For a picture, just use the img code, not the url stuff.I apparently suck at UBB code.
Another note on water vapor...
Even if it caused 95% of the greenhouse effect, he just mentioned that CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Would that not indicate C02 is cause a disproportionate amount of warming relative to its atmospheric content? Man, this guy would be the easiest person ever to debate using his own information.
I used the wrong code at first then it converted it to a URL and I ed it all up.
HYDROGEN POWERED CARS WOULD TURN OUR CITIES INTO RAIN FORESTS.
Holy !
Actually, if aliens exist, you lose either way, as you are a prisoner inside of your own body whether controlled by aliens, or your own lunacy. You lose all hopes of a normal life, friends, socialization, a job, getting laid, etc. Now, if they do not exist, you lose horribly by believing that they do, and you gain/lose nothing, except for the comparitive gain, by assuming that they do not exist as well.
There is no correlation between the two examples.
Why do they not focus on water vapor?
So: adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it a bit and ends up with more WV. Adding WV does nothing much and the atmos returns to equilibrium. This is why WV is not the *dominant* GHG; its more like a submissive GHG
Show me where i went off on you?
ANd since scientific consensus is used to justify the belief in man made GW, he was using examples of how scientific consensus has been wrong in the past.
HE already used global cooling consensus as an example against the science of global warming consensus.
Your point is moot.
You're clearly misrepresenting his argument.
You see, though.
In that qoute you used can't be proven to the effect that CO2 causes warming.
In fact, throughout history warming comes first, then the e in CO2.
No, I'm not. Prooving that someone was wrong on one completed unrelated item (especially when that someone isn't the same someone) does NOTHING to prove that they are wrong on a completely unrelated issue.
But there's no scientific data proving GOd, so what's the point?
Fixed. Be sure to vote me in as worst mod!
I'm not trying to prove that. In fact, I'm not trying to prove anything at the moment other than this guy did a piss poor job of representing the facts. He's spent a lot of time focusing on water vapor when there is a completely logical reason the global warming community doesn't focus on it. He's trying to show that they're wrong for not focusing on it, which is incorrect.
If this guy was a legal prosecuter, he'd be focusing on where the alleged criminal was 2 weeks before the crime instead of focusing here he was when the crime was commited. He's horrible.
Ok, but the fact is that he didn't relate breast implants to global warming.
You did for the sake of argument.
You're just gonna make me repeat myself.
It's like you saying, "well the Bush admin was wrong on WMD's why should we believe them when they say Sadaam had ties to Alqueda?" , followed by me accusing you of saying that, "missing WMD evidence proves that there were no ties to Alqueda."
See it doesn't work that way.
Last edited by gtownspur; 12-26-2006 at 01:50 AM.
He didn't focus only on water vapor, he also focused on the flawed methods of climatoligist in using different data gathering methods instead of the same to reach as a conclusion.
I mean, when one is looking at CO2 levels one should look at different sources, but one should not mix those sources and weld them together to fit your own conclusions, but that's not where the climatologist went wrong. They chose two locations and discriminated the data from both to fit their conclusion.
Well, there are many in the scientific community that believe in a creative influence due to the complexity of the eye, and random evolutionary flaws, such as the complex interdependence within ecosytems, and the inability of some animals to occupy their niche, and yet not striking forth to another.
I never said anything of the sort.
I said he mentioned breast implants while debunking global warming. Did he or did he not?
If he focuses on their methods, I'll take a look at that when it comes up in the yt video.
Right now, as far as I'm concerned his entire section on water vapor is complete crap and thats where I'm at.
NO, he was debunking the strength of scientific consensus specifically that time.
Saying it like you say implies that he said that off on a tanget in itself and then went back to talking about water vapor, which he didn't. He paused out of the rudiments of global warming and focused on the flaw of scientific consensus.
This guy just put up the page I linked, and did NOTHING to mention anything on the page except the figures for water vapor and not why it isn't the most important greenhouse gas.
Why on earth would you do that unless you're trying to prove your agenda's points and not make a clear presentation?
Dude, whatever. When he wants to make a film on breast implants, he can. In a film about global warming, breast implants have NO PLACE at all. You name me a published scientific paper that does something of that nature and I'll agree with you.
Breast implants were better when they had DDT in them.
This guy just gets better and better. First he says we can't model the S&P 500 much less the weather. REALLY ING WRONG. Weather models work every single day.
Then, after saying how complex weather modeling is, he says that anyone with a terrarium can prove a specific part of global warming related to C02.
Seriously, the inconsistencies in this video are amazing. Gtown, you should think twice before endorsing such pieces of crap.
For the record, I'm not a proponent of CO2 caused global warming. C02 has lots of negative impacts - especially in the ocean - but I'm not convinced that its the main cause of global warming. This guy is an idiot, however.
On the CO2 measurements
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htmThe Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements cons ute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.
This is a video and not a scientific paper. Remember, he's not a scientist,(as he admitted from the start) so he lost already on your expectations.
You're totally being all seinfeld about this.
Everything else you brought up is valid, but to nitpick on one thing like that, is puzzling.
"But,,,but...the breast implants."
If he would of brought up some like a nutritional example, or solar power ex. to disprove scientic consensus, would you have been up in arms about this?
But the fact is that, other examples unrelated to GW were brought up to discredit scientific consensus, and you choose to only pick on breast implants.
I admit, it was funny, but he wasn't trying to discredit GW on that by any means.
Its just funny to me that this guy thinks that every scientist out there is working with some kind of predisposition they're trying to prove and looking for data to fall into that or that he's the only one wondering about the differences in data collection. Obviously there are differences in data collection and they've factored that into the findings. And its EASY to find just where and how that is being done, yet he acts as if there is some sort of conspiracy to hide these issues/situations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
