 'action' on climate change. And I don't think it has been applied at all. And I don't think we should found our public policies on grand gestures and speculations that cause devastating losses of human life and dramatically lower our standard of living.

[Sava]

now youre just ****in with me

[Janurmas]

I think the earth's age is still approximately 8000 years old. I estimated it from the age of people who were written on the Bible started from the Adam. Why you bother about the global warming, just enjoy your life as what it should be.