Hello,
first i know you did not say that. But it is crystal clear that some Mr. A. Gore is being hated for speaking the truth, not alone by the oil industry. I guess you know in which business Bush senior was and where Bush junior came from, along with a lot of other presidents.
It is always best to think about who profits most by denying scientific facts, aka climate change or global warming ?
It is not only about CRU, there are hundreds of records worldwide, only a tiny little one of it in Goettingen, but all tell you the same. The creationist's opinion may vary since there are only 7000+ years to be studied ahem.

You wrote:
" ... that environmental science research into continuing the climate change emergency is BIG MONEY ..."

In fact it does not cost too much money to have this studied including causes and effects, by students and universities - from independent universities, that is. Indeed it already has been done, and still is, at least in Europe and especially Scandinavia. This is most basic research, and getting the data is nor the problem and neither expensive. Interpreting the values is not a problem either, the causes are well known - the question is how much will change and in which scale.
That there is evidence of drastic greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere can indeed be read by anyone who is interested, you do not need (and should not believe) a full blown-up and heavily payed-for "expertise" on that matter from Exxon-Mobil, or some Bush government. The magic word is independent studies.

You do not have a glimpse what it meant money-wise to the oil industry, if some politician ever acted according to the facts - he will be most probably shot before this, or just not being elected. The US system of elections will seldomly let someone rise to power who is not somehow connected with big business like oil or weapons - and since this "glitch" in the succession of the throne happening, Obama is hated just because he's not exactly one of the clan. Insider relationships and "good contacts" to a certain kind of industry will still prevent a real change.
I think Obama is unrealistic about succeeding in convincing the people, but he is one idealistic president, and i envy you for him. To say what he said, in this mire of corruption, lobbies and sheer brute force is really something one has to admire. I only fear something will stop him, soon.
The succession and development of global temperatures, graphs and the perception of something changing is not made up, it is rather the old trick of mankind to put the head in the sand, not think about it and hope for the best.

Regarding those mails it is indeed to be highly appreciated that scientists doubt everything they see, it is a well-learned method to fend off unbased opinions later, and testing theories. The state of science and thus public knowledge only persists, until a better theory based on facts destroys it.
Whether a well-educated non-corrupt US president will ever be able to persist and "win" against the industy and lobbies is an academic question, global warming is not - from a geologist's point of view.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

You can discredit my sources, can you? Well then, have at it. By all means. That's what we're here for in this thread, after all. And thank you for finally posting a link to your source, even though you never bothered to give original credit to the respective authors.


As far as copyright sourcing goes, true. But in a debate, as a rule of thumb, you ALWAYS cite where you gathered your information from. Regardless of copyright.

And in this case, it's Andrew Bolt's self-published blog. As far as academic research is concerned, blogs are not acceptable sources to use. For a prime example, see Wikipedia's stance on the admissibility of blogs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ble_sources.3F

Are weblogs reliable sources?

In many cases, no. Most private weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a privately-owned blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of the verifiability policy. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available.


Unfortunately for you, Mr. Bolt is not a professional researcher on the subject of climate change, nor is he a scientist, nor a professional journalist. His integrity as a columnist is questionable at best. There's a great deal of controversy swarming around him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_..._and_criticism

He amounts to little more than the Australian version of a small-time Glenn Beck.

Nice use of the Red Herring fallacy by changing the subject to politics in a double post. But on, the integrity of the poster is just as important to the valid integrity of their post and point. "Attack the person"? Hardly. Just drawing legitimate questions to your posts.

Then kindly show your sources once you post information they hold ahead of time rather than being negligent and omitting them, so we don't have to drum on about the issue of copyright infringement like this.

I have been on a jury three (almost made it to four) times and have only had to take one case to court after my van was struck by another driver and he ran from the scene. With that said, how exactly are personal stories relevant to debate? Feel free to disregard this paragraph as a consequence, BTW.

You may be telling the truth, and then again you may be lying to try and make yourself appear more of an expert on the subject. Which is exactly why I said that we should stick to logic and facts alone and avoid the personal stories, and furthermore why you may feel free to disregard the previous paragraph.

Admissibility is not what's in question, merely the validity of their admissibility. Because, given the facts behind the story and the vagueness of the sections of the emails being used to promote the idea that this whole issue of climate change is some kind of big hoax, it would be very easy for even an amateur lawyer to convince a judge that they cannot be used because the reasons cited by the plantiff were/are flawed, inaccurate, and incorrect to begin with; and if he is indeed a well-respected man of the law, he would overrule their use. But I clearly made my point that we're going about this in the manner that a debate should be carried through in, but that I also feel we should conduct it with the spirit and methodology (at least partially so) of a courtroom.

