Some basic, empirical evidence in favor of AGW

[Telecaster]

Al Gore is not a scientist and global warming research started well before he was even born. Al Gore is the biggest straw man in the history of this issue. Skeptics and denialists attack him constantly, because they are unable to attack the science. They also grossly inflate what Al Gore says. I don't recall him ever saying we were going to go extinct, but if you ask a skeptic that's what they'll tell you he is saying. I've even heard people claim "Al Gore said polar bears were extinct." Seriously, if that's true, show me where he said that. I don't believe he ever said anything of the sort. I could be wrong, though, because I don't really ever listen to him and haven't even watched "An Inconvenient Truth."

That said, I have to ask, what is the "Gore contigent" and why do you oppose it?

My gosh! I never got around to responding to you. Sorry 'bout that.

The "Gore contingent" being all those Gore followers who are sure his thesis will result in the destruction of the planet regarding man and animal habitat. Gore himself may not make certain claims, but the believers do as a result of his work.
Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie: Fact or Hype?
Many experts agree with much of his claims. But I don't believe any of this means man and nature will not be able to cope and evolve.

 

[Deuce]

My gosh! I never got around to responding to you. Sorry 'bout that.

The "Gore contingent" being all those Gore followers who are sure his thesis will result in the destruction of the planet regarding man and animal habitat. Gore himself may not make certain claims, but the believers do as a result of his work.
Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie: Fact or Hype?
Many experts agree with much of his claims. But I don't believe any of this means man and nature will not be able to cope and evolve.

Thread necromancy kills kittens.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I don't think you understand that absolute temperature isn't the concern, it's rate of change and the impact that will have on a very particular set of species. Namely, the ones we eat.

Dinosaurs saw a rapid change in temperature. It did not go well for them. (then, later, also an asteroid. that went worse)

Ya, I get it... Human caused CO2 killed the dinosaurs... Now it's coming back with a vengeance.

 

[Deuce]

Ya, I get it... Human caused CO2 killed the dinosaurs... Now it's coming back with a vengeance.

You sure you have enough straw?

 

[BmanMcfly]

You sure you have enough straw?

I'm simply pointing out absurdity by being absurd, a la "thread necromancy kills kittens" - Deuce.

 

[Deuce]

I'm simply pointing out absurdity by being absurd, a la "thread necromancy kills kittens" - Deuce.

Yes, it is absurd to suggest that anyone thinks man-made CO2 affected Jurassic climate, since nobody has ever said that. Thanks.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yes, it is absurd to suggest that anyone thinks man-made CO2 affected Jurassic climate, since nobody has ever said that. Thanks.

Hey well, since Co2 causes all temperature change, and temperature change killed the dinosaurs...

I guess back then it would have been called Co1... now it's CO :2 The return.

And no you didn't explicitly say that, but with that argument you gave, you MIGHT AS WELL be trying to say that.

 

[Deuce]

Hey well, since Co2 causes all temperature change,

Nobody ever said that, and I've often told you the opposite. Yet you keep repeating it. That's not being absurd, that's being a liar.

and temperature change killed the dinosaurs...

Asteroid, actually.

And no you didn't explicitly say that, but with that argument you gave, you MIGHT AS WELL be trying to say that.

No, dude, that's not how it works. You don't get to change someone's argument and say "well that MIGHT AS WELL be what you're saying!!" You've been explicitly told that there are other factors in determining changes in global average temperature. By me. Repeatedly. You're a liar.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Nobody ever said that, and I've often told you the opposite. Yet you keep repeating it. That's not being absurd, that's being a liar.

This is just a semantic argument...

Asteroid, actually.

[quote = Deuce]Dinosaurs saw a rapid change in temperature. It did not go well for them.[/quote]

As I said, I'm just rolling with the nonsense you spew.

No, dude, that's not how it works. You don't get to change someone's argument and say "well that MIGHT AS WELL be what you're saying!!" You've been explicitly told that there are other factors in determining changes in global average temperature. By me. Repeatedly. You're a liar.

But whenever you bring up those "other factors" you MAKE A POINT to minimize those factors or negate them completely and then come to the conclusion that ONLY CO2 can account for any change in climate.

At least you're starting to realize the absurdity of the whole argument you're making when it's highlighted for you.

 

[Deuce]

This is just a semantic argument...

No. Completely reversing what someone said is not a semantic argument. Do you even know what semantic means?

As I said, I'm just rolling with the nonsense you spew.

That statement is accurate. During some of the major shifts, many dinosaur species disappeared, but it was an asteroid that ended them. We clear on that now?

But whenever you bring up those "other factors" you MAKE A POINT to minimize those factors or negate them completely and then come to the conclusion that ONLY CO2 can account for any change in climate.

