[QUOTE=TH89;32387598]What's your source?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://dvsun3.gkss.de/journals/2010/Bray-envscipol.pdf[/url]
Original data from this survey.
[url]http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/CliSci2008.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=s0beit;32387597]However, one thing should be said of all this. To all the people saying it's "a fact" climate change is caused by people, you're wrong. The fact is there is a lot of variables we're not sure about yet, there is no definitive proof, no matter how many times you try to hammer it into people's heads.[/QUOTE]
There is literally no way to prove it to such a degree that you would be satisfied. There's definitely no way to achieve the level of certainty you want in time to act on it. What we have right now is "pretty damn sure," and kibbitzing about climate models and flailing around with meaningless jabs like "scientists aren't perfect!" really doesn't serve any useful purpose.
[QUOTE=TH89;32387653]There is literally no way to prove it to such a degree that you would be satisfied. There's definitely no way to achieve the level of certainty you want in time to act on it. What we have right now is "pretty damn sure," and kibbitzing about climate models and flailing around with meaningless jabs like "scientists aren't perfect!" really doesn't serve any useful purpose.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying every single time a scientist says something and people agree that if the models are accurate, we're fucked, and we should immediately drop everything before it's even proven?
Sorry, we aren't going to burst into flames in the next 10 years, it's a question that deserves a definite answer.
I don't know if it's evaded you but models not being proven isn't some "it's not a big deal" sort of thing, I'm not saying they need to explain everything down to the creation of the universe, I'm saying there is data that is missing or assumed in the models. That's a pretty fucking gigantic problem.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32387688]So you're saying every single time a scientist says something and people agree that if the models are accurate, we're fucked, and we should immediately drop everything before it's even proven?[/QUOTE]
Given the high degree of consensus, given the very drastic effects that have been predicted, both on huge ecosystems and on human areas (e.g. Bangladesh), and given the timeframe that's been estimated (which is frequently getting revised to be shorter and shorter)? Yes, absolutely.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32387688]Sorry, we aren't going to burst into flames in the next 10 years[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we're going to burst into flames 50 years down the line, when it's too late to do anything about it. There's a delay between greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere and accruing a substantial amount of heat. Even if we cut emissions now, it would get worse before it got better.
[QUOTE=s0beit;32387688]I don't know if it's evaded you but models not being proven isn't some "it's not a big deal" sort of thing, I'm not saying they need to explain everything down to the creation of the universe, I'm saying there is data that is missing or assumed in the models. That's a pretty fucking gigantic problem.[/QUOTE]
Climatologists don't seem to think it's a "fucking gigantic problem," based on the survey flyschy posted. There are some aspects of the climate models that are unsatisfactory ,yes, but that in no way precludes them from drawing confident conclusions. They are pretty damn sure.
[QUOTE=TH89;32387472]For the guy who rated me "disagree"
[img]http://www.greentaxi.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/climate_consensus.gif[/img]
[img]http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/EOS_public_scientific_opinion.png[/img]
[img]http://jameswight.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate-change-infographic1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
You're appealing to authority as well as popularity which are both logical fallacies. Sure, most scientists say it's true, but that doesn't make them necessarily correct.
I mean, the graph on page 2 is pretty clear: the Earth's natural temperature has consistently been going up and down, willy-nilly over time. It's unavoidable; as the sun ages it grows hotter and that change in solar activity is obviously going to impact the Earth given that, y'know, it's the source of a fair bit of our heat.
Climate change [i]does[/i] exist, to believe something like the Earth's climate would remain static forever would be downright stupid, but I'm not sure why all of these scientists are so quick to leap on the idea that we're having a HUGE impact on it. I get the feeling that they don't want to be seen as 'heartless' or 'immoral' (given that the general public have given scientists a lot of flack for that in the past) so they're all kind of bandwaggoning onto this, "we're responsible for this and we need to do something to stop this!" idea. After all, looking pro-active is good publicity. If you suddenly go, "yes, we're effecting the climate greatly but we're going to do something about it!" people will like you.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png[/img]
A good image from wikipedia showing things in the extreme long run.
ahem, -puts on tin foil hat-.
Statistics on surveys are often falsified to make a point. I highly doubt that 97% of all scientists everywhere support this global warming theory. [url]http://www.petitionproject.org/[/url]
Both sides of the climate change debate have merit, however most people would consider the warmists infallible which is simply not the case. Statistics and components of evidence have often been omitted if they don't support the theory and in rare cases, simply created.
