Page 37 of 111 FirstFirst ... 2732333435363738394041424787 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 740 of 2209
  1.    #721  
    I'd disagree. I am using the same sources many of you are using, only that it supports my claims. It appears you do not like the evidence Nature concluded with. I'm all for clean air, but let's not get rid of power plants for windmills when it is not the determining factor on Global Warming - mother nature is. If man ever tries to stop mother nature, we will all go broke attempting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Read the article in Nature. It's all there.
    Birth and death are parts of the normal life cycle. Does this indicate murder does not exist?

    A tree falling is a normal part is its life cycle. Does this indicate it doesn't matter that your neighbor chops a big chunk of wood out of the big tree leaning over your house?

    Nobody ever said that there is no natural climatic variation. But the fact that natural climatic variation exists does not mean that man-made climatic change does NOT exist. Your line of argumentation is logically flawed and not supported by scientific evidence, no matter how many times you repeat it.
  2. #722  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I'd disagree. I am using the same sources many of you are using, only that it supports my claims.
    That's the usual baseless blah once more... you never quote respected sources, though I have repeatedly asked you to name a scientific organization or respected scientific body which supports your view that the global warming of the last decades was largely due to natural reasons and part of a natural cycle, as you claim to believe. There are none, but many who say the contrary (see scientific consensus above). Go ahead, name your sources... but please don't quote the silly Enron (et al.)-sponsered site you referred to last time.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #723  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Schools out for summer...

    You are lucky, Boulder is a great place for summer. Boulder falls on a sunny summer day is great! I also wish I could have a beer and burger at the Dark horse, thats a great place to hang out. Well, too bad I got to work, but anyway enjoy!
  4. #724  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Hello Cellmatrix, good to see you here. As usual, the board is in dire need of a voice of reason, welcome back.
    Hi Clulup, nice to see you also. Last year, I was worried that the moderation practices here at TC were getting too heavy handed and ruining the forum. But I am glad to see I was wrong, and the TC forum seems like it is doing as good as ever.
  5.    #725  
    I am proud to say I never cite Wiki. Anyways, I did refer to the same Nature article you mentioned. I'd be happy to provide a link for you or others if needed.

    To answer the original question I made at the beginning...I've come to this conclusion.

    Global Warming, true or false? True

    Who is to blame? Mother Nature. Humans have a miniscule contribution. Although I think we should keep pollution to a minimum, I don't think humans should go broke trying.

    When you look at the fact the North Pole had palm trees before man existed, you can't expect to change it when the cycle comes full circle. It appears we are in this cycle.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's the usual baseless blah once more... you never quote respected sources, though I have repeatedly asked you to name a scientific organization or respected scientific body which supports your view that the global warming of the last decades was largely due to natural reasons and part of a natural cycle, as you claim to believe. There are none, but many who say the contrary (see scientific consensus above). Go ahead, name your sources... but please don't quote the silly Enron (et al.)-sponsered site you referred to last time.
  6.    #726  
    It was fairly rough for a while. Many threads got locked by what appeared to be over zealous reasons. I think the liberal thread titles have helped the situation as of late.

    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    Hi Clulup, nice to see you also. Last year, I was worried that the moderation practices here at TC were getting too heavy handed and ruining the forum. But I am glad to see I was wrong, and the TC forum seems like it is doing as good as ever.
  7. #727  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    You are lucky, Boulder is a great place for summer. Boulder falls on a sunny summer day is great! I also wish I could have a beer and burger at the Dark horse, thats a great place to hang out. Well, too bad I got to work, but anyway enjoy!
    The Dark Horse is great...if your an Old Man
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  8. #728  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Global Warming, true or false? True

    Who is to blame? Mother Nature. Humans have a miniscule contribution. Although I think we should keep pollution to a minimum, I don't think humans should go broke trying.

    When you look at the fact the North Pole had palm trees before man existed, you can't expect to change it when the cycle comes full circle. It appears we are in this cycle.
    Birth and death are parts of the normal life cycle. Does this indicate murder does not exist?

