So, exactly what...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey, if he gives up...

And, I thought you had a good memory...you even said so in that other thread where you're kind of stalkerishly fawning all over me. Personally, I don't recall having declared victory in an argument on here unless, as in this case, the other poster just simply gives up.

no i wasn't stalking you . I was mocking you..

[spurster]

Sorry, Nature is the Newsweek of Science.

Nature is not a reputable journal? Now I know you know almost nothing about science.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nature is not a reputable journal? Now I know you know almost nothing about science.

come on spurster in the conservatives mind only conservative publications are the bastions of truth and objectivity

[Yonivore]

no i wasn't stalking you . I was mocking you..

I see. Well, your mocking required you to retain information about me that verges on obsession. , I don't know what your opinions are about anything from thread to thread. This is a venue in which I respond to the posts in an individual thread based on the face value of the words to which I'm responding.

I mean, to know that I made a characterization about people who vote for the "lesser of two evils" way back when we were talking about the 2004 election is kind of freaky, if you ask me. I don't even remember posting that. I do, however, seem to recall stating an opinion on so-called "moderates" but, I'm not sure it's that to which you're referring.

I would ask you to produce the post and we could dissect how you either mischaracterized what I actually said or we could marvel -- and be a little creeped out -- at how ing dead on right you were.

You pick. Frankly, I don't care.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see. Well, your mocking required you to retain information about me that verges on obsession. , I don't know what your opinions are about anything from thread to thread. This is a venue in which I respond to the posts in an individual thread based on the face value of the words to which I'm responding.

I mean, to know that I made a characterization about people who vote for the "lesser of two evils" way back when we were talking about the 2004 election is kind of freaky, if you ask me. I don't even remember posting that. I do, however, seem to recall stating an opinion on so-called "moderates" but, I'm not sure it's that to which you're referring.

I would ask you to produce the post and we could dissect how you either mischaracterized what I actually said or we could marvel -- and be a little creeped out -- at how ing dead on right you were.

You pick. Frankly, I don't care.

having a good memory serves me well...accept when it comes to finding my keys... I don't need to produce it because you and I both know it's true.

[Yonivore]

Nature is not a reputable journal? Now I know you know almost nothing about science.

What you linked to is not a scientific article, authored by scientists and published for peer-review.

If that is the format in which Nature publishes articles then, they're just what I said, the Newsweek of science. Journal publications have a certain format and list authors, references, and data sources. They also generally have a synopsis up front, stating a hypothesis.

I never said Nature was irreputable...just that you didn't link to a scientific paper.

[Yonivore]

having a good memory serves me well...accept when it comes to finding my keys... I don't need to produce it because you and I both know it's true.

Actually, I don't know it's true. But, frankly, I don't see whether or not my saying it has any relevance today.

[Wild Cobra]

How about going to these two threads oblot Global Warming and disput my postings:

Damn Climate Change

It's The Sun Dammit

[SRJ]

come on spurster in the conservatives mind only conservative publications are the bastions of truth and objectivity

Yeah, that kind of thing doesn't happen with liberals.

[spurster]

I guess someone should inform Nature that their web site should be tier if they want to be taken seriously.

[Yonivore]

I guess someone should inform Nature that their web site should be tier if they want to be taken seriously.

Is that your way of saying you can't find a published, peer-reviewed scientific paper authored by scientist(s) that attempts to prove out anthropogenic global climate change?

I wasn't bashing Nature. It's just that you posting that link to Nature magazine didn't really respond to the request for a real live scientific publication by a real live scientist. It was an article about the IPCC report. That's it.

[spurster]

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fgwscience.asp

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/b...year/2007.html

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fgwscience.asp

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/b...year/2007.html

but,but hush and whannity said something different.

[RandomGuy]

It'll all seem pretty silly when, in 15 years, the planet is cooling again and those places that have experienced extended growing seasons because of the moderate warming are feeding the planet.

oh man, I hope you are still posting here when that doesn't happen.

I will rub your nose in it. Of course, I will have to create another profile to do that, but hey...

[Yonivore]

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fgwscience.asp

This website begins with a flawed premise:

In recent years, scientists have added considerably to the large body of evidence that shows heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide -- produced mainly from the burning of fossil fuels -- are changing the global climate, raising temperatures and affecting ecosystems around the world. Here we summarize the most significant scientific findings of the past few years.

While it is true the majority of ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 is produced mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, the fact is, 99.883% of all atmospheric CO2 is produced naturally. Therefore, the correct statement would be that the 0.117% of Carbon Dioxide produced by man is principally produced by the burning of fossil fuels. But, this 0.117% is within the range of natural variability of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I also think it's funny how the IPCC and the rest of the "concensus scientists" completely discount the role of atmospheric water vapor -- the principal culprit in the greenhouse effect and a substance to which man contributes approximately 0.001% of all that is present, also well within the natural variability that would be present even if man never existed.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm

That's a damn long list. Care to pick out the one(s) that hypothesize man is causing global warming and then sets about proving that hypothesis?

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/b...year/2007.html

There were a grand total of two papers related to anthropogenic global climate change listed in the long list of papers at this link.

#1
Model-based assessment of the role of human-induced climate change in the 2005 Caribbean coral bleaching event
Based on a model. See below.

