that proves you're not a fruit fly. Show me the credentials that proves you know what to do with the data. Are you a climatologist?

No, but I have common sense. I observe and record in a fashion that you could not imagine. I have given depositions over my data collection, due to some "educated" engineer making flood control decisions from 130 miles away beacuse the "computer models" say it should do this.
My creditials are available on the FSEC web site...somewhat watered down as I choose not associate myself closely with the arrogant, egotisical PhD's with no common sense and with even less personality.
I have been asked to present papers at Davos, and have not done so...there is only so much time that I will give to such a unique group of people, because I work with them does not mean I have play with them.

As far as manipulating the data....I have seen it twisted in so many ways that it can't be counted, what do you want to prove. Can I manipulate it, sure what do you want??? who is paying me for what????

Perhaps you should look at the accuracy of the instruments and how that has changed over the last 10 years, not to mention the last 50 plus.

Mary L Watkins (handle purposely left off.)

Although a registered Republican, I really am a Libetarian and have always voted for whom I think is the best person for job be it man or woman regardless of race or creed. I am probably the most Politically Incorrect individual on this forum

Ducky, I'm with you on that one man...registered as a Republican against the family...because I couldn't stand any of the Demo's running at the time not quite 30 years ago...haven't missed an election since...but htis one might be my first.

Jason,
You hear the voices calling, come home son.


Innocent

carl425 wrote:Are you seriously denying that there is a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I'm seriously claiming that just one volcanic eruption can expel more C02 in a few days than even India or China can in a year. I'm seriously claiming that the climate changes with cycles that DO have scientific data to support that changes. Please research the "medieval warming period" and the "little ice age," as these seem to be the most recent "crisis" points of the cycle in heat and cold, respectively. It happens. It's not under our control. Sorry.

Jason,

You are definitely wise beyond your young years! Must have been the Lower Alabama upbringing! Something about the South and wisdom!

Jason wrote: I'm seriously claiming that just one volcanic eruption can expel more C02 in a few days than even India or China can in a year. I'm seriously claiming that the climate changes with cycles that DO have scientific data to support that changes. Please research the "medieval warming period" and the "little ice age," as these seem to be the most recent "crisis" points of the cycle in heat and cold, respectively. It happens. It's not under our control. Sorry.

Ok then so your points are:

1) Because a volcano might kill us all anyway, it's ok to continue poluting.

2) Because the historical events you list are the only contributors to global climate change we've seen in the past, these events are the only factors that can effect the global climate in the future?

Does that sum it up?

Either the Southern upbringing or the fact that I wanted to be a marine biologist most of my life, right up until engineering hooked me with the promise of the complexity of biology but with an actual paycheck and more immediately practical application to boot. I'm actually a pretty hardcore conservationist, which is much different from what most people call an environmentalist, and worked at Pacific Science Center for seven and a half years before I came to Micro$oft to be an engineer. I've seen enough junk science (.i.e.- make the data fit your assumption, as Mary mentioned) to bore you all to tears. I can talk the political and legal bullshit if I have to, but it's tiring and I try to avoid it. It's easier to just call things what they are.

carl425 wrote:Ok then so your points are:

1) Because a volcano might kill us all anyway, it's ok to continue poluting.

2) Because the historical events you list are the only contributors to global climate change we've seen in the past, these events are the only factors that can effect the global climate in the future?

Does that sum it up?

No, on both. Let me simplify.

1) Our contribution to the overall production of CO2 is minimal compared to that produced by natural sources. That's a simple as I can make it. Volcanoes aren't something that might happen eventually. They happen all the time, every year. Carbon dioxide is not pollution in the literal or usual sense of the word. It occurs naturally and is produced naturally in quantities much greater than what we consider our "pollution" production of it.

2) Those events aren't contributors to anything. You're placing them on the wrong side of the cause-and-effect relationship. They are chronological points in the global climate change cycle. They are stated as reference points to demonstrate that the cycles existed before human intervention had any effect on the cycle and are not only something you read about happening millions of years ago. I don't know how to state that any more simply either.

Jason wrote:1) Our contribution to the overall production of CO2 is minimal compared to that produced by natural sources.

Sorry Jason, but that is WRONG.

From the EPA's website:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

Remember the EPA is controlled by the Bush adminstration. If anything, they are more likely to exagerate against the case for human caused global warming. They present what seems to me to be a balanced case. Have a look for yourself.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scienc ... ledge.html

btw, anthropogenic = "human caused"

Ok I have to jump in and say what I think about global warming, climate change or whatever the grant hustlers are calling it these days.