No. Not any change. The current change. CO2 is the source of the majority of the temperature change over the last century. Does that clear it up for you? CO2 is causing the current change. Previous changes have been caused by other factors, with CO2 acting as a feedback in those changes. How do you argue with someone who just has no idea what you're saying?

 

[American]

Since Venus was brought up I think we should all understand the exact nature of the Venutian atmosphere. It is almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide and is 93 times as massive as the atmosphere of Earth. We are thus talking about nearly 2000 times as much carbon dioxide and yet the temperature is only about nine times that of Earth. Now I'm sure you'll come up with some reason for why that is, but let's be honest here: How much of an effect can it really have on Earth given this fact?

Compared to the amount of carbon dioxide that has been emitted by humans from all effects we are talking about an essentially irrelevant amount when considered with regards to Venus.

There are countless reasons why outgoing radiation would be lower than incoming radiation that do not involve carbon dioxide. Our climate is incredibly complex and can be affected by dozens of occurrences. When the scientific community is so quick to claim carbon emissions as the cause of all our ills I get skeptical. Certainly pointing to fossil fuels as the main culprit is purely political in nature. Unfortunately, some people actually believe in the integrity of the scientific establishment.

My question is, even if all this AGW crap were true, why does China get a pass but the US must revert to cave dwelling in order to satisfy the warmers?

 

[BmanMcfly]

No. Completely reversing what someone said is not a semantic argument. Do you even know what semantic means?

It's not "completely reversing" as you say... Ex : You've effectively said that "climate change was bad for the dinosaurs" no real source, nothing really backing it up.

So, I point out that since your OTHER argument is always "oh the current warming trend can ONLY be explained by CO2" (in spite of whenever I've pointed out the 4-5 times in the past 30 years and about 5 extra periods in the past 100 that PROVE that CO2 has nothing more then a negligible impact, and it gets ignored, glossed over...)

So, using your own feeble arguments I put both thoughts into a more coherent thought and repeated it... just because you don't like the result is not me "completely reversing" what you're saying...

That statement is accurate. During some of the major shifts, many dinosaur species disappeared, but it was an asteroid that ended them. We clear on that now?

Ya, CO2 only killed SOME dinosaurs... weakened them for when the asteroid was going to show up. But you've failed to show how CO2 was a cause of this?

Actually, you've even failed to show that Co2 is changing the current climate... you just put climate next to Co2 and say "what else could it be"... so, I'll do the same thing : Put the climate graph and the pirates graph and make the determination "the warming can only be caused by a reduction in the number of pirates"

No. Not any change. The current change. CO2 is the source of the majority of the temperature change over the last century. Does that clear it up for you? CO2 is causing the current change. Previous changes have been caused by other factors, with CO2 acting as a feedback in those changes. How do you argue with someone who just has no idea what you're saying?

Oh, but THIS TIME not only is CO2 causing the climate to change temperature it's going to cause this warming to be devastating.

No, I know exactly what I'm saying... you haven't been able to prove a single point anyway, so at this point, since you just declare victory, I've decided to just take your arguments and point out how asinine your statements on the subject are.

Maybe you should consider Co2 into it's proper perspective. NOt just on it's impact on climate (which you overwhelmingly exagerate the impact of, whether you realize it or not), but the fact that CO2 is a nutrient that is NECESSARY to life on earth... and you seem BENT on stopping this process.

 

[BmanMcfly]

My question is, even if all this AGW crap were true, why does China get a pass but the US must revert to cave dwelling in order to satisfy the warmers?

OH, that's cause it's only americas' CO2 that causes warming.

The chinese farts, they dont stink as bad and therefore they don't need the same restrictions.

Maybe it has to also do with the fact that the eco-fascists openly call for dictators... and CHina's got one already, but america doesn't so they need to convince the people that pop cans are killing the earth and only draconian solutions are viable.

 

[Deuce]

My question is, even if all this AGW crap were true, why does China get a pass but the US must revert to cave dwelling in order to satisfy the warmers?

Find me one person that has "given China a pass."
Also, find me one person that says we have to revert to cave dwelling. You understand there are sources of electricity other than fossil fuels, right?

OH, that's cause it's only americas' CO2 that causes warming.

The chinese farts, they dont stink as bad and therefore they don't need the same restrictions.

Maybe it has to also do with the fact that the eco-fascists openly call for dictators... and CHina's got one already, but america doesn't so they need to convince the people that pop cans are killing the earth and only draconian solutions are viable.

You too, buddy. Show me someone whose actually said this manufactured talking point.