Yes. And unfortunately, with that said, Dr. Jones is not living in the United States. He's a citizen of the United Kingdom. But on.

The FoIA must make the request first, however, before he's in violation. And then it must be passed along to him. Not that he was violating anything, because, while he was deleting the data from his computer, he was not really deleting it. Because, as you will recall, he sent copies of it to Scott. Scott's hard drive crashing and the data being lost were the results of an unfortunate incident within the laptop's hardware, not deletion. And we have not yet established when he received the FoIA's message... for some strange reason on your part.

Ok... so when was the request sent to Dr. Jones' office?

The post I replied to by you did not contain any emails from May 9th... so... what's the deal here?

Again, the only email you included from May was from the 29th.

Not quite. Again, copies of the same data he deleted were sent to Scott, who was supposed to archive them so they could be openly viewed by the FoIA. Standard procedure amongst scientists in all fields. Your statement earlier that the data was "being destroyed - so that it may NOT be reviewed" still remains nothing but a baseless claim and an assumption from your opinions.

Allow me to reiterate, "The FoIA must make the request first, however, before he's in violation. And then it must be passed along to him. Not that he was violating anything, because, while he was deleting the data from his computer, he was not really deleting it. Because, as you will recall, he sent copies of it to Scott. Scott's hard drive crashing and the data being lost were the results of an unfortunate incident within the laptop's hardware, not deletion. And we have not yet established when he received the FoIA's message... for some strange reason on your part."

That's not in the Act's clauses. I spent 45 minutes searching for a part where it says that he's not allowed (nor is anybody else) to "reconstruct or alter in any way the data from its original form".

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000..._20000036_en_1

The FoIA is there so that what is requested is provided in an untampered with state. His discussed "options" - the two regarding subsets and reconstructed data - would also have violated FoIA law had they been done. The fact is he wanted to, and attempted to, avoid compliance with the law as shown by his own emails.

On the contrary, I'm forced to look at it weekly when people dish it out as "proof" that it's all a conspiracy by the evil governments of the world.

Unfortunately, the case is not as simple as this. They only present a fraction of the number of papers out there on climate change, most of which are cited by outsiders as evidence of it all being an elaborate and massive hoax, like the Phil Jones emails we've been discussing, the "hockey stick" graphs, etc. The website itself is a subsidiary of Pajamas Media. Apparently, you don't bother doing much investigation into the people behind these websites (or websites in general).

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

Pajamas Media is an American-based media company that uses the Internet to present and comment on the news.

Founded in 2004 by a network primarily, but not exclusively, made up of conservatives and libertarians led by mystery writer, screenwriter, and blogger Roger L. Simon, and until 2007, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, it was originally intended as a forum to present blogs and blog advertising "with the intention of... aggregating blogs to increase corporate advertising and creating our own professional news service."

So tell me, asides from restating information already available on scientific websites like NASA's Goddard Institute of Research, the CRU, and IPCC that we've read already, what exactly makes them so impressive, better, and different from the science organizations listed- disregarding the fact that they're not even remotely connected to the scientific community in terms of published content and writers/members?

The latter of course being based upon the assumption that I have done no other investigation on them. And, as evidenced above, I have. A lot more than you have apparently. I reiterate, what exactly makes them so impressive, better, and different from the science organizations I listed above- disregarding the fact that they're not even remotely connected to the scientific community in terms of published content and writers/members?:hmmm:

Why I'm flattered. Thank you very much for the compliments.



I got in this time. I also see that the U.S. Geological Survey received $140 million for facility renovations and construction projects and for seismic and volcanic activity monitoring systems, $580 million was received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for standards research, development advanced measurement equipment, and construction of more research facilities. What exactly is the problem with all this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo And your right - it is the job of the government to spend money. However, what I put out there was the comparison that was being made between "big oil" money going to "skeptic" groups and the money that is thrown at "believers" - like NOAA. It was in response to the point that Neon made regarding who is funded better.

Scientific organizations are generally funded better because they have very few external income sources, unlike the oil companies (the reason being the business structure each side uses, and what their functions are in the world). We should rightfully be investing more in science and taking more from the large corporations and companies out there. Quarterly, it's they who draw more profits than the science institutes do (even though its probably not necessary to make this point, I might as well; just to those who don't know how science organizations keep themselves alive in terms of financing).

