Anti Global Warming: Rational edition

[Atomic_Piggy]

I hate this country.

Why not move then? This country isn't ****ing perfect, but I am so glad I was born in a country like Britain than a country like Saudi Arabia or China.

 

[repiV]

First of all:

Vehicle pollution is insignificant? No.

First of all, vehicle pollution according to your chart accounts for only 14% of man-made emissions. It's one factor among many. That also encompasses commercial vehicles, ships and aircraft - what I was talking about was private transport. And you know how much fuel aircraft burn, right? It costs 20,000 pounds an hour to keep a search and rescue helicopter in the air.
Ironically, it's more environmentally friendly for everyone to use their own car than for all those people to get on a smog-laden diesel bus like they use in London - even if the bus is full, it's still twice as polluting as the cars. And most of the time, buses have maybe half a dozen people in them. Not to mention the congestion and danger that buses cause to other traffic. Those ****ing bendy buses are an absolute nightmare.
Of course, they don't want you to know that.
Secondly, why is it always motorists who get shafted, when it's only a small proportion of the overall emissions picture? I resent having to pay 22 quid for a fiver's worth of petrol, as my whole life revolves around motorcycling (I rode 6000 miles between August and October when I had my accident) it gets very expensive. My bike weighs 160 kilos, no matter how much I ride it it's still vastly more environmentally friendly than ANY car - it's a small fraction of the size of a small car, there's hardly anything there to manufacture. And there aren't any cars out there that can do 0-60 in 3 seconds that will also do 45mpg.
Not to mention the bigger picture - people need private transport. This is unavoidable truth. Especially in rural areas, if you don't have a car/bike, you're ****ed - all picking on motorists does is price the poor out of their vehicles, worsening poverty as they have far less economic opportunities that way. Not to mention that it causes the cost of road freight to rise substantially, which is reflected in the price of everything we buy, which again makes the poor poorer.
Not so high and mighty now, are you, when you realise that kids have to eat shit food or go without new clothes or the educational materials they should have because their parents can't afford it as running the car is so expensive and the prices are much higher than they need be?

Not to mention that the sum total of all these man-made emissions only amounts to about 3% of the total. The vast majority comes from natural sources.

I assume your point on the production of fuel cells is correct. Production of fuel cells does lead to serious pollution, but that does not mean we have to stop developing fuel cells and put them into use. Say, several cows in a farm of Canada contracted mad-cow disease. Should we kill all the cattle in Canada and stop growing cattle forever? Of course not. This saying applies to fuel cell as well. If manufacturing fuel cells causes pollution, governments should monitor the manufacturer more carefully and search for a clean way to produce fuel cells. Rather than just saying fuel cell is somewhat a conspiracy.

No, it doesn't mean we have to stop producing them. Research into alternative fuels is an absolute necessity, we will need them eventually. My point is that people widely believe the Prius is such an environmentally friendly vehicle, and will actually can their old car to get one - but they couldn't be more wrong. It's one of the worst.
If you have an ancient piece of shit which doesn't meet any of the emissions regulations from the past 20 years, the best thing for the environment is for you to keep driving it. Rag the shit out of it until it just won't run anymore.

Is greenhouse effect just another version of biblical doom?

What global warming can cause ultimately? Raise of water level spells the destruction of coastal cities. Of course this is a minor effect. Shutdown of thermohaline circulation, quite a cool down of northern Europe. Probably it won't be as bad as the one in movie, I admitted. What is more troublesome is that, first, extreme weather occurs more frequently. Strong hurricanes, abnormal distribution of precipitation. On the one hand towns are destroyed by flood and gust, or stranded under heavy snowfall. Believe it or not, a lot of island countries are being toppled by weather. On the other hand, agriculture-based countries suffer from drought. Since the rainfall shifts as the Earth warms up, the what used to be farm will dry up. This causes a global food crisis. Moreover, diseases spread under the universally warmer temperature. Epidemic leads to a global health crisis. Most of the lifeforms are incapable of accustoming to the fast changing weather. Species go extinct. Other than that we are saddening by the loss of biodiversity, a practical problem is the disruption of food chain, loss of bio-mass. i.e. an even more serious food crisis.

