Please donlt tell me you also graduuated from there, that would be embarrassing to us other proud alumns.
Alright, I deserved that. The "embarrassing" comment was a low blow and I'm very bit as proud of my Wisconsin education as anyone else (and I know that Wisconsin alumni are fiercely proud). The thing is, this is how you treat EVERYONE who has a different opinion on here and I got carried away. I apologize, though, because I try not to resort to that kind of nonsense when I'm arguing with people. I apologize for the other name calling, as well.
Please provide me with any link in which scientists refute that humans contribute to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I'd be interested to see it.
Also, the use of the word "large" was a mistake on my part. The correct word is "significant". I have no agenda and I'm not a left-winger. If I was, I'd be saying that the world is going to end and that all increases of temperature were obviously due to our contribution of greenhouse gases. I'd be saying we need to gut our economy to fix the problem and I wouldn't leave any room for argument. But I'm not doing that. You can't seem to understand that I'm making NO ARGUMENTS about how our contribution of greenhouse gases affects the climate. I don't know the answer and nobody does. So, even when I say "large", I'm not referencing the EFFECT, only the amount (and 20-140% is pretty significant and I don't think "large" would be a terrible stretch of the imagination).
How can a person be wrong about the unproveable????
But contribution of greenhouse gases by humans is well accepted by science and it's quite provable and has been proven. If you have some data that contradicts it, I'd love to see it. I'll repost one of my other posts explaining WHY we know:
The global levels of greenhouse gases were relatively constant for about 1000 years before the Industrial Revolution, with the amount of carbon dioxide (only one of the important players in global warming) increasing by about 0.4% per year since pre-industrial times DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES. This is an indisputable fact. How do they know? It's based on the isotopic composition of the carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere. Simply put, the stuff we burn produces carbon dioxide that is different than the stuff that's already in the air, and we can measure the differences. It is not a coincidence that when we started burning stuff, the greenhouse gases increased.
Again, nothing about the theory of climate change. The increases due to human activity are not in dispute by any reputable scientists, however. We do contribute greenhouse gases and we can measure it using standard techniques. Go back to the EPA post to see how much.
Go reread my posts again, you'll see how actually closed minded you are and where I have admitted time and time again where I COULD be wrong
Are humans contributing to CO2 emmissions, probably. Can science somehow prove this, yeah they can. Based ont he information is it significant though. I suppose it depends on your defnition of significant. To some throwing a bucket of dirty water into the ocean is significant, to others it is not. At the end of the day our contributions are the equivalent of one bucket of dirty water thrown into the ocean. IT's there, it's real but honestly you folks want to give it more "credit" than it's really worth. Other contributing factors have much MORE influence. Could our contributions be ever so slightly accelerating a natural process, maybe (no one can actually PROVE this, please understand the difference between scientific theory and scientific fact, all you have is theory, no facts). My point is the process will happen no matter what.
I guess this is the kind of thing you're talking about. You don't think that 20-140% (and these are the measurements...they aren't theory) increases are significant. You think they are "buckets in the ocean" and that it doesn't matter. But, in order to change the ocean content by 20-140%, how many buckets would it take? I'm guessing they would be many buckets, and very large ones and it would literally change the way the ocean looks. Wouldn't that be significant?
I think we are on the same page regarding theory of climate change. Nobody knows. When you say I am talking about theory, however, you are wrong. The actual measurements are NOT theory. They are the data and the data is strong and well accepted. I'm not the only one who sees this. Most of the scientists on earth also agree with my interpretation because if you understand how to look at data, you'll see that it's very clear cut. We have contributed a great deal of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
If you have actual data that disputes this, I'd like to see it. Essentially, you have to prove that the isotopic measurements are wrong. The isotopic measurements determine how much of the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is due to humans. Talking about volcanoes in Hawaii is irrelevant because if you want to talk about natural sources, you have to also include things such as absorption by the ocean, and once again we are talking theories that are unproven. But the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS show that humans have contributed and that it's significant (i.e., beyond statistical chance). The significance as far as effect on climate change is something I'm not arguing.
|
