Opinion- Think globally, not nationally, for emissions targets:

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20092711-20311.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencealert-latestnews+%28ScienceAlert-Latest+Stories%29

11/26/2009 10:15:06 PM

Quote :

"A few out-of-context and facetious remarks is evidence of nothing, except to paranoid cranks like you. It is about what I expect from passionate and frustrated scientists who know the issue is proven, but have been unable to garner the political support needed to take action."

Care to prove that they are out of context, or even facetious? I'm sorry, but I can't really see any "context" which would make trying to cover up a decline in temperatures in the 60s acceptable.

But, you are right, they are frustrated, but not because they know the issue is "proven." If it were proven, then there would be no need to play games with numbers and make fake hockey-stick generators and destroy data. No, they are frustrated because they see it crumbling around them. They see their lies being exposed

11/27/2009 12:31:22 AM

Lol

11/27/2009 12:33:49 AM

nice response I guess you just enjoy blind ignorance. Or do you really think that suppression of evidence is part of the scientific method

11/27/2009 12:50:39 AM

The emails are out there, along with the scientists' explanation for them. You choose not to believe them and think it's all evident of some kind of hoax. I'm not going to sit here and argue against your paranoid, warped interpretation of what was said. It can't be done.

11/27/2009 1:53:13 AM

Quote :

" A few out-of-context and facetious remarks is evidence of nothing"

This may be too broad of a statement. If there was evidence that the people they were talking about have actually been marginalized, then there might be some fire with this smoke, but there is no such evidence.

These supposedly suppressed scientists are still having their research published in reputable journals, and are still getting funding, jobs, and promotions apparently. Considering this, and just the casual way the emails are written, the most probable interpretation without more evidence is that the remarks are facetious.

another fun tidbit:

Quote :

"One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
ha!


[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 3:24 AM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 3:12:39 AM

These climate scientists are circling the wagons like a group of cops after one gets videotaped beating a little black kid.

Congrats moron, you've become very adept at talking out of your ass.

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 3:38 PM. Reason : 2]

11/27/2009 3:38:06 PM

it's still funny how you won't comment on the "hide the decline" email, though.

Quote :

"You choose not to believe them and think it's all evident of some kind of hoax."

you do realize that there is more evidence than just a couple of emails, right?

oh, and I'm paranoid because I can see evidence that is obvious, such as how the models predicting doom-and-gloom are CONSISTENTLY WRONG. riiiiiight

Quote :

"One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief."

I wonder how it was "flawed." I'll bet it just didn't support the fear-mongerer's claims, so it must have been awful. It's funny how studies that are proven to be fraudulent, such as Mann's hockey sticks, didn't receive this kind of treatment, though. I wonder why...

11/27/2009 3:38:36 PM

who, me?

Can you post the one you’re talking about? Because you mis-quoted the other email you referenced, i can’t be sure you’re not mis-quoting that email.

11/27/2009 3:40:53 PM

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22hide+the+decline%22

was that so fucking hard, dude?
btw, you'll note that I posted that on the last page, too. I see that denial works well for you

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 3:43:13 PM

none of those links on the first page have the email… that was a nice try though.

this is what you are up in arms about?

Quote :

"From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx NR4 7TJ UK"

Because it’s not clear at all what they’re talking about. You don’t know what format the data is in for those series, or what processing has already been done.

To me, it read like described here:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars

Quote :

"And my experience from biology is that if I heard a coworker mention they had a trick to get better data from mouse embryos, I'd assume they were talking about a microscopy technique, not scientific fraud."

So far, this is the most apt statement on these emails:

Quote :

"But the questions don't end simply with whether the e-mails are legit, as the larger meaning of their contents isn't necessarily obvious. So far, they've acted a bit like a Rorschach test, revealing more about the person reading them than they do about the text's author, with reactions ranging from a collective yawn to hyperbolic claims that they reveal all of climate science as a complete fraud."

The deniers play their usual game of jumping to rash conclusions based on their own emotional biases, while the more reasonable people recognize that you can’t take personal emails of people you don’t know out of context, and try to draw conclusions.

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 3:54 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 3:46:43 PM

no, but it's enough information to help you find it. jesus, you are being obtuse.

But, hey, looking at your link, here's some goodies:

Quote :

"When it comes to his handling of Freedom of Information requests, Professor Jones might struggle even to use a technical defence. If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit."

care to defend that? of course not.

