Tree, if you want to troll me any more, you're going to have to

1. Cite a peer-reviewed article that goes against the consensus

2. Cite a peer-reviewed article that explains how current scientists are using "bad" science

2/19/2007 2:01:09 AM

no good scientist would be so deadset in their opinion as you are with global warming...its funny that the skepticism you have for lots of political things is somehow nonexistant when it comes to climate change

2/19/2007 2:07:11 AM

you attribute this irrationality to people who disagree with you that really isn't there.

2/19/2007 2:10:18 AM

im just puzzled at why boone is so completely convinced that manmade climate change is going to destroy the earth without a single shred of skepticism

its one thing to say "this is the consensus so right now its the most likely scenario according to scientists"...its another to completely dismiss any other possibilities

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 2:13 AM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 2:12:25 AM

so cite a peer reviewed article like he asked for

2/19/2007 11:01:29 AM

Al Gore doesn't add credibility to any theory.

2/19/2007 11:34:29 AM

I peaced out of this thread a long time ago because it has been nothing but a flame fest. So, let me just throw my 2 cents in one last time . . .

Boone, you are a dumbass, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. You have posted a chart that completely disproves your stance:



Yeah, we can all see that at the end, there is more greenhouse gases that have been dumped into the atmosphere. No one disagrees with this point. What you fail to realize is that we are arguing about the effect of the said increase. From that chart, it appears that increasing these gases does not seem to have had an effect against the temperature. It is still continuing at the course.

You guys act blind. Scientists can say all the bullshit they want about the human effect on temperature. Frankly, I will continue hold their theory on a secondary basis until they can tell me why humans are responsible for what is a very noticably regular trend. They must disprove the posted chart. I don't believe what people tell me. I believe what they can prove to me.

Its like me looking at this box on my counter. It is blue, and I can't see anyone argue against it. However, scientists might tell me that it is actually pink. They can create all sorts of papers and articles proclaiming it is pink. However, I will take what they say with a grain of salt until they can actually tell me why this box isn't blue.

And sarijoul, this one is for you.

Quote :

"if by suddenly you mean "increasingly as we've been polluting more", then yes."

Recently, my shoelaces have been breaking more often. The temperature is also increasing on the planet. By your deduction, my shoelaces are causing global warming.

GTFO

2/19/2007 12:32:14 PM

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : my god why do i bother]

2/19/2007 2:30:33 PM

^^so it doesnt matter that there have been spikes, that have cycles that show both a low and high point and then all of a sudden we show up and start burning shit and suddenly there is a huge spike that is far outside the range. that proves him wrong?

2/19/2007 2:35:41 PM

what he's saying is that he's not convinced that co2 levels have any (significant) correlation to climate change and your chart seems to support that as well.

2/19/2007 2:40:28 PM

my god why do i bother trying to be skeptical of preliminary hypotheses based on sparse data when i could just accept it as fact

2/19/2007 2:49:10 PM

^have you done any actual research on the topic yet? or were you just ignoring the request?

2/19/2007 2:51:00 PM

i was taking a plethora of 400 level classes instructed by professors with doctorate degrees in various atmospheric and climate sciences before you had declared poly sci as your major

2/19/2007 2:52:43 PM

omg i didn't realize classes went up to 400?!?!

2/19/2007 2:57:15 PM

Quote :

"what he's saying is that he's not convinced that co2 levels have any (significant) correlation to climate change and your chart seems to support that as well."

My response to a similar remark in another thread.

Quote :

"While the temperatures do follow the trend of the CO2, that trend STOPS where the human emmisions are taken into effect. That massive rise in CO2 DOES NOT have an 1:1 (or even close) relationship with temperature. They are "children" of a parent contributer. IE increasing the parent increases both the children, but increasing the one child seperatly does nothing to the other child. Its like a waterfall feeding into two buckets. If you increase the flow of the waterfall, it will increase flow to both of the child buckets. If you added water to one seperately, the other bucket sees no change. "

I attribute the sun's activity to the climate cycle. I know that it is strange to believe that the number one contributor to our planet's temperature might be to blame, but I just wanted to go out on a limb here. I'd post the charts, but I will hold off on those for now.

