significant global warming is ocurring.

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
You are continuing to demonstrate a lack of understanding of current global warming theory.

Maybe start by studying ice cores.

:roll: You don't have a clue about what I'm saying if you think I have to study ice cores. Try reading instead of assuming.

CsG

You have not DEMONSTRATED or COMMUNICATED that you understand current theory in global warming, therefore I was pointing you in a direction that I thought might help you gain some understanding. If you do understand current theory on global warming, please demonstrate your understanding on it or stop trying to refute it.

:roll: As if you are the arbitor of "understanding". I understand the theory just fine thank you - and I understand that even if they can show certain things about "global warming" as a theory does not mean that humans can change it or reverse it.

CsG

What is it that you understand about the current theory of global warming?

 

[shoegazer]

cad,

ice cores trap atmospheric gas. this includes CO2. CO2 diffuses through the atmosphere and distributes itself evenly so the CO2 in antarctica is a good representation of the CO2 around the globe.

CO2 is released by a variety of sources but they are all balanced out in one way or another. Plants decomposing is balanced out by plants growing.

The ocean is taking in some of the excess CO2 we release but not all of it. This is apparent if you look at ice cores dating back 400,000 years. CO2 is at a concentration of over 370 parts per million today. Over the past 400,000 years the highest it has been besides now, is 300ppm.

The massive amounts of carbon we are burning is not part of a natural cycle that the earth has dealt with and rising CO2 is what's to be expected.

Interesting fact...

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma called global warming "the biggest hoax ever perpretated on the america people". He also received $290,000 in campaign funds in 2002 from fossil fuel companies.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

huh? I'm not denying anything - I'm just stating that nature has a huge impact on these things and it's my opinion that nature is by far sending more CO2 into the atmosphere than we humans are. There are tons of things that produce CO2 - to say humans are responsible for global warming(which is claimed to be caused by CO2) is merely opinion - not fact.

CsG

Give it a rest Cad. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Your opinion about CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't mean a thing. Perhaps you'd like to offer us your opinions on some modern physics theory, since they'd be as valid. We can quantify how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. We can quantify how much nature puts in the atmosphere. We know what the concentrations were before ind. revolution and we know concentrations have been going up since then. This is observed. These are facts. Others have pointed this out to you, but you seem to think that its nature realeasing more CO2 now than in the past, and that humans have little to do with the increases.

Here is a very nice discussion on the subject by climate scientists.

In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.

Cad, what is your reply to this info?? Do you deny it?? Look at the link to the IPCC report on the carbon budget. All the "uncertainties" you talk of are quantified and accounted for.

Do you find it odd that the earth has gone through many climate shifts?

Are you aware of the timescale of those past climate changes??

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
You have not DEMONSTRATED or COMMUNICATED that you understand current theory in global warming, therefore I was pointing you in a direction that I thought might help you gain some understanding. If you do understand current theory on global warming, please demonstrate your understanding on it or stop trying to refute it.

:roll: As if you are the arbitor of "understanding". I understand the theory just fine thank you - and I understand that even if they can show certain things about "global warming" as a theory does not mean that humans can change it or reverse it.

CsG

Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.

Always one to jump in and continue with that lie aren't you Bowfinger?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ
What is it that you understand about the current theory of global warming?

I understand that the "current theory" has not even come close to addressing the human portion of the equation(remember, correlation does not equal causation) yet we have some alarmists trying to use it to change human behaviour.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
cad,

ice cores trap atmospheric gas. this includes CO2. CO2 diffuses through the atmosphere and distributes itself evenly so the CO2 in antarctica is a good representation of the CO2 around the globe.

CO2 is released by a variety of sources but they are all balanced out in one way or another. Plants decomposing is balanced out by plants growing.

The ocean is taking in some of the excess CO2 we release but not all of it. This is apparent if you look at ice cores dating back 400,000 years. CO2 is at a concentration of over 370 parts per million today. Over the past 400,000 years the highest it has been besides now, is 300ppm.

The massive amounts of carbon we are burning is not part of a natural cycle that the earth has dealt with and rising CO2 is what's to be expected.

Interesting fact...

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma called global warming "the biggest hoax ever perpretated on the america people". He also received $290,000 in campaign funds in 2002 from fossil fuel companies.

Ah, but massive amounts of carbon burning has been part of "nature" since the dawn of time. So one taking a miniscule moment in time(relative to the planet's existence) isn't necessarily representative of nature.
So, oil companies contribute to many campaigns. Did you have a point or were you trying to suggest they paid him to say that?

