first off, Final-Fan, I wasn't actually referring to you in the "ZOMG IT"S A FACT" thing, yet you still manage to demonstrate the exact problem I have with accepting what you say very nicely by going "har har, you don't believe evolution is real"

Because I didn't say that evolution doesn't exist at all, but that teh THEORY OF EVOLUTION has not been proven. To explain in simple terms so that even you can wrap your poor little mind around: (see wut i did thar?)
While evolution within a species has been documented, evolution from one species to a completely different sustainable species HAS NOT. We have species that we believe might be related to other species, but there has never been an observed case of an animal changing from one species to another species that is unable to breed with the original species.
Humans have been breeding dogs and cats and cows and horses to the point where they are look completely different in build, mass, and pretty much every physical structure, but are still completely capable of breeding with one another.
Horses and donkeys can breed, but they produce a mule, which has always been unable to breed in turn. Humans and monkeys cannot breed, yet we "supposedly" evolved from them. Yet there are no documented cases of a species evolving to the point it can no longer breed with it's original species.
On top of this, if evolution did allow one species to become an entirely different species, why are there no fossil evidence of those "in between" stages that should be common as an older species becomes a newer one? This STILL has never been addressed, and the most people can come up with is a fish that is capable of walking on land, yet when it comes down to it, there is no evidence that this isn't simply a species in and of its own right, a theory which is further supported as it is still a viable species today and has not moved from being a fish to being a land animal.

So as you can see, there are plenty of points over which evolution over creationism can be contested, yet people, much like yourself, blindly accept it as fact despite the overwhelming number of glaring logical gaffes. Now, I'm not claiming to know one way or another how different species came to be, but that's pretty much the whole point. I'm NOT claiming to KNOW.


Then for drkohler, who, rather than attempt to address the issue, chose to opt out of it: Alright, if you can't prove a negative, then you supposedly can prove a positive, right?
Instead of "Can we prove that the planet won't go back to normal on it's own? No"
We'll phrase it as "Can we prove that the planet will continue on this warming trend indefinitely if unaided, instead of stabilizing itself on its own? No"

As sqrl has pointed out, global warming is not an issue without contention, and my problem is not that you are putting it forward as a serious concern, but that you are putting it forward as an undisputed fact when it obviously isn't. That you do this is what destroys your credibility in my eyes, and 90% of every person who has touted global warming has done similarly, stating that global warming is a definitive fact. If they can't even admit that it's not a fact, then they aren't trying to find the truth, they're trying to make what they say accepted.

Personally, I have no issues with trying to cut back on pollution. I may not be convinced about the global scale of things, but I understand the effects that pollution has had as I live in pittsburgh, a former big steel mill industry. I've heard the stories about how the air used to be, and I know I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near that.
As far as I'm concerned, pollution is a quality of life issue, not a life or death issue.

Final-Fan

"I am not an expert. You are not an expert. I think the experts are right. You think the experts are wrong. Do you see how my position could be considered somewhat stronger than yours? "


Sorry Final-Fan, but Happy Squirrel nuked your argument in advance. Global warming models are highly analogous to the mathematical models used to create the sub-prime financial crisis. In that case, the expert opinion was unequivocally proven wrong. That includes some of the smartest, most handsomely paid people in the world.

The problem with the scientific pro-Global Warming side is that it's every bit as self-interested as the PR line from an oil company executive. My simple, rudimentary understanding of human nature tells me to be skeptical, no equations needed.

And from a common sense point of view, depletion will become the limiting factor to human population growth long before pollution.

Sqrl said: This belief that all major scientists have decided on the issue is a fallacy. What we do have is a lot of "science journalists", "comittee panelists", and politicians who have decided and have used their political weight to gain the endorsement of scientific organizations. Just because an organization endorses a theory does not mean its community and members have as well. These organizations have to play the political game or they lose funding, thats no secret and to be a legitimate scientist you have to be part of these organizations to be taken seriously..again no secret. But more over, Science is not now and never has been about "consensus". Its about facts, theories, and the practical tests that prove those theories correct. If anthropogenic global warming is a fact then where are the scrutinized tests that prove that theory? And how many times has it been reproduced and by which scientists and groups? Those are the things that matter. Some examples? Roy Spencer is the Weather Satellite Team Leader for NASA and brings up valid points about the greenhouse effect specifically as a cause. He points out that if the greenhouse effect were the cause the heat would be trapped in the troposphere and it would be hotter there than on the ground. But the opposite is true according to his satellite readings and research, the troposphere is cooler than the ground readings that are taken. John Christy who iirc is a Professor of Atmosphereic Science and points out that of all of the greenhouse gasses C02 accounts for an utterly insiginicant percentage (far less than 1%). Where as water vapor accounts for some 96% of all greenhouse gas. So are we to believe we should fight water vapor emissions? Should I stop boiling water? There are others who point out things like the Medievil Warm Period, a time in the middle ages when its much warmer than it is now. Yet this time period, even without the benefits of air conditioning and modern medicine was considered to be an era of great prosperity and growth. So why are we so afraid of rising temperatures? Realize that the things I have pointed out aren't actually debated by the scientists. These points aren't in contention, and yet somehow we are to believe that carbon emissions are the problem and that if it gets much hotter we are all in big trouble. Now if you want to tell me we have energy problems and we should conserve? I'm all for that, but don't come running to me screaming about global warming and carbon emissions. I'm not buying it.

