The bias works both ways. Although there will be some contention on both sides of the argument; I have to say, purely watching BigDave's arguments, has shown there is indeed some intelligence left on the board. Not to knock the other camp, as there have been a few rebuttals here and there; BigDave is clearly winning the debate, hands down. Not that anyone on this board would convince me either way about the actual issue.
Big Dave can sit in a classroom or a library and soak up info. Big Dave can regurgitate it anywhere, any time. Run Big Dave Run, See Big Dave Run......
I'm not sure about the global warming connection (though I would like a damn answer quickly as to why the polar ice caps have basically shrunk by 75% other than the knucklescraper standard response of 'it's a cycle, man,' as I watch the polar bear go extinct in my lifetime), but I am convinced burning fossil fuels, whether oil or coal, contribute to disease and degradation of the environment in oh so many ways. I'm all for switching to cleaner forms of energy production - EVEN at a higher cost. You can feed your kids $5 pizzas and McDonald's dollar menu food every night, or pay a lot more and ensure they get much cleaner, much more healthy food, and grow to thrive. They've absolutely proven that kids living within a 5 mile radius of a coal fired power plant are as much as 40 times likelier to contract childhood asthma. Who loves ya'?
Show the original graph to which you're referring, and the changed graph to convince me that you haven't just misunderstood them. [quoet] So then as trefoil pointed out, the current day air measurements were taken at Mauna Loa. So does this mean that since it was a single point measurement, it is also not relevant?[/quote] Except for the fact that there were also reference measurements made at the south pole, yes, other than the two points there was only one point of measure. Calculate out any average you like back to the start of the industrial revolution. Doesn't matter. Okay, then no. False. Those measures are not used for prediction, but used for measuring how anomolous the current temperatures and CO2 measures are. Once again, the "northern hemisphere" is not the globe. We are discussing global temperature patterns, not the northern hemisphere, not Russia, not Greenland. Global average temperatures. I challenge you to cite this.
For a bunch of Elite Traders, y'all are disappointingly lazy. Data from around the world are available, but only from 1980, so if you really want to run a halfway decent stat test you have to use Mauna Loa. However, as the site from which I got this points out: Percentagewise, that standard deviation barely manages to register. Kind of like a gnat on the trunk of an elephant. Site (full suite of CO2 data available here): http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Temperature anomalies: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php#sr05 Like I said, all the data on which these arguments are based are available, for free. All of it points to the idea that the world is warming at an increasingly rapid rate, and that it's due to the world's increasing prosperity. The latter is a good thing, the former, not so much. But we advance by actually solving problems, not denying they exist. Our ancestors did it and left us the world we live in, and we have a responsibility to do the same and leave a decent world for our children. Otherwise, as I write this - as I pointed out earlier - we'd all be up to our eyeballs in horseshit. Personally, I like the world they left us better.
Thats right. You are the idiot who thinks man created automobiles to deal with the horseshit problem. Do you actually take yourself seriously and do you know how stupid you sound?
Actually, no. Man created autos to make money. However, they made money because they solved the problem of getting around without having to keep a horse. Horses and cars, way back when, went about the same speed, but a car was a lot cheaper and easier to maintain, even though they were, before Ford came along anyway, more expensive to get up front. So, horseless carriages won out. And yes, one of the problems that cars solved was the incredible amount of horseshit that accumulated in the cities. Just because you don't know your history doesn't mean you're right.
From http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-09-28-model-t_N.htm "When the Model T first hit America's roads, cities were choked with people and horses, and the top public health nuisances were horse manure and urine and flies. One New York forecaster warned that by 1930, manure would reach the third story of Manhattan's buildings." "The Model T, and cars to follow, became the unlikely solution, causing an explosion in the number of automobiles. The 79,000 vehicles in 1905 had grown to 244.2 million in 2006 and also led to air pollution, a vast network of paved roads and the birth and growth of suburbs. " The Model T, by the way, got better gas mileage than many modern SUV's. "In New York City 2.5 million pounds of horse manure had to be removed daily." http://books.google.ca/books?id=oRw...5tKMB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10
This is pretty good too. It seems the problem reappears when people who use horses do: Amish May Be Good Neighbors, but Not Their Horses