What Makes Inevitable Environmental Collapse, Or, "Why I Hate Earth Day"

[Dragoon Knight]

Thank you.  I find that the main difference is that I use things like facts, reasoning and logical deduction, as opposed to her... well, I'm sure you can fill in the blanks. :P

[athanasios]

And so, Dragoon Knight's dirty little secret was revealed to the world: Masochism.

LOL! That WAS RELEVANT!

Dragoon Knight you are still missing the point. In the article I quoted the majority of the points may look irrelevant in proving that global warming is a natural procedure but are very relevant to the theme we are discussing AND provide plenty of food for thought.

[Dante]

Except... they don't.

[Dragoon Knight]

I can assure all of you that my dirty little secrets are much more dirty, and much more secret.

They don't just look irrelevant, they ARE irrelevant.  I believe I've more than proven that.  The theme being discussed in this thread is global warming, but the article was trying to claim that it was a natural process.  Which it didn't, because it isn't.  Also the author fails so very miserably at everything.

The points provide absolutely no food for thought.  So far, just about everything you have said regarding this article is wrong, and that's only excepting the parts where you admit I'm right.  My advice is to simply move on and chalk this one up as a learning experience.

[chatfsh]

I haven't seen that kind of dedication on PRP since Hwi was talking to God in the first person.

Ah, yes

[Wolf]

In the end, it is best not to be counted amongst those who are ruining the earth.

This reminds me of a BBC skit where about a half dozen SS-Panzer officers are grouped around a campfire in front of their Tiger tank. One is lighting a cigarette. Two are playing cards. Another is sitting down, holding his officer's cap in his hands and staring at the Death's Head and Swastika. Suddenly, he turns to his fellows and says, "Hey, you guys ever think that maybe we're the bad guys?"

Just saying, kinda awkward of you to pull out a "ruining the Earth quote" whilst simultaneously denying a human element to climate change. You know, maybe the book of Revelations wasn't talking about us, per se, maybe it was talking about someone else?

[chatfsh]

Just saying, kinda awkward of you to pull out a "ruining the Earth quote" whilst simultaneously denying a human element to climate change. You know, maybe the book of Revelations wasn't talking about us, per se, maybe it was talking about someone else?

Nope.  Pretty sure it's specifically referring to those who are ruining/destroying the earth.  Since I'm not in that camp, no worries here. :)

[Wolf]

I'd get into a lengthy discussion regarding secondary and vicarious liability... but I won't.

Speaking of "won't," I think I disagree with Hwi's supposition that it's unlikely for us to see a "green industrial revolution," in the sense that people won't be willing to pay to accomplish goals that have a positive impact on climate. Firstly, we're already seeing large pushes on the clean-energy front that have been in the works for some time. Secondly, when things get bad enough (and they probably will), people will be willing to shell out big bucks to fund activities designed solely to produce reversals in climate change trends. What I mean by this is that there is a distinction between activities like recycling or clean energy (whose primary aims are production and power generation, respectively) and activities like atmospheric scrubbing and land conservation. The latter activities have a positive environmental impact as their primary purpose. I think this also refutes the notion that "Further, there is precious little scientific evidence (if any) to support the notion that any of our efforts will change global temperatures one iota." On the contrary, as Frank Herbert once pointed out, it actually takes quite little effort to have an exponentially larger effect on the climate as a whole. We could certainly--and quite effortlessly--achieve a tremendous reduction in overall global temperatures through the strategic detonation of nuclear devices. Krakatoa (~50 MTs, the standing U.S. atomic arsenal probably has a total yield of ~600 MTs, though of course, there are hundreds of decommissioned weapons that individually fall within the 10-20 MT range) lowered global temperatures by 5 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 years. The eruption of Eyjafjallaj

[Dante]

Bringing Frank Herbert into a climate discussion? I think I love you, Wolf.

As for the effects of "climategate," there have been two enquiries into the matter so far (a third and final investigation is taking place), a government one and an independent panel led by Lord Oxburgh. Both have reported absolutely no wrongdoing or malpractice, instead stating that the only problems were a reluctance of some scientists to share data and the use of unusual statistical techniques (significantly different results would not have been obtained through use of more appropriate techniques).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident

Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists. The repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others "could have amounted to a campaign of harassment" and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved. Another panel member, Professor David Hand, commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand - the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with."

