Mh, so we've moved away from arguments about global warming and now we're arguing about personal intelligence? Sorry, I try to stay out of those. Anyways, I was only pointing out the fallacy of saying "Wiki says up to 70% WV 9% CO2." which is basically presenting a small portion of data that supports your argument. The problem was that it was at most 70% water, and at least 9% CO2, which is still very different then the original n95%. Since the numbers are obviously controversial, as you pointed out, then it would be best to look at more then once case.

That considered, if we come to the scientific conclusion that if water comprises of 95% of the greenhouse effect, then humans have caused about 0.3%. Therefore, if water only comprises 70% or lower, then we see that the chances are, the rest of the causes (including the human one) are about 6 times the amount stated in the conclusion gained from 95%, which ends up being 1.8%, which, when we look at the entirety of the greenhouse effect, is at least one degree, which is no longer negligible. Of course, since I don't have a PHD in environmental sciences, nor do I plan on getting one, that's just a rough approximation of the apparent mathematical significance of the percentage of the greenhouse effect caused by water.

I have looked at the cases, my conclusion is first of all we are measuring an "effect" which is tough to measure. Second that your graphs sourced aren't taking in as many factors as others.

Wait. If its 95% and we contribute by 0.3 then how does 70% or lower make our part 6 times the amount?? BTW i think the amount is 0.0325% not 0.3%

"Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."

100% - 95% = 5
100% - 70% = 30

So, if out of the 5% remaining, the writer of that article admits that humans cause 0.28% of the total, then out of 30%, humans must cause 6 times 0.28%
This works because all gases other then water vapour can be influenced by humans.

There's where I get the six times from, the point is that it may not make much of a difference to water (like, 1.5 times) but it makes a massive difference to human contribution (6 times)

Simply, unless a number like 95% is proved and used, and all other sources that say 70% or lower are proven false, it remains a debatable subject, with the result of any percent of 70 or lower being that humans have a non negligible impact.

Well point is the numbers are different and i don't think you can prove your right, and i can't prove im right, i still believe that humans effect on temperature is negligible and that the kyoto protocol needs to be denied to hell.

Agreed on the second point, though I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the first. Either way, 30% of a portion of 1.8 percent is nothing, even closer to nothing if it's 30% of 0.3%, meaning that unless we take one CO2 molecule out of the air for every one we put in, it's really not going to help.

Haha, I just have to inject here, rather than explain how you've entirely palliated the real reason, I'll just give you an example,
A firefighter who starts fires for business.

I have a friend who honestly believes that Al Gore finances every single scientist who believes global warming to be true. Unless you offer the tiniest bit of proof for this claim, please, shut up. They write in scholarly journals, and they offer evidence for their claims. But then there always has to be the jerkoff who throws a wild claim of "but they're paid to say those things!" out there.

I'm assuming that the vast majority of people (those with IQs above 80 and those who haven't lived under a rock for the past decade) would agree with the assertion that man has increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Back to the topic at hand, this was taken from wikipedia's global warming article.


"But it's wikipedia!" Somebody is bound to cry out. Well, check wikipedia's citations. They are there for a reason. At first glance, I see articles from NASA, the Royal Society, and the Journal of Geophysical Research in that paragraph alone. No more bullshit about immoral scientists accepting bribes to lie to the public. Please just offer some real, damning evidence about global warming. If there were any damning evidence, Fox News would have already been playing it night and day.


And the level of stupidity in that quote is enormous. Firefighters don't need to start fires to stay in business. They are simply there for the chance that there will be a fire, and they put their lives on the line to do so, and we certainly don't even need to mention volunteer firefighters.

Although your argument loosely fits, its a total off shoot.

O so you wouldn't agree that the science of global warming isn't funded more than it needed too? (By the U.S. government) That to me itself implies corruption, deception, the works.


Right because the news is all about facts and important issues and not making money right? Look im not saying its not an issue, its just that humans aren't to blame, or more importantly we cannot stop whats going to happen. C'est la vie - Que sera sera

Once again you missed the point.. global warming scientists make money and there jobs depend on global warming to exist, so why would they step out and say global warming is something we can't influence?

How about this? We don't have the knowledge or the experience to say whether or not global warming scientists are lying to make a story. They are environmental scientists, and they aren't all evil scumbags. There are quite a few that agree that man made global warming is a problem, more then just a few who do it for the cash. There are also a group who believe that global warming is not man made. This by itself should be enough for us to say "wait, there's a division in the scientific community, and the money is going in to solving this debate, nuff said." Sorry, but please don't make blanket statements about the integrity of people who you know virtually nothing about, it makes for a very flimsy and ill considered argument.

