Global Warming is a hoax.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Why the anthropogenic hypothesis is evidence-based (partial list): we emit an estimated 30 billion metric tons of CO2 (to say nothing of other greenhouse gases); fossil fuel carbon rising in coral; carbon isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 indicating fossil fuel carbon emissions; falling O2 levels; rising tropopause; stratospheric temp change; cooling and contraction of thermosphere; anthropogenic models best account for ocean warming pattern, sea level pressure changes, and precipitation trends; increased downward and decreased upward longwave radiation; TOA energy imbalance as predicted by anthropogenic models; more warming at night than during day as predicted by anthropogenic models.

Some basic resources:

[url="http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/"]Climate Change: How do we know? (NASA)[/url]
[url="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/"]EPA Climate Portal[/url]
[url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html"]National Climatic Data Center[/url]
[url="http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html"]National Geographic Global Warming FAQ[/url]
[url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php"]Skeptical Science: Common Arguments[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610"]Climate Denial Crock of the Week[/url]
[url="http://www.realclimate.org/"]Real Climate[/url]

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305219419' post='2240517']
They don't. If you're referring to the so-called "climategate" email scandal this explains the gist of it pretty well.

Bottom line:

"A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming."

[url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm"]What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?[/url]

"Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW."


More information

[url="http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1371/1/Nerlich_final_26_5_2010_(2).pdf"]'Climategate': Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis (PDF)[/url]
[url="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Climategate_Opinion_and_Loss_of_Trust_1.pdf"]Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy"]Climatic Research Unit email controversy[/url]
[url="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/"]Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming[/url]

But even if "climategate" was all that the likes of Glenn Beck want it to be it still wouldn't undo the mountains of data confirming global warming. Sorry. But of course it is just a success story for anti-GW propaganda.
[/quote]
I can paste just as many links that debunk global warming/climate change/etc.

There are serious doubts about the measurements, assumptions and predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with regard to global CO2 growth, temperature and the role of clouds. Indeed there is a strong case that the IPCC has overstated the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the climate and downplayed the influence of natural factors such as variations in solar output, El Niños and volcanic activity.

The empirical evidence used to support the global warming hypothesis has often been misleading, with 'scare stories' promoted in the media that are distortions of scientific reality. The high salience of the climate change issue reflects the fact that many special interests have much to gain from policies designed to reduce emissions through increased government intervention and world energy planning.

Am I to ignore the over 31,000 US scientists, over 9,000 with PhDs, that have signed the below petition?

[quote] "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."[/quote]

Edited May 12, 2011 by Papist

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305219658' post='2240520']
Okay, well then you're one of those people who likes to pontificate about a subject that they obviously know nothing about. Knock yourself out.
[/quote]


Your right i know absolutley nothing about it. You of course are well versed in my educational background.

I presented a long list of climate changes over te last 14000 years. I love how you just don't address that at all.

THe climate might very well be being changed by Co2 levels rising, but it is not provable, certianly not wth the data w currently have, there are many other reasons why the climate could be changing. THere are many scientist who discuss such things, but they are dismissed as fring or anti-warming nut jobs.

the human race has always done better when it is warmer, the cold is our enemy.

Personally I like the cold, but food crops don't.

THe worlds climate is extremely complicated, and it will be difficult even with vast amounts of data to prove that a single factor is causal.


You do understand that Correlation is not Causation don't you?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1305219634' post='2240519']
i think we should respect what the Good Lord has given us. I could care less if there's proof or no proof of global warming...waste not want not.. recycle what can be recycled, and let's be good stewards of the earth...
[/quote]


No disagreement at all.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305222509' post='2240532']
Why the anthropogenic hypothesis is evidence-based (partial list): we emit an estimated 30 billion metric tons of CO2 (to say nothing of other greenhouse gases); fossil fuel carbon rising in coral; carbon isotope ratio of atmospheric CO2 indicating fossil fuel carbon emissions; falling O2 levels; rising tropopause; stratospheric temp change; cooling and contraction of thermosphere; anthropogenic models best account for ocean warming pattern, sea level pressure changes, and precipitation trends; increased downward and decreased upward longwave radiation; TOA energy imbalance as predicted by anthropogenic models; more warming at night than during day as predicted by anthropogenic models.

Some basic resources:

[url="http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/"]Climate Change: How do we know? (NASA)[/url]
[url="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/"]EPA Climate Portal[/url]
[url="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html"]National Climatic Data Center[/url]
[url="http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html"]National Geographic Global Warming FAQ[/url]
[url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php"]Skeptical Science: Common Arguments[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610"]Climate Denial Crock of the Week[/url]
[url="http://www.realclimate.org/"]Real Climate[/url]
[/quote]


Please explain the end of the Last Ice Age, the the warming after the Younger Dryas, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warm period? Who was buring fossil fuels then?

