Disprove Global Warming!!!

[OgreMkV]

Ok Mr. Scientist than you should already know what I'm about to tell you.

The hottest year on record was 1998 and we've have been steadily declining ever since then.

Hottest where exactly? Please note that the link that I posted ealier (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/)

from a reputable climatolgical research facility shows that 8 of the hottest ten years on record (for the entire planet) have been between 2000 and 2008.

You make claims, please provide evidence from a peer-reviewed publication to back them up. I suggest http://www.biomedcentral.com/
It's free and has access to thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I'm not dealing with anymore claims from people who don't do research and newspapers and movies are not research. They at the best sensationalized and at the worst pure entertainment.

CO2 Levels have risen since 1998 without a relationship to the increased temperatures which is why CO2 doesn't affect global "warming". Thats pure and simple.

Evidence?

For the guy who doesn't like rush HERE is a great article by BBC which is a news organization that libs and dems love.

Read and enjoy.

About the volcano from Bali. The eath and it's natural emission of CO2 through volcanos and what not accounts for 70-80% of CO2. Another 10-15% is plants, yes they do give off CO2 as well as oxygen. Another 5-10% is animals and the remaining 4 something percent is humans and most of that is caused by breathing.


Now please tell me how we've done anything with CO2 to warm the world up.

Please tell me why CO2 is the only greenhouse gas you question. This is a list of Greenhouse gases (and water vapor is not included here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

This information also include the change between 2005 and 1998 and the change from 1750 to 1998. Also, carefully examine the information (and look up) Radiative Forcing.

So again, what are your peer-reviewed sources... please.

 

[OgreMkV]

i see what your saying. Pollution is not good for anything, but there is very little proof that it causes warming. If you have watched "The Inconvenient Truth" you will see the graphs. these are all faked. it is a fact that Co2 goes up when the temperature goes up, but the temperature precedes the Co2 rise not the otehr way around. It is also a fact that the scientists have taken into account for the last 200 years only and not the last 10 000 or even 1000 years. In order to accurately state that man contributes significantly to global warming you need to take into account as much historical information as possible.

Why exactly would we need to take into account man made activities for more than 200 years. The hydrocarbon industry didn't exist before 1900. So where would man made pollution come from before then?

Now, scientists have good climate information for about 950 million years. They have fantastic climate information for at least 400 thousand years or so. If you go here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
You can actually download temperture, O2/N2, CO2, dust, methane, and sodium data for the last 400,000 years.

Enjoy.

 

[froglover007]

Sorry to say but anyone with a video and some decent editing skills (me not included ) can make a youtube video. Like news articles, they offer little to this discussion IMO.

That isn't true. What do you mean by "editing skills"?

 

[jpappy789]

I mean, that any person can put together a flashy video. That doesn't cut it in my book...

Science is most valid in terms of peer-reviewed journals.

 

[froglover007]

Why exactly would we need to take into account man made activities for more than 200 years. The hydrocarbon industry didn't exist before 1900. So where would man made pollution come from before then?

Now, scientists have good climate information for about 950 million years. They have fantastic climate information for at least 400 thousand years or so. If you go here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
You can actually download temperture, O2/N2, CO2, dust, methane, and sodium data for the last 400,000 years.

Enjoy.

THat is not what I mean. I mean that they should look at all the data in order to PROVE that man-made global warming exists. Currently we are in a period known as the Holocene era in which the climate is fairly stable. Now, if you compare our slice of this era to the rest of the era, then the warming is perfectly normal and should come down very soon, and in fact it already is. In other words, there is absolutely NOTHING that proves or even suggests that there is any abnormal warming. Here is anotehr video by a top professor. It is a series of four. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&NR=1&feature=fvwp . I am not saying that man doesn't cause global warming, but it just hasn't been proven and significant money should not be spent on a theory.

 

[froglover007]

I mean, that any person can put together a flashy video. That doesn't cut it in my book...

Science is most valid in terms of peer-reviewed journals.

If the video contains proven evidence then it is perfectly valid and should be treated in the same way as any scientific journal.

 

[jpappy789]

If the video contains proven evidence then it is perfectly valid and should be treated in the same way as any scientific journal.

Which is exactly why I am taking a YOUTUBE video at face value...where is this "proven evidence" that makes it "perfectly valid"?

Please do not try to tell me that an online video is more valid than a peer reviewed journal article. That type of statement is laughable.

 

[froglover007]

Which is exactly why I am taking a YOUTUBE video at face value...where is this "proven evidence" that makes it "perfectly valid"?

Please do not try to tell me that an online video is more valid than a peer reviewed journal article. That type of statement is laughable.

What I am saying is that if a scientist makes a video using actual data it is just as valid as a peer-reviewed journal. Personally, "peer-reviewed" doesnt make a difference because most peers of climate change people will be climate change people and could care less if that journal contains fact or not if it is on their side of the argument.

 

[froglover007]

YOu can just read most newspapers to figure that one out.

 

[jpappy789]

What I am saying is that if a scientist makes a video using actual data it is just as valid as a peer-reviewed journal. Personally, "peer-reviewed" doesnt make a difference because most peers of climate change people will be climate change people and could care less if that journal contains fact or not if it is on their side of the argument.

A peer reviewed article contains an actual experiment, data, results, and conclusions based on what was found. Sure, it is open to interpretation on some scale, but so is all of science.

In order to be submitted to a journal it is sent out to the experts in the field who literally tear the report apart before it can be accepted. Again, there is some opinion aspect but why risk your position for the sake of okay-ing a faulty article?

I watched the video and I didn't see any credentials. I have no idea who the author is other than he has an account on youtube and can make a semi-decent movie.

YOu can just read most newspapers to figure that one out.

And we all know how reliable newspapers can be...

Please keep in mind that I am in no way bashing you or the skeptical view, I am just as skeptic as the next person about the issue. But for the sake of the thread, do not reference online videos. Honestly, any person in the world of academia would throw that out as useless.