'Smoking gun' report to say global warming here

[SnyderShrugged]

Of course it has bearing on the subject. You "personally examined the data" and arrived to a conclusion that differs from that of IPCC. I'm sorry, but I'll remain sceptical of your credentials until you tell me the subject of your PhD

What an immature thing to post.

"Only the skilled can judge the skillfulness, but that is not the same as judging the value of the result."

C.S. Lewis

I have never even hinted that my credentials were greater, thats a childish debate tactic thats weak and useless to this conversation.

Grow up.

whats next? "who died and made you boss?" or maybe a nice little "nana nana boo boo?" :laugh: :laugh:

I simply said that the data has obvious holes, as perfectly exhibited by your graph that you thought was some goldmine for you to prove your point. I believe others have also pointed out this very fact.

It wasnt, and now you are upset that you look so freaking foolish.

[twa]

Can anyone clarify something for me on the IPCC report???

What has been released so far is simply a summary written by goverment representatives, while the actual scientific data is still being reviewed.

WHY issue a summary w/o data??

This guy has a interesting take on the subject

http://www.floppingaces.net/20070201_monckton.pdf

Christopher Monckton:

Lord Monckton served (1982-1986) as Special Adviser to the Rt. Honorable Mrs. Margaret Thatcher,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, in the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit, 10 Downing Street, London.

His views and opinions are not necessarily those of the Center for Science and Public Policy.

This strange separation of the publication dates has raised in some minds the possibility that the Summary (written by political representatives of governments) will be taken as a basis for altering the science chapters (written by scientists, and supposedly finalized and closed in December 2006).

[alexey]

What an immature thing to post.

"Only the skilled can judge the skillfulness, but that is not the same as judging the value of the result."

C.S. Lewis

I have never even hinted that my credentials were greater, thats a childish debate tactic thats weak and useless to this conversation.

Grow up.

whats next? "who died and made you boss?" or maybe a nice little "nana nana boo boo?" :laugh: :laugh:

I simply said that the data has obvious holes, as perfectly exhibited by your graph that you thought was some goldmine for you to prove your point. I believe others have also pointed out this very fact.

It wasnt, and now you are upset that you look so freaking foolish.

I do not consider myself more qualified to analyze data and make conclusions about Global Warming than scientists who specialize in doing so. That is why I choose to rely on opinions of people who are better qualified. You wrote that you make your own conclusions based on data. I was merely pointing out that you may not be qualified to do so.

I consider IPCC to be a more authoritative source than SnyderShrugged. Clearly you do not, and I find that rather humorous.

[Johnny Punani]

What are your qualifications? What do you do for a living? What's the highest level of education you achieved? What major?

What are your qualifications? What do you do for a living? What's the highest level of education you achieved? What major?

[Thiebear]

Of course this morning they are reporting that the "DETAILS" of the report do not match the summary that everyone has been reporting on..

shocked i tell you..

And if were 90% sure about humans over the last 50years.. What about the 1000 years before that? and its .03 celcius over the last 5 years?

Doesnt that fall into the acceptably levels of warming over the last 18 thousand years?

[alexey]

What are your qualifications? What do you do for a living? What's the highest level of education you achieved? What major?

Here is a quote in case you missed my followup post:

I do not consider myself more qualified to analyze data and make conclusions about Global Warming than scientists who specialize in doing so. That is why I choose to rely on opinions of people who are better qualified.

I know that quote sounded like good old "liberal elitism" you can pick up and try to run with. Unfortunately you will have a hard time doing so, considering the question about qualifications came up after SS claimed that he performs his own analysis of data and makes his own conclusions.

Was it immature on my part to ask for a person's qualifications in this situation? Well that depends on your definition of immature. For example, here is a funny dialog where a 4-year old illusrates behavior I consider immature for an adult:

4-year old: "I know EVERYTHING"

Parent: "Even the Pythogorean Theorem?"

4-year old: "I dont like it. Does it bite?"

[EersSkins05]

first,

according to your chart there, it doesnt seem to have any negative impact on temperature second, How do explain the other spikes throughout history, including the CO2 spikes? third, could it be that there are simply more co2 producing organisms on the planet (ie more people?)

sorry, doesnt hold water so far. back to the old drawing board for ya!

