Global Warming

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Exactly. I remember those days well when the fear was a "mini-ice age". The fact is we are still coming out of the last one. If you read the article from then they were plotting ways and even wanted to try some that would cause the world to warm up. Imagine if we had listened to them and done them and THEY WORKED.

Well what would've happened stinger? If I recall correctly, according to you humans can not effect climate.

You are the one who claims humans can so the burden of that answer is on you not me. So what would have happened had we listened to some of the schemes back then and they had worked?

 

[jfuh]

I asked you what made the information obsolete and the only think you gave me was the number of the year has changed.

Let me clarify, the original data remains. However new information allows for the better understanding of what that data means. Global dimming fully accounts for all the data. Thus the original report is what is obsolete.

Since when did the previous global temperature date become obsolete? Those are the same historical measurements used today. Who declared all those previous measurements are now obsolete and where did the new date come from?

See above statment.

And since the clean air act ONLY applies to the US then you would have to prove that the other countries in the world such as China and Eastern Europe and not replacing what we cleaned up.

I don't have to, the US accounts fo 25% of all energy consumption in the world with 98% of which all from the combustion of fossil fuels. So when a producer of 25% of the worlds pollutants cleans thier act up, significant changes occur.

So we screwed up when the scientist had us use alternative aerosols and all we have to do to reverse so-called global warming is go back to using them by this reasoning.

Going back to use the old pollutants is suicide. Blocking out solar energy would have profound implications on agriculture, ecosystems and weather systems.

But then there is this recent report showing that, as opposed to what you are saying, low levels of soot cause global warming and high levels cause global cooling.....

"
It was the results of this modelling that persuaded them that soot is twice as effective as carbon dioxide in raising global surface air temperatures.
The report says high soot emissions may have contributed substantially to global warming over the past century, notably to the growing trend in recent decades for ice, snow and permafrost to melt earlier in the spring."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3333493.stm

From your own source:

But they say greenhouse gases were the chief cause of last century's global warming, and will probably remain so.

The authors modelled how soot particles affect climate when they darken snow and ice, causing it to absorb sunlight rather than reflect it. It was the results of this modelling that persuaded them that soot is twice as effective as carbon dioxide in raising global surface air temperatures

I've mentioned this before

They conclude: "Restoration of snow albedos to something approaching pristine pre-anthropogenic values would have the double benefit of reducing global warming and raising the global temperature threshold at which dangerous anthropogenic interference with climate occurs...

So yes, everything is as I've argued about. What's the point you're trying to make?
:fyi: Your own article states that global climate change is anthropogenic. Something you are refusing to accept.

So in fact the clean air act should have caused cooling not warming as you state.

REad your own article again. In particular I've boldened a statment above in the first quote from your article.

You find brevity interesting?

When you edit out key points yes.

But have yet to answer what made all the data is obsolete and no longer operative. And you have yet to post anything from any authoritative source proving that the fact we cleaned the air is now causing global warming for if that is true it would be very easy to fix, just go back to what we were doing.

Again see first response.

Oh and more about global cooling
Source:Aerosols cool more than expected
Arctic water flow speeding up

Could a sprinkling of dirt save the glaciers?This is of course in direct response also to your article

 

[jfuh]

You are the one who claims humans can so the burden of that answer is on you not me. So what would have happened had we listened to some of the schemes back then and they had worked?

:applaudThank you for citing an article that says humans are seriously affecting the climate and that reversal measures need to be taken.

 

[alphamale]

Lessseeee -

Scientists have given us the global cooling and global warming - what's next? - global room temperaturing? :lol:

 

[bandaidwoman]

Though not a climatologist, I find media's conclusions of climatologist's findings to be broadly sweeping and overgeneralized just like their interpretation of medical research data. The climatologists , like any other scientific field (although it is a very new science) have a healthy amount of skepticism, open discussion, attempts at showing that experimentation can be falsifiable etc.that to a non- scientist, it looks like dissent and contradiction when all they are doing is following the scientific method which allows for such open ended discussions.

