Global Warming
 

So, what I understand global warming to be in it's most basic form is that the ocean is warming ever so slightly, but enough to change currents.

This has an impact on weather, glaciers, and coastal levels.

Is that wrong?

Didn't the earth used to have no atmosphere and was like thousands of degrees? Whatever happened to that?

I believe it grew an atmosphere and cooled off. That would explain trying to protect the atmosphere. Much in the same way that polluting mars would warm it up so that we can live there.

Tad is right - the temperature of the ocean is the driving force for most of the planet's weather. As an example, an oceanic thermal inversion a.k.a. el Nino gives rise to weird weather patterns in the Americas. That's only a relatively small warm water patch across the South Pacific - imagine it over the entire hydrologic surface of the globe.

There's an ongoing debate weather this is a cyclical phenomena or human induced. Some say it may even do a reverse, and cool-off the world into an ice age.

For that to happen, well I don't know. Some one tell me how the ocean rising in temperature is going to create another iceage in the near future please.

Yeah, they say it warms up a ton before it plunges into an ice age.

According to some scientists, the supposed ice age will start once the ocean's salinity reaches a certain level. With the oceans warming, and ice caps melting. The salinity levels of the ocean drops, this alters our oceans dramatically, and changes the cyclical currents already at play. Creating new weather patterns and ultimately, another ice age.

Timescales are still big, from hundreds to thousands of years. But geologically speaking, rapid.

I don't understand yet why less salt in the ocean equals ice age yet. You didn't actually say why. Why?

Salinity affects the movement of water molecules, i.e. heat, I RECALL LEARNING IN THE 7TH GRADE.

Yeah, in 7th grade it was 1982 for me. I was busy was kinda busy at the time.

I'm more worried about rising ocean levels. Well, not in such that I am going to drown in the next few years (I do live on an island, next to the ocean though) but that it's going to displace a lot of people one day.

i miss those days too

I tend to believe that the Earth is cyclical. If it is getting warmer it is probably supposed to be doing so.

Christ, I started writing an essay here on why environmentalists are insane and why climate deniers are stupid, but shit hasn't this stuff been covered here yet? Yes, the earth does warm and cool in cycles, thats not what is alarming, its the fact that it is deviating from what the natural cycle should be.

But the next ice age is scheduled in 16000 years, so we don't have to worry much about that. And that is a current estimate, including the recent unexpected heat increase. (in the 80s it was an estimate 19000)

As I think I said in "that other thread" there is still a lot we don't really understand about how and why the global climate cycles. Devotees of the ALGOR robot seem to point to the industrial revolution as the beginning of a gradual global warming, and claim this to be evidence of the human influenced warming trend which is outside of what we can infer from ice cores and tree rings as "normal" cyclic variation.

Then you have the FOXY contingent who points to a period in time known as "the Medieval Warming Period" where the average temperature increased even though there was no significant contribution from manmade activity.

So they argue. And argue. It's like a bad SNL sketch. "You shut up!" "No, you shut up!" (repeat ad.lib.) It's actually funny when you see it happen in a scientific forum like the ACS. And sad at the same time. :(

We'll likely not know the full story, or understand the implications of our actions today until after whatever is in store for us is already in full swing. And by then, it will be too late.

I believe it's called "fiddling while Rome burns".

The co-founder of Green Peace said it the best.....

"The environmentalist movement has been hijacked and turned into something completely different then what it should have been"

Watch the Great Global Warming swindle free on google video

The first thing my environmentalist professor taught us was to NOT be anthropocentric. Meaning to not believe that the world revolves around humans because it does not. We have very little bearing on what happens to the earth in the grand scheme of things. Do we really have the ability to change the climate? I say No but that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to literally make a complete mess of things.



As long as they keep the greenie's focused on the global warming plan and keep that money coming in for all the so called climate scientists then big industry will continue to destroy and pillage until there is nothing left. CO2 as a pollutant is a red herring!

How naive. :rolleyes

I bet people are having a volley ball tournament inside the CONTAINED green house while they are pumping in Co2.

