Sceptics conclude Earth has warmedFollow

Got it no real proof just a bunch of opinionated studies based on a small % of data (don't worry I can't provide sufficient proof either simply because it is just more opinionated studies on the same small % of data). Also I agree there is no point arguing and trying to convince one another of the others position. So as I said in my last post, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Got it. Didn't look

ITT: We discover that facts are the same as opinions!

I actually don't think we are arguing over the same thing. Your data shows that over a small fraction of our history (and thus an even smaller fraction of the worlds history) that humans are responsible for increases in temperature. I agree simply looking at that data and using it to extrapolate an opinion obviously shows that we have caused a significant spike. Over that small set of years of recorded information.

However I personally feel on the grand scheme of things that we have had very little impact, even the EPA link I provided above shows this, there has been a 1 degree variance in temperature since 900 AD, with the hottest points being only .5 degrees different. That isn't even relevant for a conclusive argument because it shows only a slightly larger fraction of the time.

Where I do agree, and I do not think anyone can disagree is that we have contributed greatly to polluting this planet. In the top most chart of that link you can see that in the more modern era that we have drastically increased our CO2 levels, I don't think anyone can dispute that we have also greatly polluted our land and water to similar levels.

But I do not agree at all that we have contributed in a robust way to the warming or cooling of this planet, and unfortunately there is no data that conclusively proves we have, or have not. I don't think we have, and until there is a 100% undeniable study completed that supports this assumption I will continue to believe this.

You can go ahead and lump me with Alma and Varus I personally don't give a sh*t, Ive read plenty of discussions on this particular thing, and I have seen both sides well represented, but when it comes down to it in the case specifically regarding global warming there is just not enough evidence to conclusively crown a completely right or wrong.

and I have seen and read many of your posts/links on this subject, as I personally find this subject very interesting and informative, not only because it is a current event, but more so because we continue looking further and further back, and I think it is awesome that we can recreate a somewhat accurate image of the past. Unfortunately I need more then a few 100,000 year old ice samples to jump on board with an idea that we as humans have altered a system that has been operating for billions of years.

Like I said ill agree to disagree.

(but I will happily keep +1ing if folks want to keep bashing my opinion without providing any information that is conclusive regarding changes to the global warming/cooling cycle, that our species has never really experienced.)

Edited, Oct 24th 2011 11:54pm by rdmcandie

How about 750K years, is that good enough?

Or, ya know, since he agrees that we are pumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, maybe he's heard of the green house effect?

Ice Core Studies Confirm Accuracy Of Climate Models



Edit: Also, I have no idea why you bolded what you did.


Someone saying "I need a 100% undeniable study" deserves to be lumped with Alma and Varus for multiple reasons. That statement is both scientifically and logically retarded -- but right up Alma & Varuses alleys.

Edited, Oct 25th 2011 12:49am by Jophiel

Summers are lasting longer and winters are getting colder in the UK. This definitely means it's all balanced out!

Ya 100% is a little retarded, but I would like to have something that doesn't end with:



Essentially all these studies say the same thing, we believe it is this way, unless we find something to disprove it. That doesn't make global warming fact, it is just a theory, and currently it is supported relatively well, but not good enough for me.

Also thanks for the link, it was a good read.

You do know that's how everything in science works, right?

Yes I know but I don't need to accept a premise that is based on a fraction of data, while the data gathered does currently support the theory, there is much much more data we have not even touched. For example the recent studies that show the Einstein's Theory may not be as correct as we once thought it was. I am just saying that there is not enough practical evidence to convince me that we have had a major impact.

(I don't know why it is so hard for you to accept someone may have a different opinion on subject matter but I suppose this is why you and Gbaji get along so well being cut from the same cloth and all.)

My ex once insisted that her hometown had more hours of sunlight during the winter than mine. I said that may be true, but mine would make it up during the summer since every spot on the globe gets the same hours of sunlight in a year, be it 365 12 hour days or 6 solid months of nighttime. She kept saying her hometown got more hours of sunlight no matter what the season and finally said I wasn't respecting her opinion on the matter.

Just because someone has a different "opinion" doesn't mean it's worthy of saying "Gee, that's just a different opinion, I guess!"

Ironically, as it usually is, the next-day-media version of that story was blown out of proportion. Which doesn't mean that science can't change but you picked the wrong example

no im not disputing the evidence that they have gathered, I haven't said once that they are wrong, I have only said that I am not convinced because the evidence they have is vastly limited in relation to the time that this planet has been around. If anything your opinions are wrong because you are basing them on less than 1% of quantifiable data, 400,000 year old ice core samples do not measure up to the billions of years still on the table.

You seem to be of this opinion that I am vehemently opposed to the idea of global warming. It is quite the opposite in fact I believe it exists, the only question is, have we really changed the formula for the worse, or is this just another part of a cycle that we have never experienced or studied. The timeline of Data we have is not enough to base a rational opinion on. Sure if you only want to look at the human aspect it works perfectly, but what about the last time there was a species as dominant and populous as ours, such as during the age of Dinosaurs, what was the climate like then and was it similar/different, by how much, etc etc etc.

We don't know and only assume and while that is the premise for Science both opinions are valid, like I said I can not prove we have not had a substantial impact, and you can not prove that we have, our timeline of data does not support either opinion any better than the other.

But to each their own.

So first 200 years wasn't enough, then 500 years, then 1'000, then 10'000, then 100'000.

Now rdm is saying that because we don't have data for the majority of the history of the planet, all 4.5 billion years of it, he isn't convinced.


I call troll.