Jackaroe and Reardon making completely sensible statements about what opponents say on this issue. Then, Alice, Andy, and the likes repeating themselves over, and over.
Have you been reading everything?
I was once in the same camp as Jack & Henry. Then I was in a position to deal with raw data, and couldn't deny the truth. It was like working a jigsaw puzzle, with one huge piece missing, and then finding one that fit. What Jackoroe and Henry are doing is like working that puzzle, encountering that piece, and refusing to acknowledge that it fits.
The causes of Global Warming is a theorhetical science that has been elevated to the status of religion by the extreme environmental crowd. They are pitching it to everyone. Anyone with a product to sell has jumped on. So, it gains credibility when A T & T and Pepsi want to join in the fight, right? As Jack & Henry have cited, very well, there are no proven facts that point to human causes. If you eliminated all of the cars in the world (goal #1 of the extreme enviro-terrorists) There would still be a very negligible affect.
Global warming is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. Data from earth sciences show that the planet is getting warmer.
And yes, the extreme envirofreaks have latched onto it with religious fervor, but as the head of the botany department where I went to college said of them, "With 'friends' like these, who needs enemies?"
Your statement about "no human causes" is just plain false, as you'd know if you'd read what's been posted. Here are some "proven facts":
* CO2, methane, etc. in an atmosphere receiving energy from an external source result in rising temperatures
* humanity has been pumping such gases into the atmosphere since the beginning of civilization, at an accelerating rate
* the mean atmospheric temperature of the planet has been rising rapidly
* the mean oceanic temperature of the planet has been rising steadily
* plotting the combined rise in temperature of atmosphere and oceans shows a rate of increase in global temperatures unmatched in geological or historical records
* using the known effects of CO2, etc. in the atmosphere, the amount of such gases to explain the temperature rise can be calculated
* using historical records of human activity which generates these gases, the amount of them generated by humanity over the last several thousand years can be calculated
* the numbers arrived at through the last two sorts of calculation are, within the degree of 'error' standard for such things, nearly identical
Dude, those are
facts. J & H have been giving links to sources which in some cases acknowledge all those facts, and then declare that the match of the figures doesn't prove humans are the culprits! That's like a forensic scientist discovering that the man they want is 180 lbs., 6' 1", with long black hair, and a jury deciding that a man seen leaving the scene of the crime, who weighs 182 and is 6' 0.5" tall, with long black hair, isn't guilty because the height and weight are off by 1/2" and 2 pounds -- you
know they'd be a total laughingstock!
I'm sure I'll be savaged for voicing my opinion. I am serious about the mod's putting an quick death to this thread, and I was made ill watching the pack of hyena's feeding on those that just want to state thier point of view.
When someone's point of view is erroneous, and that error can be shown quite demonstratively, you call those who try to point that out "hyenas"?
Granted, there have been some "hyenas" posting here, jumping in with blanket declarations like "it's proven, so shut up!" But the presence of hyenas doesn't discredit the serious presenters.
As for closing the thread, there's nothing in it justifying that. Even if the OP requests a thread closure, so long as there is a discussion going, that request will most likely be denied.
I simply can't beleive that this crap has been going on for a week and a half!
What I can't believe is that people with solid science backgrounds have posted material showing that human activities are driving global warming, and some who read those things keep saying "No facts! No proof!" Granted, some of the evidence is like measuring a Doppler effect, which indicates something moving past, calculating how fast the source was moving, then noting that one object was seen moving at that speed, but how is that different from seeing the object and measuring the speed? We've seen the speed of global warming, specifically how fast that speed has been changing, and we've noticed at object moving at the right speed, namely the quantity of gases produced by human activities, and on discovering that the measured input of human production of those gases fits the measured rise in global temperatures, what else are we to conclude than that human activity is the culprit?
We're guilty -- face it, live with it.
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
