How can anyone deny man made climate change?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

#152 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph still doesn't go further than 1855, so it's not relevant.

Also, most of the warming did take place during/after the industrial revolution.

No. Both ice core samples go to present day

And I'm not sure who your source is for that graph. The ones I posted were based on ice core samples.

#153 Edited by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph still doesn't go further than 1855, so it's not relevant.

Also, most of the warming did take place during/after the industrial revolution.

No. Both ice core samples go to present day

And I'm not sure who your source is for that graph. The ones I posted were based on ice core samples.

The GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855, a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming

#154 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

Nope. Try again. Source is ice core samples. One is the Vostok core sample. Look it up, Einstein.

#155 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

Nope. Try again. Source is ice core samples. One is the Vostok core sample. Look it up, Einstein.

One is from 155 years back, and if you right click on the vostok graph you used and then click google search you only find it back this site http://www.c3headlines.com/ice-core-data/

#156 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph still doesn't go further than 1855, so it's not relevant.

Also, most of the warming did take place during/after the industrial revolution.

No. Both ice core samples go to present day

And I'm not sure who your source is for that graph. The ones I posted were based on ice core samples.

The GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855, a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming

Hunh? The current warming trend started after the end of the little ice age. Look at the Vostok graph....most of the warming occurred PRIOR to the industrial revolution.

#157 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

Nope. Try again. Source is ice core samples. One is the Vostok core sample. Look it up, Einstein.

One is from 155 years back, and if you right click on the vostok graph you used and then click google search you only find it back this site http://www.c3headlines.com/ice-core-data/

Do a simple google search for Vostok graphs. It's public information and all over the place.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vostok+graphs

#158 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

Nope. Try again. Source is ice core samples. One is the Vostok core sample. Look it up, Einstein.

One is from 155 years back, and if you right click on the vostok graph you used and then click google search you only find it back this site http://www.c3headlines.com/ice-core-data/

Do a simple google search for Vostok graphs. It's public information and all over the place.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vostok+graphs

Since when does Antartica = the world?

#159 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

Nope. Try again. Source is ice core samples. One is the Vostok core sample. Look it up, Einstein.

One is from 155 years back, and if you right click on the vostok graph you used and then click google search you only find it back this site http://www.c3headlines.com/ice-core-data/

Do a simple google search for Vostok graphs. It's public information and all over the place.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vostok+graphs

Since when does Antartica = the world?

Ice core samples from the North Pole are nearly identical.

#160 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

Nope. Try again. Source is ice core samples. One is the Vostok core sample. Look it up, Einstein.

One is from 155 years back, and if you right click on the vostok graph you used and then click google search you only find it back this site http://www.c3headlines.com/ice-core-data/

Do a simple google search for Vostok graphs. It's public information and all over the place.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vostok+graphs

Since when does Antartica = the world?

Ice core samples from the North Pole are nearly identical.

The ones from 155 years back?

#161 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

Another reason I don't believe in man-made global warming is the fact there has been no net warming in 15 years and yet global output of CO2 has risen exponentially.

Source: NOAA Satellites

#162 Edited by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie: No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends; and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.

#163 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends; and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.

These satellite readings are from the atmosphere. Ground based readings aren't nearly as accurate and can be influenced by many factors.

And the 'trend' is that the earth has been warming since the little ice age and prior to that the big ice age.

The simple fact is there has been no net increase in warming in 15 years and yet CO2 output worldwide grew exponentially during that time.

That tells me climate doesn't give a fuck what humans are doing. It does it's own thing. Always has and always will. There were times the world was 100% tropical and we know the earth was a solid ball of ice at least twice. We know for a fact the poles used to have tropical plants when the dinosaurs were around.

#164 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie:

You only look at short term, cherry picked data. You need to look at long term trends. This might help you understand.

#165 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie

:

You only look at short term, cherry picked data. You need to look at long term trends. This might help you understand.

Yea and that warming trend started 250 years ago. Talk about cherry picking.

And if satellite readings went back further I would have used them. The problem is they only started measuring the atmosphere via satellite starting in 1979.