We do have technology to sustain some of the men, but not for every one of us. A lot of people have to die for this, perhaps billions of us.

Yes, your scenario is just another version of biblical doom. Billions will die.
Ferchrissakes, give it a rest.

That "all of the anti-global warming policies are based on outright lies" is one of the most obvious lie ever. The nobel peace prize is given to Al Gore because he made people more aware of environmental protection. It doesn't matter whether his scientific statements are complete correct. In fact, as you said, there are 9 mistakes in his writing. But those error is not critical enough to stagger the conclusion: global warming is anthropogenic and has to be stopped. The reason why the peace prize was given to Al Gore is not because he did any precise, outstanding scientific research. The prize was bestowed upon him because he successfully raise public awareness about global warming. The so-called 9 scientific errors are irrelevant.

Yes it does matter. It absolutely matters. He didn't "make people more aware of environmental protection", he forced climate porn down everyone's throats, turning people into rabid idiots obsessed with their "carbon footprint".
How can you say the errors are irrelevant? What the **** is someone doing being revered for putting forth an argument when that argument is grossly incorrect?
You're doing a great job of summing up all this shit - "it doesn't matter how wrong they are, the important point is they're out there preaching for the church of environmentalism".

Fool. Hong Kong got a coldest Chinese New Year too. Does this means global warming does not exist? No. Global warming is a long-term trend. Singular data means nothing. The global weather turns extreme is a general fact.

No it isn't. Some parts of the earth are getting warmer, others are getting colder. Still others are staying the same.

To conclude, it's abundantly clear that the people talk about anti-anti-globalwarming because it's cool and antisocial, rather than because they have any actual knowledge on the subject. It is the same reason why area 51 UFO theory and 911 skepticism always have their supporters.

You're an idiot.

 

[repiV]

Why not move then? This country isn't ****ing perfect, but I am so glad I was born in a country like Britain than a country like Saudi Arabia or China.

Why should I have to move because ****wads are slowly turning this country into a third world communist scumhole?
Clearly more and more people are feeling obliged to, the rate of emigration in this country can only be described as a mass exodus. It's unrivalled anywhere in the world.

 

[Solaris]

Not to mention that the sum total of all these man-made emissions only amounts to about 3% of the total. The vast majority comes from natural sources.

The IPCC would beg to differ.

 

[repiV]

The IPCC would beg to differ.

The IPCC is a political organisation which takes scientific research and then "adjusts" it to suit their purpose. What's your point?

Not to mention, you'd have to be pretty dense to actually believe that man-made emissions are the majority of the total. We wouldn't even be able to breathe the air if that were the case, it would be far too different from the air we are designed to breathe.

 

[Solaris]

The IPCC is a political organisation which takes scientific research and then "adjusts" it to suit their purpose. What's your point?

Not to mention, you'd have to be pretty dense to actually believe that man-made emissions are the majority of the total. We wouldn't even be able to breathe the air if that were the case, it would be far too different from the air we are designed to breathe.

Ah, see I thought you were refering to green house gas emmisions, not all the air in total.

 

[repiV]

Ah, see I thought you were refering to green house gas emmisions, not all the air in total.

I was referring to the levels of CO2 etc in the atmosphere. Our effect on them is comparatively minute.
Man-made climate change undoubtedly occurs on a localised level. London is a lot hotter than the surrounding area because all the urbanisation insulates the heat...then you have the smog...
It can actually be the difference between being warm and shivering, just by going 10 miles north.

But that's a far cry from some kind of global doomsday effect. People should be more concerned about definite, current, urgent environmental problems - like the destruction of the rainforests.

