Do you believe in Global Warming

[Manduke]

so now deniers now agree that the climate is warming
but then they say its not due to CO2 levels increasing steadily
and so then we should do nothing about cleaning up the atmosphere?
is that what you are saying?

Brian, with respect, that doesn't follow. CO2 doesn't make the atmosphere dirty, or it has been dirty for millions of years. And we should always clean up after ourselves just as animals do. Aren't they separate issues?

[nakiguy]

so now deniers now agree that the climate is warming
but then they say its not due to CO2 levels increasing steadily
and so then we should do nothing about cleaning up the atmosphere?
is that what you are saying?

Yes...Please do remember, the AGW debate is about ... " is CO2 responsible for the warming of the earth ? " it is not about how much man has screwed around with his environment in general...as far as I know every body agrees, too much screwing around is happening. And this is at the core of my annoyance...while all of the limited space in the average persons brain that is assigned to environmental concerns, is jammed full with the barrage from the AGW industry, we don't bother looking at what is right under our noses.

[Manukau heads obs]

cleaning up the atmosphere means to reduce green house gas emissions
now don't go and put words into my mouth Manduke

so you arm chair guys think you know more about what is causing the warming climte than the climate scientists?
good luck with that

[Manduke]

cleaning up the atmosphere means to reduce green house gas emissions
now don't go and put words into my mouth Manduke

so you arm chair guys think you know more about what is causing the warming climte than the climate scientists?
good luck with that

Brian, you keep saying "the warming climate". That's what is frustrating. You and climate scientists are claiming this without evidential proof being offered. Also that emissions warm. But don't you have to first factor out the warmth from the Sun? Otherwise how can anyone be so sure?

[nakiguy]

cleaning up the atmosphere means to reduce green house gas emissions
now don't go and put words into my mouth Manduke

so you arm chair guys think you know more about what is causing the warming climte than the climate scientists?
good luck with that

I don't know at what level of understanding you are on...you may well be a NanoPhysticist for all I know, but if you don't mind... I'll ask you just one question, that may help me to understand on what level this discussion is being conducted...What are the effects of removing Sulfates from the atmosphere ?.

[Manduke]

What are the effects of removing Sulfates from the atmosphere ?.

It has never been logical to me that emissions pumped into the atmosphere had the ability to effect climate. Volcanoes continually pump nasty gases into the air but the climate essentially stays the same. NZ in particular has a lot of eruptive outgassing, but I would say that our climate has not dramatically changed over the hundreds of years from what we know it to be now.

[RWood]

The level of arrogant obstinate ignorance demonstrated here is breathtaking. But the world is moving on anyway.

This has been a useful exercise, thanks. I came here looking for answers in the form of solid global stats if they actually existed. I thought meteorologists would be the group to point to them if AGW had been proven. Seems no.

This is a weather forum, not a climatology knowledge site. There are plenty of places you could go for acquiring the science. Weather forums tend to be dominated by individuals who are happy to be contrarians regardless of their lack of knowledge. Sad but true. There are much worse ones than this, where anyone who accepts AGW is branded as "pinko lefties playing political games". What an insult to climate science.

[RWood]

cleaning up the atmosphere means to reduce green house gas emissions
now don't go and put words into my mouth Manduke

so you arm chair guys think you know more about what is causing the warming climte than the climate scientists?
good luck with that

Brian, you keep saying "the warming climate". That's what is frustrating. You and climate scientists are claiming this without evidential proof being offered. Also that emissions warm. But don't you have to first factor out the warmth from the Sun? Otherwise how can anyone be so sure?

Are you so naïve to think that hasn't been analysed? If you had done even the most elementary research your timeworn points would be answered for you.

[jamie]

Jeez some of the points in here are at pre school level.

I have done an environmental science degree. Seen both sides of the argument, scientific paper after scientific paper. Heard from lecturers on both sides. The evidence that we can use is HEAVILY weighted to that humans have and are having an influence on the warming of the earth, in one manner or another.

Climate has been traced back millions of years through earth cores looking at sea level changes and ice cores looking at what made up the atmosphere. As far as I am aware (please show me otherwise), there has not been a period in which the earths atmosphere has changed so quickly as we are seeing in todays world. Of course in the past the earth has been hotter are colder, seas higher and lower than we have today but the key there is the time of change to reach those levels.

Human activity is the big changer here.

Id much rather listen to scientists (I have science job) than people who have their 'theories'. I am forever in my job showing dairy farmers that their 'theories' are v.highly (99%) unlikely to be true, with scientific evidence (remember you can never prove something in science, just show the likely hood of relationships). Some of the theories farmers come up with why they need to do this or why this is affecting that are bizarre.

Climate appears to be the same thing which I am witnessing by following the debate in here.

