bobbo says:

#78–gooddebate==once again, that name. If you don’t STOP IT, you’re gonna get stretch marks. I’ve given up arguing AGCC because it is outside my common sense and I find articles that do tend to contradict one another. Still, nonsense like yours is still fun to pop==like packing bubbles, its a nice sound.

A. Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Many experiments prove this. Many websites recite this. Do you have a single authority otherwise?

1. No signature. We need supercomputers to run the models because there are many variables. Do you have a single authority as to the nature of this signature concept as it applies to phenomenon with over 50 known variables?

2. “if CO2 was the driver” /// Well, its not “THE” driver–just one of many. Here is a nice website that says just the opposite of what you say: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659

Likewise: “if CO2 was the driver of warming then it should run away but that never happens” /// who says it should “run away?” Thats the many variables factor again. Co2 goes up, plants grow, after a few 1000 years, the co2 gets sequestered as beat bogs and so forth.

“Something stronger than CO2 is at work.” /// Yes, many things but CO2 is the man made one that we can/might/should control. See why its focused on?

3. Correct. Ask yourself this. How can you drown in the desert?

4. “But even doubling the amount of CO2 now doesn’t do that much.” /// Your basis for this is exactly what? The number 350 parts per million Co2 is considered a tipping point to destruction by many and there is even a website or two devoted to that issue: http://350.org/

“The bottom line is that” – - good debates are not formed by making shit up and blowing it out your ass without common sense or links.

6 more nonsense posts like this and I will start a petition that your IP address no longer be allowed to post as “gooddebate.”

What subject are you capable of legitimately discussing in the form of a good debate? – - we could go there. Starwars Memorabilia?

gooddebate says:

Actually, it’s a prayer, bob.

A. Greenhouse gas makes up just less than 2 percent of the earths atmosphere. The rest is nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other gases. The two significant greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2; the others are Methane, nitrous… Do I really have to list them? Of the CO2 portion, humans contribute 3.4 percent and 96.6 percent is naturally occurring. So, the human contributed greenhouse gas is .28 percent of the total amount of atmosphere gas.

1. Fortunately, we have the IPCC supercomputer which should be reliable, right? They have published a graph of the predicted greenhouse gas signature. But you won’t find anywhere on the IPCC site that they’ve found the signature in actual temperature readings. The best the IPCC has is a claim by Santer (an IPCC scientist) that there is ‘fog’ in the temperature data.

2. The implication by AGW’s is that CO2 is the cause. CO2 is the gas with the highest contribution from humans so if the climate is being affected then it would be CO2. Are you implying that CO2 is a minor player and that we should look somewhere else?

3. Holy quick sand batman (dying in quick sand is considered drowning).

4. Ok, I slogged through the ‘science’ on that page. Let me point out that they do try to prove the tipping point but they use other evidence to do it. One prominent evidence that 350 parts per million of CO2 is a tipping point is to show the polar ice caps melting photos. Other than that it’s just ‘scientists say’. There is nothing about the rate at which CO2 absorbs light (ie heat potential). There is no attempt to show from the current data how reaching 350 ppm has an affect on climate.

Bob, bob, bob or should I say ‘The Riddler’; don’t make it hard to take your extraneous comments as anything but good natured ribbing, you can do better than that.

Guyver says:

84, My agenda is that I’m a skeptic. And somehow I’m a “right wing” nut because of that? LOL. Got it. This just reminds me of the environmentalist wackos who screamed bloody murder back in the 80s about the hole in our atmosphere. Then later we discovered that Mars had a hole in its atmosphere. Ooops. I suppose the Right Wing wackos were responsible for that one too? LOL. I don’t care either way.

IPCC has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is nothing more than a public blog which cites sources like a grade school kid does writing up a report using cited sources to impress the teacher.

You’re using broad brush strokes to discredit ALL blogs. It’s a genetic fallacy to do so. I’m merely using a very big grain of salt on Wikipedia and the IPCC due to their past behavior or their clear conflict of interest.

