Yulegoat said:
Because natural forcings do not explain the observed climatic evolution. Scientists tend to measure these things.
Yeah, but according to scientific studies it's because of change in the albedo of Mars.
According to a number of isotope analysis, fossil fuels are the most important contributor to the increase of CO2 levels. It's best explained here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
1. You need to back up the first statement with a source. The increase of water vapour has lead to a forcing of 0.06 W according to Hansen: http://www.realclimate.org/images/forcing_1750-2000-toppanel.jpg Though not increased much, water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. 2. Where did you get those numbers? 3. What are you implying? That scientists don't know anything for sure? |
Yes I'm implying they don't know anything for sure. My biggest beef with science is that it lacks logic. I don't mean I've found it illogical. I mean they purposely avoid the use of logic, because human logic in their reasoning is limited to our own reasoning and therefore flaud. Now this is quite possibly true and quite possibly has been proven true on many levels. I say possibly only because using my own logic I've often ended up believing things that science took years to come around to learning. Not because I"m smart but because I've used the logic that scientists refuse to use.
If you read the real climate article you posted again it's that kind of arrogence that bothers me. they always have to start off with this, "
The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned."
Now just to be clear on this, I'm not questioning man's increase in co2, just man's comprehension of co2 emissions. this statement would have you believe we know everything about co2 emissions. But then you read
things like this:
http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/unfccc_in_the_press/application/pdf/ht_12022006_interview_current_affairs__deutsche_welle.pdfand even regarding measurements of co2 emissions, they make it sound like they have a million perfect ways of sorting the data then your read articles like this:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htmit's always changing.
here is another thing I've read, people talk about mercury levels in fish increasing and yet you read thing like this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/12/031205053316.htm
I'm always left scratching my head about what to believe.
Other examples of science being wrong: Hubbles constant.
purpose of the glial cell not relating to brain function.
http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11375.html
Junk DNA not being junk.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1103805.htmHow about E=mc2?
http://www.articlebiz.com/article/2326-1-emc2-is-wrong-einsteins-special-relativity-fundamentally-flawed/I've read alot of articles in astronomy magazines about alot of scientists not believing the currently popular rendition of the big bang theory, although it's a hard statement to make being that there is so many versions. Scientists now are telling us there are inifinite parrallel universes as well which is hard to believe, and I'm sure along with how many dimensions there are? String theory and all that it will change through time. Haeckel's embryo pictures were wrong in Origin of the speices too. There are many other examples but thats all I'll say for now.(I'm putting them down as they pop in my head. I looked up the articles after the fact, I don't want you to think I'm looking for more examples. these are examples that I've read when they came out at the time, in magazines, that always leave me scratching about what we actually know.
About my numbers. I'll look for them, although I'll note that I never see the same figures twice. Wikipedia under water vapor calculates it's percentage of green house gas as a regionaly fluctuating number between 36-90% what kind of figure is that? I don't know where they get their info from but the point shows a great deal about our ability to measure things accuratly. If this range of percentages are floating around how accurate are measurements? They simply cherry pick the figures that support their argument. and they do it on both sides to the point where none of us know the truth. Honestly without getting into a whole thing if you want my opinion watch the movie I mentioned in my first post, and read Michael Crihton's State of Fear, I'm not saying either source of information is perfect, they just tie in to a lot of things I believe. again I'm a logic guy, logic appeals to me more then scientific data. and the thirty years cooling period doesn't logicaly mesh with the man made warming theory. There are other theories that are brought out in that film that seem to explain things better and take more into account.
Honestly though I really don't care, if it's man made, then it's man made, my even larger point is, so what? There is literaly no way of changing man made emmissions. I honestly believe people like global warming because it's another way of bashing big evil corporations. When the real answer is to shut down all the use of power in the entire world and stop having children.
And btw I am American, and no I'm not a supporter of bush, I hate all politicians equal, I'd rather die then vote for anyone republican or democrat. so I don't want to be accused of supporting some agenda. And btw thanks for the educated answers, I hope I don't come off argumenatative, a little food for thought is not a bad thing and I'd never want anyone to think I get angry or worked up over this, it's nice to have a conversation. thanks!
