Originally Posted by rcrane082985

You guys are ridic trying to act like people who don't eat up MMGW are against science. Despite what al gore tells you, there are two sides to the science! IM sure there are people who do say science be damned. Those people are called morons.

Straight from the IPCC itself
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CBYQ9QEwAA

and another...
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CB4Q9QEwBA

just a coincidence that CO2 has pretty much exactly filled the void for less solar output?

pretty sure my post was in direct response to a person who said "i don't care what byut or any other scientist says". by definition, that guy is against science.

Also, you;'re the arm chair scientist. you have a degree in google, why don't you tell me the answer?

So your saying that the warming that co2 is responsible for, doesnt look like the warming that was there before co2? i guess just no comment? This was aimed at whats his face anyway.. err.. userid, he was saying the rate of warming was unprecedented, i was simply using an IPCC graph or 2 to dispel that rumor. U see?

 

Originally Posted by rcrane082985

So your saying that the warming that co2 is responsible for, doesnt look like the warming that was there before co2? i guess just no comment? This was aimed at whats his face anyway.. err.. userid, he was saying the rate of warming was unprecedented, i was simply using an IPCC graph or 2 to dispel that rumor. U see?

I'm saying that you posted a link to a chart showing only temperatures from the 1900s. No relevance as the argument is the 18??s vs. eons ago

 

Originally Posted by ginwilly

does this mean the government funded researchers value their paychecks any less?

no, but they have greater profit motive to prove global warming a myth than to toe the alleged scientific conspiracy line.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

Oh dear. He may have a degree in Google, but you and UD are the Deans. UD is actually Dean of Wikipedia on 2nd thought.

UD and I act like experts in fields we have no experience in based on google searches? Link?

Really? UD acts like less of an expert than i do? Didnt think that i came off so arrogant, my bad.
Guess i cant get it right, i use Heartland citing, im told that they arent credible. I use IPCC graphs, they arent good enough either. Oy

 

Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton

UD and I act like experts in fields we have no experience in based on google searches? Link?

My internet is broken, remember.

 

Originally Posted by jetsjets1028

My internet is broken, remember.

lol you are on a fucking roll tonight.

 

Originally Posted by rcrane082985

Really? UD acts like less of an expert than i do? Didnt think that i came off so arrogant, my bad.
Guess i cant get it right, i use Heartland citing, im told that they arent credible. I use IPCC graphs, they arent good enough either. Oy

Hey, man, I'm trying to have an equal-footed debate with you, and look at all the evidence you put forth. I know the comment wasn't aimed at me, but you know better than to let a few offhand comments in OT get to you.

As for your IPCC charts, you are comparing some decades in the 1900s to others in the 1900s and you know that forecasts can't be that accurate. We are talking about sweeping changes that take decades, which is why people won't take the issue as serious. They need an immediate cataclysmic effect to mobilize. Anyway, I've posted the graph before, and will here again, and you will say gg credibility b/c it lacks the MWP, but many other scientific peer-reviewed papers hold that this graph is accurate:

 

Originally Posted by rcrane082985

Why dont u say anything about what i said about IPCC funding? Im not sure ive ever really defended the heartland institute. Just was citing them, because they had an article in which they quoted ACTUAL scientists.

IPCC papers are written by VOLUNTEERS. IPCC is simply a giant literature review and compilation of current research (mostly conducted by universities).

I just got back from the gym, trying to read thread, respond, and make dinner. Will do my best

 

Originally Posted by rcrane082985

You guys are ridic trying to act like people who don't eat up MMGW are against science. Despite what al gore tells you, there are two sides to the science! IM sure there are people who do say science be damned. Those people are called morons.

Straight from the IPCC itself
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CBYQ9QEwAA

ummmm.... from the website that this picture is hosted on:

 

The bad news is that our goose is already cooking, and the longer-term consequences of our environmental predicament seem dire and inevitable. It as if we have dialed up the oven and have no way to dial it back down. Whatever we do today, the heat will linger and the bird will continue to roast. Like it or not, the heat is on. This is a challenge whose solution requires that we think and act in new ways across unfamiliar time frames, borders, languages, and cultures. Forget short-term solutions. Any hope for improvement calls for immediate and dramatic changes that, at best, will yield only gradual and ambiguous results. Improvements will be measured not in years or even decades but in lifetimes.

