Dr. Dalek

Be vawy vawy quiet, I'm hunting wabbits, huhuhuhuhuhu:D But the modles are already based on past events and therefore can be more easily corrected, what about modles that predict future events?

This is not a valid argument, it is only a futile means to convince people to conform, a form of psedoscientific peer pressure if you will. He isn't dismissing it, and neither am I. We are just saying they are only appliable when people use them as a means to create a hypothesis to comair with real world observation. However I often notice, news agencies, Greenpeace, IPCC (Climate Change 2001:Working Group I: The Scientific Basis:13.2.3 Scenarios Based on Outputs from Climate Models ), and others have cited the modles as reliable sources of information and prediction as opposed to quite possibly inaccurate testable predictions. Furthermore, science is not personal. And please I would like one of you, swanspot, bascule, anyone to please address this. I think it is a valid argument and I feel it deserves more attention then it is getting.

I've heard of cars powered on natural gas, isn't that mostly methane?

Science is a methodology, it starts with observation, a natural trend or phenomenon is observed. Then it moves onto speculation, you try to figure out what is behind the phenominon. Then it moves on to the experimental design, where you make a hypothesis and make an experiment to test it. You collect data from the course of the experiment, and you come to a conclusion based on the evaluation of your hypothesis in terms of your data. Then if your hypothesis turns out to be incorrect in some way you try to form a new hypothesis that you will then test. I will argue in this case that your observation is that the average temperature has increased in recent years. Your hypothesis is that humans are the predominant cause. My main criticism is that you are basing all your arguments off theoretical calculations and other people's "hypotheses." So you therefore must design an experiment in order to validate or refute your hypothesis. Because it is very hard to do experiments in a enormous and complex atmosphere and you seem to like to use calculations and trend models, you could start with this. Now using the source data for this graph; Petit et al., 1999 Vostok, Antarctica ice core; you could calculate the average increase in temperature from Ice ages to warm periods, based on graph slope (rise over run) , and then do an ANOVA test to see if there is any significant difference between the warming since the industrial revolution and the equivalent times of past warming in the graph. Oh! and Stop Throwing out INSULTS!!!! My veiw of science is sound!!!!! Exactly, I havn't heard any numerical compairisons to past warming cycles in any of my opponants on this issue.

If the "Big Crunch" theory is true then that would mean that we would just now be encountering antimater from the future. Wouldn't it?

We are already doing that to a certain extent, I think. Even I, a global warming skeptic, would love to have a hybrid car just for the efficiency. I also have heard many ideas about powering vehicles through french-fry oil and bio-diesel. I worry about the global warming debate's effect on the economy only because I can remember a few times in history where people have taken something to far just trying to be safe. My main problem with the Global Warming community is that if someone like me or SkepticLance, or doG, comes out and brings attention to the fact that Mankind-induced Global Warming may not bring about the end of the world, or is not a certain thing we are labeled Skeptics. It is healthy to be a little skeptical. I think it would be a lot more productive if people like us stopped arguing over theories and the interpretations of data and started designing testable experiments.

You're ignoring science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone has explained to you how your data is based on estimations and theory rather than reality and you ignore it and demand more!!!!! Just like Bascule when things get too hot, he dives out. I have access to the report and will read it, but I anticipate SkepticLance is right.

Thank you!

Reread this! . bascule; I'd like to point out that the current warming looks a heck of alot like previous warming cycles. Also who is to say that that CO2 isn't natural.

Here is a quote from a article found in the June issue of Nature, Volume 441, Issue no. 7095. .*"crisis" is what is from the text, not me `UNCERTAINTY So you see your urgency may not be validated. In the text "Fatalism" is essentialy as follows: Hope I called attention to everything that was neccissary. Try page 15, I was counting the title page so the numbers were all one higher. Yes that is the trick and we humans are not very good at it.

He said book not paper, furthermore your article is from the AP, hardly a peer reveiwed scientific journel. The media, being an imperfect entitiy, is subject to reporter bias. For instance "Top" climate scientist would seem to indicate that they are the lead reasearchers, or they might be people that the reporter thought would agree with him. If there is a list of those scientists it would be helpful. Some of the scientists are mentioned in the article, I'll see about looking them up. I am at the Univerity of Maine right now. I'll spend some time in the library later. They have scientific papers there I'll look one up. Also, I think I'll clarify things by formaly stating my position: Global Warming, in my mind, is a natural phenominon, as is evident from Ice cores. How man kind may be effecting it is uncertain and subject to study and debate.

A physics loving buddy of mine explained this to me. So, my understanding of it is that our movement is a result of the nature of space and time. We can move only because time allows us to.

The one with Y. The Y chromasome is much smaller than the X chromasome.

My point wasn't to show lack of concensus but to show that bascule was perhaps, overrelient on IPCC as a source. He reflects their opinion but when I presented information that was also from IPCC ,and I felt proved my point, he dismissed it, reflecting their conclusion which seem to be tainted. He wants "empirical evidence' that shows a direct one-to-one relationship between man made Greenhouse gasses and the tempeature. Natural CO2 may be rising, have any studies been done on that possibility? If so was your long praised IPCC involved? There are explanations for the increase in tempeature other than man made greenhouse gasses. Has IPCC explored them? If so how thuroughly? It's a possibility, but I think SkepticLance's point is that it is not definite. In the past four billion years that the earth as we know it has been in existence the Earth has warmed and cooled over and over again. This happens because geological and biological activity has changed CO2 levels, and altered surface albedo, and aerosols. Solar and Cosmic activity has warmed and cooled the Earth. Violent impacts and Glacial activity have changed geological activity over and over again. There is alot that effects the climate, CO2 has been a major player befor, but it's not the only one.

I havn't found a scientific paper yet (they all require I pay for the article) But I did find an interesting article from the The National Center for Public Policy Reasearch. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html But I'm guessing someone here will find reason to question the source.

I heard about preserved T-Rex soft tissue six months ago. But this blows that away. What I want to know is, are there anymore mummified Dinosaurs? If so a Jurassic park would be far more possible.

Then dosn't that indicate that Man isn't effecting the atmosphere all that much if the total content of CO2 is only 3% man made?

I call DNA patent rights!

I'm not confused your looking at page 17!!!! 17 is water vapor, 16 is Natural vs Man Made. I clearly typed 16. That is 16 out of 27 pages, including the title page! http://www.ujae.org/globalwarming/Presentations%20on%20GW/slideshow%20january%202002.pdf Page 16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wikipedia Definition of Anthropogenic is as follows: The graph on page 16 obviously says "Man Made". Which is "derived from human activities" There is little certainty in the world, unless your selling something. . .

If the source they use collaberates your claim than how come you said: You seem to be sending mixed messages. You have obviously implied an opinion that the source is not credable then you say that any argument based on that information is moot because the source they cite supports you? If IPCC has credable information then can't someone suggest an alternate interpritation of it? Now please explain how, if at all, I'm misinterpriting the graph.

Explain this further please, . .