Global Warming

[bandaidwoman]

Ok, tell me Doc... how does carbon dioxide adversely affect the human body. Don't forget, carbon dioxide is the only emission that is being controlled by Kyoto.

Since fossil fuels are the greatest manmade contributor of CO2 emissions, they also emit particulate matter, ozone etc. so in the end, we are talking about the same culprit.


You probably did not read my post on page four I cut and pasted it again for you

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.

Here is a link to more studies http://www.environet.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=27436

A sampling of one of the good prospective (better quality study methodology) studies from the link

Researchers at the Health Effects Institute have reconfirmed the relationship between premature death and fine particulate matter originally demonstrated in the nation's two most important particulate matter and mortality studies, the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study (ACS). The two landmark studies were a primary basis for the U.S. EPA's actions in 1997 establishing a national ambient air quality standard for fine particulate matter. The Six Cities Study was a prospective long-term study, to examine chronic (long-term) health effects of air pollution. The ACS study was a larger study, encompassing cities throughout the United States, with more statistical strength. Both studies were fully reanalyzed by HEI after industry called the original methods into question. Results of the reanalysis vindicate both studies and confirm the robust quality of the original data and analysis. Results from the reanalyzed Harvard Six Cities Study, which tracked 8,111 adults in six cities in the Northeast and Midwest United States for 14 years, show a 28% higher chance of premature death due to particulate matter between the most polluted and least polluted cities.......

So not some retrospective meta analysis nonsense.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Gilll you specified kyoto only controls CO2 emission but from a chemist's point of view it does not matter since burning fossil fuel also release other pollutants such as sulfur, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons etc. The language of politics makes it sound like that is all Kyoto cares about, but chemically, and realistically, it involves reducing emissions of these other by-products of fossil fuel consumption,... it is these components that affect our public health adversly. Once again, not touching global warming.

 

[Gill]

Gilll you specified kyoto only controls CO2 emission but from a chemist's point of view it does not matter since burning fossil fuel also release other pollutants such as sulfur, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons etc. The language of politics makes it sound like that is all Kyoto cares about, but chemically, and realistically, it involves reducing emissions of these other by-products of fossil fuel consumption,... it is these components that affect our public health adversly. Once again, not touching global warming.

Thank you banaidwoman. I see your point and concede it. It's nice to have someone on this thread that is reasoned and does not resort to hyperbole.

 

[Stinger]

REally? Every unthinkable occurance huh? So there're scenarios for dinosaurs taking over the planet?

Once again showing you can't debate on an intellectual basis.

Presenting data from 1975 that was not fully understood back then and claiming invalidly that since it's wrong then, it's wrong now.

And still not showing what scientific discovery invalidated the know data, and what data replaced the historical record.

I know ppl like you reject science when it's not in your favor of opinion.

How about yourself

Thursday, April 06, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. ....................
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. .......................
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational
headlines, they are no basis for mature policy
formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
.....................................
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
- - -
Sincerely,

See second post for list of scientist who signed the letter.

I wouldn't be surprised if you rejected evolution as well.

Since nothing in our discussion has given you any basis for such a statement it is just a specious as your previous post.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Global Warming [cont]

cont.

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

 

[Stinger]

:sword:

Well that post sure shut down the opposition

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Duke University Seeks to Start New Controversy to Dump the Stupid Rape Case

Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.

...more...

Hmmm...so global warming really is about nothing except hormonal hysterical emotional socialists.

I always knew that to be the case...

 

[jfuh]

:sword:

Well that post sure shut down the opposition

Shut down? It was too lame to bother commenting on. Would you like to see the piles of letters offered to world leaders on our side? Not to mention, highly respected scientists and engineers? Here's a small sampling: Source

So now, let's see if you can answer these two questions without :spin:
1. Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming?
2. Do you deny that burning fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide?