We have the sun overhead. The sun is essentially a GIANT nuclear reactor over which we have zero control. Underneith us is molten lava in excess of 1800 degrees. We are sandwiched inbetween these two major sources of heat that we are not at the controls of to adjust. To think that you can merely look back at the last 150 years of recorded data representing about .00000003% of the total lifespan of earth to this point using the 4.5 billion year old theory on the earths age. Take a careful look at how many decimal places you have to go to get to that 3 and you realize we are talking about data which amounts to essentially less than nothing.

Scientist need research grants to make a living it is what many of them do. Have you ever noticed at the end of most research grants when the final report comes out the last sentence is always the same "More research will be required to find out the implications of X, Y, Z." I read that as our funding just ran out and we need more funding to keep us employed. When the "climate folks can tell me exactly what the weather will be like next month much less 100+ years from now I might start to believe their data but not until then at a minimum.

For every research paper you show saying one thing there is at least one other out there to directly contradict the results. These research people are in many ways like politicians using scare tactics to get money and using one side to say the other is wrong so that in the end both sides get to keep on keeping on without anything coming from it all.

As for Al Bore and his Noble Prize I pretty much wrote off the Noble prize being a prestigious highly respected award when they gave the Peace prize to Yasar Arafat. Tell me is there peace in the middle east?

To think we have such control over the earth and the solar system is ridiculous. Having been through several major Hurricanes and a few weeks ago a minor tornado I can assure you mother nature can and will do whatever the hell she wants whenever she wants and no politician or tree hugger can stop her.

Ok semi rant over.. I am just so fed up with this Go green shit everywhere I look.

Dee

Yes, Carl, I know what anthropogenic means and I have read that very simplistic statement on the EPA's website. Again, please look past that one "likely" and "indicate, but cannot prove" statement and do the research for yourself on what I am stating. Don't let other people, even the EPA, decide your opinion on something. The EPA is no more controlled by the Bush administration than the local police department. Unless you're just trying to throw an anti-Bush jab into this, I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

Innocent wrote:Perhaps you should look at the accuracy of the instruments and how that has changed over the last 10 years, not to mention the last 50 plus.

Mary L Watkins (handle purposely left off.)

Come on Mary, at least take the time to understand what you are arguing against. We're not talking about 50 year old measurements taken with 50 year old instruments. The CO2 concentrations were recently measured with modern instruments and procedures using ice cores taken from the polar cap.

Jason wrote:Yes, Carl, I know what anthropogenic means and I have read that very simplistic statement on the EPA's website. Again, please look past that one "likely" and "indicate, but cannot prove" statement and do the research for yourself on what I am stating. Don't let other people, even the EPA, decide your opinion on something. The EPA is no more controlled by the Bush administration than the local police department. Unless you're just trying to throw an anti-Bush jab into this, I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

Very good, you get an A+ in vocabulary, however you only get a D- in reading comprehension.

"Indicate, but cannot prove" applies to the theory that the increased CO2 is responsible for the warming. It does not dispute the fact that the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.

Did I not state clearly enough why I mentioned Bush? Maybe your D- will have to be changed to an F.

Do my own research? As Mary has pointed out, only she possesses the skill to properly calibrate instruments and collect data.

Heh... You're making this too easy. Even when I give you a hint, you didn't pick up on the fact that you're citing a statement that clearly says that the increased CO2 might not even be the source of the increasing temperatures, let alone where it might be coming from. You're eroding the foundation of your own argument. If the basis of CO2 causing global warming isn't valid, your assertation that humans are causing the global warming through CO2 production isn't valid. That means this human-caused "global warming" crisis is bullshit. It's not my reading comprehension that needs work.

No, you didnt' state clearly enough why you keep mentioning Bush. Your assumption that Bush controlled the EPA was not credible, therefore your conclusion based on that assumption was not credible. You do understand how logic works, right?

I'm heading off to our summer league prone matches. I'll check back in later to see how you're doing.

Jason wrote:Heh... You're making this too easy. Even when I give you a hint, you didn't pick up on the fact that you're citing a statement that clearly says that the increased CO2 might not even be the source of the increasing temperatures, let alone where it might be coming from. You're eroding the foundation of your own argument. If the basis of CO2 causing global warming isn't valid, your assertion that humans are causing the global warming through CO2 production isn't valid. That means this human-caused "global warming" crisis is bullshit. It's not my reading comprehension that needs work.

