An Open Invitation:

Mankind did not exist until this century? Who were the bipeds until 1910 and how were they changing the color of moths?

Peppered moth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course the natural ecosystem can adapt as it has in the past, it is called 'Mass Extinction' and the surviving species go on.

(I do not have an educated opinion about global warming, I am just answering heavily based questions)

 

I know I shouldn't feed this...but...

When the vast majority of scientists across the world accept climate change as valid, it is indeed the responsibility of those who don't believe to prove otherwise.

So you think all of the theories have been debunked when in fact all of what the skeptics call "proof" has been reviewed, researched, and dismissed. You think there is information that people don't know about that "disproves it" but it's simply not true. Every single piece of information that has been tested is available to the public.

The fundamental problem lies here: you believe in a:
conspiracy theory:noun;a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators

There is no secret plot. You are sadly misguided.

Besides, why are you consistently trying to stir the pot here? You know this is a forum where many (if not most) people are supporters of this. It's like you're a Christian on a Jewish forum trying to "convert" people...it's unsavory at best, and will have similar results.

 

KCobby you do realize that the 97% of 30,000 scientists surveyed

consisted of only the 3000 that responded dont you?

That means either 27k of the scientists thought it was BS or they didnt think the survey was worth responding to

 

The reason Radioprius is asking about the last hundred years is industrialization,automobiles and the like. Pre 1900 we could not have had a significant influence on the environment. Even with our current environment activity we only account for a hair less than 3% of C02 produced

 

Fact of the matter is liberals are just looking for a new money making scheme for themselves. Global Cooling was proved wrong in the 70's that didnt work. Save the rainforests didnt make them any real money.

They didnt make enough money on Acid rain. So Climate change they figure they can legislate to death and make a killing.

Thanks to climategate AGW is a huge failure for them as well

 

Bull!

Follow the money, you say, but ignore the oil industry? What a joke.

edit: Tony's language edit accepted. But what happened to my other politely worded post in this thread?

 

Everyone certainly knows by now that the stock market went up 35% in the first year Obama was in office. But what many people do not know is that a study showed that the more bandwidth used arguing over the difference between weather and climate, the quicker the stock market went up. This study was done by Michael Mann (or maybe it was Michael Moore, I get those two confused). I would show
the graph that shows the proof, but it looks too much like a hockey stick.

BTW, what happened to the posts on this tread from yesterday?

 

So the bit about Clovis man and mass extinctions in North America is bull?

Quaternary extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The moths changing color due to burning coal 200 hundred years ago in the UK is bull?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution"]Industrial Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


I am not sure I am in touch with the feeling that man became a disturbance just recently. I am not able to discuss rationally based on that premise.

 

I accept mankind as having discovered fire and farming in prehistory, and having been an ecologically disruptive influence for about 20,000 years. I have no hope of constructing arguments pro or con global warming based on the premise of a pristine earth in 1910.

Using an avalanche analogy, if you deny the avalanche started at the top of the hill, it will be hard to guess if it will hit your house. It seems to me you want to discuss the last few 'seconds', ignoring what happened before, when debating if our 'house' is safe.

(Perhaps you are confusing better measurements of pollution this last century with no pollution prior to that time, I am not)

 

And yet, good evidence 'explains' the increase in size of the Sahara desert to the introduction by man of sheep and goats over 7000 years ago.

We seem to be stressing different time frames, perhaps that explains differing perception of the problem.

 

Do you actually believe that ground cover plays no role in climate? Would you also claim that volcanic activity has no effect? Anything that changes the amount of absorbed solar radiation has a bearing on climate.

Tom

 

Correct. I can't accept your premise, so I am talking outside YOUR box.

I am talking about climate, you want to discuss the weather. Climate is a MUCH longer term phenomenon.

So far you seem to be saying, changing 12 million square miles of land to farm land had no effect on climate.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land"]Arable land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

So far you seem to be saying, mass extinction of the large grazing animals in North America had no effect on climate.

So far you seem to be saying, the desertification of North Africa via animal husbandry had no effect on climate.

So far you seem to be saying, the burning of all the coal during the industrial revolution had no effect on climate.

So far you seem to be saying, only in the last 100 years could man have any effect on climate.

Meanwhile I wonder if the near extinction of baleen whales could have effected the oceans ability to moderate climate for the last 400 years. What difference whould it have made to have had 270,000 more blue whales eating krill? Would that have altered the CO2 balance in the 71% of the earth covered by seawater?

The Bible dwells on the Cedars of Lebanon, but there aren't many today. Mankind has been destroying forests for quite some time, not just the last 100 years. I see climates changing without forests, you seem to feel it is a mere ecology issue.

Cedrus libani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It almost seems you not only deny man based climate change, but that any part of the biosphere effects climate.

 

Would not such an experiment take 100 year and then be 'out of date'? (and too late?)

 

Please provide examples of anything I said mentioning climate change in the last hundred years.

Man and nature have both been around for a lot longer than 100 years.

Tom