[quote name="Lavabug"]Which of the theories that support the idea of human-induced climate change? That carbon gases produce the runaway greenhouse effect?
That anthropogenic carbon gas emissions exceed natural carbon sinks thereby increasing atmospheric concentrations? More importantly: that carbon dioxide has been shown to be related to temperature? Be specific. [/quote]
No.
Your side of the argument is the one proposing taxes, telling everyone else to stop using electricity, travelling, and flying, and implementing useless rort-plagued carbon-trading. As your side of the argument is proposing those remedies, the onus is on you to specify and validate these theories, acknowledge the vast amount of doubt concerning these theories, and address the huge number of inaccuracies being peddled in the argument for global manmade warming.
Carbon dioxide is a requirement for all plant life on earth.
Carbon dioxide concentrations historically follow trends in temperature.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and the science behind man-made carbon dioxide emissions causing climate change has been discredited.
But please, continue.
[quote name="Lavabug"]You could have brought up one of the alternate theories that was meant to explain the increases in temperature, an increase in Solar output, which although has now been shown to be incorrect, could have at least proven to me that you actually hold scientific evidence and dialog to some level of esteem.[/quote]
I actually do hold scientific evidence in esteem. With manmade global warming believers though, I don't make the effort in dialogue. It's like trying to change Imran's mind on the inherent corrupt imperialist nature of western democratic capitalism, it ain't happening. So I don't bother.
Let me ask you a question though - how much evidence, both scientific and witnessed firsthand, would you require in order to come to the understanding that manmade carbon emissions don't cause climate change?
I expect you to ignore that question or skirt around it. And that's why I don't bother with dialogue, and stick with making fun and emitting carbon dioxide.
[quote name="Lavabug"]why do you keep citing tabloid sources written by journalists with a laymen understanding of geology and climate science instead of tested-and-tried scientific literature reviewed by top experts before their publication is even considered? Let's deal with empirical evidence. I would understand if I had been responsible of this myself, but I don't believe I have, if that is the case do call me on it and I will correct it.[/quote]
I've posted links to empirical evidence, publications in journals, and petitions from scientists, etc. But the great about being a global warming believer is that you can just say that they're corrupt, funded by oil companies, or the research comes from hotbed of deniers and so on without actually considering any of the evidence.
Naturally it doesn't make anything I say any less true. One of the biggest advocate groups of manmade warming (outside of the UN) DID just fess up to exaggerating the disappearance of the arctic ice. And another manmade warming glory hound DID get his shit wrecked by icebergs that the rest of the world had him believing wouldn't be there.
But just in case you care about sources such as scientists, here's 30,000 saying the same as me:
<!-- m -->
http://www.petitionproject.org/<!-- m -->
Let me know if you'd like another few listings from Nobel Prize winners, climate experts, geologists, and scientific journals from across the world. As a matter of fact, fuck ya - you can find them yourself. There's enough of them out there if you care.
[quote name="Lavabug"]By the way, didn't you say
"the Arctic is receding, but the Antarctic is growing!!" once? Now I'd like to be exemplary by not posting links to news articles instead of real science journals, so take it for what it's worth, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I came across this in the headlines earlier this month, I believe it was a few days after the last thread was abandoned:
Antarctic glacier 'thinning fast' <!-- m -->
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8200680.stm<!-- m -->[/quote]
Yep, I did. Antarctica is much, much bigger than one single glacier, even one as whopping as the west antarctica ice sheet. The antartic's ice thickness has actually been increasing up until 2002:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/co ... hicker.htm
And if it's the west antarctica ice sheet in particular that you're concerned about, absorb some of this:
<!-- m -->
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 074839.htm<!-- m -->
That's what you get for quoting those tabloid laymen at the BBC, I suppose. As for the Arctic, yep it is receding but has survived much warmer climates than the current day's. Any group, paper, or celebrity saying that Arctic ice will disappear in our lifetimes should set off your bullshit detector.
Manmade global warming is so far unproven. However, the debate concerning it is highly politicized for both sides.
That's the only consensus out there at the moment.
