climategateFollow

Are you saying that temperatures in the so-called mini ice age were warmer than current temps? I'm not sure what you're getting at, here.

Jophed,



On record being what 100yrs?

That's not what I'm saying at all. Are you really completely unfamiliar with how science works?

The two graphs show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. We can also see that CO2 is higher then normal now, ie: it's not following the historical trends. We attribute this increase to human activities, which is fairly quantifiable, and not really up for debate. We do produce a lot of CO2. The argument is that the extra CO2 will affect the normal cycle. It's of course more complicated then that.

No. They don't. That's the problem.

The graph with temperatures on it is of such a long period of time, it's impossible to look at it and have any clue as to what the last century, let alone the last few decades were like temperature-wise.

And yes. There are better graphs. I was just scratching my head about how or why anyone would think that particular graph in any way constituted proof of a correlation between human behavior and temperature.

If we're on the topic of "bad science", there are more problems. Three really:

1. There is nothing in that post or in the graphs to indicate that temperatures are rising.

2. There is nothing in that post or in the graphs to indicate a correlation between temperature and CO2.

3. There is information in the graphs indicating that CO2 levels are rising, but nothing to indicate a correlation between that and human behavior.


He was asked to provide proof that rising temperatures were correlated to human behavior. Surely you can see how the information he provided doesn't do that. I get that there are good arguments for that point. I was merely pointing out that the one he made wasn't one of them...

Perhaps you should take a pencil and draw vertical lines at every temperature spike. Notice what else is high?

Now sure, the graphs don't show the direct correlation. What they show is a correlation between CO2 and temperature. They also show an increase in CO2 lately, which is attributed to human activity. You could then conclude that there is a chance that the human activity could influence the temperature, given the first correlation.

Are you saying human activity hasn't increased CO2 levels? Because that's quantifiable.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:23pm by Xsarus

So, what's the reason for the liberals to be making up global warming? Who benefits if this is all a big hoax? Someone might have explained this already, but I'm sure I glossed over any long, boring or just plain stupid posts.

The solar-industrial complex.

Nadenu,



Now we're getting to it. One word for why liberals are creating this global warming scare...CONTROL. The exact same reason liberals are for socialized healthcare. Liberals seek complete control over every person in every country. Now how do politicians control the populace...taxes. All carbon credits are is a way for liberals to control capitalism and the free market. And guess who are going to be the ones distributing the carbon credits...liberal politicians. That's right if you want to start a business you will have grovel before some liberal politician that's selling carbon credits which were created based on nothing more than junk science.

If the concept of human caused global warming is crushed then liberals have to find some other way to control the people. Not to mention all the time and money already invested will have been for nothing.




Xarus,



More of those superb scientific skills coming into play I see. So a rise in co2 levels coinciding with a rise (if you fall for the myth the temp is rising) in temperature means there is a correlation between the two?




It's not attributed to human activity except by radical junk scientists who fabricate and hide information in order to prove their theories.




Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:54pm by publiusvarus

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 5:55pm by publiusvarus

Seeing as you pretty much just defined what correlation means, yes? I mean, you do understand the word you're using right?

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 4:58pm by Xsarus

Hahahahaha.

Wait, are you serious?

Hahahahaha!

yeah, actually that is what correlation means. Welcome to English!

Causation is what you're arguing this isn't. Which isn't what's being said.

You fail.

Edit: Damn you, Samira. and by association, Xarus.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2009 6:16pm by Debalic

Um... Hello! I'm not talking about your graph. I'm talking about the temperature graph posted by Ash. You know... the one I was talking about all along? The one he posted in response to a request that he provide proof of a correlation between human behavior and rising temperatures.


Let me go reeeeeeaaaaaaalllllly slllllloooooooowwww for you. All I was saying was that the graphs posted by Ash in no way constituted a valid response to the question he was asked. Get it? I was (and still am) scratching my head looking at that graph showing 400,000 years of temperatures and wondering why he thought it meant anything relevant.

And I'm continuing to scratch my head wondering why when I mentioned this, several people popped out of the woodwork to insist that I was somehow scientifically challenged because I couldn't see how that graph clearly showed a correlation between human activity and temperature.


See... No matter how much you believe something, or even how much you're sure it's been proven, that does not equate to a single specific bit of "proof" actually being valid. It's interesting psychology though. People don't look at the actual evidence. They assume it shows what they believe to be true. What I'm seeing is a perfect example of that behavior...