 

[Solaris]

See repriV, I don't know too much about this to debate it's legitimatcy. But I'm fairly sure neither do you. In matters like this, I follow the new scientist rule. If New Scientist magazine says its legitimate, then I'll believe it. It says we cause global warming and need to stop it with drastic reductions in CO2 and such, so I believe that is what we must do.

 

[repiV]

See repriV, I don't know too much about this to debate it's legitimatcy. But I'm fairly sure neither do you. In matters like this, I follow the new scientist rule. If New Scientist magazine says its legitimate, then I'll believe it. It says we cause global warming and need to stop it with drastic reductions in CO2 and such, so I believe that is what we must do.

I'd rather not rely on faith in a single instutition for my beliefs.
Especially with an issue so outrageously prone to political exploitation.

I dare say neither would you, if you personally felt the effects of twisted government policy.

 

[spunge]

people still believe in global warming?

 

[nurizeko]

I follow the new scientist rule. If New Scientist magazine says its legitimate, then I'll believe it.

Why don't you just buy a Bible and lobotomize the lobes of the brain that deal mostly with free thought then?.


New Scientist is about as reliable a journal of scientific interest to base opinions on new hypothesis' and data as Hello! magazine.


Its a pop-science publication.



In an ideal world, everyone would get hold of the data and evidence hemselves and come to their own well considered conclusions.

As it is, if you cant, just sit on the fence.

people still believe in global warming?

While people can push Carbon credits, footprints, and offsetting, eco friendly car insurance and all that crap, allot of folk wont leave you alone to believe anything else.


As with allot of these "GRAPH PROJECTION IS PROJECTING!" theories, I tend to simply wait and see what happens.

I know, its lazy, but meh, I tend to ignore science based on large sums of money and political motivation, and sweeping fads like credits and Carbon Neutral ear cleaning buds or something.

 

[repiV]

Carbon neutral earbuds.

Actually, the sad thing is, I can see that catching on...

 

[bbson john]

repiV, most of your points are correct. I live in Hong Kong, a very tiny city, you are not. Your view on vehicles policy applies on your country and my view applies on my city. Both of us are correct since we are talking about different place. So be it.

Yes, your scenario is just another version of biblical doom. Billions will die.
Ferchrissakes, give it a rest.

If a meteorite of 100-mile radius hits the Earth, billions will die. It sounds like biblical doom to me. But is the conditional sentence true? yes. So do you have any point rejecting my conjecture on the possible consequences of global warming? Comon.

Yes it does matter. It absolutely matters. He didn't "make people more aware of environmental protection", he forced climate porn down everyone's throats, turning people into rabid idiots obsessed with their "carbon footprint".
How can you say the errors are irrelevant? What the **** is someone doing being revered for putting forth an argument when that argument is grossly incorrect?
You're doing a great job of summing up all this shit - "it doesn't matter how wrong they are, the important point is they're out there preaching for the church of environmentalism".

So did those carbon footprint-rabid-idiots erected a cult and try to burn you and your property? How much harm do people "obsessed" with carbon footprint do to you?
What I can see is that people are indeed taking more care of the Earth. Perhaps they are doing a bit too much, but it is much better than people doing nothing. If people keep ignoring the fact that human causes global warming, the consequence will be dire.

As for the book, I said the error is unimportant because the book written by Al Gore is NOT a scientific report. It does not require the same level of precision as that in an science academic writing.

Not to mention that the sum total of all these man-made emissions only amounts to about 3% of the total. The vast majority comes from natural sources.

