Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.

I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.

The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? 

Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence".  My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence.  It is flawed. 

1. That last  50,000 years of the graph is compressed to exaggerate NASA's argument. It goes from 50,000 years ago to 1950 in one quick compressed leap.  The graph showing C02 parts per million if read correctly shows it leap to a high about 1,000 year ago before man could have had any affect.

2. The "evidence" produced by NASA themselves in this graph shows three distinct peaks of C02 near on 300 ppm every 100,000 years, with the latest fourth peak about 100 thousand years after the last one.

3. The last peak is in 1950 - why is nothing shown for a more recent date?  That is not empirical, comprehensive evidence.

4. Nick's link to Business Insider has the revealing paragraph:
"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question."

5. So why should we believe a graph that produces more questions than answers, when NASA's own stance on how to read the graph and the understanding of it, when so many from the NASA fold appear to be questioning how that organisation is "neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory [of C02 and it's true effects] into question"?

6. If I produced work at Canterbury Christ Church university that ignored empirical evidence I would receive a definite "fail" mark.  So why grant so much creditability to NASA for their work?

7. I, and I am sure Nick, is not backing the capitalist system.  I for one am a strong critic of that system when necessary.  No as Nick states it is about science and the correct evaluation of ALL available evidence. So far NASA, and all others, have failed to convince me of their argument about C02, and especially when it seems to contradict their beliefs! Put simply man was not able to affect the C02 levels when previous peaks were recorded at 100,000 year intervals, and even the latest peak is doubtful if the true timing of it STARTING is taken into account, but due to a dodgy graph segment the casual observer could miss what I believe is a manipulation by a party who want to prove their argument at any cost.

8. Give me a graph, properly laid out, with a reading for the year 2000 approx., and an explanation as to how previous peaks of C02 occurred and then I may start to listen to NASA's argument.

 

[cem_devecioglu]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.

I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.

The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? 

Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence".  My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence.  It is flawed.

Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph     please think twice..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

As for the snow storms in America, and all the "extreme" weather elsewhere, it is not unusual if you review all the evidence produced over hundreds of years of history.

[STMO123]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.

I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.

The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? 

Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence".  My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence.  It is flawed. 

1. That last  50,000 years of the graph is compressed to exaggerate NASA's argument. It goes from 50,000 years ago to 1950 in one quick compressed leap.  The graph showing C02 parts per million if read correctly shows it leap to a high about 1,000 year ago before man could have had any affect.

2. The "evidence" produced by NASA themselves in this graph shows three distinct peaks of C02 near on 300 ppm every 100,000 years, with the latest fourth peak about 100 thousand years after the last one.

3. The last peak is in 1950 - why is nothing shown for a more recent date?  That is not empirical, comprehensive evidence.

4. Nick's link to Business Insider has the revealing paragraph:
"49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question."

5. So why should we believe a graph that produces more questions than answers, when NASA's own stance on how to read the graph and the understanding of it, when so many from the NASA fold appear to be questioning how that organisation is "neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory [of C02 and it's true effects] into question"?

6. If I produced work at Canterbury Christ Church university that ignored empirical evidence I would receive a definite "fail" mark.  So why grant so much creditability to NASA for their work?

7. I, and I am sure Nick, is not backing the capitalist system.  I for one am a strong critic of that system when necessary.  No as Nick states it is about science and the correct evaluation of ALL available evidence. So far NASA, and all others, have failed to convince me of their argument about C02, and especially when it seems to contradict their beliefs! Put simply man was not able to affect the C02 levels when previous peaks were recorded at 100,000 year intervals, and even the latest peak is doubtful if the true timing of it STARTING is taken into account, but due to a dodgy graph segment the casual observer could miss what I believe is a manipulation by a party who want to prove their argument at any cost.

8. Give me a graph, properly laid out, with a reading for the year 2000 approx., and an explanation as to how previous peaks of C02 occurred and then I may start to listen to NASA's argument.

 

Yes. I think I agree, in the main, with what Lizzie says.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.

I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.

The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? 

Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence".  My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence.  It is flawed.

Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph     please think twice..

Only if you can answer my questions about it in full Cem

[cem_devecioglu]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.

I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.

The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? 

Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence".  My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence.  It is flawed.

Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph     please think twice..

Only if you can answer my questions about it in full Cem

Lizzie, look at the link about Kyoto protocol.. where too many countries have already signed and have spent big budgets because  someone lied to them with a flawed theory   just multiply the number scientists per country .. and all of them stupid

[Lizzie_Zoom]

question is  there is evidence why you dont simply accept it ?

Because there is a great deal of evidence to say it isn't so.

I never simply accept anything until it is proven. I am naturally inquisitive and naturally sceptical.I suggest you believe things you read because they fit in with what you WANT to believe. I doubt if even the most credible evidence will make you change your mind. 'Cognitive dissonance', it's called.

The man-made global warming theory is currently as credible as the Mayan calendar. Mind you, lots of unquestioning dopes fell for that one, didn't they? 

Cem, you keep repeating the point of the "evidence".  My previous post highlighted what is wrong about this so called evidence.  It is flawed.

Lizzie, so you think that NASA shares a flawed graph     please think twice..

Only if you can answer my questions about it in full Cem

Lizzie, look at the link about Kyoto protocol.. where too many countries have already signed and have spent big budgets because  someone lied to them with a flawed theory   just multiply the number scientists per country .. and all of them stupid

The "Emperors Clothes" comes to mind, with a large chunk of countries and their politicians who have been politically "persuaded" to go along with the rest, especially by the USA and Europe, based on what?  Politically manipulated figures and theories, and them wishing to be part of the crowd?

Frankly I do not care how many countries and people try to transmit the C02 argument, as I need empirical evidence, as I do for historical matters, to understand the worth of the "Facts".  In history many have been "persuaded" to support what was inherently wrong and later proved to be so.  I will not make that mistake, even if millions of others follow like sheep!

Sorry Cem, still not convinced!

[cem_devecioglu]

you dont like Nasa graph.. here you go Lizzie
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

[cem_devecioglu]

and here is a page for skeptics
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
 
 
 ‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is  By Coby Beck (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
 

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
 

• Satellite Data
• Radiosondes
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Sea ice melt
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Permafrost melt

[Lizzie_Zoom]

you dont like Nasa graph.. here you go Lizzie
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA.html

 

Cem, that graph just shows temperature change over 145 years approx., with no more than the fluctuations that have been apparent over thousands of years.  That graph is taking a small snapshot on a limited window in time. It starts about 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, but the chart shows a steady average rate until 1940 of all years, when we had the Summer of the Battle of Britain when the country experienced hot weather.  But of course this graph is for the World as a whole, not Britain, so what do those reading really represent?

Oh, before you answer that read the script (disclaimer!!) at the side of the graph:
"These data have been analyzed by scientists to show a 0.5 degrees C increase in global temperatures. However, this finding is under dispute because some claim that the amount of error in the data is too large to justify the conclusion."

ERROR then; another set of dodgy figures trying to justify an argument!

[cem_devecioglu]

and here is a page for skeptics
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
 
 
 ‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is  By Coby Beck (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
 

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
 

• Satellite Data
• Radiosondes
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Sea ice melt
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Permafrost melt

Lizzie, please spend some time on the link I provide

[Lizzie_Zoom]

and here is a page for skeptics
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
 
 
 ‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is  By Coby Beck (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
 

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
 

• Satellite Data
• Radiosondes
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Sea ice melt
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Permafrost melt

I appreciate all that data Cem

But, what is the bottom line conclusion?  The Earth is warming.  Ok, it has warmed, then cooled, then warmed, and cooled, over numerous millenium when man was not in a position to influence the temperatures, and probably still is not in the context of our massive Earth hurtling through the universe.  Earth warming is obviously the empirical evidence of certain scientist to justify their conclusions. Fair enough, but it does not convince me.  It still does not explain historical peaks in C02 or temperature. Just 0.5, or at most, 1 degree to 2012 according to scientists.  Is that not what the Earth has witnessed before after the Ice Ages?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

and here is a page for skeptics
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
 
 
 ‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is  By Coby Beck (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
 

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
 

• Satellite Data
• Radiosondes
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Sea ice melt
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Permafrost melt

Lizzie, please spend some time on the link I provide

Ok Cem, I have spent some time going through the data you provided via the various links.  You have been busy on this subject!

