pick a side?
Do you believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming? Esteemed sientists have staked their reputations on both sided of the issue. There is so much contradictory evidence(eg you hear that north pole ice is disapearing / yet you hear South pole ice is increasing) Are you a firm believer in global warming? Or are you agnostic? Or, are you an athiest non believer in global warming?
__________________________
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
One of the few things we can find agreement on, LL, there is plenty of data from glacial and polar core samples to show it’s a cyclical event…..
__________________________
"Save a child use a condom"
I believe it has an effect but I think the main reason behind global warming is climactic cycles that have always occured on the planet.
Ahh@Longload, I'm with you 100% here..
It's not that I'm totally discounting some affect, but it is seeming more and more to have a great deal of bias as to degree and as to what exactly is going on.
I am agnostic.
I also think Joby has a good point with the cycles having as much or more to do with the changes as to anything else.
I do think some people accept things a little too neatly, all tied up in a bow sometimes for what seems a popular or trendy mindset..
There is an agenda here..perhaps from both directions..but nevertheless..a definite agenda.
Too many "experts" being pressured to take a certain position.
__________________________
The mind seeks and the spirit yearns.
But the heart knows what the heart knows.
In science people who study a subject have to prove their theory. The side of global warming have presented their theory but have back up their claims with facts and evidence. I have not found one scientific rebuttal. I have noticed politicians have great rebuttals all of which relate the story of scientist say so but never presented any scientist who study the subject with a peer review.
__________________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. Robert M. Pirsig Evolve!
One is for sure: If you are a scientist and want to raise money for a certain research project you can increase your chances by saying it helps to deal with global warming.
We here had a simlar thing 30 years ago, the "Waldsterben" (dying of the forest). The forests are now dying since the 1970ies and are still not dead. The trees simply haven't read the papers ...
__________________________
ان شاء الله
In science people who study a subject have to prove their theory. The side of global warming have presented their theory but have back up their claims with facts and evidence. I have not found one scientific rebuttal. I have noticed politicians have great rebuttals all of which relate the story of scientist say so but never presented any scientist who study the subject with a peer review.
What classifies as a rebuttal? I just did a quick google and there are many web sites with scientific evidence rebutting gobal warming theory. i clicked on the one site which had 8 scientists as advisors along with their credentials. I'm not sure what 'peer review' is..... But isn't it peer review when hundreds of scientists agree? (from the volume of sites, I think its likely thousands and not hundreds)
__________________________
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.
Rebutting is done in two general ways:
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
2. show that the theorie to explain the effect is wrong i.e. show that it is unlogical or that the prediction it makes do not show up (I have not seen this until now)
Something that is done often but which is no rebut is to produce another theory that explains the facts as well i.e. to claim that the global warming is a result of sun activity. Doing this means not to rebutt the other theorie but to compete with it. The "better" theory will survive the scientifc struggle (evolution of theories is an expression that is often used for this process. Good theories survive, bad ones die)
__________________________
ان شاء الله
Rebutting is done in two general ways:
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
The U.S Department of Commerce Website:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The annual mean growth of CO2 in 1957 was 0.95 and in 2007 it was 2.14
__________________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. Robert M. Pirsig Evolve!
In science people who study a subject have to prove their theory. The side of global warming have presented their theory but have back up their claims with facts and evidence. I have not found one scientific rebuttal. I have noticed politicians have great rebuttals all of which relate the story of scientist say so but never presented any scientist who study the subject with a peer review.
What classifies as a rebuttal? I just did a quick google and there are many web sites with scientific evidence rebutting gobal warming theory. i clicked on the one site which had 8 scientists as advisors along with their credentials. I'm not sure what 'peer review' is..... But isn't it peer review when hundreds of scientists agree? (from the volume of sites, I think its likely thousands and not hundreds)
The scientific review is usually done in academic journals such as Nature. Research is published and the findings are there for everyone to try and reproduce and reach the same conclusion. They publish, in the same journal usually, what their findings were.