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo But again, you knew that - yet you tried to divert it into something else.

Hang on a minute. Who was it that started this whole discussion of the "big, evil oil companies" and science research centers and the money that flows behind them? That's right, it was you. Not me. I'll only divert as much as you choose to, because I'm only following the post courses you take- adding in additional information, pointing out inaccuracies and truths, and producing sources when necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo The whole wizard of oz all over again - and yes, you can assure people the story is make believe, all the while you try and hide behind the curtain and play "mr wizard" to get those who question to just shut up.

There again with the preaching and speeches. Pretty words that amount to nothing because of their lack of substance. Cutesy little analogies, personifications, the list goes on. But whatever. I'm starting to have fun with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo As for all the "you have a long way to go" and such.... I would submit that true scientists - as compared to those at the CRU - are interested in accuracy vs specific results.

Both, actually, are important. The results can show the accuracy during the experiments to have been flawed, the accuracy correlates by determining the results from the experiments. Simple logic and methodology really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo Good scientists don't have problems with people looking at the data and finding flaws, because that makes the SCIENCE stronger long term.

Redundancy: Because Someone Has To State The Obvious.

You CAN look at the results, that's what I've been trying to tell you the ENTIRE TIME we've been having this discussion. If you would invest more of your time looking at organizations like NASA's Goddard Institute, NCAR, UCAR, WCRP, the IRICS, CLIVAR, etc. and less on second-hand websites like Climate-Gate.org that do nothing but repeat some of the information these organizations have posted out there- and I stress the some part. Get the full story from the source, not a bunch of parrots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo If you read the emails, multiple CRU members specifically stated that they did not want to be reviewed by any "outsider" who was skeptical because "all they wanted to do was find something wrong with the science" - as if that was a bad thing to move the science itself forward.

How is science going to move forward by having a bunch of random, anonymous people (who, statistically speaking, are going to be outsiders to the scientific community) running around "reviewing" the data? Not that you can't, because you can access all the information on their websites (an approach you haven't tried yet...). Unless they're qualified or have at least a basic understanding of what they're going to be looking at and commenting on, what business is it of theirs? Furthermore, how good do you really think their skills and judgment would be as a whole? That's my view on the matter. Because you WOULD get people that just wanted to find something wrong with the science. You always do. If it's not climate change, it's evolution, radiometric and carbon dating, aliens, UFOS, the list goes on endlessly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo It is the holier than thou, attack the messenger and violate the rules of ethics, law and good science attitude that gives every skeptic and laypersion pause, and a darned good right - to question this mess.

Then question the methodology, because that's what most of the controversies about climate change are revolving around. For some strange reason, your minority amongst your demographic group believes that it's all a hoax, and that it's all about government control and money. Of course that's a gross oversimplification, but that's the gist of what you and your lot are saying.

Kind of like Haplo World, where he makes the laws and interprets them as he sees fit and promotes them as he pleases. Take a bit of advice, to avoid being humiliated in these kinds of debates, take time to first familiarize yourself with what the main thing your arguing over is about, how it works, what's behind it, etc. For starters, review Chapter 1 of your Physical Science textbook, the thing they were supposed to be using to educate you freshman year in high school.:up:

Furthermore, I suggest you look into the websites and organizations you're fighting against to see for yourself that they're not withholding information to propagate this supposed conspiracy. To name a few:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climate/now.php
http://www.noaa.gov/index.html
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/wcrp/wcrp-index.html
http://www.wmo.int/pages/index_en.html

Cheers.

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:this comming from a YEC is just ********** hilarious

Well it certainly can't help his reputation any.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show....php?t=158450&

And we mustn't forget:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...4&postcount=12


Just thought I'd throw this out there for the sake of Morts' comment.

EDIT: Also, the evil Fascist-Socialist-Communist-Leftist-Liberal government is watching our every move as we speak... put on your tinfoil hats! It destroys the mind reading machine's capabilities.

You naughty boy, Haplo will put you on his ignore list :har:

Maybe, or return the favor.

Some other sources you all may wish to consult for information from both sides on this topic:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

den Elzen, M & M Meinshausen. "Multi-gas emission pathways for meeting the EU 2°C climate target," Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. 2005.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Cambridge University Press. 2001.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report: Summary for Policy Makers.

Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change, 2005

Michaels, Patrick J. "Non-Linear Climate Change," World Climate Report. 9 Aug 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Observations, Not Models," World Climate Report. 14 April 2004.

