Joined: Nov. 2006
|Quote (dhogaza @ Mar. 15 2007,20:21)|
|I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it.|
In other words, you've not been paying attention, and when a so-called documentary on TV (for Christ's sake!) claims that there's a "swindle" being performed by the worldwide community climate scientists why ... you keep an "open mind" and say ... "hey, they may be right! They're all lying!".
What a way to characterize the way I took the show. I understood perfectly that the show was a propaganda piece. All I was trying to do was educate myself a bit better on the topic. I never said that I believed all or any of the show. But like any propaganda piece, there are bits of truth intermingled with the distortions. I was trying to pick through those to see what's what. Like the hundreds of years lag thing. What does that mean? I was trying think it through, but doing it here where there might be someone that would fill me in (as opposed to ranting about what I do or don't believe).
So let me get this straight. You say that looking up information on the internet is a poor way to learn something, then you tell me that the remedy for that is to read one particular website. To tell you the truth about it, the reason I'm so ill informed about this topic is because I just don't care that much about it. But, I do feel that right now, I know more about it than most of the general public who have already made up their minds one way or another, usually based on what they saw in a TV special, a website, or a powerpoint presentation.
|At the risk of offending you, your google-poking and publishing of graphs and the like here reminds me a bit of the research methodology employed by the likes of Dave Scot.|
GO READ REAL CLIMATE. SPEND SEVERAL HOURS DOING SO.
You act as if I have my mind made up or something. You are in full political debate mode here. It's not necessary.
|If you don't trust background material written by leading climate scientists (complete with references and cites to the extremely vast peer-reviewed literature on the subject) go read the IPCC TAR 4 summary for policy makers (written, not as claimed by some denialists by politicians, but by the scientists involved in writing the full IPCC TAR that's just out/coming out soon/whatever).|
If you don't trust the work of the 2000+ scientists involved in the generation of this latest IPCC report, well, heck, you're in UD territory.
You're trying to be a dick, aren't you?
|Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase?|
It will rise to at least 500 ppm this century even if we take drastic measures, which is a doubling in 200 years.
Ocean temps lag atmospheric temps.
As it catches up in the next decades, guess what happens?
Hint: Remember that 800 yr lag when ice ages end that people claim "proves" CO2 isn't a forcing?
a forcing? Anyway, when I said that you'd think there would be pretty much the same total CO2 content over the Earth, I forgot a few things, like volcanoes, which would add CO2, and carbonate mineral formation, which would subtract it, so I was wrong there. It's a vastly complicated subject, eh?
But please, try not to assume that I hold certain preconceived opinions on this. Thanks for telling me about the IPCC report. I guess I can google it, but that might take me into UD territory.
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg