“Can you PROVE to me that global warming is being caused by mankind?”* 25

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   danyallsun Posted 4:19 pm
   05 Aug 2009

   Joseph - Great post. Deniers just plain don't listen. I have to add that I have run into a few deniers that have some fantastic (perhaps even fantastical) theories of their own about the IPCC. For example, I have heard "how can you trust the IPCC? They're sponsored by the UN, which wants to domintate the world and bring a New World Order." How can you argue against that?

   Permalink

2. 

   mememine69 Posted 4:52 pm
   05 Aug 2009

   The global warming theory’s predictions of crisis over the last 23 years prove once again just how fallible modern man is and how humans will be for quite some time to come. Of course just as witch burning’s influence of power was unsustainable, thankfully, so is this CO2 Phobia or as I like to now call it, the  Y2Kyoto Urban Legend From Hell (Y.U.L.F.H). History is laughing at it now. Why did the Globull Warmer cross the road? Because she was being chased by BigFoot in a UFO. Global warming isn’t about pollution and pollution isn’t about global warming so get that CO2 silliness out of your head right now. Get ahead of the curve so you can stop denying my kids futures. How dare you. How dare we? Stop scaring my kids and instead proudly proclaim to your inner self and then to the world ; “THANK GOD THE WORLD’S LONGEST EMERGENCY IS OVER! NO MORE DOOMSDAY! NO MORE DOOMSDAY!” Like why would anyone hope for this misery and accept it like sheep being led at gun point over rock cliff? How did we get to this point? What the theory predicted and still does predict, is the equivalent to a slow moving catastrophic comet hit. It’s been 23 years for Kripe’s Sake and La Nina kicked and “delayed” Globull Warning’s ass, twice. Can you say self fulfilling prophecy?Be a responsible and progressive person who dares to ride the wave of emerging and up to date science that clearly proves in the absence of the predicted climate crisis to PRESERVE, not SAVE our poor little 5 billion year old planet from death by Catalytic Converter gas and nature’s very own plant food; CO2.Preserve, not rescue and face the future with optimism and bravery, not ignorance and fear from a myth. http://climatedebatedaily.com/

   Permalink

3. 

   danyallsun Posted 5:01 pm
   05 Aug 2009

   Mememine69 = Perfect denier example.  Re: my previous comment.  He didn't listen to Joseph.

   Permalink

4. 

   Des Emery Posted 6:45 pm
   05 Aug 2009

   AGW deniers all ask (usually respectfully, though not always) for PROOF that Mankind is responsible. But they never ever say what kind of proof they would accept.CO2 is life-giving, they say, not poisonous, forgetting that too much of a good thing is still too much. You can drown just as dead in an inch of water as in the Pacific Ocean. Warming has melted the previous several ice ages,just like now, they say, ignoring the speed differential between then and now. It's the sun, they say, the whole solar system is warming so it can't be our fault.  If the deniers would tell us what prood they would accept, we could overwhelm them with reason.  But they never will, since their denial is not reasonable, but only emotional. 

   Permalink

5. 

   mememine69 Posted 7:05 pm
   05 Aug 2009

    I can see why you warmies are warmies. You climate pu$$ies get so hysterical, especially when it's just an opposing view. You get all huffy and emotional and then fall back on your “faith” in glowbull warming you dogmatically call “science”. You know nothing of the theory besides "who" says it, as opposed to what is said on the science and your political demonizing will be a good laugh in the history books, I promise. 23 years of predictions makes you global warmers look like pathetic losers who just bought platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying out.Stop your childish fear mongering and answer this question:"What would the climate have to do to prove the theory wrong?" Just watch, I'll get pulled off this board too because I think Al Bore should be up for treason for leading our country to war against an invisible and non existent enemy of climate change.This is your WMD scam and history will not be kind to you DOOMERS.  