As a whole, I think climatology scientists are trying to determine if there is abnormal climate change which may encompass both warming and freezing trends depending on who you ask and what variables are controlled for. We have a similar arguement in medical epidemiology...... huge increase in cancer diagnosis........ is it due to the fact that we are living long enough to have them? (people are surviving heart attacks, infectious diseases etc that used to kill us off ) or is it due to environmental carcinogens (chemical exposure), changed demographic genetics, dietary changes etc.? The answer is not simple and it depends on the type of cancer. (for instance, the increase in childhood leukemias are not due to extended life span but the increase prostate cancer may be etc.)

The planet is warming, and warming cycles occur naturally. If we agree on these, then any warming period in the past - doesn't really pertain to what is going on presently. In other words, saying that the ice sheets melted in the medieval warm period, becomes a red herring. Because the concern among scientists isn't that the planet has cycles --- THe concern is that the present warming is unusual! It's important to understand that there are cycles, because then you can ask whether the present change is wholly natural.

Yes, the ice sheets have melted in the past. Yes, some are advancing. Thus "Global Warming" has been re-termed "Global Climate change. In much the same way gravitational physicists no longer align with Newton (Since Newton's gravitational laws are now known to be wrong and replaced by general relativity). The scientist know this, but to the lay person this fact is unknown.

The same is true for climatologists... it's not all about warming, and the focus is on whether what is happening today is unique from what has happened in the past. There are unique factors in the world today that may likely play into climate change : These factors include industrialization, (rising ppm CO2) deforestation, hottest years on record in the last few decades, and so on. Oh sure, the greatest green house contributor is water from the oceans etc, but how much do we know about these other variables contribution? There is a branch of theoretical physics concerned with the "Chaos effct" or Chaos theory where such minor variables may have huge effects in the far future.

But it's not all about warming, it's about climate *change.* I am sure the Europeans and British here, are aware that predictions are for Europe to cool, not warm, because of changes in ocean currents.

.
We are smart enough to make a better planet for ourselves. Is it necessary? Well, we've got nowhere to go if we blow it here. Caution seems reasonable

 

[alphamale]

The planet is warming, and warming cycles occur naturally. If we agree on these, then any warming period in the past - doesn't really pertain to what is going on presently.

What?? How do you know?

In other words, saying that the ice sheets melted in the medieval warm period, becomes a red herring. Because the concern among scientists isn't that the planet has cycles --- THe concern is that the present warming is unusual! It's important to understand that there are cycles, because then you can ask whether the present change is wholly natural.

They must PROVE their concern. We've heard these type dire predictions before. For example, the biologist Paul Ehrlich's prediction in 1970 that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation by 1980. Ehrlich: "By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."

Yes, the ice sheets have melted in the past. Yes, some are advancing. Thus "Global Warming" has been re-termed "Global Climate change. In much the same way gravitational physicists no longer align with Newton (Since Newton's gravitational laws are now known to be wrong and replaced by general relativity). The scientist know this, but to the lay person this fact is unknown.

Just a note here: physcists do not think Newtonian physics is wrong, so much as that its predictions are limited to situaltion where v << c where it is an excellent approximation.

The same is true for climatologists... it's not all about warming, and the focus is on whether what is happening today is unique from what has happened in the past. There are unique factors in the world today that may likely play into climate change : These factors include industrialization, (rising ppm CO2) deforestation, hottest years on record in the last few decades, and so on. Oh sure, the greatest green house contributor is water from the oceans etc, but how much do we know about these other variables contribution? There is a branch of theoretical physics concerned with the "Chaos effct" or Chaos theory where such minor variables may have huge effects in the far future.

Glad you mentioned deforestation - the average ecowacko hardly ever mentions this as a source of global warming.

We are smart enough to make a better planet for ourselves. Is it necessary? Well, we've got nowhere to go if we blow it here. Caution seems reasonable

Erring on the side of caution would indicate backing off Kyoto - beofre we throw millions of people out of work and devestate our economies with all that goes with that - all in service to an unproven (unproveable?) hypothesis.

 

[alphamale]

The planet is warming, and warming cycles occur naturally. If we agree on these, then any warming period in the past - doesn't really pertain to what is going on presently.

What?? How do you know?

In other words, saying that the ice sheets melted in the medieval warm period, becomes a red herring. Because the concern among scientists isn't that the planet has cycles --- THe concern is that the present warming is unusual! It's important to understand that there are cycles, because then you can ask whether the present change is wholly natural.

