Global warming

[Croydon Bob]

that's it? this is what you consider your evidence? simply stating that it is there and that anyone who asks to see it is simply narrow minded? its obviously proven or you wouldn't believe it so there's no need to produce this evidence any more?
well now I'm converted, don't want to be called a 9/11 conspiracy theorist again. and I cant prove its not happening, that's how this works right?

How do you breath with your head rammed so hard into the sand?

I've already said that I'm not an expert, I've already said that I don't know if there is man made global warming. I'm not going to try to argue through the evidence with you; there are others here (such as Tony W) who can do that much better than I.

But to deny that the evidence exists unless I provide links really is weak. Do better or give up, you are still arguing just like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. "I can't see it because I've got my eyes closed, I'm not listening to you, la la la!"

[Tomolac]

If you want to see it you can - it's all in the public domain.

Start with this, which tells you where to look for the basic info: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

so the proof is out there its just up to me to prove your ideas? well I wont pay for the proof to your ideas. and I wont presume your right until I've found the evidence, their not my ideas.
the papers that are available through that link are all about dealing with climate change;
"Climate Change and Water"
"Climate Change and Biodiversity"
"Implications of Proposed CO2 Emissions Limitations"
and this of course is not what I was talking about.

How do you breath with your head rammed so hard into the sand?

I've already said that I'm not an expert, I've already said that I don't know if there is man made global warming. I'm not going to try to argue through the evidence with you; there are others here (such as Tony W) who can do that much better than I.

But to deny that the evidence exists unless I provide links really is weak. Do better or give up, you are still arguing just like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. "I can't see it because I've got my eyes closed, I'm not listening to you, la la la!"

so again that's it? if I don't agree with your non-expert assessments then obviously I'm narrow and closed minded? that because I might not agree with you and that I won't simply assume the evidence is out there based solely on "because you and people believe it is" then I'm closed?

I've already said that I don't know if there is man made global warming. I'm not going to try to argue through the evidence with you; there are others here (such as Tony W) who can do that much better than I.

but you decided to put in your ten pence anyway, but I'm the one that needs to do better?

[Pebble]

Tomolac

If you want the evidence for free much of it is rehersed here (ignoring posts that are opinion only):

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum//showthread.php?t=2792

[Matt]

Tolomac,

What is it that you want evidence of.

That CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas?
The CO2 levels are increasing?
That man is having a net effect on CO2 levels?
That average global tempertaure is increasing?

Something else?

[Croydon Bob]

but you decided to put in your ten pence anyway, but I'm the one that needs to do better?

I only joined in because you committed the typical woo sin of claiming that the people who disagreed with you "believed". In exactly the way that creationists say that "evolutionists" "believe" in evolution. I was simply making the point that I don't "believe" in climate change. I doubt that others here "believe". It is about the balance of probability based on my limited understanding. As with most things, I'm prepared to change my mind.

If you'd like to believe that you have won this debate with me then help yourself, I don't mind, perhaps you have. But if you were trying to win climate agnostics over or make a valid point against Tony then you've achieved a big fail.

[Tony Williams]

so the proof is out there its just up to me to prove your ideas? well I wont pay for the proof to your ideas. and I won't presume your right until I've found the evidence, their not my ideas.

It isn't a question of me being right - I'm simply reporting the views of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. You evidently consider your ideas to be more important than their professional understanding. That's your privilege, but it doesn't do anything for your credibility.

[Tim the Mage]

Tolomac,

What is it that you want evidence of.

That CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas?
The CO2 levels are increasing?
That man is having a net effect on CO2 levels?
That average global tempertaure is increasing?

Something else?

Three out of four ain't bad!!

[SorryImPsychic]

Tolomac,

What is it that you want evidence of.

That CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas?
The CO2 levels are increasing?
That man is having a net effect on CO2 levels?
That average global tempertaure is increasing?

Something else?

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

ABSTRACT

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

[brianp]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

It pays to check your sources. This is what Source Watch has to say about OISM and their "deceptive scientists' petition on global warming"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

[SorryImPsychic]

It pays to check your sources. This is what Source Watch has to say about OISM and their "deceptive scientists' petition on global warming"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

I'm fully aware of these opinions. Do you think I let other people determine my opinions - I decide all things for myself based on my own criteria - not the criteria of others.

Consider the other side to the story.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98036

[Croydon Bob]

I decide all things for myself based on my own criteria - not the criteria of others.

And your criteria is...?

From all the examples we've seen so far it must be something like: Anything ridiculous without supporting evidence proposed by someone who is not a serious scientist.

[brianp]

I'm fully aware of these opinions. Do you think I let other people determine my opinions - I decide all things for myself based on my own criteria - not the criteria of others.

You do let other people determine your opinions, but unfortunately the people you choose to follow are all from the lunatic fringe. Your lack of understanding of all things scientific is preventing you from recognizing bullshit for what it is.

[brianp]

Consider the other side to the story.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98036

So a far-right politician and bunch of penny-pinching government accountants criticize the EPA because the EPA's regulations will prove costly for business. That might be "the other side to the story" but it does nothing to challenge the scientific validity of the EPA's findings. How could it when those doing the criticizing have no relevant expertise?

[Matt]

Three out of four ain't bad!!

Care to elaborate - you agree with three of them but not a fourth? If so which one.

[Tim the Mage]

I am only the messenger here....

Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 percent since 1998 while global temperature cooled during the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase, and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th-century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

Is it the case that all computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990 to 2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling? If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy-making?