#166 Edited by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie

:

You only look at short term, cherry picked data. You need to look at long term trends. This might help you understand.

Given Earth is over 4 billion years old, your data seems a little cherry picked too don't you think?

#167 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

#168 Edited by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie

:

You only look at short term, cherry picked data. You need to look at long term trends. This might help you understand.

Yea and that warming trend started 250 years ago. Talk about cherry picking.

And if satellite readings went back further I would have used them. The problem is they only started measuring the atmosphere via satellite starting in 1979.

So you accept that it's getting warmer?

#169 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -
@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie

:

You only look at short term, cherry picked data. You need to look at long term trends. This might help you understand.

Yea and that warming trend started 250 years ago. Talk about cherry picking.

And if satellite readings went back further I would have used them. The problem is they only started measuring the atmosphere via satellite starting in 1979.

So you accept that it's getting warmer?

Yea. And it has been since the ice age ended 15,000 years ago. It's called the climate and it does it's own thing.

#170 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@KC_Hokie: A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmosphericgreenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

#171 Posted by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmosphericgreenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

How much of the total variation in the climate do you think scientists can ACTUALLY explain? And to then point to humans as being the biggest cause?

They lose their credibility once they start using these models, which don't actually explain a hell of a lot, to make predictions on what the climate will be doing in 50-100 years time. These become the sensationalist scenarios we see on the news such as 6m increases in sea level which scare people into just trusting that climate change is human driven in the first place. You never see the actual evidence of human caused climate change, just "oh, the pattern of ice melting matches the pattern of CO2 emission..."

#172 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmosphericgreenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

How much of the total variation in the climate do you think scientists can ACTUALLY explain? And to then point to humans as being the biggest cause?

They lose their credibility once they start using these models, which don't actually explain a hell of a lot, to make predictions on what the climate will be doing in 50-100 years time. These become the sensationalist scenarios we see on the news such as 6m increases in sea level which scare people into just trusting that climate change is human driven in the first place. You never see the actual evidence of human caused climate change, just "oh, the pattern of ice melting matches the pattern of CO2 emission..."

Just because you don't understand the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there.

#173 Edited by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmosphericgreenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

How much of the total variation in the climate do you think scientists can ACTUALLY explain? And to then point to humans as being the biggest cause?

They lose their credibility once they start using these models, which don't actually explain a hell of a lot, to make predictions on what the climate will be doing in 50-100 years time. These become the sensationalist scenarios we see on the news such as 6m increases in sea level which scare people into just trusting that climate change is human driven in the first place. You never see the actual evidence of human caused climate change, just "oh, the pattern of ice melting matches the pattern of CO2 emission..."

Just because you don't understand the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there.

That really doesn't address the greater purpose of my point.

You also fail to acknowledge that scientists themselves have never claimed to be 100% sure that climate change is caused by humans, so the 'evidence' can't be all that abundant huh? Yet you believe in it so strongly yourself.

#174 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3675 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

Ice core samples. See my posts above.

Most of the warming since the little ice age occurred prior to the Second Industrial Revolution which started in the 1860s. That was the start of mass production, steel, etc. and the start of large amounts of human created CO2.

There's no graph on the source you gave.

I still need a source.

#175 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3675 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@deeliman said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

If you google search the image he used, you can only find it back in some obscure, poorly designed website, so I'm not really inclined to believe that data is accurate.

Nope. Try again. Source is ice core samples. One is the Vostok core sample. Look it up, Einstein.

I did, they support global warming

#176 Edited by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

KC u 'aving a giggle m8?

Bonus points for his first graph being from an ice core study to see warming trends in the past. The conclusion being that trends now are very different than the past. Wonder what changed?

#177 Posted by deeliman (2192 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmosphericgreenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

How much of the total variation in the climate do you think scientists can ACTUALLY explain? And to then point to humans as being the biggest cause?

They lose their credibility once they start using these models, which don't actually explain a hell of a lot, to make predictions on what the climate will be doing in 50-100 years time. These become the sensationalist scenarios we see on the news such as 6m increases in sea level which scare people into just trusting that climate change is human driven in the first place. You never see the actual evidence of human caused climate change, just "oh, the pattern of ice melting matches the pattern of CO2 emission..."

