[KuznehikVasaN]

A link to a 1998 source is not especially helpful or relevent in 2007.

A totally nonsensical assertion by you.

It's especially nonsensical when one stops to realize that the advocates of the "global warming" hoax repeatedly point to "data" from 1998 and even earlier. So what you're saying is that it's "not especially helpful or relevent in 2007 to link to data and studies from 1998 or earlier.

LOL at you.

[RG3rGWcA]

People need to read. It's not 90% of scientists. The report says they (the scientists who did the report...a couple hundred) believe with a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by human activity.

Should we believe a 90% certainty or a 10% uncertainty?

[cepAceryTem]

A totally nonsensical assertion by you.

It's especially nonsensical when one stops to realize that the advocates of the "global warming" hoax repeatedly point to "data" from 1998 and even earlier. So what you're saying is that it's "not especially helpful or relevent in 2007 to link to data and studies from 1998 or earlier.

LOL at you.

What's kind of ironic about that Sal is why they point to the 1998 data and earlier. We haven't seen any rise in average tempurature for the last 6 or so years. I know I saw that in a report last year but I can't find the link now. Maybe someone else can.

[RG3rGWcA]

Look, it scares me too. But just casting it aside and not believing it, isn't going to make it stop happening. We have to be pro-active, not apathetic.

[RG3rGWcA]

What's kind of ironic about that Sal is why they point to the 1998 data and earlier. We haven't seen any rise in average tempurature for the last 6 or so years. I know I saw that in a report last year but I can't find the link now. Maybe someone else can.

The last 6 years have been the hottest in recorded history.

[Vodonaeva]

I belive it its real now!! So TAX THE RICH!!! Get People like Donald Trump,,Bill Gates and Rupert Murdock TAX THE HELL OUTTA THEM!! Make them pay for Global Warming. Im Tired the goverment taxing the little guy to make him pay for auto emissons and evoinmental fees. WHY NOT PASS IT ON TO THE RICH? Theyre the ones who own factories and polute to air and put chemicals up the air and poison the waters.Nancy Pelosi was right all along.Republicans do want to put your grandmother on the street and make her eat dog food.And Republicans do wanna starve your children.This is why i want the democrats raise taxes on people who make $200.000 and over To make them pay for the evoinment!

[Heliosprime]

The study says if we stop burning fossil fuel right now, we can slow down the warming. In the next 100 years, the earth will warm either 1 degree or up to 4 degrees, depending on what we do about it.

Depending on how warm the earth gets, the oceans will rise one foot to several feet higher.

Sell your beach house, or get a clean energy car.

These are our choices.

they never said "several feet" I believe they stated 1-2 at most..Gore says 20 please…so, ... as to the article I posted I'll ask a question; is there any bias or selectivity being employed in the debate? Battling computer models the link I posted for instance regards water levels in that particular area.....we need to drive politics out…..

[cepAceryTem]

The last 6 years have been the hottest in recorded history.

Your confused because you believe what they tell you instead of researching it yourself. Here's that link. Notice the little black dot in 1998 is higher than the little black dot for 2006.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

[LesLattis]

Your confused because you believe what they tell you instead of researching it yourself. Here's that link. Notice the little black dot in 1998 is higher than the little black dot for 2006.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif

2006 was the hottest year on record for the U.S. Worldwide, it is the 6th highest year on record.

2006 Breaks U.S. Temperature Record, National Climatic Data Center Says Last Year Was Warmest In Our History - CBS News

Although I must say that concentrating on the last few years and pointing out that the graph has been misread is kind of silly and does nothing to debunk the trend that the graph demonstrates over time. (if you want to use it as a evidence for argument.)

[MzTT]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about contradictions in the evidence. There is some variation in the interpretation of how bad global warming is, and how quickly climate change will happen in the future.

And then theres the fact that not a single climate model can arrive at an accurate outcome when fed historical data.... Of course thats something we should just ignore right?

What i mean by that is, if you feed ANY of the models the known data over the past 100 years and ask it to "predict" current conditions, they're off by several orders of magnitude.