But, even in that article, it doesn't say that the specific paper which they were talking about was the one that was "badly flawed." Nice attempt to deny reality, dude

Interesting. it looks like Mann might have been attempting to "re-define what peer-reviewed literature" is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 3:52:07 PM

lol

“if you take the wording literally” is a pretty crucial qualifier. Only idiots take casual language literally. If it were a journal article, where people are much less likely to use figures of speech, taking wording literally would be more valid.

And it says very clearly (literally even) that the one of the papers they were talking about was the one that was badly flawed.

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 3:55:57 PM

but, it fails to even say which paper that was. convenient, don't you think?

Did you even READ what the email said? it said "please delete the emails I've sent you." How the FUCK else would you take that? "Uhhh, please go jack off while you are thinking of me"? Is that how you would take it to mean? Jesus, you are dense

Hmmm, seems New Zealand has some liars, too...

Quote :

"What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made. About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend. See below, enlarged here. "

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf
How do you go from this:

to this?:


The answer is simple: lying.

Wow, it gets even better. Check out some of these tidbits FROM THE COMPUTER CODE:

Quote :

"Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!” "

That all sounds very scientific... "Apply artificial correction for decline"? Really?

11/27/2009 4:05:09 PM

Quote :

"but, it fails to even say which paper that was. convenient, don't you think? "

Because that information is easy to figure out, and not the point of the article.

Quote :

"The answer is simple: lying. "

Is this the most rational conclusion, or are you just exaggerating?

11/27/2009 4:12:22 PM

well, what would be YOUR explanation for taking raw data that shows NO TREND and applying adjustments that now create an obvious trend?

Quote :

"Because that information is easy to figure out, and not the point of the article."

Ok, then. Find me the critique of why the paper was so "badly flawed."

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 4:13:55 PM

You need me to explain to you why RAW data might need correcting? really?

11/27/2009 4:22:56 PM

hahaha. so, you don't find it even remotely brow-raising that raw data with no trend was suddenly turned in to a clear and startling trend? really? that's what you want to say? or, you just want to hide behind "well, raw data needs to be adjusted, duh..." Well, yeah, sometimes you know that some data is suspect. But to adjust it so much that you have such a drastic change? Come on...

interestingly enough, I'm finding more information about that evil journal Climate Research. It's interesting how Mann and his cronies are talking about how they blackballed the journal. Maybe the editor resigned specifically due to this black-balling, and not because of any horribly flawed paper?

Quote :

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that - take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board. What do others think?” I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” “It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

Wow. That's just DAMNING. and there is no way to spin it. it's OBVIOUS why the editor resigned. Your prior defense is, at this point, so weak as to be non-existent. I can't wait to see how you will defend this, though.

"He let a few papers by in the past..." Really? That sounds reasonable...

By the way, are you EVER going to discuss the "hide the decline" email? You've clearly found it. Now tell me why scientists would be interested in "hiding" anything.

Wow, MORE evidence of black-balling editors of journals:

Quote :

"In 2005, Michael Mann said that there was a “fundamental problem w/r GRL now,” referring to the journal Geophysical Research Letters published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), because “they have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so? and “it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible.” Tom Wigley responded that “we could go through official AGU channels to get him [the editor of GRL] ousted” (1106322460). A few months later, the editor of GRL having left his post, Mann comments, “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/r new editorial leadership there” (1132094873). "

Hmmm, "deeply flawed." Interesting wording, don't you think? Sound familiar? But, I'm sure you'll just say that papers were actually flawed, right? I see a pattern developing: a journal posts a paper that Mann doesn't like, Mann calls it "flawed" (nevermind how flawed the paper he wrote that made him famous is... what's that? The NY phonebook is evidence of global warming?), and then pressures the editor.

Oh, look, he does it again!

Quote :

"I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS” (1237496573)."

Wow, even looks like Jones asked people to delete information, as I stated earlier. Hmm, I wonder why...

Quote :

"From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil "

Hmm, what about some context, though...

Quote :

"The context in the subject header is clearly the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI), while AR4 refers to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is most important to know here is that, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance in the UK, “at least one FOI request on exactly this correspondence had apparently been submitted by a David Holland on May 5th 2008.”"

By the way, this is the email that you said the key words were "if you take the wording literally." Tell me, smart guy, what interpretation would you make of these words, hmmm?