Last count was over 900 and zero rebuttals on their research. The internet does not count as serious research done by scientist in academia. If you read my original statement I qualified it by science being done by people who study the subject. Not those who have a degree in some other field. Ask yourself, why do they not publish in a scientific review?
__________________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. Robert M. Pirsig Evolve!
Philip Cooney repeatedly edited government reports to play down global warming. He was a former climate team leader and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. The smoking gun.
This article from the New York Times June 8 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html
__________________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. Robert M. Pirsig Evolve!
Rebutting is done in two general ways:
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
The U.S Department of Commerce Website:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The annual mean growth of CO2 in 1957 was 0.95 and in 2007 it was 2.14
Hmmm, what do you want to say with this? A rebutt would be to show that the amount of CO2 is not raising. As far as I know no one did it right now.
Nor does tha site you added. Have I got something wrong?
__________________________
ان شاء الله
Rebutting is done in two general ways:
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
The U.S Department of Commerce Website:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The annual mean growth of CO2 in 1957 was 0.95 and in 2007 it was 2.14
Hmmm, what do you want to say with this? A rebutt would be to show that the amount of CO2 is not raising. As far as I know no one did it right now.
Nor does tha site you added. Have I got something wrong?
Sorry Pike, that was meant for LL, my mistake.
__________________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. Robert M. Pirsig Evolve!
Rebutting is done in two general ways:
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
1. proof that the facts are wrong i.e. show that the amount of carbon dioxide is not raising or that carbon dioxide is not adding to warming up the atmosphere (as far as I know no one did this right now)
The U.S Department of Commerce Website:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The annual mean growth of CO2 in 1957 was 0.95 and in 2007 it was 2.14
Hmmm, what do you want to say with this? A rebutt would be to show that the amount of CO2 is not raising. As far as I know no one did it right now.
Nor does tha site you added. Have I got something wrong?
Sorry Pike, that was meant for LL, my mistake.
Thanks, I thought I have had language problems
that happenes some times 
__________________________
ان شاء الله
as a youbng man i travelled in germanys black forest, i was there a couple of mths ago,,,the DAMAGE to the trees from carbon monoxide herrendous...
as a youbng man i travelled in germanys black forest, i was there a couple of mths ago,,,the DAMAGE to the trees from carbon monoxide herrendous...
Surely no damage of carbonmomoxyde, if any than it is caused by sulphordioxide SOx and nitrogenoxide NOx. Or chainsaws? Or strong winds? Or aridity?
__________________________
ان شاء الله
okay... this is where politics have ruined a very simple scientific observation.
Fact... The earth has been warming... hence the term global warming
Fact... Carbon dioxide contributes to global warming
Unfortunately, because people are all getting their knickers in a knot over the role of humans in the event and whether or not its a natural part of the earths climate or whether we should shoot all the cows or stop chopping down trees or whatever, the underlying truths of the matter get lost under a never ending wave of finger pointing... and whenever someone gets the finger pointed at them they vigorously shake their head and deny all knowledge... cows and trees included. This leads to certain parties using these denials as a means of claiming the whole situation is a fraud and there is nothing to worry about. Maybe there is nothing to worry about, becuase climate change is always happening, but maybe there is. Nobody knows. But what people should know is these things people are arguing about are not science but politics and science is not going to find the answer to these issues anytime soon.
150 years ago science introduced a thing called evolution by natural selection... it's all pretty clear cut and obvious from a scientific standpoint but, heck, people are never ever going to agree. It's the same here, global warming is pretty much the scientific debate of the new millennium that causes division, argument and a ceaseless war of words over it's validity that will probably continue for the next 150+ years. So good luck 
I'm agnostic myself, but leaning towards the aithiestic non belief in global warming. I don't see how people can be such staunch believers when even the scientists can't agree. Also the global temperature has actually dropped for the past 6 years. (Don't argue that we need to do what we can to protect our envioronment. Thats a given. Of course we need to protect the envioroment but within reason. We aren't going to live in cavesy
__________________________
I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than to live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.