In conclusion, "climategate" is and always was a minor issue blown way out of proportion, it has been a turning point only in bringing about greater scrutiny of science, which is fine and dandy because science has nothing to hide, unlike some professions that I could think of.

[Dragoon Knight]

There's a favourite book of mine, called "Thief of Time".  It's by Terry Pratchett and it's an excellent read.  I wholly recommend it to everyone.

Without spoiling anything, in this book there are characters who have the ability to (for want of a better term) slow down time.  It's more complex than simply that, but for the purposes of this point, it'll do.  Now, this process is a daunting and difficult one, since they can never quite stop it.  The slower they try to make time flow, the harder they have to push and strain.  But there exists a quiet, calm place - like a small, flat shelf of rock before the plateau of a mountain - where they can quite happily stop making almost any exertion, and time will stay at the same speed.  There, they could rest before plowing onwards.

I put it to you that posting in the same threads as Hwi for some time now has acted as a fine parallel to this, except instead of time, I am fighting against stupidity and what I can only hope is blissful ignorance, because I'd hate for her to be stupid and sad.  While it has been an arduous struggle thus far, I have reached an area of calm, where I can quite happily expend only the slightest of effort to maintain my composure.  Whereas before I might have had to force my way through her arguments, using logic and reasoning as a shield against the never-ending hot air being spewed forth, I seem to have found some refuge.  Long may it bear the weathering of Hurricane Hwi and her ominous winds.

Now, let's get down to the dissection.

Athanasios, your points are both relevant and excellent food for thought.

Now I know 23,000 characters is a lot, but surely you must be used to reading long, boring screeds of text?  My rebuttals of athanasios' arguments (both the L and XXXXXL versions) prove that you're wrong on this point.  At least 64% of that article is irrelevant, lies or circular argument, and if you think you can prove otherwise, I welcome you to try.

Thankfully, ever since Climategate, much of the bogus science around manmade  global warming has been debunked or discredited as it rightly should.  The whole argument for manmade global warming grows weaker and more irrelevant by the day.  And the warmers know this.

You know, it sounds like you're writing the narrative to a really, really bad novel.  "The argument was getting weaker, and the Warmers knew it".  No, it's not.  You don't see scientists making desparate snatches at any source they can get a hold of to try and prove their point.  They don't need to.  The world is already showing signs of warming, and all they need do is keep trying to bash sense into people like you until you realise what's happening.  They don't even care that it's a lost cause; they're that dedicated to penetrating even the thickest of skulls.

It's your ilk that screamed at the top of their lungs about this "climategate", which was a couple of emails blown way out of proportion.  Here, let me phrase it in a way that will appeal to your nature: "The Idiots were snatching at every stray limb and root they could grasp, as the quicksand of logic continued to devour their flailing bodies."

I won't deal with your answer to Andrew's point, since you seem to be advocating going green for green's sake.  It's moments like this where you remind me of Arthas, the Lich King.  Showing signs of humanity, giving flickers of hope that there might still be something left inside.  Except with you, it's little glimmers of sanity, among the filth of evangelical ignorance.  It seems apt, since while I can only kill the Lich King in-game, I can similarly only pretend that your arrogance will go away. :'(

[athanasios]

So much trouble to prove what? That the article I cited provides proof to its title  (Because you didn't refute ALL points) but the biggest part of it is irrelevant for the procedure. But for US and this thread it is not. If you fail to understand that what else can I say?

[chatfsh]

My unwillingness to support the unsubstantiated claim that mankind is responsible for climate change in no way makes me complicit in the act of ruining of the earth.  As I

[Dante]

Well, one could simply link a page and be done with it, but as I have discovered in the past, simply presenting people with the data (as scientists like to do) and leaving them to follow it to its logical conclusion just doesn't work. Joe Public has a fetish for misinterpreting, ignoring and completely misunderstanding raw figures. It is for that reason that those of us in the know must explain to the stupidos exactly what these data mean, which I suppose is up to me since everyone else with a shred of common sense doesn't seem quite as possessed by the need to refute idiocy wherever it is found.