CsG

 

[shoegazer]

stop saying correlation does not equal causation. it's not applicable.

if you think that human's releasing several gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere does not correlate with rising CO2 concentrations...you're foolish. what evidence of causation would you like? do you want us to track every molecule as it rises from the tailpipe of your car? this is absurd.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Ah, but massive amounts of carbon burning has been part of "nature" since the dawn of time. So one taking a miniscule moment in time(relative to the planet's existence) isn't necessarily representative of nature.
So, oil companies contribute to many campaigns. Did you have a point or were you trying to suggest they paid him to say that?

CsG

how has it been a part of nature since the dawn of time? the fossil fuels we are using are predominately from the carboniferous age which was 300 million years ago. if carbon burning has been a part of nature since the dawn of time there wouldn't be anything left of that 300 million year old carbon.

and yes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

huh? I'm not denying anything - I'm just stating that nature has a huge impact on these things and it's my opinion that nature is by far sending more CO2 into the atmosphere than we humans are. There are tons of things that produce CO2 - to say humans are responsible for global warming(which is claimed to be caused by CO2) is merely opinion - not fact.

CsG

Give it a rest Cad. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Your opinion about CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't mean a thing. Perhaps you'd like to offer us your opinions on some modern physics theory, since they'd be as valid. We can quantify how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. We can quantify how much nature puts in the atmosphere. We know what the concentrations were before ind. revolution and we know concentrations have been going up since then. This is observed. These are facts. Others have pointed this out to you, but you seem to think that its nature realeasing more CO2 now than in the past, and that humans have little to do with the increases.

Do you find it odd that the earth has gone through many climate shifts?

Are you aware of the timescale of those past climate changes??

Nice try but that's not even close to what I've stated or argued.
It's good to see the fringe left turning the normal twisting the argument tactic though...

And your point about the timescales? ARe you attempting to claim that it is going faster this time? How exactly do you come to that opinion? Were temp records kept? How about CO2 concentrations from around the globe(not just your ice cores).

Again, even if the globe is warming due to CO2 - that does not mean that man caused it nor does it mean that we can correct it with behavioural changes. correlation does not equal causation.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
stop saying correlation does not equal causation. it's not applicable.

if you think that human's releasing several gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere does not correlate with rising CO2 concentrations...you're foolish. what evidence of causation would you like? do you want us to track every molecule as it rises from the tailpipe of your car? this is absurd.

It is applicable. You just stated why. I never said us burning stuff doesn't correlate to the rising CO2 concentrations - but to claim it is the cause is just your opinion. You say CO2 concentration levels are rising. You also say that humans release tons of carbon into the atmosphere. These may be fine, but to link them together without putting everything into the equation is asinine - especially if you are coming to a causation conclusion.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Ah, but massive amounts of carbon burning has been part of "nature" since the dawn of time. So one taking a miniscule moment in time(relative to the planet's existence) isn't necessarily representative of nature.
So, oil companies contribute to many campaigns. Did you have a point or were you trying to suggest they paid him to say that?

CsG

how has it been a part of nature since the dawn of time? the fossil fuels we are using are predominately from the carboniferous age which was 300 million years ago. if carbon burning has been a part of nature since the dawn of time there wouldn't be anything left of that 300 million year old carbon.

and yes.

:roll: You think oil paid a guy to say that? It's no wonder you buy into the causation argument - because you refuse to look at the whole equation and prefer to just look at two things and claim a cause.

"fossil fuels" may have come from the carbon age - but burning trees and other such things also contribute to the release of carbon. Are you that naive to think that CO2 being released is something new or only come from "fossil fuels"? :roll:

Sheesh - I hope you aren't a "scientist" with your leaps of logic...

CsG

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shoegazer
stop saying correlation does not equal causation. it's not applicable.

if you think that human's releasing several gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere does not correlate with rising CO2 concentrations...you're foolish. what evidence of causation would you like? do you want us to track every molecule as it rises from the tailpipe of your car? this is absurd.

It is applicable. You just stated why. I never said us burning stuff doesn't correlate to the rising CO2 concentrations - but to claim it is the cause is just your opinion. You say CO2 concentration levels are rising. You also say that humans release tons of carbon into the atmosphere. These may be fine, but to link them together without putting everything into the equation is asinine - especially if you are coming to a causation conclusion.