I'm not saying that there are no individuals disputing that humans are the prime cause of global warming in recent decades, but your anecdotes do nothing to refute that there is a general consensus in the scientific community that we are, and that no major scientific organization (AFAIK) is an exception to this consensus.

Different altitudes in the atmosphere have different natural temperatures. What is the natural temperature for each of these levels and are they on the rise?

The water vapor vs. CO2 issue has already been raised and answered in some detail. If you think there is more to the story then go for it, but you do need to address what has already been said.

As for the medieval warming period, (A) no doubt it did benefit regions such as Europe that could benefit from the longer growing season, etc.; but did other regions have adverse effects? (B) What makes you think that the rate of pollution would not produce far too much warming?
(Actually, a little research indicates that the MWP was in fact regional warming and not global warming at all.)
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html

I greatly respect you Sqrl but you have not brought anything significant to this debate.

Grey Acumen said: first off, Final-Fan, I wasn't actually referring to you in the "ZOMG IT"S A FACT" thing, yet you still manage to demonstrate the exact problem I have with accepting what you say very nicely by going "har har, you don't believe evolution is real" Because I didn't say that evolution doesn't exist at all, but that teh THEORY OF EVOLUTION has not been proven. To explain in simple terms so that even you can wrap your poor little mind around: (see wut i did thar?) While evolution within a species has been documented, evolution from one species to a completely different sustainable species HAS NOT. We have species that we believe might be related to other species, but there has never been an observed case of an animal changing from one species to another species that is unable to breed with the original species. Humans have been breeding dogs and cats and cows and horses to the point where they are look completely different in build, mass, and pretty much every physical structure, but are still completely capable of breeding with one another. Horses and donkeys can breed, but they produce a mule, which has always been unable to breed in turn. Humans and monkeys cannot breed, yet we "supposedly" evolved from them. Yet there are no documented cases of a species evolving to the point it can no longer breed with it's original species. On top of this, if evolution did allow one species to become an entirely different species, why are there no fossil evidence of those "in between" stages that should be common as an older species becomes a newer one? This STILL has never been addressed, and the most people can come up with is a fish that is capable of walking on land, yet when it comes down to it, there is no evidence that this isn't simply a species in and of its own right, a theory which is further supported as it is still a viable species today and has not moved from being a fish to being a land animal. So as you can see, there are plenty of points over which evolution over creationism can be contested, yet people, much like yourself, blindly accept it as fact despite the overwhelming number of glaring logical gaffes. Now, I'm not claiming to know one way or another how different species came to be, but that's pretty much the whole point. I'm NOT claiming to KNOW. Then for drkohler, who, rather than attempt to address the issue, chose to opt out of it: Alright, if you can't prove a negative, then you supposedly can prove a positive, right? Instead of "Can we prove that the planet won't go back to normal on it's own? No" We'll phrase it as "Can we prove that the planet will continue on this warming trend indefinitely if unaided, instead of stabilizing itself on its own? No" As sqrl has pointed out, global warming is not an issue without contention, and my problem is not that you are putting it forward as a serious concern, but that you are putting it forward as an undisputed fact when it obviously isn't. That you do this is what destroys your credibility in my eyes, and 90% of every person who has touted global warming has done similarly, stating that global warming is a definitive fact. If they can't even admit that it's not a fact, then they aren't trying to find the truth, they're trying to make what they say accepted. Personally, I have no issues with trying to cut back on pollution. I may not be convinced about the global scale of things, but I understand the effects that pollution has had as I live in pittsburgh, a former big steel mill industry. I've heard the stories about how the air used to be, and I know I wouldn't have wanted to be anywhere near that. As far as I'm concerned, pollution is a quality of life issue, not a life or death issue.

