[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

They are Deniers until they provide some Studies and Evidence.

It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is upon those who wish to present a hypothesis. The science isn't "in" on AGW to demonstrate that the general warming that has been observed in the past two to three hundred years is being measurably affected by human activity.

Your side has yet to demonstrate a scientific proof to take AGW theory from being more than just a theory to a demonstrable fact.

As a sceptic of your theory I do not need to disprove your theory.

Science simply does not work that way. If you think it does then you need to go back to school.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Also hurley there aren't even 35 billion scientists in the world, let alone climate scientists. A lot of the sceptics of the theory are all scientists belonging to Britain. You can sum up as many scientists to back AGW as you can scientists to go against it.

There aren't 35 billion people in the world, that's why I picked that number.

\Sarcasm is just LOST on some people....

I got the joke if it means anything to you.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

sandorski sandorski:

They are Deniers until they provide some Studies and Evidence.

It doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is upon those who wish to present a hypothesis. The science isn't "in" on AGW to demonstrate that the general warming that has been observed in the past two to three hundred years is being measurably affected by human activity.

Your side has yet to demonstrate a scientific proof to take AGW theory from being more than just a theory to a demonstrable fact.

As a sceptic of your theory I do not need to disprove your theory.

Science simply does not work that way. If you think it does then you need to go back to school.

They did present the evidence. Lets not forget that global warming theories are the essence of good science.

They started with an observation then developed a working hypothesis and the evidence supported it.

[N_Fiddledog]

DerbyX DerbyX:

They did present the evidence. Lets not forget that global warming theories are the essence of good science.

They started with an observation then developed a working hypothesis and the evidence supported it.

In what reality did that happen. I missed that one where all the evidence of CO2 forcing a climate catastrophe of warming actually exists.

Let's talk about the picture you posted earlier.

It was a pic showing the record Arctic melt of 2007. It was a record for the period since the satellite record began which I believe was 1979.

Nobody I read disputes that. However they also point out the Antarctic ice pack grew to record size in the same period.



Globally sea ice area is pretty much the same today as it was in 79



Now at one time it used to get alarmists quite upset to point out the Southern Hemisphere in general, and the Antarctic specifically was cooling, but now they say it has something to do with the growing Ozone layer, which really, who knows, maybe, at least partially. For a bigger laugh though they now try to make us swallow the idea they were saying that was going to happen all along. They weren't. The explanation, for things not turning out the way they wanted them, which I'm going to assume is what you're referring to as "evidence" morphs as Mother Nature consistently proves alarmist pseudo science wrong.

Here's another thing. Even if they're water skiing at the North Pole this year it won't prove that effect is caused by man putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. It will just be an interesting phenomena we haven't seen for an awful long time on Planet earth. Did you know there were once crocodiles roaming the Arctic. You know what else was around during the same period.

$1:

Large ice-sheets existed about 91 million years ago, during one of the warmest periods in the past 500 million years, an international team of scientists reports in Science.

The crocs weren't sitting on ice bergs like Polar bears, or anything. The scientists don't know where the ice was. Nevertheless...

$1:

The scientists from the UK, Germany, USA and Netherlands found evidence of an approximate 200,000 year period of widespread glaciation, with ice sheets about 60 per cent the size of the modern Antarctic ice cap.

.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.j ... ier110.xml

In other words. Things change. It doesn't take an SUV to make them change. There's no evidence saying it does, and Hell of a lot saying it doesn't.

[Zipperfish]

Global warming thewory isn't provable. Then again, neither is gravity. They are theories. I believe it was Stephen Jay Gould who said that all theories are provisional. Theya re true until theya re replaced by a betetr theory.

It probably makes more sense to talk about things in terms of uncertainties and probabilities.

This article is predictvie. It doesn't say that the arctic ice has disappeared, it says that some scientists have a running bet that it might.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Global warming thewory isn't provable. Then again, neither is gravity.