In around 1999-2002, this graph was used in official IPCC reports and often cited as evidence.
[quote][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg[/img][/quote]
It has since been shown that this "hockey stick" graph was quite simply, falsified. The means of collecting the evidence to create it was a very selective process, if any specific element didn't support the 'consensus', it was removed. This ended out to be about 80% of what was collected (that was removed). This was the earliest case of this and certainly not the only one.
Global temperature can vary, quite significantly. Temperatures have increased somewhat in recent years but no-where near the amount that was predicted in the official reports, let alone the media.
[img]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif[/img]
Most the time, I hear the view that generalises to "CO2 makes the world hotter, we're adding CO2. Simple". The fact is, this isn't simple. We're talking about the driving forces of our earth's climate and the fact is, we don't understand most of what happens. The El Nino oscillation for example, a known phenomenon which occurs in the ocean (not sure which one, sorry.) is still simply unexplained. People know what it does, but not what causes it. This has a massive effect on the global temperature every so often.
The fact that people believe that our climate can be simplified to such a notion is ridiculous. Now let's look and the gas in question. CO2, hugely different of course to what it is often referred to, simply as "Carbon". Main reason for this is because carbon is often seen as black, dirty coal. Whereas CO2 is the gas which we breathe out. CO2 has often been referred to and considered a pollutant, but I believe this gas deserves much more credit. It is an extremely important component of life and necesary in virtually all ecosystems. At one time, two greenhouses next to each other with exactly the same plant life were set up. One had the current concentration of CO2, whereas the other had double the concentration in our air. The plant life grew almost three times as fast, this includes fruit trees and the like. There are many balancing factors to the climate that often aren't considered here. The idea that we, as a race are actually having a noticable effect on our climate is extremely arrogant to say the least.
I have often also heard the view, even posed in this thread, the old "better safe than sorry." That it would be a mistake not to do anything on the chance that this theory is correct. The kind of measures that would be necesary to counteract this effect, according to official reports would be enourmous, sacrificing huge amounts of resources and money, often the only solution would be quite simply to turn all the power stations, cars and virtually all technology simply off, flinging us back into the dark ages. Any kind of half-way solution which are the ones currently being offered aren't enough to have a noticiable effect on the climate, but will most definitely have a noticable effect on our economy, which is already in a state of disarray. I don't know about you, but I'd have to be sure I'd survive if I was about to jump off a cliff, rather than simply "take the chance."
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832]You're to authority as well as popularity which are both logical fallacies. Sure, most scientists say it's true, but that doesn't make them necessarily correct.
[/QUOTE]
You can't deny that the level of scientific consensus is a good measure of its validity.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832]Climate change does exist, to believe something like the Earth's climate would remain static forever would be downright stupid, but I'm not sure why all of these scientists are so quick to leap on the idea that we're having a HUGE impact on it. I get the feeling that they don't want to be seen as 'heartless' or 'immoral' (given that the general public have given scientists a lot of flack for that in the past) so they're all kind of bandwaggoning onto this, "we're responsible for this and we need to do something to stop this!" idea. After all, looking pro-active is good publicity. If you suddenly go, "yes, we're effecting the climate greatly but we're going to do something about it!" people will like you.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have any evidence for this at all because I'm going to say that climate scientists aren't a bunch of band-wagoners.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832]Huge image[/QUOTE]
Yes the earths been much warmer and much colder than it is today and will continue to cycle through radical shifts in temperature on large time scales with or without us but none of that matters since we're looking at the issue on a human time scale not a geological one.
[QUOTE=Tracker;32389117]ahem, -puts on tin foil hat-.
Statistics on surveys are often falsified to make a point. I highly doubt that 97% of all scientists everywhere support this global warming theory. [url]http://www.petitionproject.org/[/url][/quote]
Again do you have any proof that a multitude of peer-reviewed surveys published in major scientific journals have been falsified?. I'm far more inclined to trust comprehensive surveys than a very dodgy petition.
[QUOTE=Tracker;32389117]Most the time, I hear the view that generalises to "CO2 makes the world hotter, we're adding CO2. Simple". The fact is, this isn't simple. We're talking about the driving forces of our earth's climate and the fact is, we don't understand most of what happens. The El Nino oscillation for example, a known phenomenon which occurs in the ocean (not sure which one, sorry.) is still simply unexplained. People know what it does, but not what causes it. This has a massive effect on the global temperature every so often.