The IPCC’s science-based conclusions and the visibly dramatic weather-related anomalies of the last few years are the sort of thing that are finally getting through to the public and undermining the credibility of doubt-mongerers. But why has it taken so long to get this far? How has it happened that we humans have been for so long obliviously turning up the heat in our own oven? And why aren’t we taking dramatic steps to begin addressing the causes of this planet-altering and species-threatening tragedy?

We humans think we see clearly all relevant causal factors, though many are all but invisible to us. We have a difficult time identifying, much less monitoring, much less understanding slow and non-salient changes in our environments. We have an aversion for complexity and unanswered questions. We have trouble connecting bad outcomes with benign intentions. We are motivated to deny the existence of threats to our system or to alter our behavior from that to which we have grown accustomed. Those motivations and others are easily exploited by wealthy powerful industries that have made it their business to criticize, mock, and otherwise raise doubts about the emerging scientific consensus.

Further, the author uses that graph to point out increasing temperatures, which it shows. So... what?

 

Originally Posted by rcrane082985

and another...
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CB4Q9QEwBA

just a coincidence that CO2 has pretty much exactly filled the void for less solar output?

This is the picture you linked:



Go on?

 

Originally Posted by rebelfd

so you're saying this man is not a profiteer? Thanks for setting the record straight. I don't believe we're in imminent danger of self destruction, and I don't care what yut or any other scientist says.

and this is exactly the problem. closed mind.

But, i'll just keep in mind there's no point responding to your claims then. Keep linking heartland to your... wait for it.... heart's content.

 

Originally Posted by rcrane082985

Am i mistaken that the IPCC claims we are only responsible for last 30ish years of warming?

Where did you get that info? I'm actually curious.

 

Originally Posted by rcrane082985

My whole reasoning for pointing out these graphs is that the latest warming period is not unprecedented.

Why would I post a broad-view hockey-stick graph to show only the last 30 yrs? I though we were waaaaay beyond where you appear to be

HUH? The IPCC says that we can only be responsible for the last 30 years of warming, someone in this thread was saying that the warming casued by us 1970's and on is unprecedented. It is not, as warming not caused by us, 1900-1940's is very similar to current, or what used to be, current trends.
I dont think i really have to say anything with regards to any graph that leaves out medieval warm period.

This is a graph of co2 and temperature over hundreds of thousands of years....
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...=1185&bih=1041

clearly, the current warming is not unprecedented lol

Userid, we arent responsible for warming before the 70's according to UN scientists. Warming from the last few decades is not unprecedented.

 

Originally Posted by brianyut

and this is exactly the problem. closed mind.

But, i'll just keep in mind there's no point responding to your claims then. Keep linking heartland to your... wait for it.... heart's content.

Here's an inconvenient truth, it's nowhere as dire as you or the other liberals would have us believe, and I'm sure deep down you know it as well. Governing and mandating by fear works for liberals, ends justify the means blah blah blah. Could we benefit from preserving natural resources, yes, could we benefit from a cleaner, less polluted planet, yes. Do we really have to scare humanity into believing that unless we change our ways it's calamity for us all, no. You may be the majority in the Scientific world, but nowhere near the majority for all of humanity. I'll say it again if you want to change habits, reward the desired state, don't punish, and don't fear monger.

First off, was only bringing those graphs to light to show that the warming isnt unprecedented k? They arent fundamental to my arguments. If the graph were to show steeper rising of temperatures than in the past 800k years, i would certainly be more concerned. And please dont show me the hockey stick graph again . As most scientists on the other side say that it is bogus, and it certainly is having neglected MWP, which was likely warmer than today. There is a lot of evidence to support that theory. greenland had little ice, europe, asia, central america, india, all showed signs of great warmth.

Anyone saying something along the lines of, the 10 hottest years have been in the last 20 or something to that effect, must understand that this argument is null, as we have been warming since temperature couldve been taken so mathematically, i hope that is the case.