And although I would caution anyone using a blog as a source, that doesn’t mean that what is written on those blogs is without merit. On the flip side, there has been plenty bandied about over the credibility of Wikipedia and the IPCC.

The problem is when anyone presents anything that dissents with your opinion of what you believe to be the facts, then everyone else is a bunch of right-wing nuts.

Where are the facts PROVING CO2 is in fact the driver and that humans are the CAUSE of all this?

BTW, what EXACTLY was I disputing? Science embraces dissenting opinions. Until I see a formal debate between the IPCC and the dissenting experts, then the debate IMHO is not over.

If I was disputing anything, it is that there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence to support the claims of man-made global warming. Am I a “denier”? Nope. Just show me something overtly biased or something that doesn’t have a conflict of interest. I’ll come to my own objective conclusions (no matter how wacky they may seem to be in your eyes).

MikeN says:

Have experiments been conducted to verify that industrial CO2(weight 44) reaches the upper atmosphere?

The time lag of 700 years between temperature increase and CO2 increase is explained away under the logic that there is a large time scale of 4200 years of warming, so CO2 explains 83% of the warming, that is first the planet warms up and increases the co2 level, then this co2 warms the planet. However, they haven’t explained the initial NATURAL CO2 increase. It could be that most of the increase in CO2 is naturally caused by the temperature increase, and only some of the warming is due to positive feedback.

If the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is natural, then any industrial policy is a waste of time, and we should be focusing on adapting to a warmer world. The chart I posted above doesn’t have an endpoint in mind for the linear increase in temperature.

bobbo says:

#83–gooddebate==about as well as could be done.

Gives me a headache too. Thats why I became agnostic on the subject.

Mr. Fusion says:

Guyver,

Part 1

That first link. What was your point? That some discredited people (Singer and co.) complained?

Second link, so someone was caught trying to rig the entry. They were caught because the system worked.

Third link, just a confirmation that the edit system at Wikipedia worked.

So lets all stay away from Bank of America, CitiBank, and Wells Fargo as they were once the target of a bank robber. You have offered no proof that the Wikipedia entries are more or less biased than any other source material.

Part 2

First link, again, a bad entry was found out. What is your point here?

Second link, so what? Anyone with any legal knowledge would see the government didn’t stand a chance with this case. At best, this is third hand information and is generally excluded for a good reason. Some inexperienced prosecutor was grasping at straws. The same would apply for Encyclopedia Britannica.

Third link, again offers no point. A discussion of why/why not a certain page should remain. You suggest an editorial factual failure when this is an editorial judgment call. You offer nothing to show what, if any, Wikipedia entries are incorrect.

Part 3,

First link, The goal behind the effort is to link publications with public contributions. . A noble undertaking and I approve.

Second link, a discussion on flagging edits to weed out vandalism. Was there a point there?

Third link, another discussion. Honestly Guyver, I’m wondering why you linked to this.

Part 4,

First link, Uuhh??? Wakipedia is a comedy site. People are invited to submit as stupid an entry as they wish. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Second link, That is sad, but the system worked. A bad editor was exposed and resigned. Does World Net Daily do the same thing? How about the New York Post, do their biased editors ever resign?

Third link, an opinion piece by another denier. Wow. I’m impressed. (yawn)

So I visited these twelve sites you offered and have yet to see something that says Wikipedia is a less reliable source than other sources. I saw some good ideas, such as research papers also submit a Wikipedia entry. But mostly I saw just garbage with no particular point being made.

Do you remember what you learned in school? Don’t expect the reader to make your point. As the writer that is YOUR job. Just putting several links with no connection or explanation won’t win any argument. A reference is to back up your points, not to make them. Damn, its been too many years since I wrote a paper, I don’t intend to start teaching people how to write now.

Don’t expect me to waste more of my time with more useless links.