Man-made global warming

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Did you even read the link I provided? Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming. Isn't my point obvious?

"Thats because you have no argument, so sarcasm is all you have left."

Read the link. It is from Reuters so the source should not be a problem wit ou afraid it will cost you money?"

What is your problem? Do you just like wasting money?

Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming. Isn't my point obvious?

This statement is erroneous. I try to explain why as clearly as I can:

The climate models scientist give of how fast the climate would warm due to CO2 predict that the rate would be extremely unlikely (or even impossible?) to be a constant perfectly steady rise in global average temperature with that rate going up perfectly steady but rather, because climate is a chaotic system that, as implied by chaos theory, will, within certain probable limits, fluctuate in a totally unpredictable manner, rise erratically with sometimes the rate of temperature rise going up then down then later up again then later down again …. I think you must surely get the picture.


With or without global warming, we can expect the temperature to occasionally and unpredictably rise for a few years and occasionally and unpredictably fall for a few years.
And the same obviously applies to the average rate of temperature rise over each decade and over, say, each 30 year period and over, say, each 60 year period etc and only in the very long run may smooth out to be a lot more predictable.

Therefore, if there has been a recent slowing down of warming over the last few years, it is NOT true what you said that
“...scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming...” because those scientist have nothing TOO explain! Because, with CO2-driven global warming, we would rationally EXPECT that the rate of warming to sometimes go up and sometimes go down.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Did you even read the link I provided?

No, nor do I intend to. Is your point contained in the link? If I followed the link, would I be able to tell which point was yours?

Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming. Isn't my point obvious?
So, what is your point? Are you saying scientists could be wrong that CO2 causes global warming? I want a yes / no answer to this, not a link to some website.

What is your problem? Do you just like wasting money?
No, I don't like wasting money, nor do I plan to. So, am I correct in thinking that you believe doing something about global warming is equivalent to wasting money? Are you unaware of things that can be done without costing money? If things could be done that did not cost you money, would you support them, or are you still waiting for those Reuters people to write another article?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
We can also GM people to become mermaids. Problem solved.

It wouldn't solve the problem for me. GMing me into a maid isn't something I want to happen.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Get a sense of humor sometime.

It's not his fault. He's still waiting for someone to develop an app for that.

Originally posted by DeepThought
What?

LOL I think he's saying the earth didn't always have polar ice caps.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it has already caused a number of problems world wide. Or don't you watch the news?

Yes, I watch FOX News.

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is no scientific uncertainty as to whether or not climate change is happening.
There is no scientific uncertainty as to whether or not CO2 emissions are to blame.
And the warming is not, and has not, slowed down.

Claiming otherwise is a lie.

But it could be mainly from cow patties, dog poop, and other animals.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/25/443240/-Cow-Dog-Kitty-Poop-Rescue-Global-Warming#

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
But it could be mainly from cow patties, dog poop, and other animals.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/25/443240/-Cow-Dog-Kitty-Poop-Rescue-Global-Warming#

The Instructor

So you feed people oil as well as the other poop you give 'em.

To my annoyance, on the occasion that I first tried to post this I got a message threatening me with a forum ban apparently for attempting to use a synonym for poop which started with the letter before "T" and ended in "hit". Really I agree with bans on not abusing people or swearing overly, but since it's not sexual it's not going to offend anyone that much.

Originally posted by DeepThought
So you feed people oil as well as the other poop you give 'em.

To my annoyance, on the occasion that I first tried to post this I got a message threatening me with a forum ban apparently for attempting to use a synonym for poop which started with the letter before "T" and ended in "hit". Really I agree with bans on not abusing people or swearing overly, but since it's not sexual it's not going to offend anyone that much.

Apparently, you must learn to use the words that are not considered offensive. So now you know a word that is still considered okay. So get over your annoyance and use it.

The Instructor

Originally posted by DeepThought
So you feed people oil as well as the other poop you give 'em.

To my annoyance, on the occasion that I first tried to post this I got a message threatening me with a forum ban apparently for attempting to use a synonym for poop which started with the letter before "T" and ended in "hit". Really I agree with bans on not abusing people or swearing overly, but since it's not sexual it's not going to offend anyone that much.

If it was an automatic message, then it's a filter looking for a specific set of words.

It's easy enough to get around that. Instead of saying that word which starts with the letter that comes before the letter T you could say feces, or fecal matter, or just use a string of words that suggest the word you really want to say, and want to say so badly you can taste it, but have to resort to using visual imagery just to get it out there in a way it can't be rejected.

And now, I'll see if this message passes the test or not.

Edit: Next I'll try some visual imagery, but not right now. I'm all pooped out from the strain of running back and forth to my computer when I should be doing something else.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, nor do I intend to. Is your point contained in the link? If I followed the link, would I be able to tell which point was yours?

[b]Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming. Isn't my point obvious?
So, what is your point? Are you saying scientists ...[text shortened]... you support them, or are you still waiting for those Reuters people to write another article?[/b]

Clearly you have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts. You are just a left wing extremist who thinks we will be water world. Not reality.

Originally posted by humy

Warming is slowing down and scientists cannot explain it based on their assertion that it is rising CO2 levels that is causing the warming. Isn't my point obvious?

This statement is erroneous. I try to explain why as clearly as I can:

The climate models scientist give of how fast the climate would warm due to CO2 predict that the rate ...[text shortened]... , we would rationally EXPECT that the rate of warming to sometimes go up and sometimes go down.

My statement is correct, you just have blind faith like a religion.

Here are a couple of excerpts from the link:

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

Here is the other one:

"The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say."

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has no credibility. Data was altered to fit a false belief or agenda. People do this often and it is really pathetic. Some people just can't admit that some scientists alter their data to prove a preconceived theory.

I remember a case where a scientist (who was apparently a racist) was trying to prove that Africans and Native Americans had smaller brains than whites. He was using mustard seed and documented the size of the brain cavity of skulls with the seed. He found his theory was correct, but it really was not at all correct. He was probably shaking the seed to fluff it up in some skulls and packing it down in others to get the results he wanted. Had he used marbles or ball bearings that would have been impossible, but you get the picture. Some scientists get the results they want and are proven wrong later. People usually get the results they are determined to find and call it proof because that was the goal.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I watch FOX News.

The Instructor

I like the way you said that. Its like you know its censored and you are proud of it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Clearly you have your mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts. You are just a left wing extremist who thinks we will be water world. Not reality.

Clearly you don't want to actually admit what your own stance on global warm is or why.
1. Do you accept that the earth is warming? (I believe you have already answered yes).
2. Do you accept that this is largely caused by CO2? If not, why not. And no, the link you gave did not contradict this, so you'll have to find some other links.
3. Do you accept that global warming will eventually result in all the ice melting and a sea level rise of several metres? If not, why not?
4. Do you think something should be done about this warming? If not, why not?

See, I am perfectly happy to learn new facts. You are just not ready to give me any. Instead, you think that being vaguely critical of climate science on a chess website is going to get you out of paying carbon tax.

The problem is you think your tactics from the debates forum are going to work here in the science forum.