Global Warming in July!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What "stories" are you talking about?

Here are some graphs depicting recent trends in atmospheric CO2-levels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2

Try referring me to a reputable source if you can, and instead of offering up "charts" please try responding specifically to the particular news reports I was talking about... if you are able, no pressure here, but don't expect a response to a response that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

But just out of curiosity... are you seriously suggesting you have no knowledge of this?


Edit: Apparently this has been swept under the rug... so I suggest you look under the rug.

Originally posted by lemon lime
You assume I get my information from local sources (meaning the immediate area of the country I live in) and seem to assume this is only something that someone from the U.S. would be aware of.

I assumed it was some US thing because most of the global warming deniers I have talked to were Americans who thought Al Gore invented global warming.
Certainly most of the misinformation seems to come from there.

From my point of view and based on what you've said, it might seem you live under a form of government that tightly controls what news you are allowed to see and news not allowed to be seen.
Or maybe we are just not that interested in your petty US energy politics.

I don't believe your government closely monitors news reports so it can remove information it doesn't want you to see.
Well, then it should be an easy task for you to find an article in either a Zambian or South African newspaper that matches your claim. A quick google search should do it. Although I must note that I only read Zambian Newspapers when I go home for Christmas, and only read the local papers here in SA.
Then you should remember that I don't read all the papers, so you need to show that such articles are quite common.
I also read Time magazine and the Guardian Newspaper and don't recall seeing anything in them. Maybe you could do a search of them too?

Instead I believe you indulge in the most extreme form of self censorship and self imposed ignorance that I can recall ever seeing.
You are talking absolute nonsense.

Considering the responses of other posters it seems it is you that incorrectly thinks that some news story you read was a globally popular story when it wasn't.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What "stories" are you talking about?

Here are some graphs depicting recent trends in atmospheric CO2-levels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2

Oh come on. Initial reports of ice core samples touted as indisputable evidence of global warming... and you're telling me you have no memory of this?

You said you're a scientist. I can't say I've ever talked to a real scientist who only refers to Wikipedia to back up what he's saying. Now that I think about it, no real scientist I've talked to has ever referred me to a contributor based information site like Wikipedia. They have always referred me to work they or others in their field have published... such as in legitimate science journals, or independently published papers.

Everyone here disagreeing with me talks as though they are well versed in the global warming topic. And yet they all claim ignorance of topics headlining news stories that appeared for any one to see. So congratulations, you're all doing a bang up job of convincing me of something, but it's probably not the something you intended...

Originally posted by lemon lime
I grabbed the first article I saw that did not line up with the global warming narrative.

Did you? But you claimed there were some well known scandals yet instead of referring us to one, you simply 'grabbed the first article [you] saw that did not line up with the global warming narrative.'?
So it wasn't a well known scandal that you linked us to at all? Did you even read the article yourself or did you link to it based on the headline?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Now that I think about it, no real scientist I've talked to has ever ...

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

I am pretty sure that several of the posters in this thread are scientists by profession. I am not, nor have I claimed to be - but some of them are, and are very real.

Originally posted by lemon lime
And yet they all claim ignorance of topics headlining news stories that appeared for any one to see.

Obviously we read different papers / news sources.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you? But you claimed there were some well known scandals yet instead of referring us to one, you simply 'grabbed the first article [you] saw that did not line up with the global warming narrative.'?
So it wasn't a well known scandal that you linked us to at all? Did you even read the article yourself or did you link to it based on the headline?

pffft... you're taking an admission that I had moved too quickly to post an article as some sort of sign that a scandal never existed.

Can you hear yourself talk? Most people are able to self-examine and self-edit what they are saying. You on the hand appear to be oblivious to what any other reader might see in your messages.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh come on. Initial reports of ice core samples touted as indisputable evidence of global warming... and you're telling me you have no memory of this?

You said you're a scientist. I can't say I've ever talked to a real scientist who only refers to Wikipedia to back up what he's saying. Now that I think about it, no real scientist I've talked to has ...[text shortened]... of convincing me of [b]something, but it's probably not the [i]something you intended...[/b]

Aw shucks, you got me. I guess I'm not a real scientist. Wikipedia is not a primary source but is infinitely more useful than, say, a blog written on the website of a UK tabloid newspaper.

