Global Warming? are humans to blame?

pretty clear the deniers group has no idea what the difference is, which might be why they're deniers in the first place, just don't understand what the issues are.

while some of you are still chewing on that, riddle me another, how is it science can determine that all the excess CO2 ( anything over 280ppm ) is due to the burning of fossil fuels ? This one should be easy cause there's about 5 different ways it can be measured or otherwise determined.

 

1- very tall ruler
2- string
3- by sneakers of dude with biggest feet standin in circle with us trying to figure out who has biggest oar...
4- by holding hands this <------------------> far apart.
5- use yellow pages,,call a professional measurererer dude...

 

LMAO but I'm going to have to count that as a "no"
I did particularly like the "by holding there hands <----------------------------> this far apart" part tho ;-)

 

Whoa please,-- no no not determined,--- calculated and guestimated.

If it was determined we would not be discussing it any more.

 

97+% agreement is pretty well determined

actually "measured" would be most accurate, but "determined" most accurately expresses the confidence level.

 

What about all the stuff that makes heat that have not been counted, and what about all the things that contribute that have not been included, and what about all the people that disagree and have been ignored, and what about all the information kept hidden or distorted that you dont even know about.

If you did or some way could find the definitive answer and people started listening to you,-- you would no doubt be visited by men in black

 

i say ,,lol,,, even if we not BIGGEST contributer, or even sure we're causing any of it,,by chance if we are, or if we are a little,, wouldnt us cuttin bak our little say what 10% of it,, make it so our children may have a few more years of life? maybe cuttin bak will give us 3 more years with the wifey,kids,, .
i would stand on head and sind row row row your boat if there was a chance that would give my kids time to see a little more of life.........................................

 

Family will be better off with cheap fossil fuels. Global warming is an alarmist swindle designed to crash capitalism world-wide.

 

isnt there an easier way to crash it other then this slow process of tryin to lie bout co2?,, think they could come up with something better,,like taxes,,permits,,war,,

 

Thats it Hoyt, you got us, we've been at it since the dawn of science, tens of thousands of people over thousands of years been fabricating the characteristics of make believe molecules like CO2 and CH4 . Its all a big lie going back over 2000 years and encompassing vast areas of science. All specifically designed so that in the early part of the 21st century, politicians would have an excuse to lay another tax on us . As if they needed an excuse to screw anyone. Right, phew!!!!, glad thats out, now maybe I can go forward and lead an honest life .



Frosty, altering the atmospheric chemistry aside, what is it you think changed to cause such massively fast warming ? There's simply no other mechanism large enough to even remotely cover it other than CO2 and now CH4 ( fast on the rise ). Basically you just listed the classic faux doubts the agnotology campaign wants you to list. The deceit and twisting of information exists, but not within the science. Its demostrably on the part of oil and gas and there misinformation campaign. Why do you think there is no competing theory, let alone even a competing hypothesis. Why is it so easy to poke holes in the denialist argument. That's where the lack of honesty and knowledge lies, science has been cleared of any wrongdoing every time the deniers make another false accusation. The science is extremely clear about the whole climate shift issue. Remember, no other discipline enjoys even close to the 97% consensus that climate science does. Things like the theory of gravity, evolution, little theories that you never really hear questioned at all are significantly less well accepted than climate science.

Thing is the sciences are all tied together, Climate science is part basic physics, the physical characteristics of the greenhouse gasses, its part paleo studies, some of which are very robust science and some slightly less so. Part mathematics, part computer sciences, it pretty much utilizes the entire spectrum of science and is therefor very reliable in its accuracy. It all has to work together and it does, its all been reviewed, checked, checked again and then measured against everything else we've dreamed up over the last few thousand years. So as you can see its virtually impossible to up and say that an entire branch of science is somehow flawed without chucking the baby out with the bath water. There's really no difference between the science that goes into how you motorcycle engine works ( and it does work doesn't it ? or are you still fighting with that gas tank ? ) and how climate is effected by its byproducts ( which is obvious in the warming trend that goes hand in hand with CO2 and now CH4 increases )

Cheers
B

in its simplest terms
you can't burn 90 million barrels of fossil fuels a day and not expect it to screw up the atmospheric chemistry

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

"This is an example of an algorithmic statement of the hypothetico-deductive method:[6]

Gather data (observations about something that is unknown, unexplained, or new)
Hypothesize an explanation for those observations.
Deduce a consequence of that explanation (a prediction). Formulate an experiment to see if the predicted consequence is observed.
Wait for corroboration. If there is corroboration, go to step 3. If not, the hypothesis is falsified. Go to step 2."

Please show me the step in the method that says you can fudge the data.

 

I've never seen any fudging of data coming from the scientific community, and I chat with some of them fairly often; only fudging of data I've seen is on the part of the deniers cherry picking data sets they think contradict the overall theory, rather than averaging all the data together. Seems like there's only one of two real issues with any of the "find the flaw" games we've played. Either the information was blatantly false from the deniers camp, or it was cherry picked to show one particular anomaly within a pattern of anomalies that together show something supporting climate change.

 

Oh, yeah?

http://conservapedia.com/Climategate

 

Already debunked for a long time. Try again.

 

falls into the

catagory.

It would be funny except its our future that depends on it, all the ridiculous claims by the deniers camp. I guess one of faves is the "co2 isn't a greenhouse gas" or "its only 0.000000000000000000001% of the atmosphere"

just to funny except that some people actually believe that crap.

Oh well, reality isn't always the easiest of things to face sometimes.

cheers
B