CsG

sorry about that. poor wording on my response. i meant to say that humans burning several gigatons of carbon each year is obviously going to lead to rising CO2 concentrations. it's the equivalence of pouring water in a bucket and saying that just because the water level in the bucket rising correlates with our pouring of water in the bucket, doesn't mean that our pouring water in the bucket was the cause.

you should read up on the carbon cycle as you lack a basic understanding of it.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Ah, but massive amounts of carbon burning has been part of "nature" since the dawn of time. So one taking a miniscule moment in time(relative to the planet's existence) isn't necessarily representative of nature.
So, oil companies contribute to many campaigns. Did you have a point or were you trying to suggest they paid him to say that?

CsG

how has it been a part of nature since the dawn of time? the fossil fuels we are using are predominately from the carboniferous age which was 300 million years ago. if carbon burning has been a part of nature since the dawn of time there wouldn't be anything left of that 300 million year old carbon.

and yes.

:roll: You think oil paid a guy to say that? It's no wonder you buy into the causation argument - because you refuse to look at the whole equation and prefer to just look at two things and claim a cause.

"fossil fuels" may have come from the carbon age - but burning trees and other such things also contribute to the release of carbon. Are you that naive to think that CO2 being released is something new or only come from "fossil fuels"? :roll:

Sheesh - I hope you aren't a "scientist" with your leaps of logic...

CsG

burning trees is balanced out by growing trees. the living biomass on the planet accounts for 600 giga tons of carbon. The atmosphere holds 760 gigatons. 4700 gigatons are stored as fossil fuels.

so, fossil fuels stand to impact atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a far greater degree than the burning of every single plant on earth.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice try but that's not even close to what I've stated or argued.
It's good to see the fringe left turning the normal twisting the argument tactic though...

OK then, what is your argument? How does it differ from what I stated it was ("nature (is)realeasing more CO2 now than in the past, and that humans have little to do with the increases.")

And your point about the timescales? ARe you attempting to claim that it is going faster this time? How exactly do you come to that opinion? Were temp records kept?

Yes, it is going faster this time - the rise in concentration in greenhouse gases is indeed faster than in the past. We have temp. records from the past - climate proxies - tree rings, ice cores, and many other sources.

How about CO2 concentrations from around the globe(not just your ice cores).

That's not necessary as CO2 is well mixed spatially across the globe. But you knew that right?? Surely you must have known something as basic as that to have any kind of credibility. Just a mistake on your part, right??

Again, even if the globe is warming due to CO2 - that does not mean that man caused it

Read the quote from my last post - or I'll put it here just so its clear:

In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Nice try but that's not even close to what I've stated or argued.
It's good to see the fringe left turning the normal twisting the argument tactic though...

OK then, what is your argument? How does it differ from what I stated it was ("nature (is)realeasing more CO2 now than in the past, and that humans have little to do with the increases.")

And your point about the timescales? ARe you attempting to claim that it is going faster this time? How exactly do you come to that opinion? Were temp records kept?

Yes, it is going faster this time - the rise in concentration in greenhouse gases is indeed faster than in the past. We have temp. records from the past - climate proxies - tree rings, ice cores, and many other sources.

How about CO2 concentrations from around the globe(not just your ice cores).

That's not necessary as CO2 is well mixed spatially across the globe. But you knew that right?? Surely you must have known something as basic as that to have any kind of credibility. Just a mistake on your part, right??

Again, even if the globe is warming due to CO2 - that does not mean that man caused it

Read the quote from my last post - or I'll put it here just so its clear:

In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.

Wow, so much misdirection I don't even know where to start...

First off, the argument is that human behavior while maybe corollary is not necessarily causation due to many other variables at play in nature. Secondly, the argument that even if things were quantitative and comparable - can humans alter the current path the alarmists claim we are going down...

Temp records have only been kept for how long...and in what areas... ? Oh that's right, the rest are just projections and guesses back into history.

BS, if you knew about CO2 and/or the atmosphere you'd know that in certain areas are higher than others. About that credibility... :roll:

And again, it's a leap of logic to go from correlation to causation. You may think we caused the temp increase - this "global warming" -but nature has gone through many of these cycles in the past - why are you so arrogant to think that man can change nature so drastically?

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shoegazer
stop saying correlation does not equal causation. it's not applicable.

if you think that human's releasing several gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere does not correlate with rising CO2 concentrations...you're foolish. what evidence of causation would you like? do you want us to track every molecule as it rises from the tailpipe of your car? this is absurd.