2/19/2007 3:29:00 PM

and yet, treetroll, you cant post a single peer reviewed article backing you up.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : use your 'knowledge' to educate]

2/19/2007 3:29:37 PM

^you dont even realize that one of the differences in your and my courses of study is that I studied science...you study poly sci...you are always looking to politicize anything that has to do with climate change while I am simply looking at the scientific side...I don't have biases like "omg that source is garbage because oil companies fund the study and therefore its political and 100% false"

Quote :

"omg i didn't realize classes went up to 400?!?! "

how many of those courses have you taken sarijoul? i guess your sarcasm holds more weight than those classes? i forgot, its all about scientists and academia for you, yet when I share that my professors taught me that the issue is still very much up in the air as far as causes, you then discredit those particular PhD holding scientists

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 3:48:38 PM

So I guess charts > peer reviewed articles

2/19/2007 3:57:27 PM

Every time I see Twista post about the climate, it feels like he is regurgitating a favorite professors stance on the subject matter and thats it.

2/19/2007 4:01:42 PM

at least, unlike most of you, i actually studied the subject under professors instead of basing all of my knowledge on a few internet articles, some blurbs on the TV news and a movie by a former vice president

at least i have the additional reference that most of you dont have of, i dunno, interacting 1-on-1 with a number of PhD holding professors on the subject matter

i'm sure you guys know a lot more about climate change from reading articles by PhD professors than you would if you had personal interactions on a daily basis with PhD professors

you seen that Old Spice commercial with the guy with the red chairs and the massive painting of the ship?

---------

not that my years of study necessarily makes me some kind of expert...but its just funny that i have had all this hands on experience and am skeptical of the causes...yet some of you without that experience are already completely convinced of the causes with probably much less exposure to it...funny

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 4:16:04 PM

i've been studying fluid dynamics at the collegiate level for more than four years now.

and i'm not "completely convinced" of much of anything. but i can say that a correlation between co2 levels and climate change certainly seems plausible. and i'm certainly no expert, but i don't see much of a problem with yielding to people who are experts. i think it would take a lot for me to be completley convinced of our exact impact on the climate, but in the meantime i see the best course of action to be to assume that our impact is potentially substantial. worst case if we're wrong is that we're just polluting less and our health will likely be better as a result.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 4:22:33 PM

Quote :

"Recently, my shoelaces have been breaking more often. The temperature is also increasing on the planet. By your deduction, my shoelaces are causing global warming."

Are you seriously comparing broken shoelaces to the Greenhouse Effect?

Quote :

"While the temperatures do follow the trend of the CO2, that trend STOPS where the human emmisions are taken into effect. That massive rise in CO2 DOES NOT have an 1:1 (or even close) relationship with temperature. They are "children" of a parent contributer. IE increasing the parent increases both the children, but increasing the one child seperatly does nothing to the other child. Its like a waterfall feeding into two buckets. If you increase the flow of the waterfall, it will increase flow to both of the child buckets. If you added water to one seperately, the other bucket sees no change."

It takes a while for the earth to warm up. Note the time scale of the chart.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 4:28 PM. Reason : ]

2/19/2007 4:25:02 PM

^^well i can agree with that completely...but some people are a lot more convinced of it than you are...and i can look at the co2/temp graphs and agree that there is a correlation...i'm not of the opinion that "global warming is a myth"...im just not sold that its a huge problem that humans are causing

2/19/2007 4:39:19 PM

it is a huge problem though

2/19/2007 4:43:10 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously comparing broken shoelaces to the Greenhouse Effect?"

When the argument is simply "Statistic 1 went up, and so did Statistic 2. Therefore, Statistic 1 must the the cause of Statistic 2.", then hell yeah I will make that argument. Thats not bad science, its retarded science.

How about we make a better comparision. Pollution is going up and the rate that the rainforest is declining is also going up. Therefore, the pollution MUST be the main cause. Of course, pollution will have some effect on the rain forest. However, the real reasoning behind the rainforest destruction is from humans cutting down trees. The main reason could have been pollution, but it isn't.

Quote :

"It takes a while for the earth to warm up. Note the time scale of the chart."

Your argument has no weight behind it because it makes no sense. Yes, the temperature cycle takes 100's of thousands of years. Give yourself a cookie for passing 5th Grade "Lern2ReedGrafz".

Now that we have gone off on your nonsensical tangent, lets go back to the real argument: CO2s effect on temperature. The chart shows a pretty much 1:1 for the change of CO2 vs the change of temperature. Then, in come humans. The CO2 rises a certain percent, the temperature . . . stays the course. The possible relationship is shot to hell, making me believe that CO2 is NOT the primary cause of temperature change.

2/19/2007 4:48:26 PM

Quote :

"it is a huge problem though"

so is Y2K

2/19/2007 4:51:41 PM

Quote :

"Then, in come humans. The CO2 rises a certain percent, the temperature . . . stays the course. The possible relationship is shot to hell, making me believe that CO2 is NOT the primary cause of temperature change."