Therefore, even though this is a discussion on political and cultural impacts of climate change rather than the scientific case for same, and even though I am perfectly aware that this will become yet another sisyphean labour on my part, and even though my efforts will be ignored where they aren't vilified, misinterpreted where they aren't ignored and deliberately misrepresented where they aren't misinterpreted, I am still going to make a post for this. Because I am a scientist, dammit, and I will not stand for willful ignorance.

We shall start with a simple phrase. "Human activity is releasing so-called greenhouse gases such as CO2 at a rate unprecedented in history, these gases are in turn responsible for a significant change in the Earth's climate."

There are a number of parts to this assertation, to wit:

1) That human activity is releasing greenhouse gases.

2) That these gases are being released faster than ever before.

3) That these gases are changing the climate.

4) Conclusion: human activity is changing the Earth.

These suppositions shall be dealt with one by one, in order to avoid confusing those who are easily distracted by shiny objects.

Part 1) This one is actually rather easy. We don't just monitor the presence of greenhouse gases (that is their levels in the atmosphere), we also monitor their release from the source:

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Basically nobody argues this point. And I will take this opportunity to further define exactly what a "greenhouse gas" is. The term covers naturally present gases (CO2, water vapour, CO) and gases that are not naturally occuring (those that effectively come only from human sources: chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, etc). See the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's list for a complete summary. I'll probably refer to the IPCC again later.

Part 2) Analysis of previous climates (Paleoclimatology) through such means as tree rings, fossils and ice cores gives data on temperature, atmospheric gas concentrations, water levels and the like. And it is from such observations that we get data on atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases in the past.

Figure 3:

See that? That's CO2 and methane skyrocketing in the last 150 years. Now nobody is saying that the Earth has never seen concentrations like this before, some studies suggest that concentrations have been at least equal in the past, and some even hint that it might have been even higher. The salient point is that the concentrations of CO2 and the rest are rising at an unprecedented rate.

Figure 4:

That vertical red line at the end represents, once again, the last 150 years, tying in neatly with the industrial age. Though it looks instantaneous (which in geological terms it is), it's actually the graphical representation of Figure 3 in comparison to the last four hundred thousand years. Just to put that in perspective: the Great Pyramid is believed to have been built around 4,570 years ago. That's just over a tenth of the time period studied. And in all that time, this rise in CO2 has occured to such an extent and so rapidly only once: during the last 150 years.

Part 3) Taking it for granted that the Earth is warming (I'm so glad that we've moved past that particular fly in the ointment, and that everyone accepts climate change is happening, if not the reason for it), the question is left: how? What is the method? Or if you prefer: why? What is the reason? I prefer the former approach, it sounds less philosophical.

Figure 5:

Figure 5 shows the absorbtion wavelengths of various gases in the atmosphere: that is, the spectra that each substance will absorb. Note that absorbtion or reflection of light is what grants most substances their colour: a purple object reflects blue and red but absorbs green. A green object reflects green but absorbs blue and red. That is why most leaves are green: chlorophyll (the pigment/s that absorb/s light for use in photosynthesis) absorbs red and blue light for energy but reflects green. Note also that infrared and ultraviolet are also wavelengths of light, they are just beyond our ability to sense them. Some animals, such as some bees and snakes, are believed to be able to see ultraviolet and infrared respectively.

What you will notice (read: what I am pointing out to you) is that the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 is strongest in the infrared band. That is significant because infrared is heat, basically. When I said that some snakes can 'see' infrared, what I was refering to was pit vipers detecting heat signatures. In other words: CO2 absorbs heat.

Figure 6:

Figure 6 shows the relative radiative forcing of various atmospheric components. Aerosols, incidentally, are believed to be responsible for the plateau in global temperature around 1940-1960, while CO2 is of course a dramatic heat sink.

We have established, therefore, that CO2 absorbs heat and that CO2 in the atmosphere is rising exponentially. And, funnily enough, that global temperatures are also rising.