 

[justone]

Shut down? It was too lame to bother commenting on. Would you like to see the piles of letters offered to world leaders on our side? Not to mention, highly respected scientists and engineers? Here's a small sampling: Source

this is #1 in your source:Greener Pastures: How Grass-fed Beef and Milk Contribute to Healthy Eating - This report confirms that grass-fed beef is often leaner than the beef found on most supermarket shelves. In addition, beef and milk from animals raised entirely on pasture have higher levels than conventionally raised beef and dairy cattle of beneficial fats that may prevent heart disease and strengthen the immune system. By Kate Clancy. 87 pp. $15.00.

You want me to pay $15 = 2 six packs? and you want me to read it?
BTW they shouldn't say Kate Clancy, but Dr. Kate Clancy - means scientist!

next source : by Kathleen Campbell -- not a scientist?

your source can be checked by anybody who wants to see a pile of garbage and junk filling up Internet. But who is going to pay $15?

 

[justone]

So now, let's see if you can answer these two questions without :spin:
1. Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming?
2. Do you deny that burning fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide?

you have to read what respected scientists - not your cow milking source - have said about it and what would be the government actions.
Who cares about your questions. Who cares about junk science.
You have all the replies and you're still asking quiestions. You can keep on going, but I have made the decision: No money from me for your junk science. I am buying beer.

 

[Stinger]

Shut down? It was too lame to bother commenting on.

ie I can't rebut it so I will dismiss it.

 

[alphamale]

Shut down? It was too lame to bother commenting on. Would you like to see the piles of letters offered to world leaders on our side? Not to mention, highly respected scientists and engineers? Here's a small sampling: Source

Reminds me when I was in high school geometry class, and two people shouted out two different answers to a problem. The teacher humorously then called for a vote on which was correct. The above is essentially a vote, and the only people who aren't laughing are the GW nutcases! :mrgreen:

So now, let's see if you can answer these two questions without
1. Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming?

Do you deny that correlation does NOT imply causation?

2. Do you deny that burning fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide?

So what? Do you deny that fish don't ride bicycles? :lol:

 

[jfuh]

ie I can't rebut it so I will dismiss it.

Since you're all about non-dodging.
Why not answer the two simple questions stinger? :fyi, this is not the first time you've dogded these questions, so when are you going to give a straight answer to them? Or can't you?

 

[jfuh]

Reminds me when I was in high school geometry class, and two people shouted out two different answers to a problem. The teacher humorously then called for a vote on which was correct. The above is essentially a vote, and the only people who aren't laughing are the GW nutcases! :mrgreen:

It's saddening that you are so blinded by big oil advertisements that you can not open your eyes to the facts.

Do you deny that correlation does NOT imply causation?

Is this what I asked you? Yet another classic example of :spin: from you.

So what? Do you deny that fish don't ride bicycles? :lol:

Same as above, how lame.

 

[Stinger]

Since you're all about non-dodging.

Why not answer the two simple questions stinger? :fyi, this is not the first time you've dogded these questions, so when are you going to give a straight answer to them? Or can't you?

Ahhh actually I think it the first time you addressed them to me and it is noted that instead of trying to rebut the evidence I posted you instead came back with these and it is noted you continue to ignore it.

That being said:

So now, let's see if you can answer these two questions without :spin:
1. Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming?
2. Do you deny that burning fossil fuels generates carbon dioxide?

1. I do not deny a correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide can be seen in the data. But what causes what, we do not know. The causation is not proven. Do higher temps cause higher CO2 or does CO2 cause higher temps. Temperatures have been rising since the last little ice age, that's what they do either rise or fall. During that time there have been short periods of increase and short periods on decrease, remember the coming new ice age the scientist were JUST as convineced was coming? Does CO2 track these preciesly? No. There have been times of temp decrease when CO2 levels were increasing. Overall what does the evidence show?

