# Global Warming for Dummies **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2012, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172 "2012-01-30T08:44:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/121 "2012-01-31T09:20:15Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, you have to take into account that besides attempting to deny what he said about Monckton he raised the accusation of me using Alarmist sites or scientists twice before I said anything about any denialist cites from him. > > But getting to the subject, of course Nature is affecting the climate, the problem is that the excess CO2 released by humans is affecting the balance of the CO2 that was there in nature before. > > [What does past climate change tell us about global warming?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm) I’m not interested in your personal friction with Blake. Yes, he is abrasive. Intelligent, informed, experienced, and abrasive. Your cite is totally devoid of information and reason. It basically makes the undeniable claim that humans are affecting the climate, and because we have seen climate changes in the past we can take a giant leap across time and space and say that the human effect on the climate is going to lead to unending global warming. That isn’t science. We know that past events have had an effect on the climate, but we don’t really understand the mechanism, and we have very little accurate data. Correlation is not causation, and coincidence of random events isn’t even meaningful correlation. The only thing I can derive from looking at all the sources of information is that we have seen a recent short term warming trend that could have been caused by many different things, some of those things produced by humans. Since we have so little accurate data over such a short time span, drawing scientific conclusions about the specific mechanisms is fraught with uncertainty. Making predictions based on such weakly supported conclusions is just plain foolish. I am as concerned as anyone that the worst case conclusions of some scientists could be right. I’m also concerned about human attempts to correct problems that make things worse. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/122 "2012-01-31T09:24:39Z")
[QUOTE=Blake] Why would you expect that? We might just as well say "Seems to me that if temperature level increases were the result of fuel consumption, you would expect temperature to rise smoothly [not in fits and starts](http://www.lavoisier.com.au/images/Figure12.jpg). Since temperature hasn’t increased in a steady manner over the last 50 years, it can;t be due to fossil fuel use. [/quote] If you insert the word “solely” before “the result” and again before the word “due,” then I would say that statement is probably true. Consider global temperature between 1900 and 1945. Although the general trend was upwards, there were plenty of years which were colder than the previous year. With CO2 levels, each and every year over the last 40 years has had higher levels than the previous year. Is there any natural process in the Earth’s climate which is that regular over that kind of time scale? > [@](#): > > followed by stable movement in the new direction for several decades. I highly doubt that there is enough resolution in that data to compare. Are you seriously claiming with a high degree of certainty that CO2 levels in the year 137860 BC were lower than those of 137859 BC? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/123 "2012-01-31T13:33:57Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m not interested in your personal friction with Blake. Yes, he is abrasive. Intelligent, informed, experienced, and abrasive. And yet, he defended what it is the definition of what a denier of the science is, Lord Monckton. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Your cite is totally devoid of information and reason. It basically makes the undeniable claim that humans are affecting the climate, and because we have seen climate changes in the past we can take a giant leap across time and space and say that the human effect on the climate is going to lead to unending global warming. That isn’t science. Over here you are dealing nowhere with the science information and links in the cite. > [@](#): > > CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity. The link of empirical observations is precisely information acquired by means of observation or experimentation. > **[How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm)** > > \An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2.... > [@](#): > > Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation > > In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows: > Figure 1: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001). > > What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation is consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. > > This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using more recent satellite data. The 1970 and 1997 spectra were compared with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003 (Griggs 2004). This analysis was extended to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004 (Chen 2007). **Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matching the expected changes from rising carbon dioxide levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is causing an enhanced greenhouse effect.