29 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI have never denied climate change.....period. Denying climate change is to deny the ice age. It doesn't make any sense to do so.
[b]It never happened!
Whoa! I think that might be going a little too far. You don't think there was a climate change with the worldwide flood of Noah's day?
The Instructor[/b]
Noah's Ark is a fictional story. It is not possible for all the world's land species to fit on a big boat. Now you are taking it too far.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYour statement is false. I never denied CO2 was a factor in climate change. I have denied it is the primary factor though. Even if I am wrong the world would not fall into chaos as many irrational alarmist on this forum imply.
what you deny, despite what very basic science clearly shows, is that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are causing the climate to warm by increasing the greenhouse effect.
Even the very basic science of photochemistry says CO2 should absorb infrared.This absorption has been directly measured both in the lab and in the wider Earth's atmosphere using i.r ...[text shortened]... greenhouse theory is correct and we are increasing the greenhouse effect via our CO2 emissions.
People on this thread make really stupid claims, like that all of the ice will melt. Soooo stupid!!!! The earth has been much warmer in the past (Eemian) than today and the ice never completely melted.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123133612.htm
Man did not exist during the Eemian period, yet it was much warmer than today. Global warming is completely natural.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainHe just failed on reading comprehension.
I have never denied climate change.....period. Denying climate change is to deny the ice age. It doesn't make any sense to do so.
Noah's Ark is a fictional story. It is not possible for all the world's land species to fit on a big boat. Now you are taking it too far.
Also Eddie Izzard with my favourite response to people who think the Noah's ark story and the 'great flood' story is true...
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou are wrong, on so many levels.
Your statement is false. I never denied CO2 was a factor in climate change. I have denied it is the primary factor though. Even if I am wrong the world would not fall into chaos as many irrational alarmist on this forum imply.
People on this thread make really stupid claims, like that all of the ice will melt. Soooo stupid!!!! The earth has been much ...[text shortened]... ring the Eemian period, yet it was much warmer than today. Global warming is completely natural.
And the fact that you consider yourself to be more reasonable, rational and knowledgeable than 97% of the worlds climate scientists makes you also incredibly arrogant as well as ignorant.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudge100% of scientists have no idea how the increased CO2 levels will affect weather. There are too many factors. For example, the earth warms and more water evaporates which cools the earth to some degree. Nobody knows how much.
You are wrong, on so many levels.
And the fact that you consider yourself to be more reasonable, rational and knowledgeable than 97% of the worlds climate scientists makes you also incredibly arrogant as well as ignorant.
We can live with global warming. It is not the end of the world. Why do you have this chicken little mentality?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThere are gradations of bad between "I stubbed my toe" and "the world is going to end".
100% of scientists have no idea how the increased CO2 levels will affect weather. There are too many factors. For example, the earth warms and more water evaporates which cools the earth to some degree. Nobody knows how much.
We can live with global warming. It is not the end of the world. Why do you have this chicken little mentality?
The consequences of global warming are not likely to be world ending.
This does not mean that we shouldn't make considerable efforts to avoid them.
You evidently have no clue what you are talking about (water vapour being a greenhouse
gas and thus increasing warming...) and you make assertions about what people who
dedicate their lives to studying this can and cannot know that contradict what they
say and the evidence shows.
This is deeply arrogant and stupid.
The experts say that this will be deeply costly in terms of species lost (extinctions), lives
lost and blighted, and economic damage.
The experts say that it will be vastly cheaper and safer to avoid these changes by
switching to an environmentally sustainable zero emissions economy.
With health benefits across the board.
Who are you to declare that they are wrong when you can't even get the basic facts right?
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudge"You evidently have no clue what you are talking about (water vapour being a greenhouse gas and thus increasing warming...)"
There are gradations of bad between "I stubbed my toe" and "the world is going to end".
The consequences of global warming are not likely to be world ending.
This does not mean that we shouldn't make considerable efforts to avoid them.
You evidently have no clue what you are talking about (water vapour being a greenhouse
gas and thus incre ...[text shortened]...
Who are you to declare that they are wrong when you can't even get the basic facts right?
Now you have failed at reading comprehension. I never said water vapor was increasing warming. I stated just the opposite.
"The experts say that it will be vastly cheaper and safer to avoid these changes by switching to an environmentally sustainable zero emissions economy."
Zero emissions economy? That is impossible. People will always burn fossil fuels, it is just a question of how much. I'm done debating you because it is a waste of time. You make ridiculous claims and fail at reading comprehension just as others you criticize do. You also are quick to insult which is the very ad hominem you try to accuse others of and often falsely as if you don't know the definition of it yourself.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainActually you fail at reading comprehension.
"You evidently have no clue what you are talking about (water vapour being a greenhouse gas and thus increasing warming...)"
Now you have failed at reading comprehension. I never said water vapor was increasing warming. I stated just the opposite.
"The experts say that it will be vastly cheaper and safer to avoid these changes by switching to an en ...[text shortened]... to accuse others of and often falsely as if you don't know the definition of it yourself.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and causes warming.
That's a fact.
I was pointing this out as an example of you not knowing what you are talking about.
Given that as you say, you claimed the opposite.
Also none of my insults of you were ad hominems.
I never said you were wrong because you were [insert bad thing here].
I was just insulting you plain and simple.
