Reply With Quote
You planning on actually reading this one yourself got?
Desperate Days For Global Warm-ongers
A good opinion piece, well worth reading but, let me grab what I think will be the most controversial paragraph and let's get started...
That's a bold statement. What say you "Global Warm-ongers?"With no evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring, there is an urgent need among the global warming believers to keep reminding the public about their hunch.
What evidence is there that man-made global warming is occurring? Let's debate the science instead of the politics. Since, I dare say, none of us -- in this forum -- are climate scientists, I'm assuming we'll have to base our arguments on the claims of real climate scientists.
Please source your posts.
And, begin...
You planning on actually reading this one yourself got?
It's a good idea to spread your meltdown across several threads, yoni.
Oh, that's rich. :lulz
almost as rich as yoni passing off an op-ed whose arguments consists of global warming is hoax, na na na na boo boo, as a scientific article that needs to be refuted lest yoni wins the point on this issue. Okay, counterargument: no it's not you doodie head.
So, no opposing points of view? I understand.
Start with:
"With no evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring"
That is about as un-scientific as it gets.
Absolute blanket dismissals are simply not the way science works.
Do I need to source that?
If we can get the climate to remain in a steady state, it would be for the first time in 4½ billion years.
When you actually read real scientific reports or summaries, you see words very similar to that of intelligence assessments. "likely, probable, not likely".
The closest that the IPCC report comes to absolutes is:
This is a rather testable phenomenon, and easily verifiable.Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean
temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global
average sea level.
The other thing that science does is make predictions based on hypotheses.
I know this is going to open up a whole range of tired, oft-cited saws on both sides.For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade
is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. {WGI 10.3,
10.7, SPM}
Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause
further warming and induce many changes in the global climate
system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than
those observed during the 20th century. {WGI 10.3, 11.1, SPM}
So let's cut to the chase.
If, as I am positive Wild Cobra will posit here shortly, differences in solar output are more responsible for the observed warming trends, then we will be easily able to measure that.
If solar output does not change markedly, but CO2 levels continue to rise and the surface of the earth continues to warm, we can effectively rule out the "solar" theory.
Time will tell. We will gather more data year on year, and get better and better at understanding the complex system that is our planetary climate.
If there really is "no evidence" then it will be easier and easier for the skeptics to get their say in peer-reviewed papers, and that will be more evident.
(shrugs)
Again, time will tell.
I have looked into a good deal of what passes for science among AGW deniers, and was not all that impressed.
The biggest thing that keeps me from really assigning much credence to a lot of skeptics, aside from the obviously political motivations of many, is the lack of peer-reviewed science.
Climates both micro- and macro- do change. No one has ever claimed otherwise.
With the hundreds of factors that affect climate, do you think climate can be "controlled" by addressing ONE of those factors?
controlled
Again, you have stated something that no one else does.
Both of your posts here seem to be laying the ground for "strawman" logical fallacies, wherein you attempt to distort what people like the IPCC says, either deliberately, or through sheer ignorance of what they are saying.
The answer to your question:
No, I do not, and more importantly, neither does anyone else.
Are there any other irrelevant questions you want me to answer?
lol...as if controlled and affected were synonyms. I guess they are in Darrinland.
Do you think the Earth would continue warming, regardless of CO2 emmissions, as it has been since the end of the little ice age?
There's probably a reason I surrounded that word with quotation marks.
No, I'd rather you present "evidence in the environment that man-made global warming is occurring," and source that. Instead of attacking what is being said or who is saying it, refute it with "evidence."
I'd really be interested to see if your side of the argument has anything other than "a consensus of climate experts say it's happening and that's good enough for me to trash the global economy in order to make (what are admittedly) modest environmental benefits."
So, where is the evidence that mankind is affecting the global climate?
'trash the global economy?
"cigarettes are good for you.."
perfect illustration of what yoni has been instructed to fear. lol
I honestly think you and Random miss the point Darrin (possibly inadvertently) raises.
In a sense, all of the Kyoto Protocol and other global initiatives are attempts to "control" the global climate through man-made, government-directed processes. I think it's just as silly to presume we can control it as it is to presume we affect it.
And, Random, there's been so much quackery revealed and associated with the IPCC report that you won't get much traction in your argument by quoting it here.
Here, let me help you with a more recent do ent produced by your side...
That's the latest (of which I'm aware) attempt to address skeptics like me.
At the very least, Kyoto would have trashed our economy and, seeing as we're already struggling and the rest of the world is struggling as a result, "trashing the global economy" is not a far-fetched assertion.'trash the global economy?
"cigarettes are good for you.."
They only know what they're told. They only say what they're told to say.
True science starts with skepticism. There is no real evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real. All causal relationships also have natural causal relationships.
, I'd take that. I think they've only ever attacked the skeptics and truly don't know what the science is that ostensibly supports their position that anthropogenic global climate change exists.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
