Baseless Speculations Involving the Consequences of Global Warming

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the chart in that link you gave me, you can see a spike at about 325,000 years ago with a CO2 concentration higher than today.


[/ QUOTE ]

You need to look at the graph a little longer.

This should make it obvious. Here is a quote from the article I linked you to:

" Also, current CO2 levels are 26% higher than they have been in the 650,000 years preceding the industrial revolution."




[ QUOTE ]
Have there been any studies which correlate CO2 concentration with the presence of negative feedback mechanisms in the environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

CO2 feedback mechanisms of both kinds are discussed in many articles on realclimate.org.

Again just start reading. I don't have the will to play 99 questions for the 1000th time.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember something about "Be careful what you manage for, you may get it."

[/ QUOTE ]
has that ever happened? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

[Your Mom]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[/ QUOTE ]
interesting but not suprising re politics but kinda misses any real point.

chez

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

can you say shill?

[Oderec]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been bomabarded about global warming. All I really can conclude is that it's a PR campaign by a bunch of science types to increase their government grants.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically all the scientists in the world decided to do this? How did they decide to do this? A big super secret conference? The logistics of getting the scientific community together and saying "Hey guys we need to up the importance of this global warming to get money" seems daunting. If it was a small group/university I could see it possibly happening (if such things occur), but to say the entire scientific community is doing this for funding isn't very likely.

[hawk59]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A week or two ago there was an article on the front page of the WSJ

[/ QUOTE ]

The WSJ's journal reporting on science can only be described as criminal. They report entire groups of scientists that quit in protest due to ethical reasons and political censoring as being "fired" or "layed off". They give an insane amount of airtime to "pundits for hire". They also twist facts beyond belief and just about every science blog spends a considerable amount of time documenting this. The WSJ simply can not be trusted regarding scientific stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying the growing season in Greenland has not been lenghtened and that farmers there aren't growing more food? The article I mentioned had nothing to do with science reporting.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

can you say shill?

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes both ways. See Gore, Al.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been bomabarded about global warming. All I really can conclude is that it's a PR campaign by a bunch of science types to increase their government grants.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically all the scientists in the world decided to do this? How did they decide to do this? A big super secret conference? The logistics of getting the scientific community together and saying "Hey guys we need to up the importance of this global warming to get money" seems daunting. If it was a small group/university I could see it possibly happening (if such things occur), but to say the entire scientific community is doing this for funding isn't very likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Common myth: All (or most) scientists believe in global warming

[wacki]

I'm simply saying you should read the WSJ very cautiously when it comes to anything related to climate science. Reading the WSJ on this specific topic is a very good way to get your facts wrong.