    A tree falling is a normal part is its life cycle. Does this indicate it doesn't matter that your neighbor chops a big chunk of wood out of the big tree leaning over your house?

    Nobody ever said that there is no natural climatic variation. But the fact that natural climatic variation exists does not mean that man-made climatic change does NOT exist. Your line of argumentation is logically flawed and not supported by scientific evidence, no matter how many times you repeat it.
    You seem to be quite immune to facts, or you chose to take as fact whatever suits you beliefs, while at the same time pushing aside everything contradicting your belief system.

    Your belief that the global warming of the past decades is NOT largely due to man-made emission of greenhouse gasses is based on your private fantasies, not on scientific facts, but what can I do? Sometimes one simply has to acknowledge that not everybody is accessible to fact-based reasoning.

    However, just for the fun of it:
    - Please post a link to the Nature article you mentioned, since you claim to know it.
    - Please quote where it says in the article that the global warming of the past decades is due to natural cycles.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #729  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    The Dark Horse is great...if your an Old Man
    like Alice Cooper? lol
  10. #730  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    1. You said the worst that could happen was that we would breathe clean air. No costs.

    But I'm glad that you now acknowledge there are costs.
    Look who's twisting their tale now - read my lips - I never said no costs. All I did was challenge your gloom and doom scenario of the hypothetical negative impact of emission controls on people's lives. Of course, since you only have a one-way glass you can never get the point.

    2. There's a significant difference. You haven't consulted a native English speaker yet, I see.
    I can only laugh at your pathetic attempts to squirm out of the issue by casting aspersions on my "english", especially considering that I am a native english speaker who has published dozens of papes and chaired/spoken at over a dozen national meetings. I doubt that you could put two coherent sentences together in public forum.

    Later you claim it's unreasonable to even consider the idea that human activity or CO2 might not cause global warming. That's bad.
    Never said anything about human activity - you're twisting the facts as usual. All I did was demolish out your amateurish attempt to question the linkage between greenhouse gases and global warming. The entire climate science community accepts that linkage given the preponderance of evidence. I'm not saying anything different. You did not provide any reasonable doubt about that linkage, but instead gave an outlandish suggestion that solar radiation could be driving up CO2 levels, which absolutely no scientific basis. Tomorrow you might propose that little green men in invisible spaceships are dumping CO2 in our atmosphere - it would be impossible to disprove - and then you would whine that I'm being "unreasonable" in not even considering that idea.

    3. You try to position me as attacking all of climate science and all the modeling done in it. As I said before, I only claim what I say. I listed several areas where data is lacking. Those gaps mean the conclusion from the models are less than certain - which the scientists acknowledge freely. I also said that models that make predictions of 50+ years have not been proven accurate; so you can't claim that those models are accurate or certain.
    You use the terms "certainity" and "accuracy" without the faintest clue of what they mean. First of all, nothing in science is 100% certain - but when a large majority of scientists say it is "very likely", then it is highly unlikely that some missing data is going to upset the whole model. The same goes for "accuracy" - none of the models make even the remotest claim of accuracy - instead they try to model trends, within a certain range of error. Yes, it is possible that the trend lines may even end up falling outside the range of error in reality - but there is no reason to believe that the direction of the trend (i.e up or down) is faulty. And you make another ridiculous suggestion that this trend could reverse direction "quickly".

    And, by the way, what 50+ year models are you talking about? Or are you just pulling that out of your rear-end?

    I've said all of this before, and in English. I've never said that these models are invalid or of no value. And none of this is "at the heart of climate science."
    really? The GCM models are not at core of climate science? I have good friends who are climate scientists at NASA, NOAA and other academic institutes who would be very surprised to hear this.

    4. I can't check the pdf links, but I will. I don't doubt that they relate to ice cores and solar irradiance. I do doubt that they support your actual claims.
    I claimed that isotopic analysis of ice core data was able to provide indirect estimates of prehistoric levels of solar irradiance. You impugned me of BS or making it up - perhaps you're so used to eating your own sh!t that you assume everyone does the same.

