I finally found a complete list of all facts proving man is causing "GlobalWarming"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Kinda looks like the exact same list as the one proving man is not causing Global Warming.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Kinda looks like the exact same list as the one proving man is not causing Global Warming.

 

Beyond the fallacious argument of asking one to prove a negative, here goes:

 

1. Numerous warming/cooling trends before we started producing CO2. Check.

 

2. Other planets experiencing warming right now. Check.

 

I could go on, but those right there are enough.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Beyond the fallacious argument of asking one to prove a negative, here goes:

 

1. Numerous warming/cooling trends before we started producing CO2. Check.

 

2. Other planets experiencing warming right now. Check.

 

I could go on, but those right there are enough.

 

 

I suppose that you have never even read any of the IPCC reports. You can start with the FAQ and move on from there. You will see that:

1. Definitely there have been events prior to the industrial revolution that were not the result of man, but the changes being experienced since then are statistically beyond what could be considered normal or coincidence.

2. Other planets do not have the same atmosphere that we do. Any attempt to utilize their situations for either side is ludicrous.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I suppose that you have never even read any of the IPCC reports. You can start with the FAQ and move on from there. You will see that:

1. Definitely there have been events prior to the industrial revolution that were not the result of man, but the changes being experienced since then are statistically beyond what could be considered normal or coincidence.

2. Other planets do not have the same atmosphere that we do. Any attempt to utilize their situations for either side is ludicrous.

 

1. What facts do you have that prove the changed experienced since then are beyond what could be considered normal or coincidence? How do these clowns explain the current predictions of the GW crowd that the next decade will actually get cooler?

 

2. The other planets have the same Sun. Hmmmmm...................

 

Bonus: Can you bring one instance where the predictions made by a GW computer model actually occurred and wasn't totally off base?

[peenie 1,690]

i do believe man i ruining the planet but i wonder if global warming isn't just going to happen anyway. i mean, wasn't europe a big ice cap and wasn't egypt once a plush greenland?

[Strike 3,979]

I suppose that you have never even read any of the IPCC reports.

 

Is this the same IPCC report that so many scientists who's names are on it want to disassociate themselves from because the U.N. bastardized their input? You mean THAT IPCC report?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

1. What facts do you have that prove the changed experienced since then are beyond what could be considered normal or coincidence? How do these clowns explain the current predictions of the GW crowd that the next decade will actually get cooler?

 

2. The other planets have the same Sun. Hmmmmm...................

 

Bonus: Can you bring one instance where the predictions made by a GW computer model actually occurred and wasn't totally off base?

 

So, I take it the answer to whether you read the FAQ is a "no". It answers #1 quite well.

 

#2 does not get brought up because there are far too many factors to utilize other planets as a basis to prove or disprove anything that happens here.

 

As far as the bonus goes, the tree huggers have actually stated that the IPCC reports underestimate the problem and have used their underestimating of several key areas in their 2001 report as their basis. In other words, they claim that the IPCC downplayed the risks and the actual results that came about afterwards shows that the computer models were too conservative.

 

I am a skeptical guy myself. However, when a group of scientists comes up with a report that the lobbyists view as being too alarmist and the tree huggers think is not strong enough, I think that they are on the right track.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Is this the same IPCC report that so many scientists who's names are on it want to disassociate themselves from because the U.N. bastardized their input? You mean THAT IPCC report?

So many?

 

From the accounts of the few that I read, it is vague as to whether some of those scientists felt their report was watered down or was made too strong.

 

BTW - if you have a source that you think is a good one, please let me know as I would love to see it.

[mighty_thor 115]

The US governemnet believes that man is partly responsible.

[Rattlesnake 0]

but the changes being experienced since then are statistically beyond what could be considered normal or coincidence.

 

This is the key point that far too many people conveniently choose to ignore.

[Doyle Redland 0]

Why does there have to be a clear consensus on the cause to make doing what we can to reverse/slow down the effects that are measurably,i.e verifiably happening? See polar ice cap size changes as an example. I just don't get the resistance to admitting that something is happening. I would think that with American industry and technologies leading the way, some solutions and large amounts of jobs could come from taking this approach. The only threat would be to big oil and if they can't figure out a way to get involved in such amanner as to assure themselves a big slice of the new pie, f ém. whole industries get replaced by technology advancements all the time

bought a horse drawn carriage or vinyl record lately?

