The Basics: What is Global Warming and What is the Greenhouse Effect?

[slave4sail]

Please post up something to support your false assertion that the scientific method ever led to a flat earth theory...

methinks you are confusing myth and history.

I sincerely hope you do not take these most recent comments as a dispute head, I am only here to share my views. I am not looking for a conflict or argument, and this will be my last posting on this topic so if no further comment is made by me please do not take offense.

I do not think my original point of view is getting across, and most likely has to due with the burden of our unique experiences and the words we use to describe that. You are a facts type of person, and I can sincerely appreciate that. All I urge of you is to consider your facts, and just like icmag all the research in the world done by others is just that. Research, third party, not your experience. While it may be similar, or even exact, it can also be different. It can be different and the same, and now I know that I am sounding a bit on the limb grabbing fruits so I will leave it at that.

As for your request to references about my belief that people used to think the earth was flat there are many that I choose to believe. Again that key word believe, and we will all do this to our own hearts content. I believe this by artifacts found from ancient civilizations that have lived before us. Just as the data collected by science, I believe the data as factual. I will not however jump to conclusions about what that data represents. We seem to have a different view on data, science, and how it applies to the world we live in. Just like the topic of global warming is natural, humans naturally keep themselves preoccupied with doomsday events and have done so since the beginning of time. We are changing the world we live in, and it would be foolish to think we do not. How does that apply, we can only decide for ourselves. I try to live with a conscious heart and open mind, and will not look for approval from others. That is all I can do with myself, and the daily struggle is difficult.

What is global warming and what is the greenhouse effect?
In a nutshell science would lead us to believe it is what happens to earth, then earth dies. That is nature at it's finest! What is beyond? Science does not tell us that, so I will not ask science of any other assumptions of what the future holds. I will enjoy and cherish this experience and hold hope to learn of a better understanding.

Pardon, I almost forgot the references you asked for.
I will not spoon feed you any information, as it is our duty to do our own research and find things our for ourselves. As noted before we believe in what we wish to believe, and time is a huge variable to consider. I think this has to do with the difference we have in opinions, and remember I am not saying you are wrong. I really hope that intent in felt through those words.

Hecataeus of miletus was a greek historian who illustrated his maps with the belief the earth was flat. He was not the only one, and there were in fact people who lived before Aristotle. Speaking of Aristotle, whom should be quite relative to this flat vs round side topic, he has been documented to have expressed his views of a cylindrical earth in opposition to those who maintained belief in a flat earth. I could go on and on, or you can google it as it seems much of your cited material comes from. Not that it does not have merit, but it has the same merit of anything else.

Not to further muddy this topic, we see with our eyes; but hasn't science proved that we do not see nearly everything there is to see? How can we believe them (eyes) then? You do not have to answer these questions as I noted I do not wish to continue my point of view, because after a while of anyone doing so it seems like preaching. Just wanted to give others another perspective to use as reference material. Kind of like here on icmag. Until the brain and consciousness is figured out, I will hold out on choosing a side just yet. I do however envy your commitment on your stance and the need for such a topic in the first place, as it's relevance to our lives and what we live for vary widely. nam myoho renge kyo

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).

Mean global temperature (1850-1870) is about 13.6°C.

First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.

1824
Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere. =>Simple models

1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change. =>Other gases

1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. =>Simple models

1897
Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks. =>Simple models

1870-1910
Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth.

1914-1918
World War I; governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

1920-1925
Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.

1930s
Global warming trend since late 19th century reported. =>Modern temp's

Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages. =>Climate cycles

1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question. =>CO2 greenhouse

1939-1945
World War II. Grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

1945
US Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change. =>Government

1956
Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for quick ice age onset. =>Simple models

Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere. =>Models (GCMs)

Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance. =>Radiation math

1957
Launch of Soviet Sputnik satellite. Cold War concerns support 1957-58 International Geophysical Year, bringing new funding and coordination to climate studies. =>International

Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans. =>CO2 greenhouse

1958
Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water. =>Venus & Mars

1960
Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.=>Modern temp's

Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise. =>CO2 greenhouse The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.