It is applicable. You just stated why. I never said us burning stuff doesn't correlate to the rising CO2 concentrations - but to claim it is the cause is just your opinion. You say CO2 concentration levels are rising. You also say that humans release tons of carbon into the atmosphere. These may be fine, but to link them together without putting everything into the equation is asinine - especially if you are coming to a causation conclusion.

CsG

sorry about that. poor wording on my response. i meant to say that humans burning several gigatons of carbon each year is obviously going to lead to rising CO2 concentrations. it's the equivalence of pouring water in a bucket and saying that just because the water level in the bucket rising correlates with our pouring of water in the bucket, doesn't mean that our pouring water in the bucket was the cause.

you should read up on the carbon cycle as you lack a basic understanding of it.

Again, just because you limit it to one and one doesn't mean it is a one to one effect. There is much more than just human activity that goes into the CO2 issue - yet you want to only look at humans and then conclude causation. What a joke.

CsG

 

[shoegazer]

we know the other sources of CO2. we know CO2 and temperature vary on 100,000 year cycles due to changes in the earth's orbit. temperature and CO2 changes now are contrary to hundreds of thousands of years of records.

"BS, if you knew about CO2 and/or the atmosphere you'd know that in certain areas are higher than others. About that credibility..." - CSG

co2 varies in the atmosphere on extremely local scales. like, next to a smokestack. otherwise, the co2 you release is spread evenly around the globe. it's diffusion.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Rain Forest Myth Goes Up in Smoke Over the Amazon

This is one of the most distorted and falsely worded features about the Rainforests and thier link to the environment I have ever seen.
A blatent misrepresentation of the facts in order to demonstrate a false conclusion.

<LA Times>

REMANSO TALISMA, Brazil ? The death of a myth begins with stinging eyes and heaving chests here on the edge of the Amazon rain forest.

Every year, fire envelops the jungle, throwing up inky billows of smoke that blot out the sun. Animals flee. Residents for miles around cry and wheeze, while the weak and unlucky develop serious respiratory problems.
When the burning season strikes, life and health in the Amazon falter, and color drains out of the riotous green landscape as great swaths of majestic trees, creeping vines, delicate bromeliads and hardy ferns are reduced to blackened stubble.

But more than just the land, these annual blazes also lay waste to a cherished notion that has roosted in the popular mind for decades: the idea of the rain forest as the "lungs of the world."

Ever since saving the Amazon became a fashionable cause in the 1980s, championed by Madonna, Sting and other celebrities, the jungle has consistently been likened to an enormous recycling plant that slurps up carbon dioxide and pumps out oxygen for us all to breathe, from Los Angeles to London to Lusaka.

Think again, scientists say.

Far from cleaning up the atmosphere, the Amazon is now a major source for pollution. Rampant burning and deforestation, mostly at the hands of illegal loggers and of ranchers, release hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the skies each year.

Brazil now ranks as one of the world's leading producers of greenhouse gases, thanks in large part to the Amazon, the source for up to two-thirds of the country's emissions.

"It's not the lungs of the world," said Daniel Nepstad, an American ecologist who has studied the Amazon for 20 years. "It's probably burning up more oxygen now than it's producing."

Scientists such as Nepstad prefer to think of the world's largest tropical rain forest as Earth's air conditioner. The region's humidity, they say, is vital in climate regulation and cooling patterns in South America ? and perhaps as far away as Europe.

The Amazon's role as a source of pollution, not a remover of it, is directly linked to the galloping rate of destruction in the region over the last quarter-century.

The dense and steamy habitat straddles eight countries and is home to up to 20% of the world's fresh water and 30% of its plant and animal species.

Brazil's portion accounts for more than half the entire ecosystem. Official figures show that, on average, 7,500 square miles of rain forest were chopped and burned down in Brazil every year between 1979 and 2004. Over the 25 years, it's as if a forest the size of California had disappeared from the face of the Earth.

Such encroachment on virgin land is theoretically illegal or subject to tough regulation, but the government here lacks the resources ? some say the will ? to enforce environmental protection laws.

Loggers are typically the first to punch through, hacking crude roads and harvesting all the precious hardwoods they can find. One gang of woodcutters, in cahoots with crooked environmental-protection officials, cut down nearly $371 million worth of timber from 1990 until it was busted in the biggest sting operation of its kind in Brazil, authorities said last week.

Close on the loggers' heels are big ranchers and farmers, who torch the remaining vegetation to clear the way for cattle and crops such as soy, Brazil's new star export, which is claiming ever larger quantities of land.

