Fine - since you believe so strongly in this, it should be simple for you to show post an authentic, scientific reference proving what you so religiously believe in. Don't tell me to do a web search. Don't dare me to do the work you're obviously too lazy to do yourself. Stop being so evasive! Go ahead and show us! Show us facts! Show us historical evidence! SHOW US!
http://www.co2science.org/ is it that where you come from? Just had a few good laughters as they found out, look at the video clip, that C02 produces organic life, lol. Why do we know for decades that it is also called 'greenhouse gas' and your buddies just found out? They even provide a peer paper, lol. Had just a good laugh before I go to sleep now. Oh yes, at this time I'm a bit lazy. It's 4:30am, lol
Um, that page you referenced isn't science. It would even make a good Geocities webpage! I asked for science, you sent me fiction? Yeah, I "just had a few good laughters (sic)" when I saw how silly that website is - and a waste of time! Yeah, what a good laugh. Let me blast your fantasy to bits: your hallucination of ocean acidification is based on three things: 1. The CO2 in the earth's oceans absolutely must be at the same levels throughout eternity, 2. That any change, no matter how minor, is bad, and, 3. That we know what the pH of the earth's oceans were, everywhere, 100 years ago Since we live in a constantly changing world, 1 & 2 are obviously wrong. And 3 is impossible to verify - especially since the pH of the earth's oceans constantly changes depending upon location, environment, the month and weather, the inhabitants in the ocean, etc.
a bit too late to turn around the facts, don't you think so? http://www.sciencedaily.com could/should be your daily lecture. Don't become friendly with mind control tactics, it won't work.
I agree with him.. sometimes it happens, while sometimes it doesn't.. probably we are not a match against this larger universe..
Corwin, as for your point about the planet changing I Agree, the planet does change, it has changed many times before in far more profound ways. That's why 99% of all species which ever existed are now extinct. I dont fancy joining them, do you? Nobody is denying that the planet has changed in the past, just like nobody is denying that in ancient history Co2 levels were much higher or arguing that Co2 is inherently bad (re: the cretinous point someone made about co2 making up a large proportion of air). What people are arguing is that co2 is a greenhouse gas (I can explain the science of what that means if you need me to), we are releasing lots of it and a sufficient amount of change to the planet now willl result in us dying out.
stOx, yes, I understand your point. But what we are discussing now isn't political or opinion, it's hard science and it's governed by the unforgiving god of mathematics. I have searched the internet and spoken to other scientists, and in three years I have yet to see a solid mathematical model that shows that mankind is responsible for significant global climate change. I can't even find evidence that, globally, mankind can even make a dent. Just yesterday, I was reading how NASA is refusing to comply with Freedom of Information Requests for the raw data to support their conclusion that global warming is manmade. And the historical climate data is "missing". The way science works is, the researcher supplies the scientific community with their raw data, shows their math, and shows their conclusions. Even Einstein didn't insist people take his word for it. The people that decoded the human genome project published all their work and all their conclusions. I live near Harvard and MIT and I should be able to pick up the phone and talk to someone that can share the raw data upon which they based their conclusions. To the best of my knowledge, that raw data does not exist.
Corwin if you can't find the data I'd sadly have you conclude that you diliberately aren't looking for it. Honestly, you are sounding like these people who ask for a fossil of a fish turning into a cat and conclude that evolution didn't happen because they can't find it. I'm at work on my iPhone at the moment so can't really get the information for you. What I would ask you to do is watch some videos from potholer on YouTube. He is a British scientist who only ever uses peer reviewed statistics and experimental data in his videos. Then if you can find any specific claim you'd like to refute post it here and I'll debate it's merits with you. What I can't do is refute the claim that the data doesn't exist because that would be like me arguing against the claim that Australia doesn't exist. Sure, you can't see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
I would have to counter and reply that if you can't cite me data, then you haven't looked for it or you don't understand the topic, do you? For example, "peer reviewed statistics and experimental data" is uselessly vague. Science is precise. What the hell is a "peer reviewed statistic"? I should have added in my original post that, in these discussions, I usually get one of two responses: 1. The data is there, go find it 2. Look at this stunning video This is what you do not understand - I don't want to see someone else's interpretation of 2nd hand statistics. I want the raw data so I can run my own calculations, or at the very least solve it as a Fermi Problem. I'm not looking for a video who's aim it is to emotionally manipulate me into believing something that has no data and believe me, I've seen plenty of them of this topic. I've never heard of a scientist named "potholer", unless maybe his parents didn't like him very much. I ask for data, you refer me to "potholer"? I've seen your posts and you're not that dumb, so I don't know what your intention is unless it's to waste your own time.
Peer reviewed statistics and experimental data is data which has been obtained and verified. I don't know by what other means you expect climate change to be proven. I referred you to potholer because in his videos he presents the data, peer reviewed data, and then explains how and why it shows that climate change is a reality. Have a look at them, emotions play no part in his conclusions. It seems you are prepping the ground to enable you to dismiss the data when I inevatibly provide it. Like claiming the data provided by someone on YouTube is likey to be invalid because they have a username which isn't their real name. I can understand why you would be reluctant to watch the videos though. The position of the anti CC crowd is never to pursue the truth, only to defend their position.
What do the statistics represent? "experimental data"? What experiments did he run? WHO has verified these numbers? Was it sent out for review in Scientific American, or did the guy walk down the hall and ask people in their cubicles that day? Why doesn't he operate under his real name? Why is there no user on YouTube called "potholer"? If you will "inevatibly" (sic) provide me with the data, then go ahead and provide me with the data. Go ahead and please provide me with the data as you say in your above post - you have my attention.
lol no. It wasn't sent to the discovery channel either. Peer review tends not to be done in poularist rags. Because it's the internet. here he is. Feel free to refute any claim or source cited in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo Out of curiosity, what bit is it you believe to be untrue? That human activity is producing Co2 or that Co2 absorbs long wave radiation? Because, obviously, to be sceptical of anthropogenic climate change one of those statements has to be untrue.