Ummm Its 57F, the grass is growing and I saw a fly outside.

This is not Normal for the State of Vermont in January........

---

Ummm Its 57F, the grass is growing and I saw a fly outside.

This is not Normal for the State of Vermont in January........

No, I expect it isn't. No one is denying that change is a foot. It's what is causing it that is in question. There is no evidence it is down to Man, Go ask the Climate Change scientists. Here, I'll save you the time;

there is no proof that the climate change starting to be experienced is caused by any one thing

"I think that you're a bit too early to ask for proof. Wait another 10 years."

---

flaming balloons

Ummm Its 57F, the grass is growing and I saw a fly outside.

This is not Normal for the State of Vermont in January........

No, I expect it isn't. No one is denying that change is a foot. It's what is causing it that is in question. There is no evidence it is down to Man, Go ask the Climate Change scientists. Here, I'll save you the time;

there is no proof that the climate change starting to be experienced is caused by any one thing

"I think that you're a bit too early to ask for proof. Wait another 10 years."

Head in the sand approach. There is overwhelming evidence that man is responsible for increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and it has been proven, yes proven that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (without it we would be at -20C). We can't go and poor 15 Billion tonnes a year of CO2 into the atmosphere without something going wrong. We need to kerb the amounts we emit, sequestere as mush as we can and introduce alternatives to burning fossil fuels. Will the oceans soak up some CO2, why yes. But then the pH of the oceans will decrease and shells on shellfish will dissolve. The oceans temperatures will also increase and the levels increase therefore killing (from pH change, increased temperature and increased depth) coral reefs that harbour an astonishing amount of sea life. So much sea life will die off that the world's fish stocks will plummet.

We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 without something going wrong! Are people so short sighted as to not understand this?

Do you want to own up to your kids and say that you sat by and did nothing while you waited for absolute proof then realise it was too late? How will your kids view you in 10, 20 or 30 yrs time?

Live long and BOINC (if you don't die from a tropical disease, starvation, get displaced by rising sea levels, or be killed by an increased number of hurricanes, tornados and floods).

Paul

Ummm Its 57F, the grass is growing and I saw a fly outside.

This is not Normal for the State of Vermont in January........

No, I expect it isn't. No one is denying that change is a foot. It's what is causing it that is in question. There is no evidence it is down to Man, Go ask the Climate Change scientists. Here, I'll save you the time;

there is no proof that the climate change starting to be experienced is caused by any one thing

"I think that you're a bit too early to ask for proof. Wait another 10 years."

Head in the sand approach. There is overwhelming evidence that man is responsible for increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and it has been proven, yes proven that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (without it we would be at -20C). We can't go and poor 15 Billion tonnes a year of CO2 into the atmosphere without something going wrong. We need to kerb the amounts we emit, sequestere as mush as we can and introduce alternatives to burning fossil fuels. Will the oceans soak up some CO2, why yes. But then the pH of the oceans will decrease and shells on shellfish will dissolve. The oceans temperatures will also increase and the levels increase therefore killing (from pH change, increased temperature and increased depth) coral reefs that harbour an astonishing amount of sea life. So much sea life will die off that the world's fish stocks will plummet.

We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 without something going wrong! Are people so short sighted as to not understand this?

Do you want to own up to your kids and say that you sat by and did nothing while you waited for absolute proof then realise it was too late? How will your kids view you in 10, 20 or 30 yrs time?

Live long and BOINC (if you don't die from a tropical disease, starvation, get displaced by rising sea levels, or be killed by an increased number of hurricanes, tornados and floods).

Paul

I understand your concerns. Many do. But 'no proof' does not mean 'head in sand'. There is no point spending percentages of nation's GDP on solutions when we don't understand, or have proof, of the causes. We could be rushing into doing some things only to find it was all due to something else after all, but it's to late the save the planet now. A more concerted effort to find that proof would be prudent.

---

flaming balloons

Saving the polar bears

Endangered Species Act might help these creatures survive global warming

By Kieran Suckling

Suckling is the biodiversity director of the Center for Biological Diversity, a Tucson, Ariz.-based group that led the legal effort to get the Interior Department to list the polar bear as threatened.

January 4, 2007

The biggest environmental story of 2006 was also the most surreal. At the height of the Christmas season, with lovable polar bears hawking soft drinks on television commercials across America, the Bush administration issued a proposal to list the snowy icon as a “threatened” species. The media frenzy was swift and global.

