How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Algearond]

Very easily, their is no hard evidence proving it exists. Only several organizations wanting to re-distribute wealth and hinder industry.

[Riidii]

Because Al Gore.

[Tradewind]

Very easily, their is no hard evidence proving it exists. Only several organizations wanting to re-distribute wealth and hinder industry.

I'm dubious as to any claims made by someone who can't master their "theres".

[Garnier Fructis]

Causes and timing of future biosphere extinction

Paper regarding determining the habitable zone of stars and mentioning how the zone is altered by stellar evolution.

As you just quoted from your own link, the numbers are on the order of .8 Gyr for multicellular life and 1.6 Gyr for all life to go extinct. This is much, much higher than the .5 to .52 Gyr number you gave in your initial post.

[McTurbo]

This might be the second year in a row with record low snowfalls here in western PA. I raise my drink in hoping this is a trend it would saving me having to move when i retire.

what if i told you your state use to be the heart of a rain forest.. or the site of severe geographic disturbance such as earthquakes and volcanoes.. (those mountains got there somehow..and PA has a lot of dang mountains!) ...quoting a 2 year trend or even a 100 year trend in a cycle that goes millions of years is next to useless the only thing that data shows is local variance in temperature is moving up or down currently but shows nothing since we have no scale of normal temperatures since we pretty much have only been here for 200 years. (in the US)..

[Junkdepot]

Here's one source of data that refutes the base supposition that CO2 emmisions have increased the rate of global warming. The HadCRUT global temperature dataset (Sept. 2012) was recently published - this is the dataset used in the most recent IPCC report and it currently shows that global warming from CO2 emissions is essentially non-existent. Source - http://www.c3headlines.com/global-co...videncetrends/

Look it up - if you dare.

[Aalyy]

my source is the debate about the entire thing. if it was a universal truth then their would be no denying it. but since one side wants to point at one set of data and say this is the proof.. then other side says hold on.. this is the truth.. it basically tell you that both sides are cherry picking data and refusing to acknowledge the others if this wasn't so .. we wouldn't be having this debate. the only truth is temperatures change. the debate is whats changing it.. i don't need a science degree to have at least a basic understanding of whats going on. hell we cant even tell you if eggs are good or bad for you.. wait 10 years and they will change their minds again ...

You are claiming the debate is held within scientific circles. It isn't. 97% of climatologists who actively work in the climate field and publish peer reveiwed papers agree that humans are responsible for the global warming we see right now (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf). That, my dear, is scientific consensus. The debate is being held by politicians and laypeople.

Additionally, there is no "truth" in science. There is evidence, conclusions drawn by such evidence, and consensus as to the validity of the conclusions.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 11:42 AM ----------

Your logic is so freaking flawed. I'm 18 and I don't remember ever having so much snow in December here where I live as we do now.

Neither do I remember a year like this one when there was 3 weeks of -20°C in a row, I remember well because we could never play hockey for so long on the pond.

Of course I don't remember my smallest years, but anyway, memory of an 18 / 21 year old person is not at all any kind of proof for the theory of global warming.

When you understand what "global warming" actually means then come back and enter the debate.

[Masark]

Here's one source of data that refutes the base supposition that CO2 emmisions have increased the rate of global warming. The HadCRUT global temperature dataset (Sept. 2012) was recently published - this is the dataset used in the most recent IPCC report and it currently shows that global warming from CO2 emissions is essentially non-existent. Source - http://www.c3headlines.com/global-co...videncetrends/

Look it up - if you dare.

Ooh. An anonymous site that looks like it should have geocities in the name. Highly reputable.

Furthermore, it's "study sources" come from the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change", who are funded by Exxon. No bias there, no sirree.

[Aalyy]

Here's one source of data that refutes the base supposition that CO2 emmisions have increased the rate of global warming. The HadCRUT global temperature dataset (Sept. 2012) was recently published - this is the dataset used in the most recent IPCC report and it currently shows that global warming from CO2 emissions is essentially non-existent. Source - http://www.c3headlines.com/global-co...videncetrends/

Look it up - if you dare.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

Just in case anyone's actually interested in what the IPCC actually says about greenhouse gas emissions, their source, and their influence on the rise in earth's temperature. You know, actual science instead of some BS blog misrepresenting and twisting data to fit their conservative political opinion.

[Tradewind]

Here's one source of data that refutes the base supposition that CO2 emmisions have increased the rate of global warming. The HadCRUT global temperature dataset (Sept. 2012) was recently published - this is the dataset used in the most recent IPCC report and it currently shows that global warming from CO2 emissions is essentially non-existent. Source - http://www.c3headlines.com/global-co...videncetrends/

Look it up - if you dare.

Never before has a forum user's name been more appropriate.

[Junkdepot]

Ooh. An anonymous site that looks like it should have geocities in the name. Highly reputable.

Furthermore, the vast majority of it's "study sources" come from the "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change", who are funded by Exxon. No bias there, no sirree.

Google the dataset and do the number crunching yourself then. While the graphs on the actual HadCrut site do show the earth has warmed since 1840, they also show a general cooling trend in the last number of years. HadCrut is the IPCC's datasource, so no no bias there either, huh?

[McTurbo]

Ooh. An anonymous site that looks like it should have geocities in the name. Highly reputable.

while the site is questionable some of his links for the data that's being used is from reputable sources if you follow the links.. (of course i havnt followed them all)
as said before the evidence is in the data.. do we "cherry pick" our data by dismissing his because we dont know or like his sources.. look closer at his data and where he's getting from. i wont quote it as truth.. but i will say he presents a damn good argument against the other side.

[Wildtree]

Look it up - if you dare.

I dared. and I started laughing right away.....

Gold-Standard Climate Agency
WHAT?
We know what the Gold Standard did...

And further more....

The main priority of 'C3 Headlines' over the last few months has been to make it politically impossible for the global warming alarmists to inflict untold damages on the economy and American families.

To accomplish this task, Americans had to at least elect a GOP-controlled senate, and better yet, elect a GOP president who would stop the EPA from further damage. Thus, 'C3' in recent months has devoted its attention more to the political realm in an attempt to aid the GOP's likelihood of success.

Unfortunately, that did not work out so well. With the reelection of Obama and a Democratic Senate, in combination with an out-of-control EPA, the 'die is cast,' irreparably.

Over the next two years (prior to the 2014 mid-terms) the UN's "climate change" and green-fundametalist's agenda will triumph. Green cronyism and subsidized-failures (Volt, anyone?) will prosper. Empirical-based science will continue to wither, and science fraud, perpetuated by the media and academia, will be championed.

It's going to be ugly, starting with the new taxes.

Got any more propaganda links to offer to amuse us?

[Junkdepot]

Never before has a forum user's name been more appropriate.

Yes, because all our usernames are so very relevant to any discussion?

[Tradewind]

Yes, because all our usernames are so very relevant to any discussion?

In this particular instance, they are in your case.

[Junkdepot]

I dared. and I started laughing right away.....

Got any more propaganda links to offer to amuse us?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ - do with the raw data as you may.

[Tradewind]

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ - do with the raw data as you may.

Oh yeah that's a huge dip from ~2000...during La Niña...

[Garnier Fructis]

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ - do with the raw data as you may.

Observe that the absolute highest data point on this graph corresponds with the year 1997. Any short term graph starting on 1997 will necessarily show a "cooling trend", regardless of what the long term data may say.

Edit: It's easy to see how the guy on C3 was able to generate a cooling trend as he effectively ignored half the data.

[Deleted]

Many ppl can denye global warming, but the point is, is it caused by humans? since it seems to happen in cycles.. My opinion for all those "we can change the future, stop global warming" is that its one of the biggest scams ever.

[Junkdepot]

As I said above, the data does show an increase in global temperatures since collection was started, but it also shows a cooling trend in the past number of years. I'm not disputing that the earth is warmer now than it was before.