[Rattlesnake 0]

I just don't get the resistance to admitting that something is happening.

 

One word - ignorance.

[Savage Beast 1]

Why does there have to be a clear consensus on the cause to make doing what we can to reverse/slow down the effects that are measurably,i.e verifiably happening? See polar ice cap size changes as an example.

 

 

You mean that ice actually melts in the sun?

 

I have never seen this happen.

 

I used to be able to use the same cubes of ice all summer long in my iced tea.

 

Darn you Global Warming!

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

You mean that ice actually melts in the sun?

 

I have never seen this happen.

 

I used to be able to use the same cubes of ice all summer long in my iced tea.

 

Darn you Global Warming!

 

Well, the truth is that this is not due to Global Warming. No wanted to spoil your party, but you are just in the Lake of Fire.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

I have no problem having a clean planet, and taking care of where we live. We should all recycle, not litter, and if we can pollute less then I'm all for it. A clean planet is obviously better than a dirty one.

 

But I don't buy this global warming thing. And yes I know, I'm in the minority here. Gore has done a pretty good job convincing everyone the world is going to melt. To me, it's pretty much the same as religion for me. Because I have a tough time grasping either...

 

Religion is based on faith, not proof. Alot of believers say... maybe there isn't a god, but what if there is? I don't want to end up a burning lake of fire so I better just believe in it, just in case.

 

GW preachers base their proof on computer simulations that have repeatedly been wrong. And they say, maybe there isn't man made global warming...but what if there is? I don't want to end up in the wasteland that Al Gore promised me would come. I better just believe in it, just in case.

 

Now, if Al Gore REALLY believed all of this end of the world stuff his laptop tells him...wouldn't he be the first one to change his way of life? Instead of using more energy than a small country at his Tennessee home? Oh but wait...he can offset his carbon footprint by purchasing carbon credits from...himself

[mighty_thor 115]

Interesting story in todays LA Times:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wa...0,5988164.story

 

Cheney's office tried to alter greenhouse gas testimony, former official says

By Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 9, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Vice President ###### Cheney's office worked to alter sworn congressional testimony provided by a federal official in order to play down the threat of global warming and head off regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, a former government official said in a new accusation Tuesday.

 

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA was required to evaluate whether greenhouse gas emissions posed a risk and, if so, implement regulations on polluters. President Bush has opposed mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, oil refineries and other polluters, contending such steps would drive up energy costs and hurt the economy.

 

But White House efforts to edit testimony were "clearly misconduct, in terms of interfering with scientific information," said Bettina Poirier, staff director for the environment committee. However, she said, she was still examining whether those actions violated the law.

 

For Cheney, the new accusation, coming as he winds down his time in Washington, is similar to criticism he faced early in his vice presidency over private meetings he held to shape national energy policy. Then, as now, the White House refused to turn over documents sought by congressional investigators.

 

Administration efforts to alter her testimony have been previously reported. But, in a new allegation, Burnett charged Tuesday that Cheney's office had been involved in efforts to delete portions of her testimony on the health risks of climate change. He declined to identify who in the vice president's office had sought the changes.

 

In December, Burnett said, he sent the White House an e-mail finding, in response to the Supreme Court ruling, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a risk, a step toward regulation. But shortly after, Burnett said, "I was asked to send a follow-up note saying that the e-mail had been sent in error."

 

"I explained that I could not do this because it was not true," he said.

 

The new charges of political interference come as California works to overturn a federal decision in December denying California and other states permission to impose stricter emission standards than the federal government.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Interesting story in todays LA Times:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wa...0,5988164.story

 

The Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA was required to evaluate whether greenhouse gas emissions posed a risk and, if so, implement regulations on polluters. President Bush has opposed mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, oil refineries and other polluters, contending such steps would drive up energy costs and hurt the economy.

 

This is what scares the crap out of me. Corporations here are already at a disadvantage to other nations with less restrictions. But, it is a matter of time until our lifestyle is taxed due to environmental regulations too. In Europe people are already taxed more in alot of countries if they drive a gas guzzler. Eventually all this GW crap will turn into another way for the government to get money out of us.

[Snoopy1 0]

I have no problem having a clean planet, and taking care of where we live. We should all recycle, not litter, and if we can pollute less then I'm all for it. A clean planet is obviously better than a dirty one.