And puzzled. For so long, the White House denied the reality of the causes and impacts of global warming and suppressed and censored so many government reports on climate change, why was it now declaring that global warming is not only real, but killing polar bears?

Comparing the polar bear to Nixon's Cambodia and Kennedy's Bay of Pigs, Time magazine concluded: “Bush may never have encountered an eye he wasn't willing to at least consider poking. But even for him, the polar bear may have finally proven to be a fight too far.”

Actually, it's the Endangered Species Act that proved too tough. The law requires that all decisions be based solely on the best scientific information. Political and economic considerations are not allowed.

Since the science of global warming is clear, the White House had little choice but to propose threatened status. The proposal correctly notes that bears in western Hudson Bay have declined by 22 percent since 1987 and that mortality of cubs is rising while the weight of adult bears is declining.

State-of-the-art climate models predict that all Arctic summer sea ice could be gone by as early as 2040 – a level of melting that has not occurred in 800,000 years.

Unprecedented numbers of polar bear drownings and cannibalism are already being noted. As the sea ice fades away, it will only get worse.

The Endangered Species Act may be the last, best hope for the polar bear. While scores of species have gone extinct in the past few decades, 98 percent of those protected by the act have survived. And 93 percent of those, including the green sea turtle, gray wolf, bald eagle and southern sea otter, have improved or remained stable since coming under the act's protection.

The Endangered Species Act has been effective because it requires the government to identify and eliminate the threats to imperiled species. It requires the creation of “critical habitat” areas and recovery plans to guide federal conservation efforts. It requires the reform of inadequate government policies. It's a no-nonsense, boots-on-the-ground law.

Did I say no-nonsense? The polar bear listing proposal refuses to designate critical habitat areas, deeming the bear's habitat needs “undeterminable.” This is after pages and pages of analysis showing that polar bears need sea ice.

Worse, the proposal steadfastly refuses to identify the cause of global warming. The words “carbon,” “emissions” and “greenhouse gas” do not appear anywhere. It's as if the Arctic ice just decided to up and melt itself.

Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne explains the omission by asserting that identifying and eliminating the causes of global warming are “beyond the scope of the Endangered Species Act.” Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, assured the oil and power industries that listing the polar bear as threatened won't have any impact on oil drilling in the Arctic or the permitting of new carbon-spewing power plants in the Lower 48. He told Greenwire, I “don't believe the ESA was intended to reach over into every agency in government.”

But that's exactly what the Endangered Species Act is intended to do. It requires all federal agencies to ensure the actions they conduct, fund or permit do not drive species extinct or harm their critical habitat. Its recovery plans are required to spell out concrete, measurable steps to eliminate threats, restore habitats and bring species back from the brink of extinction.

Bush may have been forced to admit the reality of global warming, but his polar bear “protection” proposal is actually a commitment to do nothing for bears or global warming. It's a death sentence, not a recovery strategy.

But Congress anticipated this kind of administrative foot-dragging when it created the Endangered Species Act 33 years ago. It wisely established science as the standard of management, not presidential whim. Whether Bush likes it or not, scientists will continue to study global warming, conservationists will continue to turn that science into conservation policy, and the Endangered Species Act will ensure polar bears have a chance to survive.

---

me@rescam.org

This is a quotation from a NASA web page. I posted it in another board and its moderator suggested I post it here:
Is the Earth getting hotter? A recent NASA study, based on satellite data, shows that temperatures in the Arctic are rising. That could mean that sooner or later, we'll all be feeling warmer. Climate changes in remote regions like the Arctic can have a surprising impact on all of us. Warming trends could alter the global climate, affect ocean temperatures and habitats, and widen shipping lanes. Previous studies funded by NASA showed that temperatures rose significantly during the last decade, compared to the 1980s. Year-round sea ice in the Arctic is dwindling, perhaps caused by changing atmospheric pressure patterns and the greenhouse effect. Earth-observing satellites like NASA's Terra, Aqua and IceSAT allow researchers to more easily monitor Arctic changes. Studies like this help us to better understand how these changes affect our world.
Tullio

---

Sure you can go and latch onto something else to try and argue against the facts.

The facts are shown in the 2 graphs I showed below and this one



I think I can see a correlation...can't you?

Once again, the chart shows changes that are well within the boundries of established planetary climate cycles.

