Can you back up your global warming claims with any evidence? Your ad hominems against us deniers undermines your credibility.

Evolution was not Darwin's idea. The concept that things and systems change over time is self evident and long pre-dates Darwin. Darwin posited the theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution, i.e., to attempt to explain it. To my knowledge it has never been scientifically refuted. However, Darwin himself said that he could not account for all of the variation that makes natural selection possible. Darwin also said that there were other mechanisms that drove evolution aside from natural selection. Evolution is a sound scientific theory that is yet incompletely uderstood.

WW

 

Hi!

Evidence makes no difference to many people, hence the Flat Earth Society.

cliff
NBO

 

How true. Common sense is that faculty which tells us the earth is flat.

There is no doubt that the earth has been both colder and warmer and had more or less CO2 over it's lifespan, most of this happened long before the existence of man. The question we now ponder is whether man has caused the most recent spike.

What do you suppose the correct temperature for earth is, and how exactly do we get to that temperature? Surely you will have no trouble answering this simple question with all the evidence you claim to be valid.

 

So, the defense of your position is: "since some people won't listen to evidence I won't offer any".

Compelling.

WW

 

How about Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ? Yes, I know it's only wikipedia, but read the article, which is sourced with over 130 supporting links and references. Can you honestly read all that and say, "Nope. No global warming here; not enough evidence." Can you honestly say that all of those references are biased and/or based on bad science? The earth is warming; again, the only debate is whether man-made activities are accelerating the process.

 

Therein lies the rub. The earth has been warming for around 18,000 years in the current cycle. This really isn't news, the struggle to blame it all on human activity is the only new element.

Did you see any recommendation for the correct temperature of earth in that article or an outline of the method to attain that temperature?


May I suggest you read some of those references in the wiki article?
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyso...f07_index.html

 

There is no "correct temperature". Correct for whom? Fish? Bacteria? Trees? Humans? Who cares? We are all citizens of planet earth. The temperature at any given time? It is what it is(currently increasing), and we are all along for the ride. It is estimated that over 99% of all species that have ever inhabited the earth are now extinct. They're all gone for many different reasons, but you can bet my next regional paycheck that temperature swings (up or down) played a part in many extinctions.

Did I read some of the articles? Sure I did. I noticed that Dyson was referenced in the skeptics portion. I started to read the article you cited, and stopped when he stated that he was not a climatologist, meteorologist, etc. But then I continued. His issue is with the computer models and predictions, and his assertion that we don't have conclusive proof as to whether or not human activity is accelerating, or even affecting, the warming process. He is NOT disputing the fact that the globe is warming.

 

You won't find any reasonable human disputing the fact that the earth has gone through cooling and warming cycles.
The current debate centers around man's role in these cycles and if he can actually do anything to influence them. The debate is far from settled and I would not presume to have all the answers at this stage.

It is always possible to reach a conclusion based on partial or incorrect evidence, and this is something to be avoided.

The mood of the moment is that we must act quickly and yet there is no real evidence that our proposed actions will have any effect at all on the climate.
There is however strong evidence that many of the proposed actions would have a very adverse effect on the human population of earth.

 

I will check the link and read the article and let you know what I think. In the meantime, you say the earth is warming. Since when? Since 65MYA it is colder. Since 15KYA it is warmer. Since 1998 (the super el nino) it is colder.

I can tell you that the 4 or 5 major institutes where a global temperature is calculated show that 2008 was colder than 2007, which was colder than 2006 (it was when temps stopped increasing that the term "global warming" began being eschewed for the harder to disprove "climate change").

Anthropogenic global warming backers put forward the theory (and claimed that the science was settled) that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead inexorably to increasing temperatures. They made a lot of this when the temperatures were rising. This relationship was, according to the warmists, causal and linear. When the temps stopped rising but the CO2 kept climbing this theory was decisively refuted. Does CO2 trap atmospheric heat? Certainly, but the climate relationships are non-linear and more CO2 does not, by itself cause higher temperatures.

WW

 

That is exactly right, regardless of what we do, the earth is going to do what it wants, when it wants to...

Humans are so self-involved as a species that we think that by adding our MILLIONS of tons of "pollution," that it affects the 5 QUADRILLION tons of atmosphere, when its more like one person peeing into a lake. If one person pees into a medium sized lake once a year, how many years until the lake turns into pee? Answer: Never, the lake takes care of the pee all on its own...