I'll just leave this here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/images/normPage-2.jpg

Where'd that graph come from? Just curious.

I've seen it before - can't recall the place off the top of my head. Course - if you want to believe that 4000 years ago they were measureing CO2... then go ahead and swallow the line. But most people know better.
Oh - and notice thats PPM - Parts per million. So its increased by how much of 1% of that million in 60 years?

Oh fear and horror and panic - the world is coming to an end.

Bullocks... pure bullocks.

Haplo, you seriously need to understand specialised branches of science a bit better, not their details, but what they do and speciliase in. Geologists, for example. Not meant as an offence, but if you argue that if it hasn't been measured by a time traveller back then, then today'S science cannot make educated guesses on past conditions by examining earth layers, conserved seeds, petrified remnants of plants, composition by chemical agents and minerals in the ground etc etc, then you really make yourself vulnerable to quite some ridicule, because you are right then: most people knowing about these fields of science indeed know it better. Than you. ;)

The problem here is that the male surplus was an unintended side effect. Natural would be a slight surplus for females, and as long as one child per family is adhered to, the population would decrease anyway, albeit not as fast. I'd have to find numbers as to how high the male surplus is, but as far as I know in some regions it's not just a miniscule amount of men that can't find a partner. I know it's a bit of a stretch, but if those masses of disgruntled men get organized and cause civil unrest that's a force to be reckoned with, even for the Chinese government.

If you want to continue I'd be glad to take it to PM's, because this thread is derailed enough as it is.

Skybird - you have finally hit the nail on the head of the crux of the whole debate.

People making "educated guesses". The chart is a perfect example. Nowhere does it say "hey - the numbers prior to X date are educated guesses" - it simply presented as FACT. Just as "climate change" is presented as fact - whien it is simply an educated guess as to what MIGHT happen.

An educated guess is still - at the end of the day -a guess. Or to put it into scientific terms - its a hypothesis in flux. Some data supports it, other data refutes it. But many people - some with an invested interest in the science itself, insist that the entire world modify its behavior on the basis of this guess. Those of us who come to different conclusions based on the data - and reasonably note that pro-climate change scientists often ignore data that hurts their view, resist the demand for change on a guess. For resisting, we are called fools, deniers, and all matter or vileness - over a guess.

I liken the debate to going to an unscrupulous car shop. You want your oil changed. The salesman and service manager come out and start listing all these things they find wrong with your car - as well as extol the virtues of buying a new one. As a guy who has turned a wrench a few time, I know I just replaced the brakes 6 months back. Yet the sales guys don't want to take no for an answer. When I say SHOW ME - they instead refuse to let me go see my car on the rack with the wheels off - claiming their insurance won't let customers inside the service area. When an independant mechanic looks at it and says things are not what they claim - they try to get his ASE certification revoked. Would you buy a car from these people?

This is exactly what has occured - as demonstrated by the contents of the emails mentioned in the OP. Scientists who differ with the guess they want everyone to accept are ostracized and marginalized. Legal requests to see the raw data are stonewalled, even going so far as to delete the requested data so it cannot be reviewed. Data and papers that do not toe the line are rejected out of hand, or hidden using data manipulation.

But you still are buying the car. I - and many like me - see that the costs of the car - the debt it will create - is too high a cost to pay given the questionable science and tactics being used to strongarm us.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...666175,00.html

The question is whether or not the "data" you believe in is good enough in quality that it can refute exsisting opinion majority consensus on theories. and in this regard you give me the impression to just believe anything if it matches your desired conclusions, which in itself is more about ideology indeed, than about a truth in the meaning of an as precise as possible understanding of reality.

Actually they can measure CO2 pretty accurately going back much further then that. It is called ice core samples. So no its not educated guess work at all but pretty hard data. The only argument that could be made against it would be that it is localized data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

No offense meant, but it usually helps to have some knowledge about the science before you try to criticize it.

People on both sides of this argument can produce graphics and experts to justify their position. It's endless and boring.

