Why don't Republicans belieave in Global Warming?

[canyonman00]

No more silly than your definitions. You still can not explain the temperature rises and falls of the past 1000 years can you? I'm waiting for the proof that man was the reason 1000 years ago. Undeniably show me. Go ahead! Where's the proof? Your ignorance to the supporting facts is no excuse either. As you put it.

The little Ice Age, what caused it from mans involvement/standpoint?

Mars warming? Man again? Either answer with unshakable facts, or quit whinnying.

You know what? Now that I think about it, your genius is far too much for me here. And your soundness of logic is crystal in its direction. There is no room for any alternatives in that universe you've created. And for those of us who feel that the truth still is evasive and probably somewhere in the middle of both schools of thought, how dare we?

I agree with you to disagree on the premises. But I am sure that you are clearly the scholar in this realm.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Don't equate your own ignorance with scientific knowledge. Just because that you don't know of anyone who has done a study doesn't mean no one has done "enough of a study." Your "standard testing" is silly. Just shows that you have no clue how to get temperature records of distant past.

 

[canyonman00]

To use your logic, then you can't blame the man for the 100,000 year ago flood then. Nor can you use that flood in a study to show that man causes floods and claim it to be unequivocal science based on flood data from 100,000 years ago.

You also can't say that man should stop building all dams because they cause floods.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Say there was a flood 100,000 years ago, we don't know what caused it.

Say there is a flood today when a man made dam breaks.

Flood is flood.

The consequences are the same, what is in the path of the flood is drowned.

Flood is flood, warming is warming....

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Quote from canyonman00:

To use your logic, then you can't blame the man for the 100,000 year ago flood then. Nor can you use that flood in a study to show that man causes floods and claim it to be unequivocal science based on flood data from 100,000 years ago.

I wasn't blaming the man for the flood 100,000 years ago. I am saying flood consequences are flood consequences, man made or natural.

You also can't say that man should stop building all dams because they cause floods.

I would say we should build them properly, i.e. the levees in New Orleans is an example, and in the same way we need to take care of our environment.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from canyonman00:

No more silly than your definitions. You still can not explain the temperature rises and falls of the past 1000 years can you? I'm waiting for the proof that man was the reason 1000 years ago. Undeniably show me. Go ahead! Where's the proof? Your ignorance to the supporting facts is no excuse either. As you put it.

The little Ice Age, what caused it from mans involvement/standpoint?

Mars warming? Man again? Either answer with unshakable facts, or quit whinnying.

You know what? Now that I think about it, your genius is far too much for me here. And your soundness of logic is crystal in its direction. There is no room for any alternatives in that universe you've created. And for those of us who feel that the truth still is evasive and probably somewhere in the middle of both schools of thought, how dare we?

I agree with you to disagree on the premises. But I am sure that you are clearly the scholar in this realm.

I didn't define anything. If you are really interested in the topic I suggest that you read a few scientific articles on this. For a starter, I suggest that you go to a university library and dig up this article
High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures
PD Jones, KR Briffa, TP Barnett, SFB Tett - The Holocene, 1998
Read it. Hopefully after reading it you will have some understanding of what's going on in science, and start to talk some sense.

You question about what caused prior warm period or little ice age is irrelevant. The temperature fluctuations before the current 10,000 year period had been even greater (warmer than the warmest recent period and colder than the coldest recent period). That does not change the fact that the rapid temperature rise in the past 200 years is caused by human.

By the way, I would caution against hyping anything about Mars yet. Scienitific study on Mars is really only starting. Any conclusion reached based on the little amount of data available is likely to be altered/overturned later when more data come. This is very different from earth climate study where scientific data is already overwhelming and the quality of data has improved vastly. It is highly unlikely that there are still undiscovered areas in the earth climate science today that can completely overturn all the data available today.