** The very important thing to get from here, is that that is peer reviewed science, giving just platitudes like “That isn’t science”. “or weakly supported conclusions” is something else alright, it is showing all that you are not dealing with or checking the cites. It is also confirmation of what was found in the recent past BTW. > **[More Proof of Global Warming](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-proof-of-global-warm/)** ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/124 "2012-01-31T13:42:36Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Data is which is open to numerous interpretations, as has been seen in the scientific literature. SO this certainly doesn’t make you assertion “clear”. It forms part of a complicated and debatable argument to that end based upon certain assumptions. Are you going to actually offer one of those interpretations? Do they have any more weight than interpretations of light transmissions as the ether? > [@](#): > > Which in no way supports your assertion that humans are clearly responsible for the increase in generation. It’s as plain as day that humans have increased CO2 generation. It’s the product of any combustion reaction. Are you implying that if humans didn’t burn fossil fuels, that carbon would still be entering the atmosphere? The fact that humans generate CO2 isn’t even up for debate among anybody with a reasonable understanding of the subject. > [@](#): > > That’s arguable at best. Even the IPCC stops clear of making the bold assertion that it is a fact. Perhaps that shoud;l give you cause to rethink why you belive it is a definite fact when the IPCC does not. It certainly isn’t clear form the Mauna Loa data as you asserted. Go ahead and spoon feed me the other possibilities. I’d love to see you balance the carbon mass if you remove the 30GT we’re adding. You’re going to have to do more than simply say “Nuh-uh!” and offer nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/125 "2012-01-31T14:55:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What is important is that you check what he really is, **why do you think he is not be commended**? Once again you’re trying some misdirection and deciding want I have to like or say. I personally decide what I like about a person or not, not you. For you, other aspects of Monkton’s life may be more relevant, not for me in this very insignificant comment that you, apparently have taken as meaning I want to torch your house. I’ll repeat my original, insignificant comment “_I’d love to be able to sound like Lord Monkton all pompous and dismissive of fools._” If you think this part is incorrect, I have no problem talking about it. Johnny the umrderer has a Maserati MC12, I can say “what a cool car” without that meaning I condone the murders. Of course, yet once again, saying “what a cool car” means, in GigOlanD “I’m sorry he’s in prison and can no longer murder”. > [@](#): > > Reading comprehension trouble, I’m not dealing with the peanut gallery but what Hadfield did say. I’m not dealing with Hadfield, I wasn’t dealing with Hadfield, I was simply agreeing with \*\*Blake \*\*regarding your debating tactics. you may want to to make it about Hadfield, it ain’t. I was referring to greeeman3610. You may want to make me say something else, but no. > [@](#): > > And educated opinion is the best one, demanding then that that I should have a different one from the ones that I choose to cite is really silly. I never said, nobody has said, that you need to have an opinion which is “…different one from the ones that I choose to cite…”, that is not true. Can you have at least the decency of defending your very own quotes. He said, per your full quote > [@](#): > > I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher and I have no qualifications to do anything other than report on what real climate scientists have discovered through their research. So there’s no point in disagreeing with me. If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite. Let’s see the claims 1. “I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher” –\> A common tactic of yours and many alarmists is saying “that denier is not a climate scientist” 2. “I have no qualifications to do anything other than report” –\> this means he’s good with ctrl-c ctrl-v 3. “what real climate scientists have discovered through their research” –\> so he’s got nothign of his own to say. 4. " So there’s no point in disagreeing with me" –\> true, becuase he isn’t saying anything of his own mind. Also this means there is no point in agrreing with him 8at most agreeing with his choice of links) 5. “If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite.” –\> This means that he provides no original ideas, so by his own vey words -which you yourself copied without any of us forcing you to do it- he is irrelevant to AGW discussions. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/126 "2012-01-31T14:58:46Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Let’s see the claims > > 1. “I’m not a climate scientist or a researcher” –\> A common tactic of yours and many alarmists is saying “that denier is not a climate scientist” > 2. “I have no qualifications to do anything other than report” –\> this means he’s good with ctrl-c ctrl-v > 3. “what real climate scientists have discovered through their research” –\> so he’s got nothign of his own to say. > 4. " So there’s no point in disagreeing with me" –\> true, becuase he isn’t saying anything of his own mind. Also this means there is no point in agrreing with him 8at most agreeing with his choice of links) > 5. “If you dislike their conclusions, take it up with the researchers I cite.” –\> This means that he provides no original ideas, so by his own vey words -which you yourself copied without any of us forcing you to do it- he is irrelevant to AGW discussions. Of course that would mean that it is you who is deciding what I want or what I have to like or say. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/127 "2012-01-31T15:01:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So you defend his trolling, interesting. [del] **GIGObuster** , you know better than this. You can’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates. Don’t do this again.[/del] Withdrawn; comment referred to Lord Monckton and not an SDMB poster. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/128 "2012-01-31T15:04:49Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **GIGObuster** , you know better than this. You can’t accuse other posters of trolling in Great Debates. Don’t do this again. Whoa, Lord Monckton posts here??? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/129 "2012-01-31T15:09:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Whoa, Lord Monckton posts here??? Fair enough; I thought you were talking about **Blake**. The note is withdrawn. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/130 "2012-01-31T16:39:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course that would mean that it is you who is deciding what I want or what I have to like or say. Nuh no. I put your exact, full quote and it was Hadfield’s so, at worst, I’m messing with him. I put what Hadfield means so that if you mention him you cannot change what he said. Each of my points is a fair assessment of a source you quoted. I will use your quote every time you say “he’s not a climate scientist” and go goose-gander. You post it, you have to own to it. If non-climate-scientists are ok to quote for you, you cannot dismiss a quote simply because it comes from a non-climate-scientist. You, on the other hand, can interpret Hadfield’s quote to be about how long to boil an egg to have soft-boiled ones. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/131 "2012-01-31T17:11:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Over here you are dealing nowhere with the science information and links in the cite. I’m not going to do your work. If there is peer reviewed publishing that supports your claims, point to it. Don’t give me more links to someones science-y blog like you do again here: > [@](#): > > The link of empirical observations is precisely information acquired by means of observation or experimentation. > > [How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm) > > The very important thing to get from here, is that that is peer reviewed science, giving just platitudes like “That isn’t science”. “or weakly supported conclusions” is something else alright, it is showing all that you are not dealing with or checking the cites. Those aren’t platitudes, they are accurate comments about the contents of the opinion piece you pointed to. > [@](#): > > It is also confirmation of what was found in the recent past BTW. > > [More Proof of Global Warming | Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm) Once again you point to useless information. Nobody denies the slight warming trend of recent years. That article did specify any connection between the measurements and the conclusions. Really, are you just going to go around calling everyone who points out the lack of science in your claims a denier? I’m not denying your science, because you haven’t shown me any. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/132 "2012-01-31T17:16:46Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Nuh no. I put your exact, full quote and it was Hadfield’s so, at worst, I’m messing with him. Good, but the point is that you have to deal with what he reports the science says. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I put what Hadfield means so that if you mention him you cannot change what he said. Each of my points is a fair assessment of a source you quoted. I will use your quote every time you say “he’s not a climate scientist” and go goose-gander. You post it, you have to own to it. If non-climate-scientists are ok to quote for you, you cannot dismiss a quote simply because it comes from a non-climate-scientist. What Hadfield reports is what the science is, what you propose there is just a cop out, ignore what the science says, never deal with it, and just hope others are impressed by your dismissal. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You, on the other hand, can interpret Hadfield’s quote to be about how long to boil an egg to have soft-boiled ones. And that only works by ignoring that the videos do come with the science citations. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/133 "2012-01-31T17:20:15Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m not going to do your work. If there is peer reviewed publishing that supports your claims, point to it. Don’t give me more links to someones science-y blog like you do again here: Everyone else can see the links to the science publications and papers in blue, what everyone can see is once again a demonstration that you can not follow links. The willfulness to ignore what is there is not my problem or for others that will check the science themselves. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/134 "2012-01-31T17:26:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Everyone else can see the links to the science publications and papers in blue, what everyone can see is once again a demonstration that you can not follow links. > > The willfulness to ignore what is there is not my problem or for others that will check the science themselves. Sorry, you’re the advocate. If you don’t want to prove your case, don’t expect to get intelligent acolytes. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/135 "2012-01-31T17:32:56Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Sorry, you’re the advocate. If you don’t want to prove your case, don’t expect to get intelligent acolytes. Meh, The case is shown already, and anyone can follow and confirm the information to check if the say so of the articles has support. What you are insisting is that no one can learn form reading the information, a very odd request really. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/136 "2012-01-31T17:49:25Z")
And we are dealing with what the OP mentions regarding why there seems to be a better effort from contrarians to make their points, many do have to investigate and learn about the basics avoiding misleading information that is clearly out there; however, it is not hard to get more information and funnily enough regarding the title of the thread: > **[Global Warming For Dummies: May, Elizabeth, Caron, Zoe: 9780470840986: Books -...](https://www.amazon.ca/Global-Warming-Dummies-Elizabeth-May/dp/0470840986)** > > Global Warming For Dummies: May, Elizabeth, Caron, Zoe: 9780470840986: Books - Amazon.ca One helpful review is interesting to notice as I do think there is a curious effort here to discourage others from reading the information for themselves. > [@](#): > > I bought this book for my children, who are not dumb at all, as an introduction to a global problem that I won’t be able to hide from them. As a professional ecological restorationist who works with scientific data to predict ecological succession, I know that consequences of climate change are something that my children are going to have to live with. My grandchildren, too. . . and so on. . . > I was worried about scaring my children with the scientific data the book contains, but Ms. May and Ms. Caron have presented it with a good touch of humour; dark humour, but funny none-the-less. Moreover, the book is choke full of Solutions. It is very thorough in its presentation of the actions we can all take to minimize the damage we are causing to the planet through our consumption of fossil fuels. Good job, Authors! > > What is more frightening than climate change however, is reviewers who say “There are a lot of books on Amazon which will explain the truth behind the issue. I don’t expect this to be one of them. -Drinse”. How can you in good conscience write a review of a book that you haven’t read yet? Indeed, how is it that it is recommendable to discourage others to read the information behind the reports or to declare other cites with what scientists are saying to be alarmist in an attempt to discourage others reading it or to have cites with no links to prevent others from reading the full context? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/137 "2012-01-31T18:14:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Good, but the point is that you have to deal with what he reports the science says. It means I can ignore Haddy and simply go to the sites, since he’s not a climate scientist. I will never pay attention and simply go to a sciencey site. > [@](#): > > What Hadfield reports is what the science is, what you propose there is just a cop out, ignore what the science says, never deal with it, and just hope others are impressed by your dismissal. No, I didn’t propose a cop out, not even remotely. No one who has actually read what I posted can honestly believe it. A cop out that is possibly what “generic denier” wants, not me. You haven’t actually touched any of the points I raised, which is par for the course for you. You propose, you get an answer and then go away complaining that I didn’t get Hadfield’s neighbour’s dog’s vet’s assistant’s boyfriend’s dad’s birthday right and that means BP and Karl Rove have bought my soul. > [@](#): > > And that only works by ignoring that the videos do come with the science citations. I’ll go straight to the source. If he says I shouldn’t disagree (and, it follows, agree) with him, I’ll go to place where there is some (dis)agreeing to be had. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/138 "2012-01-31T18:27:50Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And we are dealing with what the OP mentions regarding why there seems to be a better effort from contrarians to make their points, many do have to investigate and learn about the basics avoiding misleading information that is clearly out there; however, it is not hard to get more information and funnily enough regarding the title of the thread: > > [Global Warming For Dummies: May, Elizabeth, Caron, Zoe: 9780470840986: Books - Amazon.ca](http://www.amazon.ca/Global-Warming-Dummies-Elizabeth-May/dp/0470840986) > > One helpful review is interesting to notice as I do think there is a curious effort here to discourage others from reading the information for themselves. > > Indeed, how is it that it is recommendable to discourage others to read the information behind the reports or to declare other cites with what scientists are saying to be alarmist in an attempt to discourage others reading it or to have cites with no links to prevent others from reading the full context? That’s your quote??? Anonymous guy on Amazon??? Of a book with 5 reviews?? Can you verify the claim “_As a professional ecological restorationist who works with scientific data to predict ecological succession…_”? He can claim he is Megan Fox’s left nipple too. I haven’t read the book and won’t read it (I know enoug so that the dummies version of this is not for me), so I’m not talking about the book itself, it’s the absurdly sycophantic review. Who in this thread has said “_it is recommendable to discourage others to read the information behind the reports or to declare other cites with what scientists are saying to be alarmist in an attempt to discourage others reading it or to have cites with no links to prevent others from reading the full context?_”? At most, if some call a place “alarmist” is because you always say “denier”, it’s a balance issue. Do you actually think we can “prevent others” in this thread from doing anything?? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/139 "2012-01-31T18:30:49Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > That’s your quote??? Anonymous guy on Amazon??? Of a book with 5 reviews?? > Can you verify the claim “_As a professional ecological restorationist who works with scientific data to predict ecological succession…_”? He can claim he is Megan Fox’s left nipple too. > I haven’t read the book and won’t read it (I know enoug so that the dummies version of this is not for me), so I’m not talking about the book itself, it’s the absurdly sycophantic review. > > Who in this thread has said “_it is recommendable to discourage others to read the information behind the reports or to declare other cites with what scientists are saying to be alarmist in an attempt to discourage others reading it or to have cites with no links to prevent others from reading the full context?_”? At most, if some call a place “alarmist” is because you always say “denier”, it’s a balance issue. Do you actually think we can “prevent others” in this thread from doing anything?? The quote is to deal with a non scientific point in this case discouraging others from reading information, but thank you for showing others how adept you are on that regard. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172/140 "2012-01-31T18:36:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, The case is shown already, and anyone can follow and confirm the information to check if the say so of the articles has support. What you are insisting is that no one can learn form reading the information, a very odd request really. I’m still waiting for you to prove your case instead of linking to vanity sites. Your excuses have the taint of woo. Listen, your argument has to go like this: “Here is a peer reviewed scientific paper that explains the mechanism where by the changes in CO2 levels we see cause the earth to continuously warm.” And then you put a link in there to the paper. You won’t have trouble finding papers that hypothesize that the greenhouse effect is the mechanism, you just have to find one that establishes some proof. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-for-dummies/611172.md?page=8)