Just because you don't understand the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there.

That really doesn't address the greater purpose of my point.

You also fail to acknowledge that scientists themselves have never claimed to be 100% sure that climate change is caused by humans, so the 'evidence' can't be all that abundant huh? Yet you believe in it so strongly yourself.

Of course, it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists.

#178 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7686 posts) -

>2011 + 2

>Still arguing w/ KC Hokie

>Still having to do the greentext thing b/c hokie

Its like a drug. So many graphs...SO MANY GRAPHS.

#179 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7686 posts) -

That really doesn't address the greater purpose of my point.

You also fail to acknowledge that scientists themselves have never claimed to be 100% sure that climate change is caused by humans, so the 'evidence' can't be all that abundant huh? Yet you believe in it so strongly yourself.

If you're expecting 100% certainty then you don't understand science. There isn't even a 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow.

#180 Edited by MakeMeaSammitch (3675 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

Ice core samples. See my posts above.

Most of the warming since the little ice age occurred prior to the Second Industrial Revolution which started in the 1860s. That was the start of mass production, steel, etc. and the start of large amounts of human created CO2.

There's no graph on the source you gave.

I still need a source.

Still looking for a source KC

#181 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

Ice core samples. See my posts above.

Most of the warming since the little ice age occurred prior to the Second Industrial Revolution which started in the 1860s. That was the start of mass production, steel, etc. and the start of large amounts of human created CO2.

There's no graph on the source you gave.

I still need a source.

Still looking for a source KC

You might just learn something: https://www.google.com/search?q=vostok+ice+core

#182 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3675 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

Ice core samples. See my posts above.

Most of the warming since the little ice age occurred prior to the Second Industrial Revolution which started in the 1860s. That was the start of mass production, steel, etc. and the start of large amounts of human created CO2.

There's no graph on the source you gave.

I still need a source.

Still looking for a source KC

You might just learn something: https://www.google.com/search?q=vostok+ice+core

I see a whole lot of stuff that supports the accepted model on climate change, but I don't see the graph you linked.

For the 4th time, what's your source? If it's so easy to google it, just give me a link to the site.

#183 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@KC_Hokie said:

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: That graph stops at 1855...

How convinient Hokie, right before the industrial revolution.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty....

Look at the graphs. Most of the warming of the last 300 years actually took place prior to the industrial revolution.

source?

Ice core samples. See my posts above.

Most of the warming since the little ice age occurred prior to the Second Industrial Revolution which started in the 1860s. That was the start of mass production, steel, etc. and the start of large amounts of human created CO2.

There's no graph on the source you gave.

I still need a source.

Still looking for a source KC

You might just learn something: https://www.google.com/search?q=vostok+ice+core

I see a whole lot of stuff that supports the accepted model on climate change, but I don't see the graph you linked.

For the 4th time, what's your source? If it's so easy to google it, just give me a link to the site.

All of the Vostok graphs show the same data from the Vostok core drilling in East Antarctica.

Try actually reading about it. Again, you might learn something.

Original Study: http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/mist030699.html

Look at the source of graphs...."Petit et al. 1999 Nature"

#184 Posted by Aljosa23 (24192 posts) -

LOL I see Hokie's retarded self is back, smh

#185 Posted by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

LOL I see Hokie's retarded self is back, smh

You're only 'retarded' if you believe current temperatures are "unprecedented".

#186 Posted by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@_Cadbury_ said:

That really doesn't address the greater purpose of my point.

You also fail to acknowledge that scientists themselves have never claimed to be 100% sure that climate change is caused by humans, so the 'evidence' can't be all that abundant huh? Yet you believe in it so strongly yourself.

If you're expecting 100% certainty then you don't understand science. There isn't even a 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Did I say I expect that?
Not even all scientists agree that it is human caused. Are they just stupid too?
Yet here you all are acting like it's a fact and not respecting how others can be sceptical.

#187 Posted by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@deeliman said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

@deeliman said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

@deeliman said:

@KC_Hokie: A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmosphericgreenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

How much of the total variation in the climate do you think scientists can ACTUALLY explain? And to then point to humans as being the biggest cause?