I'm going to ignore the resume comparisons going on in this thread and go straight to your points.

1) "it doesnt seem to have any MAJOR negative impact on temperature YET" - Fixed that for you.

2) The chart demonstrates that other spikes are, indeed, naturally occurring. However, the massive spike experienced over the course of 100 years (based on a 450,000 year chart) indicates radically unnatural levels of CO2. So if you're wondering why there hasn't been a corresponding spike in global temperatures, it's probably b/c the earth typically precedes the CO2 levels with higher temperatures, and now the unnatural introduction of heavy CO2 levels has thrown the entire cycle out of kilter.

100 years is a blink of the eye to the Earth. 1 or 2 degrees increase in heat in that period of time is a radical shift. But the CO2 levels have spiked more dramatically in 100 years time than in THOUSANDS of years prior, and the earth is trying to catch up, meaning higher temperatures follow the spike in CO2.

3) You're certainly right that the earth's population of CO2 producing organisms (people) has an effect on the measured levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. You would also be correct in assuming the spike had something to do with clearance of vegetation in order to make space to house all of these organisms.

More significantly though, you would be correct in assuming that these increased CO2 producers were purchasing and using CO2 emitting transportation, buying the fuel for that transportation, and owning these CO2 producers that weren't up to optimal standards to reduce the level of CO2 emissions.

They're also requiring more electricity, burning more coal, heating more houses in the winter, cooling more houses in the summer, etc., etc.

It is the spike in population and the demands of energy consuption that make energy and carbon conservation as important as it is right now.

[Baculus]

Please avoid calling out posters in these threads. Its against the rules.

I didn't call you out - your name was mentioned, but you were not "called out." I am not sure why you feel that I called you out when I mentioned your name, since you clearly and repeatedly state your position and you represent this position on this thread.

That said, I have continued to state my postition clearly. There is no consistant evidence that proves nor disroves mans negative impact on climate change. I havnt bought into any PR on this subject at all. I see huge flaws and gaps in this "science" suddenly being resurfaced. Those gaps have yet to be clarified to me and to any other skeptics out there. We are using data to drive our decisions, not mere emotions.

Quite the contrary, I believe that negative reponses to some of these reports are emotional as opposed to "data drivern." And there have been several reports which demonstrates a likely link between climate change and human activity. I often see knee-jerk responses such as "those damn liberals are at it again!" Trust me, it isn't just the Left that responds in a knee-jerk or emotional manner.

Heck, look at the chart that was posted in this thread just a little while ago. Yes, I do see the elevated CO2 levels at the end. But I am also not blind to the fact that there were very clear cycles of elevations in the past as well. Additionally, I thought that "Global Warming" is the topic you are trying to prove??? The temperatures are cyclical as well, and are not disproportionately higher in the period of the very high levels of CO2.

Yes, there have been cycles of increased natural Co2. But that does not mean that man's extra production of Co2 isn't related to the quickly increasing levels of Co2. I mean, nearly 2000 years of emissions, dating from the start of the industrial, eventually has to add up, right? And that has been the point of some of these studies: That such Co2 levels have unnaturally increased, more so then a natural increase in Co2, and such increases can only be caused by human activity.

Why is this so difficult for you to accept? Use your rational thought here.

I can ask the same of you - why is the concept of human behaviour causing increased levels of Co2 and other greenhouses gases so difficult to accept? We see our influence every day on our environment: This is merely one more indication of this affect on our environment.

I will have no problem accepting the proverbial "Global Warming" (except when its cooling) when the science is legitimate. As long as the smoking gun scientists say terms like "likely" as far as humans impact, they will be ignored.

show me the data.

There is a ton of data available, but I believe that we tend to pick and choose what data we want to observe to support our position. Even if a report shows a strong tie with global warming and other pollution related issues, then it is still ignored and rejected, usually by Big Business and other industry partners.

Bac, you of all people should understand the economic impact of pursuing the track of throwing the book at all industrial nations.

There will be an impact, but such efforts to control pollutants has been attempted for years. It was the Reagan administration that first resisted any attempts at emissions, especially in the private industry. I have been following this subject for decades, and if more willingness was displayed earlier, two decades earlier, then it wouldn't take any sudden drastic measures.