But in Om Sannolikheten För Sekulära Förändringar I Atmosfärens Kolsyrehalt, Högbom explained how he had calculated that industry was putting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as there would have been produced naturally. You don't think that could do something?

All we have to do is live in green houses!

Wait, wait, wait, do you think that people are saying that CO2 is a pollutant? You know what plants breath, right?

How does it crumble? All you have ever posted about it is that it is a lie being perpetuated by scientists and big business. You have never posted any studies or actual information that would show the theory to be incorrect/impossible. The closest you came was when you posted that link to a clearly biased "documentary."

No, because CO2 is not a pollutant.

If industry just pumped out CO2 and water vapor I would be very pleased. The problem comes in when they start pumping out other stuff. Hence why industrial sectors have to be inspected regularly that their emissions don't contain real harmful chemicals. Scrubbers on smoke stacks do not absorb CO2 because it's an irrelevant gas. They focus mainly of the poisonous particulate from the creation of the energy.


Here is another way to think of it. All living organisms exhale CO2. There are 6 billion people around the world exhaling CO2 at one time plus the rest of the animal kingdom. You would think that much CO2 gas would have killed us the minute the human race got up to 5 billion.

I'm quoting this to preserve it.:lol

Red Herring...
Im pretty sure he is saying it is not a pollutant. However I too wish to know how it "crumbles" because you attack it "from the left".

I know he's saying that it's not a pollutant, my point was that he thinks that there are people who think that it is a pollutant. If so then he doesn't even understand the theory of global warming so how could he disprove it? He can't.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT SMOKE. WHERE DOES SMOKE FACTOR INTO THIS EQUATION?

I think he is saying people refer to it as a greenhouse gas but not necessarily a pollutant. I still dont see how this is an attack "from the left" though.

Was it just a weak joke I missed or something?

What?

no joke. everyone in my country know the left flank of global warming is the weak front. this is why we have no global warming here. rofl. actually global warming is as real as jew holocaust. fool westerners.

EVIL ROBOT RULES!

Finally, someone with some sense posts in this thread.

Once more and then I'm done.

Global warming / Climate Change movement is funded by big business to create a speculative market in Carbon Trading. The focus on CO2 (Carbon) is to veer duped environmentalist away from real issues so they will not demand tighter regulations on real toxic chemicals (Volatile organic compounds, diesel fuel, gasoline, mercury oxides, arsenic oxides, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, petroleum based fertilizers and herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, depleted uranium) and to distract them from reforming our failed energy policy. Instead of funding renewable clean energy sources like they have in many other countries they focus on taxing "carbon offenders" for heating their homes and drawing hot baths.

Well, the first article has some errors in it such as stating that Phil Jones' data is "Crucial to the theory of climate change." I wasn't aware that a single person could be so important in a theory that has been around for over a hundred years or so.

The rest, I assume, are talking about how businesses have manipulated data, etc. While this all shows that individuals and groups are fraudulent, I don't see how it proves that global warming is not true. All you have is a logical argument, but global warming, too, is a logical argument. That and it has immense amounts of data and fact while you're simply speculating. You can't disprove global warming, apparently, only point to liars who have supported it.

Also it wasn't raw data that Phil Jones' team had. There's another flaw in the article.

Ok. :posh

The Great Global Warming Swindle has been exposed for using fraudulent data and making false claims on behalf of NASA and the scientists therein. Even the climate scientists who are confirmed skeptics that appeared on it denounced it for taking them out of context and manipulation of scientific language. It simply wasn't an honest special. Sure An Inconvenient Truth used only the most extreme examples and depended a lot on scary hypothetical scenarios that may or may not come true, but its data wasn't fraudulent.

Here's really the bottom line on scientific debates like this, unless you have studied the particular field in question extensively its always best to go with what the majority of scientists in it accepts. On the topic of man made climate change there is a significant majority. There is a chance they are wrong, but you won't find a scientist who is a skeptic of climate change say that decreased co2 emissions from cars and factories being a bad thing.

For man made climate change to be a fraud it would take an unprecidented conspiracy including thousands the most respected experts of the field. The only thing that keeps the public from accepting it is that the issue has become politicized, therefor tons of misinformation has been spread to muddy the waters. It is important never to let your logic be clouded by conspiracy theories and suspected scandal when there is no certainty. Unless you have the means to uncover it of course.