[nakiguy]

What are the effects of removing Sulfates from the atmosphere ?.

It has never been logical to me that emissions pumped into the atmosphere had the ability to effect climate. Volcanoes continually pump nasty gases into the air but the climate essentially stays the same. NZ in particular has a lot of eruptive outgassing, but I would say that our climate has not dramatically changed over the hundreds of years from what we know it to be now.

Well, it is true, man made emissions do effect the atmosphere....but... the complex chemical interaction of many elements makes the idea of CO2 being 100% responsible a nonsensical simplistic theory, and most Physicists ( I believe ) would not blame CO2 to a large degree. As you say, there is nothing in the atmosphere that has not been there for millions of years during the entire evolution of life on earth, human beings are even made from some of the elements that are claimed as pollutants.....It is just the altered ratios of those elements that is the issue and the complex natural chemical modifications that ensues from those changes.

[melja]

I would like to comment that I have found the level of hostility, in labelling posters and their opinions, on this thread very distressing, unnecessary and unhelpful.

I have to agree, while I believe in climate change I hold no bad will against those you dont. Everyone is allowed an option and to show such disrespectful regards to another's opinion is of little help.


Sent from my Lenovo K50a40 using Tapatalk

[RWood]

Yawn - I could expire before an unrefuted argument turned up here.

[melja]

No no, discussion not argument.

Sent from my Lenovo K50a40 using Tapatalk

[RWood]

Thanks for your contribution Jamie - a bit of light on a wasteland. Treadgold of Climate"Science" Conversation would be thrilled by this thread - so bad that paid trolls couldn't make it much worse.

[Manduke]

Human activity is the big changer here.

Still waiting to see global evidence please. Why is that so hard when, as you say, there is heaps of it? Or is it just heaps of believers, who just don't think that to believe, you need evidence?

[Bradley]

Human activity is the big changer here.

Still waiting to see global evidence please. Why is that so hard when, as you say, there is heaps of it? Or is it just heaps of believers, who just don't think that to believe, you need evidence?

The burden is on the man-made global warming advocates to find proof that there argument is real, they seem to think we have to find the proof which is laughable - it's always the change in the status quo which needs to be proved - never the other way around and until it does all people like our dear old friend RWood can do is spout insults at people because that's all he can do when there is no proof he can produce

[Nev]

Mod Note: I've moved this thread here to 'Off-Topic', as it's not strictly about 'New Zealand Weather & Climate', and is also less likely to distract those wanting to discuss more local day-to-day stuff.

Also, again just a reminder that if you want to debate this or any other topic, then please try to be civil and 'attack the point of opinion, not the person itself'. Any further derogatory remarks are either likely to be removed, or risk this thread being closed.

Thanks

[RWood]

[quote="Bradley"][quote="Manduke"][quote="jamie"]Human activity is the big changer here
Still waiting to see global evidence please. Why is that so hard when, as you say, there is heaps of it? Or is it just heaps of believers, who just don't think that to believe, you need evidence

The burden is on the man-made global warming advocates to find proof that there argument is real, they seem to think we have to find the proof which is laughable - it's always the change in the status quo which needs to be proved - never the other way around and until it does all people like our dear old friend RWood can do is spout insults at people because that's all he can do when there is no proof he can produce
I don't have to waste time citing any number of links when you can do the research yourself. Since nothing has changed here in this forum on the way of acknowledging the rapidly accumulating body of evidence, I intend to ignore this thread from here on. Maybe in another 5 years some light will have dawned, but I doubt it.

[RWood]

Goodbye, and good riddance to this thread.

[treetop]

"Manduke" and others [denyers]. Please google "global warming stats" Its all there. Enjoy ! .I will have a break from this forum now. "Over it" frankly.

[Manduke]

"Manduke" and others [denyers]. Please google "global warming stats" Its all there. Enjoy ! .I will have a break from this forum now. "Over it" frankly.

Ok, I took your advice. Guess what - none! I found vague epithets like this "Based on studies, global warming could cause the death of around 150,000 people in the near future until the end of the 21st century.." Based on studies??? That's as specific as it gets. Is it any wonder why there are sceptics? I honestly did not realise until now how much secrecy there is about these "studies". I'm pretty convinced now, thanks to RW and others here, that it's because they don't exist. So leaving this forum is the way you get around being challenged to produce them.

[Manukau heads obs]

did you visit
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
?

[Nev]

Mod Note: Ok, the general feeling seems to be that this thread/poll has probably 'run its course', and polls by definition should have a time-limit. So after 3 months and 7 pages, mods have decided it's time to close this thread (yeasayers 32, naysayers 27).

Thanks for the contributions - not sure if anyone's any the wiser though…