Michaels, Patrick J. "Hot Tip: Post Misses Point," World Climate Report. 31 Jan 2006.

National Acadamies of Science. "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions," The National Academies Press. 2001.

Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch. "Hurricanes and Global Warming," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Nov 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoting some of the statements made by institutions mentioned in these articles that are researching and studying the subject of climate change, global warming, and the greenhouse effect and concur with the majority of the scientific community that it exists.


The National Academy of Sciences, 2001: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

The National Academy of Sciences, 2005: There is now strong evidence that the rate at which the Earth is heating due to increases in CO2 over China and India from their industrial centers has accelerated definitively within the past two decades ... Thus, we have confirmed that the ~140 billion tons of greenhouse gases emitted daily into the atmosphere by human beings alone is in fact having an effect on the environment.


NASA GISS - Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2007:Results from coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models driven by a variety of greenhouse gas emission scenarios indicate that planet Earth warmed by 2*C relative to the Industrial Age; and by 1.3*C from 1950 to the present. Around every 10 years, to the extent that the global community continues to follow a "business-as-usual" path with a heavy reliance on fossil fuels and will not seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the climate will pass the 2*C threshold sooner than later, between 2026 and 2060. Much of this range is caused by uncertainties in future greenhouse emissions (whether the rate shall continue to climb or regulations shall be imposed to force it to moderation).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To summarize from other sources here on the web and in literary works, and to educate here and now those who are still reading, let us ask ourselves one single question: is the increase in CO2 man-made? And I shall address it in an at least moderately well organized format.

Simple Accounting (second order evidence)

The first thing one must look at for this is simple accounting. We know how much carbon (as in fossil fuels) we've burned since the beginning of the Second Industrial Revolution and birth of the Industrial Age. The total amount comes to around twice as much as the increase in atmospheric CO2 (we'll get into where the last part went - when we get further on in this debate; see the first three citations for this particular segment's sources of information).

Carbon Isotopes (first order evidence)

The second thing which scientists and we can base our conclusions upon are measurements of carbon (C-12) and its isotopes (C-14 and C-13) in the atmosphere (referred to as the Suess Effect; cited in the fourth and fifth sources listed).

Carbon-14 is created in the upper troposphere by high-energy reactions created by cosmic rays. It's is radioactive and has a half-life of 5730±40 years. Because it is radioactive, it undergoes radioactive decay. As such, it's frequently used in dating objects just around 100,000-years-old (radiometric dating can trace back billions of years, on a related note). Oil, coal, and other fossil fuel materials have no carbon-14 content (as it's decayed away over the 65 million years or so that the oil began formulating, around the time of the mass extinctions of the dinosaurs and 90% of all life on the surface of Earth). So, when we burn the fossil fuel materials, they release carbon with no C14 content. This means that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere should fall, and indeed it does.

Carbon-13 has the strange characteristic that causes plants to not particularly "like it", so when plants use CO2 in carrying out their metabolic photosynthesis pathway, they avoid using the C13. This means that plant material is consisting almost completely of carbon-12, and for the same reason, oil, coal, and other fossil fuel materials contain almost no C13. So when we burn it we'll see the same effect as for C14: The relative abundance of (C12,C13,C14) changes.

The latter two (C13,C14) and their relative abundance work as a fingerprint as to where the carbon is coming from. This means we can trace their sources for each cubic foot of the gases we capture and study.

Plant material has low levels of C13 but normal levels of C12 and C14.
CO2 produced from dissolution in the oceans has normal levels of C12 and C13 (normal levels of C14, but could be low if the CO2 came from the bottom, for whatever reason).

Fossil fuel materials have low levels of C13 and C14 (being almost pure C12).

So when the atmospheric level of C13 and C14 falls (as measured and documented by practically all climate change research institutes and organizations) in proportion to C12, then we can see that it comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Consequently, we know it was not produced naturally, but from human beings burning the fuels for whatever reason (cars, industrial complexes, power plants, etc.).

Paleo-data (first order evidence)

This line of evidence is primarily inferred during the last stable geological period (around 20 million years ago). CO2 in the atmosphere has varied between 180ppm (the coldest parts of a glacier) and 300ppm (the warmest part of the interiors of the glaciers). We know this from several paleo sources, particularly ones relating to ice core samples that have been taken from all around the globe. All results gathered have shown virtually the same thing: a general trend of warming followed by a violent period after the Second Industrial Revolution and the birth of the Industrial Age. During the last 150 years (or since we started to burn fossil fuels like coal in factories, steamships, and the like), the atmospheric content of CO2 has risen by 35.7% from 280ppm (has been reasonably stable here for the last 20.000 years) to currently around 380ppm (see the sixth and seventh sources listed below). That's a large increase, not at all like the natural trends found before.