 

[Deuce]

Bman, the reason I don't bother to support things when talking to you is that you keep changing your argument, or MY argument, every single time. For example, when did I say the current warming would be "devastating?" Your problem is that you take relatively moderate statements and extrapolate them into absurdities.

I never once said that CO2 is the only factor in temperature, or that manmade CO2 affected prehistoric climate, or anything of that nature. I've even, several times now, told you directly the opposite. Yet you keep bringing it up.

Flat out. CO2 is not the only variable. Period. Do you still contend this is my argument? Are you still going to debate dishonestly?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Bman, the reason I don't bother to support things when talking to you is that you keep changing your argument, or MY argument, every single time. For example, when did I say the current warming would be "devastating?" Your problem is that you take relatively moderate statements and extrapolate them into absurdities.

Yes, because you're not looking at the subtext and implications of what you're saying...

What you're not seeing is how your moderate statements have certain implications...

I mean, you didn't have to overtly say that climate change is devastating... you make the point that CO2 causes climate change and then use that as a subtext to say that climate change was a disservice to dinosaurs.... WELL, when you make both those statements separately but simultaneously then it becomes an absurd point.

The reality is that CO2 caused warming is in the fractions of a degree of change, and it requires you to ignore the times where CO2 levels dropped yet there was an increase in temperature, points where CO2 increased yet temperatures dropped, or when CO2 remains fairly stable and there's a drastic spike in the temperature...

I never once said that CO2 is the only factor in temperature, or that manmade CO2 affected prehistoric climate, or anything of that nature. I've even, several times now, told you directly the opposite. Yet you keep bringing it up.

Because you make a statement about climate hurting dinosaurs, you make points about CO2 being the "only explanation" (that doesn't even make sense when you really look at the numbers), and all the other points... and so I point these out, and since it's not the same effect to simply repeat your point I add a layer of extrapolation to REALLY point out the flaws in the logic.

Flat out. CO2 is not the only variable. Period. Do you still contend this is my argument? Are you still going to debate dishonestly?

Exactly Co2 is NOT THE ONLY VARIABLE!!! It's not the only variable in why the temperatures have gone up the past 150 years as a general trend, it's not the only variable at ANY POINT. EVER!!! That does NOT change that there IS a correlation between temperature and climate, but that is NOT the same as stating a cause-effect relationship.

Hell, science doesn't even understand all the variables at play in a way that you could have an all inclusive list... nevermind an understanding to associate the extent to which each variable might influence.

Add to that the fact that NONE of the projections have come true except in the sense that by having a wide-enough margin of error that they can't be shown wrong untill at least 5-10 years later when they can just pretend they never made the false prophecy and just publish a new report showing how bad things are getting...

Kinda like how coastal cities, according to the projections are already supposed to be under several feet of ocean water because the ice caps were going to melt, and how there's not going to be any more snow in england and all sorts of other nonsense that manages to get published.

 

[Deuce]

So, are you or are you not going to retract your repeated lies about what my argument is?

Because until then, there's no point.

I've told you straight up that isn't what I'm saying. People aren't dinosaurs. I never said climate change would be "devastating" to humans.

All you have to do is admit that you were wrong and apologize for repeatedly and deliberately misrepresenting what I say. It's what an honest person would do.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So, are you or are you not going to retract your repeated lies about what my argument is?

No, your statements are JUST AS asinine, more often then not, as the cartoon like rendering I illustrate based on that position.

Because until then, there's no point.

I've told you straight up that isn't what I'm saying. People aren't dinosaurs. I never said climate change would be "devastating" to humans.

Ya, I remember when I said people are dinosaurs... oh wait a second.

It's a pretext of your position pushing the alarmism on global warming issues... you pretend like you don't but you use all the same 'chicken little' type rhetoric.

Remember all those times I said we should be talking about POLLUTION, not NUTRIENTS and you came back and effectively said "oh pollution doesn't matter because this nutrient is going to warm the planet by a fraction of a degree in the next century"... you've also made arguments about how there would be less food because of global warming.

And if it's not stated directly, it's directly insinuated through your statements. That's why you gotta re-read your statements to make sure that you are looking past the tip of your nose in terms of the implications of what you're saying.

All you have to do is admit that you were wrong and apologize for repeatedly and deliberately misrepresenting what I say. It's what an honest person would do.

I'm not wrong... Global warming is a complete scam that relies on well-meaning idiots taking up the cause of giving bureaucratic control over CO2, because that will 'save the environment'... then I come out and say "actually, CO2 is a nutrient"... and it's like "shut up conspiracy theorist".

NO, those aren't YOUR statements, but that's the type of argument style I see all the time. You can deny it all you want, but it's hard to take back my position when you engage in the same tactics.