Many scientist agree with this summation

The authors examined samples from a recent ice core extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica (75°06'S 123°24'E) in 1999, and which has provided a better dating resolution than previous Antarctic or Greenland cores. According to the authors, "We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the dD (temperature) increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account." Even allowing for error factors in the time resolution, the temperature-to-CO2 sequence was quite clear.


http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01a.htm#scare




2. Of course not.




​

 

[Stinger]

Shut down? It was too lame to bother commenting on. Would you like to see the piles of letters offered to world leaders on our side? Not to mention, highly respected scientists and engineers? Here's a small sampling: Source

Ahh what about the long long long list of the most highly respected in the field on the letter I posted?

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

That is less than a 1/4 of the list, and this just represent CANADIAN scientist.

 

[jfuh]

Ahh what about the long long long list of the most highly respected in the field on the letter I posted?

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

That is less than a 1/4 of the list, and this just represent CANADIAN scientist.

What about it? Is this a numbers game? If so would you like to see my list of scientists that understand and conclude that global warming is indeed happening and that humans are to blame? Try the remainder of the scientific community minus your list of poli- scientists.

 

[jfuh]

Ahhh actually I think it the first time you addressed them to me and it is noted that instead of trying to rebut the evidence I posted you instead came back with these and it is noted you continue to ignore it.

That being said:

1. I do not deny a correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide can be seen in the data.

Now that this is established.

But what causes what, we do not know. The causation is not proven. Do higher temps cause higher CO2 or does CO2 cause higher temps. Temperatures have been rising since the last little ice age, that's what they do either rise or fall. During that time there have been short periods of increase and short periods on decrease, remember the coming new ice age the scientist were JUST as convineced was coming? Does CO2 track these preciesly? No. There have been times of temp decrease when CO2 levels were increasing. Overall what does the evidence show?

Many scientist agree with this summation

The authors examined samples from a recent ice core extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica (75°06'S 123°24'E) in 1999, and which has provided a better dating resolution than previous Antarctic or Greenland cores. According to the authors, "We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of thed D(temperature) increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account." Even allowing for error factors in the time resolution, the temperature-to-CO sequence was quite clear.
​

Former cycles had always been "natural" causes.

2. Of course not.

Now since we also admit this too, then there's no deny.
1. CO2 is a green house gas
2. Green house gases cause global warming
3. combustion of fossil fuels leads to the generation of CO2 and other green house gases
Thus
4. Combustion of fossil fuels cause global warming.

Now stop here for a second and you may be arguing against my 2nd premise because you're claiming, as it seems from your source, that rising temperatures cause more green house gases. I'll stick to that premise and make this argument.
The current spike in CO2 is 100% attributed to the human factor.

The newly analysed ice does show that although the climate is in constant flux, it is capable of producing extended warm phases even when carbon dioxide levels are stable, says Stocker. Two places in the record, for example, are marked by periods of almost 30,000 years when temperature hardly changed at all. And the beginning of these 'interglacial' phases was not linked to rises in carbon dioxide.

That's not to say that current rises in temperature are due to natural shifts, as some climate-change sceptics have claimed. "The CO2 emitted now is not part of the natural cycle," Stocker points out.

"In the palaeorecord there's no human activity driving the change," says Chris Jones, of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, UK. The current challenge facing climate modellers is to work out the one-way effect of the huge spike in greenhouse gases now being pumped into our skies by human activities.

Source​

 

[alphamale]

An example of The Jfuh School of Global Warming (Il)Logic!

1. Do you deny the population of wolves in Yellowstone is correlated with global warming?

No, because the earth has increased 1 degree in the last 100 years, and the wolf population has increased, therefore, there is a correlation.

2. Do you deny that wolves contribute to global warming?

No, they contribute to it because the they exhale CO2.

Therefore (with Jfuhlogic :2razz wolves are responsible for global warming!

 

[Stinger]

What about it? Is this a numbers game? If so would you like to see my list of scientists that understand and conclude that global warming is indeed happening and that humans are to blame? Try the remainder of the scientific community minus your list of poli- scientists.

I don't need to see your list, it is established, there is no consensus. It's time you admitted it.

Try the remainder of the scientific community minus your list of poli- scientists.

Sorry but there standing in the field is unquestionable, your having to stoop to invectives shows how you are unable to rebut the facts.