#2
Modeled impact of anthropogenic land cover change on climate

Abstract: Equilibrium experiments with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s climate model are used to investigate the impact of anthropogenic land cover change on climate. Regions of altered land cover include large portions of Europe, India, eastern China, and the eastern United States. Smaller areas of change are present in various tropical regions. This study focuses on the impacts of biophysical changes associated with the land cover change (albedo, root and stomatal properties, roughness length), which is almost exclusively a conversion from forest to grassland in the model; the effects of irrigation or other water management practices and the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide changes associated with land cover conversion are not included in these experiments.

The model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables (e.g., 2-m air temperature is 0.008 K warmer in a simulation with 1990 land cover compared to a simulation with potential natural vegetation cover). Differences in the annual mean climatic fields analyzed did not exhibit global field significance. Within some of the regions of land cover change, however, there are relatively large changes of many surface climatic variables. These changes are highly significant locally in the annual mean and in most months of the year in eastern Europe and northern India. They can be explained mainly as direct and indirect consequences of model-prescribed increases in surface albedo, decreases in rooting depth, and changes of stomatal control that accompany deforestation.

First of all, models are not an analytical product of scientific process but a predictive tool based on assumptions. Assumptions that are, many times, severely flawed.

Even so, this particular model-based paper doesn't support anthropogenic climate change but, tends to discount it. No?

It's the sun, stupid.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's the sun, stupid.

no, deforestation is the likely culprit in this instance.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Even so, this particular model-based paper doesn't support anthropogenic climate change but, tends to discount it. No?

no, it supports the theory that local deforestation causes measurable climate change locally but we can't say for sure that it causes the same measurable climate change on a global level.

[Yonivore]

no, deforestation is the likely culprit in this instance.

That was a tag line. The climate is principally driven by the sun.

no, it supports the theory that local deforestation causes measurable climate change locally but we can't say for sure that it causes the same measurable climate change on a global level.

First of all, the topic is anthropogenic GLOBAL climate change; no one is arguing man can have an affect on his local environment.

Second, the abstract clearly states -- I bolded and painted it red -- ...the model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables...

[Oh, Gee!!]

First of all, the topic is anthropogenic GLOBAL climate change; no one is arguing man can have an affect on his local environment.

but you get enough men affecting enough local environments, and you've got a big problem world-wide.

Second, the abstract clearly states -- I bolded and painted it red -- ...the model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables...

The observed land cover changes are small sample of the entire globe. Apply the theory that man can cause local changes to his local environment and apply that to all the "local environments" that are being affected by men. I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider the possibility that our actions have a ulative effect on the globe.

[Yonivore]

but you get enough men affecting enough local environments, and you've got a big problem world-wide.

No, you don't. Such changes don't aggregate or transport and, as soon as you remove the source, they diminish or go away.

You're just pulling crap out of your butt now...kind of like the IPCC.

The observed land cover changes are small sample of the entire globe. Apply the theory that man can cause local changes to his local environment and apply that to all the "local environments" that are being affected by men. I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider the possibility that our actions have a ulative effect on the globe.

Well, because they don't. The atmosphere and climate are much more complicated than that.

Then, combine that with the fact that we (mankind) currently contribute less than .5% (that's one-half of one percent) of all the known "greenhouse gases" -- a figure well within natural variables and that could be far exceeded by a single volcanic eruption -- and you've got squat.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Well, because they don't.

This is why I say what's the point in trying to debate with you. It would be different if you were skeptical, unsure, or just not convinced; but you've excluded as a possibility that man's activities lead to changes in the environment globally. Your position is not that we can't be sure or that the evidence doesn't support the theory, but that it's a complete and utter lie. Your mind is made up and closed to any and all evidence that contradicts what you don't want to believe: that man has a responsibility to take care of the planet.

[Yonivore]

This is why I say what's the point in trying to debate with you. It would be different if you were skeptical, unsure, or just not convinced; but you've excluded as a possibility that man's activities lead to changes in the environment globally. Your position is not that we can't be sure or that the evidence doesn't support the theory, but that it's a complete and utter lie. Your mind is made up and closed to any and all evidence that contradicts what you don't want to believe: that man has a responsibility to take care of the planet.

What does man taking care of the planet have to do with my belief there are no anthropogenic causes to global climate change?

I believe man should not pollute because toxic pollutants make localized areas of the planet uninhabitable.

What I don't believe is that reducing our contribution to the mechanism of global climate change from .248% to something less than that is going to have any appreciable impact on global climate. Period.

When you can figure out how to stop a Mount Pinatubo from completely eclipsing our contribution to greenhouse gases in one momentary eruption, then talk to me.

, it's already agreed to -- even by the IPCC concensus scientists -- that even if we strictly adhered to the Kyoto protocol mandates (which, by the way, none of the signatories are doing), we would succeed in dropping global temperatures by approximately .05 degrees Celsius.

Is it really worth the expense? Is it really worth trashing the global economy to make an imperceptible impact on the climate?

I say no.

If we can agree that man contributes no more than .248% of all the cons uent gases, in the atmosphere, that cause the greenhouse effect that warms the planet -- and I think the science it there -- then what possible benefit can be gained from draconian measures to reduce what is already an insignificant amount?

I say there is no benefit that outweighs the harm that will be caused by re ing commerce and industry in order to meet these stupid goals.

I was serious about wanting to read a scientific paper that used scientific data to spell out how anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. But, it doesn't exist. Tell me if you ever find it and I'll read it.

[Winehole23]