I also noticed that none of those articles are from scientific journals. Please know that it is important that you should get your information on such topics from papers published in a peer reviewed journal or articles that link back to the journal so you can verify it. YOU MUST YOU MUST YOU MUST put politics behind you when it comes to scientific matters.

He believes 9-11 was a conspiracy, so saying "For man made climate change to be a fraud it would take an unprecidented conspiracy including thousands the most respected experts of the field." is meaningless.

There is a romance and excitement to conspiracy theories I understand, and it can be easy to get lost in them if you don't stay properly grounded, but there is a huge difference between accusing government and science of conpiracy. One is stupid the other impossible.

This argument is taken into account but isn't capable of overturning what we know about the current anthropomorphic climate change. That would be like a man claiming a woman isn't pregnant with his child right now simply because she had been pregnant once years ago when he didn't know her. Yes its possible the same cause for her pregnancy before could be responsible now, but its much more likely that he is the cause.

What do we know about Global Warming / Climate Change? :confused:

CO2 needs to be taxed and a cap and trade system of carbon credits needs to be established to save the planet?

lolz

No, I'm serious. What's the solution if Global Warming turns out to be real?

Now THAT's what I meant by entertainment! :lol2

That's an entirely different discussion, and doesn't have any effect on its validity. You are clearly only interested in the political controversy and not the scientific one.

To know what there is to know about anthropogenic climate change will take independent research on your part into the scientific literature, and not political blogs. But you seem to like to watch things, so I will refer you to this series of videos by a scientist and former science corrospondant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
He covers the evolution of climate change theories, how each of them work, opposing theories, and even covers the errors in the two big opposing climate change movies. It is a good starting point to understanding climate change.

SMOKE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD! I HAVE THE PROOFS!

I wish I could respond but I can't. I got warned so I will leave the forum. It's been nice talking to you all. I hope that global warming stuff doesn't come true.

We'll see about that. :conspiracy

hey coolinator how's the weather up on the cross today

I didn't read this thread, but it's the middle of March and I am freezing my nipples off.

Global warming is absolute horse shit.

If you mean that you were warned by a mod, well, I just have to say that that is bullshit.

and this argument is about 100x more convincing that anything Coolie said.

Oh dont puss out now. Stick with it. If your just going to leave you might as well go out with a ban.

:lol all this guy seems to do is run as soon as someone explains to him how he is wrong.

Jeez, I feel cheated. This is one of the few topics I know a lot about and I wanted to flex.

I tried to engage him into a discussion about the difference between the POLITICS and the SCIENCE surrounding the issue, and he responded with verbatim quotations from blogs, Google searches and Wikipedia. :blah

Remember, sometimes they come back .... :eek

I rest my case. :blah

You forgot the quotes that were attached and forgot to answer any of the questions. Shell Gasoline and the Rockefeller foundation pays for the Global Warmers.

I don't think you get it. I don't want to debate the politics of global warming. If you want to talk about the SCIENCE behind the theory, then fine. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time.

And, unlike you, I mean it. :(

I guess that's another place where we differ. From my studies Global Warming / Climate Change is nothing more than a political ideology. It actually has many similarities to 1940's German Race Science. Remember all that SCIENCE? I wonder who funded those researchers.

Honey, you have not shown one piece of evidence that global warming doesn't exist and you clearly don't even understand the theory because you insist that carbon dioxide is treated as a pollutant in said theory. That and you don't understand what a political ideology is. You don't really understand a lot of things, really. That's why people who actually read up on politics and various studies, and who don't rely on internet conspiracy sites for their information, keep making fun of you.

Quote:

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111116945238

Ahem.....cough cough....:posh

Everything can be bad in the wrong place. Ozone is vital for all life on earth as long as it's in the stratosphere, but would be highly toxic to breath.
Co2 - good in some places, bad in some.
Like garlic.

I like your avatar. I have an HP Lovecraft book with that same picture on it.

idiot

thanks, actually I didn't really choose it with much thought, I just picked a random image and I intend to replace it with something more personal in due time.