But anytime you can get hundreds of scientists to agree, with a 90% degree of certainty, on anything, to me that shows that any contradictions are very minor.

At one point in our history, over 90% of the scientists and learned men agreed the Sun orbited the earth.

At one point in our history, over 90% of the scientists and learned men agreed the earth was flat.

At one point in our history, over 90% of the scientists believed man could not fly.

At one point in our history, over 90% of the scientists believed the speed of sound was an absolute speed limit.

Shall i go on?

[MzTT]

Frankly, I don't understand why people resist so strongly the notion - backed now by even more evidence - that (1) global warming exists, and (2) human activity is responsible for most of it. I don't see what good is derived by saying that scientists, backed by more and more data, are wrong about this.

Simple: Because the theory doesnt stand up to even basic scientific practices.

When you're manufacturing data to insert into a model and then assuming the model is true, you're not being a scientist - you're being an idiot. If you or I had pulled that kind of garbage in Junior High biology our teachers would have (correctly) laughed at us and given us a big fat F.

Essentially what they are doing with this information is looking at a problem which states X+Y=Z. Z=global warming. X and Y are complete unknowns. If we assume X = human activity and Y = CO2, then we can say Z is caused by human activity.

Is this true? No - its pure bullshit.

[masaredera]

Simple: Because the theory doesnt stand up to even basic scientific practices.

When you're manufacturing data to insert into a model and then assuming the model is true, you're not being a scientist - you're being an idiot. If you or I had pulled that kind of garbage in Junior High biology our teachers would have (correctly) laughed at us and given us a big fat F.

Essentially what they are doing with this information is looking at a problem which states X+Y=Z. Z=global warming. X and Y are complete unknowns. If we assume X = human activity and Y = CO2, then we can say Z is caused by human activity.

Is this true? No - its pure bullshit.

That is certainly the most uninformed and misleading post ive read today.....

Andrew

[cepAceryTem]

2006 was the hottest year on record for the U.S. Worldwide, it is the 6th highest year on record.

2006 Breaks U.S. Temperature Record, National Climatic Data Center Says Last Year Was Warmest In Our History - CBS News

Although I must say that concentrating on the last few years and pointing out that the graph has been misread is kind of silly and does nothing to debunk the trend that the graph demonstrates over time. (if you want to use it as a evidence for argument.)

Since we are talking about GLOBAL WARMING and not US warming your response is a bit silly. I was merely backing up another poster who was chastized because he referenced a group of scientists in 1998 that don't agree with the human activity hypothosis. The chastizer said a 1998 study was not relevant. Also a bit silly. If you read the subsequent posts you will see my point.

While EricOKC may have oversimplified it just a tad, his assertion is still true. Many scientists do not agree about the cause of global warming. Even those that do have predictions all over the map as to how high a tempurature, how long it will last, how high the seas will get (estimates from a foot or two to 20). If this is so "put to bed" based on real scientific methods, how is we have such as disparity by the "experts"? Real scientific methods say that if I come to a conclusion, it should be able to be duplicated by anyone else if it is to be valid. I don't see that here but hey, I'm just thinking.

[BJEugene]

People need to read. It's not 90% of scientists. The report says they (the scientists who did the report...a couple hundred) believe with a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by human activity.

I agree - people need to read.

It's one thing to take an opposing view, and it's certainly appropriate to use other statistics to back up your position, but had you read what I posted before (see post #15), you would know that it wasn't "a couple hundred" scientists.

The report was the work of 2,500 scientists from 130 nations working for six years. They also received 30,000 comments from scientists around the world.

[cepAceryTem]

I agree - people need to read.

It's one thing to take an opposing view, and it's certainly appropriate to use other statistics to back up your position, but had you read what I posted before (see post #15), you would know that it wasn't "a couple hundred" scientists.

The report was the work of 2,500 scientists from 130 nations working for six years. They also received 30,000 comments from scientists around the world.

