Global Warming

[Azorus]

Pual,

I think the way you presented the information seemed it more like quoting facts to me, rather than showing your oppissition to.  I see your point a little better now after arguing with you on the forum, but global warming is still not human cuased in my point of view.  And no I don't work for Big Oil. 

P.S.  I do see your point on the petition.  Lets throw it away and just look at the facts though.

[PaulLowrance]

Agreed that we should look at the facts. The science community in totality can only present it's interpretation based on data, and there's still debates on *how much* of GW is caused by humanity, but according to the references most of the science community believes the main cause of global warming is humanity. Obviously some of it is. I mean, they can measure an alarming rise in temperatures from just an increase in car traffic alone. If I ever come across that data again I'll post the reference. Also Mythbuster verified that CO2 does cause a warming.

Paul

[Azorus]

Pual,

All greenhouse gases cuase global warming.  No arguement there.  Yes I agree we are cuasing some of the problem, how much I don't know.  I think it is stupid for humans to say we are the main cuase of global warming without the facts to back it up.  I want to keep looking at the facts and see if we are.  I also want to look for a greener future too.  Still at current we cannot say we are cuasing the increase in temps.  The true factor will be with the solar cycle that is taking place right now.  We are currently experiencing a solar min for the last two years.  If the previous data charts can show us anything it is a trend, if the trend is right and the sun is the main mover of our climate, then we should see cooling in the next decade or so.  If not and we still haven't gotten off our lazy butts to change our currently dirty habits to a more greener, than we are in for trouble to say the least.

[Pirate88179]

Paul:

I think you have really hit upon the million dollar question here.  I think this is where the real debate should be, although it does get side tracked by both sides.

The question:  Is any temperature change (up or down) man caused?  If so, how much?

Because, as many scientists have said, IF (unknown at this time) we did not cause it (man) then we can not change it.

If there is going to be another pole reversal as we have experienced on the planet, well man was probably not here at those times, the planet has experienced several that we know of, people can hold meetings...debate all they want, ban certain products, etc. but we can not stop it from happening. It, by definition, is a natural event.

So, IF there is proven to be a link between any climate change and mankind, then, possibly we can alter behavior and slow it down or stop it.  But, if the real data shows no involvement or effect by man, then I do not see how we think we can change something we did not cause. It would then be considered part of the earth's natural cycles to which we can either adapt, or perish.

Anyway, I think that is the real debate.

Bill

[ATT]

@Paul

...the problem I'm having with accepting TSI as a *main* effect for global warming is that from 1600 to mid 1700's TSI takes a massive nosedive, but global warming does not respond.

Graphically, TSI's effect correlates with the years from 1870 to 1980 with at least the same correspondence as carbon-emissions, population and temperature-rise. As to the degree of influence, quantification of several factors admittedly beyond my scope would have to be calculated.

BTW, could you clarify on one of your recent statements where it appeared as if you said both sides are siding with Big Oil?  I do not see the environmentalist (global warmest) siding with Big Oil. In fact, it's the opposite, as they are opposed to Big Oil. Could you please clarify.

Sure, what I was getting at is that each side accuses the other of being duped by special interests and that, ultimately, the special interests (or erstwhile governments) deliniated by each side end up being controlled by Big Oil or it's ilk ( Rothchilds, World Bank, Bilderburgers, etc.).

@cap

When clear evidence of fraud is before my eyes, with no denials from the accused...I do not need for anyone else to come along and confirm and anoint the evidence, before I draw my conclusion.

The key here is one's interpretation of 'clear evidence', that requires research and some degree of collaboration to insure we don't introduce personal bias into the outcome, otherwise the opinion has no more value than that of tabloid innuendo.

Now, if we can get back to the crime, criminals, corruption, and their global dominance plans. 

You bet! Bring your best evidence to the table and throw it down with the rest of us, maybe together we'll sort it out and get to the bottom of all this (or at least have some fun trying...).

Tony