[Coach_Owens87]

1. Coach in that data a see warming starting almost immediately. Sure there are years where it dips back down. However, you are aware we were in a mini Ice Age that we recently came out of. At those points in time there is no way that man could have had a global effect on the weather. Yet we were slowly warming, because we were coming out of a mini Ice Age. Also hasn't it already been shown that the data is not accurate anyways?

Like I said before in other threads coach. You liberal types always choose the worst way to go about your arguments to get at your agenda. I agree we should cut back on our pollutants, and CO2 usage. Not for fear of global warming, but for health reasons. That is why we should do it. Most people are not going to buy into some hogwash theory about man-made global warming. There has been a great attempt to fool people into believing in man made GW. However when there are just as many if not more scientists who say its untrue. You are not going to get very far with that argument.

I dont have a PHD in anything, and I wager with a few months time using just data off the internet I could make a convincing case for either side. Its all on where the money comes from. man-made GW people have decades worth of funding and pay to receive if they get people to buy into man made global warming. Whereas those who debunk it, basically its a one time deal. They have nothing to gain from saying its man made or not. They get paid and funded before the research and final data is presented. So who funds them is not important to me.

1. The mini ice age you speak of ended in 1850, (the date is started isn't very clear) and it's not really clear what caused it, or just how dramatic the temperature changes where. This wasn't a major climate change, and the theory that the earth is still recovering from this, and global warming is natural, is not a very good argument. The rises in temperature began with the industrial revolution( The rises are faster than can be naturally explained), which began in the 18th century, we may not have been driving around hummers, but we where still releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so nice try, but you're outlook on climate change is not quite correct.

There is documented evidence that that a rise in CO2, and other greenhouse gases (released from things besides vehicles) correlates with temperature increases, some of this may be a natural cycle, but we are aiding in this. The data as a whole isnt inaccurate, Old school used an example of a very small difference between two years of data, and you think all of their info is bad? Other sources say the same thing, just research it.

2. Telling people things are bad for their health doesn't work either, a lot of people know that coal mining is damaging streams, and water quality here, but no one cares, so trying to get people to listen for their health doesn't work either. If this where the case, no one would smoke. Also this isnt a hogwash theory just because you're conservative heroes believe it is (They have a lot invested in coal, oil, etc.), nothing is really ever proven 100% in science, we go by what best suits the situation, and at the moment, AGW best suits this trend. The majority of scientist agree that global warming is partly due to man, so no matter how many times fox tells you that the scientific field doesn't agree, they do.

[Beetle01]

Now all I hear about is how we are headed for another 100,000 year Ice Age. So which is it? Ice Age or GW?

Its hard to tell, we know that the Earth has been much much warmer before and that Carbon levels were 2-4times hiogher before because of natural causes. They can discern this by fossil records, since Ice Cores and anything else used for scientific measurement can only go back about 650,000 years, which is about (.25%) of 25% of the Earths existence.

[Beetle01]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise


Thats from a communist paper, so you liberals should gobble that up.


Also here are some quotes from some of the lead people who coach tries to use to backup his man-made GW theories.

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank
consultants to the United Nations

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports



"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation



"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Dude those are what they say not my assumptions or beliefs. So please don't try and make this a political party issue, this is a sheep versus critical thinker issue.

[Coach_Owens87]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise


Thats from a communist paper, so you liberals should gobble that up.


Also here are some quotes from some of the lead people who coach tries to use to backup his man-made GW theories.

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank
consultants to the United Nations

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports



"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
- Sir John Houghton,
first chairman of IPCC

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation



"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Dude those are what they say not my assumptions or beliefs. So please don't try and make this a political party issue, this is a sheep versus critical thinker issue.

So you take four quotes, that say people exaggerate the effects of global warming, which I admitted to, and say in diminishes my data, lol. You used a report from a Republican in which over half of the people on the list had compromising interest, a lot of them taking money from the fossil fuel industry. that kind of makes your point a little hypocritical.

I looked at the Vostok graph, and on Average tempature change lagged behind CO2 levels, but at the end of the graph you could see a large increase in tempature, which corresponds to the Industrial revolution, again this doesnt really kill the AGW theory.