    5. Timescale matters because the models aren't linear. The change in solar irradiance has had more impact on global temperatures in the past than greenhouse gases ever will. Solar irradiance doesn't need to rise by 500% to boil the oceans.
    Another dumb statement that does not have the slightest scientific backing.

    Quite honestly - you haven't the faintest clue about science or how it works - yet you try to come up with laughable scientific-sounding "objections" and then you try to weasel out when cornered by making disparaging remarks. You haven't cited a single scientifically credible source that would back up any of your arguments, and the best you could do is cherry-pick through the some of my cites and proudly point out words like "likely" or "uncertain". I've engaged in a debate with you simply out of the curiosity of whether you were being deliberately dense as well as close-minded or were just naturally so endowed. At this point I'm bored and don't care - so have fun in your fantasy world.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  11. #731  
    Chillig,
    Apparently you figured I'd be so awed or overwhelmed by your five citations that I'd bow down to your greatness.

    Unfortunately for you I actually read them.

    First, a recap of our dialogue:

    You:
    Scientists can then measure the levels of ionized gases from ice core samples (and corroborate with data from mineral/organic samples) and estimate the range of variations that must have occured in the past 650,000 years.

    Me:
    If you mean that they came up with some broad range within which they assume the sun's radiation varied, then sure.

    If you're implying that they used the ice cores to estimate the actual fluctuation [spelling corrected] of solar radiation over time from 650,000 years ago to the present, then it sounds like BS.


    [I gave you a choice here. You had an easy out.]

    You:
    A couple of my sources:
    Gerrit Lohmann et al. (2004). Climate signature of solar irradiance variations: analysis of long-term instrumental, historical, and proxy data. International Journal of Climatology 24(8), 1045-1056
    S.K. Solanki, M. Fligge (2000) Reconstruction of past solar irradiance Space Science Review 94, 127-138


    Me:
    I just read both papers, and they say absolutely nothing to support your claims about using ice cores to determine solar irradiance from 650,000 years ago. Why are you wasting my time?? They both focus on the last few hundred years. If these papers are your sources, then you don't understand what you read, and you're making things up.

    You:
    I'm sorry - I should have realized that you really are close-minded and assume that everyone has your affliction - and so you accuse others of BS or making stuff up. Here is a whole slew of cites (and this time I made sure that the links work for a layperson) that use ice core isotopic data to estimate prehistoric solar radiance:
    1. http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt76...I..76..802A.pdf
    2. http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt76...I..76..805F.pdf
    3. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2005..._Atmosphere.pdf
    4. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2005...m/Muscheler.pdf
    5. http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2_A&A.pdf




    1. With the "BS" reference, you clearly chose to stand by the "actual fluctuation over 650,000 years" claim. Bad choice.


    2. And with the "making stuff up" reference, you're either admitting those first two papers were your sources (in which case you're also admitting you made stuff up), or you misread what I said. (But then what are the chances you would misread something in plain English?)


    3. None of the papers "estimate the range of variations [in solar irradiance] that must have occured in the past 650,000 years," as you claimed. Not even close.

    You had cited two papers that didn't support your claim. Now you've cited five more papers that don't support your claim.


    4. There was much discussion in the papers of the importance of time-scale when looking at solar data, which leads me to suspect you hadn't read these papers when you recently questioned the relevance of time-scale in solar data.


    5. Paper #2 says: "Taken together, these experiments illustrate the difficulty of ascribing specific causes to changes in the 10Be ice core record, and in particular of distinguishing between climate-related and solar-related changes."


    6. Paper #4 (a slide presentation) says:
    "Long-term (T>500-1000 years) changes [in solar irradiation] are very uncertain!"
    "Short-term changes (on time scales shorter than approx. 1000 years) indicated by ice core 10Be and treering 14C records agree well."

    Note that when they say records agree, it's one of the weakest claims that can be made. It just means there's a correlation. They don't claim to be able to accurately calculate the magnitude of changes in total solar irradiance based on the ice core data.
  12. #732  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Look who's twisting their tale now - read my lips - I never said no costs. All I did was challenge your gloom and doom scenario of the hypothetical negative impact of emission controls on people's lives.
    You said the worst that could happen was that we would breathe clean air. That means no cost. That came first. Then I responded by pointing out the impact to the economy. Then you challenged it. After much denial, you conceded there are costs.