The Wikipedia article I just linked lists 78 references, many of which are journal articles. You're free to check them out; I was mainly wondering what "stories" you were talking about and how they are relevant to the discussion at hand. I was born in the mid-80s, so my memory of news stories pre-dating the mid-90s is not very livid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Obviously we read different papers / news sources.

I was talking to KazetNagorra. Some of what I said applies to you, but most of that message was meant for KazetNagorra... it was one of his messages I was responding to, and it was the person who goes by the name KazetNagorra I was talking to.

You can respond to anything you want... I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't, my point is not everything I say to other people necessarily has anything directly to do with you.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Aw shucks, you got me. I guess I'm not a real scientist. Wikipedia is not a primary source but is infinitely more useful than, say, a blog written on the website of a UK tabloid newspaper.

The Wikipedia article I just linked lists 78 references, many of which are journal articles. You're free to check them out; I was mainly wondering what "sto ...[text shortened]... was born in the mid-80s, so my memory of news stories pre-dating the mid-90s is not very livid.

Actually, I do take your word for it that you are a real scientist. So far you haven't said anything to make me believe you aren't, but what you have said leads me to believe your involvement with science is highly limited to a particular field, and one that doesn't have much if anything to do with the earth sciences. If I had to guess I'd say your specialty is in the field of math.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Actually, I do take your word for it that you are a real scientist. So far you haven't said anything to make me believe you aren't, but what you have said leads me to believe your involvement with science is highly limited to a particular field, and one that doesn't have much if anything to do with the earth sciences. If I had to guess I'd say your specialty is in the field of math.

You're not too far off; I'm a theoretical physicist. I don't know too much about climate science, and honestly I'm not all that interested in it because the models they use are very approximative and rough. Still, it's better than nothing, I suppose.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You're not too far off; I'm a theoretical physicist. I don't know too much about climate science, and honestly I'm not all that interested in it because the models they use are very approximative and rough. Still, it's better than nothing, I suppose.

Not far off at all. I was going to say either physics or chemistry. I was also going to suggest that you probably have little interest in anything having to do with biological systems or earth sciences in general, but you've pretty much confirmed all that without me having to drag it out of you. You're usually very guarded in what you say, so I have to admit I'm surprised you offered up this information about yourself...

There's hope for you yet. 😵

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh come on. Initial reports of ice core samples touted as indisputable evidence of global warming... and you're telling me you have no memory of this?

You said you're a scientist. I can't say I've ever talked to a real scientist who only refers to Wikipedia to back up what he's saying. Now that I think about it, no real scientist I've talked to has ...[text shortened]... of convincing me of [b]something, but it's probably not the [i]something you intended...[/b]

I vaguely remember something about that, but I can't remember if it was from one of the Debates threads or from the media.

Originally posted by humy

I don't know how that would offset your own personal production of CO2.

your question wasn't about our own personal production of CO2 but rather investment into, vaguely put, “mother Earth”.
GM crops that require less pesticides can be environmentally beneficial because of the possible reduction in pesticide use.
However, I should also ...[text shortened]... turing those pesticides releases CO2 so reducing pesticide use would also reduce CO2 production.

I should also point out that manufacturing those pesticides releases CO2 so reducing pesticide use would also reduce CO2 production.


Yes, but unless you are personally responsible for the production of those pesticides then I doubt anyone would hold you personally accountable. It would be the manufacturer (not you) who would be responsible, and thus accountable for the production of CO2 resulting from pesticide production. Is this not so?

An organized system of offsetting personal production of CO2 can only work if 1) only the party or parties responsible for that production are held accountable and 2) seeing as how it's a voluntary system, it's also dependent on how many people are willing to participate.

I suppose you could hold yourself responsible (accountable for) the production of CO2 caused by someone else, if that's what you wanted to do.... but why would you want to do that?

Many of the things we have and use are created by processes that release CO2 into the air. You undoubtedly own or use products like this, so where exactly would you draw the line between your own personal production of CO2 and the release of CO2 resulting from the making of products you own and use?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I vaguely remember something about that, but I can't remember if it was from one of the Debates threads or from the media.

There had to have been at least some discussion of it somewhere at this site. Without actually knowing this I would still wager any amount on that fact (sight unseen), because there is no way a hot topic like this would have been ignored... by anyone, no matter which side of the issue they happened to take.