Even though I'm rather confident that humans are about to mess up our planet, I do think you've built up a quite solid case and displayed a fair amount of evidence. I'd hate to be a contrarian, but contrary to the rest here I don't think you're an idiot :)

I think the thing here is that you can always find a plethora of "evidence" and articles supporting either side of a case if you look hard enough. In a matter as zealously debated as this, it's simply useless to merely list links - the opponent could do the same, and a more prudent approach would be to just sit back and assess what seems to be the prevalent opinion in the scientist community.

A solid case? Blasted Child, all he does is post links to biased websites. That and he clearly doesn't understand what the theory of global warming actually is or rudimentary science.

I think this thread needs some Catholic talk in it

Veni. Veni creator spiritus.

Thank you good sir!

and I agree with you that Human's are messing up the planet. I cannot deny that, problem is that the Environmentalist movement is being diverted to serve a corporate agenda when they should be united in a regulation / clean power solution instead of this fanatically devotion to "Carbon". Which as you can see from the articles that I posted has absolutely nothing to do with the warming of the planet.

Very true but after both sides have laid down their evidence then an unbiased third party must decide which is the better argument.

We've come to the part in the debate where my evidence and ideology has been laid down on the table and the other side must admit their research and then an unbiased third party needs to decide.

This is very difficult to do since all I've been getting out of these cultists is insult's and how I don't know "science" or whatever that's supposed to mean.




You only find them biased because they contradict what you believe. :bow

You don't know what I believe as I have yet to discuss my opinion. They are biased because they lean towards one side of the argument instead of presenting information without commentary. Not only that but none of them are official sites. They also commonly have information which is completely false. What country are you from? You would have thought that if you made it through university you would understand how to find credible sources and what biased means. Apparently the school system there is failing.

Seriously man, this is exactly your problem. You don't actually understand how to look at things without bias. You're probably someone who is devoted to one political party and will never vote for a candidate from a rival party not because they are not the better choice for the job but because they're not part of the party you idolize. You exemplify what is wrong with politics in the United States right now so I wouldn't be surprised if you are American.

I don't know if his biasms are necessarily political party motivated. I think he is into the whole 'conspiracy theory' mythos. My brother had a friend like that- whatever was the underdog opinion he latched on to because he was so determined to not be a sheep or whatever. I think people like this believe themselves to be much smarter than the average person, so they can't share opinions with us lower life forms. He probably believes Hitler designed the VW bug and that the US is run by the Illuminati. Maybe even aliens too.

Its too easy and sort of ignorant to just say he's a republican or whatever, I think he's just paranoid. The republicans have already proposed their own version of Cap and Trade that is almost exactly the same as the D's, the only differance is that REPUBLICANS made it, making it automatically better because nothing the democrats do is right- but I'm getting off toipic. Conspiracy theorists are typically pretty conservative, but they are still paranoid about everyone.

come on guys, coolies obviously right because he RESEARCHED thiss stuff on youtube. These are facts that he GATHERD from his STUDIES in a two year liberal arts college. The only thing left to question is whether he prefers CDs or tapes.

I don't know why your getting so upset. :|

Thank you for proving my point. :lol


Thanks! :love

What is your point?

Read

V

So you're not even sure what your point is then?

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

LOL :lol2


Don't worry about it, I'm used to it. I got what I wanted to say out and we all enjoyed a nice conversation.

But that's just it, I don't know what you had to say. You haven't presented any argument.

That is true, I feel I haven't been able to make any substantive rebuttals because no pointed arguments have been made. All I've been able to pick up is that there is a conspiracy somewhere.

I think his point was that using political motivation as his reason to deny global warming is invalid? Vaguely implied?

I thought his point was that using political motivation as a reason to deny global warming was valid. :\

To address this, the problem is that few if any of his sources could be regarded as valid. That and I am trying to debate with him except I have no idea what his point is and he isn't really... Posting anything... It's like the same stuff over and over and he still hasn't stated what he means.

Tu orum visita mentes.