They must PROVE their concern. We've heard these type dire predictions before. For example, the biologist Paul Ehrlich's prediction in 1970 that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation by 1980. Ehrlich: "By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."

Yes, the ice sheets have melted in the past. Yes, some are advancing. Thus "Global Warming" has been re-termed "Global Climate change. In much the same way gravitational physicists no longer align with Newton (Since Newton's gravitational laws are now known to be wrong and replaced by general relativity). The scientist know this, but to the lay person this fact is unknown.

Just a note here: physcists do not think Newtonian physics is wrong, so much as that its predictions are limited to situations where v << c, where it is an excellent approximation.

The same is true for climatologists... it's not all about warming, and the focus is on whether what is happening today is unique from what has happened in the past. There are unique factors in the world today that may likely play into climate change : These factors include industrialization, (rising ppm CO2) deforestation, hottest years on record in the last few decades, and so on. Oh sure, the greatest green house contributor is water from the oceans etc, but how much do we know about these other variables contribution? There is a branch of theoretical physics concerned with the "Chaos effct" or Chaos theory where such minor variables may have huge effects in the far future.

Glad you mentioned deforestation - the average ecowacko hardly ever mentions this as a source of global warming.

We are smart enough to make a better planet for ourselves. Is it necessary? Well, we've got nowhere to go if we blow it here. Caution seems reasonable

Erring on the side of caution would indicate backing off Kyoto - before we throw millions of people out of work and devastate our economies with all that goes with that - all in service to an unproven (unproveable?) hypothesis.

 

[jfuh]

Lessseeee -

Scientists have given us the global cooling and global warming - what's next? - global room temperaturing? :lol:

back from your ban I see. Immediately not reading anything you're again spewing the rhetoric of oil companies. Have any single bit of science to back up your claims?

 

[alphamale]

back from your ban I see. Immediately not reading anything you're again spewing the rhetoric of oil companies. Have any single bit of science to back up your claims?

That was an attempt at humor - it's the significant portion of global warming caused by human activities that is the liberals' equivalent of "intelligent design".

 

[jfuh]

That was an attempt at humor - it's the significant portion of global warming caused by human activities that is the liberals' equivalent of "intelligent design".

Though liberals accept the facts of Global warming, it has nothing to do with liberal ideology.
Global warming is scientific fact. Now if you care to denounce the facts the post some credible sources to refute the sources which have been posted in this and other threads that clearly show the occurance of anthropogenic causes of global warming.

 

[bandaidwoman]

They must PROVE their concern. We've heard these type dire predictions before. For example, the biologist Paul Ehrlich's prediction in 1970 that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation by 1980. Ehrlich: "By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s."

Sorry,unless you are critiquing study methodology or data, bringing up this totally unrelated example is ludicrous.

Just a note here: physcists do not think Newtonian physics is wrong, so much as that its predictions are limited to situaltion where v << c where it is an excellent approximation.

I was specifically talking about gravitational theory! I never said anything about general large matter behavior. I used Newtonian physics all the time during my graduate studies. Newtonian physics is very useful under the right circumstances but utterly fails in the quantum subnuclear world and cannot fully describe gravitional observations. Wake up call...Newton was wrong, for more advanced work in the theory of gravity it has been supplanted by Einstein's general relativity..... General relativiity is considered the best explanation and mechanism when it concerns gravity. This is basic high school physics (in Asia) and basic college physics in America.

Erring on the side of caution would indicate backing off Kyoto - before we throw millions of people out of work and devastate our economies with all that goes with that - all in service to an unproven (unproveable?) hypothesis.

We both agree models predicting climate behavior are an imperfect science so I am not going to argue the merits of emission controls based on global warming or fuel consumption etc. etc. Instead, there is a more substantial method and reason for emission control.

Since epidimeology is a more exact science than global warming models I propose medical epidimeology data as a more concrete method of advancing the cause of the Kyoto Treaty.


It is very, very easy to track the number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits for asthma exacerbations and other respiratory illnessess and show a direct correlation with the level of ozone for that day or week.