The fact that people believe that our climate can be simplified to such a notion is ridiculous. Now let's look and the gas in question. CO2, hugely different of course to what it is often referred to, simply as "Carbon". Main reason for this is because carbon is often seen as black, dirty coal. Whereas CO2 is the gas which we breathe out. CO2 has often been referred to and considered a pollutant, but I believe this gas deserves much more credit. It is an extremely important component of life and necesary in virtually all ecosystems. At one time, two greenhouses next to each other with exactly the same plant life were set up. One had the current concentration of CO2, whereas the other had double the concentration in our air. The plant life grew almost three times as fast, this includes fruit trees and the like. There are many balancing factors to the climate that often aren't considered here. The idea that we, as a race are actually having a noticable effect on our climate is extremely arrogant to say the least. [/quote]
Plant life may or may not benefit from an increase it carbon dioxide but it's irrelevant since we don't care about plants we care about people.
[quote=Tracker;32389117]I have often also heard the view, even posed in this thread, the old "better safe than sorry." That it would be a mistake not to do anything on the chance that this theory is correct. The kind of measures that would be necesary to counteract this effect, according to official reports would be enourmous, sacrificing huge amounts of resources and money, often the only solution would be quite simply to turn all the power stations, cars and virtually all technology simply off, flinging us back into the dark ages. Any kind of half-way solution which are the ones currently being offered aren't enough to have a noticiable effect on the climate, but will most definitely have a noticable effect on our economy, which is already in a state of disarray. I don't know about you, but I'd have to be sure I'd survive if I was about to jump off a cliff, rather than simply "take the chance."[/quote]
I don't think I've heard any sane person suggest that the solution to climate change is to switch off all power stations etc, that's a huge exaggeration. Decreasing personal and industrial emissions of all kinds is good for a multitude of reasons such as health, preventing or limiting acid rain and helping stop the acidification of the oceans regardless of climate effects.
Proper skepticism is good for any scientific process but it has to be done properly. Outright denial isn't good and doesn't help anyone.
"perhaps beneficial scientific skepticism, albeit in an infant stage, is growing and may wrest the issue from the hands of politico quasi-scientific institutions that have become fashionable in the era of ‘global’ studies."
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832]You're to authority as well as popularity which are both logical fallacies. Sure, most scientists say it's true, but that doesn't make them necessarily correct.
[/QUOTE]
While this is true, none of us here have the required qualifications to actually do any research ourselves. We have to listen to the people who spend their entire life studying this shit.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32389653]Do you have any evidence for this at all because I'm going to say that climate scientists aren't a bunch of band-wagoners.[/QUOTE]
No, I was just proposing a possible theory as to why the whole, "we're the source of/a huge impact on global warming!" trend has suddenly boomed recently even though this is obviously not true. I mean you can see that from the graph alone. What rational explanation could there be for people saying that though? Somebody must stand to gain something from it because people don't do things for nothing.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32389653]Yes the earths been much warmer and much colder than it is today and will continue to cycle through radical shifts in temperature on large time scales with or without us but none of that matters since we're looking at the issue on a human time scale not a geological one.[/QUOTE]
Now while I can't imagine going about doing this myself I'll bet if you fit a trendline to the graph in that huge image (you'd have to make sure the trendline had a large correlation coefficient, though) and you found the maximum gradient of the temperature vs time function that you'd probably find that the maximum rate of change of temperature probably isn't at the present time. That would that life during other time-periods has gone through more rapid climate shifts in past anyway so worrying about it on a 'human time scale' shouldn't be as well... worrying.
If it is the case that we are going though the most rapid climate change though, well then maybe it is evidence that we're effecting climate change on a noticeable time scale. Or perhaps it's evidence of the fact that as the sun slowly ages and heats up that its effect on Earth's climate are going to start getting more rapid and unpredictable.
Or, perhaps it's evidence that we really don't know what the fuck is going on because the sheer number of variables at play must number in the thousands at the very least.
No u
[QUOTE=TH89;32387746]Given the high degree of consensus, given the very drastic effects that have been predicted, both on huge ecosystems and on human areas (e.g. Bangladesh), and given the timeframe that's been estimated (which is frequently getting revised to be shorter and shorter)? Yes, absolutely.[/quote]
> predicted
with models which assume data, once again, I'm not talking about the Higgs Boson here, I'm talking about models which have been revised multiple times due to them not living up to reality and are still being revised as more data is discovered. There are countless entries in the International Journal of Climatology calling for a revising of data due to new data being found, previous models being based off of faulty assumptions and simplicity.