"
Subsequent to the TAR
Following the publication of the TAR in 2001 "detection and attribution" of climate change has remained an active area of research. Some important results include:

A review of detection and attribution studies by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group [8] found that The evidence indicates that natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 yr can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases. Thus, the recent research supports and strengthens the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that “most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.”
Multiple independent reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years confirm that the late 20th century is probably the warmest period in that time
Two papers in Science in August 2005 [9] [10] resolve the problem, evident at the time of the TAR, of tropospheric temperature trends. The UAH version of the record contained errors, and there is evidence of spurious cooling trends in the radiosonde record, particularly in the tropics. See satellite temperature measurements for details.
Barnett et al. "Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans" (Science, Vol 309, Issue 5732, 284-287, 8 July 2005), say that the observed warming of the oceans cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences [11].
"

---

Ummm Its 57F, the grass is growing and I saw a fly outside.

This is not Normal for the State of Vermont in January........

No, I expect it isn't. No one is denying that change is a foot. It's what is causing it that is in question. There is no evidence it is down to Man, Go ask the Climate Change scientists. Here, I'll save you the time;

there is no proof that the climate change starting to be experienced is caused by any one thing

"I think that you're a bit too early to ask for proof. Wait another 10 years."

Head in the sand approach. There is overwhelming evidence that man is responsible for increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and it has been proven, yes proven that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (without it we would be at -20C). We can't go and poor 15 Billion tonnes a year of CO2 into the atmosphere without something going wrong. We need to kerb the amounts we emit, sequestere as mush as we can and introduce alternatives to burning fossil fuels. Will the oceans soak up some CO2, why yes. But then the pH of the oceans will decrease and shells on shellfish will dissolve. The oceans temperatures will also increase and the levels increase therefore killing (from pH change, increased temperature and increased depth) coral reefs that harbour an astonishing amount of sea life. So much sea life will die off that the world's fish stocks will plummet.

We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 without something going wrong! Are people so short sighted as to not understand this?

Do you want to own up to your kids and say that you sat by and did nothing while you waited for absolute proof then realise it was too late? How will your kids view you in 10, 20 or 30 yrs time?

Live long and BOINC (if you don't die from a tropical disease, starvation, get displaced by rising sea levels, or be killed by an increased number of hurricanes, tornados and floods).

Paul

I understand your concerns. Many do. But 'no proof' does not mean 'head in sand'. There is no point spending percentages of nation's GDP on solutions when we don't understand, or have proof, of the causes. We could be rushing into doing some things only to find it was all due to something else after all, but it's to late the save the planet now. A more concerted effort to find that proof would be prudent.

Ice,

We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes per year of CO2 without something going wrong! Are you so short sighted as to not understand this?

Do you want to own up to your kids and say that you sat by, argued against doing something and did nothing while you waited for absolute proof then realise it was too late? How will your kids view you in 10, 20 or 30 yrs time?

Technology that comes out from trying to reduce CO2 emissions can only be a good thing and will pay itself back many times over. We are in a unique situation right now, we need to act accordingly.

Live long and BOINC.

Paul.

Ummm Its 57F, the grass is growing and I saw a fly outside.

This is not Normal for the State of Vermont in January........

No, I expect it isn't. No one is denying that change is a foot. It's what is causing it that is in question. There is no evidence it is down to Man, Go ask the Climate Change scientists. Here, I'll save you the time;

there is no proof that the climate change starting to be experienced is caused by any one thing

"I think that you're a bit too early to ask for proof. Wait another 10 years."

Head in the sand approach. There is overwhelming evidence that man is responsible for increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere and it has been proven, yes proven that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas (without it we would be at -20C). We can't go and poor 15 Billion tonnes a year of CO2 into the atmosphere without something going wrong. We need to kerb the amounts we emit, sequestere as mush as we can and introduce alternatives to burning fossil fuels. Will the oceans soak up some CO2, why yes. But then the pH of the oceans will decrease and shells on shellfish will dissolve. The oceans temperatures will also increase and the levels increase therefore killing (from pH change, increased temperature and increased depth) coral reefs that harbour an astonishing amount of sea life. So much sea life will die off that the world's fish stocks will plummet.

We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 without something going wrong! Are people so short sighted as to not understand this?

