| Sqrl said: Just for the record we've had this debate on this site before and I believe the last time we had the debate it ended shortly after (but not necessarily due to) me pointing out that according to the alarmist's own data, even if we were to attribute all of the C02 increases over the last 250 years to mankind the worst case estimate you could create for C02 as a climate driver is that it (quoting from memory) was responsible for ~19% of the warming in the same time period. Keep in mind that assumes that ALL of the additional C02 from the last 250 years was man-made and gives literally zero credit to some of the largest contributers of C02 during that period...like the ocean and volcanoes etc... The actual numbers for mankind's yearly *net* contribution is less than 50% BTW. The climate is changing, there is no doubt. But C02, much less C02 contributed by mankind, is not a major driver of that change. I'll leave this discussion at that, I've done more research than probably the rest of the posters in this thread combined (exeggerating most likely, and I beg you not to take my word for it and think for yourself) on this topic and I feel extremely confident in my position. And for the record I am a fierce supporter of scientific research that has been thoroughly vetted such as evolution and the moon landings to borrow some examples from above. Anthropogenic global warming is simply no where near as vetted as those other examples and to suggest otherwise is an outright insult to the scientific process you claim to support. The fundamental concepts being left out in the cold are that a consensus is not equivalent to proof, and that correlation does not imply causation. PS - You can't trust Mr Beck's movie any more than you can Mr Gore. Both are politicians and based on that alone should be greeted with extreme skepticism the moment they step out of the realm of politics, especially when they step into the realm of science. Both movies have lengthy documentation on their factual errors to support that conclusion. |
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/47/18866
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/paper-II-en.pdf
http://www.unep.org/Themes/climatechange/PDF/factsheets_English.pdf
If you google the topic you are going to get a bunch of websites that claim what you are saying... they are lying or wrong. This is the UN, the IPCC, the US government, and PNAS (the official science Journal of the UN).
The following is President Bush's press release announcing the switch in the traditional Republican to the international and scientific consesus on climate change.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
The Senate'sresponse to his budget request mentioning climate change
Here are some other countries' research links or positions.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/research/index.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/studies.htm
http://en.g8russia.ru/g8/history/gleneagles2005/7/ (Russia's stance at the G8)
http://www.climate-change.ir/en/ or more specifically http://www.climate-change.ir/en/concept/#gg (Iran)
http://www.mct.gov.br/index.php/content/view/13986.html (Brazil)
http://cambio_climatico.ine.gob.mx/ccygob/ccygobingles.html (Mexico)
There are 174 signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. Many of them are developing nations and third world countries; this is important because it is internationally understood that anti-Greenhouse Gas emission regulation is bad for growth. They sign it any way, because it is needed.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