    I can only laugh at your pathetic attempts to squirm out of the issue by casting aspersions on my "english", especially considering that I am a native english speaker who has published dozens of papes and chaired/spoken at over a dozen national meetings. I doubt that you could put two coherent sentences together in public forum.
    I treat people with the respect that they deserve. Despite your initial apology, you haven't stopped hurling your personal insults. You've been rude and obnoxious from the very beginning. As for your English, it's actually your reading comprehension that is poor. A mistake here or there is understandable. I point it out because it's a repeated source of problems in your posts. And it continues to be a problem. Every time you make a mistake, you attack and insult me.

    Your sentence construction is fine.

    Later you claim it's unreasonable to even consider the idea that human activity or CO2 might not cause global warming. That's bad.
    Never said anything about human activity - you're twisting the facts as usual. All I did was demolish out your amateurish attempt to question the linkage between greenhouse gases and global warming. The entire climate science community accepts that linkage given the preponderance of evidence.
    Sorry; I was on my Treo, and I couldn't easily go back through the thread, so I said "human activity or CO2" because I wasn't sure which. I wasn't trying to twist any facts. I can understand why you would want to read it the other way, but the distinction you're making is pointless because you believe that human activity is causing the increase in CO2 levels and so the two are tied together.

    All I did was demolish out your amateurish attempt to question the linkage between greenhouse gases and global warming.
    When you're down, you always go for the strawman. And the same one too.

    I just said if we're wrong about causation, then the climate can change more rapidly. Since you agree that there is no certainty in science, it's hard to find a rational basis for your problem.

    The entire climate science community accepts that linkage given the preponderance of evidence.
    Scientists think causation is "likely," and so do I.

    I'm not saying anything different.
    Yes you are. See below.

    You did not provide any reasonable doubt about that linkage, but instead gave an outlandish suggestion that solar radiation could be driving up CO2 levels, which absolutely no scientific basis. Tomorrow you might propose that little green men in invisible spaceships are dumping CO2 in our atmosphere - it would be impossible to disprove - and then you would whine that I'm being "unreasonable" in not even considering that idea.
    No. Here's what I said: "But if we're missing something in our models, if something else is causing the warming trend (eg, the sun) and the CO2 level is a dependent variable, then it might be possible for the climate to change direction more quickly."

    And here's the "scientific basis" for mentioning the sun as an alternative cause of the warming trend:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
    and Dr. Samu Solanki's paper:
    http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/...lphys-2004.pdf
    Now before you get yourself in a huff again, please read this carefully before reacting to your own inferences. Do I say that the sun is actually causing the warming trend? Do I say I believe this paper is correct? Have I said something that is factually incorrect?


    First of all, nothing in science is 100% certain - but when a large majority of scientists say it is "very likely", then it is highly unlikely that some missing data is going to upset the whole model.
    You see, here's the problem. Again. The IPCC says "likely," but you read that as "very likely." I could quote them here a couple times but I want to force you to go back and read the entire article again just like you forced me. They say some minor things are "very likely," but the causation merits only a "likely."

    By adding that one little word, and then adding that very big inference, you're exaggerating the certainty of the scientific community. It seems that your entire understanding of climate science is based on this misread.

    Yes, it is possible that the trend lines may even end up falling outside the range of error in reality - but there is no reason to believe that the direction of the trend (i.e up or down) is faulty.
    No. Climate models are much more complex than trend lines. If the error involves missing data or faulty assumptions, then the model could project a trend that's not there.

    And you make another ridiculous suggestion that this trend could reverse direction "quickly".
    If we are wrong about causation, then it might be possible for the climate to change direction more quickly.

    If the models are wrong, then a lot of your assumptions about how climate behaves might not hold true. Again, since you agree there is no certainty, it's hard to see a rational basis for your objection to this conditional statement.

    I also said that models that make predictions of 50+ years have not been proven accurate; so you can't claim that those models are accurate or certain.
    And, by the way, what 50+ year models are you talking about? Or are you just pulling that out of your rear-end?
    It'll help if you read more slowly: "models that make predictions of 50+ years."