No, you didn't' state clearly enough why you keep mentioning Bush. Your assumption that Bush controlled the EPA was not credible, therefore your conclusion based on that assumption was not credible. You do understand how logic works, right?

I'm heading off to our summer league prone matches. I'll check back in later to see how you're doing.

Am I to assume from the above logic exercise that you're backing off the volcano theory?

It's quite a leap from "likely" to invalid. The humans on this planet are responsible for the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is likely that this CO2 will result in global warming. I have never used the word "crisis" in describing what is happening. I specifically pointed out that Al Gore has taken a far to extreme position.

"Bullshit" (from your original post) in this context sounds pretty much to me about as far on one side of the argument as "crisis" is on the other. I think "likely" is a little more logical than "bullshit",

By your logic, since it was only "likely" that the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism over the world rather than a certainty, that whole cold war thing was "bullshit" too.

Just to clear it up for you, I was not implying that Bush controlled the EPA - only that IF their public statements were tilted, that they would most likely (sorry to keep using "likely", since I know it's a difficult concept for you) be tilted toward his thinking - not Al Gore's.

And one more question about doing your own research... It sounds to me like you've been quoting Rush Limbaugh as I've heard him make all the same statements in almost the same words, right down to the "don't let other people decide your opinion" remark. Did you assume that I was a liberal and therefore never listened to Limbaugh?

Another topic - etiquette related. When your spell checker catches an error in the text you are quoting, is it proper form to correct it, or let it be?

carl425 wrote:Am I to assume from the above logic exercise that you're backing off the volcano theory?

No.. I baited you into shooting holes into your own sinking boat by pointing out that the statement you thought gave you credibility actually questioned whether or not CO2 was even responsible for warming, much less whether humans producing it were.

It's quite a leap from "likely" to invalid.

Not really. When you're trying to prove your point, likely is about as credible as possibly. Neither helps your argument.

The humans on this planet are responsible for the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You still haven't actually given data to prove that this is true, so you shouldn't make conclusions based on the fact that it's an accepted truth, or an assumption.

It is likely that this CO2 will result in global warming.

There's that "likely" word again. No more helpful or conclusive this time than last.

I have never used the word "crisis" in describing what is happening. I specifically pointed out that Al Gore has taken a far to extreme position.

"Bullshit" (from your original post) in this context sounds pretty much to me about as far on one side of the argument as "crisis" is on the other. I think "likely" is a little more logical than "bullshit",

I said the crisis was bullshit, not that there is no global warming happening. If you truly believe that there is no crisis, then we at least agree on that point. Is that what you're saying?

By your logic, since it was only "likely" that the Soviet Union wanted to spread communism over the world rather than a certainty, that whole cold war thing was "bullshit" too.

No. That was a plainly stated goal. Even as much as you seem to adore that word, it really doesn't apply here.

Just to clear it up for you, I was not implying that Bush controlled the EPA - only that IF their public statements were tilted, that they would most likely (sorry to keep using "likely", since I know it's a difficult concept for you) be tilted toward his thinking - not Al Gore's.

Not true. The EPA officials know that Bush does not currently have the political capital to spend on issues that they deal with, and global warming is enough of a sacred cow right now that any who speak out against it lose face in the media. They are effectively immune from his interference.

And one more question about doing your own research... It sounds to me like you've been quoting Rush Limbaugh as I've heard him make all the same statements in almost the same words, right down to the "don't let other people decide your opinion" remark. Did you assume that I was a liberal and therefore never listened to Limbaugh?

Sorry, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh. While I'm sure I'd agree with some of what he says, there is enough of his ranting without data to base his conclusions on that I think he's sensationalizing issues just as much as the liberal side of the media does. I prefer to try to get data from the sources and form my own opinions. Maybe it's just the engineer in me coming out. How could I assume what your political leanings are? You have just over a hundred posts on here and I know nothing else about you. To assume that you are a liberal with all of the commonly false stereotypes that that includes would be incorrect due to lack of supporting data, as I have described already in this thread. The only assumptions that I've made here are that you are passionate about this issue enough to spend a fair amount of time posting about it, have not actually researched this issue yourself, and that you are not accustomed to the standard debate techniques like baiting your opponent into weakening his own argument. That data that I based those assumptions on are purely from this thread and nowhere else.

Another topic - etiquette related. When your spell checker catches an error in the text you are quoting, is it proper form to correct it, or let it be?

In official documents, it's proper to leave it as is if it's a quote or make the notation that you've changed it. On an informal forum like this, it doesn't really matter. Curiously, why would you go to the trouble of using a spell checker for posts here?