Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You know what neat about that 3.6% figure, this

"As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels."

An increase of about 3% of natural carbon emissions is enough to surpass the level absorbed by carbon sinks

Phanatik wrote:Howard A Treesong - This sort of ignorance disappoints me. No point in arguing with it. It's like people who say "well it's been 1 degree warmer over the last one hundred years so of course there is global warming and of course it's man's fault".

Give me strength.

If it has gotten, over the last 100 years, 1 degree warmer across the globe one might say the globe has gotten warmer. This phenomenon might then be called "global warming".

Howard A Treesong wrote: I wonder why that's forgotten when trying to describe "mans contribution to global warming".

Because its the Heritage Foundation, and everyone who works there is incompetent or dishonest.

Phanatik wrote:Sebster - you refuted me so thoroughly, I think I will let my hair grow long, wear tie-dyed shirts, stop bathing, join ELF to destroy SUVs the world over, and rally with my well-informed brothers and sisters on Wall Street. Thank you.

That's not necessary. All we're asking is for you to adopt a reasoned approach to issues of public policy based on scientific research, in which you acknowledge the findings of people working within that field. What shirt you choose to wear while doing this is entirely up to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:I haven't been affected by any changes and so haven't/can't notice them but i'm willing to believe the 97% (Is that the right stat?) of experts who say it is happening.

A number of approaches have found very similar figures, at about 97%. Here's one of the latest;

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:97% of UFO researchers believe that Earth has been visited by UFOs.

Consensus is not science.

True, science has factual grounds, under which a person can maintain objective accuracy despite going against the scientific consensus. However, if we make the entirely reasonable assumption that within a scientific field there is genuine discussion of the issue and a desire for scientific accuracy, then it becomes logical to conclude that the overwhelmingly represented side is incredibly likely to have the stronger case.

It should be noted that there have been countless efforts to cast doubt on the assumption that with the field of climate science there not a genuine search for the truth (culiminating in the hacked emails Climategate effort) and in each instance the scientific community has been shown to be acting in an honest, direct manner.

Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political.

Yes, because while the scientific issue has been more or less settled for about fifteen years, vested interests have done a very good job of convincing the population at large that there is still some level of debate about the issue at a scientific level. This has been enough to cause significant disruption to any unified political solution to the issue.

The last global warming period (mideival warm period) we had was pretty darn good for humanity and life in general.

Again, it is not the presense of more or less heat that is the issue, but the rate of change, and the impact of that change on our infrastructure that represents a massive future cost, far greater than the cost of limiting emissions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Of all religious perspectives, atheism is actually the least defensible.

If one professes to know better than all others, then in terms of religion that greater source of knowledge can be claimed to come from revelation or even faith, and so is (somewhat) more defensible than a purely rational, material statement.

However, if one merely professes a personal statement of belief and doesn't place their belief higher than anyone else's, then atheism, is just as defensible as any system. That is, it is defensible as long as it helps the individual make sense of the world around him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:You do realize it's green houses gases like CO2 that are the cause of man-made Global Warming and it has nothing to do with the burning of hydrogen.

You DO realize that I was comparing the awesome activities of the sun to the barely noticeable backyard grilling and cow flatulence co2 abusers?

Also, to reiterate, you DO realize that water vapor makes up 97-98% of all greenhouse gases? So, go blame the rain!

Have a nice day.

You already made this claim. I pointed out that it was utterly wrong on the first page of this thread, and that it was utterly wrong given information contained in the article posted by the OP. Here is the response I gave to you;

"Which would be relevant if all particals trapped heat in the same fashion. Of course, that's something we've known isn't true for more than a hundred years, when we first studied the properties of carbon dioxide. It certainly isn't hard to come across knowledge, it was even given in the article posted by the OP.

At this point, pride should kick in, and tell you to stop listening to whoever told you that nonsense, and made you look silly repeating it here.

Oh, and for the record, as per the OP's article that you didn't bother to read, carbon dioxide has increased from 280ppm to 369ppm from the start of the industrial age until now, making human's responsible for just under 32% of the total carbon dioxide in the air. So that's another piece of nonsense that's made you look silly. Not that the total proportion is a relevant figure anyway, what matters is that impact of that proportion on temperature."

Your response was to complain that I called you silly, and to completely ignore that I pointed out you claim of science was laughably simplistic. Please read my response this time, learn something and leave this thread knowing at least something about this issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Because its the Heritage Foundation, and everyone who works there is incompetent or dishonest.

Generally both.

sebster wrote:
Generally both.

I sometimes amuse myself by comparing...



...to...

I don't know who either of them are.

