You assume that if your going to do a survey, your going to put the bouys in the worst possible spread to render the results of your study inconclusive, right?

I just find it so funny that the people in this thread criticizing the majority's consensus in the global warming debate act as if they are so enlightened and as if there data is somehow less impeachable.

This is not how the scientific community works:

Majority consensus potentially has some problems

Opponents make alternate claims that have not been subject to mass peer review

Thus, opponents claims are correct.

It is those within the scientific community who challenge the majority consensus who should be viewed most skeptically, particularly when it is a recent challenge that has not been subjected to peer review. That is how the scientific community deals with new hypotheses. The previous majority consensus OFTEN CHANGES AND ADAPTS IN LIGHT OF NEW DATA but is nevertheless CORRECT. This happens over 90-95% of the time. For every new hypothesis that takes hold and is worth anything, there are hundreds of others that quickly disintegrate.

How many times do you think the "law of gravity" or the "theory of evolution" have been revised? Hundreds if not thousands of times. But have they ever been proved wrong? No, they have not.

The opponents of the majority consensus on climate change see something that challenges that majority consensus and latch onto it for dear life claiming that they are the enlightened ones when really they are just jumping on the next bandwagon. Its kind of like a self-fulfilling hypothesis. They believe it because they want to.

Mafoo, for instance, says he has never believed in human-caused global warming BUT NOW when some data finally comes out that could support it, he acts as if he has been correct all along. That's like a creationist who doesn't believe in evolution who latches onto intelligent design for dear life as soon as it gets a tiny bit of support in the scientific community. Its like people who don't like paying high taxes latching onto supply-side economics even if the underlying principles behind supply-side economics are questionable, and remain so. It verges on intellectual dishonesty.

What?

That’s ridicules, and about as farfetched as someone has gone to try and insult me.  If that’s the best you can do, just let it go and wait until you make something up that’s less stupid.

I never believed in manmade global warming based on many scientific data points. The idea that more data I didn’t know about comes along to strengthen my views  somehow makes my conclusions less valid is well… just stupid.

It’s like me saying that if you eat rotten food, you will get sick, and then we learn that people are getting sick somehow discredits my original beliefs, because I didn’t know about those sick people.

What a weak ass argument.

What is the origin of the CO₂ if you don't believe is manmade? (If you allready stated that then i'm sorry for asking and i'll check)

Cause CO₂ concentration is indeed rising and affecting all the earth like i said.

"Cause CO₂ concentration is indeed rising and affecting all the earth like i said."

The text in italics is true and provable fact. The bolded part is speculation that the data just does not support.

If it’s true that the earth’s temperature was warming up based on the rise in CO2, why is the earth, over the last eight years, not warmed up? We have had more CO2 each year then the year before. If that is the cause, we should be heating up. We are not. If we are not heating up, it’s not the cause.

People think CO2 in the air is bad. So starting from that premise, they look for data to support why it’s bad, and then use that data to strengthen their pre conceived point of view. There is a strong possibility that the amount of CO2 that man has put in the air, has no impact.

For example, I know I displace water when I enter it. I can’t say that when the oceans rise, it’s because too many people have entered the water. First, I would have to eliminate all other things that could make the water rise. Then I can make that argument.

The single biggest factor of the temperature of the earth, is the Sun. I think we all agree on that. Before you can blame something other than the Sun causing our temperature changes, you first need to remove the sun from the argument. The problem is, when you investigate the Suns behaviors, and the change in temperature on earth, it becomes extremely hard to discredit its effects.

The only people who have been successful at it, are politicians. But they lie for a living, so they ought to be good at it.

nuninhuh -

Here is the argument from the anti-man made-GW crowd standpoint.

- Are Co2 levels increasing due to humans? Yes
- Does Co2 have an effect on global temperatures? Yes
- Is the correlation between both causing the rise in global temperatures? Unknown.