Sinks and Sources (second order evidence)

This line of evidence is based upon tallying the various sources, and the various sinks of CO2; what is calculated is the net sink or net sources. The ocean, for instance is emitting CO2 (the algae in it is anyway), but is also sinking CO2 (from other types of algae, too). By subtracting these fluctuations, we can see how much the oceanic contribution to the carbon budget is (eighth source listed).

When calculating this we can see that the annual contribution to the atmosphere is around 2ppm (or 4.26 Gt CO2), and we can also see that the only source where this can come from is from human (antropogenic) sources. Since nature as a whole is acting as a sink, save for a few exceptions.

Oxygen content (first order evidence)

The last one is rather simple. When carbon is burned, it oxidizes. That means that it uses 1 oxygen molecule. So for each new carbon atom released, 2 oxygen atoms are used. This can be measured since in each 100 atoms of fossil fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed (ninth source listed)

Addendum here: the reason that this line of evidence is important is that if the CO2 had come from the oceans as many global warming/climate change deniers claim, the oxygen level would not fall as the CO2 is released with oxygen molecules from the oceans as well (tenth source listed).

It would have been theoretically possible for the CO2 to come from the very bottom of the oceans (for example, large outgassings beyond what Henry's law could counteract and thus elude us by still making the surface waters acidic), which means that it could have been stored away for thousands of years, exhibiting the same C14 depletion as fossil fuels, so that the oxygen level falls proportionally with CO2 increase. This means that the CO2 couldn't originate in the oceans, but if this were true, then this wouldn't have the C13 signature seen though.

The same can be said for volcanoes, as they also release it as CO2 (without oxygen from the atmosphere). This happens by metamorphism of basic elements and substances. For instance, carbonates reacting with quartz, the chemistry being represented as: CaCO3 + SiO2 = CO2 + CaSiO3. The calcium silicates (CaSiO3) come back out as lava, adding to continental crust, and the CO2 comes out of the volcanoes as an explosive gas- which leaves very few atmospheric traces despite claims made by deniers and their "research".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:


CDIAC CO2 emissions http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems

Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

1 ppm by volume of atmosphere CO2 = 2.13 Gt C http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html

Tans et al(1979) "Natural atmospheric 14C variation and the Suess effect" Nature 280, 826 - 828; doi:10.1038/280826a0 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../280826a0.html

Battle et al(2000) "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C" Science 31 March 2000: Vol. 287. no. 5462, pp. 2467 - 2470 DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2467 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;287/5462/2467

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm

Bender et al(2005) "Atmospheric O2/N2 changes, 1993–2002: Implications for the partitioning of fossil fuel CO2 sequestration" Global Biochemical Cycles, vol. 19, gb4017, doi:10.1029/2004GB002410 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GB002410.shtml

Wallace S. Broecker "Et tu, O2" http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm

I have to ask: what does the "pro-climate change" group here have against accountability? Is there some belief that any admission of any fraudalant behavior whatsoever will somehow diminish your point?

Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop.

We don't have a problem with accountability and never have, that is why the whole event is being investigated by experts in the field, to make certain there was no scientific fraud. I don't think any of us have an issue with that.

The problem we have, not that I am necessarily "pro-climate change" (I follow where the science goes), is unsubstantiated rumor and allegations. The hysterics that have followed the so called 'climategate' (talk about a loaded word) go far beyond any potential evidence that has surfaced to date.

Me I will wait till the end of the formal investigation, before I draw any conclusions. Also even if there is proven fraud (which right now I am doubtful of) it doesn't even come close to toppling the theories, this is just one of many research groups out there doing this type of research.

Neon summarized it best: we don't have a problem with accountability.

Not with me anyway. Indeed, we've been gathering research and evidence about climate change since the 1980s. There are literally thousands of papers and studies published out there that support it in at least some form or another. Even if this one instance were discredited as fraudulent, the deniers still have to tackle all these other papers and studies the scientific community has published.

Over half the public believes that evolution could not have happened, that divine intervention must have been required, despite the contradictory articles of evidence produced from studies, some being nearly 130 years old.