Prime burning period in the Amazon runs from July to January, the dry season. In 2004, government satellite images of the forest registered 165,440 "hot spots," fires whose flames can shoot as high as 100 feet and push temperatures beyond 2,500 degrees.

These tremendous blazes spew about 200 million tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere each year, which translates into several times that amount in actual carbon dioxide. In contrast, Brazil's consumption of fossil fuels, the chief source of greenhouse gases worldwide, creates less than half what the fires send up.

During burning season, dark palls of smoke settle over parts of the jungle for days.

"It becomes hard to see, and your eyes have problems. The kids all get sick and have trouble breathing," said Joaquim Borges da Silva, 42, a rural worker who lives in a small encampment here in Remanso Talisma, on the forest's outskirts.

</Bulls!it>

The rainforest, simoply by existing is it's fault that humans exploit it.
Natures faut - not mans.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: As if you are the arbitor of "understanding". I understand the theory just fine thank you - and I understand that even if they can show certain things about "global warming" as a theory does not mean that humans can change it or reverse it.

CsG

Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.

Always one to jump in and continue with that lie aren't you Bowfinger?

CsG

Ah yes, Sir RoboCAD 101: call anyone you disagree with a liar. Predictable. And pathetic.

It is not a lie; a lie is a statement or action intended to deceive. Based on what I've seen from you, I believe it to be true (as do at least several others here). It may, however, be a mistake, but since you've declined to support your denial with any evidence, you have failed to change my belief.

Even then, should you finally provide the proof it is not 100%, literally true, it will still be a reasonable maxim for your behavior. As you've ably demonstrated in this thread, you are loathe to admit ignorance or error, no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary. That's OK if you're comfortable being seen as a buffoon. If you want to seem credible, however, you must show you have the integrity to acknowledge your mistakes. I have yet to see you do so ... ever.

Just my $0.02. Feel free to continue spinning your absurdities, e.g., pouring unprecedented quanties of CO2 into the atmosphere may not cause rising CO2 levels. Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: As if you are the arbitor of "understanding". I understand the theory just fine thank you - and I understand that even if they can show certain things about "global warming" as a theory does not mean that humans can change it or reverse it.

CsG

Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.

Always one to jump in and continue with that lie aren't you Bowfinger?

CsG

Ah yes, Sir RoboCAD 101: call anyone you disagree with a liar. Predictable. And pathetic.

It is not a lie; a lie is a statement or action intended to deceive. Based on what I've seen from you, I believe it to be true (as do at least several others here). It may, however, be a mistake, but since you've declined to support your denial with any evidence, you have failed to change my belief.

Even then, should you finally provide the proof it is not 100%, literally true, it will still be a reasonable maxim for your behavior. As you've ably demonstrated in this thread, you are loathe to admit ignorance or error, no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary. That's OK if you're comfortable being seen as a buffoon. If you want to seem credible, however, you must show you have the integrity to acknowledge your mistakes. I have yet to see you do so ... ever.

Just my $0.02. Feel free to continue spinning your absurdities, e.g., pouring unprecedented quanties of CO2 into the atmosphere may not cause rising CO2 levels. Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.

Ah, but it is a lie. I have stated that I have been wrong before but you always slither in here spouting the lie that I "Never, ever, ever" .

Meh, continue wallowing in your cesspool of lies if you wish...

CsG

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Wow, so much misdirection I don't even know where to start...

First off, the argument is that human behavior while maybe corollary is not necessarily causation due to many other variables at play in nature. Secondly, the argument that even if things were quantitative and comparable - can humans alter the current path the alarmists claim we are going down...

Where is the misdirection?? You don't know where to start because you have no argumnet. You keep pointing to all these other variables in play in nature. Like what?? And how have they not been addressed with current climate science/modelling??
Things are quantitaive and comparable. This is what myself and others have been trying to tell you. Do you finally get it?? And yes, humans can alter the changes we've been making.

Temp records have only been kept for how long...and in what areas... ? Oh that's right, the rest are just projections and guesses back into history.

As I said, we can infer past temperature from climate proxies. There are enough proxies across the globe where we can assemble a pretty accurate temp record for thousands of years. This is not "guessing" this is science.

BS, if you knew about CO2 and/or the atmosphere you'd know that in certain areas are higher than others. About that credibility...