Frankly, I'm too worried to research it. I'm wondering how much my own flatulence is impacting the atmosphere. How many bees must die before I stop eating these tasty burritos?

Chowderhead wrote:I love your article from 2009 stating 2008 facts, in a conversation about 2011.

Uhh, you do realize we are talking about atmospheric conditions over thousands of years? Are you suggesting things have gotten catastrophic over the last 3 years?

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:Although I'm not convinced of the validity of anthropomorphic global warming, the real debate isn't scientific it's political.

Yes, because while the scientific issue has been more or less settled for about fifteen years, vested interests have done a very good job of convincing the population at large that there is still some level of debate about the issue at a scientific level. This has been enough to cause significant disruption to any unified political solution to the issue.

Well, I'm sure we could agree that vested interests have done a very good job of convincing the population at large of the truth of their assertions by means of scare tactics and dishonesty. This is an example (again) of experts in a scientific field trying to dominate a political debate. This issue is in the public consciousness not because of the scientific and environmental issues, but because of the political ones.

On the science of the issue, as one (prominant) dissenter said: "it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" To assert that the science of global warming is beyond dispute is cutting down scientific inquiry.

Phanatik wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:I love your article from 2009 stating 2008 facts, in a conversation about 2011.

Uhh, you do realize we are talking about atmospheric conditions over thousands of years? Are you suggesting things have gotten catastrophic over the last 3 years?

He's saying our knowledge of the subject may have improved over these years, and to get a current article.

Karon wrote:He's saying our knowledge of the subject may have improved over these years, and to get a current article.

You are correct. In the last 3 years we've come to know that man-made global warming "scientists" have engaged in fraudulent unscientific practices regarding the "data" collected. East Anglia, anyone? And I do believe that the IPCC used fraudulent data to make its reports. And then there are the scientists that go along with it for grant purposes. Or simply peer pressure.

But, of course we can trust anti-American organizations like the IPCC/UN to make decisions affecting our lives. Of course we can trust reporting organizations like the huffypuffypost, or CNN, or mediamatters to exhibit only the highest journalistic standards vis a vis this issue. Of course we can trust the hundreds of front organizations funded by George I-turned-my-own-people-in-to-the-nazis Soros to maintain objectivity in this, or any matter.

I think not. I think I will remain "silly" and continue to disbelieve.

Phanatik wrote:"scientists"

"data"

anti-American

huffypuffypost

George I-turned-my-own-people-in-to-the-nazis Soros

Welcome to the ignore list, you earned it.

Golly gee, now I'm really sad.

Phanatik wrote:]But, of course we can trust anti-American organizations like the IPCC/UN to make decisions affecting our lives.

Yeah, I'm going to call absolute bs. I need a source, or I will be putting you on ignore, like I should have a while ago.

"... that is so unfair! And we were going to make you King of the Winter Carnival."

Phanatik, I would like a source, besides your own ramblings.

Chowderhead wrote:Phanatik, I would like a source, besides your own ramblings.

Just out of curiosity, what are you looking to be sourced? That the UN and IPCC are anti-American? I'm sure you could source it, but it's really more a statement of opinion than fact.

As for whether they're trying to control American interests and policy...that's part of the reason why the UN was created, to serve as a medium to control international foreign policy by encouraging discussion among nations. The fact that outside interests can vote on issues that affect the United States pretty much satisfies the "control" element.

Chowderhead wrote:Phanatik, I would like a source, besides your own ramblings.

All things considered, I think I'd just prefer it if you put me on ignore.

I mean, I don't like your tone. Who are you to order me to provide you with anything?

And if I don't wind up on at least 4 or 5 ignore lists, then I won't feel like I've done my part to stem the tide of the narrow-minded, herd-instinct Warmers.

Regards, though.
-Phanatik

Phanatik wrote:
But, of course we can trust anti-American organizations like the IPCC/UN to make decisions affecting our lives. Of course we can trust reporting organizations like the huffypuffypost, or CNN, or mediamatters ....

Pick a target(s).

Phanatik wrote:
....to exhibit only the highest journalistic standards vis a vis this issue.

Freeze it.

Phanatik wrote:
Of course we can trust the hundreds of front organizations funded by George I-turned-my-own-people-in-to-the-nazis Soros to maintain objectivity in this, or any matter.

Personalize it.

Phanatik wrote:
I think not. I think I will remain "silly" and continue to disbelieve.

Polarize it.

And, while you're at it, butcher the concept of critical thinking.

dogma wrote:And, while you're at it, butcher the concept of critical thinking.

This is the real issue with American politics.

Well, I think we've covered as much ground as we're going to.