Global Warming Poll

[InHouston]

Do you believe in Global Warming?

[White_Male_Canada]

Do you believe in Global Warming?

No fair, trick question.

Temps have increased, so yes it is warmer but since 1998 temps have not increased. The left wants everyone to believe man is responsible, which is untrue.

So if your question was, 'do you believe man-made CO2 is the main reason for global warming? ' then I`da voted no.

[LG]

It's not a question of believing or not believing in global warming, as if global warming is some kind of religion that one chooses to subscribe to or not.

The question is: Having looked at the evidence, having heard the different viewpoints, taking all the facts I am aware of as a keen reader and as a scientist into account, do I believe that humans activity is contributing or will contribute significantly to climate change?

My answer is yes.

Another question is: Have some political factions and has big business presented a case that tends to go against much of the body of scientific evidence, against the findings of research institutions and the scientists who spend most of their times dealing with both the facts and uncertainties of climatology?

Yes

Next: Have such political factions and some scientists tried to represent a case that on the surface seems scientific but, on inspection, is riddled with errors, for the sole purpose of promoting a conservative or big business agenda, and are the scientists presenting this evidence usually connected to interests within the industry?

Yes

Finally: Has a selection of rightwing windbags, like Rush Limbaugh and also like the poster right above me, repeated their mantra ad nauseum in the hope of deflecting the issue, serving their own interests or those of the political parties or corporations they support and confusing unsuspecting laymen by blinding them with false science?

Yes, yes and again, sadly, yes.

[White_Male_Canada]

I



Finally: Has a selection of rightwing windbags, like Rush Limbaugh and also like the poster right above me, repeated their mantra ad nauseum in the hope of deflecting the issue, serving their own interests or those of the political parties or corporations they support and confusing unsuspecting laymen by blinding them with false science?

Yes, yes and again, sadly, yes.

Here`s the problem you cannot escape.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made, hence only about 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gas in total.

That is not deflection, that is destruction.

How does 0.12% equal the majority of warming even though as proven, CO2 does not antedate temperature increases ?

[trish]

We've already answer all that crap ten times before in previous posts. We can't help it if you're a slow learner. Go back and re-read.

[LG]

Here`s the problem you cannot escape.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made, hence only about 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gas in total.

That is not deflection, that is destruction.

How does 0.12% equal the majority of warming even though as proven, CO2 does not antedate temperature increases ?

Firstly, what you take to be proven has not been proven- all that has been shown is that ice cores show a lag between temperature increases and CO2 rising, but this does not preclude the chance that increased CO2 caused further rises in temperatures- positive feedback, something that you have yet failed to grasp (and please don't go into the anecdotal evidence from stomatal data that your tried last time- that was pretty pathetic) . This is not really worth discussing again. You have consistently shown how you fail to understand the concept of sources and sinks of CO2 and of feedback mechanisms relating to CO2 and water vapour, for example, that further exacerbate the problem.

If you understood all these things you would not be repeating yourself once more like a broken record. But, alas, you do not and so we are forced to read your pointless posts again and again.

You have consistently chosen to throw about numbers you hardly understand, like the ones you tried to use once more, too often repeated by neocon Fox hacks, Rush Limbaugh and the likes of James Inhofe, the ultrastupid Bible-thumping senator who has compared environmentalists to Nazis.

You have failed to accept that, also, that most of the skeptics have their own interests at heart rather than those of either the planet, the economy or the voters, and you seem incapable of understanding how much of the "science" that disagrees with the consensus is coming from scientists with industry ties or is funded by big business.

What is more, you have consistently thrown the most unpleasant epithets at anyone who disagrees with you and seem to believe that you are the font of all knowledge and that I am an "anencephalic kook". What a nice person you must be...

Well you're not the font of all knowledge and (dare I say it) I don't even think you're very nice. Of course none of us knows everything, it's true. But the fact is that you have lost this debate several times over against posters with a far greater understanding of science than you. The material is all there, for those who want to search for it, although I suspect you will be rushing to edit most of your posts for the 7th time as you always do. Each time one of your positions is proven wrong, you immediately shift to a new one. It must be convenient for you to have no principles, right WMC?



Further reading:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

ExxonMobil's IRS Report 2005
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets...rt-to-irs-2005

James Inhofe's campaign contributions
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...?CID=N00005582
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicia...582&cycle=2006

[White_Male_Canada]

Here`s the problem you cannot escape.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere and only 3.6 per cent of greenhouse gases. Of that only 3.4 to 5% is man-made, hence only about 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gas in total.

That is not deflection, that is destruction.

How does 0.12% equal the majority of warming even though as proven, CO2 does not antedate temperature increases ?

Firstly, what you take to be proven has not been proven- all that has been shown is that ice cores show a lag between temperature increases and CO2 rising, but this does not preclude the chance that increased CO2 caused further rises in temperatures- positive feedback, something that you have yet failed to grasp...

You and the politicized IPCC rely on runaway +feedback which has been refuted by the fact that temps have not increased since `98. And you`re CO2 fallacy is just that. Ths fac that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb almost all of the IR in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands.Added CO2 would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption.Each time CO2 is doubled the increase in temperature will be less than previously simply because all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It`s been calculated that CO2 absorbance is 376 units per km for 380 ppm. Doubling CO2 at it`s absorbtion bandwidth would only cause an increase IR absorbtion of about 0.17%.

You`re agw religion is just that, and ues we`ve been thru it before and can go thru it all again. You`re belief is proven false.

[Rod la Rod]

Please "white male Canada" let us know your scientific credentials.

As a scientist I am interested in your analysis of atmospheric CO2 levels.

So far it seems like meaningless gibberish.

[svenson]

you could have asked if we beleve earth is round

[LG]

You`re agw religion is just that, and ues we`ve been thru it before and can go thru it all again. You`re belief is proven false.

Yes, we have been through it before and Trish and I whacked your ass back then, but I'm not in the mood to make you look stupid again because, unlike you, I have better things to do with my time. What's more, just for you, just 'cause I've had enough of your inanities, please see the image below (and English is supposed to be my second language, not yours) :