[quote]Although researchers attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system. Results from models can also vary due to different greenhouse gas inputs and the model's climate sensitivity. [/quote]
You're effectively talking about changing how the entire planet works based off of data which you believe conclusively proves the world will end otherwise, when it isn't proven, so it doesn't.
[QUOTE=TH89;32387746]Yeah, we're going to burst into flames 50 years down the line, when it's too late to do anything about it.[/quote]
See, this right here. It's pure faith, there just isn't enough data to confirm that scenario, and even if you go by current revisions of the models (maybe you don't keep up), 50 years is totally unrealistic, try for 100 to 150, based on current models. I expect that number to keep growing as time moves on, and as more data is confirmed.
[QUOTE=TH89;32387746]Climatologists don't seem to think it's a "fucking gigantic problem," based on the survey flyschy posted. There are some aspects of the climate models that are unsatisfactory ,yes, but that in no way precludes them from drawing confident conclusions. They are pretty damn sure.[/QUOTE]
Confident conclusions based on models in which they aren't sure if all variables are even correct. That picture has also been floating around for years. If they're confirmed then I'll hop on the alarmist bandwagon but they aren't. At a certain point you have to acknowledge, like us, they're working off of assumptions. The faith isn't "blind", but all the graphs coming out are also assuming data. It effects almost every single graph posted in this topic, and if we're not sure something is wrong it's clear bias on your part that you'd want to leap in without looking.
All I'm saying is, before you call to radical changes to society and the quality of life of all people on the planet, at least be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that you're correct. You can't be sure, you admit it, scientists admit it (even though according to your neat picture I guess they'll just join the popular consensus anyway) and I admit it. I admit [b]I could be totally wrong[/b] based on the fact that the models aren't completed and not all data is available, why can't you?
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MkTISjmJXM[/media]
I suggest you watch this - he has a fair point.
It's a hoax.
Well I won't be alive if global warming starts.
Because it will take somewhat more then 100 years.
Climate Change due to greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is very very probable, Global Warming is the media sensationalizing it. Global Warming may be a hoax, but humans are still changing the climate majorly.
I really dislike the term Global Warming, it just seems like a very crude way of saying climate change.
Anything we do to help stop climate change is stuff we should be doing anyway, recycling more, stopping using oil to burn, finding alternative ways to provide energy and only using forests in a sustainable manner solves a lot of problems, and climate change is just one of them.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832]You're appealing to authority as well as popularity which are both logical fallacies. Sure, most scientists say it's true, but that doesn't make them necessarily correct.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the same argument creationists use against global warming.
Neither you nor I nor s0biet has the expertise to make an informed judgement on climate change or climate modelling (as much as he would like to imply the contrary). Therefore, the most reasonable thing to do is to assume that, given the strong consensus among people whose careers are based on making accurate predictions, that this prediction is PROBABLY accurate. Could they all be wrong? Of course. Is it likely? Not really. That's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to common sense.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832]I mean, the graph on page 2 is pretty clear: the Earth's natural temperature has consistently been going up and down, willy-nilly over time. It's unavoidable; as the sun ages it grows hotter and that change in solar activity is obviously going to impact the Earth given that, y'know, it's the source of a fair bit of our heat.[/QUOTE]
This is a great example of why it's stupid to ignore scientists and act as if we can all reach credible conclusions on our own.
There are a number of temperature cycles that the earth goes through. Some are linked to the sun, some are linked to the earth's orbit, etc. Here's the thing, though: [i]those cycles are already well documented and understood[/i]. Climatologists [i]know[/i] how those cycles work and how the Earth's climate [i]should[/i] be behaving. They also know that the current warming trend [i]cannot be attributed to any documented climate cycle[/i]. To assume the thousands and thousands of people who do this for a living somehow managed to miss something so obvious is pretty silly. Again, this is a common sense thing.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832]Climate change [i]does[/i] exist, to believe something like the Earth's climate would remain static forever would be downright stupid, but I'm not sure why all of these scientists are so quick to leap on the idea that we're having a HUGE impact on it. I get the feeling that they don't want to be seen as 'heartless' or 'immoral' (given that the general public have given scientists a lot of flack for that in the past) so they're all kind of bandwaggoning onto this, "we're responsible for this and we need to do something to stop this!" idea. After all, looking pro-active is good publicity. If you suddenly go, "yes, we're effecting the climate greatly but we're going to do something about it!" people will like you.[/QUOTE]
This is all baseless speculation that assumes the international scientific community is a bunch of self-conscious idiots. Please read some about how scientific research is conducted, reviewed, and published before saying ridiculous stuff like this.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32388832][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png[/img]
A good image from wikipedia showing things in the extreme long run.[/QUOTE]
No, this isn't a good image. I don't know what it means. YOU don't know what it means. Probably nobody in this thread has the necessary background in climatology to draw any kind of an informed conclusion from this graph. Although I CAN tell you that a graph that covers [i]millions of years[/i] is not going to be very useful in a discussion about a warming trend that has only occured within the last century.