There is a point when polluters threaten the "common good," and is the case with this issue.

The impact does not have to be extreme, and it does not have to be great. It is often the polluters themselves that often predict such dire consequences for the economy.

So to turn you own argument around on you. What if YOU are wrong? You are OK with the potential losses of thousands of jobs, huge jumps in the price of gas, etc etc.

Industry ALWAYS resists any attempts to pollutant control - why do you think it has been so difficult in fighting the dumping of toxins into local water sources, as an example? This has been an ongoing issue for many years.

We need to get away from fossil fuels in the first place, partially to help preserve our sovereign integrity, and partially for this reason. Also, I think it is quite alarmist to talk about a "huge" loss of jobs, when such costs for any abiding by any sort of emissions decrease could be offset in various means, and nevermind the fact that many of the industry companies are large and profitable enough that this issue isn't going to cause them to experience huge profit losses.

If this threat IS dire enough to our existence, then twe'll have to be willing to deal with any such losses and increase in prices. After all, this is happening anway: The ironic thing is that many of these polluters are moving overseas, anway, so that wouldn't be a huge affect on our economy, as far as some industries are concerned. And when it comes to automobile manufacturers, they could be provided with tax breaks and incentives to help defray the cost of such emission standards.

The issue is that you immediately dismiss this with alarmist notions of huge job losses or increases in gas prices without contemplating how this could be implemented without this occuring. It can be done without a huge hit on our economy, unless you pay attention to only dire warnings and alarmist reactions to any suggestions of emission and pollutant reduction.

lastly, dont you as a self described conspiracy buff, (with your funny pic of Cheney) find it ironic that we only really started hearing the woe-to-the-world cries again once the Dems got back into power and timed oh so conveniently with Al Gores movie release, and a sudden new drive to use the UN to try to infringe on our sovergnty? Now there is a freaking conspiracy if you need one!

I am always wary of any sort of extra-national attempt to affect our nation - yes. And I have been wary of the global warming issue for a while, since it can be exploited for globalist's gain. But you have to realize there are two power struggles:

Globalists vs. the industrialists.

Each have their viewpoint in this struggle - I believe the globalists would like to use this issue for their gain, to help their vision of a one world government, and the industrialists oppose this issue, and only for one reason: profit. They don't want their pie decreased in size. That is why you have to be wary of both sides, and why I have been wary of your own words, because it is the exact alarmist position that has accompanied ANY attempt at pollution control, and not just related to global warming. Whenever any locale has attempted to curtail a company from dumping toxins into a local water source, that company usually is very resistant to any such notions of pollutant control.

After reading many science reports related to this subject - reports that are released by independent organizations and not merely purveyed by Globalists, then I realized that this issue is probably actually happening, and not some mere nightmare scenario cooked up to scare the world's populace for exploit and control. Many believe that conspiracies, such as chem trails, are related to efforts to curtal global warming and such.

I am always willing to listen to any position on this matter, but I really do not believe that this conspiracy is able to reach into every scientific organization; - it is perhaps an issue that can be exploited, but only because it is already there, and maybe that is what you don't quite understand. It is easy for one side of the other to exploit a position if it is already present, and I do agree that is something for which we have to be careful.

so sorry if I don't take it on faith as many do. Maybe I am simply smarter than that

Let me ask you this: are you against any efforts and pollutant control, above and beyond that issue? Do you realize that your position has been stated by polluters every time there have been efforts to control issues related to pollution, even when a person could walk to a local water source and see the pollution in action? Resistance to any sort of emission curtailing has been resisted for decades, so your viewpoint isn't simply a new argument in this subject: I have heard it for decades.

The efforts to control greenhouse emissions and other substances related to global warming are also related to the subject of quality of drinkable water and breathable air. Do you realize that these often go hand in hand, even with chemicals that aren't related to global warming, but are negatively affecting our living environment? Even if the global warming issue wasn't at hand, even if we dismiss this issue, there are still huge issues with toxin emissions and dumping that are affecting humans in this country: Would you want to curtail such pollution control efforts because of any possible threat to our economy? Do we just continue whatever we are doing due to any financial threat that many occur? When is the tipping point when we have to be willing to make concessions, especially to secure a livable environment?