• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

White House Global Warming Authority - A Novelist?

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Michael Crighton is one of the better science fiction writers around. His book, Andromeda Strain, about a supervirus, was a blockbuster, which was made into a movie, as was his book Sphere, which was about an alien technology to create living things by thought. Now here is where things get interesting. Crighton's new book, State of Fear, has as its premise the theory that there is no such thing as global warming, which stems from his belief that global warming issues are overstated. During a White House visit, Crighton suggested that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat, which is not the view of the mainstream scientific community. Guess who agrees with Crighton?

Read the article here.

Read the interview with Scott McClellan, who was afraid to answer the question of whether Bush accepts the opinion of a science fiction writer over that of the mainstream scientific community.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Don't forget Jurassic Park.

Actually, the science in his books isn't top-notch. There were flaws in both The Andromeda Strain and Sphere. One of these days I have to get around to reading Airframe to see what he hosed there.

As far as the global warming scam goes, there's precious little evidence on it, so why not? I mean, even if the global mean temperature was increasing, it's not like we're at the optimal temperature today, anyway. And, also, it's not like global climate has ever been static, either, so what's the dif? We'd have a LOT more to worry about if the temps were going down, right?

Oh, and Crichton isn't even second-rate when it comes to "the best science fiction writers around". He writes a good tale, but he's no Larry Niven or George Martin.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
Michael Crighton is one of the better science fiction writers around. His book, Andromeda Strain, about a supervirus, was a blockbuster, which was made into a movie, as was his book Sphere, which was about an alien technology to create living things by thought. Now here is where things get interesting. Crighton's new book, State of Fear, has as its premise the theory that there is no such thing as global warming, which stems from his belief that global warming issues are overstated. During a White House visit, Crighton suggested that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat, which is not the view of the mainstream scientific community. Guess who agrees with Crighton?

Read the article here.

Read the interview with Scott McClellan, who was afraid to answer the question of whether Bush accepts the opinion of a science fiction writer over that of the mainstream scientific community.

"Mainstream scientific community" is another word for the establishment. I thought libertarians were supposed to support free exchange of information. Global warming is a sham, and the scientists who try to put that forth are silenced. So Bush, along with a growing portion of the country, agrees with crichton. Good.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Don't forget Jurassic Park.

Actually, the science in his books isn't top-notch. There were flaws in both The Andromeda Strain and Sphere. One of these days I have to get around to reading Airframe to see what he hosed there.

As far as the global warming scam goes, there's precious little evidence on it, so why not? I mean, even if the global mean temperature was increasing, it's not like we're at the optimal temperature today, anyway. And, also, it's not like global climate has ever been static, either, so what's the dif? We'd have a LOT more to worry about if the temps were going down, right?

Oh, and Crichton isn't even second-rate when it comes to "the best science fiction writers around". He writes a good tale, but he's no Larry Niven or George Martin.
Niven Rocks. My favorite book by him is Lucifer's Hammer, which he co-authored with Jerry Pournelle. :)
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
RightatNYU said:
"Mainstream scientific community" is another word for the establishment. I thought libertarians were supposed to support free exchange of information. Global warming is a sham, and the scientists who try to put that forth are silenced. So Bush, along with a growing portion of the country, agrees with crichton. Good.
Unfortulately, they are agreeing with people who make claims which are not based on sound science. What would some of their motives be?

 
H

hipsterdufus

The sad part here is that Scientests tell us that the few degree raise in temperature in the Gulf Coast will continue to cause bigger and stronger hurricaines.

If the neo-cons weren't so anti-science, maybe they would have fixed the levees instead of diverting funds to Iraq.

So many of the people that are against global warming are in the pockets of the big oil companies. I did a lengthy exchange with another anti-science neo-con in another forum. It was very enlightening. The conflict of interest is so easy to see from these nay-sayers, it's surprising that anyone buys it.

But then again, I guess it doesn't surprise me in this day and age.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
The sad part here is that Scientests tell us that the few degree raise in temperature in the Gulf Coast will continue to cause bigger and stronger hurricaines.

If the neo-cons weren't so anti-science, maybe they would have fixed the levees instead of diverting funds to Iraq.

So many of the people that are against global warming are in the pockets of the big oil companies. I did a lengthy exchange with another anti-science neo-con in another forum. It was very enlightening. The conflict of interest is so easy to see from these nay-sayers, it's surprising that anyone buys it.