Some anaylsis from other websites:

http://www.noe21.org/dvd2/Global%20Warmi...rature.htm

There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or proceed changes in CO2. Before doing this, it is important to keep in mind sources of error that can complicate the analysis:

1. The resolution of the data are quite low, with each data point representing an average of some 1000 years. As Monnin et al (2001) point out: "CO2 records from Vostok and Taylor Dome are thought to be the most accurate. However, the time resolution of these two records is too low to provide a history of CO2 changes that shows the detailed evolution of atmospheric CO2 over the last glacial termination."
2. The data are not error free. Not only are there potential experimental errors, but there are difficulties in matching gas age (i.e. CO2) and ice age (i.e. temperature). Then too there are potential errors in the models that create the signal from the raw data, which may not be perfect. In fact, in the figure shown above, there is an error in the way that the temperature data were calibrated. This has since been corrected. Although this figure does not show the corrected data, the effect can be seen in Cuffey & Vimeux, 2003. The result is a closer match between CO2 and temperature, especially at the period of the beginning of the last ice age.

3. The CO2 and temperature signals are not directly comparable. This is because the temperature signal is local, whereas the CO2 signal is global. As Fischer et al, 1999 point out: "Note that the CO2 concentrations represent essentially a global signal. In contrast, the geographical representativeness of isotope temperature records may vary from a synoptical to hemispherical scale and accordingly within different cores with increasing variability for shorter time scales."

4.There are other factors that affect temperature besides CO2, such as methane, aerosols and glaciation.

[Now What]

Have you guys not heard "Global Warming" is out and "Climate Change" is the new word for all the green weenies now. Some treehugger brainstormed this while trying to save the decimated population of the Eastern KY Spoted Snipe. Darn them coal companies for mountain top removal has done went and ruined generations of fun.

[HAIL PIKEVILLE!]

As I walk outside and its 5 degrees I wonder what all the fuss is about?

[ImagineThat!]

As I walk outside and its 5 degrees I wonder what all the fuss is about?

EXACTLY! I couldn't have said it any better.

[Beetle01]

Coach is just a sheep and refuses to look at the true data. His only argument is that he believes everyone who says man made GW is non existent is getting paid by the fossil fuel people. Which is just a flat out lie, Im sure some of them have been hired to do studies, but as I said before and you refuse to discuss, it is a one time deal, they are paid and funded before any of the results come out. They don't have anything to gain by saying its false, however, those who preach that we are bringing about the end of the world have lots to gain, a lifetime's worth of funding and income. SO lets take thier word for it. You philosphy is flawed coach, you need about a 6 month break from liberal brainwashing and you will come around.

[Beetle01]

Not to mention that it has already been stated and proven that the temperature recorders the scinetists use to determine temperature changes are extremely flawed and very inaccurate due to placement and no upkeep.

[Benchwarmer]

As I walk outside and its 5 degrees I wonder what all the fuss is about?

I agree.

[Coach_Owens87]

Coach is just a sheep and refuses to look at the true data. His only argument is that he believes everyone who says man made GW is non existent is getting paid by the fossil fuel people. Which is just a flat out lie, Im sure some of them have been hired to do studies, but as I said before and you refuse to discuss, it is a one time deal, they are paid and funded before any of the results come out. They don't have anything to gain by saying its false, however, those who preach that we are bringing about the end of the world have lots to gain, a lifetime's worth of funding and income. SO lets take thier word for it. You philosphy is flawed coach, you need about a 6 month break from liberal brainwashing and you will come around.

I dont refuse to discuss anything, we've been "arguing" on this topic for weeks now. I also never said that everyone who disagrees with me is getting paid by the fossil fuel industry, but several of the people you mentioned in your sources are, so I just pointed that out. Also, Im not being "liberally brainwashed" stop watching fox, and wake up to the real world, just because someone has different views than you doesn't make them brainwashed. You used several sources in this thread, and almost every other thread you posted in that comes direct from right wing think tanks. Stop being hypocritical.

And the people who it's it is not due to human activity have a lot to gain, for the people in the fossil fuel industry, their future relies on it. A huge push to make this country more "green" or environmentally friendly is not good business for them. There are things to gain no matter which side your own.