Asthma has increased in prevalence by fifty percent.... the one disease that has increased not only in prevalance but also mortality so it is a serious subject among medical professionals.

Study after study show that air pollutants exacerbate asthma but there are more and more studies showing that it causes asthma

see http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2/...one-asthma.html

This is one of many studies.

Who suffers? Children who have to breath in fifty percent more air than adults per body mass. These studies show counties with higher ozone levels have three times more newly diagnosed asthmatics, more school absences due to respiratory problems, etc. etc.

The EPA has been good about reducing overall air pollutants, skeptics may ask why the increased rate in asthma? Once again, the answer depends on the question asked. The EPA bases its measurements on relatively large particle size airborne pollutants which are measured and thus define air quality index. Experts state that these air quality measurements do not measure the real and much more dangerous smaller particle pollutants which are comprising more and more of the emissions (? due to different fossil fuel burning technology? I don't know since I am not an expert in this stuff.)

Thus, some may not care about global warming or fuel supply, but its effect on medical expenditure usage, on increasing the prevelance of the one disease that has also increased in mortality (compared to strokes, heart attacks, all cancers etc.), the physical damage to the most vulnerable segment of our society, children... makes emissiion control a public health problem. ( I have only discussed asthma and did not even go into the exacerbations and increased death or hospitalizations of those with other lung diseases affected by air pollution.)

The Kyoto treaty is not environmental issue for me, it is a medical issue for many doctors and a public health crisis around the globe.
In other words, I do not side with the environmentalists using climateology science to advance the cause of Kyoto, I side with public health advocates.

 

[alphamale]

Though liberals accept the facts of Global warming, it has nothing to do with liberal ideology.
Global warming is scientific fact. Now if you care to denounce the facts the post some credible sources to refute the sources which have been posted in this and other threads that clearly show the occurance of anthropogenic causes of global warming.

Global warming IS scientific fact - it's human causes being a significant portion that is liberal theology.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Global warming IS scientific fact - it's human causes being a significant portion that is liberal theology.

And the idea that humans do not or cannot contribute significantly is a conservative ideology.


The liberals and conservatives can quibble all they want .

The fact of the matter is we don't know yet.

The mathmatics and physics describing phenomenom with hundreds of variables is still very new, (although chaos theory is trying to get there).

That is why predicting biological phenomenom and climate changes are very very difficult without specifying very restricted parameters. Fortunately, in clinical medicine we have randomized, double blinded , prospective, placebo control, large sampling size trials to offset such numerous effects of these affecting variables, (and quite a few aren't unfortunately) but we don't have the equivalent experimental model in climatetology.

 

[Stinger]

Let me clarify, the original data remains.

Which convinced the scientist then that we were headed into a ice age

However new information allows for the better understanding of what that data means. Global dimming fully accounts for all the data. Thus the original report is what is obsolete.

And you've provided nothing to support your claim that this conclusive trend in our climate suddenly reversed itself because of one piece of legislation, the Clean Air Act. That cleaning soot out of the air caused a reverse in clamatice temperature trends. And I countered with

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

The effects of soot in changing the climate are more than most scientists acknowledge, two US researchers say. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say reducing atmospheric soot levels could help to slow global warming relatively simply.
They believe soot is twice as potent as carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, in raising surface air temperatures................


It was the results of this modelling that persuaded them that soot is twice as effective as carbon dioxide in raising global surface air temperatures.




Oh well there goes you theory since the reverse would be true. Cleaning atmospheric soot would cause the glober to cool.

Going back to use the old pollutants is suicide.

Carbon is not posionous and if we are to believe your assertions it would a simplw answer to global warming curb global warming which I'm sure you believe is a more important problem.

But I ask you again what would have happened had we listen to the "expers" back in 1975, tried their schemes and they had worked.

Blocking out solar energy would have profound implications on agriculture, ecosystems and weather systems.

See the study.


So the question remains, what drastice occourance reversed the direction of global temperatures and diverted us from a sure to occour ice age into global warming being the threat.

 

[alphamale]

Sorry,unless you are critiquing study methodology or data, bringing up this totally unrelated example is ludicrous.

You're like a pirhana that's eager to bite! I narrowed the analogy to an example of scientists making dire predictions without convincing basis, and in that regard (the regard intended) the analogy was exactly, precisely, dead on target.