But then again, I guess it doesn't surprise me in this day and age.
I'm not seeing evidence. I provided some against it right above you.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
The topic has been written about extensively in Science magazine. Science Magazine has made their Katrina analysis studies open and free to the public. They are located here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/katrina/#climate
I go to your source, and the FIRST GRAPH I see undermines the argument for global warming.


If global warming is caused by human factors, why the drastic drop between 1950 and 1970? Did people suddenly stop creating carbon dioxide for 20 years? Or is it infinitely more likely that its all part of a much larger global weather pattern which we can neither predict nor affect?
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
23,069
Reaction score
14,156
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
RightatNYU said:
I go to your source, and the FIRST GRAPH I see undermines the argument for global warming.

If global warming is caused by human factors, why the drastic drop between 1950 and 1970? Did people suddenly stop creating carbon dioxide for 20 years? Or is it infinitely more likely that its all part of a much larger global weather pattern which we can neither predict nor affect?
www.junkscience.com Brought to you by the Coal and Oil industries. We misrepresent the findings of the vast majority of the scientific community to arm young diehard partisan Republicans in their fight against Science.

Seriously, if Global Warming is nothing but a conspiracy, then it is literally the biggest in history. Over 2000 of the world’s leading climatologists and literally every single major meteorological society in the developed world must be in on this grand conspiracy. They all must be out to deceive everyone.

Of course I guess it might be believable when one considers that large numbers of scientists and intellectuals must be gunning for those Champions of Truthiness, the Radical Right.

I mean really, its not just climatologists who are against them.

It’s nearly the entire Economics community who argues that there is no empirical evidence at all that favors the notions of Supply Side Economics.

It’s every single scientific society in America who argues that Intelligent Design is not science.

It’s that evil “Liberal Media” who exposes themselves for what they are every time they resort to things like “facts” and “independent sources”.

It’s the Foreign Intelligence experts who have argued that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

It’s the mainstream churches who argue that the radical right does not represent actual Christian ideals.

It’s the historians who argue that those on the radical right tend to revise history.

It’s that pesky document, the “constitution”, which always thwarts their attempts at establishing a theocracy.

I mean, I can go on and on. If we were to listen to all the scientists, independent policy experts, historians, economists, and most of the mainstream media, why one would get the picture that those guys on the far right really are not right about much of anything.:roll:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
SouthernDemocrat said:
www.junkscience.com Brought to you by the Coal and Oil industries. We misrepresent the findings of the vast majority of the scientific community to arm young diehard partisan Republicans in their fight against Science.

Seriously, if Global Warming is nothing but a conspiracy, then it is literally the biggest in history. Over 2000 of the world’s leading climatologists and literally every single major meteorological society in the developed world must be in on this grand conspiracy. They all must be out to deceive everyone.

Of course I guess it might be believable when one considers that large numbers of scientists and intellectuals must be gunning for those Champions of Truthiness, the Radical Right.

I mean really, its not just climatologists who are against them.

It’s nearly the entire Economics community who argues that there is no empirical evidence at all that favors the notions of Supply Side Economics.

It’s every single scientific society in America who argues that Intelligent Design is not science.

It’s that evil “Liberal Media” who exposes themselves for what they are every time they resort to things like “facts” and “independent sources”.

It’s the Foreign Intelligence experts who have argued that the war in Iraq was a mistake.

It’s the mainstream churches who argue that the radical right does not represent actual Christian ideals.

It’s the historians who argue that those on the radical right tend to revise history.

It’s that pesky document, the “constitution”, which always thwarts their attempts at establishing a theocracy.

I mean, I can go on and on. If we were to listen to all the scientists, independent policy experts, historians, economists, and most of the mainstream media, why one would get the picture that those guys on the far right really are not right about much of anything.:roll:

1. Nice job, you managed to type hundreds of words and refrain from an actual argument or evidence. We'll make a partisan out of you yet!

2. Things such as this are often partially funded by the coal/oil industries because they're the only industries who are willing to cross the environmentalists on this. The environmental lobby is full of people who listen to what they're told and don't ask for validation. See: unions, NAACP, Christian right.

3. Nothing else you say has any relevance to the matter at hand.

4. Care to explain the 20 year drop in temperatures?

5. I've actually met Steve Milloy, the founder of that website. He's an incredibly well spoken, incredibly intelligent man. Here's his bio:
Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.
Definitely sounds like an ignorant Christian fundie.