How do you know something else humans are doing isn't also working at the same time to nullify the C02 effect? You might say, so what, but what if the total effect of it all pushes us into a climatology that is less stable, even though it is not immediately apparent by just looking at global temps alone?

This is the best mentality to take, in my opinion

Quote :

"ut in the meantime i see the best course of action to be to assume that our impact is potentially substantial. worst case if we're wrong is that we're just polluting less and our health will likely be better as a result."

2/19/2007 4:58:52 PM

Quote :

"How do you know something else humans are doing isn't also working at the same time to nullify the C02 effect?"

we dont know that...just like we dont know that humans are the main cause of this minor increase in temperatures...hello, thats what i've been preaching THE ENTIRE TIME

2/19/2007 5:00:23 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the temperature cycle takes 100's of thousands of years."

Very good, could you explain why they take that long?

2/19/2007 5:07:16 PM

Quote :

"How do you know something else humans are doing isn't also working at the same time to nullify the C02 effect? "

Assertion: The world is getting hotter. Our increased emmisions are to blame.

Your argument is nullified by the fact that we aren't arguing that. The disagreement at hand is whether or not our increased emmisions are causing the current spikes in temperature. You can go off on these tangents if you want, but I won't bite.

Quote :

"Very good, could you explain why they take that long?"

Nope, not entirely certain. Unlike most of you, I do not like to surmise.

If I had to take a guess, I would assume it would have to do with the continual cycle of fusion/fission (?) inside of our sun that results in increased solar activity.

2/19/2007 5:37:47 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, we can all see that at the end, there is more greenhouse gases that have been dumped into the atmosphere. No one disagrees with this point. What you fail to realize is that we are arguing about the effect of the said increase. From that chart, it appears that increasing these gases does not seem to have had an effect against the temperature. It is still continuing at the course."

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the fact that temperature has gone up was a given. Here's a smaller timescale.



[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 5:56 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 5:50:55 PM

28 years of data is proof that we fully understand an overly complex multi billion year old system!

2/19/2007 5:55:38 PM

Quote :

" Nope, not entirely certain. Unlike most of you, I do not like to surmise. If I had to take a guess, I would assume it would have to do with the continual cycle of fusion/fission (?) inside of our sun that results in increased solar activity."

But you would agree that a meager difference in the amount of the absorbed ground solar radiation would take longer than a century or to two to warm the Earth an amount illustrated in the graph.

2/19/2007 5:55:53 PM

^^ That's why I posted the 500,000 year chart, first.

But how can I argue against a guy that totally had this professor once, who said climate change was all wrong. The world scientific community can't beat that.

And again, all you guys need to do is cite one peer-reviewed article that goes against anthropogenic climate change. Then this will be a debatable topic. Until then, you're just looking dumb.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 5:58:39 PM

Quote :

"Frankly, I will continue hold their theory on a secondary basis until they can tell me why humans are responsible for what is a very noticably regular trend"

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/

Find articles> Academic Search Premier> EBSCOhost search for "climate+change"

12,874 Results

feel free to report on what you read

2/19/2007 6:01:24 PM

^^how can i argue with somebody that puts the content of a profit-motive movie by a politician ahead of my years of personal interaction with PhD holding scientists

how come your skepticism which is always present when discussing various political stories is completely non existant when it comes to climate change? you're skeptical of damn near anything a republican in office does...which is fine...yet you are 100% sold that humans are causing catastophic global warming and you dont have any doubts about it

before you worry about arguing with me you might want to consider asking yourself why your natural skepticism is completely negated by this topic

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ^^]

2/19/2007 6:02:10 PM

did any of your phd friends happen to publish anything?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:05 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 6:04:48 PM

I think they got published in the I Made My Story Up Because I Have No Argument Times

They publish fortnightly

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 6:07:04 PM

Quote :

"you're skeptical of damn near anything a republican in office does...which is fine...yet you are 100% sold that humans are causing catastophic global warming and you dont have any doubts about it"

1. I'm not convinced about the ultimate effect of anthropogenic climate change. No scientist is. What I am convinced about is that there's a high-enough likelihood of it having dire consequences that we should be doing something about it.