Do you want to own up to your kids and say that you sat by and did nothing while you waited for absolute proof then realise it was too late? How will your kids view you in 10, 20 or 30 yrs time?

Live long and BOINC (if you don't die from a tropical disease, starvation, get displaced by rising sea levels, or be killed by an increased number of hurricanes, tornados and floods).

Paul

I understand your concerns. Many do. But 'no proof' does not mean 'head in sand'. There is no point spending percentages of nation's GDP on solutions when we don't understand, or have proof, of the causes. We could be rushing into doing some things only to find it was all due to something else after all, but it's to late the save the planet now. A more concerted effort to find that proof would be prudent.

Ice,

We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes per year of CO2 without something going wrong! Are you so short sighted as to not understand this?

Do you want to own up to your kids and say that you sat by, argued against doing something and did nothing while you waited for absolute proof then realise it was too late? How will your kids view you in 10, 20 or 30 yrs time?

Technology that comes out from trying to reduce CO2 emissions can only be a good thing and will pay itself back many times over. We are in a unique situation right now, we need to act accordingly.

Live long and BOINC.

Paul.

No, I wouldn't say 15,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 was negligible, but it is pretty small compared to the total mass of atmosphere and what is put into it. And nobody is saying that we should sit down and wait. Just don't go off with knee-jerk reactions before being sure about the facts and evidence. Sure go ahead and reduce CO2, but don't mislead the world into reducing CO2 because you think, but do not have any basis, that this is in itself is the answer to all changes happening with this planet right now.

---

flaming balloons

The 3 main greenhouse gases are CO2, methane and N2O (nitrogen protoxide). The first is produced by fossil fuel combustion, the second by agricolture and volcanic emission, the third by agricolture and catalytic converters in cars. So global warming does NOT depend only on CO2, but these sources are additive.
Tullio

---

I'm actually speechless when I read this thread. Are you aware just how many scientists are in agreement that the rapid climate change is caused my mankind's actions on the environment?

Where has this fear and mistrust of scientists come from? This talk of all the funding they get....the average scientist gets a pittance for their work. It's the ones who get paid by the oil company that can access the big money.

With so many in the scientific community agreed that climate change is a reality and is directly effected by human kind are you seriously going to sit there, bury your heads in the sand and tell us it isn't so?

Never underestimate the power of denial. You won't believe it until you are rowing to work...even then you'll still insist that it wasn't our fault!

Nobody is denying that there are changes 'happening'. But ... and listen closely ... there is no evidence that it is down to man.

I have asked the BBC CPDN Climate Change project for 'the evidence'. They don't have any. They say "wait 10 years and there might be some". And, "Our models behave differently without CO2 than with CO2". And used some strange words to try to excite me with their vocabulary.

So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?

Ya...lets see, take a look a the amount of CO2 that humans pump into the air every single day then take into account the other greenhouse gasses that humans use and or release every day into the air...next consider that humans are an apex species. The conclusion is easy when you aren't blind. Then again maybe it's time to say "So long, and thanks for all the fish". Humans can't be expected to stay an apex species for long if they don't admit that (1.) There is a problem (2.) It has been caused but decades of their abuse and lack of conservation, and (3.) They can actually do something about it. Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!

---

I'm actually speechless when I read this thread. Are you aware just how many scientists are in agreement that the rapid climate change is caused my mankind's actions on the environment?

Where has this fear and mistrust of scientists come from? This talk of all the funding they get....the average scientist gets a pittance for their work. It's the ones who get paid by the oil company that can access the big money.

With so many in the scientific community agreed that climate change is a reality and is directly effected by human kind are you seriously going to sit there, bury your heads in the sand and tell us it isn't so?

Never underestimate the power of denial. You won't believe it until you are rowing to work...even then you'll still insist that it wasn't our fault!

Nobody is denying that there are changes 'happening'. But ... and listen closely ... there is no evidence that it is down to man.

I have asked the BBC CPDN Climate Change project for 'the evidence'. They don't have any. They say "wait 10 years and there might be some". And, "Our models behave differently without CO2 than with CO2". And used some strange words to try to excite me with their vocabulary.

So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?

Ya...lets see, take a look a the amount of CO2 that humans pump into the air every single day then take into account the other greenhouse gasses that humans use and or release every day into the air...next consider that humans are an apex species. The conclusion is easy when you aren't blind. Then again maybe it's time to say "So long, and thanks for all the fish". Humans can't be expected to stay an apex species for long if they don't admit that (1.) There is a problem (2.) It has been caused but decades of their abuse and lack of conservation, and (3.) They can actually do something about it. Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!