1962
Cuban Missile Crisis, peak of the Cold War.

1963
Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level. =>Radiation math

1965
Boulder, Colo. meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts. =>Chaos theory

1966
Emiliani's analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes. =>Climate cycles

1967
International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but including climate. =>International

Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees. =>Radiation math

1968
Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically. =>Sea rise & ice

1969
Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile whole. =>Public opinion

Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks. =>Simple models

Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements. =>Government

1970
First Earth Day. Environmental movement attains strong influence, spreads concern about global degradation. =>Public opinion

Creation of US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the world's leading funder of climate research. =>Government

Aerosols from human activity are shown to be increasing swiftly. Bryson claims they counteract global warming and may bring serious cooling. =>Aerosols

1971
SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global change caused by humans, calls for an organized research effort. =>International

Mariner 9 spacecraft finds a great dust storm warming the atmosphere of Mars, plus indications of a radically different climate in the past .=>Venus & Mars

1972
Ice cores and other evidence show big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so, especially around 11,000 years ago. =>Rapid change

1973
Oil embargo and price rise bring first "energy crisis". =>Government

1974
Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful as journalists talk of a new ice age.=>Public opinion

1975
Warnings about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer. =>Other gases

Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2. =>Models (GCMs)

1976
Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. =>Other gases

Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks. =>Climate cycles

Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate. =>Biosphere
Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods .=>Solar variation

1977
Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century. =>Public opinion

1978
Attempts to coordinate climate research in US end with an inadequate National Climate Program Act, accompanied by rapid but temporary growth in funding. =>Government

1979
Second oil "energy crisis." Strengthened environmental movement encourages renewable energy sources, inhibits nuclear energy growth. =>Public opinion

US National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming. =>Models (GCMs)

World Climate Research Programme launched to coordinate international research. =>International

1981
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming. =>Government

IBM Personal Computer introduced. Advanced economies are increasingly delinked from energy.

Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming. =>Aerosols

Some scientists predict greenhouse warming "signal" should be visible by about the year 2000. =>Modern temp's

1982
Greenland ice cores reveal drastic temperature oscillations in the space of a century in the distant past. =>Rapid change

Strong global warming since mid-1970s is reported, with 1981 the warmest year on record. =>Modern temp's

1983
Reports from US National Academy of Sciences and Environmental Protection Agency spark conflict, as greenhouse warming becomes prominent in mainstream politics. =>Government

1985
Ramanathan and collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.=>Other gases

Villach Conference declares consensus among experts that some global warming seems inevitable, calls on governments to consider international agreements to restrict emissions.=>International

Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 and temperature went up and down together through past ice ages, pointing to powerful biological and geochemical feedbacks. =>CO2

Broecker speculates that a reorganization of North Atlantic Ocean circulation can bring swift and radical climate change. =>The oceans

1987
Montreal Protocol of the Vienna Convention imposes international restrictions on emission of ozone-destroying gases. =>International

1988
News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus testimony by Hansen. =>Public opinion

Toronto conference calls for strict, specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions; UK Prime Minister Thatcher is first major leader to call for action. =>International

Ice-core and biology studies confirm living ecosystems give climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming. =>Other gases

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established. =>International

1989
Fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries form Global Climate Coalition to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action. =>Public opinion

1990
First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely. =>International

1991
Mt. Pinatubo explodes; Hansen predicts cooling pattern, verifying (by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects. =>Aerosols

Global warming skeptics claim that 20th-century temperature changes followed from solar influences. (The solar-climate correlation would fail in the following decade.) =>Solar variation

Studies from 55 million years ago show possibility of eruption of methane from the seabed with enormous self-sustained warming. =>Rapid change

1992
Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but US blocks calls for serious action. =>International

Study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in same range as predicted independently by computer models. =>Models (GCMs)

1993
Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade. =>Rapid change

1995
Second IPCC report detects "signature" of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century. =>International

Reports of the breaking up of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs of actual current warming in polar regions begin affecting public opinion. =>Public opinion

1997
Toyota introduces Prius in Japan, first mass-market electric hybrid car; swift progress in large wind turbines and other energy alternatives.