This is truthful but alright hilarious. Yes, indeed almost 97% of CO2 is released by the nature. The earth is quite at a balance before industrial revolution. This 97% of CO2 can be just totally reabsorbed by plants. But after human put a hand on CO2 emission, the balance is broken. The ability of forests to absorb CO2 is already saturated(Particularly under massive deforestation). The trees can no longer absorb more CO2 and the 2-3% of CO2 keeps accumulating in the atmosphere. Annually 3% stays and it is not insignificant at all. 3% may seems like a small number, but the fact is the 97% can be removed, the 3% cannot. It has been already two hundred 3%s are accumulated because it has been nearly two century after industrial revolution! We are suffering from the 3%X200 effects.
(Also, methane and nitrogen oxides take a role in greenhouse effect. They are not so common in natural emission.)

I'd rather not rely on faith in a single instutition for my beliefs.
Especially with an issue so outrageously prone to political exploitation.

I dare say neither would you, if you personally felt the effects of twisted government policy.

Funny. So 95% of the scientists in the world are helping the Government to do harm on citizens? It doesn't make sense. While most of the scientists suggest that global warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases emission, why do you still think the issue is just a political lie? Are all the meteorologists, ecologists hand in glove with the Government just for fun? It doesn't make sense AT ALL.

What you are saying is 95% of the scientist in the world are idiots. All the adjudicators for the Nobel Peace Prize are idiot. Everyone is idiot but you. Stop being an idiot! Think twice about that.

 

[Parrot of doom]

anthropogenic sources make up the majority of greenhouse gasses.

No they don't. Unless by majority you mean minority.

 

[bbson john]

No they don't. Unless by majority you mean minority.

It doesn't have to be majority in order to do harm. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases emission is like adding a coin on one side of a balance, or dripping a drop of cyanogen chloride into a glass of water.

 

[Eejit]

The IPCC is a political organisation which takes scientific research and then "adjusts" it to suit their purpose. What's your point?

Not to mention, you'd have to be pretty dense to actually believe that man-made emissions are the majority of the total. We wouldn't even be able to breathe the air if that were the case, it would be far too different from the air we are designed to breathe.

As I've said before, it's a question of balance and the fact that after a certain point global warming can become runaway.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Vehicle pollution is insignificant? No.

Why don't you modify that chart so that it demonstrates the abilities of each gas to absorb heat?

And then demonstrate how much methane or water vapour is emitted by vehicular transport?

And then try telling people that vehicle pollution is significant?

 

[Parrot of doom]

It doesn't have to be majority in order to do harm. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases emission is like adding a coin on one side of a balance, or dripping a drop of cyanogen chloride into a glass of water.

No it isn't. Its like adding a mote of dust to your balance.

By the way, how much cyanogen chloride normally exists in a glass of water?

 

[Eejit]

Why don't you modify that chart so that it demonstrates the abilities of each gas to absorb heat?

And then demonstrate how much methane or water vapour is emitted by vehicular transport?

And then try telling people that vehicle pollution is significant?

You'd have to add more than just that to the chart or it would be even more misleading -.-

 

[bbson john]

Read this about 3% human emission paradox.
I hate linking to wikipedia, but anyway...

Why don't you modify that chart so that it demonstrates the abilities of each gas to absorb heat?

And then demonstrate how much methane or water vapour is emitted by vehicular transport?

And then try telling people that vehicle pollution is significant?

To be honest, I don't have time. lol
This graph is clear enough as CO2 is a major member of greenhouse gases.

Look at the graph. Emission from--- Agricultural byproducts: Can it be trim down? No, human needs food. Industrial processes: Perhaps a bit. By installing filter and replacing old machine with a better one. It won't do a lot since since everyone of us need industrial products. Power station: Yes, we can. Replacing fossil fuel energy with nuclear energy. It is practical and feasible, it just needs a bit more time. Then it comes to transport. Why can't we do a bit more to reduce greenhouse gas emission while other factors are so hard to be tackled?

I don't wish to argue anymore on vehicles. Perhaps repiV is right, the design environment-friendly vehicles are not sophisticate enough for practical use. But the emission from vehicle has to be resolved someday.