 

[American]

Find me one person that has "given China a pass."
Also, find me one person that says we have to revert to cave dwelling. You understand there are sources of electricity other than fossil fuels, right?



You too, buddy. Show me someone whose actually said this manufactured talking point.

You have, I haven't seen your ass over in China on TV yet, calling them to shut down their coal plants. When I see that I'll back off. If it weren't for the 1st Amendment you'd have had a gun butt in your mouth by now, like they do in China. So you people are only big here where it's safe; if you really cared so much about AGW you'd be everywhere. Tell the truth Deuce, all you really want is POWER.

 

[BmanMcfly]

You have, I haven't seen your ass over in China on TV yet, calling them to shut down their coal plants. When I see that I'll back off. If it weren't for the 1st Amendment you'd have had a gun butt in your mouth by now, like they do in China. So you people are only big here where it's safe; if you really cared so much about AGW you'd be everywhere. Tell the truth Deuce, all you really want is POWER.

OOOH!! That's gonna piss him off, I remember last time I called him out like that, he blocked me for at least a week.

 

[American]

OOOH!! That's gonna piss him off, I remember last time I called him out like that, he blocked me for at least a week.

I'm sick of all this one-sided bull**** from the whiners. We invented almost everything decent in the last 60 years, and these people want to shut us down, while giving a pass to other people who murder thousands of their own people, cheat on the global market, and are 100's of times worse at carrying out these leftwing policies. But these people are such big ******s, they won't dare go over there and preach to them....because they know what they'll get.

 

[Deuce]

You have, I haven't seen your ass over in China on TV yet, calling them to shut down their coal plants. When I see that I'll back off. If it weren't for the 1st Amendment you'd have had a gun butt in your mouth by now, like they do in China. So you people are only big here where it's safe; if you really cared so much about AGW you'd be everywhere. Tell the truth Deuce, all you really want is POWER.

I haven't seen you in China either, so you must be giving China a pass on everything. Sweatshops, polluting, everything. You must even support communism because you never went to China to protest communism.

 

[Deuce]

No, your statements are JUST AS asinine, more often then not, as the cartoon like rendering I illustrate based on that position.



Ya, I remember when I said people are dinosaurs... oh wait a second.

It's a pretext of your position pushing the alarmism on global warming issues... you pretend like you don't but you use all the same 'chicken little' type rhetoric.

Remember all those times I said we should be talking about POLLUTION, not NUTRIENTS and you came back and effectively said "oh pollution doesn't matter because this nutrient is going to warm the planet by a fraction of a degree in the next century"... you've also made arguments about how there would be less food because of global warming.

And if it's not stated directly, it's directly insinuated through your statements. That's why you gotta re-read your statements to make sure that you are looking past the tip of your nose in terms of the implications of what you're saying.



I'm not wrong... Global warming is a complete scam that relies on well-meaning idiots taking up the cause of giving bureaucratic control over CO2, because that will 'save the environment'... then I come out and say "actually, CO2 is a nutrient"... and it's like "shut up conspiracy theorist".

NO, those aren't YOUR statements, but that's the type of argument style I see all the time. You can deny it all you want, but it's hard to take back my position when you engage in the same tactics.

So you're still contending that I said CO2 is the only factor in temperature changes, despite my directly telling you the opposite.

Ok, back to the ignore list you go.

 

[BmanMcfly]

So you're still contending that I said CO2 is the only factor in temperature changes, despite my directly telling you the opposite.

Ok, back to the ignore list you go.

Maybe you misread that, I did not say that 'Co2 is the only factor'... though you have carried on about how "THIS TIME" it is.

I'm just not apologizing for pointing out how asinine your position really is... if that means I'm getting ignored, it's probably for the better... but I"m not going to stop calling you out on the BS you push more often then not.

 

[Temporal]

I'm sick of all this one-sided bull**** from the whiners. We invented almost everything decent in the last 60 years, and these people want to shut us down, while giving a pass to other people who murder thousands of their own people, cheat on the global market, and are 100's of times worse at carrying out these leftwing policies. But these people are such big ******s, they won't dare go over there and preach to them....because they know what they'll get.

It's a tough situation because on one hand we are only responsible for our own nation and what our own government and economy looks like. And on the other hand, we are living in a globalized world where our governments are all interlinked and to some degree so are their economic activities.

It's fine an dandy to blame China but if you can't change your own country's behaviour there is no sense in pointing the finger. Europe is an example of a place that is implementing clean compliments to fossil fuels, regardless of the debates happening in other countries. Their locales are getting cleaner while ours are not.

If we focused more locally, such as the kind of environment we want to live in HERE, it would culminate into global effects.