I was specifically talking about gravitational theory! I never said anything about general large matter behavior. I used Newtonian physics all the time during my graduate studies. Newtonian physics is very useful under the right circumstances but utterly fails in the quantum subnuclear world and cannot fully describe gravitional observations. Wake up call...Newton was wrong, for more advanced work in the theory of gravity it has been supplanted by Einstein's general relativity..... General relativiity is considered the best explanation and mechanism when it concerns gravity. This is basic high school physics (in Asia) and basic college physics in America.

More Pirhana bites. I said Newtonian physics was an excellent approximation in the domain I specified, and I am correct.

We both agree models predicting climate behavior are an imperfect science so I am not going to argue the merits of emission controls based on global warming or fuel consumption etc. etc. Instead, there is a more substantial method and reason for emission control.

"Imperfect" is understating it by far - there's no reason to believe that the simulations upon which the predictions are based give even approximately correct results.

It is very, very easy to track the number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits for asthma exacerbations and other respiratory illnessess and show a direct correlation with the level of ozone for that day or week.

Asthma has increased in prevalence by fifty percent.... the one disease that has increased not only in prevalance but also mortality so it is a serious subject among medical professionals.

Study after study show that air pollutants exacerbate asthma but there are more and more studies showing that it causes asthma

see http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2/...one-asthma.html

This is one of many studies.

Who suffers? Children who have to breath in fifty percent more air than adults per body mass. These studies show counties with higher ozone levels have three times more newly diagnosed asthmatics, more school absences due to respiratory problems, etc. etc.

The EPA has been good about reducing overall air pollutants, skeptics may ask why the increased rate in asthma? Once again, the answer depends on the question asked. The EPA bases its measurements on relatively large particle size airborne pollutants which are measured and thus define air quality index. Experts state that these air quality measurements do not measure the real and much more dangerous smaller particle pollutants which are comprising more and more of the emissions (? due to different fossil fuel burning technology? I don't know since I am not an expert in this stuff.)

Thus, some may not care about global warming or fuel supply, but its effect on medical expenditure usage, on increasing the prevelance of the one disease that has also increased in mortality (compared to strokes, heart attacks, all cancers etc.), the physical damage to the most vulnerable segment of our society, children... makes emissiion control a public health problem. ( I have only discussed asthma and did not even go into the exacerbations and increased death or hospitalizations of those with other lung diseases affected by air pollution.)

The Kyoto treaty is not environmental issue for me, it is a medical issue for many doctors and a public health crisis around the globe.
In other words, I do not side with the environmentalists using climateology science to advance the cause of Kyoto, I side with public health advocates.

I haven't entered this area of the debate and don't know anything about it, but I know everything is a tradeoff - shut down industry completely and you will have perfect air for people to breath while they starve to death.

 

[alphamale]

And the idea that humans do not or cannot contribute significantly is a conservative ideology.

Uh, the burden of proof is on the asserter, remember Logic 101? Conservatives don't have to prove anything - it's LIBERALS who want to shut down the factories, and until you come up with proof, you've got nothing to back up your claims and demands.

The mathmatics and physics describing phenomenom with hundreds of variables is still very new, (although chaos theory is trying to get there).

That is why predicting biological phenomenom and climate changes are very very difficult without specifying very restricted parameters. Fortunately, in clinical medicine we have randomized, double blinded , prospective, placebo control, large sampling size trials to offset such numerous effects of these affecting variables, (and quite a few aren't unfortunately) but we don't have the equivalent experimental model in climatetology.

That's right, you don't, and it's probably tens of thousands of parameters, constants, and boundary conditions that are needed. When you Kyotoists get all your ducks in a row, come back and show us what you've got - until then we need a better incentive than your envirowacko religious doctrines to convince us to commit economic suicide.

 

[jfuh]

Global warming IS scientific fact - it's human causes being a significant portion that is liberal theology.

I've already provided several sources to back up my claims. Perhaps you would care to read them?

 

[jfuh]

Which convinced the scientist then that we were headed into a ice age

Thus I say again, obsolete. The data was not completely understood with relation to what was actually happening. Nor does it make any relevance whatsoever to the data that is presented today. What is your obsession with the past? So conservative for the "good old days?"