International conference produces Kyoto Protocol, setting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if enough nations sign onto a treaty. =>International

1998
"Super El Niño" causes weather disasters and warmest year on record (approximately matched by 2005 and 2007). Borehole data confirm extraordinary warming trend. =>Modern temp's

Qualms about arbitrariness in computer models diminish as teams model ice-age climate and dispense with special adjustments to reproduce current climate. =>Models (GCMs)

1999
Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed by National Academy Panel. =>Modern temp's

Ramanathan detects massive "brown cloud" of aerosols from South Asia. =>Aerosols

2000
Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple with threat of warming, but oil lobby convinces US administration to deny problem. =>Public opinion

Variety of studies emphasize variability and importance of biological feedbacks in carbon cycle, liable to accelerate warming. =>Biosphere

2001
Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since end of last ice age, is "very likely," with possible severe surprises. Effective end of debate among all but a few scientists. =>International

Bonn meeting, with participation of most countries but not US, develops mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets. =>International

National Academy panel sees a "paradigm shift" in scientific recognition of the risk of abrupt climate change (decade-scale). =>Rapid change

Warming observed in ocean basins; match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse effect warming. =>Models (GCMs)

2002
Studies find surprisingly strong "global dimming," due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming is now decreasing. =>Aerosols

2003
Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets (West Antarctica, Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed. =>Sea rise & ice

Deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates divergence between European and US public opinion. =>Public opinion

2004
In controversy over temperature data covering past millenium, most conclude climate variations were not comparable to the post-1980 warming.
=>Modern temp's; =>Solar variation

First major books, movie and art work featuring global warming appear. =>Public opinion

2005
Kyoto treaty goes into effect, signed by major industrial nations except US. Work to retard emissions accelerates in Japan, Western Europe, US regional governments and corporations. =>International

Hurricane Katrina and other major tropical storms spur debate over impact of global warming on storm intensity. =>Sea rise & ice

2007
Fourth IPCC report warns that serious effects of warming have become evident; cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the damage they will cause. =>International

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and Arctic Ocean sea-ice cover found to be shrinking faster than expected.=>Sea rise & ice

2009
Many experts warn that global warming is arriving at a faster and more dangerous pace than anticipated just a few years earlier. =>International

Level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 385 ppm.

Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 14.5°C, the warmest in hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.


rest of the links are here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

[WeSeekTheTruth]

H3ad, you lose one argument, you bring up another. You lose the second argument, you bring the first one back up.

You're chasing your tail, Fido.

Let's get this straight one more time, CO2 is at it's lowest point in the history of the Earth.

The global temperature is at it's lowest in the history of the Earth.

CO2 is a necessary gas that exists in minute quantities in the atmosphere. Most of the CO2 that once made up our atmosphere is now buried deep below the Earth's crust, never to be put back into the atmosphere ever again.

The ocean's oxygen is not being depleted to the degree that it will affect the climate of the Earth. This is simply another unproven "may occur" event alarmists try to use when their CO2 argument starts looking silly.

The Earth has withstood many major cataclismic events in it's history and recovered. The biggest liabilities for the Earth are many.

1. The Earth is running out of energy and is cooling - proven.

2. Space debris such as comets and meteors could strike the Earth, as in the past, and completely destroy it.

3. The Sun's energy could increase or decrease in many ways and affect the Earth.

4. A super virus or bacteria could spread thoughout the population and annihilate us.

There are many more things to concern ourselves with than CO2, which is a smokescreen used to provide cover for Cap and Tax. (and we all know what that is)

Man on the Earth is like a pimple on an elephant's ass.

Anyone who has any degree of intelligence can see through the bullshit and formulate their own opinion on these frauds being perpetrated.

When acid rain was killing the Earth, George H W Bush made a little change to environmental laws and saved us. Hooray for George!

Now some very rich and greedy non-scientists are pushing this scam on us. I agreed with the acid rain, but CO2?

Get real!

 

[SuperSizeMe]

The next great discovery


Anyone that thinks that 'science' isn't political is either naive or just self-absorbed.

Wonder who that might be...hmmm

Worry about the man in the mirror

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I sincerely hope you do not take these most recent comments as a dispute head, I am only here to share my views. I am not looking for a conflict or argument, and this will be my last posting on this topic so if no further comment is made by me please do not take offense.

I do not think my original point of view is getting across, and most likely has to due with the burden of our unique experiences and the words we use to describe that. You are a facts type of person, and I can sincerely appreciate that. All I urge of you is to consider your facts, and just like icmag all the research in the world done by others is just that. Research, third party, not your experience. While it may be similar, or even exact, it can also be different. It can be different and the same, and now I know that I am sounding a bit on the limb grabbing fruits so I will leave it at that.