 

[Stinger]

Now that this is established.

Former cycles had always been "natural" causes.

As do present, there is no evidence to show otherwise.

Now since we also admit this too, then there's no deny.
1. CO2 is a green house gas

So is water vapor.

2. Green house gases cause global warming

Can but whether they are we don't know and especially that one is. Especially when it can be shown that temperatures have dropped while CO2 has increased and that CO2 levels lag BEHIND temperature changes it doesn't lead us there.

3. combustion of fossil fuels leads to the generation of CO2 and other green house gases
Thus
4. Combustion of fossil fuels cause global warming.

That's called a LEAP in logic especially in light of the evidence otherwise.

Now stop here for a second and you may be arguing against my 2nd premise because you're claiming, as it seems from your source, that rising temperatures cause more green house gases.

I don't, the scientific evidence I posted does.

 

[jfuh]

I don't need to see your list, it is established, there is no consensus. It's time you admitted it.

Sorry but there standing in the field is unquestionable, your having to stoop to invectives shows how you are unable to rebut the facts.

otherway around. You have not prooved anything of yourside of the argument. Everything you have shown are either obsolete data or irrelevant issues. I've presented irrfuitable facts of which you do not refute, but :spin:

 

[jfuh]

As do present, there is no evidence to show otherwise.

A lie, I've shown how the current trends are not "natrual" cycles.

So is water vapor.

AS are many gases, however the two major ones are CO2 and H2O. The problem is, H2O is inequilibrium depending on temperature variances, not so with CO2. CO2 because of human input is not in equilibrium with the environment.

Can but whether they are we don't know and especially that one is.

Do a simple experiment, get a small plastic bag and breath into the bag. Next take another plastic bag and fill it with just air, put a thermometer in each of these bags and let them both sit under the sun. Which bag do you think will be warmer?

now Especially when it can be shown that temperatures have dropped while CO2 has increased and that CO2 levels lag BEHIND temperature changes it doesn't lead us there.

firstly, temperatures have not dropped at all. They've risen globally. TO claim that temps have dropped is a flat out lie.

That's called a LEAP in logic especially in light of the evidence otherwise.

Perhaps you should retake philosophy class. I have 3 premises that if true validate the conclusion. I've shown all three to be true as well as factual, thus the conclusion is valid. There was no leap in the argument.

I don't, the scientific evidence I posted does.

I'll conceed that you don't say so. However rarely will individuals present facts contrary to thier beliefs.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

conceed that you don't say so. However rarely will individuals present facts contrary to thier beliefs.

Yeah, that's true enough. So just when are you going to get around to answering the question about what's the big deal about a possibly warmer planet and how do you justify any assumption that today's climate is optimal?

And, of course, you can't. What's special about the climate of the 20th Century? Why, it's the first century after the so-called "Little Ice Age".


OH! The LIA ended. That means that not too long ago, the earth was a significantly colder. Washington froze his butt off crossing the Delaware in the Little Ice Age. People starved when the climate got colder back in the 13th Century. Whole societies changed. Things were nicer when it was warmer.

The mid-Holocene Altithermal period was signficantly warmer than today, by about 8C. The planet seemed to survive, and that was caused by "natural" events.

Fact of the matter is, today's climatologists don't have enough quantitative data to make accurate projections far enough into the future to give anyone reason to sweat, except for professional sweaters and their useless idiots followers.

And don't bother to respond to this post until you're able to explain why warmer is worser.

 

[Gill]

OH! The LIA ended. That means that not too long ago, the earth was a significantly colder. Washington froze his butt off crossing the Delaware in the Little Ice Age. People starved when the climate got colder back in the 13th Century. Whole societies changed. Things were nicer when it was warmer.

Excellent!!! I've been saying this on thread after thread.

One more example:
Eric the Red migrated to Greenland with his people and found wonderful green fields for his livestock to graze in. They were later forced to leave because the LIA covered the fields with ice and snow causing their livestock to die. The people were starving because they couldn't grow food and their livestock had nothing to eat.