Actually, on that note, that brings to mind a misconception a lot of people have about climate change. It's not necessarily the change in temperature that's the problem. Yes, it's true, the world has gone through lots of changes in temperature before now, many of them far more drastic than this one. So why does this one matter?
1. This one is happening way, way, WAY faster. The graph you posted shows changes occurring over hundreds of thousands of years, allowing the planet's ecosystems to adjust and for evolution to ensure that populations remain relatively stable. The only temperature changes this rapid in the past have been associated with widespread extinctions.
2. Back in those days you could have a giant asteroid hit the earth and kill all the dinosaurs and it wouldn't really matter in the long, long run. Today, we have a world-spanning human civilization that is a lot more fragile than we think. We are incredibly reliant on a lot of natural resources, e.g. the ocean. There has already been pretty terrifying research coming out suggesting that temperature-sensitive aquatic life is dying off at a prodigious rate. This is going to have a big impact on the fishing industry and, eventually, the world food supply. And that's just one example.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32389899]No, I was just proposing a possible theory as to why the whole, "we're the source of/a huge impact on global warming!" trend has suddenly boomed recently even though this is obviously not true. I mean you can see that from the graph alone. What rational explanation could there be for people saying that though? Somebody must stand to gain something from it because people don't do things for nothing.[/QUOTE]
Again, no, it's not "obviously not true," you are just looking at a graph you don't understand and trying to draw conclusions that you have nowhere near the expertise to draw.
[QUOTE=Tracker;32389117]Statistics on surveys are often falsified to make a point. I highly doubt that 97% of all scientists everywhere support this global warming theory.[/QUOTE]
The statistics have cited their sources, which are credible studies. If you think they're lying, you have to prove it.
[QUOTE=Tracker;32389117]http://www.petitionproject.org/[/url][/QUOTE]
lol, you're really linking the petition project? A group of signatures from a few thousand "scientists," the vast majority of whom have no experience in climatology, many of whom aren't even scientists, and some of whom don't even really exist? You know there's a similar list of people who don't believe in evolution, right?
[img]http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/climate_consensus_550.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Tracker;32389117]In around 1999-2002, this graph was used in official IPCC reports and often cited as evidence.
It has since been shown that this "hockey stick" graph was quite simply, falsified. The means of collecting the evidence to create it was a very selective process, if any specific element didn't support the 'consensus', it was removed. This ended out to be about 80% of what was collected (that was removed). This was the earliest case of this and certainly not the only one.[/QUOTE]
This is a pretty big mischaracterization of what happened. The "hockey stick" was never used as the foundation of the IPCC's case. There have been numerous "hockey stick" graphs, from different sources, all of which tend to show the same trend. One of them was heavily challenged by skeptics, who declared victory despite not really convincing the scientific establishment, and after a long investigation [url=http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-08-22-climate-scientist-michael-mann-quietly-vindicated-for-the-umptee]the creator of the graph was cleared of any wrongdoing[/url].
snip'd, I don't even care..
That last picture there TH89... you need to provide some context on that one, because as it stands, it's basically telling us how many scientists are in the US and how many have actively declared that global warming is a hoax. Putting it that way is almost fraudulent, because you can't just assume those scientists all support global warming unless they have explicitly said so.
I love you TH89.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;32396474]That last picture there TH89... you need to provide some context on that one, because as it stands, it's basically telling us how many scientists are in the US and how many have actively declared that global warming is a hoax. Putting it that way is almost fraudulent, because you can't just assume those scientists all support global warming unless they have explicitly said so.[/QUOTE]
I know, and the site that it comes from actually says as much (and then provides the more accurate infographics I posted earlier). The point wasn't to show how many scientists support global warming, it was to show how ludicrously insignificant the signatories of the "Petition Project" are.
