ceebs on 12/12/2009 at 18:04
Quote Posted by Fragony
These small details like the earth not warming up for 10 years and just about every scientific institutions trying to cover that up. Irrelevant? How exactly.
Well apart from the fact that this claim that the earth hasn't warmed for ten years is utter, utter shite. (As several people already pointed out several times already)
And the "just about every scientific institution trying to cover it up" bit is a bit of a stretch from one email at one site that you are purposely not understanding.
Fragony on 12/12/2009 at 18:59
Quote Posted by ceebs
Well apart from the fact that this claim that the earth hasn't warmed for ten years is utter, utter shite. (As several people already pointed out several times already)
And the "just about every scientific institution trying to cover it up" bit is a bit of a stretch from one email at one site that you are purposely not understanding.
one e-mail, are you serious.
edit, and no it isn't
Namdrol on 12/12/2009 at 19:02
Frags, I see you are trying to ignore the example I gave in regards to mans insignificant 4% of CO2.
Care to refute or explain?
smallfry on 12/12/2009 at 19:42
Okay look. I work for two separate scientific research companies (one of which is non-profit) specializing in ocean, atmosphere, and space sciences. The researchers have no secret agendas, there is no talk of any conspiracies. There is, however, solid, objective scientific research.
I think the thing that makes global climate change hard to understand for people like Fragony is that scientists don't have a second Earth that they can run experiments on and say 'Ah-ha! See how the temperature increases as we increase the amount of greenhouse gases.' But research in global climate change is not new- in fact it's been researched for over a hundred years by thousands of scientists. So we have massive amounts of data, and in fact can accurately predict the effects of the change in climate with respect to certain kinds of greenhouse gases (Mt. Pinatubo). Further, we can measure levels of CO2 in the atmosphere with high precision, as well as the source of the gas (naturally occurring or from fossil fuels), so for CO2 (as well as other non-naturally occurring greenhouse gases) we know just how much humans are contributing.
I don't know where you're getting your "facts," but since you seem like you have a lot of interest in the subject I'd like to recommend this report: (
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html. Two of the scientists I work with contributed to several chapters and it's not too "sciencey" so any lay person can understand it. Please, at least read (and I recommend to everyone who's interested) the section "(
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf) Summary for Policymakers" [PDF] since it's a great and thorough summary of the issue.
ceebs on 13/12/2009 at 03:47
(
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails
Quote:
LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Quote:
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible. Fragony on 13/12/2009 at 06:34
Quote Posted by Namdrol
Frags, I see
you are trying to ignore the example I gave in regards to mans insignificant 4% of CO2.
Care to refute or explain?
I didn't ignore it I actually nominated you for an honor-doctorate at the prestigious Mugabe University of Zimbabwe. If the result is the same, the math must be wrong.
Acid rain, ozon layer, my joints hurts because I have run out of oil, and now drowning polar bears. In 5 years or so people will have to be absolutely terrified about something else. But it really comes down to this: forgive me mother nature for I have consumed. It's a religion, and you my dears are the flaggalants
You keep them poor, and I'll keep them stupid. Famous words from a dutch bishop to a feudal lord.
Namdrol on 13/12/2009 at 07:54
OK, I see the level we've reached.
Fragony you are consumed with fear, it has influenced your posts from the start.
(Just had a browse through this thread again. Forgotten how long it had been going on, how much evidence had been presented and how much horseshit Frag has written.)
Don't worry mate, the fear and dread will fade one day and you'll wake to a bright dawn.
edit: Please read the link smallfry provided.
Please, even if just to try and deny the "facts".
Muzman on 13/12/2009 at 08:00
We need a name for this, like say 'the argument from fatigue'; we've had enough scary problems of late, this is one too many. Maybe 'the argument from coincidence'; that many environmental causes celebre can't be correct so lets pick this one to poo poo, science be damned.
The truth is it's 'the argument from 'THOSE FUCKING HIPPIES AREN'T GOING TO WIN THIS ONE. THATS ALL THAT MATTERS'
They're all equally convincing.
It's nice that you are so in tune with and care for the emotional well being of the public so. Far more terrifying would be some countervailing science. Produce that and you would have the power to soothe with a word.