Are you saying that horses and zebras are not truly different species? I believe they can crossbreed. (I may possibly be mistaken.) Rats and mice, ditto. Wolves and dogs.

I do not have specific knowledge on this point but I would surmise that in fact the horse/donkey/mule example is in fact an example in progress of what you claim does not exist. It seems to stand to reason that horses and donkeys are still "close" enough to produce offspring, but "far away" enough that things are just slightly messed up inside, preventing further breeding.

In any case, I could take this argument to the next level but I woud prefer to drop it in favor of the main debate, global warming. I admit I started this distraction and regret it.
http://www.talkorigins.org

I'd like to actually see some real solutions on global warming.

All the "solutions" i've seen on an international level have more been a "How can some countries take money from other countries."

For example the world wide emissions credit system that's been proposed. Which won't actually stop any emissions, just richer countries will have to spend money to emit the same amount they do now by giving it to poorer countries.

Getting off Oil based economies and ecofriendly energy would help... us. Though i imagine it would throw other countries in disarray.

What happens to the poor third world country who's economy is chiefly oil production.

Nate said: Final-Fan "I am not an expert. You are not an expert. I think the experts are right. You think the experts are wrong. Do you see how my position could be considered somewhat stronger than yours? " Sorry Final-Fan, but Happy Squirrel nuked your argument in advance. Global warming models are highly analogous to the mathematical models used to create the sub-prime financial crisis. In that case, the expert opinion was unequivocally proven wrong. That includes some of the smartest, most handsomely paid people in the world. The problem with the scientific pro-Global Warming side is that it's every bit as self-interested as the PR line from an oil company executive. My simple, rudimentary understanding of human nature tells me to be skeptical, no equations needed. And from a common sense point of view, depletion will become the limiting factor to human population growth long before pollution.

First off, I don't believe that the mathematical models are "highly analogous", and in any case there WERE many people warning of exactly what would happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Subprime_mortgage_financial_crisis

And Fairfax Financial Holdings does not appear to be a small voice crying in the dark, considering its $28 billion in assets and $6.8 billion 2006 revenue. (sez Wikipedia)

In any case, however, one reason the subprime mortgage problem was allowed to get so out of hand was the pursuit of profit by banks that underestimated the risks of what they were doing because they tuned out the warnings because they really wanted the money. It's human nature, when there's buried treasure and buried land mines, to think of the treasure. You know, I'm starting to see a familiarity after all...

"The problem with the scientific pro-Global Warming side is that it's every bit as self-interested as the PR line from an oil company executive."
Why do you believe that?

"And from a common sense point of view, depletion will become the limiting factor to human population growth long before pollution."
As I said in another thread, "I'm not a big fan of "we're doomed anyway so burn 'em if you got 'em"."

Kasz216 said: I'd like to actually see some real solutions on global warming. All the "solutions" i've seen on an international level have more been a "How can some countries take money from other countries." For example the world wide emissions credit system that's been proposed. Which won't actually stop any emissions, just richer countries will have to spend money to emit the same amount they do now by giving it to poorer countries. Getting off Oil based economies and ecofriendly energy would help... us. Though i imagine it would throw other countries in disarray. What happens to the poor third world country who's economy is chiefly oil production.

Any oil independence schemes will take decades to work, so I'm not worried about that.  Oil reserves will definitely be in decline worldwide by the time we are able to seriously reduce oil dependence, so it should even out ... if we're lucky and we get to work on it right away. 

In any case, too many of the countries that depend heavily on oil exports are bad news anyway.  We can help out the "good guys" directly instead of with oil money if we want to. 

Good job on trying to get us onto the second half of the thread title, by the way. 

I'm back.  And I found the graph I was thinking of.

The CO2 part is Figure 3 from from http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf

However the temperature graph is pretty much crap, so I found http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/ with lots of charts of interest, but the one covering the same time is http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/4600Myr.jpg

It's hard to compare the CO2 with the temperature as they are, so I created this

 When you start to look further back, there's hardly any correlation at all.

 As my last note on the topic, I found http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/03/my_latest_townhall_column_10_q.php which asks 10 questions about manmade global warming.  I am not claiming there is no global warming, I just can't find enough evidence to convince me that it's manmade.

One online source has this to say on the subject, Linkzmax:

"With regards to geological history, I don't believe there are any demonstrable contradictions to greenhouse theory to be found. What we do have is an unfortunate lack of comprehensive and well resolved data. There is always the chance that new data will turn up shortcomings in the models and new aspects to climate theory, and I guarantee you scientists in the field are working hard to uncover such things. Every scientist relishes the thought of uncovering new data that overturns current understanding. But I don't think that it makes any sense at all to reject CO2 as a primary driver of climate change today because it looks, through the foggy glasses of time, like CO2 has not always completely controled climate changes in the past.