As for your request to references about my belief that people used to think the earth was flat there are many that I choose to believe. Again that key word believe, and we will all do this to our own hearts content. I believe this by artifacts found from ancient civilizations that have lived before us. Just as the data collected by science, I believe the data as factual. I will not however jump to conclusions about what that data represents. We seem to have a different view on data, science, and how it applies to the world we live in. Just like the topic of global warming is natural, humans naturally keep themselves preoccupied with doomsday events and have done so since the beginning of time. We are changing the world we live in, and it would be foolish to think we do not. How does that apply, we can only decide for ourselves. I try to live with a conscious heart and open mind, and will not look for approval from others. That is all I can do with myself, and the daily struggle is difficult.

What is global warming and what is the greenhouse effect?
In a nutshell science would lead us to believe it is what happens to earth, then earth dies. That is nature at it's finest! What is beyond? Science does not tell us that, so I will not ask science of any other assumptions of what the future holds. I will enjoy and cherish this experience and hold hope to learn of a better understanding.

Pardon, I almost forgot the references you asked for.
I will not spoon feed you any information, as it is our duty to do our own research and find things our for ourselves. As noted before we believe in what we wish to believe, and time is a huge variable to consider. I think this has to do with the difference we have in opinions, and remember I am not saying you are wrong. I really hope that intent in felt through those words.

Hecataeus of miletus was a greek historian who illustrated his maps with the belief the earth was flat. He was not the only one, and there were in fact people who lived before Aristotle. Speaking of Aristotle, whom should be quite relative to this flat vs round side topic, he has been documented to have expressed his views of a cylindrical earth in opposition to those who maintained belief in a flat earth. I could go on and on, or you can google it as it seems much of your cited material comes from. Not that it does not have merit, but it has the same merit of anything else.

Not to further muddy this topic, we see with our eyes; but hasn't science proved that we do not see nearly everything there is to see? How can we believe them then? You don't have to answer these as I noted I do not wish to continue my point of view, because after a while of anyone doing so it seems like preaching. Just wanted to give others another perspective to use as reference material. Kind of like here on icmag. Until the brain and consciousness is figured out, I will hold out on choosing a side just yet. I do however envy your commitment on your stance and the need for such a topic in the first place, as it's relevance to our lives and what we live for vary widely. nam myoho renge kyo

right... there is no information to support your mythology, so you decline to show any.
cool... i've done my homework, you've nothing there to spoonfeed... I've had this 'flat earth' discussion and won it many times... Never in history has the scientific method led to the flat earth theory...

no-one ever implied that our current body of scientific knowledge is any 'ultimate truth'
but AGW has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to anyone who has studied the information available understands it remotely.


urging me to look at the whole picture is 'preaching to the choir'

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

weseekthetruth... you are lost and confused...

I have lost no argument at all... you have.

you have never ever once refuted any of the science i have laid in front of you.... your posts do nothing but demonstrate your misunderstanding.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

science is only inseparable from politics to those unable to 'get it'...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!!!!!
knowledge is not your enemy!
what is, is... regardless of your acknowledgement.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Let's get this straight one more time, CO2 is at it's lowest point in the history of the Earth.

that's provably a lie.

The global temperature is at it's lowest in the history of the Earth.

another provable lie

CO2 is a necessary gas that exists in minute quantities in the atmosphere. Most of the CO2 that once made up our atmosphere is now buried deep below the Earth's crust, never to be put back into the atmosphere ever again.

a partial truth... but not relevant.

The ocean's oxygen is not being depleted to the degree that it will affect the climate of the Earth. This is simply another unproven "may occur" event alarmists try to use when their CO2 argument starts looking silly.

another provable lie

The Earth has withstood many major cataclismic events in it's history and recovered. The biggest liabilities for the Earth are many.

1. The Earth is running out of energy and is cooling - proven.

very slowly and irrelevant to AGW... there is plenty of heat left in the earth, in fact more of the earth's heat is from internal than solar.

2. Space debris such as comets and meteors could strike the Earth, as in the past, and completely destroy it.

SO?!?!?! lmfao at that siolly lame distraction of a non-argument

3. The Sun's energy could increase or decrease in many ways and affect the Earth.

could!?!? lnmao at another non-point

4. A super virus or bacteria could spread thoughout the population and annihilate us.

SO!?!?

There are many more things to concern ourselves with than CO2, which is a smokescreen used to provide cover for Cap and Tax. (and we all know what that is)

Man on the Earth is like a pimple on an elephant's ass.

Anyone who has any degree of intelligence can see through the bullshit and formulate their own opinion on these frauds being perpetrated.

When acid rain was killing the Earth, George H W Bush made a little change to environmental laws and saved us. Hooray for George!