First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal.

Skipping to your last statement "Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!". That is EXACTLY what I am doing my friend Dark Angel. It is what God gave me a brain for ;)

As for the rest of what you say, it's the same old thing; nobody is denying that there is a problem, nobody is denying that pollution is a problem, especially on a vast scale. But jumping to conclusions because your thought processes work in a certain way is not the same as proof of evidence of cause. Yes, you can deduce what 'may' be <part> of the cause. But don't try to say you know it all, when you simply don't.

It is quite possible that this is just one of nature's regular changes to the Earth whch has happened many times over millions of years?

---

flaming balloons

First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal.

Aren't you just a walking hypocritical oxymoron. I was asking you not them, and that was the best you could come up with that we should put it to the scientists and "their assertion that there is no evidence" then to my utter amazement you turn right back around and say that you have to "go by what the scientist say and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal". Now maybe I missed something here but are you trying to sidestep the question with a rhetorical answer...because at this point I am asking you not them and if you can't give more to the discussion then "I have to believe the scientists, but I'm not going to believe everything that a crackpot scientist puts into a journal" then you are just polluting the thread with rhetoric. Ok... sure, if that doesn't scream oxymoron I don't know what does. Now I'm gonna ask you another question...in your infinite wisdom how exactly do "you" make the determination of which scientist are "crackpots" and which are not? Because at this point I think that is important information in this discussion.

Skipping to your last statement "Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!". That is EXACTLY what I am doing my friend Dark Angel. It is what God gave me a brain for ;)

So far you're powers or logic are lost on me o'master of rhetorical statements, and this is where I have an issue, because logic does not dictate reality, and since you have invoked religion into this now tell us what you think personally not what someone else thinks. In the world of religion they call this blind faith, and I really would like to hear your thoughts not pre canned rhetoric, because after all God did give you a brain and you state you are using it to which I state there is no conclusive proof yet but we'll wait ten years and see. So please indulge me because I'm truly fascinated now.

As for the rest of what you say, it's the same old thing; nobody is denying that there is a problem, nobody is denying that pollution is a problem, especially on a vast scale. But jumping to conclusions because your thought processes work in a certain way is not the same as proof of evidence of cause. Yes, you can deduce what 'may' be <part> of the cause. But don't try to say you know it all, when you simply don't.

I never claimed to know it all and I certainly am not hiding behind the scientists on this one. I do however find it amazing that you say you don't deny what has conclusively been shown to be the major causes of global warming but you also don't admit that humans are to blame for it. Here's an original thought lets stop trying to hide in a hole on this one and start changing as a species and really work on the things that are causing the pollution and if it turns out "10 years from now" that the "crackpot scientists" are wrong then what have we actually lost in this world....nothing I say if anything we have a cleaner planet with cleaner air. This is exactly the reason that people are telling you that you have your head in the sand, because it's this mentality to deny what you see and admit is an issue but because someone tells you it may not be "the issue" you want to bury your head without working on an obvious problems that will better the earth and nature as a whole.

It is quite possible that this is just one of nature's regular changes to the Earth which has happened many times over millions of years?

You know you may be right but then again you may not I think the growing consensus is to not "wait for ten years and see". Just remember none of us were around millions of years ago so we really truely don't know unless you have proof?

---

First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal.

Aren't you just a walking hypocritical oxymoron. I was asking you not them, and that was the best you could come up with that we should put it to the scientists and "their assertion that there is no evidence" then to my utter amazement you turn right back around and say that you have to "go by what the scientist say and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal". Now maybe I missed something here but are you trying to sidestep the question with a rhetorical answer...because at this point I am asking you not them and if you can't give more to the discussion then "I have to believe the scientists, but I'm not going to believe everything that a crackpot scientist puts into a journal" then you are just polluting the thread with rhetoric. Ok... sure, if that doesn't scream oxymoron I don't know what does. Now I'm gonna ask you another question...in your infinite wisdom how exactly do "you" make the determination of which scientist are "crackpots" and which are not? Because at this point I think that is important information in this discussion.