 

[Parrot of doom]

This is truthful but alright hilarious. Yes, indeed almost 97% of CO2 is released by the nature. The earth is quite at a balance before industrial revolution. This 97% of CO2 can be just totally reabsorbed by plants. But after human put a hand on CO2 emission, the balance is broken. The ability of forests to absorb CO2 is already saturated(Particularly under massive deforestation). The trees can no longer absorb more CO2 and the 2-3% of CO2 keeps accumulating in the atmosphere. Annually 3% stays and it is not insignificant at all. 3% may seems like a small number, but the fact is the 97% can be removed, the 3% cannot. It has been already two hundred 3%s are accumulated because it has been nearly two century after industrial revolution! We are suffering from the 3%X200 effects.
(Also, methane and nitrogen oxides take a role in greenhouse effect. They are not so common in natural emission.)

I do believe you're talking rubbish there. Firstly deforestation has little if nothing to do with the ability of lifeforms to absorb co2. Secondly, lifeforms can absorb as much co2 as they like, because they have this marvellous ability to grow, divide, and multiply. Thirdly, when plants die they release all that co2 they absorbed - all of it.

And your little point about methane not being so common in natural emissions is just plain wrong. I suggest you stand behind a cow.

And you haven't even mentioned water vapour.

And still, nobody has questioned why global tropospheric temperatures remain unchanged. Or why current climate predictions are based on worst-case scenarios generated by computer models. Or why those predictions aren't bearing fruit.

Its amazing how people can so readily accept one side of an argument as being the unassailable truth without even bothering to question it. I don't hold out much hope for our future with such people.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Why can't we do a bit more to reduce greenhouse gas emission while other factors are so hard to be tackled?

Because the reduction of greenhouse gasses is a proxy for the socialist element that has hijacked the environmental movement.

Show me a river being poisoned, and I'll be out there waving a placard. Show me a factory pumping sulphur into the air, and I'll be annoyed. Cut a forest down to build a housing estate and I won't like it.

But ask me to pay more tax to dissuade me from causing the emission of a relatively unimportant and practically insignificant greenhouse gas based on dubious science and one-sided reporting and I won't accept it.

Still, if you're a believer, you can make a difference. You can start by deleting all the games and forms of entertainment from your computer, and dispensing with anything in your house that you don't need to live a basic existence. Then you can pay double your tax bill. That should help.

 

[bbson john]

No it isn't. Its like adding a mote of dust to your balance.

Quite a large granule of dust you have.

By the way, how much cyanogen chloride normally exists in a glass of water?

Much below 0.001mg/L. How about if I am telling you I add 15g cyanogen chloride into your 500ml glass of water. In case you don't know, if you drink that glass of water, it will be fatal.

 

[Eejit]

I don't understand how people are always fooled by the "only 3% of CO2 produced is by humans" argument. It doesn't matter how much is produced naturally if it goes into natural carbon sinks such as the sea, weathering, plants etc. it's the NET increase that matters and that's from anthopogenic sources.


As for water vapour: what about it? It's another factor that can contribute to the geenhouse effect to become runaway, along with methane in siberia, methane hydrates on the sea floor, melting of ice etc.

 

[bbson john]

I do believe you're talking rubbish there. Firstly deforestation has little if nothing to do with the ability of lifeforms to absorb co2. Secondly, lifeforms can absorb as much co2 as they like, because they have this marvellous ability to grow, divide, and multiply. Thirdly, when plants die they release all that co2 they absorbed - all of it.

What a fairy tale for kids! When there is too much CO2, tree-daddies will grow bigger and divide more to help human! You are right at the fact that plants release all that CO2 when they die. So when deforestation occur, plants die and release all the CO2. Thank you for listing the point for me. Moreover, the ability of lifeforms(Trees, in fact) absorbing CO2 is unchanged by deforestation, but there is LESS lifeforms and less of them absorb CO2. So there is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, simple logic.
Trees do grow and multiply. So I agree with sustainable logging. But deforestation remove such a large piece of forest that young tree don't have a place to root. Neither old trees are reproducing fast enough nor young trees are growing fast enough to replace the loss of trees owing to excess logging.

