how much do you concern about global warming?

Well, no. All you done was fabricate a logical fallacy and attribute it to me.

I could say the same thing about anti-global warming clowns;
"I have a data set, 5 out of every six planets which high co2 content have higher temperatures. My conclusion is that high co2 content doesn't cause increased temperature". (though my flawed analogy would be more accurate than yours).

is there, or is there not, Compelling evidence that co2 content of atmospheres is the main factor contributing to global climate? (i refer you to the numbers posted regarding the global temp of mercury and Venus)

I'm still waiting for supper to respond to what i posted in bold.

 

Atmospheric content for sure. The evidence is there

 

I get really tired of this subject, and I am not a scientist of any sort, but here is my 2 cents anyway. Humanity does contribute to global warming. It is as close to a fact as it will ever be. Is that contribution large enough to be meaningful and dangerous? As far as I know the jury is still out on that one. Half degrees of warming don't seem too dangerous but when it comes to ecosystems and weather changes a consistent warming across the board can be pretty dangerous. How much of those half degrees are a direct product of humanity? Jury is out on that too.
On a more personal note, we have had 4 years of drought in a row for the first time in my life, our forests are being wrecked around here by insects that have never settled this far south, and just watching the weather channel has shown me that the weather fronts have begun to form about one state higher than usual, meaning we are getting weather like we have never had before. All that says to me, that my area is getting warmer than historically normal. But I am still not ready to scrap all the hummers in the US and call it fixed.

 

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/612/2

Blame the return of a healthy Ozone Layer...

 

Thanks for the link G, I know we fundamentally disagree on a lot but I am always interested in your view. It makes me feel a little better that our ozone seems to be recovering, but I still think as an enlightened society (I am illuminated) we have a responsibility to be concerned.

 

Yep, I aim to be interesting, if not likable.

It's ok to be concerned. What's not good is to be terrified, or overreactionary.

 

Global warming, a scam to get sheaple agree to a gasoline tax

http://db.georgegordon.com/view_prog.php?prog=288

 

woo! reinforcements have arrived! lol

edit: demosfan, what kind of music is that at the beginning of Part 1 of 7? do they call that big band?

 

Because people agree to increased gasoline tax. They love it now, Right? their evil plan must be working! they must also have fabricated all of the independently collated data, all of the ice cores and bought off every scientist that analysed the data to come to a conclusion. I know it sounds implausible, But if the devil can put fossils in the ground to make it look like evolution is true i'm sure the government can do all of this.

I don't mind discussing things with people who are entirely ignorant on the subject, part of my job here is to educate, But let's try to stick to facts and reality and have less made up bullshit from tinfoil hat wearing producers of conspiracy podcasts.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question Guerilla;
is there, or is there not, Compelling evidence that co2 content of atmospheres is the main factor contributing to global climate? (i refer you to the numbers posted regarding the global temp of mercury and Venus)

I'm still waiting for a reply from supper regarding what i bolded in this post
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=8117829&postcount=51
edit: I just realised supper is banned so i wont hold my breath.

 

If they did, the scientists would come to the opposite conlusion. Those who are on the government payroll actually did (if you want to call them 'scientists'?)

 

Give me names of scientists that were bought off by the government and names of scientists who faked data. You know, Just in case this conversation ends up as evidence in a slander law suite.

This kind of tact is so typical of anti-science people, We get it a lot from creationists too. When the data and evidence doesn't support their preconceived idea of reality or the claims made by a conspiracy theorist they try to detract from the validity of the data and the credibility of the observer.

 

I assume you're referring to the US government. Does this mean they are manipulating thousands of federally funded scientists but also many more from UNiversities and other institutions besides all the non-US scientists from around the world? Talking about conspiracies...

 

Why are you insisting that all scientists have reached the same conclusion?

Many scientists dispute global warming and the research behind it.

Which is why we should all be concerned, but skeptical about anything that creates new global taxes, damages industry and makes it illegal to fart.

After all, the biggest hydrocarbon consumer in the world is and always has been war, because it is the only activity that destroys rather than produces prosperity at that level of consumption.

All of you leftists are so disappointing. You want to attack the industries which make our consumer goods, and soccer moms in minivans, but you don't want to address the murderous war machine as being a major contributor to climate change.

