She had the biggest cans I've ever...

[corporate joe]

That's the funny thing about unproven theories -- you can argue both sides of the coin.

Actually all the worlds experts, and major organisations like the conservative party, Nasa, the Catholic church, the pentagon, the white house, all major media outlets, all scientific organisations, all major universities are on one side of the coin, and a few people on this forum on the other. You can argue, that is true, but you can't rationalize.

[water wings]

Pay attention, its being explained below:

[corporate joe]

That's the funny thing about unproven theories -- you can argue both sides of the coin.

Actually all the worlds experts, and major organisations like the conservative party, Nasa, the Catholic church, the pentagon, the white house, all major media outlets, all scientific organisations, all major universities are on one side of the coin, and a few people on this forum on the other. You can argue, that is true, but you can't rationalize.

All the world's experts? Sorry, but no. And what the hell does the Catholic Church's opinion on climate change have to do with anything?

News outlets merely repeat what the scientists report, and do not validate scientific theories. Just because it is reported does not make it true or correct.

I give you proof of consensus from Major world organisations including a study from 2000 of the world's top scientist:
The UN: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... port_x.htm
The white house: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334
Stephen Harper: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163104
The conservative party of Canada: http://www.desmogblog.com/welcome-revis ... servatives
NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The Washington post: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... te_change/
CNN and TIME magazine: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/co ... index.html)
The Vatican and Catholic church: http://www.catholic.org/international/i ... p?id=19830
The pentagon : http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internat ... 13,00.html
The CIA: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=2084
Even Fox news... : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html
(long live copy/paste!!!)

Now you give me proof of any reputable organisation (not some random guy) that there is still a debate.

[niss]

All the world's experts? Sorry, but no. And what the hell does the Catholic Church's opinion on climate change have to do with anything?

Ummm Maybe because they talk directly to the guy who control the weather? Didnt think about that one did you?

[corporate joe]

Let me simplify this for you. To deny a general consensus you need to base yourself on some sort of facts. To come out here and make a claim you must be basing yourself on something. Otherwise, you are talking out of your ass. My question to you was, what are those facts that lead you to make such a claim? Please provide the source on which you are basing yourself to express something that is going against what all the world's researchers are agreeing upon.
Like I said, some people still say the earth isn't round, yet there are many facts proving that it is, which leads to the current consensus. Same thing with global warming: So many facts point towards humanity’s implication that there is now a consensus. We are causing it, and we need to stop it.
Considering the consequences of not reacting to the issue at hand one needs to have pretty damn solid facts to come out and say :”it’s not true”. Otherwise, you’d not only be missing out on the chance to be part of the solution, you’d be part of the problem,
So what’s your excuse for not taking responsibility?

[corporate joe]

So uhm, one graph that has mysteriously disappeared vs thousand of current graphs clearly demonstrating how the temperature rise is well above anything ever seen in the last 1000 years in terms of temperature and the last 650 000 years in terms of CO2? That's what you are basing yourself on? I remember you denying global warming before that graph was mentioned. What were you basing yourself on then? This is your reason for not taking responsibility?

I won't even bother linking you to all those graphs as you have now attained the "door knob" status. And we all know you can't reason with a door knob. Do your kids a favor (somehow door knobs manage to reproduce) and make a small effort today instead of forcing all of us to make a big one tomorrow.

Oh and one more thing: "read more, think less".

[corporate joe]

For the others that do want to see for themselves:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

[Glen Quagmire]

Corporate Joe

Good stuff big guy, it get's a little bat shit crazy in here sometimes with all the factless blowhards. I enjoy seeing fact based posts with links and information countered with rhetoric and opinion based posts. Who has more authority on climate change, some navajo pilot living in Alberta or the brightest scientific minds in the world.

Perhaps scientists in the dark ages hesitated to claim the world was round simply because they didn't feel like being burned alive by the church for heresy.

[bij]

I think someone missed the point of the graph. From what I gathered, it displayed the difference in average temps compared to average temp of 1950. While for the 400,000 that were depicted in all of 2 inches, the changes were cyclical, but from 1950 to present, the changes were miniscule, and the natural cycles that have existed for as long as measured, exist no more. Although I think the graph it self sucked, I thought that it did serve the purpose, if read correctly. The one on the opposite page did the job better, diplaying the CO2 concentration levels and the drastic increases since industrialization.