Skipping to your last statement "Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!". That is EXACTLY what I am doing my friend Dark Angel. It is what God gave me a brain for ;)

So far you're powers or logic are lost on me o'master of rhetorical statements, and this is where I have an issue, because logic does not dictate reality, and since you have invoked religion into this now tell us what you think personally not what someone else thinks. In the world of religion they call this blind faith, and I really would like to hear your thoughts not pre canned rhetoric, because after all God did give you a brain and you state you are using it to which I state there is no conclusive proof yet but we'll wait ten years and see. So please indulge me because I'm truly fascinated now.

As for the rest of what you say, it's the same old thing; nobody is denying that there is a problem, nobody is denying that pollution is a problem, especially on a vast scale. But jumping to conclusions because your thought processes work in a certain way is not the same as proof of evidence of cause. Yes, you can deduce what 'may' be <part> of the cause. But don't try to say you know it all, when you simply don't.

I never claimed to know it all and I certainly am not hiding behind the scientists on this one. I do however find it amazing that you say you don't deny what has conclusively been shown to be the major causes of global warming but you also don't admit that humans are to blame for it. Here's an original thought lets stop trying to hide in a hole on this one and start changing as a species and really work on the things that are causing the pollution and if it turns out "10 years from now" that the "crackpot scientists" are wrong then what have we actually lost in this world....nothing I say if anything we have a cleaner planet with cleaner air. This is exactly the reason that people are telling you that you have your head in the sand, because it's this mentality to deny what you see and admit is an issue but because someone tells you it may not be "the issue" you want to bury your head without working on an obvious problems that will better the earth and nature as a whole.

It is quite possible that this is just one of nature's regular changes to the Earth which has happened many times over millions of years?

You know you may be right but then again you may not I think the growing consensus is to not "wait for ten years and see". Just remember none of us were around millions of years ago so we really truely don't know unless you have proof?

You should learn to read mac. You are attributing crap to me that belongs elsewhere else and basically talking crap. I don't give a damn about Climate Change; find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

---

flaming balloons

I have asked the BBC CPDN Climate Change project for 'the evidence'. They don't have any. They say "wait 10 years and there might be some". And, "Our models behave differently without CO2 than with CO2". And used some strange words to try to excite me with their vocabulary.

Surely you're not taking the word of a moderator as gospel. We all know how much quedos moderators have when it comes to knowledge......

In any case, I think that moderator was being a little tongue in cheek! The problem with proper scientific peer reviewed papers is that it does take years for the data to be gathered, papers written, reviewed and then published. Anyone can come along and say just what you've been saying without any peer review and any basis in fact. People can say that it's down to natural cycles, but the three graphs below show that what is happening right now is way beyond any natural cycle.




All pretty obvious really.

I have asked the BBC CPDN Climate Change project for 'the evidence'. They don't have any. They say "wait 10 years and there might be some". And, "Our models behave differently without CO2 than with CO2". And used some strange words to try to excite me with their vocabulary.

Surely you're not taking the word of a moderator as gospel. We all know how much quedos moderators have when it comes to knowledge......

In any case, I think that moderator was being a little tongue in cheek! The problem with proper scientific peer reviewed papers is that it does take years for the data to be gathered, papers written, reviewed and then published. Anyone can come along and say just what you've been saying without any peer review and any basis in fact. People can say that it's down to natural cycles, but the three graphs below show that what is happening right now is way beyond any natural cycle.




All pretty obvious really.

There is no doubt, as illustrated by your diagrams, that climate is changing.

As for taking the moderators word at BOINC Climate Change/CPDN as gospel, the point I am making is that they are foremost "scientists". Moderation is what they do as an additional task to ensure crunching continues. As scientists, "expert" scientists, in the field of Climate Change I asked them for evidence, and they said there was none. As in nothing; as in "no evidence at all".

It's not me looking at graphs and making my own interpretation, it is asking scientists whether there is any evidence, and the scientists saying no.

---

flaming balloons

As for taking the moderators word at BOINC Climate Change/CPDN as gospel, the point I am making is that they are foremost "scientists". Moderation is what they do as an additional task to ensure crunching continues. As scientists, "expert" scientists, in the field of Climate Change I asked them for evidence, and they said there was none. As in nothing; as in "no evidence at all".

It's not me looking at graphs and making my own interpretation, it is asking scientists whether there is any evidence, and the scientists saying no.

For all we know the moderator in question on CPDN is not a scientist. Have you asked what their credentials are?