2. Republicans are politicians. Scientists are not. There's nothing to indicate that the scientists are wrong. Other than your professor that you totally interacted with like all the time.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 6:08:09 PM

Quote :

" my years of personal interaction with PhD holding scientists"

good lord, is that how you describe your B.S. degree?

bloody hell, I'm going to revise my resume. From here on out, I studied under James Clerk Maxwell, by proxy

2/19/2007 6:15:59 PM

just give us the names of the professors. we can do a literature search as easily as the next guy and see if they've done any research anywhere near relevant to this topic.

2/19/2007 6:17:24 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought the fact that temperature has gone up was a given."

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that "continuing the course" meant continuing its cycle, not staying one temperature. We knew that reading charts wasn't your specialty, but now we know you are equally inept at English. L2MiddleSchool, kk?

Quote :

"Find articles> Academic Search Premier> EBSCOhost search for "climate+change" 12,874 Results feel free to report on what you read"

Hi, I placed my evidence here in this thread. I showed you the charts that I use to back what I believe. You guys mindlessly quote "scientists say it is true" then post some study, presumably without reading or understanding it, and counter everything that I have to say with your same quote. Now you think that I will go out and look for articles that support you? Negative.

I have been posting what I believe with my evidence. You try to counter it, but I don't think you have made much leeway. So how about you go find me evidence for your point. And I don't want to see Inept_Article.doc that states what certain groups of scientists are saying. I want to see evidence.

You want us to post articles, but I submit that articles are no good without evidence. We are quoting evidence, how about you try it?

2/19/2007 6:19:09 PM

Quote :

"continuing the course"

Which is why I posted my second graph containing data that wouldn't show up on that large a timescale.

Your "evidence" is your assertion that A) scientists who have spent their lives researching the subject don't know anything about this topic, but you do and B) all the peer-reviewed articles we've posted don't have any evidence in them.

Oh, and let's not forget the mind-blowing parent bucket proof.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 6:23:15 PM

From the scrolling news feed from the same Woods Hole Research Center you posted that chart from

Quote :

"August 31, 2006. BBC - Director John P. Holdren warns that the world has entered a state of dangerous climate change."

So are negating your own data source CapnObvious?

Might I also ad that policymakers don't get their research from web-pages. They get it from academic journals. Show me one, peer reviewed scholarly journal that opposes climate change theory and I'll listen. Not a webpage or a conservative think tank or the American Enterprise Institute (partisan hacks).

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.



[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 6:32:33 PM

My little bucket example was to show how two items that are seemingly directly related are not necessarily directly related. It is an argument that goes beyond this one topic. Trying to attack such a simple principle shows me just how little backing your arguments have.

The soap box is about posting an opinion and discussing it. I have been trying to discuss what I believe but all I hear is "Scientists who have spent their years researching this believe that humans are causing global warming." Good job on regurgitating everything that popular science tells you. This forum is for debate and if you can only spit out an URL for some study that I don't believe that you even read, then I feel sorry for you. The only graph which you have posted . . . well you posted it without saying anything about it. I look at your graph and I see all sorts of things that support my theories as well. GG on your cut and paste method. I shall call you "salisburyboy the second."

To fully understand something requires every hypothesis questioned. For every bit of evidence, there is counter evidence. There is never one truth. Many parts make a whole. <Insert other philophical ideology here>.

And this is why I peaced out of previous threads. That sounds like a good idea to me right now. When you grow a spine and actually want to debate instead of cut and paste (go go kindergarden), maybe I will come back. Have fun.

PS: Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V are your friends for your arguments.
-------------------

To comment above:

Quote :

"They get it from academic journals. Show me one, peer reviewed scholarly journal that opposes climate change theory and I'll listen."

Something to think about in terms of bias . . .

Research requires money. Money goes to researchers who want to research about the "popular" theories. An institude that has spent millions of dollars on one topic is not so easily swayed to spend millions of dollars on its counter-argument. This is yet another bias that prevents the whole picture to be seen.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 6:44:05 PM

Hahah, so now you're attacking me for citing too many sources.

That is certainly a problem you don't have.

2/19/2007 6:47:42 PM

Last post of the thread for me:

Salisburyboy says the same thing to those who disagree with him.

Adios.

2/19/2007 6:50:23 PM

Truthiness: Truth that comes from the gut, not from books

We can't let these facts get in the way our opinions!

2/19/2007 6:55:17 PM

^^You're the one suggesting that the entirety of the scientific community in engaged in a conspiracy to perpetrate the myth of climate change...

yet I'm the one who's salisburyboy-esque.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 6:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 6:55:31 PM

only a true salisburyboy denies his salisburyboy nature.

2/19/2007 6:57:36 PM