If you don't believe in global warming, fine. Find some facts of your own to prove your point instead of constantly trying to disprove those of credible and reliable sources. I have yet to hear anyone pitch ANY evidence to dispell the belief in global warming, unless they were in a position to profit from the mass destruction of some natural resource.

[shimmydampner]

So proff. what do you think of Water Wings reply?

I've heard of it before. I don't know how accurate it can be, for the following reasons:

The temperature cycle shown in the graph would suggest that the glaciers of the world have undergone the freeze/thaw cycle many times. If one assumes that the high amount of melting activity we're seeing today is consistent with what happened in the past (since the temperature variations are the same today as they were in the past), then how do you know the age of the layers? If the top X feet of the glacier have melted and reformed several times over hundreds of thousands of years, it is impossible to know the start point (oldest point), let alone the degree of melting that happened in between cycles.

All the data in the graph suggests that the earth has seen trends similar to today's many times in the past, and in those cases man surely had nothing to do with it.

Why CO2 is suddenly deemed the culprit for an identical warming cycle today is beyond me.

Ah yes, my favourite species of AvCanada poster, the not-so-elusive "Arm-chair-scientist-who-thinks-they-know-more-than-the-scientists-who-have-devoted-their-careers-to-studying-this-topic-asaurus" and he's a beauty! Crikey! This bloke's right full o' shit, we best leave 'im alone!

PS-Copernicus called, turns out you and the Catholic church were right after all, the earth IS the centre of the solar system. DOH!

[the_professor]

I think someone missed the point of the graph. From what I gathered, it displayed the difference in average temps compared to average temp of 1950. While for the 400,000 that were depicted in all of 2 inches, the changes were cyclical, but from 1950 to present, the changes were miniscule, and the natural cycles that have existed for as long as measured, exist no more.

I still have the graph and will try to scan it soon. Then we can discuss how you're deducing a trend from 1950-present from a graph that shows about 1000yrs/mm of print. Your claim about the absence of natural cycles will then be dismissed as pure crap, which it is.

Did anyone see Larry King tonight? A panel debated possible causes of global warming. An MIT professor offered some unpopular yet nonetheless plausible arguments cautioning against the unconditional acceptance of today's theories.

[shimmydampner]

An MIT professor offered some unpopular yet nonetheless plausible arguments cautioning against the unconditional acceptance of today's theories.

Unconditional acceptance of any theory is a stupid idea. The unarguable fact remains, however, that we are heavily polluting our environment, which is harmful and causes permanent damage and we should be more responsible regardless of wether or not that has ANY correlation to climate change and regardless of wether or not it costs us a little more cash, time and effort. RESPONSIBILITY is the key word there. I'll assume you are an adult (not a safe assumption on avcanada) so grow up and be responsible. Can you argue with any of that?

[the_professor]

Unconditional acceptance of any theory is a stupid idea. The unarguable fact remains, however, that we are heavily polluting our environment, which is harmful and causes permanent damage and we should be more responsible regardless of wether or not that has ANY correlation to climate change and regardless of wether or not it costs us a little more cash, time and effort. RESPONSIBILITY is the key word there. I'll assume you are an adult (not a safe assumption on avcanada) so grow up and be responsible. Can you argue with any of that?

I'm not against Canada trying to reduce its greenhouse gas output, of which ours is a paltry 2% of the total global output. I am against scientists using "the sky is falling, and we're all going to die" as the motivator for this change.

The way in which every severe weather event is now characterized by the media as being "caused by global warming" is also a ridiculous assertion, and is contributing to the hysteria around the issue. There has always been severe weather, and there always will be severe weather, global warming or not.

I am also against stupid schemes that make it look like a country is becoming greener. I.e. the carbon credits that can be "purchased" under Kyoto. Why it ever made sense to send money from one country to another and then call that "progress" towards reducing emissions is beyond me. Too much crack smoked at the conference perhaps.