 

But I don't buy this global warming thing. And yes I know, I'm in the minority here. Gore has done a pretty good job convincing everyone the world is going to melt. To me, it's pretty much the same as religion for me. Because I have a tough time grasping either...

 

Religion is based on faith, not proof. Alot of believers say... maybe there isn't a god, but what if there is? I don't want to end up a burning lake of fire so I better just believe in it, just in case.

 

GW preachers base their proof on computer simulations that have repeatedly been wrong. And they say, maybe there isn't man made global warming...but what if there is? I don't want to end up in the wasteland that Al Gore promised me would come. I better just believe in it, just in case.

 

Now, if Al Gore REALLY believed all of this end of the world stuff his laptop tells him...wouldn't he be the first one to change his way of life? Instead of using more energy than a small country at his Tennessee home? Oh but wait...he can offset his carbon footprint by purchasing carbon credits from...himself

 

 

Good position, Al Gores is a hypocrite so I'll ignore tons of evidence, facts and information and call GW a "faith" based science.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Good position, Al Gores is a hypocrite so I'll ignore tons of evidence, facts and information and call GW a "faith" based science.

 

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I have watched or read arguments for both sides of the issue. To me, the scientists against global warming just make sense. The scientists for global warming just base everything on what could happen based on crap evidence and speculation...which has been proven wrong several times already. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue with scientists, despite several public requests...why?

[mighty_thor 115]

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I have watched or read arguments for both sides of the issue. To me, the scientists against global warming just make sense. The scientists for global warming just base everything on what could happen based on crap evidence and speculation...which has been proven wrong several times already. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue with scientists, despite several public requests...why?

Probably because Gore is not a scientist. Gore is not an expert on the issue. He listens to what experts tell him. He is more of a spokesperson. If they want to have a debate then pit scientists against scientists. Gore can debate another politician who does not beleive in Global warming.

[DanXIII 8]

I used to worry about The Global Warming.

 

Then Chimpy Bush said it was real.

 

Now I sleep well at night.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Probably because Gore is not a scientist. Gore is not an expert on the issue. He listens to what experts tell him. He is more of a spokesperson. If they want to have a debate then pit scientists against scientists. Gore can debate another politician who does not beleive in Global warming.

 

He is the SPOKESMAN for global warming. If you are the #1 guy for a cause...yhou should probably be able to debate the topic you are supporting.

[Snoopy1 0]

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I have watched or read arguments for both sides of the issue. To me, the scientists against global warming just make sense. The scientists for global warming just base everything on what could happen based on crap evidence and speculation...which has been proven wrong several times already. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue with scientists, despite several public requests...why?

 

LOL--crap evidence like greenhouse measurements in the atmosphere and higher tempertures...

[Snoopy1 0]

He is the SPOKESMAN for global warming. If you are the #1 guy for a cause...yhou should probably be able to debate the topic you are supporting.

 

 

The spokesman....

[mighty_thor 115]

He is the SPOKESMAN for global warming. If you are the #1 guy for a cause...yhou should probably be able to debate the topic you are supporting.

 

Why are you so hungup on Al Gore? The issue is Global warming not Al Gore.

 

Then have him debate the #1 spokesman against global warming initiatives.

[DanXIII 8]

This is what scares the crap out of me. Corporations here are already at a disadvantage to other nations with less restrictions.

US corporations are the least-regulated if any nation on earth. "Already at a disadvantage?"

 

[pimptastic69 0]

A complete list of things caused by global warming

 

"Witchcraft Executions"

"Railroad Track Deformation"

"NFL Threatened"

[Brad GLuckman 518]

Why are you so hungup on Al Gore? The issue is Global warming not Al Gore.

 

Then have him debate the #1 spokesman against global warming initiatives.

 

Fine, forget Gore. Here is what happens when debates actually do happen. Edit to add...far too many people just assume global warming is a man made crisis. The coverage is ridiculously one sided

 

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view...

 

And my favorite quote from the debate:

 

STOTT: "The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

 

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge."

[DanXIII 8]

Edit to add...far too many people just assume global warming is a man made crisis. The coverage is ridiculously one sided

 

Of course...this has nothing to do with the fact that the science is "ridiculously one-sided."