"The climate system is complicated, even the configuration of the continents has a big effect, so you should not expect complete correlation between temperatures and any single factor throughout such a long and varied history."

So, for instance, the existence of Pangaea could have had a very different effect on the climate of its day compared to the separated continents of today. The continents were also smaller then. However, areas that ordinarily hold seas may have become cut off from the world ocean and dried up. This happened to the Mediterranean several million years ago and I imagine it could very well have affected global climate.

Final-Fan said: I'm not saying that there are no individuals disputing that humans are the prime cause of global warming in recent decades, but your anecdotes do nothing to refute that there is a general consensus in the scientific community that we are, and that no major scientific organization (AFAIK) is an exception to this consensus. Different altitudes in the atmosphere have different natural temperatures. What is the natural temperature for each of these levels and are they on the rise? The water vapor vs. CO2 issue has already been raised and answered in some detail. If you think there is more to the story then go for it, but you do need to address what has already been said. As for the medieval warming period, (A) no doubt it did benefit regions such as Europe that could benefit from the longer growing season, etc.; but did other regions have adverse effects? (B) What makes you think that the rate of pollution would not produce far too much warming? (Actually, a little research indicates that the MWP was in fact regional warming and not global warming at all.) http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html I greatly respect you Sqrl but you have not brought anything significant to this debate.

You have missed the point, I don't give 2 shits if there is a consensus among a bunch of organizations. And I will continue not caring until real scientists with real research that they can present before me are supported by other real scientists who have tested that research, which most certainly has not happened here. I am not a stupid person and I have no problem sitting down to a 5,000 page report and reading the entire thing. I have already read large portions of several IPCC reports and for a time I was someone who thoroughly believed in the "consensus" ideas and the theory of global warming. But it has come to a point where the real science behind it is in bad shape and its days as this unreproachable juggernaut are numbered.

My examples were real scientists with real research which is precisely why they are a thousand times more valid than any cries of "consesus omg consensus!".

The water vapor vs C02 issue was run over by someone who sounded like they knew what they were talking about and nothing more. The fact is that water vapor is still the single largest net contributer to warming via the greenhouse effect despite its ability to regulate itself.

But really that only sidesteps the point. The research being done by the NASA team I mentioned before is showing that warming at the surface is much faster in ALL regions of the world than its respective troposphere which is precisely where the greenhouse effect takes place and its also precisely where the warming should be happening the fastest..yet its not.

More over, the last 8 years have seen temperatures go flat and the "warming" has stopped. This is according to NASAs own corrected data (the corrections were from human error in setting up the sampling stations). This does not fit into the greenhouse theory and it most certainly does not fit into the idea of anthropogenic warming.

Who cares what happened to other regions? You don't seem to get this. This is nature...climate changes WILL HAPPEN..do you understand? Good, now understand that when the climate changes some regions will be effected positively and some negatively. The species that live there must adapt to survive as a part of life. Humans like things comfy and always the same it seems but thats not how the earth works.

Really in the end this whole thing is mankinds continuing ego problem where everything revolves around him and is decided by him. Sorry folks, its not true.

As for your closing, if you truly had respect you wouldn't have added such a disrespectful comment. The fact is that you didn't grasp what was being said and allowed previous posters whose positions you agreed with automatically rule out my argument without allowing me a chance to rebutt thus allowing yourself to prematurely call victory.

 

If we are to believe that humans are the major or even minor driving force behind this how did all of the (far faster and more significant) warming happen in the past? Are we to believe that despite the fact that the current rates of temperature change are well within normal levels that this is somehow out of the ordinary and rather than being the normal processes of the earth its something that manking has caused? If we know just by temperature records of thousand, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years ago that these variations are normal and well within the normal rates of change why then do we ignore the already well documented driving forces of climate and instead choose ourselves as the cause? I say its arrogance, but before you pursue your point further you might want to familiar yourself with this.

Edit: Just to summarize that last paragraph:  Why should we ignore all of the previous drivers of climate change that have been responsible in the past and now believe that this is somehow different and things have changed?

Your quote from that article is precisely the type of thing that should make someone question these morons.  Major drivers exist, and without explaining why all of a sudden the greenhouse effect is the new major driver we are just supposed to accept it?  Feel free to take that point on faith, but I am a bit more skeptical it appears.