    I've said all of this before, and in English. I've never said that these models are invalid or of no value. And none of this is "at the heart of climate science."
    The GCM models are not at core of climate science?
    You're on a roll. Read again. I said, None of this [what I've said before - the data gaps and the untested predictions] is at the heart of climate science.

    I claimed that isotopic analysis of ice core data was able to provide indirect estimates of prehistoric levels of solar irradiance. You impugned me of BS or making it up - perhaps you're so used to eating your own sh!t that you assume everyone does the same.
    Nope. Nice try. Actually, you said they used ice cores to "estimate the range of variations that must have occured in the past 650,000 years." BS. You made it up.

    Timescale matters because the models aren't linear. The change in solar irradiance has had more impact on global temperatures in the past than greenhouse gases ever will. Solar irradiance doesn't need to rise by 500% to boil the oceans.
    Another dumb statement that does not have the slightest scientific backing.
    I expected you to object to that one. This was an IQ test designed just for you. Guess how you did.

    At this point I'm bored and don't care - so have fun in your fantasy world.
    I guess it's not fun being continually wrong.
  13. #733  
    Ice core data going back 650,000 years ago shows the trend of atmospheric c02 levels in that time. So if co2 levels are dependant on temperature, and the global temperature trends are primarily a result of solar variation, then the ice core data will be showing us the past solar variation over the last 650,000 years.

    However it is likely that other factors contribute to co2 levels rather than just solar variation. And certainly the recent co2 spike is anthropogenic in origin, so it is unique compared with any other co2 spike in history. The question is what effect co2 rises have, rather than what causes them which is largely irrelevant to predicting future climate change.
  14. #734  
    Quote Originally Posted by yogsothoth
    So if co2 levels are dependant on temperature, and the global temperature trends are primarily a result of solar variation, then the ice core data will be showing us the past solar variation over the last 650,000 years.
    There's a difference between knowing there's a correlation between two variables and being able to calculate one from the other.

    We can't figure out solar variation for the last 650,000 years in your analysis because we don't know exactly how solar variation affects CO2. You need good historical data to figure that out.

    However it is likely that other factors contribute to co2 levels rather than just solar variation.
    Yes.

    The question is what effect co2 rises have, rather than what causes them which is largely irrelevant to predicting future climate change.
    But what we believe causes CO2 to rise will affect what effect we believe a CO2 rise will cause!
  15. #735  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    There's a difference between knowing there's a correlation between two variables and being able to calculate one from the other.
    I wasn't talking about any calculation. I was pointing out that:
    1) If co2 levels in the past are dependant on temperature
    2) and if temperature trends in the past are primarily caused by solar variation

    Therefore co2 levels in the past will be dependant on solar variation. Therefore the past co2 record from icecores would be a measure of solar variation. The only way that icecore data would not be a measure of solar variation would be if either 1 or 2 above was not true.

    But what we believe causes CO2 to rise will affect what effect we believe a CO2 rise will cause!
    The recent co2 rise is unique in that it has been primarily caused by man, so what causes co2 to rise in this case is known. The question is what effect the recent co2 rise will have.
  16. #736  
    Quote Originally Posted by yogsothoth
    I wasn't talking about any calculation. I was pointing out that:
    1) If co2 levels in the past are dependant on temperature
    2) and if temperature trends in the past are primarily caused by solar variation

    Therefore co2 levels in the past will be dependant on solar variation. Therefore the past co2 record from icecores would be a measure of solar variation. The only way that icecore data would not be a measure of solar variation would be if either 1 or 2 above was not true.
    Too much simplification.

    1. Temperature is affected by many things, including solar variation.

    2. CO2 levels are affected by many things, including temperature.
    (For those not following this, the idea is that temperature affects plant life, which generates CO2. So more warmth -> more plants -> more CO2. I have no idea how strong this connection is. I'm just going along with the given scenario.)

    Both statements may be true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you can "measure" solar variation, even if you had a perfect read on CO2 levels.