As for taking the moderators word at BOINC Climate Change/CPDN as gospel, the point I am making is that they are foremost "scientists". Moderation is what they do as an additional task to ensure crunching continues. As scientists, "expert" scientists, in the field of Climate Change I asked them for evidence, and they said there was none. As in nothing; as in "no evidence at all".

It's not me looking at graphs and making my own interpretation, it is asking scientists whether there is any evidence, and the scientists saying no.

For all we know the moderator in question on CPDN is not a scientist. Have you asked what their credentials are?

I know he is a 'scientist', I know he is in frequent discussion with scientists in CPDN - I have been a member there for a while now and have myself posted there and read a lot of CPDN posts to see him and other scientists interact with each other. I am also inclined to accept that he and his colleague scientists have integrity and am inclined to accept what they say as said with integrity.

The point I am making, and the point they are making, is that there is no evidence. The fact that they have beliefs about Climate Change, and are taking time out to study it, does not mean that there is any evidence; but they choose to study the subject for whatever reason. The Climate Change project are simply trying to predict what climate 'might' look like in the future using (BOINC based) simulation.

For example what if there was more, or less, CO2 in the atmosphere, what might the climate look like in 2080? It does not attempt to attribute the cause of why there is a predicted raise in world temperature, if it is down to Man or not, but looks at the changes of variables they introduce in the simulations.

However, they recognize that a major 'result' from their project is better BOINC modeling. Their attempts to simulate climate change have improved BOINC processing for all (so they say). Not evidence that it was CO2 produced by Man that did it (or will end the Earth and drown us all in rising sea levels).

[edit] Just another 5,000 credits here at SETI and I will have exceeded my 250,000 credits at BBC Climate Change Experiment. Credits earned at SETI Beta are offset (partly) by my credits earned at CPDN.

---

flaming balloons

First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal.

Aren't you just a walking hypocritical oxymoron. I was asking you not them, and that was the best you could come up with that we should put it to the scientists and "their assertion that there is no evidence" then to my utter amazement you turn right back around and say that you have to "go by what the scientist say and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal". Now maybe I missed something here but are you trying to sidestep the question with a rhetorical answer...because at this point I am asking you not them and if you can't give more to the discussion then "I have to believe the scientists, but I'm not going to believe everything that a crackpot scientist puts into a journal" then you are just polluting the thread with rhetoric. Ok... sure, if that doesn't scream oxymoron I don't know what does. Now I'm gonna ask you another question...in your infinite wisdom how exactly do "you" make the determination of which scientist are "crackpots" and which are not? Because at this point I think that is important information in this discussion.

Skipping to your last statement "Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!". That is EXACTLY what I am doing my friend Dark Angel. It is what God gave me a brain for ;)

So far you're powers or logic are lost on me o'master of rhetorical statements, and this is where I have an issue, because logic does not dictate reality, and since you have invoked religion into this now tell us what you think personally not what someone else thinks. In the world of religion they call this blind faith, and I really would like to hear your thoughts not pre canned rhetoric, because after all God did give you a brain and you state you are using it to which I state there is no conclusive proof yet but we'll wait ten years and see. So please indulge me because I'm truly fascinated now.

As for the rest of what you say, it's the same old thing; nobody is denying that there is a problem, nobody is denying that pollution is a problem, especially on a vast scale. But jumping to conclusions because your thought processes work in a certain way is not the same as proof of evidence of cause. Yes, you can deduce what 'may' be <part> of the cause. But don't try to say you know it all, when you simply don't.

I never claimed to know it all and I certainly am not hiding behind the scientists on this one. I do however find it amazing that you say you don't deny what has conclusively been shown to be the major causes of global warming but you also don't admit that humans are to blame for it. Here's an original thought lets stop trying to hide in a hole on this one and start changing as a species and really work on the things that are causing the pollution and if it turns out "10 years from now" that the "crackpot scientists" are wrong then what have we actually lost in this world....nothing I say if anything we have a cleaner planet with cleaner air. This is exactly the reason that people are telling you that you have your head in the sand, because it's this mentality to deny what you see and admit is an issue but because someone tells you it may not be "the issue" you want to bury your head without working on an obvious problems that will better the earth and nature as a whole.

It is quite possible that this is just one of nature's regular changes to the Earth which has happened many times over millions of years?

