It is a poorly detailed graph, but the data is readily available elsewhere. It is evidence against the global warming alarmist which pretends as if these are unprecedented times. True on the strawman, I'm sorry. Everybody's been talking about AGW, that's what OP probably meant anyways. Global warming isn't up for debate, just look at the current temperature records and it's settled. As far as predicting the future, people usually bring up the humans and CO2 argument... Can you link to any studies?
This is just another example of humanity's collective self-importance. To think we could have such a large impact on this planet is fucking laughable. It's also just an alarmist position pushed on to society to keep up the standing fear complex after the cold war ended.
Political ideology should not enter critical thinking in the realm of science. And it's all-too apparent here.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ]What the Ice Cores Tell Us, and How Deniers Distort it - YouTube[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA[/ame]
high sam! what's your take on the whole "humans having something to do with climate change?" i always dig hearing your thoughts on this sort of thing.
But that's the thing. I'm not willing to debate the subject, and therefore I should resist making any statements about it. People can believe what they want to. There are some other realities that we should address in terms of energy conservation. The carbon cycle is being abruptly changed by humans, that's a fact. Our current mode of global energy production is unsustainable. Our commitment to our energy infrastructure is laughable and short-sighted. If we ever expect to accomplish much as a species, we need to change the way we produce energy.
How does one accomplish anything as a species? Additionally, have we not yet accomplished anything as a species? I think we've done pretty damn well at effectively putting the Earth's balls in a vice grip as a collective race. Imagine thousands of years ago thinking we as human beings would conquer the world in all of it's extremes (save beneath the ocean,) what a seemingly impossible feat! But I agree. Whether or not our carbon output is majorly affecting the global climate change, we need to move toward renewable energy.
I should have used the word "more". Global innovation is routinely stifled by unproductive geo-political concerns like wars and famine. Affordable energy is still available to only a fraction of the population (so is safe drinking water, food, health care and shelter). As a collective, we can take a lot of money away from developing reconnaissance satellites and instead working on orbital photovoltaics
[quote name='"skiibo"'] I just want to make sure nobody overlooks this- it really is like the evolution vs intelligent design debate all over again. Conservative christians trying to tell scientists that science isn't real.[/quote] Sorry buddy I'm not even remotely religious. Die hard atheist here.
It's retarded when people say they don't believe in global warming. The temperature on Earth is rising, this is a fact. Each year is slightly warmer than the previous year. The question is not at all whether global warming is real. The question is whether it is accelerated or caused by humans or if it's just part of a natural cycle. And if humans aren't making it go faster, that's also irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should be worried. Climate change can be bad for us even if we didn't cause it.
This isn't exactly true. At the very least, it's extremely misleading. ~97-98% of climatologists agree with the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change Expert credibility in climate change What you are referring to is the Global Warming Petition Project, where 32,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they do not believe in AGW, and has been repeated in the media as the same statement you made above "Thousands of Scientists Don't Agree with Global Warming!". However, in this petition scientists to be anyone within the science field: medical doctors, nuclear engineers, mechanical engineers, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. While I'm not going to argue that they aren't scientists, WTF does a nuclear engineer know about climate change? What does a mechanical engineer understand about atmospheric science? Guest post: scrutinising the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project
I'm saying I don't believe in the global warming caused by man kind. I do believe the climate is changing. I also believe in 50 or so years we will have a global "cooling". If you haven't realized Its snowing in places it doesn't usually snow. There's some fucked up shut going on but I think we are headed down the wrong path with global warming. It's something bigger than that ...
I think what August is getting at is that global warming is not caused by man's emissions and that it is a natural process.
[quote name='"m00zix"'] I think what August is getting at is that global warming is not caused by man's emissions and that it is a natural process.[/QUOTE] That's kind I'd what I think. Us humans are overly dramatic and expect the worse to happen.