    In math, you have three variables x, y, and z:
    The correlation between x and y is positive, but less than 1.
    The correlation between y and z is positive, but less than 1.
    With these two statements, it's mathematically possible for the correlation between x and z to be zero.


    Back in the real world, there's probably some correlation between CO2 and solar irradiation, but it would be difficult to assert that a certain increase in CO2 thousands of years ago was caused primarily by the sun and not by something else. That's because we don't understand the sun's effect on the climate very well. In 10,000 years, I think we'll have a better handle on it though.


    The recent co2 rise is unique in that it has been primarily caused by man, so what causes co2 to rise in this case is known. The question is what effect the recent co2 rise will have.
    The models that scientists build incorporate assumptions (or decisions, or estimates, or calculations) about how much effect each variable has on other variables.

    To take an extreme and wrong example, if CO2 in the past was a completely dependent variable - that is, it varied entirely based on the temperature - then we could say that past CO2 rises weren't really causing the temperature changes. So in the future, if man causes CO2 to rise, then we wouldn't be able to predict that the temperature would rise as a result.

    How you view the past determines what you predict will happen.
  17.    #737  
    Global Warming a sham says scientists

    huh, you mean mother nature and the sun could be the cause? And I thought it was the evil Americans or George Bush's fault over the last six years.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #738  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Global Warming a sham says scientists

    huh, you mean mother nature and the sun could be the cause? And I thought it was the evil Americans or George Bush's fault over the last six years.
    Why depend on facts when you have the Al and the media to keep you straight? Here, drink this refreshing coolaid....
  19. #739  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Why depend on facts when you have the Al and the media to keep you straight? Here, drink this refreshing coolaid....
    Is it purple? Al said I would like the purple.
    Last edited by geatches; 06/14/2006 at 05:14 PM.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  20. #740  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Last time you quoted an Enron site, now an article written not by a journalist, but by a professional spin doctor, Tom Harris from High Park Group. Harris "has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies." - pathetic, but apparently all you have got.

    Gray, one of the people quoted, is part of the Lavoisier Group:
    The Lavoisier Group challenges the orthodoxy and insists that that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. Named after a French scientist celebrated as a father of modern chemistry (and also famous for marrying a 13-year-old girl and meeting his end under the French Revolution's guillotine) the group was born in Australia in the 1990s specifically to question - some say undermine - greenhouse science and the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to cut global-warming emissions.

    Secretary Ray Evans describes the 90-odd Lavoisier members as a "dad's army" of mostly retired engineers and scientists from the mining, manufacturing and construction industries. http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php...rticle&sid=287
    Besides, you still could not find an answer to my questions in my previous post. Telling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Global Warming, true or false? True

    Who is to blame? Mother Nature. Humans have a miniscule contribution. Although I think we should keep pollution to a minimum, I don't think humans should go broke trying.

    When you look at the fact the North Pole had palm trees before man existed, you can't expect to change it when the cycle comes full circle. It appears we are in this cycle.
    Birth and death are parts of the normal life cycle. Does this indicate murder does not exist?

    A tree falling is a normal part is its life cycle. Does this indicate it doesn't matter that your neighbor chops a big chunk of wood out of the big tree leaning over your house?

    Nobody ever said that there is no natural climatic variation. But the fact that natural climatic variation exists does not mean that man-made climatic change does NOT exist. Your line of argumentation is logically flawed and not supported by scientific evidence, no matter how many times you repeat it.
    You seem to be quite immune to facts, or you chose to take as fact whatever suits you beliefs, while at the same time pushing aside everything contradicting your belief system.

    Your belief that the global warming of the past decades is NOT largely due to man-made emission of greenhouse gasses is based on your private fantasies, not on scientific facts, but what can I do? Sometimes one simply has to acknowledge that not everybody is accessible to fact-based reasoning.

    However, just for the fun of it:
    - Please post a link to the Nature article you mentioned, since you claim to know it.
    - Please quote where it says in the article that the global warming of the past decades is due to natural cycles.
    Last edited by clulup; 06/14/2006 at 05:17 PM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Posting Permissions