Oh, look at this... Phil Jones will DELETE DATA instead of submitting it to a FoI request. How truly scientific of him!

Quote :

"Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. (1107454306) "

Please, defend even one of these, though

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 4:46:10 PM

Quote :

"so, you don't find it even remotely brow-raising that raw data with no trend was suddenly turned in to a clear and startling trend?"

You’re assuming I trust your source (which I don’t) and any brow-raising is limited to just that… I don’t instantly presume some massive conspiracy, especially when most of the other evidence i’ve seen corroborates a warming trend. Not to mention it’s been said several times in this thread, and maybe even a couple times by you, that no one disputes warming, only the cause of the warming. So now you’re disputing warming?

You seem more concerned with just being contrary, than being right.

And i’ve already discussed the “hide the decline” thing in this post: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=549171&page=30#13482391

And you have a problem with someone complaining that poorly vetted papers are being published, and the journal actually doing something about it? Would you rather them let poor research through?

11/27/2009 4:57:57 PM

All this hacked data is a goldmine. Unfortunately many people will still bury their heads in the sand. Its pretty hilarious. I for one still think there isn't enough data to show whether or not there is a significant warming trend or if humans are contributing to it. Same stance as I've always had.

11/27/2009 5:13:07 PM

Quote :

"You’re assuming I trust your source (which I don’t) and any brow-raising is limited to just that"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. why don't you trust the source, dude? Because it doesn't agree with what you think? You are a fucking tool, dude.

Quote :

"And you have a problem with someone complaining that poorly vetted papers are being published, and the journal actually doing something about it? Would you rather them let poor research through?"

Give me a break, dude. This isn't about "poorly vetted papers." If he REALLY cared about that, then WHAT ABOUT HIS OWN PAPER? No, Mann has made it CLEAR what his issue is. He doesn't like ANYONE saying stuff contrary to his beliefs.

Quote :

"And i’ve already discussed the “hide the decline” thing in this post: "

BULLSHIT. All you said was "you don't know what format the data was in." That means jack shit. And you know it.

Take your head out of the sand, man.

Quote :

"Not to mention it’s been said several times in this thread, and maybe even a couple times by you, that no one disputes warming, only the cause of the warming."

I'm not entirely convinced at this point that there has even been warming. We see fucked up land sensors, complete dismissal of satellite sensors, and now evidence of manipulation of data. There is NO credible evidence at this point to even support that there is warming

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 6:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/27/2009 6:02:41 PM

You have presumed their guilt based on suspicion alone. This is why I didn't waste any more time. It's like reasoning with an angry woman.

11/27/2009 7:33:39 PM

bullshit. I presumed guilt because of their words and actions. You have a man who said he wanted to change the definition of peer-reviewed literature, and then he went out and pressured any publication that dared publish research contrary to his beliefs. You have emails detailing how they intended to stonewall FoI requests, and then we see they stonewalled FoI requests. You have emails stating they intended to delete data and emails, and then we see that data and emails were deleted. What the fuck more do you need?

11/27/2009 7:53:20 PM

[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 7:59 PM. Reason : (crap, taking a while to load. Watch it if you've got the patience)]

11/27/2009 7:57:42 PM

I haven't watched that video, but does it have anything to do w/ global warming? It says it's about religion. Which, I guess, technically is related to global warming, since AGW is more or less a religion these days. At least its proponents sure as fuck act like it is

11/27/2009 8:42:49 PM

Yeah, it is pretty much a discussion of global warming as a religion, which it has become to some people. I'm not saying that global warming is or isn't real, but there is little tolerance for dissent, and that is a bit unnerving.

11/27/2009 8:51:38 PM

Quote :

"I presumed guilt because of their words and actions."

But how do you get from all that to concluding it's all part of a conspiracy to distort science for petty personal reasons? You make a huge leap based on your mistrust for these scientists.

Have you considered an alternative from your conspiracy theory for why they did what they did? Have you considered their words and actions might be a response to the militant deniers corrupting the research process by infiltrating scientific journals and needlessly bombarding scientists with FoI requests?

The people you worship as heros of the truth have been throwing everything they have to erode the global warming consensus and hinder any progress, and they are heavily backed by corporate and political interests. As we see, they will even resort to hacking into computers. The scientists allude to these efforts in many of their emails, and their problems with them are far more complex than simple disagreements.