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630014/

"Despite enjoying strong support in the scientific community, a vast majority of the public remains skeptical over Darwinian evolution: in a 2006 Gallup poll, only 13 percent of those surveyed said that they believed humans evolved on earth with no help whatsoever from a creator."

If they're ignorant about the subject and yet they still comment on it anyway, then their opinions are not worth a damn. Because they have no idea what they're talking about. The public too often ignores all the wonderful tools science has created for them to use- like antibiotics, cars, cell phones, COMPUTERS, THE INTERNET, aircraft, ships, new medical techniques and practices- I don't think I really need to go on in strenuous detail.

A belief that humans evolved on earth with no help whatsoever from a creator is not the nearly the same thing as a belief in the "Young Earth Theory" but of course you knew that, just like you know it has nothing to do with global warming and amounts to nothing more than a personal attack on Aramike.

List off the alternatives then. The two biggest factions on that issue are the scientific community, which takes the stance of evolution, and the religious community which takes the stance of Young Earth Creationism (except for the Catholics and some more moderate groups, particularly amongst the Lutherans; the Baptists are some of the most hardshelled ones you'll find out there).

But it does have to do with his original statement that: "Such a stance is why public trust in the scientific community continues to drop." Global warming is just one area that the community takes a stance on, evolution may very well be an issue just as big if not bigger. Hence, it does have a manner of relevance- particularly when also discussing how uninformed the public is today- yet how they take sides anyway despite their ignorance. But on.

Touchy, touchy we are tonight. A personal attack on Aramike would be, "Well you're a friggin' dumbass!" Simply disagreeing with his statement in a refined and non-hostile way- since when does that constitute a personal attack?:roll: The only people I've attacked are the 87% from that poll that take a side without knowing what the hell they're talking about, and the others the world over who are exactly like them. Aramike has an interest in science and a good amount of knowledge on it. Moreso than Haplo... and several others amongst us...

Stealth Hunter - not only do you try an insult me repeatedly in this thread, such as calling me a thief, implying that because I disagree I have no scientific knowledge or ability, etc, you then go and "quote" me as saying something I never said......

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1311955&postcount=166

You seriously are a piece of work, ya know that. Neon can discuss things reasonably - though we may disagree - and he doesn't make it personal.

"Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
You naughty boy, Haplo will put you on his ignore list :har: "

I mean seriously - you have to make up a quote of me as saying something I didn't say, and do it as if I speak of myself in the third person to boot? That is just.... pathetic.....

Where did I use the term "thief"?

I do not think this because you disagree, I think it because you have demonstrated time and time again that you do indeed have no idea about how the scientific method is supposed to work in this case and the items you've posted as evidence are not but bunk as I've shown. I've presented statistical proof for what I'm arguing for; why is it that you haven't been able to?

This was an honest mistake, and I am sorry about it. I've been typing your name in for all the quotes a ridiculous number of times; that's all I have to say in my defense. The error has been mended. Not that I meant anything negative by the comment, "Maybe, or return the favor."

Feel free to get worked up over an honest quoting mistake. It happens. It's been fixed.

Assuming it was intentional, how exactly would it be a negative thing as you are implying? All I said was, "Maybe, or return the favor." Nothing bad about that. Simple quote fail. But for the third time, it's been corrected. Why would I intentionally misquote you when everybody can see clearly Tribesman posted what I quoted a page before- thusly and correctly inferring that there was a human error made?:up:

Continuing on topic.

I think it time we touch upon the greenhouse effect, which is poorly understood by many deniers today.

The effect itself is what keeps the earth warm and habitable for us. If we didn't have it, Earth’s surface would be about 60*Fahrenheit on average. Since the average temperature of Earth is about 45*F, the natural greenhouse effect is clearly a good thing, as are the gases in limited quantity. But the enhanced greenhouse effect means even more of energy given off by the sun is trapped by having too many of the gases in our atmosphere, the result of course being global temperatures rising.

By pumping man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are altering the process by which naturally occurring greenhouse gases trap the sun's energy before it can be released back into space. The main gases are as followed:

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2; unnaturally produced/exacerbated by fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion (destroying trees and other plants which are responsible for recycling it and emitting oxygen as a byproduct, and basic cement production)
• Methane (CH4; fossil fuels, farms, waste dumps)
• Nitrous Oxide (N20; fertilizer, industrial production, combustion)
• Chlorofluorocarbon-12 (CCL2F2; liquid coolants and foams)
• Hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 (HCCL2F2; refrigerants)
• Perfluoroethane (C2F6; smelting of metals, semiconductor manufacturing)
• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6; dielectric fluids)

All chlorofluorocarbons listed are damaging to ozone, the greenhouse gas (albeit, a harmless one) that is there to protect us from the sun's great amount of energy and UV-rays.