And you've provided nothing to support your claim that this conclusive trend in our climate suddenly reversed itself because of one piece of legislation, the Clean Air Act. That cleaning soot out of the air caused a reverse in clamatice temperature trends. And I countered with

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

The effects of soot in changing the climate are more than most scientists acknowledge, two US researchers say. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they say reducing atmospheric soot levels could help to slow global warming relatively simply.
They believe soot is twice as potent as carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, in raising surface air temperatures................


It was the results of this modelling that persuaded them that soot is twice as effective as carbon dioxide in raising global surface air temperatures.

Lol, keep on evading stinger, keep up your evasionist tactics. You've provided two sources one from 2 decades past and another that provides a conclusion that is exactly what I'm mentioning. Give it up, you've completely lost this debate, utterly and pathetically.

Oh well there goes you theory since the reverse would be true. Cleaning atmospheric soot would cause the glober to cool.

Again more lies, now your purposely misrepresenting the data I've presented, not even bothered to read a single word in the 4 sources I've presented either.
I don't see why it is that you have so much difficulty with the fact that combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, which is directly correlated with global warming. Time to come out into the real world and open your eyes.

Carbon is not posionous and if we are to believe your assertions it would a simplw answer to global warming curb global warming which I'm sure you believe is a more important problem.

Care to restate your statment? It's quite confusing. Next time please calm down before you write and make no sense out of yoruself. There's also an edit function.

But I ask you again what would have happened had we listen to the "expers" back in 1975, tried their schemes and they had worked.

Yes, and if you really want to go way back, in the day ppl said that draining blood would get rid of the evil that allowed for ppl to recover. So is that what you're going to do now? Offer a sacrificial offering to your god and hope it all to go away?
If by your sarcasm you're insinutating that scientists today know no better then they did then, then perhaps you should stop getting water from the city system as it contains fluoride. You're hopelessly ignorant about science, so don't even try to debate me on the topic.

See the study.

A study from 1975? Yes and lets also eat margirin instead of butter so as to keep cholestrol down.

So the question remains, what drastice occourance reversed the direction of global temperatures and diverted us from a sure to occour ice age into global warming being the threat.

Read the posts I've provided, and you will understand. In a nut shell, educated elitest that form the massive scientific community today started to pay attention to climatology.

 

[alphamale]

I've already provided several sources to back up my claims. Perhaps you would care to read them?

Post them again and I'll read them.

 

[jfuh]

Post them again and I'll read them.

the thread is only 5 pages, I'm sure you'll manage

 

[ptsdkid]

The concept of warming of the earth on a global scale is of questionable doubt. The scientific evidence can easily be discredited, the researchers and research is of questionable merit, and the people pushing this agenda have ulterior motives. In fact, global warming may be a large conspiracy to redistribute wealth of the world from such industrialized nations as the United States to less industroialized countries under the pretense of environmental protection. The Kyoto Treaty sham would be an excellent example of this. In conclusion, there is not enough solid evidence to credit global warming as a scientific theory.

That's the end of story, unless you feel a humanitarian need to be heavily taxed, or to contribute big $$ to your favorite liberally oriented environmental whacko outfit. I think I'll opt to save my money by investing it in a high yielding mutal fund. I know I'll be happier with my choice.

 

[bandaidwoman]

You're like a pirhana that's eager to bite! I narrowed the analogy to an example of scientists making dire predictions without convincing basis, and in that regard (the regard intended) the analogy was exactly, precisely, dead on target.

No, we scientists don't lambast data based on a totally different field of science. We look at the primary data and critique it.

More Pirhana bites. I said Newtonian physics was an excellent approximation in the domain I specified, and I am correct.

And your reading comprehension for a native english speaker sucks because I specifically said graviational physicists. (I did not say the general term physicist).

I haven't entered this area of the debate and don't know anything about it, but I know everything is a tradeoff - shut down industry completely and you will have perfect air for people to breath while they starve to death.

And I have offered a realm of scientific data that has solid evidence for the negative effects of emissions, that's all. It is a major public health issue and I have left economics out of it.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Uh, the burden of proof is on the asserter, remember Logic 101?