You won't admit it, but you have fallen prey to their influence many times with the bullshit studies you post that come from places like the Heartland Institute.



[Edited on November 27, 2009 at 9:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/27/2009 9:28:43 PM

Quote :

"But how do you get from all that to concluding it's all part of a conspiracy to distort science for petty personal reasons? You make a huge leap based on your mistrust for these scientists."

And you would be putting words into my mouth with that statement.

Quote :

"Have you considered an alternative from your conspiracy theory for why they did what they did? Have you considered their words and actions might be a response to the militant deniers corrupting the research process by infiltrating scientific journals and needlessly bombarding scientists with FoI requests?"

hahaha. Militant deniers? Where do you get off even making that claim. It's a HELL of a leap to that, don't you think? And you accuse ME of making huge leaps. Where is there any evidence that ANYONE is "bombarding scientists with FoI requests?" If simply asking to see the data is "bombarding scientists," then I'd say you need to re-evaluate what, exactly, you think science is. For that matter, it shouldn't even take an FoI request to get data from a reputable scientist.

Quote :

"The scientists allude to these efforts in many of their emails, and their problems with them are far more complex than simple disagreements."

Bullshit. The "scientists" aren't alluding to any real problems. They are bitching about people who don't agree with them. Has there been ANY evidence that McIntyre, one of the biggest targets of their hatred, has done anything but valid research? No, of course not. And why do you think Mann hates McIntyre? Simple, because McIntyre proved that you could run THE NEW YORK PHONEBOOK through Mann's computer program and generate a hockey-stick. In short, McI proved that Mann was a fraud. Mann has no nice words for McI, and it's obvious in his emails.

Quote :

"You won't admit it, but you have fallen prey to their influence many times with the bullshit studies you post that come from places like the Heartland Institute."

You bitch a LOT about the Heartland Institute, yet you have NEVER shown that the studies are, in fact, "bullshit." You merely attack the messenger instead of the argument. it's a classic logical fallacy. How about you show how the studies are wrong, instead of just bitching about the Heartland Institute. it's quite telling, dude

11/27/2009 10:16:07 PM

Quote :

"there is little tolerance for dissent, and that is a bit unnerving"

exactly

and L O L at AGW proponents criticizing others for presuming

11/27/2009 11:30:32 PM

Quote :

"All this hacked data is a goldmine. Unfortunately many people will still bury their heads in the sand. Its pretty hilarious. I for one still think there isn't enough data to show whether or not there is a significant warming trend or if humans are contributing to it. Same stance as I've always had."

Human impact on the environment is definitely negligible.

11/27/2009 11:46:10 PM

Impacts like oil spills obviously have direct effects on the environment that are more than negligible.

I for one am not sold one way or the other on humans' impacts on climate change, and whether or not they are negligible.

The Earth has been here for 5 billion years. Maybe a slight bit of egomania leads humans to believe they are having such a drastic impact, on such a dynamic system as the Earth. Maybe they aren't. I still don't know.

11/27/2009 11:48:59 PM

Quote :

"Impacts like oil spills obviously have direct effects on the environment that are more than negligible. I for one am not sold one way or the other on humans' impacts on climate change, and whether or not they are negligible."

Sweet contradiction, bro.

11/27/2009 11:57:41 PM

local environment != global climate trends


sweet critical thinking skills, bro.

11/28/2009 12:00:04 AM

CLIMATE bro, CLIMATE

ps: ftr, i hope none of us <, ^, ^^ are ever tased bros


[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 12:06 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 12:05:50 AM

Man either has an affect on the environment or he does not. This is a simple argument that doesn't require the extensive "critical thinking ability" . If you believe that man has a profound affect on his environment, then climate change and the circus associated with it is merely an argument of time lines and the accuracy of predictions. If you don't believe that man affects his environment then there is no argument and of all this is a waste of time.

Some of you, however, are trying to walk a line in between "yes, man affects the environment" and "no, man does not affect the environment" and that's where the reasoning acrobatics like the blurb I posted come into play.

11/28/2009 12:15:28 AM

Obviously man has an effect on the environment. Thats a no-brainer.

The more critical thought is do man's CO2 emissions have a negligible effect on the global climate. Don't try to pigeonhole what I'm saying by making the climate and the environment interchangeable.

11/28/2009 12:18:34 AM

On what factual basis are you classifying climate as separate and independent of the global environment?