   Permalink

6. 

   georgiact Posted 8:15 pm
   05 Aug 2009

   More than 60 German scientists just sent an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  They say 'Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role'What are we up to now, about 32,000 deniers vs about 1,500 AGW-ers.  Well, we can't have a count of the AGWers since most won't affirm their beliefs in writing.It's amazing how many scientists that participated in the IPCC report have called the report, particularly the summary for policymakers, a political report.  They violated so many forcasting principles that the report is rendered unscientific.I'd like to know just how the AGW theory has been proved!http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2282/Consensus-Takes-Another-Hit-More-than-60-German-Scientists-Dissent-Over-Global-Warming-Claims

   Permalink

7. 

   danyallsun Posted 8:17 pm
   05 Aug 2009

   Scientific evidence that man is causing climate change can be found at the sites:  .  Scheider and Wolfson in Ch. 1 of Climate Change Policy: A Survey  discuss the state of certainty and uncertainty in climate science in this way:  "Scientific 'truth' is always a matter of probability. In the case of well-established theories such as evolution, relativity, thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect, the probability that the theory is correct is so high as to constitute virtual certainty"  (2002).  Fortunately, scientists and other empirical analysts of climate change have moved beyond discussion of scientific proof to discussion of more urgent and pressing matters such as climate impacts, mitigation policy options, and adaptation needs.  It's just truly sad that people still don't understand the basics of climate change. Here's a great pdf to help get educated on climate science (it's just ignorance, it doen't have to be all doom either!):  http://www.climate.noaa.gov/education/pdfs/ClimateLiteracyPoster-8.5x11-March09FinalLR.pdf

   Permalink

8. 

   danyallsun Posted 8:21 pm
   05 Aug 2009

   those sites are (didn't go through first time): http://www.pewclimate.org/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration & http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/ .

   Permalink

9. 

   Global Changes Posted 3:53 am
   06 Aug 2009

   To be fair we are all rellying on the word of our fellow man to have conducted the research properly. Only Climate scientists who have done the research themselves know for sure. But obviously none of them are denying that global warming is man made, except a few who claim to be scientists but have not done comprehensive research.

   Permalink

   1. 

      mememine69 Posted 11:02 am
      06 Aug 2009

      What a load of garbage. You warmies are talking about the end of the world and all you do is obediently drop to the "they say", the "scientists say"? Can you think for yourselves?The IPCC says the science is clear, understandable and accessable. There you go warmies, now you have permission to think.The IPCC and Al Gore are the Bernie Madoffs of Climate Change and history will not be kind to you parents and teachers scaring our kids and denying them futures.The theory was wrong so now it's time to work on real pollution, or what ever is left after the smoggy 70's and Rachel Carson.Go Warmies Go! Make our sky more blue. Make our air more fresh. Make our trees more green. Go! Go for it fools! 

      Permalink

      1. 

         danyallsun Posted 11:46 am
         06 Aug 2009

         Well the thing is Mememine69 that climate change has been shown scientifically to be linked to man by scientists. Who else are we supposed to refer to about science other than scientists? The proof is in science not elsewhere: the ice cores, artic melting, global temperature records, ocean acidity, status of coral reefs, tree ring data, etc. These things and other empirical data show that the global concentration of CO2 is rising, the rise in CO2 is entirely anthropogenic, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The key is to understand that the magnitude of the warming is what is expected from the anthropogenic alteration of the radiation balance; therefore anthropogenic forcing is able to explain the temperature rise recorded in numerous records by many models. We "warmies" did the critical thinking about it a long time ago. We agree with the scientific consensus. I would suggest adding in the "critical" part to your thinking. Then you may understand that it's time to critically think about solutions. There's no more time for skeptics like you!

         Permalink

      2. 

         ArtesiaWY Posted 1:30 am
         08 Aug 2009

         How about this instead:  I'm going to make YOU do a bit of research of your very own to prove/disprove rising CO2 levels to ME. 1) Search the internet to find a graph of cumulative world oil and coal production to date (I recommend British Petroleum or IEA, two agencies with no motive to lie.) 2) Then find out the total volume of gas in the world's atmosphere (non-controversial, so wikipedia will do.) 3) Assuming that 100% of the coal is burned, and 80% of the oil is burned (the rest is made into plastics, make up, etc) calculate the volume of CO2 this would create4) Calculate the change in the composition in the earth's atmosphere that would result from all the CO2 generated in 3).5) Divide by 2, to account for the ability of the oceans and plants to absorb CO2 as part of the natural carbon cycle.I got 256ppm.  256+280 (the pre-industrial average) = 536ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.  This is a bit high, but still a pretty good estimate for such a rough calculation. Now that you are the scientist and I am the skeptic, it is yourresponsibility to explain where all this CO2 has gone, if you do not believe it is in the atmosphere.But don't believe me.  DO THE MATH YOURSELF. 