Thank you for that and of course I do note the continual theme of Global Warming being evident throughout. IT is convincing stuff if you ignore other arguments, but obviously you support the Warming message, and I respect that.

However, none of these charts really shows the World history on climatic change that we know from historical evidence did transpire.  Yes, ok man MUST have some effect on the Earth just by having 7 billion of us living as we do.  But the Earth will always adapt to whatever effect man has, and that is the big question; what effect can even 7 billion have on one giant planet with vast areas of desolation, plus the oceans?

All I see in all the graphs and other "scientific data" is a panic about the short term warming of the Earth's weather, and rising C02 levels.  But zoom out of all that, and see the wider picture over the world's history, and you see no surprises, as with those three, or even four, previous peaks of C02 over hundreds of thousands of years.  The Earth is always changing; as indeed everything is in the Universe.  Nothing stays the same.  Even the mountains we see today will be gone in time to come.  The Earth is adapting to not only human activity, but to nature itself and forces we will only one day understand.

If the climate change argument is right, and action is being taken now on that one (with all of us paying for the privilege in $'s, £'s, or whatever your currency) will produce the results some scientist seek.

However, with the critics, such as me, of the argument of climatic change, we are waiting for clear indisputable evidence that all, or at least the vast majority, of scientists support.  That evidence must take into account even the facts that counter their argument as much as that for it.  The anomalies need to be explained, and flawed information should not be released.

Whatever happens the truth will out, and God's children will continue to inhabit the Earth.

[omega3000]

Apparently they are going to create a man made black hole , scientists and math magicians are claiming it will be the ultimate killing of mankind where the black hole will blow the earth up from the inside out to oblivion 

Happy New Year   

[cem_devecioglu]

and here is a page for skeptics
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
 
 
 ‘There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is  By Coby Beck (Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide)
Objection: Despite what the computer models tell us, there is actually no evidence of significant global warming.
Answer: Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places — in England, for example — that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.
These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:
 

• NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
• CRU direct surface temperature analysis

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:
 

• Satellite Data
• Radiosondes
• Borehole analysis
• Glacial melt observations
• Sea ice melt
• Sea level rise
• Proxy Reconstructions
• Permafrost melt

Lizzie, please spend some time on the link I provide

Ok Cem, I have spent some time going through the data you provided via the various links.  You have been busy on this subject!

Thank you for that and of course I do note the continual theme of Global Warming being evident throughout. IT is convincing stuff if you ignore other arguments, but obviously you support the Warming message, and I respect that.

However, none of these charts really shows the World history on climatic change that we know from historical evidence did transpire.  Yes, ok man MUST have some effect on the Earth just by having 7 billion of us living as we do.
 
problem is not this 7 billion.. if they were living in ancient times technology.. the industries and the transportation release high amount of CO2 , methane and other gases..
 
 But the Earth will always adapt to whatever effect man has, and that is the big question; what effect can even 7 billion have on one giant planet with vast areas of desolation, plus the oceans?
 
this is what we are Lizzie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwtADH2t2vA


All I see in all the graphs and other "scientific data" is a panic about the short term warming of the Earth's weather, and rising C02 levels.  But zoom out of all that, and see the wider picture over the world's history, and you see no surprises, as with those three, or even four, previous peaks of C02 over hundreds of thousands of years.  The Earth is always changing; as indeed everything is in the Universe.  Nothing stays the same.  Even the mountains we see today will be gone in time to come.  The Earth is adapting to not only human activity, but to nature itself and forces we will only one day understand.

If the climate change argument is right, and action is being taken now on that one (with all of us paying for the privilege in $'s, £'s, or whatever your currency) will produce the results some scientist seek.

However, with the critics, such as me, of the argument of climatic change, we are waiting for clear indisputable evidence that all, or at least the vast majority, of scientists support.  That evidence must take into account even the facts that counter their argument as much as that for it.  The anomalies need to be explained, and flawed information should not be released.

Whatever happens the truth will out, and God's children will continue to inhabit the Earth.
 
scientists have already determined that this global warming debate will take long time which earth dont have this luxury.. o they developed those projects.. and I'm afraid if those projects fail, even we may see the catastrophic results together and gods children will have no place to live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=300o0RbUSf4