Take the Junk Science short course, and then come back here.

http://www.junkscience.com/JSJ_Course/jsjudocourse/1.htm

Oh, and if you're going to keep arguing your claim, bring some evidence with you.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
RightatNYU said:
1. Nice job, you managed to type hundreds of words and refrain from an actual argument or evidence. We'll make a partisan out of you yet!

2. Things such as this are often partially funded by the coal/oil industries because they're the only industries who are willing to cross the environmentalists on this. The environmental lobby is full of people who listen to what they're told and don't ask for validation. See: unions, NAACP, Christian right.

3. Nothing else you say has any relevance to the matter at hand.

4. Care to explain the 20 year drop in temperatures?

5. I've actually met Steve Milloy, the founder of that website. He's an incredibly well spoken, incredibly intelligent man. Here's his bio:


Definitely sounds like an ignorant Christian fundie.

Take the Junk Science short course, and then come back here.

http://www.junkscience.com/JSJ_Course/jsjudocourse/1.htm

Oh, and if you're going to keep arguing your claim, bring some evidence with you.

The amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased from 578 gigatons in 1700 to about 766 gigatons in 1999, and continues to increase at the rate of about 6.1 gigatons per year.

The bottom line of all this is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by about 6.1 gigatons per year, mostly due to fossil fuel burning and land use changes that destroy soil organic carbon. This increase needs to stop, or at least slow down, since carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat and becomes a greenhouse gas that can lead to global warming.
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec/Carbon/carboncycle.htm



If you'll notice how closely carbon dioxide levels and temperature are related. Of course, there are small fluxes in temperature at all times, but the overall trend is that higher levels of carbon dioxide equates to higher temperatures. We have the highest level in 400,000 years (that graph was from 1950, we have since increased to over 367 ppmv...that would be off the graph). There is NO debate in the mainstream scientific community about this. There are a few nutballs that are on the other end that get way too much air time and unfortunatly, people listen.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kelzie said:
http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec/Carbon/carboncycle.htm



If you'll notice how closely carbon dioxide levels and temperature are related. Of course, there are small fluxes in temperature at all times, but the overall trend is that higher levels of carbon dioxide equates to higher temperatures. We have the highest level in 400,000 years (that graph was from 1950, we have since increased to over 367 ppmv...that would be off the graph). There is NO debate in the mainstream scientific community about this. There are a few nutballs that are on the other end that get way too much air time and unfortunatly, people listen.
And yet there's absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that that increase has caused any temperature increase. In fact, if you look at those graphs you showed (which also show that this is a cyclical thing that we don't have to worry about), there is a huge problem. Look at the last 10,000 years. CO2 skyrocketed. Temperature remained steady, actually decreasing slightly. If over a 10,000 year span of rapidly increasing CO2, the temperature DECREASED, I'm hard pressed to be convinced that we're facing imminent disaster as some would have us believe.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
The site you linked is one page. Is that it? :shock:
1) From the Junk Science site - Actual proof of global warming.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GHCNland.gif
Notice the acceleration at the end of the graph.

2) Here is the Ocean and Climate Change Institute website, part of the Woodshole Oceanographic Institutte, which is the largest independent institute of its kind in the United States. This is just one section. You can go to the main page to see the other sections.

The Woodshole Institute is currently studying the phenomenon of the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, which is in progress at the present time. Here, you can see just about all of the data that shows global warming is a real event. The problem that scientists see is that they only have records dating back about 150 years, and the variance in the data can be large, considering that this amount of time is miniscule, compared to the lengh of time that the earth has existed.

However, you can consider 2 facts. First, the data which shows the earth heating up. Secondly, the fact that we are pumping gigantic amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat trapping compounds into the atmosphere, and have been accelerating the production of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution began. At this point, you need to know a little about the electromagnetic spectrum, along with a little elementary physics. ultraviolet rays from the sun are mostly blocked by the ozone layer, while other wavelengths, including visible light pass through. Upon hitting the earth, some sunlight is convered to infrared. These wavelengths essentially are represented as heat, which is blocked by carbon compounds. The more carbon-based compounds in the atmosphere, the more the atmosphere prevents heat from radiating back into space. The heat is therefore trapped, which causes our climate to heat up. This is a scientific certainty.