You need to go look up the definition of an Ad Hominem attack.
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
You can try playing the game of I'm rubber you're glue... But it doesn't work on me.
A zero emission economy is perfectly possible, and practical.
The fact that you can't imagine or comprehend how it might be possible is a failure
of your imagination. Not a property of reality.
29 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudge"Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and causes warming.
Actually you fail at reading comprehension.
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and causes warming.
That's a fact.
I was pointing this out as an example of you not knowing what you are talking about.
Given that as you say, you claimed the opposite.
Also none of my insults of you were ad hominems.
I never said you were wrong because you were [i ...[text shortened]... end how it might be possible is a failure
of your imagination. Not a property of reality.
That's a fact."
What is your source of information?
"A zero emission economy is perfectly possible, and practical.
The fact that you can't imagine or comprehend how it might be possible is a failure of your imagination. Not a property of reality."
Who is going to pay for it? You clearly do not understand economics or human nature. You seem disconnected from reality. Who is going to tell Iran and Venezuela to stop burning fossil fuels? Are you going to wage war to accomplish your ridiculous goal?
29 Jun 13
One public relations problem for AGW advocates is explaining how a gas, CO2, which was perhaps nominally 300 ppm before industrialization, now at 400 ppm, is a causative agent.
100 ppm is 1/e4. Convince the populace that an increase of 1 part in 10000 of a rare atmospheric gas is going to cause global catastrophe. That is a hard sell.
Then there is all of the politics that accompanies the hard science argument which is not helpful at all. For instance, the ongoing pollution of the atmosphere by hydrocarbon use is a very distinct issue from AGW. In fact, some so called desperate case scenarios envision polluting the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide crystals in order to attenuate the incoming solar irradiation or flux.
Hydrocarbons are not going away. They will continue to be burned. Carbon will continue it's unusual exodus to the atmosphere as long as man is here.
As they have long said, "The proof is in the pudding." Show me a cadre of dedicated informed AGW scientists who do not benefit prodigiously from exorbitant hydrocarbon use, (Toyota Prius a cruel joke.) and I will willingly embrace the argument.
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou will believe anything. Just looked at the list and if you take the heading of the columns and switch them the table would be much more accurate. Al Gore is a crook regardless of what some film says about him, or what some judge says about some film. The film is meaningless to me as I haven't seen it and have no desire to. Even his wife couldn't stand the lying cheat. There has been climate change throughout history. Your list of refutations aren't refutations at all. Just a list of issues at odds with with the global warming scam that someone at a shallow level attempts to switch science to their side.
Oh for crying out loud.
Would all the climate denying nut jobs in this thread go read the links I posted because they include refutations of every idiotic claim you have made.
Look here is a list that includes all the claims you have made with the links to the science that refutes them
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
including th ...[text shortened]... claim you just made...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf C02 levels in our atmosphere get too high, not only with Earth become too warm, but the atmosphere will be unsuitable for humans.
"We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," the President quipped.
Now that fits the definition of googlefuge's favorite term "Ad Hominem"!
Scientists can't explain everything about climate change. It really isn't something to alarm people about so soon. CO2 is a plant nutrient. It has it's upside too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by PhrannyUnsuitable for humans???? You must be joking.
If C02 levels in our atmosphere get too high, not only with Earth become too warm, but the atmosphere will be unsuitable for humans.
CO2 is not a poison. You exhale it every time you breath. How would the atmosphere become unsuitable?
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt's true, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and it accounts for about 97% of all green house gases. I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but 97% is close enough for this discussion. CO2 gas is a little over 2 percent if memory serves, but I can't be exactly sure of that number either.
"Water vapour is a greenhouse gas and causes warming.
That's a fact."
What is your source of information?
"A zero emission economy is perfectly possible, and practical.
The fact that you can't imagine or comprehend how it might be possible is a failure of your imagination. Not a property of reality."
Who is going to pay for it? You clearly do ...[text shortened]... o stop burning fossil fuels? Are you going to wage war to accomplish your ridiculous goal?
There has been an increase in CO2, but the difference is so small it hardly merits Chicken Littles attention. Even Chicken Little would know better than to run all over town yelling The ice caps are melting, the ice caps are melting!
30 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainRemember the ice core samples that showed a rise in CO2 preceding a period of global warming? Other ice core samples tested after that showed the opposite. CO2 levels rose after periods of global warming, not before. And apparently there were other mistakes made with data concerning factors pointing toward global warming. In fact there were so many mistakes made it kind of makes you wonder... was it intentional, or just plain bone headed incompetence?
100% of scientists have no idea how the increased CO2 levels will affect weather. There are too many factors. For example, the earth warms and more water evaporates which cools the earth to some degree. Nobody knows how much.
We can live with global warming. It is not the end of the world. Why do you have this chicken little mentality?
Gores "inconvenient truth" was actually a convenient lie that helped him to reach a net worth of 200 million dollars. It's bad enough so many intelligent people can fall for scams like this, but they're still keeping up the chant of man made global warming after it has been exposed as a hoax. They either don't know or don't care, or have some underlying political reason for touting this junk science of theirs.
And it's like you said, the earth routinely goes through periods of global warming and cooling, but if warming precedes rather than follows a rise in CO2 then we should be fearing global cooling, not global warming.