[Kanda444]

Because we all know i like 'extraordinary evidence', let's look at the science behind this "debate"



Before we start, if this is a TR;DR situation for you, that kind of speaks volumes about one's ability to research things just kidding.... kinda.

According to Dr. Tapio Schneider , a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech) as well as the Professor of Climate Dynamics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, in an article called "How We Know Global Warming Is Real" [2008] :

Certainties and Uncertainties

While there are uncertainties in climate projections, it is important to realize that the climate projections are based on sound scientific principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, with measurements of optical properties of gases. The record of past climate changes that can be inferred, for example, with geochemical methods from ice cores and ocean sediment cores, provides tantalizing hints of large climate changes that occurred over Earth’s history, and it poses challenges to our understanding of climate (for example, there is no complete and commonly accepted explanation for the cycle of ice ages and warm periods). However, climate models are not empirical, based on correlations in such records, but incorporate our best understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes being modeled. Hence, evidence that temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in some climate changes on the timescales of ice ages, for example, only shows that temperature changes can affect the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which in turn feed back on temperature changes. Such evidence does not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, or the conclusion that the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the past decades is human induced.

(source)

The article also covers 'The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change' and 'How can such a minute amount of carbon dioxide affect Earth’s radiative energy balance?'.... This is one other example I could find of a scientist proving the point Justifiable is making with scientific data. if you look at the source he posted, it leads to this:

Full Global Carbon Budget

The Global Carbon Budget is a collaborative effort of the global carbon cycle science community coordinated by the Global Carbon Project.

The global carbon budget refers to the mean, variations, and trends in the anthropogenic perturbation of CO2 in the atmosphere, referenced to the beginning of the industrial era. It quantifies the input of CO2 to the atmosphere by emissions from human activities, the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the resulting changes in land and ocean carbon fluxes in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, climate change and climate variability, and other anthropogenic and natural changes. An understanding of this perturbation budget over time and the underlying variability and trends of the natural carbon cycle are necessary to understand and quantify climate-carbon feedbacks

The Global Carbon Project (here) says:

The Global Carbon Project was formed to assist the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base supporting policy debate and action to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The growing realization that anthropogenic climate change is a reality has focused the attention of the scientific community, policymakers and the general public on the rising concentration of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, and on the carbon cycle in general. Initial attempts, through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, are underway to slow the rate of increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These societal actions require a scientific understanding of the carbon cycle, and are placing increasing demands on the international science community to establish a common, mutually agreed knowledge base to support policy debate and action.

The Global Carbon Project is responding to this challenge through a shared partnership between the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) and Diversitas. This partnership constitutes the Earth Systems Science Partnership (ESSP).

....."The growing realization that anthropogenic climate change..." anthropogenic meaning ' originating in human activity' "... is a reality".

More evidence? Wiki had to say:

A metastudy of academic papers concerning global warming, published between 1991 and 2011 and accessible from Web of Knowledge, found that among those whose abstracts expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.2% supported the consensus view that it is man made.

(source)

A 'metastudy', by the way, is a study " that focus on contrasting and combining results from different studies, in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies". I know, most people like to say that Wikipedia isnt reliable but i disagree...it's only as reliable as your ability to accurately research information and the sources from which it came.

In this case, we are looking for the metastudy they are referring to.... let's see if it exists and what it really has to say, right?

Title:
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

Affiliation:
AA(Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia ; Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ; School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Australia), AB(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia ; Tetra Tech, Incorporated, McClellan, CA, USA), AC(Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA), AD(Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, UK), AE(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia), AF(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia), AG(Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada), AH(Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA), AI(Skeptical Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Salt Spring Consulting Ltd, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada)

Publication:
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Issue 2, article id. 024024 (2013).

Publication Date:
06/2013

Abstract

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991-2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

(Source)

That paper, by the way, is on Harvard.edu

So, this isn't really a debate. There is the truth (which is supported by the facts provided by the majority of the scientific community).... and there is the denial of the truth (which is supported by global climate and weather predictions based on personal uneducated observations of local weather patterns and, at best, the "vanishingly small proportion of the published research").

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by bob351 ↗

We are not damaging anything, the earth will be just fine... only thing we are hurting are us and the current species on this planet.

Life will adapt and change as it always has.

This is also true

[JustifiableHomicide]

Beautiful Kanda, just beautiful.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by JustifiableHomicide ↗

Beautiful Kanda, just beautiful.

Thank you, sir.

[bob351]

Originally Posted by JustifiableHomicide ↗

I'm mostly worried about one species in particular.. Homo-sapiens.

What a bunch of neerdowells.

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by bob351 ↗

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." - Richard Dawkins quoting a former editor of New Scientist Magazine

[Kanda444]

Originally Posted by bob351 ↗

What a bunch of neerdowells.

neerdowells awesome word choice!

silly humans.. the little imps have certainly skylarked themselves into quite a mare's nest

[rapeWhistle]

I blame Obama.

[tootsieflowrslave]

Originally Posted by mrm1109 ↗

The only good thing about this cold weather to me is supposedly the cold is killing off all the insect eggs. So in the spring time we might not get many stink bugs. I don't know if any where else in the world (other then the U.S and Asia) get stink bugs but I hate those things!

Those diabolical pieces of shit damn near destroyed my garden this year. They always leave a pile of their filthy, disgusting, repugnant ass shells around my windows sills and in the laundry room during their mating season shit fest. God willing give us more sub zero weather, as much as possible, if it means all-and I emphasize all-of their vile shit stained offspring are wiped off the continental U.S. forever.

I wish something like that was possible, only cockroaches have a more dubious distinction IMO. :2 gunsfiring_v1:

[mrm1109]

They got my garden too. I think we need some type of new bird that will eat them. Supposedly, the new breed of stink bug coming up from the south will eat the ones we have but I guess they bite