 

[canyonman00]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

I didn't define anything. If you are really interested in the topic I suggest that you read a few scientific articles on this. For a starter, I suggest that you go to a university library and dig up this article
High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures
PD Jones, KR Briffa, TP Barnett, SFB Tett - The Holocene, 1998
Read it. Hopefully after reading it you will have some understanding of what's going on in science, and start to talk some sense.

You question about what caused prior warm period or little ice age is irrelevant. The temperature fluctuations before the current 10,000 year period had been even greater (warmer than the warmest recent period and colder than the coldest recent period). That does not change the fact that the rapid temperature rise in the past 200 years is caused by human.

By the way, I would caution against hyping anything about Mars yet. Scienitific study on Mars is really only starting. Any conclusion reached based on the little amount of data available is likely to be altered/overturned later when more data come. This is very different from earth climate study where scientific data is already overwhelming and the quality of data has improved vastly. It is highly unlikely that there are still undiscovered areas in the earth climate science today that can completely overturn all the data available today.

Already read it sir. You can look into it here also:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5517/662

Unlike you I read from both sides of the coin and I feel that they all can speculate at best.

Here are some of the counters:
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/globalcold.shtml

There are some weather experts:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47887
This is undeniable as far as the temperatures are concerned.

Then there's a body of thought that goes this way:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html

Even more think another way. This study works around your so called chart of warming a different way:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Some science attributes the situation to dust:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Chinese-Dust-Storms-Will-Cause-Global-Cooling-and-Ice-Age&id=228272

As recently as 1997 there were articles and plenty of scientists thinking this way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/climate/stories/sci120197.htm

And even today there is no consensus:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And while I might agree that there is global warming, I don't agree that everyone knows the causes. That's the whole issue here. We don't know. Nor do we know that it is reversible. Ands if you don't understand that then there is no reason to continue.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from canyonman00:

Already read it sir. You can look into it here also:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5517/662

Unlike you I read from both sides of the coin and I feel that they all can speculate at best.

Here are some of the counters:
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/06/globalcold.shtml

There are some weather experts:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47887
This is undeniable as far as the temperatures are concerned.

Then there's a body of thought that goes this way:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html

Even more think another way. This study works around your so called chart of warming a different way:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Some science attributes the situation to dust:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Chinese-Dust-Storms-Will-Cause-Global-Cooling-and-Ice-Age&id=228272

As recently as 1997 there were articles and plenty of scientists thinking this way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/climate/stories/sci120197.htm

And even today there is no consensus:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

And while I might agree that there is global warming, I don't agree that everyone knows the causes. That's the whole issue here. We don't know. Nor do we know that it is reversible. Ands if you don't understand that then there is no reason to continue.

There you go again. Your first link is a real science article. I was happy for you, thinking you finally started to read something seriously. Then the rest of them are just news stories full of pseudo science. When will you learn?

Let's be clear here. First, all predictions are not to be believed. When was the last time someone correctly predicted the market index in 6 years? Second, global warming does not mean uniformly higher temperature. In fact, larger temperature swings (higher highs and lower lows) is one of the expected effects. Lastly, the scientific case in favor of the human factor is very strong. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it's not been studied. Also the science of oscillatory climate patterns is also well established. You cannot use one to deny the existance of the other.

Now get serious. Either learn something or stop talking nonesense.

 

[canyonman00]

We agree to disagree! Have a good one!

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

There you go again. Your first link is a real science article. I was happy for you, thinking you finally started to read something seriously. Then the rest of them are just news stories full of pseudo science. When will you learn?

Let's be clear here. First, all predictions are not to be believed. When was the last time someone correctly predicted the market index in 6 years? Second, global warming does not mean uniformly higher temperature. In fact, larger temperature swings (higher highs and lower lows) is one of the expected effects. Lastly, the scientific case in favor of the human factor is very strong. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it's not been studied. Also the science of oscillatory climate patterns is also well established. You cannot use one to deny the existance of the other.

Now get serious. Either learn something or stop talking nonesense.