Are you kidding? Look at the variations between the years. Extrapolating lines in that data is a stretch in the first place that that amplitude of variation.
Second, the point had been what part of whatever warming there is humans are responsible for due to the burning of fossil fuels. If we weren't here, would we be seeing the same trend? Hard to say.

quote:

Over 40 years and not even a degree???????

show us the satellite info from the 1900,s to present . now that would be intresting ....

Change your temp increments to hundredths instead of tenths, and zoom in on 1985 to 1998. THEN you'll REALLY see the trend!

isnt a picture worth a thousand words?

anybody remember "acid rain"?
cap and trade on smoke stack emissions ended "acid rain" in the north east.

when i started hunting in ohio in the mid seventys ohios deer population was about 85,000 now it's 700,000 plus today

we have bald eagle nests right here in dayton now.never saw one as a kid.

hawks are everywhere now,i dont remember seeing one as a kid.

lake erie caught on fire when i was a kid. now familys catch and eat walleye in the same spot. safely!

the point?

we took action to clean up our enviroment.

why? because we humans were having a negative impact on it.

let us not forget how far we have come. and thru rose colored glasses let the actions we took to clean up our enviroment relax so that erie catchs fire again.

before you discount climate change take a closer look at the air quality in all the emergeing industrialised countries.

they are building more smoke stacks every day.

smog blocks out the sun every day.

i remember when daytons skys wernt blue they are now.

humans are having an impact just look at the sky. dont believe your own eyes?

I thought we were talking about a warming trend of the earth overall. I don't see anyone saying that we shouldn't protect our air...like we are. The disagreement seems to be whether we are having a measurable impact on the temperature of the earth by burning fossil fuels.

In the 70's the same whack jobs that are responsible for the global warming HOAX were preparing everyone for the coming ice age!
They turned on a dime and switched to global warming when it becane apparent they couldn't foist the ice age onto the population and the strange thing is the same measures were going to have to be taken to stave off the coming ice age as they claim we need to stave off catastrophic global warming?????????????
The new home of the former communists is the greenie whackado movement, ANTI-CAPITALISM you see!

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:
I thought we were talking about a warming trend of the earth overall. I don't see anyone saying that we shouldn't protect our air...like we are. The disagreement seems to be whether we are having a measurable impact on the temperature of the earth by burning fossil fuels.

x2

It's a typical all-or-nothing straw man argument.
"Reign in the EPA" = "You want to kill bald eagles and set lakes on fire!"
"Eliminate the Dept of Education and return funding and power to the States" = "You don't want to educate children!"
"Obamacare is not the right fix for our healthcare system" = "Die quickly!"
"Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security reform" = "Feed Grandma dog food and push her over the cliff"

Which is why I tried to re-start the conversation in a different manner on another thread. So many times, people of differing views are not even having the same discussion.

WOW!

i guess my bad for showing the enviromental impact on the earth as a whole thru the lens of my life experiences.

i guess my wrap up about the smoke stacks being built every day and the sun has been blocked out in many regions didnt paint a clear picture of what we put into the air affects the planet.

i guess a picture isnt worth a thousand words. maybe i need more charts and cartoons?

and buck ol buddie can you find me a chart that doesnt show a warming trend in the earth SINCE the industrial revolution?

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
and buck ol buddie can you find me a chart that doesnt show a warming trend in the earth SINCE the industrial revolution?

Maybe you could compare that chart to one from the 1400's, or any other number of periods throughout the earth's existence!?!?

stan the man!

i guess i'm just not willing to gamble with the issue.

i dont know it just seems reasonable to me if you look at the pristine planet before the industrial revolution and look at what we put into the air with all the smoke stacks now i would think any reasonable person would have to assume humans are having a negative impact.

clean pristine air vs the heavy smog in all of these emerging countries.

???

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
stan the man!

i guess i'm just not willing to gamble with the issue.

i dont know it just seems reasonable to me if you look at the pristine planet before the industrial revolution and look at what we put into the air with all the smoke stacks now i would think any reasonable person would have to assume humans are having a negative impact.

clean pristine air vs the heavy smog in all of these emerging countries.

???

A reasonable person would know that charts from any number of periods throughout history would all look pretty similar and understand that "man's" impact is infinitesimal.

Do some reading and ask yourself why just a few short years ago carbon monoxide (CO) was the "end all be all" of evil greenhouse gases. But then, all of the sudden, carbon dioxide (CO2) became the scourge of planet.