"Right because the news is all about facts and important issues and not making money right? Look im not saying its not an issue, its just that humans aren't to blame, or more importantly we cannot stop whats going to happen. C'est la vie - Que sera sera"

That there is a very good representation of the North American mindset, one of the most irrational and destructive ones available. Americans cannot continue driving SUVs, guzzling power and gas, throwing away masses of material and over consuming. When you live a lifestyle that the earth does not have the ability to sustain, apathy is only going to increase future problems. You cannot make the claim that humans are not to blame, because that topic is obviously still debatable, and even in the unlikely circumstance that it's not something we can help, it's pretty damn obvious that releasing million-year old carbon from the ground in to our air is not a good thing to be doing. The earth existed for millions of years before we did, and guess what? There were global changes, sure, but it's always been fine in the end, our very existence should be proof enough for that. If we go around messing up the cycle, then there's no historical facts that we can look back on to predict the future, almost as long as there has been life, there has been millions of tonnes of carbon stored in the ground, that has not been in the atmosphere, and animal existence relies on plant life reducing the CO2 and creating oxygen, it's basically an equilibrium. Cutting down thousands of acres of rainforests and then sending a whack of CO2 in to the atmosphere is not a good idea, by any standards.

JaBoK what sense you do make, you really go and ruin everything you just said with that little stupid statement and occasional nonsense. I'm getting tired of it all, I see every other sentence as being arguable and some of them being worthy of arguing. Your right about not being environmental scientists, blanket statements, blah, and I'm satisfied. Both sides of the story have been viewed debated. The last paragraph was totally off... didn't you just say don't make blanket statements? I mean seriously if you can't tell me that I'm wrong, and global warming is man made, neither can you say that my attitude is irrational nor destructive. Actually my attitude is pro U.S. economy because the Kyoto protocol is destructive to life. (damaging the economy, more starving people, more in poverty... right) And the Kyoto protocol is the option that U.S. and other countries will be reducing CO2 emissions. Even if I'm completely wrong, how do you intend on "saving" the earth from this destructive attitude you imply I have. O thats right, you can't. The rest was partially off topic, historical facts show our climate to go up and down. This made me laugh, you pretty much lost your credibility here, "There were global changes, sure, but it's always been fine in the end, our very existence should be proof enough for that" Na not like dinosaurs they're fine, ice ages, the volcanic eruption that caused a 2 year winter, all fine. So how can you say all the sudden earth is in peril and we're at fault. Rain forests? please. If the CO2 given off by burning them was even barely significant it would be on every pro global warming website.

This is why I actually like $4.00 gas. Sure, it ends up hurting a lot of people, but even more people have to stop driving 12 MPG SUVs and trucks. You know what? You can do a lot to stop your contributions to CO2 emissions. Get better gas mileage by not driving over 55 MPH on the highway (oh my god, that's so slow!), turning your computer off at night, and turning the AC up by 5 or 6 degrees. If you think you're incapable of making baby steps like that, then there really isn't any hope for the world.

1st. global warming is causing higher CO2, not higher CO2 is causing global warming.
2nd. you need to read the topic if you wanna make a point, if its already been made don't.
3rd. thats not going to "save" the world. If it is why don't you prove it to me.

1. This is the point you first made and I refuted in one of my previous posts.
2. Okay there, bud.
3. One person isn't going to save the world, but one person can sure as hell help!

But really, did you totally forget or simply not read that bit about the part where the ocean soaks up CO2? Global warming simply makes it so that oceans can't soak up CO2 as quickly.
I've already linked the article, so I'm not going to again. It's basic, common knowledge, and yet people still refute it. Burning fossil fuels release Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
And wow, I never could have guessed that an article from such a corrupt entity as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution would also say that CO2 causes global warming. So if only water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't really explain why temperatures are rising (because humidity varies a great deal through the atmosphere from day to day). Surely, there must be other greenhouse gases at work. So Zell, you want to tell us that no, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. We already know that we release a lot of the stuff, but since you say it has no effect on global warming, then I suppose we have nothing to worry about!

Of course... why is the temperature continuing to rise? Maybe it's the volcanoes and solar activity, but one of the articles went on to say that those two things actually raised temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century and, were it not for CO2, would actually have decreased the temperature slightly. Stop grabbing at thin air. Don't expect me to reply again, because whenever I make a point, you strike back in that most Republican of ways and call me stupid, refusing to acknowledge that an answer was actually given.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 20 2008, 8:19 pm by Doodan. Reason: flame removed

Okay, so, read the posts, some of it I'm not going to bother talking about, but here's one quote that's completely off.
"I mean seriously if you can't tell me that I'm wrong, and global warming is man made, neither can you say that my attitude is irrational nor destructive. Actually my attitude is pro U.S. economy because the Kyoto protocol is destructive to life."