         Permalink

10. 

    georgiact Posted 2:16 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    HMMM - The seasonal change in CO2 concentration, as recorded at Mauna Loa, is about 6-7ppm or about 4 yrs worth of CO2 growth at its current pace.No one responded to my earlier post about the German Scientists.  HMMM 

    Permalink

11. 

    danyallsun Posted 3:18 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    Rather than trust the views of 60 German "scientists" mentioned on some site I don't have the time to translate (and who knows how they've defined "scientists"), I'd turn to the German National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina. They and all other national academies of sciences of the G8 (+ several more) support the belief that climate change is anthropogenic and call for action on the climate issue.  How many members make up Leopoldina?  1300. And it's the oldest academy for medicine and the natural sciences in the world.

    Permalink

12. 

    graphicconception Posted 3:34 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    The most recent post by DANYALLSUN reminds me why I am still a sceptic."... climate change has been shown scientifically to be linked to man by scientists."My sense of logic would like to understand the nature of that "link" in the poster's own words. The UN has spent tens of billions of dollars on this and I have still not seen convincing evidence of a link. In this case the evidence needs to explain why the 96% of CO2 that is natural is not adversely affecting our climate in any way but the 4% that is manmade is wreaking havoc. Another point, CO2 has been shown to cause warming in the laboratory. What experiment has been done to show that it also causes "change" (as in Climate Change)?"The proof is in science not elsewhere: the ice cores, artic melting, global temperature records, ocean acidity, status of coral reefs, tree ring data, etc"Ice Cores: These say that CO2 increases several hundred years after the temperature increases. Based on that the CO2 increase now could be due to the Medieval Warming Period.Arctic Melting: Submarines have surfaced at the North Pole so the ice there has not always been very thick. Also, we have not had arctic ice for most of the earth's lifetime. So losing the arctic ice should not be a problem for the earth.Global Temperature Records: We have had truly global records only since satellites, that is, for about 30 years. Land based thermometers as used by NASA/GISS are still rather scarce in Africa and Greenland. Ocean cover is scant as well. The timescale is very short to be drawing such momentous conclusions. If you tried to plot a graph of temperature over the history of the earth on a standard sized piece of paper you would end up with the last 10 million years all in the last tenth of a millimeter or so. On the same scale, homo sapiens has been here for about a hundredth of the thickness of a piece of paper!Ocean Acidity: CO2 has been hundreds of times higher in the past so, presumably, the oceans were more acidic then? During one of these high CO2 periods lifeforms began a huge proliferation.Coral Reefs: The Great Barrier Reef was becoming bleached but in spite of continued CO2 increases it now seems to be recovering.Tree Ring Data: How accurately does this tell us past temperature? The ring thickness depends on temperature but it also depends on the amount of precipitation and the level of CO2. Separating cause and effect must be a problem. I seem to recall that it is better at short term temperatue trends than long term ones. Also, some tree ring analyses cannot tell us our present temperature never mind past temperatures.Basically, I am not sure exactly what evidence I would require as proof of AGW but, whatever it is, I will need it to make sense and, without any contradictions or illogicalities - such as those mentioned above, it needs to link, step by step, manmade CO2 with any warming.

    Permalink

13. 

    danyallsun Posted 4:44 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    Ice cores: These tell us (through the bubbles trapped inside) that everytime concentration of CO2 has changed in the past, so has the temp.Arctic melting:  Losing the ice is not necessarily bad for the earth; you are accurate there. However, it's bad for mankind as it will raise sea levels and release methane (a potent GHG) trapped underneath.Global temp records:  We have records since 1880. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.phpOcean acidity:  Yes, oceans have been more acidic in the past. A lower pH in the seas will likely impact certain species (not all life forms).  Coral reefs: bleaching has occurred worldwide, not just on the Great Barrier Reef.  The GBR, however, is still under threat: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423100817.htmTree ring data:  True, the data are not perfect. It is just one tool to use to look for anomolies in precipitation. 