11/28/2009 12:21:15 AM

It's not separate, the climate is a part of the environment, but nobody is saying humans don't have any impact on the environment as a whole. Climate change looks strictly at the climate, and ensuing effects.

Global warming or climate change or whatever you want to refer to it as, predominantly refers to global temperature averages increasing. This thread isn't about birds and fish dying from an Exxon tanker spilling oil, its not about deforestation of the rainforests (although deforestation by definition adversly effects a carbon sink). Its about anthropogenic emissions and their effect on the climate, which in turn could affect sea levels, global temperatures, etc.

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 12:23:37 AM

Really, so you're saying that petrol accidents, chemical dumping, overpopulation drying out entire continental regions, and the food required for those population centers destroying forest ecosystem has absolutely no affect on climate in the slightest? That in fact, the only real affect on climate worth arguing within the confines of this thread is, erm, exhaust?

11/28/2009 12:26:02 AM

Deforestation has an effect on climate, yes. The other issues, no, not that I'm aware of. I'm quite openminded though and if you'd like to provide something that showed any relation of oil spills and chemical dumping to climate, I'd read it. But it seems to me like you're arguing semantics of environment vs. climate, but maybe I'm wrong.

ps:
effect = noun
affect = verb

and speaking of chemical dumping, I'm sure that could have a small localized effect on flora, which again by definition would decrease photosynthesis and therefore increase CO2, but seeing that oceanic phytoplankton accounts for about 40% of the globe's photosynthesis, i fail to see how some localized plant deaths are going to significantly affect global climate

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM. Reason : last paragraph]

11/28/2009 12:29:45 AM

There's that strange reasoning acrobatics again where you're kind of afraid to out right say

*monocule*

Why no, man shaping the environment to his needs has no effect on climate.

11/28/2009 12:37:34 AM

Again, nobody is saying that man doesn't affect the environment, in many instances adversely.

But it still seems like you are a little confused on the topic at hand. All of the research and data that favors humans influencing increasing global temperatures over the last century or so, refers to factory emissions, automobile emissions, cow farts, etc contributing to a rise in CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) affecting the average global temperature. Like I said, if you can find an article or link that relates oil spills or chemical dumping to climate change, I'd be happy to read it. But it still seems like you're focusing on the environment as a whole as opposed to the climate. You seem to be basing your arguments on the false premise that people are saying that humans don't have an impact on the environment. Which they do. Nobody is saying that. People are questioning the anthropogenic impact on climate. Thats what global warming refers to.

ps: there have been blind cave fish for thousands of years...what does a one eyed crustacean have to do with climate change?

11/28/2009 12:44:54 AM

If humans have an effect on their environment, then how do they not have an effect on their climate?

11/28/2009 1:03:19 AM

The question is how much of an effect and whether that effect is negligible. Like I've said, feel free to post some links relating chemical dumping or oil spills to climate change and I'll be more than happy to read them. I'm not even asking for journal articles, just some news stories that have some relation to climate change based on what you're saying. Until then, you seem like you're arguing semantics. Because all of the data supporting AGW is based on greenhouse gas emissions.

Although to be fair, I am truly agnostic to the concept and don't discredit the possibility that oil spills or chemical dumping could affect climate change. I just haven't seen any articles to even support that notion.

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:11 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 1:06:08 AM

I'm not arguing the meaning of the words we're using here, I'm asking you a direct question:

If humans have an effect on their environment, then how do they not have an effect on their climate?

11/28/2009 1:09:55 AM

Did TreeTwista not understand what "arguing semantics" means?

Irony black hole.

11/28/2009 1:10:43 AM

^^

Quote :

"The question is how much of an effect and whether that effect is negligible."

^address something relevant, like my posts specifically, or dont even bother posting...hell, post a link about something other than greenhouse gas emissions affecting global climate and that will suffice

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:13 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 1:12:05 AM

That's not an answer.

You're better off replying "I don't know."

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:14 AM. Reason : >.<]

11/28/2009 1:13:56 AM

how the is it not an answer? are you just trolling me? its the same thing as saying i don't know...do you think i'm some adamant AGW opponent? no, because there isnt enough data to give a good snapshot either way

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:15 AM. Reason : you're better off posting one single link to support your claims instead of arguing semantics]

[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .]

11/28/2009 1:14:36 AM

I'm just surprised you seem to have misapplied "arguing semantics" here

11/28/2009 1:15:29 AM