Correlation, however, does not necessitate causation. Every good scientist knows that. Knowing that mankind produces stacks of CO2 and that CO2 absorbs heat and that the atmosphere where the CO2 is located is getting warmer isn't enough.

Lets have a look at the oceans.

Now, historically the world's oceans have acted as a kind of buffer to temperature changes. This makes sense: you have a massive body that is more or less freely mixed above the halocline. The water will absorb warmer or cooler temperatures and smooth them out in its own ambient temperature. If that was too complicated for you: it's the same principle that dictates that mixing a small amount of hot water and a lot of cold water will result in water that is only slightly warmer than the original cold temperature. Surface water that is warmed by the sun is in turn cooled by cooler water beneath (while it warms the cooler water). This doesn't cover the entirity of the oceans of course, look up the word "thermocline" to see why.

Additionally, the oceans absorb CO2, perhaps as much as 30% of CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution. They actually act as a dampening influence on global warming by reducing atmospheric CO2. However, the oceans too are warming.

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

And in a remarkable coincidence, the oceans are also becoming more acidic. What causes an ocean to become more acidic? Well, dissolving CO2 in water forms a number of substances; (CO2(aq)), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate, you get the picture. The net result is an increase in H+ ions, which high school chemistry tells us is, by definition, an increase in acidity. Not only is this bad in itself (for various reasons, mostly related to ecosystems and the difficulty of vital species in carrying out their lives in a more acidic environment), but the more acidic the oceans get, the less they will be able to absorb from the atmosphere. Warmer water is also less able to absorb CO2, which will increase its atmospheric concentration and reduce the buffering effect of the oceans on climate change.

In other words, the oceans can act as a buffer but by no means an infinite one. Dissolved CO2 is reducing the effects of climate change, but it will not last and is having a harmful effect while it's in there. Further, if oceans normally act as a buffering force, how it is that they display an even more dramatic rise in temperature than the atmosphere? I'll let you answer that one yourself because I still, still cherish a tiny flame of hope that anyone can be educated, no matter how stupid they were to start with. Don't take that away from me.

Part 4) Golly, it's been a long trip, hasn't it? And I haven't even started to get into the harmful effects of deforestation (release of carbon stored in trees as well as irredeemable levels of extinction), hunting (population bottlenecking for hundreds of species) or agriculture (so many problems it would take another post just to deal with it all).

Now it's important to note that, as once highlighted to me by my university tutor, there will always be a contradictory paper. There will always be a scientist that disagrees with another, there will always be a paper that can be used to disprove another. The important thing is consensus. And there is consensus.

Figure 9: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

Consensus has been, for all practical purposes, reached.

And there you have it.

1) Human activity is releasing greenhouse gases.

2) These gases are being released faster than ever before.

3) These gases are changing the climate.

4) Conclusion: human activity is changing the Earth.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Figure 10:

What's especially irksome about this is that this is a debate that most of the world has already finished with. The argument, for those of you who missed it, went along the lines of:

Activists: The climate is changing!

Deniers: No it isn't.

Activists: *proof*

Deniers: Oh. Well it's completely natural!

Activists: *proof that it isn't*

Deniers: Oh. Well there's nothing we can do about it!

Activists: ...

That's the stage we've reached. The current issue, for those of you still stuck in 1975, is not whether climate change is taking place, nor even how it works, but what we can do about it. That, in fact, is the purpose of this topic. I suggest that we keep to it so that I don't have to drag up well-established arguments from the previous century. Again.

(Now, lets see if anyone puts half as much work into their counter arguments as I put into this post)

Edit: Fixed an incorrect title.

[Dragoon Knight]

So much trouble to prove what? That the article I cited provides proof to its title...

If you've read all of what Dante just posted and you're still arguing your position, then you need your head checked.  Pay close attention to Figure 9, in particular.

Your article is the journalistic equivalent of a boil that's still too far from the surface to lance.  People like you are still far too numerous for it to be discredited widely enough.  Back in its day, it might have been a newspaper article citing "100 reasons why TV will rot your brain", with half of the points being on how the UK TV License Fee is spent.