Are there any principled liberals out there?

 

Nobody is saying increased taxes are the answer. In fact i would say they are the anti answer. We can't just make it obscenely expensive to pollute the planet, We need to make it so alternative energy solutions are viable, cost effective and available. And more importantly we need to educate people so they understand the consequences of pumping this shit into the atmosphere (i wasn't talking about your argument then).

Not everything has to be about taxes guerilla, Your one-trick-pony responses are tiresome. Yeah, We get it, You don't like taxes and the government, Change the record now.

And answer my question.

 

Sure, there aren't any federal funds allocated to anything that doesn't fit the government agenda. It's common for scientists to get fired or otherwise prosecuted when get into something that hurts the elites. I don't think you could find any government scientist left who doesn't support the idea that global warming is caused by human activity. I am sure there are many who don't sincerely subscribe to this dogma, but if they want to be able to pay their mortgage and support their family they'll keep quiet

Hilary Clinton was once asked why she is opposed to private schools receiving government funds. She admitted it was because the money might be spent for something contrary to the standards enforced by the government. It makes all the sense in the world if you think about it, why wouldn't government watch after it's own interests

 

Got no names or evidence then? Just wild speculation and assumptions that it must be happening... which apparently is all you need to reject an entire field of heavily evidence based science. Makes sense. thanks for demonstrating how futile any attempt at rational dialogue is with someone predisposed to conspiracy and inherently suspicious of science.

 

No, you don't get it. The taxes are what smells bad about this. You're right, they aren't the answer, which makes it odd that the state and people associated with the state and corporate power are selling the problem and taxes and cap/trade as the solution.

That should smell as bad as any number of other bad things the establishment tries to sell people on.

That's what I mean by disappointing leftists. You guys get mad at issues, without every questioning or pursuing the philosophy of the solution/problem. You're all just a bunch of reactionary partisan babies with no principles or direction of your own. Daily KOS is a good example of this kind of thinking, where it is an endless whine fest.

Yes, there are problems. How will you fix them? And no, government is not the answer, government created the problem in the first place.

The energy problem would already be solved if the US government hadn't impeded electric cars and given massive subsidies for SUVs. Whatever. Leftists.... ugh

I'm sorry, I didn't reply to your question before. I mostly skim read unless I respond, where I pick posts apart line by line. You need to bold my name or something to make sure I see it.

Is this what you wanted me to respond to?

 

If the government are trying to profit from this then that is obviously bad. But then, They also say the tax on tobacco is to stop people smoking, That doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause cancer and it doesn't mean it's not better for people if they don't smoke. The thread is about how much we should be concerned with climate change and how real the danger is, not if someone is making money from the situation (which is also bad, But still, An entirely separate issue).

this was the question;
is there, or is there not, Compelling evidence that co2 content of atmospheres is the main factor contributing to global climate? (i refer you to the numbers posted regarding the global temp of mercury and Venus).

And add on question would be, If that is compelling evidence (which it should be), Should it not be immensely worrying when we look at the increase of Co2 in the atmosphere since industrialisation? regardless if you think the government are benefiting from climate change, is it not real, serious and at least contributed to by our actions? And is the theory that climate change is at least contributed to by us not supported by factual data?

 

I'm not going to lie to you. I try to be an expert at many things, but complicated mathematics and science are not among them.

I believe there is a lot more of certain chemicals in the atmosphere due to modern ways of life. Of course, CO2 is produced by humans and is food for plant life. I remember in the 90s when it was the rain forests, and we were going to run out of breathable air.

I just don't know. What I am telling you, is that there are compelling cases on both sides, and I think it is zealotry to think that global warming science is perfect.

As for the thing I quoted before, the notion that being closer to the sun doesn't affect temperature is absolute nonsense. The proof being how temperatures drop at night on earth, and hit their zenith at noon during the day.

 

Is there any chance you'd look into what scientists have to say instead of promoting global warming BS? There are 31000 signitures under the Oregon Institute of Science petition, can you point me to one that doesn't belong to a non-scientist? Or someone who receives ANY funds from the government or any organization that promotes global warming alarmism? Would you let know when you find one?

If we are going to discuss whether scientists believe that global warming is caused by human activity, can we also discuss whether pigs can fly while we are at it?