Its amazing how people can so readily accept one side of an argument as being the unassailable truth without even bothering to question it. I don't hold out much hope for our future with such people.

I questioned it. I researched it. Greenhouse effect is in fact almost certain caused by human activity. I think the statement--- "Its amazing how people can so readily accept one side of an argument as being the unassailable truth without even bothering to question it. I don't hold out much hope for our future with such people." applies to you yourself. Look again at your arguments. How many scientific errors are there. How many non-Logic are there?


For water vapour, we can do nothing. Non of us can stop the release of water vapour. So we did nothing on it. What can we do is to retard global warming, hoping less water are evaporated so the less water vapour assisting greenhouse effect. We should focus on something we can handle, namely CO2, methane, nitrogen oxides, etc., right?

ANSWER ME: Are 95% of the scientists in the world helping the Government to do harm on citizens? Or is it just you trying to shrug your responsibility on environmental protection?

It must be the tax-payers who share the burden of trimming down of greenhouse gases emission. No Government is rich enough to do this on her own.

 

[theotherguy]

No they don't. Unless by majority you mean minority.

I meant that anthropogenic sources account for most of the radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like water vapor, outgassing from the crust, and emissions from decaying plants and animals have resulted in a stable equilibrium over millions of years. The only natural radiative forcing (read: changes in equilibrium) come from increases in solar activity and catastrophic volcano eruptions. These natural sources account for only 6.9 percent of positive radiative forcing over the past 100 years. Human activity accounts for the remaining 93.1 percent.

 

[99.vikram]

I don't understand how people are always fooled by the "only 3% of CO2 produced is by humans" argument. It doesn't matter how much is produced naturally if it goes into natural carbon sinks such as the sea, weathering, plants etc. it's the NET increase that matters and that's from anthopogenic sources.

^Troof.

 

[nurizeko]

All the adjudicators for the Nobel Peace Prize are idiot.

Giving the peace prize to someone who hasn't lifted a finger for peace let alone war, in my books, makes them somewhat stupid.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Quite a large granule of dust you have.



Much below 0.001mg/L. How about if I am telling you I add 15g cyanogen chloride into your 500ml glass of water. In case you don't know, if you drink that glass of water, it will be fatal.

So what does it have to do with the co2 argument?

Apart from nothing whatsoever.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Moreover, the ability of lifeforms(Trees, in fact) absorbing CO2 is unchanged by deforestation, but there is LESS lifeforms and less of them absorb CO2. So there is MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, simple logic.

What lifeform is responsible for absorbing the most co2 in the atmosphere?

Trees do grow and multiply. So I agree with sustainable logging. But deforestation remove such a large piece of forest that young tree don't have a place to root. Neither old trees are reproducing fast enough nor young trees are growing fast enough to replace the loss of trees owing to excess logging.

Trees trees trees. Yawn.

I questioned it. I researched it. Greenhouse effect is in fact almost certain caused by human activity.

Funny, I thought it existed before humans were around.

I think the statement--- "Its amazing how people can so readily accept one side of an argument as being the unassailable truth without even bothering to question it. I don't hold out much hope for our future with such people." applies to you yourself. Look again at your arguments. How many scientific errors are there. How many non-Logic are there?

Oh the irony.

For water vapour, we can do nothing. Non of us can stop the release of water vapour. So we did nothing on it. What can we do is to retard global warming, hoping less water are evaporated so the less water vapour assisting greenhouse effect. We should focus on something we can handle, namely CO2, methane, nitrogen oxides, etc., right?

No we can't retard global warming. Forget about it, it will never happen. Ever. Its impossible. Even if the IPCC is correct (which it isn't, even now), still nothing will happen to address it.