    Permalink

14. 

    mememine69 Posted 6:05 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    For you other warmies too that cling to the "the science says":Dannysun,You just proved and admitted that you only know and are educated on one side of the issue of the CO2 theory. Correct? What is the reason you choose to not read up on the denier's observations, doubts, questions and challenges that are undeniably the other side of the coin? Try: http://climatedebatedaily.com/Let me bring you down slowly because right now you believe the end of the world is near. That is what the IPCC says (“life as we know it”) so making up you very own definition of the theory is part of this cultural mistake from hell. You are not alone.Are you still reading? Good.The IPCC is, in their words, “90%” sure, their predictions have been laughing wrong for 19 years of this 23 year old theory, forcing their climate policy to be standing solely on the premise of “precaution”. You foolishly fall for their definition that says precaution is science and CLOSE is good enough. These are not Gods and if you read up on the emerging view of this theory being thoroughly discredited, and very soon too. Try reading the IPCC reports. They promise everything. It's almost funny. Sorry I called you foolish but it is you that is scaring our children with this promise of misery don't forget. Read on so you can sleep at night and I remind you again that you are calling for the end of the world and life as we know it. Are you willing to be judged by the coming wave of global warming denial in the media and the "science" world? This theory is not sustainable for another 23 years my friend. Wake up!Let’s look at what you don’t see besides our normal weather and clear blue skies. Most, if not all of the research now in climate change is solely done on effects, NOT causes. And consultants in white lab coats are not scientists. NASA, the NOAA and the IPCC stuff their science through political filters for obvious reasons. If those reasons are not obvious you will only realize the silliness of this theory when the herd moves in a new direction.As a mater of fact, the NOAA is now backing away from the theory and so I’d advice you to watch in the coming months for policies from other science organizations to preach “research” instead of "proof" and "certainty". In the end the precaution policies of these groups will finally make the public force them to confess they held the cards to long on this aging and now dead theory.  When consultants, PR firms, pandering politicians and hysterical corporate media ALL agree on the same thing, be careful. Very careful. 

    Permalink

15. 

    danyallsun Posted 6:53 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    There is no coin to toss, my friend.
    
    And I didn't prove anything about my education. You are making assumptions. It was not my intention to disclose my full education. It is my intention however to stay objective. I think it's kind of funny how AGW deniers get all wound up. The science, whether you accept it or not, is based on objectivity. Your comments and thoughts are subjective and based on false assumptions.
    
    Ask Mercurius about proof.

    Permalink

16. 

    Des Emery Posted 9:08 pm
    06 Aug 2009

    CO2 is a 'natural' gas, of course, absolutely necessary for life cycles of plants and animal.  But like almost everything else, it contains its own "tipping point" or the quality or quantity or temperature of a substance  at which it changes function.  For instance, the liquid/gas fluorocarbon which worked so well in refrigerators and air conditioners became disastrous as the escaped gas collected in the upper atmosphere as the "hole in the ozone."  CO2, carbon dioxide, displaces O2 in its tipping point - remember the canary in the coal mine - and smothers animal life (CO, carbon monoxide, is actually poisonous to animal life, replacing Oxygen in blood - the running car in the closed garage) as it did some years ago in Africa.  The balance between plant and animal life is regulated by the slow change in relative volumes between O2 and CO2, usually requiring millions of years.  But mankind came to the Industrial Age when we were able to produce CO2 in unprecedented volumes just a few hundred years ago.  Of course we had fires burning in our homes before then, and manufactured things like swords and horseshoes by heating metals, but it was the vast quantities of "product" that required equally vast quantities of fuel that characterized the Industrial Age.  We are now approaching the "tipping point" of CO2, releasing the gas into the atmosphere within a few centuries, that gas that had been sequestered over millions of years into coal and petroleum under the Earth's surface.   At the same time, we have increased the ratio of animal life and decreased the ratio of plant life, further increasing the planetary volume of CO2.  The tipping point will soon arrive when just a little bit more CO2 will be enough to take us over the brink.The Little Ice Age occurred co-incidentally about the time of the beginning of the Industrial age.  A team of researchers from Stanford U. was able to connect Columbus and the discovery of North and South America with a sudden and out-of-sync global cooling.  Those two continents were well-populated before Columbus arrived.  Following him were a lot of traders who brought blankets, beads and iron weapons with them.  They also brought syphilis, smallpox, and typhus, which decimated the sedentary farmers especially.  The rainforests and jungles which the aboriginals had controlled in order to grow their crops of potatoes, corn, pumpkins, tobacco, and fruits, suddenly surged in wild growth to occupy the cleared lands, and captured CO2.  Global Cooling happened, and with it the Little Ice Age.  Is that enough proof that Global Warming is also Anthropocentric? 