Now some very rich and greedy non-scientists are pushing this scam on us. I agreed with the acid rain, but CO2?

Get real!

yes... the universe is a dangerous place...
yes man is a very tiny and insignificant portion...

no, none of your arguments bear on the topic at all...

that whole post of yours was a big fail.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

So... if nobody has anything to refute the any of science...
your political opinions have been noted.
When you have something relevant and on topic
post it... otherwise you're looking foolish.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The next great discovery


Anyone that thinks that 'science' isn't political is either naive or just self-absorbed.

Wonder who that might be...hmmm

Worry about the man in the mirror

so... what politics were driving the greenhouse gas/global warming science for the 80 years it was being conducted before cap and trade was even a concept?

What politics led to the formulation of newtons laws?
What politics coerced Galileo Galilei into his heretical discoveries?


science is only political when people refuse to separate the two.

 

[WeSeekTheTruth]

weseekthetruth... you are lost and confused...

I have lost no argument at all... you have.

you have never ever once refuted any of the science i have laid in front of you.... your posts do nothing but demonstrate your misunderstanding.

We've been down this road. The constant posting of theoretical articles from bias-prone individuals and pseudo-scientists has yet to yield a single proof of concept to support the ideologically driven fraud concerning CO2.

There is nothing you have pasted here that has disputed the history of CO2 decline from the Earth's atmosphere. There is nothing you have pasted that is worrisome enough to have world governments reacting to address anything.

If there was any kind of proveable issue that should be immediately addressed, it appears I'm not the only one who doesn't see it.

You're pasting articles here and criticising my posts, but you're not posting your personal contentions and solutions. You're not disputing what I say, you're being dismissive and ignoring the facts of what I say.

You say I'm ignorant of the facts, but I speak my mind about actual events and non-theoretical information.

To simply dismiss facts and accept unproven and biased statements based on unobtainable raw data and conjecture is not a scientific method.

I would like to see you utilize the information you pasted here to make an intelligent argument. That's how discussions are done. Let me hear your personal take on issues.

It's very easy to paste unproven articles from the internet. I am providing my personal thoughts and reasoning. That's what I expect from others.

 

[slave4sail]

I've had this 'flat earth' discussion and won it many times... Never in history has the scientific method led to the flat earth theory...no-one ever implied that our current body of scientific knowledge is any 'ultimate truth'
but AGW has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to anyone who has studied the information available understands it remotely.


urging me to look at the whole picture is 'preaching to the choir'

I really did not want to come back into this thread again, however I was out of rep to give and wanted to express my thanks for your latest comment. Now that we have established that there is no ultimate truth, and that AGW is real can you stop posting this drivel? Why post up charts and graphs from sources without the truth?

Prove to me that those scientists did their experiments with accuracy, and I will be satisfied. You go from defending science having an absolute accuracy, which you recently noted it does not; to the accuracy and accounts of history. Wow you are good at the misdirection, it was never about a flat earth! It was about the accuracy of your scientific method. As with time, science changes. Then again I already said my piece on time.

I will ask again in case you missed it, prove to me that the scientists did their experiments and collected all data with total accuracy. If you can not, you are still able to believe in it. I believe in some of it too! :gasp: Just also believe that it is not just yet total truth, even if it makes sense. We have yet to make sense of the world around us, and as humans continually fail at it.

This conversation is not about climate change, but it is about science. As science will only show climate change for one side, and until science is written in stone your topic will forever be one sided. Enjoy it, I wish you many like minded heads for you to share waffles with. Leggo my egggoooooooo!

Not that it matters, but do you by chance supplement co2 in your indoor grows? I do, maybe I am to blame???

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

We've been down this road. The constant posting of theoretical articles from bias-prone individuals and pseudo-scientists has yet to yield a single proof of concept to support the ideologically driven fraud concerning CO2.

Good thing that's not what i've posted.

There is nothing you have pasted here that has disputed the history of CO2 decline from the Earth's atmosphere. There is nothing you have pasted that is worrisome enough to have world gonernments reacting to address anything.

in your undereducated opinion

If there was any kind of proveable issue that should be immediately addressed, it appears I'm not the only one who doesn't see it.