...the biggest part of it is irrelevant for the procedure. But for US and this thread it is not.

The article's title (and thus intention) is to prove that global warming is natural and not man-made.  I have proven that at least 64% of the article fails to do this because it's irrelevant, circular or lying.  I didn't mention the remaining 36% because it was the same, tired arguments that all articles like it spew.  Did you see one link referencing where they got these vague figures?  Absurd claims like "it all came from an EU report!" don't wash with me.  There needs to be evidence and specific figures showing relevant trends.  There are none in that article.

However, if you'd like me to address the remaining points, please just say.  I could quite happily reply with a link to Dante's above post and do them all with one fell swoop.

If you fail to understand that what else can I say?

I understand everything you say.  I understand the ignorance behind every word, the stupidity behind every claim, and the fear and arrogance behind every point of mine that you fail to address.  You presume to link one piss-poor article and claim victory for your deluded opinion.  In all of my directed replies to you, I have discredited your views and this article that you clutch like a stained baby blanket or dirty teddy bear; too afraid to wash it in case it falls to pieces.

It is you who fail to understand; to what level, I can only guess.  Do you see all of my points and simply go "I don't care what he's written, it's all wrong, I'll just skim it"?  Because I don't see how it's possible that you could understand what I'm actually saying and yet still think "No, the complete destruction of my argument is no reason to stop!  I'll just reply with one or two sentences and ignore anything I can't deal with... which is everything".  And yet you always come through - your stubborn lack of knowledge and comprehension is so reliable I could wager money on it.

Go on.  Say that man-made global warming is a myth propagated by the Illuminati or NWO.  It would make my day. :)

EDIT: Got my Figure number wrong.  If I was as arrogant as some, I'd say that it was the first thing I'd got wrong in this thread.

[athanasios]

If you've read all of what Dante just posted and you're still arguing your position, then you need your head checked.  Pay close attention to Figure 9, in particular.

But you didn't:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

A significant contributing factor DOES IS NOT EQUAL the Sole Factor.

See that? That's CO2 and methane skyrocketing in the last 150 years. Now nobody is saying that the Earth has never seen concentrations like this before, some studies suggest that concentrations have been at least equal in the past, and some even hint that it might have been even higher. The salient point is that the concentrations of CO2 and the rest are rising at an unprecedented rate.

You admit it yourself. Your provided figure 4 contradicts your conclusion. Or maybe it doesn't. Who knows? Previous advanced civilizations destroyed themselves due to global warming and that's why we get those periodic peaks...

Sorry but I 'd expect from a honest scientist to provide figures similar to figure 4. Unless long term data are presented I cannot be convinced. Short term observations are useless. They are only useful for the junk that the media use to feed the ignorant ones.

[Dante]

I'm sorry, was 400,000 years not long enough for you? I shall endeavour to find longer observations. Oh no wait, I won't, because you won't do me the courtesy of counter-arguing like a scientist and I certainly won't pander to your ignorance a second time.

Nobody said that climate change is solely a human thing. If it were, the planet would be rather screwed as it is greenhouse gases that keep it from freezing. What is being said, basically, is that if not for human influence the climate would be different to how it is today. Savvy?

Your provided figure 4 contradicts your conclusion. Or maybe it doesn't. Who knows?

I do, and it doesn't. :) The conclusion, since you appear not to have read it, states that while global temperatues have risen to similar levels before, they have never in four hundred thousand years risen so far and so fast. Figure 4 in fact demonstrates this rather than contradicting it. It complements Figures 3, 7, 8 and 10. Do try to keep up.

Previous advanced civilizations destroyed themselves due to global warming and that's why we get those periodic peaks...

Er, no. Just no. You're utterly wrong about this and if you can prove otherwise then do please go ahead. I expect figures and links to reliable sources of information. Y'know, like I did.

[Wolf]

Previous advanced civilizations destroyed themselves due to global warming and that's why we get those periodic peaks...