Quite clearly I've been shot down, however there are many reasons any one of those twelve million 'scientists' haven't signed the petition. It could be as simple as the fact that they haven't even heard about it, or that they don't want to be dubbed a "denier".
Ludicrously insignificant? 0.24% is actually a fair amount in that respect. You've listed it against every single person who is qualified to sign the petition.
There was a recent petition here in Australia I think may have been moderately successful, achieving about 800% of expected signatories against Internet Censorship, I realise this is off-topic but I must point out that more than 99.99% of people who were [i]qualified[/i] to sign it, didn't and it was still considered a success.
I can't really be bothered constructing a structured arguement right now but I am curious what you have to say about the climategate scandal. So yea, go.
[QUOTE=Tracker;32399183]
I can't really be bothered constructing a structured arguement right now but I am curious what you have to say about the climategate scandal. So yea, go.[/QUOTE]
It's a stupid fucking name.
Also, it's bullshit. The entire thing was basically stupid right wingers not understanding what the authors of the e-mails meant by "trick".
I realise the "trick" component is somewhat vague, but what about "hide the decline"?
[QUOTE=Tracker;32399183]Quite clearly I've been shot down, however there are many reasons any one of those twelve million 'scientists' haven't signed the petition. It could be as simple as the fact that they haven't even heard about it[/QUOTE]
It's pretty famous. Republicans have been using it in Congress to try and fight climate change legislation. Any scientist in the field of climate science knows about it.
[QUOTE=Tracker;32399183]Ludicrously insignificant? 0.24% is actually a fair amount in that respect.[/QUOTE]
It's really not, especially given that the vast majority of people who DID sign the petition aren't even climate scientists. They list "chemical engineers" (who aren't even scientists) as "chemists," which is a pretty big stretch. But even if they were all scientists they're still vastly, vastly outnumbered by people who believe the opposite. Unless you are a brilliant climatologist who has been reading all the papers being published and have some brilliant alternate explanation that nobody's thought of yet, you don't really have a legitimate reason to believe the skeptics over the rest of the scientific community.
[QUOTE=Tracker;32399183]I can't really be bothered constructing a structured arguement right now but I am curious what you have to say about the climategate scandal. So yea, go.[/QUOTE]
This video explains "Climategate" very well:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MKZcgdfhmU[/media]
Since this video was recorded, there was an investigation into the emails which acquitted the scientists of wrongdoing.
Speak to an Oceanographer about ocean acidification and they'll tell you how they feel about the anthropogenic CO2 effects on the planet.
[url]http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/saturation.mov[/url]
[url]http://sos.noaa.gov/videos/pH.mov[/url]
Oceans gonna be unfavorable for plankton -the primary producer of the ocean- and corals -the rainforest of the sea- if we don't do something soon. So lets stop fighting about the politics and fix a known problem that would cause the ecological and economic collapse of the entire ocean?
[url]http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Ocean/ocean_acidification.html[/url]
We can either sit around on our butts debating whether or not it's real while the ocean burns away or we can curb the emission of CO2, and take better care of the ocean in general, and the natural lungs of the earth that is the ocean will be glad to unfuck all our mistakes in due time. The drawbacks to acting as soon as possible? Well we'll have cleaner energy, and cleaner air for one thing. And a far more plentiful and forgiving ocean to boot.
[url]http://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/Ocean/ocean_acid.html[/url]
We are a chain smoker, and the ocean is our lungs. We keep saying we'll stop smoking some day but never get around to it until we die of lung cancer.
Oh, yes, I've heard so much about Australia's natural wonder, the great barrier reef is going to be destroyed in, oh wait, 3 years ago....
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/[/url]
[url]http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162[/url]
[i]Sorry if I seem a bit localized, I do realise this is a global issue[/i]
[QUOTE=Tracker;32400046][url]http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162[/url][/QUOTE]
What is this supposed to prove exactly?
[QUOTE=TH89;32400084]What is this supposed to prove exactly?[/QUOTE]
[quote] “The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”[/quote]
My argument for one thing.
Haha I wonder if we can take that as a concession.
The WHOI paper is correct in stating that the effects of CO2 are different for each organism. However, all that states is that organisms react differently than others to substances, which is nothing really ground breaking or surprising. However, if plankton loose their ability to create skeletons the effect will ripple throughout the whole ocean. Though plankton populations are dependent on a lot more things than just CO2. Ocean surface temperature has a lot to do with it as well.
It depends on who you put your hope in. Science or fox news.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.