You know you may be right but then again you may not I think the growing consensus is to not "wait for ten years and see". Just remember none of us were around millions of years ago so we really truly don't know unless you have proof?

You should learn to read mac. You are attributing crap to me that belongs elsewhere else and basically talking crap. I don't give a damn about Climate Change; find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

I read and write very well...thanks for noticing. I'm certainly not attributing "crap" to you as you so eloquently stated, but rather calling a spade a spade. Remember it's you that doesn't care about Climate Change so remind me again why are you still posting?

find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

Hey if the shoe fits wear it. Don't get me wrong take a stand speak you mind but be prepared to defend your position lest you become just another cautionary tale...for it's apathy that kills...

---

First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal.

Aren't you just a walking hypocritical oxymoron. I was asking you not them, and that was the best you could come up with that we should put it to the scientists and "their assertion that there is no evidence" then to my utter amazement you turn right back around and say that you have to "go by what the scientist say and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal". Now maybe I missed something here but are you trying to sidestep the question with a rhetorical answer...because at this point I am asking you not them and if you can't give more to the discussion then "I have to believe the scientists, but I'm not going to believe everything that a crackpot scientist puts into a journal" then you are just polluting the thread with rhetoric. Ok... sure, if that doesn't scream oxymoron I don't know what does. Now I'm gonna ask you another question...in your infinite wisdom how exactly do "you" make the determination of which scientist are "crackpots" and which are not? Because at this point I think that is important information in this discussion.

Skipping to your last statement "Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!". That is EXACTLY what I am doing my friend Dark Angel. It is what God gave me a brain for ;)

So far you're powers or logic are lost on me o'master of rhetorical statements, and this is where I have an issue, because logic does not dictate reality, and since you have invoked religion into this now tell us what you think personally not what someone else thinks. In the world of religion they call this blind faith, and I really would like to hear your thoughts not pre canned rhetoric, because after all God did give you a brain and you state you are using it to which I state there is no conclusive proof yet but we'll wait ten years and see. So please indulge me because I'm truly fascinated now.

As for the rest of what you say, it's the same old thing; nobody is denying that there is a problem, nobody is denying that pollution is a problem, especially on a vast scale. But jumping to conclusions because your thought processes work in a certain way is not the same as proof of evidence of cause. Yes, you can deduce what 'may' be <part> of the cause. But don't try to say you know it all, when you simply don't.

I never claimed to know it all and I certainly am not hiding behind the scientists on this one. I do however find it amazing that you say you don't deny what has conclusively been shown to be the major causes of global warming but you also don't admit that humans are to blame for it. Here's an original thought lets stop trying to hide in a hole on this one and start changing as a species and really work on the things that are causing the pollution and if it turns out "10 years from now" that the "crackpot scientists" are wrong then what have we actually lost in this world....nothing I say if anything we have a cleaner planet with cleaner air. This is exactly the reason that people are telling you that you have your head in the sand, because it's this mentality to deny what you see and admit is an issue but because someone tells you it may not be "the issue" you want to bury your head without working on an obvious problems that will better the earth and nature as a whole.

It is quite possible that this is just one of nature's regular changes to the Earth which has happened many times over millions of years?

You know you may be right but then again you may not I think the growing consensus is to not "wait for ten years and see". Just remember none of us were around millions of years ago so we really truly don't know unless you have proof?

You should learn to read mac. You are attributing crap to me that belongs elsewhere else and basically talking crap. I don't give a damn about Climate Change; find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

I read and write very well...thanks for noticing. I'm certainly not attributing "crap" to you as you so eloquently stated, but rather calling a spade a spade. Remember it's you that doesn't care about Climate Change so remind me again why are you still posting?

find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

Hey if the shoe fits wear it. Don't get me wrong take a stand speak you mind but be prepared to defend your position lest you become just another cautionary tale...for it's apathy that kills...

Apathy? I have crunched 250,000 credits for BBC Climate Change Experiment, and some for CPDN, and I'm apathetic? In truth I am disappointed and feel misled because I don't see any evidence after being conned into making this effort. But I still suspect there is something in it, which is why I keep chanting "show me the evidence". "Don't spend a fortune on fixing Climate Change if you have no evidence to prop up your dubious conclusions." ("Use the fortune to build more hospitals and schools etc".)

I worry the tipping point might be real and is coming any time now...

Shouldn't we all be worried about impending catastrophes to this planet?

---

flaming balloons