OK, I'll shut up. :(

The way I see it, (and feel free to disagree, for everyone has an opinion) the real problem witrh this highly emotional and politically charged topic is that people begin arguing viewpoints without a clear understanding of the fundamental principles. Thus, they tend to gravitate toward those arguments that most closely align with their beliefs. It's true in science, economics, health care, and, yes, even politics. (hows that for an oxymoron) This isn't factual, it's faith. (Hence the Latin aphorisms)

Coolie and his blogosphere are arguing based largely on faith. So are most of the proponents of the AGW hypothesis. (It's why you need to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.) What both sides either fail to realize or refuse to speak about is that global climate change is documented and real. Causality is the issue over which there is much debate.

Does mankind have an adverse impact on the global climate? Define adverse. We are as much as any animal products of this environment. Yet we have either developed or have been granted (depending on your conceit) the intelligence and/or desire to alter said environment for our own purposes. Does this process pose a danger to the ecosystem? If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined (and that can be calculated independently without resorting to faith)), dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue. Does it matter, on a global scale what mankind chooses to do with the environment, or is it merely a perturbation in a much larger and complex global climatary framework?

I recently looked at a similar situation on a much smaller scale - flooding on the Delaware River. Admittedly, I have a vested interest, but as a scientist, I was also curious. I found that there were two factions (surprise!) - those that want the upstate NY reservoirs (feeding fresh water to NYC) cut back to an 80% capacity to reduce the incidence of flooding downstream, and those that want the reservoirs kept at full or nearly full capacity year round, and use the spillways to regulate flow into the Delaware river.

The data for the river flow was readily available, and after some analysis, yielded a rather surprising result - neither side was completely correct. It seemed the real root cause was more likely increased development along the Delaware and in through upstate NY, and insufficient storm water handling provisions. It remains to be seen if keeping the reservoirs at a level slightly less than capacity during the wintertime will help, but the actual creation of the reservoir system has nothing to do with flooding.

I assume that a similar result would be found for the current issue at hand, if one wanted to analyze the data. That's why I don't like taking sides - it also involves narrowing your worldview, and the science suffers.

I still have yet to be convinced by either side. :(

CONVINCE ME COOLINATOR

I would like to know why this collinator jerk thinks we all have time to sift through all the crazy articles he posted but did not write nor fully comprehend. I for one am just not going to do that. If he cant explain why his opinions are valid then that only means they are not valid.

Oh come on......:confused: >:

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

You guys have been calling me every name in the book while looking down your condescending elitists noses at me. All of which end in "You don't know SCIENCE" or "You don't know the principles" like it's some magical formula that only trained wizards are taught after years of apprenticeship and on top of that every single article that is literally common knowledge is condemned as "BIASED".

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.

Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun.

No, Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.


I'm tired.....ask me a question tomorrow and I will attempt to answer it to the best of my ability. :sleep

Why do you keep talking about solutions to the problem? That is not the issue we are discussing. I am trying to understand what scientific evidence you have that supports that there is not global warming. You have only posted links to articles which talk about people who have manipulated data to make it appear that climate change is occurring at a faster rate than it is. Some studies which are invalid do not negate all of the data that has been gathered over the past few hundred years which supports the theory of climate change.

That doesn't affect the validity of what he posted. We are not discussing what some idiots believe. We are trying to discern what information you have that supports the idea that the theory of global warming is false. We do not want to hear about how people have taken advantage of this theory but what scientific evidence you have found.

This is a fallacious arguing tactic called "shifting of burden" where one challenges a person to prove them wrong when challenged to provide evidence in the first place. It is not honest.

As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.

There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL. But if you read the original article HERE he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.

You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?

There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.


I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.

You need to go back and read my previous post for comprehension. You obviously failed Geology or Natural Science somewhere down the line, because you completely missed the Ice Age reference. What you've been pontificating about is the AGW hypothesis, and this is something completely different.

from www.dictionary.com:

Pollutant (n.) - any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

You can try living in an enclosed room with only CO2 to breathe, and see how long it takes before you asphyxiate. Pollutants come in many forms, and too much of of anything can be bad for the environment.

