More GW doubts

[Stinger]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory..........................."Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.



Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Hmmmm how soon before a GW disciple tries to dismiss him out of hand?

 

[Sauwan]

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Whew!! Now that only leaves 147 years here left unaccounted for.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory..........................."Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.



Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says



Hmmmm how soon before a GW disciple tries to dismiss him out of hand?

Is Global Warming your new pet topic or something Stinger? Whats up with this obsession?

Lets put aside your preconceived notions and say for the sake of argument that you are right, and that Global Warming isn't caused by humans, does this means you acknowledge its existence and are willing to do something to avoid its inevitable implications?

 

[Stinger]

Is Global Warming your new pet topic or something Stinger? Whats up with this obsession?

What does your question have to do with anything. Don't you like hearing the other side of the story?

Lets put aside your preconceived notions

Let's start with YOU not having preconceived notions about me.

and say for the sake of argument that you are right, and that Global Warming isn't caused by humans, does this means you acknowledge its existence

Your question makes no sense, one does not follow the other.

and are willing to do something to avoid its inevitable implications?

You assume it is happening and inevitable and that we could do something about it.

 

[niftydrifty]

Is Global Warming your new pet topic or something Stinger? Whats up with this obsession?

Bwawk! Abdussamatov was mentioned on 38 pages as of today...

"Habibullo Abdussamatov" site:freerepublic.com - Google Search

Does Mars have the same kind of atmosphere as Earth? Are surface conditions on Mars the same as on Earth? has Mars experienced similar weather trends in past eons, just as Earth has?

I suspect that the answer to all of these questions is "no." I suspect that this Russian scientist is observing one area of Mars melting, and rather than stating the obvious, accurate conclusion (that one area of Mars is melting ), is arriving at an unrelated, specious, conclusion -- that this one area of Mars has something to do with weather conditions on Earth.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

What does your question have to do with anything. Don't you like hearing the other side of the story?

I like hearing all sides of the story, but your presupposition is that there is a controversy among the scientific community.

My question is relevant because you seem to start several GW threads a day.

Let's start with YOU not having preconceived notions about me.

They aren't preconceived, they are supported by your statements. You want me to list my notions:

1. You're certain humans don't cause GW, without reason.
2. You havent acknowledged that GW even exists
3. If it did, you would still be opposed to doing something about it

Your question makes no sense, one does not follow the other.

Was it really that hard to follow for you? Wow... so much must go over your head. Here goes again:

Is it your belief that global warming is either a myth, or natural climatology, and if it is indeed naturally occurring, but the implications are still true, should we do something about it?

You assume it is happening and inevitable and that we could do something about it.

There is EVIDENCE that it is happening, and there are a great many things we can do about it. C02 emissions, energy consumption, etc...

 

[Stinger]

I like hearing all sides of the story, but your presupposition is that there is a controversy among the scientific community.

I don't know how you could possible read my mind to determine if I have any presuppositions so your trying to argue from that perspective falls on it's face. I deal with reality and facts, and the reality and facts are that there is no consensus in the scientific community vis-a-vis so-called global warming and whether humans are causing such a thing.

My question is relevant because you seem to start several GW threads a day.

It's a topic that rears it's head quite regularly but the side that is doubtful doesn't get as much press, at least in the past. Now even the NYT is publishing stories that cast doubt on the GW disciples claims.

Are you denying this?

They aren't preconceived, they are supported by your statements. You want me to list my notions:

1. You're certain humans don't cause GW, without reason.
2. You havent acknowledged that GW even exists
3. If it did, you would still be opposed to doing something about it

1. No one is certain of much when it comes to climate change over long periods of time. There is certainly no solid evidence that we as humans have changed the climate.

2. GW as far as what the GW disciples claim it to be.

3. You are in no position to make such a statement about what I would or would not do.

So that being said, instead of trying to turn this into something about me, stick with the issue.

Was it really that hard to follow for you? Wow... so much must go over your head.

Kiss off then.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I don't know how you could possible read my mind to determine if I have any presuppositions so your trying to argue from that perspective falls on it's face. I deal with reality and facts, and the reality and facts are that there is no consensus in the scientific community vis-a-vis so-called global warming and whether humans are causing such a thing.

Your idea is "no consensus" is citing some fringe scientist rather than a peer reviewed refutation. How about something from the National Academy of Sciences?

It's a topic that rears it's head quite regularly but the side that is doubtful doesn't get as much press, at least in the past. Now even the NYT is publishing stories that cast doubt on the GW disciples claims.

Are you denying this?

Why would I deny it?

It is a fact that you have taken to all of our GW threads, and have started more than your share, do you deny this?

1. No one is certain of much when it comes to climate change over long periods of time. There is certainly no solid evidence that we as humans have changed the climate.

Actually there is evidence that suggest this, you're either simply choosing not to accept it, or choosing to back the few scientists that do.

2. GW as far as what the GW disciples claim it to be.

What does that mean? YES or NO Stinger, do you believe that it exists at all?

3. You are in no position to make such a statement about what I would or would not do.

Considering that you wont ask the question when posed directly, there is no other position for me to be in. Answer the question; If it proven to exist without a doubt, even if we aren't causing it, what would you have done about it?

So that being said, instead of trying to turn this into something about me, stick with the issue.

:roll: You ARE the issue.

Kiss off then.

Aww, poor baby, kleenex?

 

[Captain America]

My guess is that the myth of global warming was started by the same kind of whacko that insists the world isn't flat.

I mean, look at it! Look out your window across the bay. Does the world look round to you? Any fool can see it's flatter than a pancake!

I tell ya, there's one born every minute! :rofl

 

[1069]

Off topic- but does anybody else get confused by the abbreviation "GW"?
For some reason, I always think it's in reference to the "Gulf War", when I read it in thread titles. Either that, or "GW Bush".

There are too many worrisome things currently going on with the initials "GW".
We ought to figure out a different abbreviation for Global Warming.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

... there is no consensus in the scientific community vis-a-vis so-called global warming and whether humans are causing such a thing.

You never did say what percentage it took to constitute a consensus.

You and I in a previous thread learned that 90% of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals advance the idea of GW. It's just 10% that in some way debate it.

Is 90% a consensus?
Does it take 91% to a consensus make?
What about 92%?
Or 93.5%?

Or are you using the word consensus to mean unanimity?

 

[Stinger]

Off topic- but does anybody else get confused by the abbreviation "GW"?
For some reason, I always think it's in reference to the "Gulf War", when I read it in thread titles. Either that, or "GW Bush".

There are too many worrisome things currently going on with the initials "GW".
We ought to figure out a different abbreviation for Global Warming.

I nominate BS.


Touche'

 

[Stinger]

2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief

There is none.