They lose their credibility once they start using these models, which don't actually explain a hell of a lot, to make predictions on what the climate will be doing in 50-100 years time. These become the sensationalist scenarios we see on the news such as 6m increases in sea level which scare people into just trusting that climate change is human driven in the first place. You never see the actual evidence of human caused climate change, just "oh, the pattern of ice melting matches the pattern of CO2 emission..."

Just because you don't understand the evidence, doesn't mean it's not there.

That really doesn't address the greater purpose of my point.

You also fail to acknowledge that scientists themselves have never claimed to be 100% sure that climate change is caused by humans, so the 'evidence' can't be all that abundant huh? Yet you believe in it so strongly yourself.

Of course, it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists.

I'm not talking about the possibility of some other natural cycle.
I'm saying the amount of variables and their interactions involved in the determination of the climate and climate cycles would be so hugely complex that I am highly sceptical of the ability of scientists to come out with a model of climate change that is anything beyond weak, let alone such certainty that humans are actually CAUSING climate change.

#188 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7686 posts) -

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

That really doesn't address the greater purpose of my point.

You also fail to acknowledge that scientists themselves have never claimed to be 100% sure that climate change is caused by humans, so the 'evidence' can't be all that abundant huh? Yet you believe in it so strongly yourself.

If you're expecting 100% certainty then you don't understand science. There isn't even a 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Did I say I expect that?

Not even all scientists agree that it is human caused. Are they just stupid too?

Yet here you all are acting like it's a fact and not respecting how others can be sceptical.

Over 97% of Climatologists are in agreement. The notion that there is some big divide in the scientific community is blatantly false. There are very few skeptics with in the community. Reason being is that there is next to NO peer reviewed literature that supports their side.

#189 Edited by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@_Cadbury_ said:

@HoolaHoopMan said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

That really doesn't address the greater purpose of my point.

You also fail to acknowledge that scientists themselves have never claimed to be 100% sure that climate change is caused by humans, so the 'evidence' can't be all that abundant huh? Yet you believe in it so strongly yourself.

If you're expecting 100% certainty then you don't understand science. There isn't even a 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Did I say I expect that?

Not even all scientists agree that it is human caused. Are they just stupid too?

Yet here you all are acting like it's a fact and not respecting how others can be sceptical.

Over 97% of Climatologists are in agreement. The notion that there is some big divide in the scientific community is blatantly false. There are very few skeptics with in the community. Reason being is that there is next to NO peer reviewed literature that supports their side.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Claiming 97% of scientists are in agreement based on that study is plain misleading.

#190 Posted by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -
#191 Edited by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

I read an article about low regret actions to address global warming. Low regret or even no regret because it addresses issues that benefit even if global warming isn't as much of human influenced as thought

#192 Posted by dave123321 (33138 posts) -

But also an article that considered efforts that address climate change issues regardless of the blame

#193 Edited by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@Ace6301 said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Claiming 97% of scientists are in agreement based on that study is plain misleading.

Oh look. A blog. From a guy who works for an institute funded by Koch. I'm shocked.

Yeah cause he obviously made all those quotes up.
Point is, this 97% 'consensus' comes from a study of ARTICLES not individuals, many of which would have been published by the same people, and articles based on articles already taken into account.
It also misclassifies many articles, and provides no degree of belief of human caused climate change - the 97% 'consensus' is made up of articles suggesting humans are the main contributors as well as articles that suggest humans contribute very little.

#194 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7686 posts) -

@_Cadbury_ said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Claiming 97% of scientists are in agreement based on that study is plain misleading.

I'll repeat it again; every single scientific institution on the planet has adopted man made global warming into their curriculum or back it. Why? Because the scientific literature is piling up with the 'skeptic' side sitting in the corner of the room producing nothing to counter it.

Go ahead, compile all the peer reviewed literature you can and take it to your nearest university and see what they say. Chances are you'll be traveling lightly and they'll probably laugh at you in the process before leaving for their morning coffee break.