Uh Remember scientific methodology 101? Logic has nothing to do with it. (see below) The burden of proof is niether in the postive or negative I'll enclose a link for review.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this,( mistakes in applying scientific method) dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

The key here is logic has nothing to do with it (it can bias your view on the hypothesis and experimentation.)

Most notibly also is the hypothesis (to be verfied with experimentation etc.) is niether an affirmation or negation. (If you read the whole text)


If we tried to use pure logic to defend a scientific hypothesis, the whole field of quantum mechanics would never have been born (for those initimately familliar with this field of physics know what I am talking about.)

 

[Stinger]

Thus I say again, obsolete. The data was not completely understood with relation to what was actually happening.

They were just as convinced then as the scientist are today and you have shown nothing to show there was some great revelation which if we are to believe you and the global warming extremist cause a complete reversal of all kown data.

Then you claimed it was because we clean soot out of the air and I provided a souces which completely rebuts that unsupported statement of yours.

Nor does it make any relevance whatsoever to the data that is presented today. What is your obsession with the past?

So you think the proper study of clamate trends and global temperatures is to ignore the past.

What folly, you attempts to protect your theory are absurd.

[/b][/i] Lol, keep on evading stinger,[/size]

And since I am trying to get YOU to answer the questions directly and have posted two sources supporting mine you now shifting the debate to hypebole shows you are having trouble keeping to the merits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Oh well there goes you theory since the reverse would be true. Cleaning atmospheric soot would cause the glober to cool.

Again more lies, now your purposely misrepresenting the data I've presented.................

You claimed that due to the clean air act we now have global warming and that's why the scientist of the 70's were wrong. I produce a valid study showing just the opposite.


The fact is the scientist do not have enough valid data to make any long term prodiction of global climate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
But I ask you again what would have happened had we listen to the "expers" back in 1975, tried their schemes and they had worked.

Yes, and if you really want to go way back, in the day ppl said that draining blood would get rid of the evil that allowed for ppl to recover.

Your arguements have grown childish and show a lack of intelligent discussion. Comparing the scientific knowledge of the 70's with evil spirits is absurd. The knowledge of climate change has not change that much since then and you certainly have been unable to show any great advances that resulted in a total reversal of scientific known opinion at the time, an opinion NewsWeek reported as overwhelming the consenus, just as the media trys to do today.

I'm not going to waste my time why such arguements as you pose above.

 

[jfuh]

They were just as convinced then as the scientist are today and you have shown nothing to show there was some great revelation which if we are to believe you and the global warming extremist cause a complete reversal of all kown data.

Then you claimed it was because we clean soot out of the air and I provided a souces which completely rebuts that unsupported statement of yours.



So you think the proper study of clamate trends and global temperatures is to ignore the past.

What folly, you attempts to protect your theory are absurd.

[/b][/i] Lol, keep on evading stinger,[/size]

And since I am trying to get YOU to answer the questions directly and have posted two sources supporting mine you now shifting the debate to hypebole shows you are having trouble keeping to the merits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Oh well there goes you theory since the reverse would be true. Cleaning atmospheric soot would cause the glober to cool.




You claimed that due to the clean air act we now have global warming and that's why the scientist of the 70's were wrong. I produce a valid study showing just the opposite.


The fact is the scientist do not have enough valid data to make any long term prodiction of global climate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
But I ask you again what would have happened had we listen to the "expers" back in 1975, tried their schemes and they had worked.



Your arguements have grown childish and show a lack of intelligent discussion. Comparing the scientific knowledge of the 70's with evil spirits is absurd. The knowledge of climate change has not change that much since then and you certainly have been unable to show any great advances that resulted in a total reversal of scientific known opinion at the time, an opinion NewsWeek reported as overwhelming the consenus, just as the media trys to do today.

I'm not going to waste my time why such arguements as you pose above.

Why do I not find this statment the least bit surprising? Perhaps because you have absolutely nothing as a source that is relevant to the argument and I've easily shown how you're arguments are completely irrelevant.
Oh and by the way, here's a DOD report titled on Global warming as well. Here's the pdf version in case you'd like to print it out.
As well as a DOD webpage that you can educate yourself on this matter.