[footballpowers 0]

One word - ignorance.

 

I disagree; I would say one word "political". It’s almost as if being aligned w/ the far right you have to debunk all theories that man is damaging the earth (common sense) and we need to take a close look at what we are doing and how we are affecting it. Kinda crazy and one issue I have w/ the right.....

[The Moz 69]

Global warming occured before man was around and will after he is gone. It is a natural porgression that leads to an ice age.. Its just how the world operates - the major cause of this is Volcanic eruptions. One volcano eruption is greater than almost all car exhaust ever in history as far as atmospheric pollutants. What cars exhaust and factoies cause is smog an unhealthy air conditions though - which also suck. See China there.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

US corporations are the least-regulated if any nation on earth. "Already at a disadvantage?"

 

 

US is the least - regulated of any nation on earth? Ummm....no it's not

Just cause you put the little guy rolling his eyes after a comment doesn't make it true...cause that is just plain wrong.

 

Of course...this has nothing to do with the fact that the science is "ridiculously one-sided."

 

Again with the rolleyes...it must be true then, right?

[FeelingMN 273]

US is the least - regulated of any nation on earth? Ummm....no it's not

Just cause you put the little guy rolling his eyes after a comment doesn't make it true...cause that is just plain wrong.

Again with the rolleyes...it must be true then, right?

 

 

There is one glaring omission on the Kyoto Treaty.

 

[Snoopy1 0]

Global warming occured before man was around and will after he is gone. It is a natural porgression that leads to an ice age.. Its just how the world operates - the major cause of this is Volcanic eruptions. One volcano eruption is greater than almost all car exhaust ever in history as far as atmospheric pollutants. What cars exhaust and factoies cause is smog an unhealthy air conditions though - which also suck. See China there.

 

 

The sum total of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

There is one glaring omission on the Kyoto Treaty.

 

 

The United States has never ratified the Kyoto treaty, with Bush complaining that it puts too much of a burden on the U.S. and other developed countries to reduce emissions while developing giants such as China and India are given a freer rein to pollute even as they vigorously compete with America around the world.

 

One hundred thirty-seven (137) developing countries have ratified the protocol, including Brazil, China and India, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions

 

Link 1 Link 2

 

To me it puts us at a disadvantage economically. Just mmy opinion.

 

QUOTE(DanXIII @ Jul 9 2008, 07:47 AM)

US corporations are the least-regulated if any nation on earth. "Already at a disadvantage?"

 

And here ya go Dan.

 

The United States, Japan, and several European countries have strong environmental standards compared with most of the rest of the world

 

Link

[FeelingMN 273]

Global warming occured before man was around and will after he is gone. It is a natural porgression that leads to an ice age.. Its just how the world operates - the major cause of this is Volcanic eruptions. One volcano eruption is greater than almost all car exhaust ever in history as far as atmospheric pollutants. What cars exhaust and factoies cause is smog an unhealthy air conditions though - which also suck. See China there.

 

The most prevalent greenhouse gas? water vapor. So yeah you're right, gw is a natural phenemenon and will continue to shape our climate forever. But at what point does dumping billions of tons of CO2 take an effect?

 

The worst thing to happen to the debate was to allow Gore to trumpet for the cause. Sadly, the debate has been overtaken by politicians. And as politicians are able to do so well, they put the issue in terms of black and white, forcing the public into either of their respective corners. I think most scientists would agree that more needs to be studied before we start shifting our policies. Also, the computer models they use obviously have to be improved. Just because the models haven't predicted jacksh!t, doesn't mean there isn't an effect to be measured. It could just mean the models are bunk and need working on.

 

Having said that, it does make sense to do all we can now to reduce emissions; if for nothing else to have a cleaner place to live. Look at focking Beijing.....and they're actually putting on their best 'face' for the Olympics :respiratoryfailure:

[kpbuckeye 2]

The sum total of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

 

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

 

nice source there. Nothing like a blog expert.

 

Guy get taken to task throughout and dodges holes like torrid.

[Strike 3,979]

The sum total of all volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.

 

Oh, well if some dudes blog says so it must be true

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Oh, well if some dudes blog says so it must be true

 

While I would not take what a blogger says as gospel, I do have to question you and kpbuckeye considering that Moz threw his stuff out there with no backup at all.