you just posted a blog from 2008 from "local warming" website. Is that a real and unslanted source? i do like this excerpt from the article that you linked.. and since it is from the same link you posted.. i will take it as truth. unless of course you think the Chairman of the International Geological Congress is also a foil hat wearing crazy person..
a more reliable source than the blog that dalars posted. unless the US senate committee on environment is wearing tin foil as well.. .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Who gives a fuck. We're talking about science. Your insistence on bringing politics in this shows the weakness of your theory. Yeah. If he denies it in 2011, he is. And the source you've provided is even more slanted than the link he provided. This isn't about liberal or conservative, this is about right or wrong, and so far non of you have even touched on scientific proof for your assumptions, just name calling scientists who think it isn't true, which is a low bar. The science is on the same page (most of the world's scientists are convinced it is man made). Look at scientific journals and you'll see hundreds of articles on global warming - none of which will claim it is a hoax.
By the way, that source says most of the warming is due to the sun, which is wrong. The sun is in a cooling phase. This alone exposes the nonsense given here.
did you read the full report that i posted? Or did you just dismiss it beause you refuse to open your mind? the first post i made was from his link.. i just backed it up with a link from the US senate committee on the environment. and i have no problem believing the 650+ top UN scientists when they say that it's hype. If you think you know more than 650 UN scientists, then you are wasting your time by posting in threads like this.
what are your credentials, that you can disagree with 650 of the top UN scientists and climatologists?
Do you think you're smarter than the majority of scientists? Beats the hell out of 650 scientists. Why don't you make a scientific case instead of using scientists as your only alibi.
Actually, they are disputed. That's the whole point of the thread. Did you bother to read it before posting?
i want you to re read this, and see if it makes any sense at all to you. would you prefer i use the ice cream man as a source? what else would i use as a source besides for a scientist? Unless i were an actual scientist, which i am not. and i'm sorry.. but i will choose to believe "650 of the worlds top scientists" according to the US senate committee on environment. read the reports dude.. at least do that.. no?
No, what I mean is you keep saying "oh 650 scientists deny global warming" while you fail to make a scientific case against what I've already provided as the current scientific explanation for the rise in global temperatures. Also, its funny you're using the government as a source. I thought you were one of those conspiracy guys who don't trust the government. All of you keep bringing this back to politics, which it isn't. It's a scientific question, so why not make scientific arguments. Undisputed in the field of environmental science.
As someone with a scientific background and training, I absolutely have to ask this, as my "writing for Peer-Reviewed Journals" professor would be frothing incoherently at seeing this. WTF is a "scientific cases?" Are you so ignorant that you can't even use scientific terminology, or proper spelling? you can't even use public education as an excuse, seeing as how I managed to learn something despite the public school system. Also, he is using the scientific findings of 650 scientists to base his opinion on. Actually, they are very disputed. If you think the whole community of environmental scientists accepts this as gospel, you need to cut back on the mj and take a T-break.
it's conspiracy to not trust the government? what posts are you talking about that show me as a conspiracy theorist? i posted the govt source because i figured it would be more widely acceptable than some blog, or crazy alex jones. my specific case was the link that contained the 250 page report that outlined the case these scientists are making, and thousands of links to back them up. Whether you choose to read some of it not isn't my fault.. and when did i bring politics into the thread? what are you talking about? i don't recall ever saying anything political at all..
Okay, so I made a spelling mistake. This doesn't convey ignorance of scientific knowledge. By the way, what is your scientific background/training? Just curious as to whether it is relevant to the subject at hand. And the fact that he used 650 scientists alone as an alibi was my point. Again, the majority of scientists around the world accept that global temperatures are rising and that it is caused by human activity. What the hell else would be causing it? We are aware of the greenhouse affect and we are aware of the fact that we are the only ones pumping these gases at incredible rates. And both of you have failed to provide substance to your assumptions, besides links. Well, I could show you thousands of articles to the contrary. Which is why I'm waiting for a scientific rebuttal to what I've said rather than using an insignificant number of scientists and links to justify your belief. No, it isn't very disputed at all. Find me one scientific article by an environmental scientist which denies global warming in the last year because I haven't seen any.
Well, there aren't any massive volcanoes which are emitting CO2, so that argument doesn't quite work. What we're doing now (emitting CO2 at increasing rates) has never been done.
it's not that you made a spelling mistake, it's that you lack understanding of scientific terminology. I have degrees in Chemistry and Biochemistry, with an emphasis in computer modelling. As such, I have examined the parameters of the models and I find them lacking. you can make a model do anything you want it to, and the cultists you worship have screwed up their models worse than a freshman's. Their forcing's fucked, and they completely disregard several of the most important variables. your turn, what's your scientific field. and if you say environmental science please keep in mind that I shall laugh my ass off at you--I've seen the curriculum and required classes. real scientists sneer at them, their models, and their slipshod approach to the scientific process. by the way, 650 scientists is not an insignificant number of people, especailly when they risk their funding and careers to do so. If you had any clue as to how the grant funding process worked, you'd realize that.
are you suggesting that all of the warming cycles in the history of earth were because of volcanos, with the exception of this one?
No, I'm saying the only other time in history that the greenhouse affect has changed temperatures drastically was the result of a lot of volcanic activity. By the way, even during the Middle Ages, which people hold up as a hot period on Earth, global temperatures were actually lower than they are today. People mistake global temperature for weather in certain areas. This is the hottest year on record. The cyclical argument is based on false information. Yes, the global temperatures change, but not as they are now, and not as a result of the greenhouse affect.