Today, tropospheric composition of these gases is as follows (in parts per billion with the numbers from 1750 included for comparison):

• Carbon Dioxide - 377,700 (280,000)
• Methane - 1,847 (635)
• Nitrous Oxide - 319 (260)
• CFC-12 - .545 (0)
• HCFC-22 - .174 (0)
• Perfluoroethane - .03 (0)
• Sulfur Hexafluoride - .00522 (0)

Source of graphical information:

Blasing, T.J. ad K. Smith 2006. "Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations." In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Cetner, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

Global CO2 flows, carbon reservoirs, and changes in the reservoirs can best be displayed via a statistical figure representative:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...ure2_image.gif

The tan colored pool is decreasing in size, but the blue colored pools are increasing. Intensity of the blue color indicates the magnitude of stock change. The numbers in orange indicate the total amount of carbon in the reservoir discovered by NCAR, green ones the average annual change in the amount of carbon in the reservoir. Also note that a gigaton (as the graph is displayed in; Gt.) are as follows: 1 Gt = 109 metric tons

Source of graph: Bolin et al. in NCAR, 2007a; Houghton.

As shown in the graph, the annual average human-induced flows of CO2 - 6.3 gigatons from fossil fuel combustion and 1.6 Gt from deforestation in the from the late 1990s/early 2000s- are a small fraction of total CO2 flows. However, these flows are resulting in increased carbon in the ocean and atmospheric reservoirs on Earth.



Anthropogenic emissions of CH4 and N2O comprise a much larger share of total emissions of these gases than is the case for CO2. Approximately 70% of the 550 million metric tons of CH4 emitted annually and about half of the 14 MMT of N2O emitted annually are due to human activities, concentrated over large industrial nations- chiefly being India and China (source: also Bolin et al. in NCAR, 2007a).

It should be noted that water vapor also acts as a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect (which, for the record, is not at all like how a literal greenhouse works). This is a result of the natural cycle of water.

And now, I'm out for the night.

Alternatives? You provide them yourself! First you try to claim that 87% of Americans believe in the Young Earth Theory and then you contradict yourself in your very next post by admitting that the religious community is not at all in agreement on the issue. All while ignoring the large number of people, including many in the scientific community, who do not belong to any religion but still have a belief in a supreme being.

Wow I must have missed that claim.
Is it in the fiction section?
Oh I get it, you take the words and change them into something else.
Thats been a recurrent theme by some people since post#1.

Citing as "evidence" for their conspiracy theories words that were never said, events that never happened and "experts" who have no expertise in the field.

No he didn't, Haplo just demonstrated the problems that arise when a policy of ignorance is chosen.
Its quite illuminating really on both this and the creationist topic, he only sees what he wants to see .:rotfl2:

It's not 87%, there is the hybrid version, theistic evolution, which is part evolution and part creationism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm


Anyhow might I suggest we all relax a little and keep this discussion to the "facts" themselves and not let this get personal? I also would suggest that everyone referencing things, including if the idea presented is not your own (ie plagiarism).

All I said was: "The two biggest factions on that issue are the scientific community, which takes the stance of evolution, and the religious community which takes the stance of Young Earth Creationism (except for the Catholics and some more moderate groups, particularly amongst the Lutherans; the Baptists are some of the most hardshelled ones you'll find out there)."

The two biggest sides in the global warming debate are those who support its existence and those who deny its existence. Furthermore, the 87% listed off their cannot believe in much else. I mean how much clearer than:"Despite enjoying strong support in the scientific community, a vast majority of the public remains skeptical over Darwinian evolution" can you get? Either it happened with the help of a creator or it didn't. It's a simple issue, undecideds be damned- because they have to be skeptical in some form or another not to know which side they should go with. That is assuming anybody could vote "Undecided" on that particular poll. I doubt few did in this case, and other cases aren't much better. The United States' standing compared to other countries is, to say the least, pitiful as far as the common populace is concerned:

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c148...eEvolution.jpg

Source: J. D. Miller, R. Pardo, F. Niwa, Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada (BBV Foundation Press, Madrid, 1997).