Now, another factor comes into play. As the earth heats up, more water evaporates, forming more clouds, which in turn block more sunlight. Clouds essentially put a limit on what is called "wet" global warming. What that limit is, nobody knows. One thing for certain - Weather patterns are drastically affected. However, once glaciers begin to melt, there is no turning back.

1) For right now, extreme weather events will continue.

2) Once the Gulf Stream shuts down, Britain and much of Europe will have climate similar to that of Siberia. while some areas of the central United States will become desert. The colder climate in Europe will be temporary, then the area will catch up to the average rise in temperature. Some scientists are now saying that we are already past the tipping point, and this will be a certainty within about 20 years or so. The droughts in the Western US have already begun, and this will continue, whether or not we are able to stop global warming. Also, the increase in number and severity of hurricanes and other violent weather events will continue.

3) The oceans will rise. By 2100, on our present course, New York, London, and many other coastal cities will be under water without the building of dykes for entire coastlines. We are talking about an eventual rise in the oceans of about 30 feet.

4) The rise of the oceans will accelerate once the permafrost in eastern Russia has melted, as this will release huge amounts of methane which are now trapped there.

5) Finally, about New Orleans - It will be under water within 50 or 60 years, but that wont be due to global warming. This area of Louisiana sits near a geologic subduction zone, which is located in the Gulf of Mexico. It is sinking, and will continue to sink until it, along with coastal Louisiana, is beneath the Gulf of Mexico. If global warming has a part to play, it will only be that New Orleans meets its fate a few years sooner.

Oops - One more thing. The "dry" greenhouse effect. That is what happens as the sun gets hotter as it burns more of its nuclear fuel. That will result in the complete destruction of the earth, but dont worry. That wont happen for another 170 million years, unless we destroy the Earth first, of course.
 
Last edited:

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
NOAA? Trust me I've seen one of their observatories, and have browsed one of their FTP websites.

January 1895 - 2006 Average = 31.04 degF
January 1895 - 2006 Trend = 0.09 degF / Decade


You can come to your own conclusions? Why should I think for you? :rofl
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
1) From the Junk Science site - Actual proof of global warming.
They put that graph there to make a point: Graphs that only show short term data are useless, because temperatures fluctuate greatly over time. Here's some assorted graphs of long term perspectives. See how that little bulge fits right into the pattern?





How come here we see an increase starting in the 1850's, way before industrialization? And how come theres a decrease starting in the 70's? That sort of shits on your theory.



Here, the growth started in the 1500's and actually leveled off in recent years. Damn medival times and their ineffiecient diesel cars.

The Woodshole Institute is currently studying the phenomenon of the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, which is in progress at the present time. Here, you can see just about all of the data that shows global warming is a real event. The problem that scientists see is that they only have records dating back about 150 years, and the variance in the data can be large, considering that this amount of time is miniscule, compared to the lengh of time that the earth has existed.
Uh, YEA. So now that you acknowledge that the data is far too incomplete to prove anything, why do you rely on it?

However, you can consider 2 facts. First, the data which shows the earth heating up. Secondly, the fact that we are pumping gigantic amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat trapping compounds into the atmosphere. At this point, you need to know a little about the electromagnetic spectrum, along with a little elementary physics. ultraviolet rays from the sun are mostly blocked by the ozone layer, while other wavelengths, including visible light pass through. Upon hitting the earth, some sunlight is convered to infrared. These wavelengths essentially are represented as heat, which is blocked by carbon compounds. The more carbon-based compounds in the atmosphere, the more the atmosphere prevents heat from radiating back into space. The heat is therefore trapped, which causes our climate to heat up. This is a scientific certainty.
Yes, we all took 6th grade science. The question is how much of an effect can our puny humanity have on the earths weather systems. Nothing has shown that we have any.

Now, another factor comes into play. As the earth heats up, more water evaporates, forming more clouds, which in turn block more sunlight. Clouds essentially put a limit on what is called "wet" global warming. What that limit is, nobody knows. One thing for certain - Weather patterns are drastically affected. However, once glaciers begin to melt, there is no turning back.
Oh no! Well, in that case, thank god that they're GETTING THICKER.:lol:
Satellite shows Greenland's ice sheets getting thicker

While the edges of the glaciers are melting, the ice sheets in Greenland's interior are getting thicker, according to satellite data collected over the last 11 years. On average the ice sheets have got thicker by about six centimetres each year, the researchers say.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/07/ice_sheets_thickening/

1) For right now, extreme weather events will continue.

