antman said:
Point me to this scientific evidence.
Well yes, but the rival camp is the size of a 4 man canvas tent pitched outside Geneva, and is largely populated by crackpots or those funded by big oil "think-tanks", speaking of "vested interests". But that's not important to you, as long as there is an "opposing view" then we can split it down the middle right? Then it's just a matter of opinion right?
No, it was an editorial choice - and like most publications that rely on stock images, they selected it and published it. This is the way journalists and publishers work. And yes, they do make mistakes and publish corrections. No conspiracy required. The best regarded publications do make mistakes though - and the good ones publish corrections.
See above. An editorial choice of a photograph in a magazine does not invalidate science. Spreading FUD doesn't invalidate science. What does invalidate a particular scientific theory or measurement is further scientific empirical evidence.
Or is it just the denialists spreading FUD? Does a typo invalidate a scientific paper? Does a photograph as an accompanying sidebar to a story in Science invalidate the content of the story? Is a photograph in Science from 2005 the only evidence you have of the massive AGW conspiracy that is conning the foolish and naive?
By the way, still waiting for you to condemn the $12 billion AUD in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. This is a distortion of the free market, results in higher taxes for all of us, and of course stifles innovation and development of more efficient industries and technologies.
No point directing you to the scientific evidence as apparently to you, they are all crackpots and scientists with vested interests anyway, while the scientists that publish the data that conforms to your view is holier than thou, pure, and has no vested interest whatsoever, do they?
Like I said in an earlier post, BOTH sides have scientific data which can debunk the other, so there is no point me trawling the internet with links...then you post links saying its crap...then I post more links proving you're talking crap, etc.
In fact, I think I have already done this on this thread in the past anyway.
Yes, you're right...the doctored picture was an editorial choice from a bunch of stock images....to try and get the public to feel sorry for the polar bear. It was a deliberate attempt to coerce the reader to sympathise with the story being told, instead of relying on facts to prove this to the reader.
The problem is, "Science", which is supposedly based on facts and research and by using fake pictures to try and corroborate loses credibility as a result.
Again, I'm not anti-manmade pollution as reason behind global warming but I don't think it is the only reason or even the main reason. But it is a contributor.
Azza said:
Ok. We're in an interglacial period currently, and have been for 12000 years or so. During that time climate has been relatively stable. The significant peaks and troughs in global temperature during that time can be related to particular natural events, including volcanic eruptions. None of those peaks and troughs are as significant as the rise in temperature since 1900 or so. No natural event or cumulative series of events are known that might cause that warming. However, that trend coincides closely with increasing emissions since the industrial revolution.
You claim that a series of natural events accumulated to cause the rise. Which eruptions? Which solar flares? What positive feedback is occurring to cumulatively cause an increase in temperature? Why is this occurring now rather than at any time during the last 12000 years?
Azza...there aren't any accurate readings of the earth temperature before the industrial revolution anyway, so we don't really know what the real temperatures have been.
However, there have been natural phenomena in the past that have caused extinctions so any natural phenomena (and that includes increases in earthquake activity, the first half of the 20th century saw an increase in solar energy, whereas there are scientists who believe that a lack of solar activity caused the Little Ice Age between 1650 and 1850) can have large affects and very quickly.
I'm agreeing with you that the Industrial Revolution has played some part in global warming but there are too many larger factors that have played roles which seem to be neglected.
Like the link I posted last post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
...there's a massive change due to a dust veil caused by a volcanic eruption (or even a meteorite) which changed the climate across the globe...now surely this would then have a domino effect regarding droughts, water disappearing, which would change ecosystems, which would lead to further changes globally.
These again seem to be neglected.