Really... You know, there's really no way to justify this statement. The first half might be construed as to refer to the popular theory that the Aztecs, through over-farming and resource depletion, made it impossible for the land to support the vast population they ultimately raised, but when you get to the "due to global warming and that's why we get those periodic peaks" part, it's clear that that's not what you're referring to. No Mesoamerican culture caused a significant climb in temperatures. Actually, what's really fascinating about this statement is that it's inherently contradictory with your basic premise. Here's why:

You state that "advanced civilizations" destroyed themselves vis-a-vis global warming. Advanced? What does that mean? Quite generally, when we say that, we mean "industrialized." Now, I won't answer the question whether an as-yet-unknown industrialized human civilization existed in the past because... it's stupid. Industrialized civilizations leave ruins that last for tens of thousands of years. We've seen none. There are none. But! The fact that you include the word "advanced" indicates your own inner belief and presupposition that it is only an industrialized society (like ours!) that could cause climate change through global warming because... of course, only they can! Cool. (Haha, puns!)

[athanasios]

Haha! I was just ironic! Still an explanation for the periodic peaks is pending. Let's see if our brilliant scientists who post on this thread have something more convincing (not from the former civilizations hypothesis but from what they have already stated) to say about it.

A bit of topic but I have to say that I cannot exclude that in the past a more advanced civilization might have existed, even though the possibilities are very few. With current data available it is evident that man existed on earth and created civilizations ("advanced" for their times but not in the modern "industrial" way) further back in the past than we were/are taught in history books. For example: "The dream of flight goes back to the days of pre-history. Many stories from antiquity involve flight, such as the Greek legend of Icarus and Daedalus, and the Vimana  in ancient Indian epics. Around 400 BC, Archytas, the Ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician, astronomer, statesman, and strategist, was reputed to have designed and built the first artificial, self-propelled flying device, a bird-shaped model propelled by a jet of what was probably steam, said to have actually flown some 200 meters.[5][6]  This machine, which its inventor called The Pigeon (Greek: Περιστέρα  "Peristera"), may have been suspended on a wire or pivot for its flight."-Wikipedia.

Nobody said that climate change is solely a human thing. If it were, the planet would be rather screwed as it is greenhouse gases that keep it from freezing. What is being said, basically, is that if not for human influence the climate would be different to how it is today. Savvy?

This suffices for me.

[Wolf]

How can you claim that you were acting "in irony" (which, for the record, requires a far firmer grasp of any language than the one you currently possess to pull off) and then go on to talk about the very subject you claimed was "ironic?" This reminds me those kids in middle school who would unintentionally say something hugely inappropriate or awkward and then claim they were "just joking" when the powers of taste and decency called them out. It didn't work then, it don't work now. And yet... you inexplicably bolded 400 BC (as if that was when one of your temperature "peaks" occurred), like you thought you were making some sort of profound comment? Who are you, dude?

The problem is that you (and to pretty much the same extent, Hwi) don't actually care about the objective validity of this (or, I suspect, any other) debate. You view it as some kind of perverse game, with inscrutable rules. No one here denies that climates can change naturally--but this is not the same as rapid "climate change" that we talk about in the conventional sense, and that actually threatens our existence. The "peaks" you talk about certainly occurred because of natural causes or force majeure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the current, far more rapid explosion of climate shifts is also a natural result. If you said that, because the last economic recession occurred because of a housing bubble, then whenever there was a recession or a decline in stock prices, that there must also have been a housing bubble, that would have the same logical weight. But, I digress. The problem is that when we admit that, yes, natural climate change can occur, you froth at the mouth and say something like this:

A significant contributing factor DOES IS NOT EQUAL the Sole Factor.

What? And even then, after I take the time to parse what you've said and translate it into something that makes grammatical sense... so what? You act like this means "you win." It doesn't, and none of us here are playing a game. At least, I'm not. I don't think Dante is. I don't think Dragoon is, either.

If you guys act like every reasonable statement that cuts for your argument--albeit when taken out of context, and within the narrowest of terms--is an absolute repudiation of everything you've disagreed with and might disagree with, and is absolutely irrefutable evidence for your position, whatever it might be at this time, then you're really just talking nonsense. And the worst part is that you're really talking nonsense for no reason. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that this current instance of climate change is man-made, to the extent that but-for human interaction, there would be no level of climate change substantial enough to threaten human civilization in the short term.