ANSWER ME: Are 95% of the scientists in the world helping the Government to do harm on citizens? Or is it just you trying to shrug your responsibility on environmental protection?

95% of the scientists in the world? Where do you get that figure then?

It must be the tax-payers who share the burden of trimming down of greenhouse gases emission. No Government is rich enough to do this on her own.

Governments aren't rich. Governments don't own any money.

 

[Parrot of doom]

I meant that anthropogenic sources account for most of the radiative forcing in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases like water vapor, outgassing from the crust, and emissions from decaying plants and animals have resulted in a stable equilibrium over millions of years. The only natural radiative forcing (read: changes in equilibrium) come from increases in solar activity and catastrophic volcano eruptions. These natural sources account for only 6.9 percent of positive radiative forcing over the past 100 years. Human activity accounts for the remaining 93.1 percent.

Thats interesting. If there has been a stable equilibrium over millions of years, then what causes the periodic formation of ice caps? Why was Greenland habitable only 1000 years ago?

It can't be because of co2 because there was a stable equilibrium. So what causes this?

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

the reduction of greenhouse gasses is a proxy for the socialist element that has hijacked the environmental movement.

Show me a river being poisoned, and I'll be out there waving a placard. Show me a factory pumping sulphur into the air, and I'll be annoyed. Cut a forest down to build a housing estate and I won't like it.

But ask me to pay more tax to dissuade me from causing the emission of a relatively unimportant and practically insignificant greenhouse gas based on dubious science and one-sided reporting and I won't accept it.

This to me is sig worthy.

 

[nurizeko]

I'm with Parrot here.

The climate of our fair Earth changes quite rapidly in the grand scheme of our planets history, and to go about as if we know without doubt every little meteorological and climate blip is because of some factory taking a CO2 fart, is off the mark to say the least.

 

[bbson john]

95% of the scientists in the world? Where do you get that figure then?

OMG. It is so obvious that most of the scientists in the world agree to it. Reputable science journey like Nature has all mentioned that anthropogenic greenhouse gases lead to global warming. If you don't believe it, just get into one of any universities and ask a professor on this topic. They will surely have the same opinion as mine. Those who say sun causes the variation of temperature on Earth this two centuries are a small minority.

Btw, what makes you think IPCC is totally wrong on the conclusion of climate change? If IPCC is wrong, thousands of current scientist will come out and piss IPCC off immediately in front of the press. The conclusion of IPCC won't get to the news at all. I don't wish to focus in this, since if you insisted, you can say that a theory all people agree on can still be wrong. Let's focus on the scientific arguments.

No we can't retard global warming. Forget about it, it will never happen. Ever. Its impossible. Even if the IPCC is correct (which it isn't, even now), still nothing will happen to address it.

Yes, we can. But the effect will be seen by the future, not now. The ocean will still rise by a few degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, the temperature will not rise to a degree that human and other complex organisms are inhabitable in the future, if we start to do something.

(about variation of Earth temperature)Funny, I thought it existed before humans were around.

Yes, they were around before human around. The glacial cycle is a clear evidence for a large variation of temperature. I call it the large cycle. We are currently in an interglacial period, which the following period can be a warm period. Yet, the interim of glacial period and warm period lasts for at least 10 million years. The change of temperature should be less then 3 degrees Celsius per million year. Global warming in this century can't be attributed to the large cycle, since we have a temperature rise of 0.7 degree per century (Compare the difference of 3.0 and 0.7*10000). The rise of temperature is simply too fast.

De facto the sun variation theory is talking about sunspot cycle, not any pre-human shit. The change in sunspot density varies in a 11-year cycle, or some say 22-year cycle. Nevertheless, global warming has been undergoing for at least 150 years. the sunspot cycle can't explain this. The most clear evidence is in 1980. In 1980, the number of sunspot decreased in accordance with sun cycle. Theoretically, the average temperature of Earth should decrease accordingly. However, there was still a temperature rise in 1980. This indicates that sun cycle perhaps affects climate on Earth, BUT the major factor, which far outweighs sun cycle's effect, is anthropogenic greenhouse gases emission. It is greenhouse gases to blame.