That's the problem we have. We have seen a rise in global temperatures. That is fact. However, to pin the tail on the donkey as being man-made Co2 is to ignore data and evidences to the contrary. Furthermore, the sweeping changes made to business and industry to solve the Co2 problem is very expensive. We feel that if such changes are made, and are not indeed the cause of global warming, we've killed jobs, spent money on something that won't work, and may have inadvertently hurt ourselves from solving the true culprit of global warming in favor of the 'easy' or 'popular' way out.

Co2 changes temperatures. But is the man-made portion, the 3% of all Co2 output, enough to destroy the environment as some governments and scientists are spouting? That's what gives me hesitancy. As I've said, I believe it's a correlation between far more, and I think that good scientists should note that, but some aren't because they are getting funded by governments and agencies that want them to report in a certain way - in favor of the earth getting destroyed unless we reduce the human carbon output.

Unless I misremember I have no way of knowing from this thread where that data is coming from.  Instead of bitching, why didn't any of you actually try to defend your data?  It didn't take me that long once I got around to it: 

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

As we can see, coverage is extensive but irregular.  The Pacific near Japan seems to have especially heavy coverage, while other areas are covered more sparsely or not at all.  I for one would like to know if this was accounted for in ... DiPuccio's ... study. 
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/

But even if he did not account for that, it seems unlikely that that alone would eradicate his negative finding.  I would be very interested in seeing what experts have to say who have waded through his findings.  A brief search only turned up a guy pointing out that 2003-2008 was the only 6 year period in the last 15 years to show a decline, and that DiPuccio is "not a climatologist, but rather the director of the Institute for Classic Christian Studies". 

(Five minutes later ...)

A CHALLENGER APPEARS!



http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=67

It would seem that not only is the 6-year sample curiously well-chosen to show decline, but it is hamstrung by its short timeframe AND suspect in its early years (due to early incompleteness in sample size/distribution), which means it might actually have been warming even for that 6-year sample. 

@TheRealMafoo and mrstikball, thanks for the responses, now i see why the theories of non global warming are rising.

@TheRealMafoo,  I still say that the lowering temperature of the oceans in one decade does not show a whole climate pattern. As mrstickball says about co2 it can be related to other factors like the melting of the ice caps that creates an intake of colder water in the oceans.
The sun is the biggest factor of the temperature of the earth cause almost all energy the earth gets comes from the sun (a tiny bit from other stars and interstellar dust or whatever) but as we all know is increased by the presence of an atmosphere.

@mrstickball,

i was just giving the responses for those questions, i wasn't aware that the discution was way beyond that lol

"- Are Co2 levels increasing due to humans? Yes
- Does Co2 have an effect on global temperatures? Yes"

and is that all 3% of man influence? If it is then i believe it can have some influence on the warming.

----

Last year i made a study at college about this issue with some japanese reanalysis of the last 30 years. It showed increasing of the global temperature in the first 20 years and decreasing in the last giving a overall increasing for the 30 years. I couldn't reach any specific conclusion about global warming cause i was more interested in the height of the tropopause. But i reached conclusions about the changing climates which is really happening all over the world.
The consequences are not that big of a deal. So we do not need to be concerned about climate changing.

I do believe that men is the cause of this sudden rising of CO2's concentration until somebody says other way. I'm not concerned about the origin but more about what we should expect after it is so high.

Let’s just look at this from pure logic.

Your conclusion is = x grows when y grows, yet in 10 out of 30 sample sets, y grew and x did not.

Explain how that’s possible.

I see things from a climatologic perspective. If x rises in about 30 years with an interval of confidence suficient to sustain it, y will rise (or fall) doing a generic linear regression.

But in my study i didn't compare co2 with temperature. I had temperatures and calculated the pressure level of the tropopause in every point in my grid of the world map. This way i could determine how the width of the tropical belt as been changing (and it as been groing at a steady rate more in the northern hemisphere than in the southern though).