Over the issue of YEC's claims that the universe is 6,000 years old, man lived with dinosaurs, the Bible's interpretation is flawless, etc. On the issue of whether or not a god was involved, however, they are all in agreement. But as I said, the primary people we have fighting in this debate (over evolution) are the ones who support its existence and the ones who deny its existence, in this case the so-called "evolutionists" (as we've been dubbed by fundamentalists) and the Young Earth Creationists (generally belonging in the United States to a Christian denomination, common among the Baptists)- excluding the Intelligent Design groups, Creation Science groups, Old Earth Creationism groups, Gap Creationists, Progressive Creationism, and Theistic Evolutionists.

The only group of that lot that even remotely affiliates themselves with science are the Theistic Evolutionists (who, even then, still believe in god); still, there's only five denominations that are supportive of them- including the Church of Nazarene, the United Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, some sects of Anglicans and some Catholics (the Catholic view to this very day remains one of limited acceptance; at least it's progress in the right direction).

Statistically, most of the scientific community's members do not believe in a supreme being as Neon's link confirmed.

:salute:

Continuing on topic.

One of the most important bits of evidence touched upon are global surface temperature trends. The global average surface temperature fluctuates over time, but in recent decades it has increased dramatically. From 1920 to the present, Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by 1.4*F. According to the National Academy of Sciences, this change is the largest global temperature rise in at least the last 2,000 years and may steal the record from the last 5,000 years. The sharpest rise occurred between 1975 and 2005, when temperatures rose steadily by about 1*F on average.

The recent increase in concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the result of human activities, as we discussed earlier- mainly the burning of fossil fuels. As the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, so has the average surface temperature (to reiterate). The relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and surface temperature is shown here for the past 150 years.


http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...007_092528.gif

The quality sucks, but the red line represents surface temperature, the pink outline represents the uncertainty range, the blue line represents CO2 concentration. The graph begins in 1845 and ends in 2005, and each number along the bottom represents an elapsed interval of 20 years.

Source for CO2 concentration data: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf, 2005. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. DOE, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

Source for temperature data: Brohan, P., I. Haris, S.F.B. Tett, P.D. Jones, and J.J. Kennedy, 2006. Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. Journal of Geophysical Research, p. 111, 2003.

Over the last 400,000 years.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...107_062554.gif

Again, the quality is bad, but the red line represents Antarctic surface temperature, the blue line pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, the yellow-orange line human-contributed atmospheric CO2. Intervals along the x-axis go for 50,000 years each, starting 400,000 years ago and ending in the present. This data was also collected by C.D. Keeling and T.P. Whorf, published on pages 121-126 of issue #398 of Nature magazine in 2000.

The graph below this section of paragraphs compares measurements of the Earth’s past temperature variations (shown by the black line) with simulations of past temperature variations (shown by the red and blue lines) in order to determine whether the major changes in temperature were caused by natural or human-caused factors.

The black line shows observed surface temperature variations from the average. The blue and red lines show computer model results when past temperatures are simulated including different drivers of the climate system. Natural drivers include solar radiation and volcanic emissions, while anthropogenic (man-made) drivers include man-made greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols. The blue line shows variation when natural drivers are included in the calculations, while the red line shows variation when both natural and anthropogenic drivers are included.


This graph shows that the combination of natural and anthropogenic drivers (the red line) provides a better match to the observed temperatures (black line) than only natural drivers (the blue line).



Natural drivers alone can explain much of the temperature change in the first half of the century, as demonstrated by the similarity between the black and blue lines during that time period. As can be seen with the close match between the red and black lines, human-produced drivers strongly dominated the temperature change in the latter part of the 20th century.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...ttribution.gif

It's of somewhat better quality. The source: Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.M. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigley, and C. Tebaldi, 2004. Of Models and Men. Journal Collective of Scientific Minds, p. 44, found in the January 2005 edition.

The graph below shows the heat content of the ocean measured at three depths: from 0-300 meters (red line), from 0-700 meters (blue line), and from 0-3000 meters (gray line). Each line on the graph corresponds to measurements taken at one of these three depths and shows a gradual increase in heat content over time. Warming of the oceans has many consequences, including sea level rise, coral bleaching, loss of sea ice, intensification of hurricanes, and higher coastal storm surges. Taken together with the graph below, this shows that increased temperatures have been observed at Earth’s surface and in the oceans.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...eat-trends.gif

Source: Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer, 2005. Journal of Geophysical Research, p. 66, 2005.

Tonight, I'll cover the issue of impacts of the enhanced greenhouse effect, climate change, and global warming.