Unavoidable Climate Change

Post Reply New Topic

And I read the internet too. But if one thing is 'rubbish', it would be to say internet is a reliable source. I'm sorry, talk to the scientists...

Well then you force me to a cataclysmic decision.

I shall look up the names of these doubting thomases, and post them so you know who they are.

You mean like Timothy Ball, the man that has done basically no research and claimed he had "the first Canadian PhD in Climatology" even though it was totally false?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php

Last edited by headphase on 14 Mar 2007, 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Okay, good idea. Doubtless they are the same that believe ID to be correct, but okay, post them.

brilliant

I know that global warming is just a theory, but I do give the theory some weight. Even if the latest warm temps are just a fluke, the efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions will, at the very least, improve the situation with air pollution. From the standpoint of having asthma, that's not entirely bad.

*Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.

*Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

So there's two blokes, I leave it up to you to disprove their credentials...

I checked out Ian Clark, and...800 years! That's far too much. Look at statistics, and it's nowhere near 800 years. It fluctuates a bit, sometimes it's the CO2, sometimes the Temperature that rises first. But the differences are nowhere near 800 years, differences are more on the scale of a few years. So I'm sorry, but...no.
I checked him out and he appears to have a big contribution to the movie Global Warming Scandal (or so, that new documentary) and the statements in that documentary are not really good. So I made my opinion; I think he's not to be trusted really.
The other one I didn't check, maybe I will, one day...

Now, now, old chap, not so fast. You stated that you didn't know of any SCIENTISTS who doubt Global Warming. I've produced the names of two, with more to follow. You didn't say anything regarding a critique of their work.

Really now ! !!

Is a scientist says it's 800 years, who are we to argue?? Eh???

I indeed know no scientist PERSONALLY that disagree. That's the difference: you have to go search the internet to find scientists that support your ideas. I know them, met them, and none disagrees with the greenhouse theory.

Who am I to doubt? Sure, a scientist says it's true, so it is true. Even is at least 90% says it's not true, the other 10% is as right as the 90%, even if even a non-scientist can easily see his stamements are not true. 800 years... why don't you look at graphs yourself, instead of brainless and dumb copying things another person says? You see, that's where it all goes wrong, just copying and never checking the facts yourself.
We upcoming scientists spend 4 hours a week watching and interpreting countless graphs. None of the different graphics from different sources (different sources, important!) shows any sign of that his statement even might be true. Indeed the CO2-concentrations and Temperature give very good overlap, certainly looking over the past hundred years. So 800 years is just completely rubbish.

Well, you didn't say PERSONALLY.

Which brings up the questions of 'precisely how many scientists do you know' and 'how often do you attend any event which features scientists who disagree with your views'????

Well, I don't PERSONALLY know any scientists who DO endorse Global Warming ! !!

(Of course, I don't know any scientists personally. I don't frequent the right pubs, I guess.)

I'm in university, and it a lot of people seem to be scientists there.
Events that feature scientists that disagree with MY views?
I think I should note that these are the views of most scientists and even most normal people. It's not MY view, it's the OBVIOUS view.

So, how many people do you know that agree with your view?

Well, my boss, Mister Scrooge does. Everyday people I know, one chap has purchased www.globalwarmingisacrock.com Various people on this forum, if you go back to the beginning of this thread, you'll see that quite a few are sceptical.

It's a good thin to be uni, I remember it sweetly... But don't take everything as gospel ! !!
Remember to ask 'who is telling me this information, and might they have an agenda'?

Hear hear. Who accepted the rubbish that CO2-concentration happens 800 years after temperture change? And now I'm the one that's accepting everything for true without checking anything?
Their information is from various official, totally accepted sources, it would be pretty hard to fake them, wouldn't it?
Btw I think you gave the wrong site, it's an advertisement site with links to sites taht support the greenhouse theory. Maybe your friend's been illuminated?

The existance of electrons can neither be proven nor disproven. Still, biology, chemistry, and physics taught as if they do exist based on a preponderance of the evidence and general acceptance in the scientific community.

Using the scientific method, itself, does not "prove" anything - it merely allows the researcher to establish evidence to support a theory and present the information to the scientific community.

Global Warming is nothing more than a scientific theory. The theory is generally accepted as correct in the scientific community, though conclusive proof that it is or is not true is not available. Based on the available evidence and general acceptance of the theory, I believe that it is correct to proceed as if the theory were true. If nothing else, we will have at least removed hazardous pollutants from our environment (and don't tell me that industrial and automotive emissions are not hazardous - I have asthma). Secondly, developing alternative energy will be beneficial in reducing dependance on foreign oil - this is a very significant problem in the U.S. where people insist on driving pickup trucks and SUV's in far greater numbers than Mini Coopers (the SmartCar isn't even marketed here yet).

I honestly believe that people who have agendas to disprove the existance of global warming far outnumber (and outspend) those who have an agenda to prove it is occuring. The Bush administration only recently acknowledged the need to address alternative energy sources and reduction of CO2 emissions precisely because the oil industry is one of his biggest supporters. The automotive industry also stands to loose significantly if this administration starts to regulate emissions.