First off, I can tell you that there's a good chance your wrong, second, I can say that the attitude is both irrational and destructive without having to use global warming as an example. Your attitude cannot be "pro US economy" if you've actually considered that statement. The American economy is currently rolling down a hill towards a collapse. (source) (source) (source) (source)

So, if that isn't enough proof that the US economy is not sustainable, I don't know what is, other then even more evidence, which isn't too hard to find using google. The reason the attitude of "I can't do anything about it" or "I'll just do whatever I want" is not a good thing is because if people don't make changes, then the fact that their lifestyle is not sustainable will come back to bite them in the ass. I've already agreed that the Kyoto protocol is not a good way of making changes, but that doesn't mean it's okay, morally or rationally, to sit around guzzling oil and expect that things will be the same for the next hundred years. Yeah, people will have to suck it up and get rid of their American lifestyle a some point, whether it's by the fact that oil won't be around forever, or maybe people will come to their senses and actually work to preserve as much as they can, which is not going to happen for two big reasons. One, people have that attitude, and two, those people get to vote.

No actually if global warming isn't man made, than denying things like the kyoto protocol is very reasonable not destructive at all. If global warming isn't man made and we approve of things like the kyoto protocol thats destructive and irrational. No actually it can be pro U.S. economy because we all know gas is up, etc... but it could be worse. Towards collapse? we're down but we're not out, just cause we're so rich.

Okay first start talking about global warming, don't apply my attitude to non global warming issues and tell me how wrong it is. My attitude is about global warming. "I've already agreed that the Kyoto protocol is not a good way of making changes, but that doesn't mean it's okay" So what do we do about it? Don't get talking about gas, economy, lifestyle, attitudes, if its not talking about global warming.

You just run at the mouth of CO2 and ocean acid, which btw you said you responded to the whole Global warming causes CO2 and i can't find anything about it, or maybe you missed the point that the CO2 we release isn't causing a significant warmth. You make the assumption that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we release CO2 and that temperature is rising we are the factor, but in my opinion thats not that case. "So if only water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't really explain why temperatures are rising" Earth cycles, melting ice caps let more water vapor into the air, Z factors. And your quotes, well I've already argued the entire man made CO2 dispute.

And seriously i said make your points short and sweet, you guys get one idea and run with it make it simple christ.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 20 2008, 9:22 pm by Zell..

Alright, going to have to interject here, because I think you missed some things.

For the 1st qoute, GWR(Global Warming Research) is so heavily funded because the democrats WANT it to be. It is not because it's corrupt, not because they are trying to decieve you, but because the American people (Or atleast the majority) want it to be funded.

The 2nd qoute, is, by far, the dumbest thing I've ever heard, Humans caused the imbalance, if you will, the fly that broke the camels back. Now, we can slow it down by reducing the amount of fossil fuels and such that we are using, cut down on the lifestyle that we currently have. Another thing, it all depends on what news your checking, they aren't all like that, just the mainstream ones. (Don't forget the science journals dedicated to this sort of thing)

I won't bother with the third qoute, you were right.

EDIT: Also, look at the first lyric in my sig, you might figure out something about what your doing wrong here >.>

And why do you think democrats do that? Blind faith is my answer. Too many people believe the work he does "late at night" as he says lol. Do you're own research! And it may be the majority of the American people, but its 95% of the democrats, and 35% of the republicans.

Um... I think we can agree the media sets the agenda, republican - democrats just take sides. If the mass media broadcasts about gun violence chances are, people will write to there senators - reps, and then a bill is debated about a gun violence program, it goes on and on. It starts with the media, not a republican-democrat. I don't think the R-D's initiate in taking action, I think they see what people have to say, what the media says, try to make the people happy. As long as they keep they're getting paid and keep they're job.


You misinterpreted. Hows this theory sound. Most American people do want it funded, but most don't know much about global warming. The media takes the side that the earth is in peril because its interesting. So the American people people take the stance towards global warming research. The whole deception, corruption thing is that there is to much money going into research, more than sufficient. Global warming funding has something like 10x as much funding in the last few years.

Don't be so narrow minded. What makes you so sure that we caused the imbalance? Theres no point in stirring up the same debate thats been had, if your not willing to change your opinion theres no hope.

You have no signature.

I never said I particularly liked it, I just said that's why it is. Thanks for the correction, I know some of the republicans would like it to be aswell, though most people I know think that they are all evil doers, so if I'd like to sound credible to them, I need to make them look like that, even if I don't actually believe the stereotype, sorry about that.



They don't need to know much about the topic at hand, they just need to do it >.> That's why we're in Iraq right now, but I'd rather not get into that.

I thought we were still having that debate? Meh, I think we caused the imbalance because that tiny little percentage (0.28%, I believe) that humans are contributing was the tiny little bit that made it so. If I had a misconception there, forgive me, but it certainly seemed that way to me (Why else would Earth have worked for 6 billion some odd years?).

Err, on a side note, my signature was there before, it was "Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies, much better you than I." (EDIT: Yeah, I know it was too long, but that's what I wanted him to look at), I think that describes your basic mentality of the situation (That is, global warming, don't go off on a hate speech on anything else here, I'm new enough to this forum to not know everyone's political beliefs and affiliations)

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 21 2008, 10:36 pm by BAGLES.