See, I work in the field that has been a major propagator of the man made global warming narrative. And originally CO was the main focus because they wanted to target the internal combustion engine and the burning of fossil fuels as the "culprit". But when the science that was suppose to back up this narrative showed that the amount of CO in the atmosphere had not changed by any significant amount in the last 100+ years it shot their narrative all to hell.

Enter CO2, the most abundant "green house" gas in the atmosphere. "That's the cause of global warming" they now claim. Well of course CO2 is the most abundant "green house" gas in the atmosphere... every living, breathing animal on this planet expels CO2. And why is CO2 a "green house" gas? Maybe because plants need CO2 to live.

I'm all for "clean emissions"! But let's do because it's the right thing to do and implement reasonable practices that don't destroy industry or place undo financial burden on consumers in the name of some bogus agenda pushed by the global warming alarmist and environmental zealots.

I look at that graph, and I see no statistically vaible conclusions. First of all, if you go to the race track, and get 5 time trials:
8.06
8.15
8.10
8.01
8.04
Now, you can stick a line in there that loosely represents the data, and shows a slight trend of the car getting faster. Would anyone in their right mind believe that the car is truely getting faster with that data spread? Now, using that trend line, one might want to attribute the increase in performance to the variations in the tail wind, and ignore all other more significant influences. Now, only an ignorant racer would do this based on that data, but we are expected to accept this from something that is much larger and more difficult to accurately measure, and then we are to assume that one reason is the only reason for the change in the climate. Basing decisions on that kind of interpretation of data to me is dangerous and foolish.

i'll hedge my bet on smoke stack bad,
clean air good

besides you always got to follow the $$$$

who gains from this?

who on k street is making $ selling global warming?
nobody i can find

but look at all the k street lobyists selling it as a hoax.

no lobyists vs many lobyists.

follow the cash boys!

quote:

Originally posted by daytonchoppers:
i'll hedge my bet on smoke stack bad,
clean air good

besides you always got to follow the $$$$

who gains from this?

who on k street is making $ selling global warming?
nobody i can find

but look at all the k street lobyists selling it as a hoax.

no lobyists vs many lobyists.

follow the cash boys!

First of all, we aren't talking about clean air. We all realize that is important. We are talking here about global warming.

Second, follow the money to the end, and you will find closed up factories and Americans burdened with possibly unneeded changes to pay for, all while we carry the world on the grand changes. We know most of the rest of the industrialized countries will not adopt whatever changes we force on ourselves.

As far as lobyists, if we would just get rid of them all, things would probably straighten themselves out naturally.

quote:

Originally posted by Bucky:
I look at that graph, and I see no statistically vaible conclusions. First of all, if you go to the race track, and get 5 time trials:
8.06
8.15
8.10
8.01
8.04
Now, you can stick a line in there that loosely represents the data, and shows a slight trend of the car getting faster. Would anyone in their right mind believe that the car is truely getting faster with that data spread? Now, using that trend line, one might want to attribute the increase in performance to the variations in the tail wind, and ignore all other more significant influences. Now, only an ignorant racer would do this based on that data, but we are expected to accept this from something that is much larger and more difficult to accurately measure, and then we are to assume that one reason is the only reason for the change in the climate. Basing decisions on that kind of interpretation of data to me is dangerous and foolish.

Move the decimal point a couple times. We're not talking about changes nearly that big. Which is even more illustrative of the point.

quote:

Second, follow the money to the end, and you will find closed up factories and Americans burdened with possibly unneeded changes to pay for, all while we carry the world on the grand changes. We know most of the rest of the industrialized countries will not adopt whatever changes we force on ourselves.

Right. Trying to do too much too quickly and killing business only hurts the environment. Closed factory in the US means an open factory overseas with more pollution.

k street must die!

but why arnt there any pro warming lobyists?

why are there so many anti-warming lobyists?

scientists havent hired one single lobyist.
why is there a building full of lobyists saying sceince is wrong?

which message SHOULD we beleive?

quote:

why are there so many anti-warming lobyists?

Trike boy, who are you kidding. Ever look at the solar industry?

quote:

Originally posted by Koskis only friend:

quote:

why are there so many anti-warming lobyists?

Trike boy, who are you kidding. Ever look at the solar industry?

Ding ding ding!! We have a friken winner!

The "climate change", after global warming went out of fashion, hoaxers are loading up with the tax payers money, they don't need lobbyists!