are humans causing global warming?

[Notabull]

[Notabull]

A quick study of US climate scientists regarding global warming, again showing a broad and vast scientific consensus:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_wa ... 23_08.html

"In 1991 only 60% of climate scientists believed that average global temperatures were up, compared to 97% today."

"In 1991 only a minority (41%) of climate scientists agreed that then-current scientific evidence "substantiates the occurrence of human-induced warming," compared to three out of four (74%) today."

Say it with me: consensus.

[lamont]

[Robroy]

[Robroy]

[Robroy]

Lamont, you used the hockey stick. I don't believe it! Regarding the north pole seabed, maybe this will interest you: http://news.google.com/news?q=arctic%20 ... a=N&tab=wn

I think I've linked to it three or four times here but nobody has responded.

[lamont]

[lamont]

Here's a better picture of the vostok ice core data without the hockeystick graph, so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities:



The point still stands, the ice cores establish "stable" ranges of 200-300 ppm of CO2, and our current level of 375 ppm is way out of line with our recent geological history.

[lamont]

hmm... the fixed width formatting of this forum is a little annoying...

[lamont]

[Notabull]

As I read the points and counter points made by others on this forum, and myself, I come away with the following thoughts:

1) I know very little about climate science, as illustrated by Lamont's obvious knowledge and experience in this area. It's amazing just how much I don't know about the topic. I purposefully, therefore, don't *claim* to know a lot about it.

2) Most of the "so, what about X? Got ya!" points illustrated by the denialists seem to be promptly countered by Lamont (who seems to have actual experience in this area). The GW denialists probably have a much better time at dinner parties or in casual conversations with people not experienced in this area (like me) because their knowledge *seems* to be very well informed and they can reel off "facts" and studies and tidbits. It does worry me somewhat that someone who continues to be corrected on various points, continues to post links to articles/papers that might be wrong too. I mean, not all science is right! That's one of the points of science. It's falsifiable, it evolves (couldn't resist), and *eventually* a consensus is reached after enough evidence is in. That's where we're at with GW.

3) The reason I don't read a lot of the scientific papers on either side of the debate is that it's obvious that you need to have a lot of experience and/or education in the area. Robroy claims it's not rocket science, which is literally true as it's actually climate science. So the same person that claims this stuff is easy, and therefore anyone should just go ahead and read the papers and make their own minds up, is actually making all kinds of errors which are immediately corrected by someone else that has experience in the field. If it's such an easy subject, why does Robroy continue to get things wrong? (note, again, I'm not claiming to get things right, I'm just choosing to not comment or analyze a subject on which I know very little).

A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned.
– Nature, 8 Nov 1906, 25/2

[Notabull]

[Big Mike 34]

Rob:

Trying reading this little bit of common sense:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html? ... ee479f&k=0

[Big Mike 34]

Rob:

This is one more article you should read....It is titled look to Mars...It is from Notabull's link

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html? ... c7f723&k=0

[Notabull]