Of course... you are joined by like-minded ostriches who hide the truth from themselves

You're pasting articles here and criticising my posts, but you're not posting your personal contentions and solutions. You're not disputing what I say, you're being dismissive and ignoring the facts of what I say.

that's because this is a scientific discussion, and I won't bring personal opinion or politics into it. duh

You say I'm ignorant of the facts, but I speak my mind about actual events and non-theoretical information.

you bring misinformation which you do not substantiate or support. you don't even seem to have a good grasp of the definition of scientific theory, and have shown no relevant facts.

To simply dismiss facts and accept unproven and biased statements based on unobtainable raw data and conjecture is not a scientific method.

which is why I have never done such a thing.

I would like to see you utilize the information you pasted here to make an intelligent argument. That's how discussions are done. Let me hear your personal take on issues.

I have... you ignored it.

It's very easy to paste unproven articles from the internet. I am providing my personal thoughts and reasoning. That's what I expect from others.

the science i have posted still stands.
AGW has been proved, even though you still deny it.
if you can refute the science, do it...
I'm sick of your dodging and politicking.
Address the science or fail to be relevant.

 

[SuperSizeMe]

So... if nobody has anything to refute the any of science...
your political opinions have been noted.
When you have something relevant and on topic
post it... otherwise you're looking foolish.

Do everyone a favor and save your insults for the open forum:

science is only political to idiots who cannot comprehend it.

That way everyone can see what an asshole you really are.

Good luck with your political thread

 

[KharmaGirl]

Yeah GH... We all know it ain't gonna last....

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I really did not want to come back into this thread again, however I was out of rep to give and wanted to express my thanks for your latest comment. Now that we have established that there is no ultimate truth, and that AGW is real can you stop posting this drivel? Why post up charts and graphs from sources without the truth?

there are relevant irrefutable facts. there is no 'ultimate truth'. I post up facts because some people obviously need to learn them, and a picture is worth 1,000 words.

Prove to me that those scientists did their experiments with accuracy, and I will be satisfied. You go from defending science having an absolute accuracy, which you recently noted it does not; to the accuracy and accounts of history. Wow you are good at the misdirection, it was never about a flat earth! It was about the accuracy of your scientific method. As with time, science changes. Then again I already said my piece on time.

there are many many independently collected data sets from multiple unrelated sources which validate each other.

I will ask again in case you missed it, prove to me that the scientists did their experiments and collected all data with total accuracy. If you can not, you are still able to believe in it. I believe in some of it too! :gasp: Just also believe that it is not just yet total truth, even if it makes sense. We have yet to make sense of the world around us, and as humans continually fail at it.

multiple independent lines of evidence from unrelated sources...

If 1000 different people measure a thing at 100 different times using 50 different methods... and the measurements all support each other... then they would be considered to be verified.

you should go back and re-read my posts with an open mind.

This conversation is not about climate change, but it is about science. As science will only show climate change for one side, and until science is written in stone your topic will forever be one sided. Enjoy it, I wish you many like minded heads for you to share waffles with. Leggo my egggoooooooo!

Science is the best tool we have for determining 'what is'... it sides with the verifiable.

This conversation should be about climate change, but you changed the topic... let's get back on track, since you have learned that your assumptions were off base.

Not that it matters, but do you by chance supplement co2 in your indoor grows? I do, maybe I am to blame???

I do not... and unless you are burning coal or oil or deforesting a large area for some reason... your grow adds very little to the carbon cycle.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Yeah GH... We all know it ain't gonna last....

if you guys were to delete the inappropriate political posts, the problem posters would get frustrated and make sure some science got included in every post.

otherwise, we can do allright by simply ignoring the unsubstantiated opinion type commentary...

I guess I need to start a discussion on the Integrity of Science and the Psychology of Scientific Denialism.

 

[WeSeekTheTruth]

Hey, I'm out of here also. I've obtained what I sought.

I'm very disappointed at my realization, but the truth is what I desired.

No further interest.

So sad.

 

[KharmaGirl]

No GH...You don't get it. You know very well WE DO and HAVE deleted many, many, many posts from the previous thread and then this one. We will not keep going in a circle with one thread. We have a whole site to Mod and this one thread as well as the previous has taken up too much of our time. The topic is political as well as scientific and can't proceed with just one. They are intertwined. That, combined with people who think they are excellent debaters but just try to pound their opinions on others mean this topic just can't and doesn't work here. Make a social group but we won't be wasting any more time on the same thread, hour after hour. You know as well as I do how many times this topic has been tried. You also very well know the outcome was the same every time. It's no ones fault, just a fact of life that this thread doesn't work here.