True, but they're not asking me to pay a gravity tax. Not yet anyway.

It's a bad example anyway gravity is observable. CO2 forcing a climate catastrophe is not. If you want to use gravity, here's a better one.

There's a theory gravity is folding itself at a sub-atomic level into a hidden dimension. This happens at something like 10 to the -17th power the size of an electron. Supposedly when they fire up the Cern Large Haldron Collider it could energize gravity and create mini black holes. Now there's no actual real world evidence for any of that, but they've been doing a lot of math. Computer models were involved I bet. Anyway...based on that theory what do you want to do about it? Suppose not turning on the collider could conceivably destroy the Western economy, and create vast hardships for millions of people. Would you turn it on?

They are going to turn it on btw.

[DerbyX]

Now lets get a few positions straight first.

While I believe that the earth is warming and that warming is caused by humanity I am not an alarmist in that I don't believe it will have calamitous results.

Where do you stand? Is the earth not heating up or is it but its perfectly natural?

http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/morter ... ex-en.html

I mean, all over the world ice is melting and glaciers retreating and thats not disputed.

Is it not really happening or is it just a part of the natural cycle?

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Global warming thewory isn't provable. Then again, neither is gravity. They are theories. I believe it was Stephen Jay Gould who said that all theories are provisional. Theya re true until theya re replaced by a betetr theory.

It probably makes more sense to talk about things in terms of uncertainties and probabilities.

This article is predictvie. It doesn't say that the arctic ice has disappeared, it says that some scientists have a running bet that it might.

(I'm getting the extended far left screen when I post here is anybody else?)

A bit of a misnomer. Gravity can be demonstrated. They can make predictions about its behaviour and when those predictions happen it constitutes proof. As such its not a good example for comparrison to AGW. Now the constant attacks against evolution make a good example. Despite all the arguments to the contrary and the almost weekly proclamtions that scientists are abandoning it it droves it perserveres just liek global warming.

[stemmer]

If you were to view the history of the earth...the north poles have been more often a temperate climate then a frozen waste land... Remains of aligators have been found near the north pole as well as fern like vegetation....

http://www.scotese.com/earlyeoc1.htm

$1:

Early Eocene Climate




During the Early Eocene alligators swam in swamps near the North Pole, and palm trees grew in southern Alaska. Much of central Eurasia was warm and humid. MAP LEGEND

[stemmer]

The planet earth goes through cycles... Those that are comparing the temperature of the poles for a 100 years or so and claim the poles are 'warming' BUT don't tell you that in the past alligators swam in swamps near to the poles...

Nasa is under the belief that Mars and Venus were destroyed by global warming, but there are no remains of power stations of SUVs on those planets.... I've also heard a few scientists believe there is more solar flares and sun spot activity on the sun, and this could account for the fluctuations in the earth's past and today's 'global warming'...

http://www.scotese.com/paleocen.htm

$1:

Paleocene Climate



The climate during the Paleocene was much warmer than today. Palm trees grew in Greenland and Patagonia. The Mangrove swamps of southern Australia were located at 65 degrees south latitude.

[robmik43]

'Green'land sure is white... in the satellite pics that
have the dark purple ice.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Well, in keeping with the “Environmentally Friendly” theme I think the only logical thing to do here is for every one to pack up there ice cube trays in electric coolers and catch a flight up north so we can donate our unneeded ice to the north pole.

By god, we will save this planet if it kills us.

[Wada]

It's all just God defrosting her fridge. Much ado about about nothing, at least until the great thaw reveals her stash of Brontosaurus steaks.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

you all who support this kind of bullsh*t won't mind...

Geeze Bart, isn't that Ya'll

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Also, the Northwest Passage has been relatively ice free in the recent past which is why several ships have transisted it successfully in the past.

You are correct bart. I believe that HMS Erebus and HMS Terror made it to Barrow last summer. They said "sorry for the delay, hope it didn't cause any inconvenience."