I said peer reviewed and you do know who sponsors geocraft right?

9/29/2006 2:07:47 PM

you didnt see the links at the bottom to the articles, like the EPA and the IPCC did you

of course not because to you this is all partisan

me on the other hand, i studied science, from professors with PhDs...i could give a fuck about the politics

Im going off of information, you care nothing about information, just politics

9/29/2006 2:09:53 PM

are you talking about the reference section? Just because you cite something does not mean you are being honest with what it says.

Now, as I said, please find me a peer reviewed article. not something sponsored by coal companies, but a peer reviewed article.

9/29/2006 2:12:53 PM

ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts ignore the facts

9/29/2006 2:13:39 PM

ignore what I ask for.

Quote :

"me on the other hand, i studied science, from professors with PhDs...i could give a fuck about the politics Im going off of information, you care nothing about information, just politics"

you keep repeating this as if that therefore makes your opinion on the matter sacresanct

and it is nice of you to admit that you care about the politics.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 2:15:35 PM

whatever you say nutsmackr8315

9/29/2006 2:19:52 PM

how cute. you ignore what I post then insult me.

9/29/2006 2:20:38 PM

i figured to get through to you i'd have to devolve to your tactics, like not reading what you said, and not responding accordingly

9/29/2006 2:21:12 PM

you don't like what I post therefore you ignore it.

I ask for a simple peer reviewed article and you cannot oblige me.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 2:22:20 PM

here's something to get you started

that NASA article you posted was not a scientific article

so go ahead and find me something that quantifies human impact

or do you still think i'm arguing that temperatures havent even increased?

9/29/2006 2:24:27 PM

Nasa is from a scientific entity who is not being sponsored by the coal and oil industries to play down the threat of global warming. It's part of this current administration who doesn't believe in global warming.

^I never argued that. First figure out what I'm arguing, then attempt to argue with me

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 2:25:43 PM

i asked the almighty Gamecat a few days ago (who is usually more than happy to spend lots of time online looking up stuff)...I asked him for ONE SINGLE ARTICLE, scientific journal, whatever, that had QUANTIFICATION of the various impacts of global warming and he couldnt do it

so go ahead, see if you can find one

9/29/2006 2:28:31 PM

do you even understand what you are asking for? are you asking for the amount of greenhouse emissions we are emiting? Or are you asking for a precise degree amount that humans are responsible for?

9/29/2006 2:31:20 PM

Quote :

"a precise degree amount that humans are responsible for?"

btw that doesnt mean "how much co2 are american factories putting off" or anything like that

it means "how much co2 and other gases are american people/businesses putting off...and compared to natural cycles, inputs, fluctuations, processes...how much does that contribute to the temperatures rising"

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:43 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:44 PM. Reason : typo]

9/29/2006 2:38:19 PM

This is two pages without a lock? WTF?

9/29/2006 3:28:15 PM

yeah because it quickly turned into a somewhat legit global warming discussion

9/29/2006 3:33:31 PM

I meant for this to be a manbearpig discussion and was expecting the bucket

9/29/2006 3:34:28 PM

god bless the manbearpig

9/29/2006 4:22:55 PM

im pretty sure president bush already outlawed human-animal hybrids

9/29/2006 5:57:45 PM

so, uh,

where's that peer reviewed article?

or are you just going to shit on all of academia and say perr reviewed articles aint worth a shit?

9/29/2006 6:01:08 PM

Quote :

"GOD FORBID WE TELL THE GOVERNMENT TO STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES AND BUSINESSES"

*cough* Patriot Act *cough*

Quote :

"you listen to al gore george w. and his scare tactics"

Fixed it, but I guess his are somehow better, right?

So why can't humans be held responsible for the amount of pollutants that they put into the environment?

9/30/2006 8:03:16 AM

Quote :

".I asked him for ONE SINGLE ARTICLE, scientific journal, whatever, that had QUANTIFICATION of the various impacts of global warming and he couldnt do it"

if youre too stupid to page through the journals yourself, then you shouldnt be posting

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3802.1

Quote :

"This paper investigates the impact of aerosol forcing uncertainty on the robustness of estimates of the twentieth-century warming attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Attribution analyses on three coupled climate models with very different sensitivities and aerosol forcing are carried out. The Third Hadley Centre Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere GCM (HadCM3), Parallel Climate Model (PCM), and GFDL R30 models all provide good simulations of twentieth-century global mean temperature changes when they include both anthropogenic and natural forcings. Such good agreement could result from a fortuitous cancellation of errors, for example, by balancing too much (or too little) greenhouse warming by too much (or too little) aerosol cooling. Despite a very large uncertainty for estimates of the possible range of sulfate aerosol forcing obtained from measurement campaigns, results show that the spatial and temporal nature of observed twentieth-century temperature change constrains the component of past warming attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse gases to be significantly greater (at the 5% level) than the observed warming over the twentieth century. The cooling effects of aerosols are detected in all three models. Both spatial and temporal aspects of observed temperature change are responsible for constraining the relative roles of greenhouse warming and sulfate cooling over the twentieth century. This is because there are distinctive temporal structures in differential warming rates between the hemispheres, between land and ocean, and between mid- and low latitudes. As a result, consistent estimates of warming attributable to greenhouse gas emissions are obtained from all three models, and predictions are relatively robust to the use of more or less sensitive models. The transient climate response following a 1% yr-1 increase in CO2 is estimated to lie between 2.2 and 4 K century-1 (5–95 percentiles). "

suspend trolltwista#

[Edited on September 30, 2006 at 9:07 AM. Reason : 45]

9/30/2006 9:04:07 AM

Heh. The American Meteorological Society. What do they know? They are probably some left-wing alarmist group.

9/30/2006 12:15:54 PM

i'm super serial here guys

9/30/2006 2:48:20 PM