The GW subject has always been in part about the redistribution of world wealth, by guilting the wealthy into helping the third world. I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where that very scenario was front and center.The 'science' has always been a back drop for that agenda.

You're never going to change the opinion of someone who's been fooled for an entire life time, and truthfully, having this issue debated as fiercely as it is, keeps us all vigilant regarding the health of our planet.

The debate is healthy.....and so is our planet.

Ok so let me ask a couple questions then:

Are Co2 levels evenly distributed world wide?
Are the present Co2 levels mentioned in the chart also drawn from those ice samples?

These two are the problems.

I agree so very much with that interview's replies. Could have been replies by me.

No they are not evenly distributed due to air currents and differences in locally produced CO2 (both from natural such as forest fires, and man made causes), which is why i say localized, however ice cores are drawn from areas both in the northern and southern hemispheres. It does though indicate general trends in CO2 concentrations across the globe. To my knowledge though, CO2 tends to concentrate more at the poles, which is why warming there is higher then the global average.

The data should all come from ice core samples only, but it takes a few years for the snow to turn to impermeable ice which permanently traps air, so there is a lag period. Good scientists would not take air samples above the impermeable ice. As for that chart, I can't speak of it as I do not no the source. But the 0 point is 1950 and that area doesn't quite match the information I have (but it does continue to climb). If you like I can dig up some data.

I just cant look at any chart, graph, or report anymore without a jaded eye.

One thing I note on that graph is it is quite spread out with hundreds/thousands of years between divisions untill it gets to the end when suddenly the scale shifts to 10 years or so or 1/1000th of the previous scales. That alone would skew the portrayel.

I wouldn't put yourself out to make a point on an internet forum. It ain't like anyone's mind would be changed... :)

NASA.. right click and see properties for the picture. =)

LOL so true but hey that wont stop em from trying :up:

Eh hasn't stopped me in the past though I do not try to go to nuts. ;)

You are right though, I don't think any of these debates have changed any minds really. Which suggests that its a total time waster, and I probably shouldn't bother so much. :yawn:

Good eye, that is a key reason why I don't like that graph, there is a scale shift (though not as dramatic as you are suggesting, the scale cuts by less then about 1/2). Graphs are great for presenting numbers, but very easily manipulated. For example changing the X scale would make the data seem more or less significant on what way I change the scale. I could make that graph look like massive peaks (or changes), or barely any change at all. One should always look at the numbers both in the graph, and behind them.

Anyhow here is the same graph again, with out that scale error, and a report with full citations too.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

It shows the same trend, but that is not surprising when the scale of the graph is in sub divided 50000 year segments. High levels of man made CO2 production only started in the last 150 years or so. They don't though say the zero point in this graph, though it is probably 0 BP (Before Present) or 1950.

They seem to be blending data sources in that graph however (not just different ice core data, but also are also including direct measurement), which might be problematic. I would have to look into the sources, and the science behind it to draw any conclusions as I am not sure if that is scientifically acceptable or not.

I admit it. By your standards I'm a filthy, dirty commie who has to be hunted down in the great fight to support capitalist "liberal" democracy and the free market, God bless its (his?) soul!

While I would like to see more wealth distributed to the poorest of countries, considering that we, the West are throwing out money by the truckloads with stupid, irational activities just to support the consumerist agenda. Hobsbawm wrote in his book The Age of Extremes that consumerism has replaced ideology. Unfortunately for us he was quite right, as we are now unable to look past ourselves and our children are picked up this more and more (See the future of anarcholiberalism thread I posted some time ago).

Yet this does not mean that I, as a (future) member of the academia am willing to degrade my science in the fulfilment of any political goals I may have. I wish prosperity for everyone and changing our lifestyles, which will spend and emit less, while keeping us prosper as newer before seen in the history of men, for this is his future, one I shall see built.

Remind me some time to write a short essay on my views on transhumanism and climate change.
__________________________
Looks like we won't have to convince America with a rational debate. We'll just throw god into the mix and he'll strait everything up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8405108.stm

Quit being a filthy, dirty commie drama queen Respenus. There is no way you could arrive at that assumption from what he wrote. Not even close.