Sceptics conclude Earth has warmedFollow

this isn't going to be a HAARP thread is it?

We totally do. There is an international scientific consensus that we're significantly responsible for the current climate change.

The primary problem is that scientists are very good at doing science but not very good at marketing. However, the 8 out of the 10 largest companies in the world whose revenues streams are directly tied to oil do happen to be very good at marketing.

I remember you didn't have any objection to science being done through iPetitions.com.

Just pointing out that you were strangely quiet over that particular survey. Get flustered if you want or not.

Please provide me a 200 year sample of weather statistics from some 65 million years ago. Also please provide one every 20 millions years (45, 25, 5) I would also like a source with accurate climate readings from the years 12000 BC 10000BC 8000BC, 100AD, 1100AD, 1491 AD.

If you can show to me that humans have altered the global cycle to a drastic degree ill buy into global warming loony talk. We may have had an impact, but like so has every other dominate species (maybe not to the extent we have). If you have to ask questions about what about before we kept records, then you can't really proove anything.

Nearly every global warming spiel cites after a few hundred years of records we have found the temperature has increased, we think we did something to it, so ya Global Warming. The earth has been around for billions of years, we have no idea how it functions, and it is naive to think we do.

(unless you are a religious nutbar and believe it all poofed into existance 10,000 years ago.)

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about. If you're talking about the anti-ACC folks creating an online petition and getting 30,000 "scientists" (we can quibble over what qualifies one if you want) to generate their own consensus, in order to counter the consensus of the 300 or so "scientists" at the IPCC convention which is often used to attempt to shut down debate on the issue, then I seem to recall we've had several threads in which the topic came up. So I'm not sure what you mean by "strangely silent".

I've talked about it at length in the past. And I've never argued that this "proved" that ACC was false. It only proved that not everyone agreed with the ACC consensus (which shouldn't have been in doubt anyway), but more importantly that just creating a consensus doesn't actually make you right. It disproves the argument that a consensus is proof of anything other than that you gathered some people together and called their agreement a "consensus" (ie: Pretty much meaningless).


If you're talking about something else, then you'll have to elaborate cause I'm drawing a blank.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 6:07pm by gbaji

why do you argue over redundant points all the time. The simple fact is they are basing their opinions on a fraction of a % of the worlds history. That in itself makes this whole idea of Global Warming kind of washy, while yes in the small controlled subtext it appears we have increased the temperature of the planet, in reality we have no idea if this is a naturally recurring cycle or if we in fact did cause it.

The validity of scientist is meaningless, they could all be scientist the cold hard facts are we only have a limited data supply to apply to a system that has been functioning for billions of years. (and this holds true even if we kept records since the dawn of man)

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 9:17pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 9:18pm by rdmcandie

I know what the words mean, I'm just not sure if you mean the same thing when you use them. As far as I know, said petition was not mentioned earlier in this thread, nor has it come up in a thread topic for a year or more (again, that I'm aware of). So how the hell can I be "strangely silent" about it? I can get the "silent" part because I certainly haven't talked about it in a long time. But I don't get the "strangely" part, since there's nothing strange about me not talking about something that hasn't come up in conversation at all for like a year or two (well, the last time we had a big ACC debate anyway).


Why do you think it's strange that I didn't bring up something no one else brought up either?

I may be wrong but I believe that certain methodologies, like analyzing ice core samples and fossilized tree rings, can give fairly accurate pictures of the climate (including things like atmospheric composition) for thousands of years.

Strangely silent. It doesn't change meanings when spoken by different people. Bizarrely quiet? Startlingly curbed? Peculiarly taciturn?

But, watching you twist in the wind is fun for only so long, so I'll spell it out for you. Roughly three months ago, a similar topic was brought up that was essentially "HAY, ALL THESE SCIENTISTS (debatable qualifications, as they may have been) SIGNED A PETITION SAYING GLOBAL WARMING IS FAAAAAKE SO IT MUST BE TRUE!" which you made no effort to make the same claim you make in this thread. The "science is not done by a show of hands at a convention" claim should, after all, be accurate for both. What they're actually saying is irrelevant, since that isn't the point. Just the method to come to the conclusion.

I simply found that strange. Irregular. Unusual. Weird. *****. Bizarre. Anomalous. Atypical.

Edited, Oct 21st 2011 10:19pm by lolgaxe

Do you or do you not have a source of information from prior to even 10,000 years ago. Yes or No. If you think our insignificant existence over the duration of time this planet has existed has had any serious effect you are delusional, this planet has endured intense heat and cold. As much as people do not want to hear it, when this planet is done with us it will get rid of us, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Like I said, it'd be a waste of time to make the effort. I do think it's funny that you're so ill-informed you've never heard of sediment or ice cores.

Epik lulz