[athanasios]

... and then go on to talk about the very subject you claimed was "ironic?" ... you inexplicably bolded 400 BC (as if that was when one of your temperature "peaks" occurred)

I think you didn't read all of my post. Also in the very beginning of the paragraph I mentioned: "A bit of topic".

The "peaks" you talk about certainly occurred because of natural causes or force majeure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the current, far more rapid explosion of climate shifts is also a natural result.

It doesn't necessarily mean that but statistically it is the most probable cause, because the fact is that the peaks are periodic. Simple maths dude.

Now if man is accelerating the procedure or more appropriately 'adding a few degrees' on the natural phenomenon is something that needs to be verified on the long term. But what is beyond question, as already mentioned by Hwi, is that man is destroying the environment and consequently the climate. If nothing is done to avert this our planet's future condition will inevitably be similar to that of hell-hot Venus or frozen Mars.

You act like this means "you win." It doesn't, and none of us here are playing a game...

It is NOT a game. We are having a fruitful discussion (Thesis-Antithesis), or NOT? ::)

...you're really just talking nonsense. And the worst part is that you're really talking nonsense for no reason.

I was also talking nonsense a few months ago when I stated the the swine-fever was bullshit and the doctors, politicians, etc urging the mass to vaccinate were either payed or fouls... If someone chooses to be one of the many who eat (=believe) whatever s... is served to them it is his problem. Still I assume that you must not be of that kind. Neither are other members of the DUNE forum.

[chatfsh]

Despite the tomes of tedious data, the oh so carefully chosen charts and imbecilic ridicule, the resident warmers have yet to prove that mankind is the primary cause of global climate change.  At best, all that

[Dante]

To quote de besht phrasink yet:

The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that this current instance of climate change is man-made, to the extent that but-for human interaction, there would be no level of climate change substantial enough to threaten human civilization in the short term.

Do hyu see de vords "Sole Factor" or "primary cause" in dere? No? Then see previous points about exactly vot diz argument iz about because hyu clearly hefn't undershtood it.

Und by de vay, "tomes uf tedious data" ? Jusht because hyu hef de scientific comprehension uf a spoon (Hy note dot hyu are unable to provide henny figures uf you own. Trouble undershtundink dem too?) dozn't invalidate de points dot vere made. Ven de evidence iz overvelmingly in vun's favour, vun iz able to produce mountains uf it. Hy could make a dozen poshts like dot vitout ever repeatink myself. Hy choose not to because even Sisyphus had hiz limits.

Zo tell me, if hyu can, exactly vere de error in my argument lies? Iz it dot mankind isn't releasink shtacks uf CO2, CO, CH3CCl3, etc? Because indushtrial figures might hef a ting or two to say about dot. Or iz it dot dese gases aren't havink an effect on global temperature? Hyu might hef trouble vit dot vun too, given dot de greenhouse effect vas around long bevore our species evolved. Bot if dese gases do effect temperature (baysic physics), und dey are beink released in gigantik volumes (baysic indushtry), how could dey not effect de climate?

You exemple about earthquakes iz somevot misleadink, since dey don't really play a significant role in climate change. However, Hy see vot hyu're getting at. Had hyu followed de link to de source uf Figure 4, hyu vould hef found dot beneath de figure dere iz a legend dot reads "Note on graph presentation: The heavier temperature lines 160,000 BP to present reflect more data points for this time period, not necessarily greater temperature variability." In odder vords, yas, ice cores und deir ilk do provide data zo accurate dot ve can measure de speed uf temperature change.

Furzermore, as a vord uf advice, hyu're on shtronger ground ven hyu attempt to use scientific arguments againsht demselves. Sayink "Ho vell Hy don't agree vit diz experiment zo it musht be flawed!" - as hyu deed vit de ice cores - both veakens you position und betrays you lack uf undershtundink. Not dot de former position iz ectually shtrong ground, mind hyu. Tink uf it as a choice betveen quicksand und air.