CO2 is a strong IR absorber, and as the concentration of CO2 goes up, so does its ability in the air to absorb and store heat (for lack of a better term). If global atmospheric CO2 levels reached a sufficiently high level, then yes, they would significantly contribute to the warming of the planet. The key word here, however, is "if". As for the sun controlling the heat of the globe ... well mere words cannot describe the incredible intuitive grasp you have of the obvious.

Bullshit. I brought these points up because (drumroll) I agree with this part of your mostly inept argument. We need to look at mankind's impact on the environment from all sources, and CO2 is only one source.

In closing, please take my advice, and reread my previous post for comprehension, scanning all areas for the word "warming". You'll find it does not occur (with one exception - and it's minor). This is intentional.

Now THIS is a measured, well-reasoned argument.

The ironic part is that I was a climate denier about 6 or 7 months ago, and I honestly didn't know much about it the real science behind it, just the hype and weak pseudo science to refute it. I somehow became obsessed with the topic and learned way too much about it and, thanks to an open mind, changed my mind. So I know a lot about both sides of the argument. In fact I may know more about the anti-climate change shit than the supporting stuff because I was hardcore in it for so long.

Thats why I keep urging Coolinator to do real research, check the scientific journals, and learn about the scientific process. It took a lot of time, research, and understanding for me to change my mind. Hell, even if he had a good understanding the scientific process of testing, confirmation, peer review and everything that goes into turning something into a theory, he wouldn't question global warming. Forging data is next to impossible. And forging so much data over so many years among thousands of independant scientists who came to the same conclusion? That is impossible.

I was just reading a sidebar in the magazine "Reason" where they talked about the "climategate e-mails". It pretty much follows your argument, so I won't discuss it beyond mentioning this interesting tidbit. Apparently, one of the lead researchers stated that the whole problem of having this issue arise is that the relevant data needs to be more publicly accessible. This will allow for more individuals to do in a few weeks what it took you 6 months to do.

I have to go back and read the article "for comprehension" but it appears to be relatively well balanced - a refreshing change from most of the rantings I've been subjected to on TEH INTERWEBS.

I think you need to revise this statement, coolinator. Even if we choose not to call CO2 a pollutant, it's widely recognised among the vast majority of researchers as a greenhouse gas; one that contributes to warmer climate and one that has increased in the atmosphere with one third since the industrial revolution.
It's also measured that human activity results in about 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes and other natural sources, on an annual basis.

It's not only the sun that governs our temperature and climate, it's a very complex system and the greenhouse gases play a major role. I'm afraid this is very basic meteorology.

All I see is an avalanche of doublethink going on here......

Since there is no anthropogenic global warming we must ask ourselves what can change the climate. Is it humans? We impact 6% of the overall climate with our factories and other combustible materials. None of which ever reaches so high up in the stratosphere to block anything. As I've been saying all along there is no good science linking CO2 to the warming of the earth. Many scientists and meteorologists agree.

There are only two things that have the capacity to change the environment:

When the sun has a very active sun spot cycle and causing the earth to warm, this excess heat creates water vapor that further holds in heat.

&

Volcanoes that emit billions of tons of Sulphur gas into the atmosphere that cool the globe by reflecting the suns rays.

So right here we have a cooling and warming cycle that mankind has absolutely nothing to do with. We affect only 6% of the climate. 6%.

Global Warming advocates are nothing more then neo-Malthusians. This is an ruling class ideology. Hence why there is a carbon tax attached to every climate bill. They want the peasants to pay for their crimes against mother earth. The next stop will probably be one child policies.

No cars or factories in Medieval times.

The climate cultist have not disclosed all of their research. Much of which is hidden and or so falsified they cannot allow it to see the light of day.


hmmmm....

Now lets multiply that by 1000 and add all of the private donors pushing for carbon trading and taxing.

I don't think you should write off global warming mainly or even partly based on the fact that ruling classes are taking advantage of the hysteria behind it; they do that with everything.

As for the science, I'm not party to comment here I suppose, since I haven't read the walls of text presented for either argument. I have, however, browsed the facts slightly, and it does look to me as if human involvement in global warming is real. But I say again, I haven't delved very far into it at all.