Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cwes99_03
The following websites are on my recommended reading list before you get into any debate on Global warming. These are scientific and blog sites, so read them carefully and extract the viable data from them and the ideas presented for the ACCURACY of data presented.
The simple fact is that while there is reason for some concern, the amount of data is lacking, and the accuracy of that data is of serious concern.
1) The data that is supposed to show CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years from the Vostok, Russia station 11 years ago used a lot of other global data to make estimated guesses at what year each ring on the core referred to. This is because if there were a significant enough warming trend the year after the ice was made, the data for that year could have been completely lost. (After all isn't this what brought up the concern over global warming, that polar caps can and are melting away?) If that really is the case then how can there be 400,000 years of rings?
2) Global temperature readings via land stations and satellites have dramatically increased over the past 100 years (after all we didn't have any satellites to measure temperature 100 years ago.) However, the location of these stations has remained largely urban, and largely land based (not on the ocean or large lakes like the great lakes.) This will of course skew the results. They are also largely northern hemisphere and on the European and North American continent. (map on one of the sites listed below shows them) Also the accuracy of these has greatly increased over the past 100 years, (how accurate was a thermometer made in 1900 compared to the digital type that are constantly recalibrated from 2000.)
The fact of the matter is that there is way more data to be skeptical about it than to be supportive of it. That being said, there is no reason why scientists and businesses alike shouldn't take precaution and reduce the amount of CO2 production by industry worldwide even if it does only contribute 0.28% annually (again see the websites below.)
Does this satisfy you?
Edit: Bold added here for emphasis was not in the original post.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF.../ice_ages.html
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...forwarming.htm
http://www.thedailyspork.com/archive..._warming_2.php
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/vostok.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming10.htm
http://polynya.gsfc.nasa.gov/seaice_..._image_10.html |
B, thanks for the minor apology for the sarcasm. Now may I ask if you read this post, or did you just jump on this thread assuming it to be like all the rest you participated in on this subject. Please read the quoted post above as it was made and given kudos by another person who like you feels like we can't wait and see.
All I ask for is for people to admit that there isn't nearly enough evidence to show that man is causing global warming. There are some sneaking suspicions about mankind's involvement, there is definitely ability among mankind to remove the human element nearly completely, but we can't just suddenly force everyone to bend to the will of some people who unreasonably believe that mankind is the main and only cause of global warming.
I am all for reduction of mankind produced greenhouse gasses, but not at the cost of throwing all society and life on this planet into a tail spin (which is what many claim will happen, and I cannot vouch for). Perhaps that last little bit is what needs to be discussed, because discussing the science behind global warming just leads to wildly false claims on both sides.