Or could it be that the high global temperatures of the pre-industrial age had absolutely nothing to do with increased CO2 levels?

Deed hyu even see Figure 4? Are hyu blind as vell as deaf now?

Hwi, Hy vant hyu to know dot Hy been savink diz next image. Throughout our disagreements Hy hef been holdink it beck it for jusht diz moment, ven you desperation to clink to you point uf view despite overvelmink evidence to de contrary wears thin enuff to see de sad, ignorant vretchedness beneath. Hyu should know dot diz image vill be forever associated vit hyu.

[chatfsh]

Hyu should know dot diz image vill be forever associated vit hyu.

Amazing!  I was just thinking the exact same thing about you and your sad little worldview.  ;)

[Dragoon Knight]

Oh now that was weak, even for you, Hwi.

"You're wrong on every conceivable level."

"No YOU ARE! *Quotes Dante's picture*  Hahahaha!"

The point that Wolf made regarding assumptions of "winning" being made by people in this thread (namely, you and athanasios - the only two idiots who seem to cling on to the delusion that you're somehow right) is becoming more and more evident with every post.  You can't address the points that have been made in any fashion which even resembles a decent reply.  Facts, figures, diagrams; you dismiss them as "tomes of tedious data" and "carefully chosen charts".  They're only tedious to you, because they disprove everything you're trying so poorly to argue.

This is becoming something of a trend with you.  You call us imbeciles, but you're the one who refuses to accept sense.  You're a joke, Hwi - already the laughing stock of everyone I've shown your ramblings to.

Watch, as she makes ridiculous claims.  Observe as we rebuke them, only for our arguments to be ignored.  Ponder what kind of a mind it takes to wantonly ignore replies, selecting only those points which she feels she can handle.  Laugh at her all the while.

It doesn't matter how much you want us to be wrong.  Even praying to good ol' J.C. won't make it so.  You can't respond to our arguments, and you can't even come up with your own insults anymore. :)

Now look carefully, everyone, because Hwi is about to do one (or all) of the following:

- Continue to ignore the points presented in this thread, which prove that global warming is being heavily influenced by mankind.

- Selectively quote this post and make mocking reference to it.

- Claim that she is "winning".

- Use the term "warmers" again.

- Backpedal even further, in a way similar to athanasios, and claim that she accepted the facts all the time.

Alternatively, she'll just ignore this post altogether.  But at this point, Hwi, anything you do will just make me laugh.  Aside from a truly epic post, offering counter-points to everything we've argued in the last few days... but that's not going to happen. :P

[Wolf]

Haha, Hwi, are you kidding? Honestly, at this point, I'm prepared to accept that your entire existence on this forum is some kind of carefully-crafted metajoke a la Nikolai Gogol or Arrested Development. You demand evidence that "proves" that man-made climate change is the "primary cause" of the current trend of global warming (ignoring for a moment the painfully obvious fact that, regardless of the cause, nobody disagrees that humanity is in a dire position and needs to act drastically, now), and when we give you that evidence--even evidence that would satisfy the strictest, narrowest understanding of the word "primary"--you don't even bother to read it! Again, I hope you're a joke, because otherwise... well, I don't even know what you are. What kind of person does this:

Sophocles: Show me evidence that X is the primary cause!

Thucydides: Here is copious evidence that suggests that X is the primary cause.

Sophocles: I don't want tomes of "tedious" data! Show me that X is the primary cause!

Haha, I mean, seriously, what the hell? You ask for evidence, and when we give it to you--in a far, far more exhaustive manner than anything you've ever even attempted--you ignore it? What else is he supposed to do? Get the Church to tell you that God agrees with him? How is it that everyone but you bears the burden of proof at every single point of the debate? No, at this point, we've amassed tremendous amounts of information that suggests that not only is man a substantial factor in global warming, but that he is the primary, nigh-sole cause of climate change. Now the burden of proof falls to you to refute. That, or act like a goddamn adult and admit defeat for once in your ridiculous life.

EDIT: (Note, substantial grammatical changes--had to write on the run at first.)