2) Once the Gulf Stream shuts down, Britain and much of Europe will have climate similar to that of Siberia. while some areas of the central United States will become desert. The colder climate in Europe will be temporary, then the area will catch up to the average rise in temperature. Some scientists are now saying that we are already past the tipping point, and this will be a certainty within about 20 years or so. The droughts in the Western US have already begun, and this will continue, whether or not we are able to stop global warming. Also, the increase in number and severity of hurricanes and other violent weather events will continue.

3) The oceans will rise. By 2100, on our present course, New York, London, and many other coastal cities will be under water without the building of dykes for entire coastlines. We are talking about an eventual rise in the oceans of about 30 feet.

4) The rise of the oceans will accelerate once the permafrost in eastern Russia has melted.

5) Finally, about New Orleans - It will be under water within 50 or 60 years, but that wont be due to global warming. This area of Louisiana sits near a geologic subduction zone, which is located in the Gulf of Mexico. It is sinking, and will continue to sink until it, along with coastal Louisiana, is beneath the Gulf of Mexico. If global warming has a part to play, it will only be that New Orleans meets its fate a few years sooner.

Oops - One more thing. The "dry" greenhouse effect. That is what happens as the sun gets hotter as it burns more of its nuclear fuel. That will result in the complete destruction of the earth, but dont worry. That wont happen for another 170 million years.
Well thank god we have your well sourced, completely thoroughly researched opinion to rely on. Hang on while I file it right next to opinion of the guy in the subway who told me the world was ending on Valentines day because it was an abombination against Jesus.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
RightatNYU said:
And yet there's absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that that increase has caused any temperature increase. In fact, if you look at those graphs you showed (which also show that this is a cyclical thing that we don't have to worry about), there is a huge problem. Look at the last 10,000 years. CO2 skyrocketed. Temperature remained steady, actually decreasing slightly. If over a 10,000 year span of rapidly increasing CO2, the temperature DECREASED, I'm hard pressed to be convinced that we're facing imminent disaster as some would have us believe.
Did you just say that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature? Was that graph unclear? It most obviously does.

And it might not be a problem if we let nature do it's job. But it's not going back down. CO2 is increasing and it is already at a higher level than ever before (at least with a comparable atmosphere)
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
Did you just say that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature? Was that graph unclear? It most obviously does.

And it might not be a problem if we let nature do it's job. But it's not going back down. CO2 is increasing and it is already at a higher level than ever before (at least with a comparable atmosphere)
It sure does cause an increase in temperature. His graphs were plotted by those with an agenda so that the acceleration of recent years is not seen. The acceleration is clearly there.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kelzie said:
Did you just say that an increase in CO2 does not cause an increase in temperature? Was that graph unclear? It most obviously does.

And it might not be a problem if we let nature do it's job. But it's not going back down. CO2 is increasing and it is already at a higher level than ever before (at least with a comparable atmosphere)
Actually, no it does not. Correlation does not equal causation. There is absolutely NO proof that the change in CO2 is the CAUSE of the temperature change. Every time the stock market goes down, I curse and swear. When it goes up, I laugh and giggle. If we charted the two out, they would look similar. Does that mean that the stock market is based on my propensity to laugh or swear? No. You have to actually prove that. Which no one has. Because there's no evidence that it does.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
It sure does cause an increase in temperature. His graphs were plotted by those with an agenda so that the acceleration of recent years is not seen. The acceleration is clearly there.
Huh? Some of those graphs go through 1980, some go through the 90's. No acceleration. If you've got it, prove it. And then explain why those other graphs show no acceleration. Come on, this shouldn't be so hard for something that is SO OBVIOUS like you claimed.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Okay NYU. You've evidently decided to believe some crackpot being funded by oil companies with absolutely no credentials on this subject. That's fine. I'm going to leave you with some real expert's opinions

Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

That would be our government. Unless they're in on it too?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
RightatNYU said:
Actually, no it does not. Correlation does not equal causation. There is absolutely NO proof that the change in CO2 is the CAUSE of the temperature change. Every time the stock market goes down, I curse and swear. When it goes up, I laugh and giggle. If we charted the two out, they would look similar. Does that mean that the stock market is based on my propensity to laugh or swear? No. You have to actually prove that. Which no one has. Because there's no evidence that it does.
So you're saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
 
Top Bottom