 

[Vigilante]

Bbson -

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90

Watch that (all parts), it's misleading at times and not all the facts are right but it does give another point of view. It's a good watch.

 

[bbson john]

Quite a nice video. Thank you for introducing it to me.

There is a few nice standpoints in this documentary, but most of it I have heard it before. I don't think this film is really credible. It is just another well-coated skeptic and contrarian film.

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

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors). The film's critics argued that it had misused data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

What is worse than Al Gore's nine scientific errors.

Watch that (all parts), it's misleading at times and not all the facts are right but it does give another point of view. It's a good watch.

Surely, a misleading and non-factual documentary gives its point of view. So do all those who believe in 911 conspiracy and those who think the holocaust doesn't exist.

Take a look at this guy in one of the interviews in the documentary.

 

[Parrot of doom]

OMG. It is so obvious that most of the scientists in the world agree to it.

How many scientists are there in the world, and how many agree? You keep coming up with numbers, how about you quantify them.

Btw, what makes you think IPCC is totally wrong on the conclusion of climate change? If IPCC is wrong, thousands of current scientist will come out and piss IPCC off immediately in front of the press. The conclusion of IPCC won't get to the news at all. I don't wish to focus in this, since if you insisted, you can say that a theory all people agree on can still be wrong. Let's focus on the scientific arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming

Your understanding of media seems to be lacking. I put it to you that you're quite naive. Remember the recent case of the twins getting married, that actually didn't happen at all? That didn't stop it receiving worldwide coverage.

The news doesn't report the truth. The news reports news.

Yes, we can. But the effect will be seen by the future, not now. The ocean will still rise by a few degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, the temperature will not rise to a degree that human and other complex organisms are inhabitable in the future, if we start to do something.

The point is that the cheapest option is likely to deal with the consequences (if they happen), rather than to try and avoid the inevitable. After all, which is cheaper - spending ?1000 on insulating your house with double glazing (only to have to spend another ?1000 ten years later as the seals degrade), or spending ?50 a year extra on your heating?

It is greenhouse gases to blame.

Odd you can make such a bold statement when the IPCC cannot.

 

[bbson john]

The news doesn't report the truth. The news reports news.

Perhaps. This is the reason I read books.

How many scientists are there in the world, and how many agree? You keep coming up with numbers, how about you quantify them.

Majority. I am sure you won't say the ones who agree to anthropogenic global warming are minority. I cannot quantify the number of scientists supporting my side,so do you cannot quantify yours. As I said before, I don't wish to stick on this argument since if anthropogenic global warming is true, the number doesn't matter.

The point is that the cheapest option is likely to deal with the consequences (if they happen), rather than to try and avoid the inevitable. After all, which is cheaper - spending ?1000 on insulating your house with double glazing (only to have to spend another ?1000 ten years later as the seals degrade), or spending ?50 a year extra on your heating?

Ditto. If anthropogenic global warming is true, cost doesn't matter.
After all, you disregard my scientific arguments You've just stuck to my unimportant side arguments and catching my misuse of terminology. You remind me of those insipid creationists.

In fact, solar cycle theory is very old. Everyone read it before. It is full of faults that it cannot explain current up-to-date data. So I deem anthropogenic global warming a much plausible theory. If you wish to argue, face the scientific facts and theories.

 

[Parrot of doom]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Odd how co2 doesn't appear to have much to do with temperature there.

Weathermen can't predict the weather beyond a week. I'm not going to trust a bunch of anti-capitalists to do better.

You still haven't told me how you arrived at 'majority'. I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that.

 

[Eejit]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Odd how co2 doesn't appear to have much to do with temperature there.

Strawman? Nobody's saying CO2 is the only factor that can affect temperature -.-