Ipcc Says Global Warming

I think China and India beat us by a mile, even the USA i think!

Your childish wit leaves me speechless.

 

You? think? Your lack of education obviously doesn't allow you to even find your own links, you just spout crap. Typical though, didn't really expect as much. Out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

 

Per capita emissions is not the core issue. Sparsely populated countries will not make an impact on the global scale. If any region was going to impact global temperature, it would be the ridiculous population density of Asia. So I ask again...

What evidence can you demonstrate to justify keeping these people in a desperate state of energy deprevation? These people are already poor as dirt. You want to make it harder, more expensive for them to have access to hot showers and refrigerators and transportation? Are you willing to give these things up or should you keep them, while they do without?

Once again, if you could provide any sort of convincing proof that CO2 has spiked temperature, or will spike temperature, we'll have a much stronger case by which to keep these people in a state of poverty.

EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE provide any?

 

Go away troll, that you don't understand the science is no argument against it.

 

Let's place that jab on Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement http://www.thewildbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg_.png
Name calling followed by ad hominem. I guess that's some measure of improvement.

You're appealing to authority. Notice the response is never "here is the science, look at it" it is always, trust us, we can't show you the science, but the science is settled. It's settled science, don't start asking questions.

Real science is demonstrable. This is not advanced mathematics, where the process and conclusions are opaque to laypersons. This is the process of data driven predictions. It's asserting correlation, and then attempting to ascertain causation from that relationship. I've shown you that in earth's history, the causation of CO2 release from oceans is the earth getting warmer naturally. Medieval warm period, various interglacial periods, raising temps raise CO2 levels.

The entire history of human civilization has arisen in one of these rare interglacial periods. The earth gets very cold for roughly 100,000 years then warms for about 10,000 years. In the last 10,000 years we've been in a hospitable snippet of earth's history. We WILL go back into a cold period, and that won't be prevented by 500ppm CO2, or 1000ppm or 2000ppm. WE'RE HEADING FOR AN ICE AGE at glacial speed.

 

Cool

 

Well thats nice, you're smarter than 98% of climate scientists, now fuck off

 

Methane is actually as "bad" or worse as a "greenhouse" gas than CO2.
When man first started to domesticate cattle, we began to alter the atmosphere and climate through human activity.
Bovine belches I believe are the #1 contributor to methane in the atmosphere.
Only a complete moron would think human activity has had/has no impact on the climate.





oh, the OP is Nerdman.......
I rest my case.

 

Don't say that stuff, he seems to interprete everything that makes him look more right as fact

 

I would fully support reducing cattle farming. I rarely if ever consume beef or milk or pork. There are moral, physiological, and practical benefits associated with that project. I'm not against progress. I'm against preventing Indians and Chinese from attaining western standards of living.

Try to refrain from ad hominem rebutes, you guys are fucking bottom feeders on the Hierarchy of Disagreements, seriously. You never address the argument, you address the writer.

Is anyone able to deny that we are 12,000 years into an interglacial period? What do the historical trends indicate? What evidence can you provide that man made greenhouse gasses are going to disrupt this cycle AND SEND US SKYROCKETING INTO A GLOBAL INFERNO AHHHHHHH!

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/images/Figure1.jpg
http://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/GWfig7.jpg
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/milank10.gif
http://sppiblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/climate-history-ice-core.gif

Noxious, before you rest your case without addressing the argument, answer this quick question. Should we tax Indians and Chinese to make sure they don't have access to cheap energy?

 

#62,

"You? think? Your lack of education obviously doesn't allow you to even find your own links, you just spout crap. Typical though, didn't really expect as much. Out"

http://en.wikipedia....ions_per_capita


Ah my very arrogant friend, I am really impressed with you debating style, a style so beloved of the global warming alarmists. As a less arrogant American once observed, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics", and your red herring of 'per capita' data is just that, a red herring designed to score cheap debating points. (see Oxford English Dictionary for reference)

This shifts the blame from the REAL culprits spewing out all that CO2 gunk from China with 1.4 billion people, and India with 1.2 billion, and America with a paltry 320 million, though that figure is growing rapidly I believe. Those 3 countries are just about half of the world population and churn out much more than half of the CO2. In particular China and India produce the bulk of their electricity from coal fired power stations and terrible air pollution is well documented in both countries.