I do know about CO2 and the atmosphere. CO2 has a long life in the atmosphere, therefore it is well mixed across the globe (on a synoptic scale).

why are you so arrogant to think that man can change nature so drastically?

I know man can change nature because it has been observed. Why are you so arrogant to dismiss the work of thousands of scientists based on your ignorance??

Edit:
Oh ya, here's another page for you to look at link
Titled: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
Perhaps you should read it.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Ah yes, Sir RoboCAD 101: call anyone you disagree with a liar. Predictable. And pathetic.

It is not a lie; a lie is a statement or action intended to deceive. Based on what I've seen from you, I believe it to be true (as do at least several others here). It may, however, be a mistake, but since you've declined to support your denial with any evidence, you have failed to change my belief.

Even then, should you finally provide the proof it is not 100%, literally true, it will still be a reasonable maxim for your behavior. As you've ably demonstrated in this thread, you are loathe to admit ignorance or error, no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary. That's OK if you're comfortable being seen as a buffoon. If you want to seem credible, however, you must show you have the integrity to acknowledge your mistakes. I have yet to see you do so ... ever.

Just my $0.02. Feel free to continue spinning your absurdities, e.g., pouring unprecedented quanties of CO2 into the atmosphere may not cause rising CO2 levels. Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.

Ah, but it is a lie. I have stated that I have been wrong before but you always slither in here spouting the lie that I "Never, ever, ever" .

Meh, continue wallowing in your cesspool of lies if you wish...

CsG

ROFL! Reading comprehension never was your strong suit.

It is not a lie; a lie is a statement or action intended to deceive. Based on what I've seen from you, I believe it to be true (as do at least several others here). It may, however, be a mistake, but since you've declined to support your denial with any evidence, you have failed to change my belief.

Talk is cheap, Sir Cad. You have, as usual, failed to offer any evidence supporting your claims ... neither about your integrity nor about the OP. All you offer is attacks and unsupported opinions. I stand by my original comments.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Ah yes, Sir RoboCAD 101: call anyone you disagree with a liar. Predictable. And pathetic.

It is not a lie; a lie is a statement or action intended to deceive. Based on what I've seen from you, I believe it to be true (as do at least several others here). It may, however, be a mistake, but since you've declined to support your denial with any evidence, you have failed to change my belief.

Even then, should you finally provide the proof it is not 100%, literally true, it will still be a reasonable maxim for your behavior. As you've ably demonstrated in this thread, you are loathe to admit ignorance or error, no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary. That's OK if you're comfortable being seen as a buffoon. If you want to seem credible, however, you must show you have the integrity to acknowledge your mistakes. I have yet to see you do so ... ever.

Just my $0.02. Feel free to continue spinning your absurdities, e.g., pouring unprecedented quanties of CO2 into the atmosphere may not cause rising CO2 levels. Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.

Ah, but it is a lie. I have stated that I have been wrong before but you always slither in here spouting the lie that I "Never, ever, ever" .

Meh, continue wallowing in your cesspool of lies if you wish...

CsG

ROFL! Reading comprehension never was your strong suit.

It is not a lie; a lie is a statement or action intended to deceive. Based on what I've seen from you, I believe it to be true (as do at least several others here). It may, however, be a mistake, but since you've declined to support your denial with any evidence, you have failed to change my belief.

Talk is cheap, Sir Cad. You have, as usual, failed to offer any evidence supporting your claims ... neither about your integrity nor about the OP. All you offer is attacks and unsupported opinions. I stand by my original comments.

"All you offer is attacks and unsupported opinions." - wow -talk about pot meeting kettle :laugh: Well, actually that's not quite correct since your attacks are proven lies(try the search function incase you've forgotten).

"I stand by my original comments." Ofcourse you stand by your lies - I didn't expect anything less from you.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Shrug. Suit yourself, Cad. All you have to do to prove I'm mistaken is provide the link. That you continue to dodge doing this makes me suspect your second, self-declared admission of error was just as phony as your first. Until then, I'll continue to believe the only evidence I've ever seen.


Meanwhile, more on topic, I'll point out the same thing I said to Vic, i.e., neither of you has presented a credible argument refuting concerns about global warming. You attack and make plenty of claims, but you've provided absolutely no objective, factual evidence to support them. (To your credit, you haven't resorted to Chicken Little "mud hut" absurdities.) If you want to convince any of us, you need to offer something with substance, not just personal opinions.

Cheers,

 

[dmcowen674]

Must be all of our imagination seeing the sea level rising to the point of just about being in our living room

Around the corner from my house