No problem Curly. You are right. I wasn't however, diminishing the validity of the report based on the number of scientists involved. Either way, giving credit to less scientists versus completely misrepresenting a pertinent fact are not the same.

[funnyPasds]

I'll reserve judgement until I read the report. Right now, I am not convinced that we can blame this entirely on humans.

[Heliosprime]

That is certainly the most uninformed and misleading post ive read today.....

Andrew

no I'd say he is making a point that may allude you....this has become politicized ..and I think you would agree from either side, where politics go uninformed lemmings follow....IS there a preponderance of evidence that global warming over the last say, 100 years can be attributed to man?

yes no and pick'em..the argument from what I can see is: both basically agree the planet goes through its own natural upheavals ( we know it does that an established fact)...the debate then breaks down too; are WE egging it on....my opinion? Certainly we are. Introducing manmade contaminates in the air will certainly affect it, I agree BUT how much of the supposed ( see; battle of the computer models) future effects ( if we buy them ) contaminates will aversely effect us? Or how will it will occur (see ; battling computer models)?

It appears and I have just read the entire UN paper closely, no one anywhere asks or delineates what the effect of the natural recovery effects of the planet will be regards the effect of the planet to assert its own natural balance..its as if they said yea okay the middle ages we had a cold period…then it appears 1200 years later we are having a warm one…so, does mans pollution then disrupt the natural flow of this cyclical balance? And how much? These models are impossible to calculate….I don’t care how many Crays you trot put…in the end the calculations of such, re; ability to adjust have been totally discarded….why? it is a fact..it can and in the past has adjusted…there is a cycle the planet goes through..

So, okay lets hedge our bets and try to leave a small a footprint as possible, that would allow the “natural” balance to assert itself…okay cool…so whats the answer now? And how long is this planetary adjustment? We may be barking at the moon……if its takes 2-300 years a mere blink of an eye historically, why are we knee jerking ourselves into a box?


Crippling our economy while India and China go merrily along ( and Europe too as they have not met their Kyoto targets) is ridiculous…you want a treaty fine, then make everyone abide…we could remove our carbon emissions ( hey lets not bring up the fact that the main methane contributors to the atmosphere are cows but so what? ) is disingenuous.

The slack will be picked up by nations that say screw you and Kyoto..is your hate of America and Bush that strong? …so, should we just go down on a sinking ship to satisfy several of you, re: drop our emissions but don’t appear very distraught regards others? Please….the selectivity is apparent and telling…..

[MegaJIT]

I'm still waiting for those scientists that advocate human induced global warming to explain why the middle ages were warmer than present day temperatures. Less humans no autos how is it possible?

oh and if the scientists that support human caused global warming dissent then they lose their grants.

Varus

No offense varus but you have never exhibited even the most basic understanding of scientific concepts here. So while I realize you are concerned I just can't take your concerns that seriously.
I've made an effort to read the materials which are written for interested and marginally science-literate people like me. That reading has led me to believe there is in fact no scientific conflict between today's observation of global warming and the weather patterns of the middle ages.
The midlle ages argument has two main problems:
1) The only significant study which makes the claim consists of compilation of data showing warming at different locations at different times. This does not show an overall warming.
2) The existance of a warm period in the middle ages has no logical bearing on the validity findings of warming due to modern pollutants.

I think if you will take the time to read the papers available which have been written by scientists not in the pay of industry groups you will gain a better understanding of the issue.

Can you tell me varussword what grants you're talking about and why they would lose them?

[masaredera]

no I'd say he is making a point that may allude you....this has become politicized ..and I think you would agree from either side, where politics go uninformed lemmings follow....IS there a preponderance of evidence that global warming over the last say, 100 years can be attributed to man?

He said nothing about science, he did not critique the science, he did not refer to the science, and he obviously has no understanding of the science.

If this issue is politicized it is because of posts like that.


Andrew

[corolaelwis]

That is certainly the most uninformed and misleading post ive read today.....

Well let me better that: There is no such thing as Global warming, its total myth and fiction, there's no such thing! And ya'll say that we're the fearmongers....