    Permalink

    1. 

       mememine69 Posted 2:06 am
       07 Aug 2009

       Great, another insane persoanal definition of the theory proving once again that it is just a self fulfilling prophecy worthy of dark age mentality.Ug. Cave man see strange thing. Ug. 

       Permalink

17. 

    Des Emery Posted 5:48 pm
    07 Aug 2009

    Me Me Mine 69 (good name, suits you) is apparently irritated by the idea of AGW.  But all you have to do is look out your window to make the obvious connections.  Look up - you'll see a lot of contrails up there, criss-crossing the sky, and will probably hear the engines roar.  None of that was there less than a century ago.  Definitely not natural, but man-made.  If you live in the suburbs, you'll probably see lawns stretching up and down the streets, a monoculture of clipped grass, natural, but definitely controlled by man-kind, with anything but grass herbicided to death. If you are in the city, pavement and asphalt cover almost every square inch of ground, covering over the natural streams that used to wander around everywhere.  All is now man-made cover, selectively used to make life "easier" for mankind to exist, including stacking our "caves" one on top of another for convenience' sake.  You don't have to believe in Anthropocentric Global Warming, or Anthropocentric Global Cooling or Anthropocentric Climate Change.  You have a free will.  But one or the other of them (most likely AGW) will still jump out of the bushes and get you some day, and the rest of us also.  The cave man does indeed see a strange thing out there in the dark unknown, and prudently prepares to confront it. 

    Permalink

18. 

    Des Emery Posted 6:32 pm
    08 Aug 2009

    Artesiawy - Your initial reliance on info provided by British Petroleum throws the rest of your argument out the window.  Your "assumptions" are made to re-inforce your opinions and should therefore be given the same credence which deniers give to AGW.  And it appears your figures for Pre- and Post-Industrial Age amounts of CO2 show that in that relatively short timespan the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has almost doubled.  Isn't that the very problem we are considering here?  It looks like your figures prove the increase in CO2 is directly connected to the Industrial Age, which in turn is directly connected to mankind's presence and activity.    

    Permalink

    1. 

       ArtesiaWY Posted 3:19 am
       10 Aug 2009

       Des Emery,I think that you missed the point of my earlier post.  The point is that anyone remotely scientifically-minded CAN readily prove that since the start of the industrial age we have emitted more than enough CO2 to double atmospheric concentrations.  Moreover there is no logical argument that the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion could be anywhere except in the atmosphere.  Using BP as a source is just the icing on the cake: you can use the oil industry's own published data to demonstrate the link between fossil fuels and climate change.Artesia

       Permalink

19. 

    amazingdrx Posted 9:41 am
    09 Aug 2009

    Volcanic thermostat:  evidence of land rising in Alaska and Yellowstone where glacial water & ice is waning indicates that volcanic activity might increase with climate change.  Extended drought and glacial melt due to human produced GHG could trigger a catastrophic event like the volcanoe induced 1816 "year without a summer".Could a decade without any summer be triggered by multiple volcanic eruptions over that decade?  How much would that cost humanity?  How many lives would be lost, how severe a depression causing huge financial losses, and how much disruption of life as we know it could occur?Should we listen to science and act now, creating a huge economic boom from the new energy economy, or should we listen to faithbased hollering in the service of big energy corporate power?Let mother earth's volcanic thermostats start erupting and we are in a world of hurt.  But maybe exxon's stock will go up in the meanwhile.  I say screw exxon & halliburton & that oil company funding the "dick armey", and the politicians they rode in on.

    Permalink

20. 

    Des Emery Posted 5:10 pm
    10 Aug 2009

    Artesiawy - yes, I did misread your post.  Re-reading it now, I see your point about the sudden increase in CO2 and where it is stored now.  But I'm afraid that tidbit of information will make no impression on deniers of AGW who will continue to wilfully ignore any evidence contrary to their beliefs.  Logical argument will not convince them that our lifestyle is beyond the capacity of Nature to handle its excesses. 

    Permalink