And its always suspect when you link an article which starts off by calling them global warming alarmists and dreaded 'liberal media'. Can't post any scientific literature so you resort to posting drivel off a blog. What's next, are you going to link me to a blog about how the past 100 years of research regarding evolution has been doctored and fabricated by the 'liberal education system'?

Give me a break.

#195 Posted by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -

@_Cadbury_ said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Claiming 97% of scientists are in agreement based on that study is plain misleading.

I'll repeat it again; every single scientific institution on the planet has adopted man made global warming into their curriculum or back it. Why? Because the scientific literature is piling up with the 'skeptic' side sitting in the corner of the room producing nothing to counter it.

Go ahead, compile all the peer reviewed literature you can and take it to your nearest university and see what they say. Chances are you'll be traveling lightly and they'll probably laugh at you in the process before leaving for their morning coffee break.

And its always suspect when you link an article which starts off by calling them global warming alarmists and dreaded 'liberal media'. Can't post any scientific literature so you resort to posting drivel off a blog. What's next, are you going to link me to a blog about how the past 100 years of research regarding evolution has been doctored and fabricated by the 'liberal education system'?

Give me a break.

I'm just here to suggest why it's not so hard to believe people aren't entirely convinced. Scientists don't even agree on how much is attributable to humans - many think it's very little. And half the people parading around here and laughing at those who dare to doubt wouldn't understand even half the science behind it themselves, yet they try to paint the 'deniers' as uneducated morons.

You clearly haven't thought about the issue of actually 'countering' claims of man made global warming - it's not a question of coming up with proof that it's not man made, but whether there is enough evidence to prove that it is man made. Being a 'skeptic' is questioning whether we have enough evidence, not finding evidence to suggest otherwise.

You call the contents of that blog drivel yet you don't mind throwing around this "97% consensus" crap without actually knowing how it was derived.
So why so offended about people keeping an open mind?

#196 Edited by Ace6301 (21388 posts) -

@_Cadbury_ said:

@Ace6301 said:

@_Cadbury_ said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Claiming 97% of scientists are in agreement based on that study is plain misleading.

Oh look. A blog. From a guy who works for an institute funded by Koch. I'm shocked.

Yeah cause he obviously made all those quotes up.

Point is, this 97% 'consensus' comes from a study of ARTICLES not individuals, many of which would have been published by the same people, and articles based on articles already taken into account.

It also misclassifies many articles, and provides no degree of belief of human caused climate change - the 97% 'consensus' is made up of articles suggesting humans are the main contributors as well as articles that suggest humans contribute very little.

Knowing Taylors past stances, blunders and biases I honestly wouldn't doubt if some key parts in that blog were indeed made up. Not even trying to be a dick, Heartland Institute is a joke.

Also I'd like to point out this being an example of what I said earlier. People claim that the scientists in favour of global warming being caused by man are being paid off by governments and special interest groups. As it stands right now this is a conspiracy theory: It isn't proven. Here's the thing, it's been proven that quite a few corporate groups that would benefit from a lack of regulation support the heartland institute financially. What do governments have to gain with this anyway? Big Oil is the big loser here and yet what do you know governments shit money on them.

#197 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

If you read carefully, you'll see the guy (John Cook) who compiled that 97% figure used the standard "have humans created some global warming".

Even most skeptics, including myself, say humans cause some effect. Every living thing has some impact on the earth; even an ant.

But that isn't the debate. The debate is whether humans are driving or controlling the climate not if humans had some effect.

97% Study Falsifies Scientists' papers

#198 Edited by BeardMaster (1580 posts) -

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

#199 Edited by KC_Hokie (16099 posts) -

@BeardMaster said:

The reason people doubt global warming, is because it hurts businesses and businesses have a major self interest in tricking people to think its fake.

Some people are easily duped, thats your answer.

The scientific community doesnt have any real financial or self interest in global warming being real. The business community has a huge stake in proving it false. Its basically the same as when companies were trying to prove smoking isnt dangerous.

I don't get paid by anyone to point out over the last 500,000 years the earth has been warmer several times. There is nothing unusual about current temperatures in the history of the earth.

I would argue you're easily duped if you think climate did it's own thing for millions of years, but something magical happened in the last 100-200 years which shifts mother nature and climate to human activity.