The warming of the Earth started in about 1850, well before there were significant changes to the Co[sup]2[/sup] levels, can you please explain that?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1305222796' post='2240535']
I can paste just as many links that debunk global warming/climate change/etc. ...
[/quote]
Fortunately source matters so discerning science from fluff is often pretty straight forward. Check out some of the stuff on previous pages for answers to your questions. It's all there.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305223132' post='2240541']
Your right i know absolutley nothing about it. You of course are well versed in my educational background.

I presented a long list of climate changes over te last 14000 years. I love how you just don't address that at all. ..
[/quote]
Derp. If there were the slightest sign that you're capable of an adult conversation on this subject and I might find the motivation to discuss it with you for realz.

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305223696' post='2240543']
Please explain the end of the Last Ice Age, the the warming after the Younger Dryas, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warm period? Who was buring fossil fuels then?

The warming of the Earth started in about 1850, well before there were significant changes to the Co[sup]2[/sup] levels, can you please explain that?
[/quote]
Yes, I have nothing better to do with my time. Read a book. And wow, such a relevant response to my post. Glad to see I wasn't wasting my time.

[4588686]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305223696' post='2240543']
Please explain the end of the Last Ice Age, the the warming after the Younger Dryas, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warm period? Who was buring fossil fuels then?

The warming of the Earth started in about 1850, well before there were significant changes to the Co[sup]2[/sup] levels, can you please explain that?
[/quote]

You have clearly not even attempted to understand the most basic components of the argument. Or even followed this thread carefully. You're answer is a few posts up.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305220956' post='2240526']
Well, we know we caused the increase in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub]. After all, the combination of deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels is pretty blatant, and not simply a matter of correlation.

And we know that increasing the ratio of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere increases the amount of heat trapped by the planet. Just look at Venus (atmosphere 96% carbon dioxide; surface temperatures the hottest in the solar system). We've done experiments to test that out, too, so it's not simply a conjecture from correlation to say 'more CO[sub]2[/sub] = warmer'

Now, it [i]is[/i] true that the climate is in constant flux, and has altered dramatically over the years...and the atmosphere has altered as well. We used to have 2 meter spiders and scorpions , because we had more O[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere and their book lungs were efficient enough to support their size. Sadly, not anymore. Or rather, .

So, as long as we recognize that altering the atmosphere has serious, longterm, life-altering effects...then yes, climate change isn't such a big deal.
[/quote]


I do not deny that the Co[sup]2[/sup] levels have increased. Nor do I deny that deforetation and desertification have been terrible. ( frankly I find deforestation has caused global warming a better arguement)

Venus atmosphere is not at issue, Venus did not start out the way it is, it occured through natural processes unrealted to life.

Earth's atmosphere on the other hand has been radically altered by life and not just human life.

Earths temp changes, sometimes radically, evidence that it is mans activity causing the temp change is going to have to be a lot more compelling than, Co2 holds more heat, we have released lots of Co2, and we are getting warmer. THat is the definition of reasoning from corollation

If the Earth was not prone to climatic shift we would still have Glaciers in Ohio.



Please realize I am not dismissing that climate change could be caused by human actions, I just find the evidence that it is uncompelling.

[Nihil Obstat]

You should be subscripting the 2 in CO[sub]2[/sub], instead of superscripting.

[Laudate_Dominum]

This will have to be my last post in this thread for at least a while. I've had one too many RL global warming encounters lately. Burned out.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulEMWj3sVA[/media]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305224240' post='2240551']
You have clearly not even attempted to understand the most basic components of the argument. Or even followed this thread carefully. You're answer is a few posts up.
[/quote]


No it isn't,

I love the NASA link... "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years"

This is after talking about the abrupt end to the last Ice Age.

What kind of statement is that, you mean its faster than they have been since the last warming trend? I mean the last time the Earth warmed was hmmmm about 1300 years ago.

That kind of stuff is not convincing.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305224464' post='2240554']
You should be subscripting the 2 in CO[sub]2[/sub], instead of superscripting.
[/quote]


you are of course correct... I am careless about such things. witness my attention to spaces.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305226246' post='2240563']
you are of course correct... I am careless about such things. witness my attention to spaces.
[/quote]
or spelling

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1305226422' post='2240565']
or spelling
[/quote]


Oh I am aweful about spelling, but I am not entirely sure that is carelessness. It is almost willful. On some level, it pobably is. I have found the older I get the more standardized spelling annoys me notthat it exist, but that people are so self rightous about it.

THe world got along fine before standardized spelling came about 150 years ago.


If you think I mispelled it I probably did, sometimes even on purpose.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305228900' post='2240582']
Oh I am aweful about spelling, but I am not entirely sure that is carelessness. It is almost willful. On some level, it pobably is. I have found the older I get the more standardized spelling annoys me notthat it exist, but that people are so self rightous about it.

THe world got along fine before standardized spelling came about 150 years ago.


If you think I mispelled it I probably did, sometimes even on purpose.
[/quote]
hey, this is the first time i brought it up!! lol.