Australia is a large island, a bit west of New Zealand (they call us "West Island"), a bit south of Papua New Guinea, and a long way east of Madagascar, (Google Maps will assist), our population (23 million) is very roughly the same as NYC and LA combined, and our TOTAL CO2 output is about 1% of the world total. We are about the same land area as the US but as 99.999% of Australia is desert we have few rivers and even less lakes so water, solar, and wind are all but useless. Coal is the name of the game here, but at least it goes on when the wind don't blow, and the sun don't shine.

Thus our position of #11 on the per capita scale is meaningless, and I note that we were pushed out of the top 10 by the Falkland Islands, a small group with a population of maybe 3000 all up. Just enough for a bunch of football teams, Rugby for the men, and Gridiron for the women. Google Maps will assist again. They had a war down there, probably before you were born, and the Argies were thrown out with little or no help from her "closest friend and ally".

We drove almost all of I.5, I.10, and I.95 in 2004 , and passed many wind farms, a fair few were stationary. Only some of the natives were friendly!

 

We're just getting tired of you, nerd. Nobody is trying to win a debate from you with ad hominem remarks. I guess we have to agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion and theories and so are we.

 

You guys can't summon a single shred of evidence to support your theories. This is not a chocolate or vanilla situation where preference is the primary principal. There are facts underpinning these claims you're making. If you can't pull up a single graph, a single chart, a single data set... if you have no numbers, no data, no evidence to show greenhouse gasses driving temperatures upward, you have no case. The basis of your theories and opinions is rooted firmly in dogma. You can't summon ANY EVIDENCE.

 

There are mountains of evidence out there supporting a warming trend due to rising CO2. You've never tried to do the research yourself?

 

We're not going to do your homework, even if you asked nicer. You're one of those people who seem to enter convo's solely to win or convince others and won't stop at all if that doesn't happen. Can you blame us for stop playing that endless and utterly pointless game
We won't agree with your view on this, suck it.

Btw, calling us dogmatic because we happen to agree with the scientific consensus and not with you is also just resorting to calling names its just a more subtile form

 

I HAVE tried to find a presentation of the data that shows CO2 leads warming. It doesn't exist. There is a TEMPERATURE - CO2 correlation. Temperature LEADS co2. The scientists who are funded to support carbon taxes have not shown YOU any of the evidence. You can't show ME any of the evidence.

As I understand it, they've convinced you that you don't need to see the data. You are best served if you don't ask questions and take their word for it. It's much, much too complicated. Trust us, we need to tax you for your own good. Trust us.

You guys are all super hesitant to make predictions. Here, I'll make one.

As CO2 levels surpass 500ppm we will not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 600ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 700ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 800ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.

I predict, despite rising greenhouse gases, the temperature will remain level plus or minus 1 degree, and then after some time, in our children's or grandchildren's lifetimes the earth will start to cool.

 

Yeah well----the blacks did it.

 

You misunderstand or better said you deliberately project stuff on us. It does exist, homie. I guess most of us that saw data or got it properly explained with proof did so offline. You are just trying to tempt us to play along again. But since you won't stop until we agree with you it is best to just not play along with you at all.
Maybe someone else will be you of service and will post a good source. But when you try to 'motivate' us by pretty much demand us to do so and call us stuff like dogmatic or wilfully ignorant for not agreeing with you it must be clear for most it is not worth the effort to look one up online.

 

Translation: I can't find any evidence that backs up my stance so it is best to just not play along with you at all. Instead, and in lieu of any data from my side, I'm going to criticize your tone. If you were nicer, we'd magically find the data that debunks you.

Unfortunately, taking a combative stance is far and away the best method for drawing a stark difference between good ideas and bad ideas, between evidence based arguments and dogma based claims. People are terribly slow to recognize a good argument. Strawmanning, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, and anecdotal attacks are the norm. On their way to the land of milk and honey, people run into these pitfalls, these logical fallacies, and make the holes their new home, convincing themselves they've gone far enough anyway.

 

Hubris. Check it out.