You also say that my data is innacurate, and I wont debate that there are flaws in every study, it always happens, but when you use crap like this to deny global warming, I just have to laugh.

This comes from one of your links.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

If you want me to pick apart this crap then I will, but you can just try talking to anyone else who paid attention in High school chemistry and they can tell you why this is completely wrong.

All I can do is laugh. Honestly beetle, if you cant do better than that, just stop. That crap has no scientific significance, its a joke, just like most of your arguments.

[Coach_Owens87]

Coach is just a sheep and refuses to look at the true data. His only argument is that he believes everyone who says man made GW is non existent is getting paid by the fossil fuel people. Which is just a flat out lie, Im sure some of them have been hired to do studies, but as I said before and you refuse to discuss, it is a one time deal, they are paid and funded before any of the results come out. They don't have anything to gain by saying its false, however, those who preach that we are bringing about the end of the world have lots to gain, a lifetime's worth of funding and income. SO lets take thier word for it. You philosphy is flawed coach, you need about a 6 month break from liberal brainwashing and you will come around.

I dont refuse to discuss anything, we've been "arguing" on this topic for weeks now. I also never said that everyone who disagrees with me is getting paid by the fossil fuel industry, but several of the people you mentioned in your sources are, so I just pointed that out. Also, Im not being "liberally brainwashed" stop watching fox, and wake up to the real world, just because someone has different views than you doesn't make them brainwashed. You used several sources in this thread, and almost every other thread you posted in that comes direct from right wing think tanks. Stop being hypocritical.

And the people who it's it is not due to human activity have a lot to gain, for the people in the fossil fuel industry, their future relies on it. A huge push to make this country more "green" or environmentally friendly is not good business for them. There are things to gain no matter which side your own.


You also say that my data is innacurate, and I wont debate that there are flaws in every study, it always happens, but when you use crap like this to deny global warming, I just have to laugh.

This comes from one of your links.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

If you want me to pick apart this crap then I will, but you can just try talking to anyone else who paid attention in High school chemistry and they can tell you why this is completely wrong.

All I can do is laugh. Honestly beetle, if you cant do better than that, just stop. That crap has no scientific significance, its a joke, just like most of your arguments.

[Coach_Owens87]

Didnt mean to double post, could someone delete one of my last two posts.

[EKY Sportster]

Actually GW doesn't have anything to do with the current temperature outside in Eastern Kentucky. But I don't think the Earth will be around long enough for GW to really matter. And GW won't have any impact on the lives of any of us presently living.

[Beetle01]

I dont refuse to discuss anything, we've been "arguing" on this topic for weeks now. I also never said that everyone who disagrees with me is getting paid by the fossil fuel industry, but several of the people you mentioned in your sources are, so I just pointed that out. Also, Im not being "liberally brainwashed" stop watching fox, and wake up to the real world, just because someone has different views than you doesn't make them brainwashed. You used several sources in this thread, and almost every other thread you posted in that comes direct from right wing think tanks. Stop being hypocritical.

And the people who it's it is not due to human activity have a lot to gain, for the people in the fossil fuel industry, their future relies on it. A huge push to make this country more "green" or environmentally friendly is not good business for them. There are things to gain no matter which side your own.


You also say that my data is innacurate, and I wont debate that there are flaws in every study, it always happens, but when you use crap like this to deny global warming, I just have to laugh.

This comes from one of your links.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-2/

If you want me to pick apart this crap then I will, but you can just try talking to anyone else who paid attention in High school chemistry and they can tell you why this is completely wrong.

All I can do is laugh. Honestly beetle, if you cant do better than that, just stop. That crap has no scientific significance, its a joke, just like most of your arguments.

Then pick it apart. All that is is a layman's terms explanation that the common person can understand, although I highly doubt you read anything in the article other than that one paragraph in which you drew your conclusion.

[Old School]

Here's an interesting statement from Hansen's former supervisor John S Theon.
[INDENT]“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made, …I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results”
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,”
[/INDENT]Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon


http://joannenova.com.au/2009/01/28/the-...a-skeptic/