toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?

[Alate_One]

Not as a vapor they aren't. Try again. I take it you had no idea that CFC 12 sinks to the ground. Which is why if you use a chemical sniffer to look for an A/C leak, you are to test the bottom.

PCBs are far heavier than air yet they're found in the arctic and antarctic where no one has every used PCBs. Do you know why? Global atmospheric transport. Lots of things that are heavier than air are transported around the world by the wind.

 

[Alate_One]

33% of less than 1% of something that isn't a good greenhouse gas? You are joking right? No you aren't. Pathetic.

When you look at how CO2 levels mirror past climate, you shouldn't be surprised there is a potential cause and effect relationship.

It's not just me that's saying it, its what all the peer reviewed papers say as well. If it was as ludicrous as you act it wouldn't have ever gotten published.

 

[Stripe]

Have fun with that . . . .

What has that got to do with anything? :idunno:

Scientific Consensus isn't evidence, its a REFLECTION of the strength of the evidence.

No, it's not.

Was the evidence for geocentricm strong?

Then you're a denialist. You deny modern science because you feel like it, not because of evidence. You're in essence saying "I'm smarter than all of those climate scientists and I know climate science better than they do." Does that make any sense?

And you're stupid. Do you like being stupid and making up useless accusations?

 

[Alate_One]

No, it's not.

Was the evidence for geocentricm strong?

When geocentrism was king, "science" was hardly in existence. And guess what overturned it? EVIDENCE from some of the first inklings of science. Guess what maintains heliocentrism? the preponderance of the evidence and scientific consensus based on that evidence. Should we start questioning heliocentrism too, teach the controversy? Do you have any reason why we should reject one part of scientific consensus without rejecting them all? How do you know the difference? Because it "makes sense" to you? Because one doesn't bother your preconceived ideas about the world and the other does?

And you're stupid. Do you like being stupid and making up useless accusations?

I've asked you DOZENS of times for your clear concise evidence against evolution, you don't have any. This leads me to the conclusion that your reason for rejecting it amounts to preconceptions and emotion. I can guess the reasons for you rejecting climate change are similar. Instead of giving reasons for your beliefs you react by calling names. You certainly haven't proved me wrong by doing that . . . . .

 

[Stripe]

When geocentrism was king, "science" was hardly in existence.

Oh, wow. lain:

And guess what overturned it? EVIDENCE from some of the first inklings of science. Guess what maintains heliocentrism? the preponderance of the evidence and scientific consensus based on that evidence.

That's right. And that's what you should stick to instead of pointing to the popularity of the idea.

Should we start questioning heliocentrism too, teach the controversy?

If you want to. :idunno:

Do you have any reason why we should reject one part of scientific consensus without rejecting them all? How do you know the difference? Because it "makes sense" to you? Because one doesn't bother your preconceived ideas about the world and the other does?

No. I prefer to look at the evidence.

I've asked you DOZENS of times for your clear concise evidence against evolution, you don't have any.

Yeah, I do.

This leads me to the conclusion that your reason for rejecting it amounts to preconceptions and emotion.

It doesn't matter what my motivations are. It only matters what my evidence is.

I can guess the reasons for you rejecting climate change are similar. Instead of giving reasons for your beliefs you react by calling names. You certainly haven't proved me wrong by doing that . . . . .

No, I called you out for promoting an idea according to its popularity as if that had some impact on its validity. And I'll continue to point out the numerous cases of you acting like an atheist.

 

[Nick M]

When you look at how CO2 levels mirror past climate, you shouldn't be surprised there is a potential cause and effect relationship.

Of course there is a relationship. As the earth warms, life increases, and carbon dioxide is a byproduct of life.

Pay very close attention to the video.

Now you know why they tried to hide the decline

Ultimately, if man made global warming were true, the upper atmosphere would heat up. And that is the biggest problem. It isn't heating up.

 

[Truppenzwei]

Alate - you are just plain wrong. I suggest you take some time and check out climate audit and wattsupwiththat.

The simple fact of the matter is that yes the climate is warming up, as it generally does in its cyclical way, the rate of that rise is consistent with the rate of rise seen previously prior to the MWP (which was warmer than now) and yes CO2 levels are rising, as they always do after global temperatures rise.

Oh and as for the sea levels, yes they are rising, by maybe a couple of millimeters a decade.

Go check the science, not the political advocacy of Al Gore, CRU etc.

Regards
T.

 

[Aimiel]

Amiel,

With regard to the melting ice on the alps - you will probably find the ice hasn't been there that long geologically as the earth was warmer during the medieval warm period than it is now. And guess what - wasn't any great amount of CO2 getting pumped out of power stations back then.

Regards
T.

No, actually there are many places where the glaciers have receeded drastically, revealing mountaintops which have never been seen by man.

 

[Aimiel]

Here's the TED talks version of climate change 20 minutes but pretty cool.

TED talks

I saw that, and thought it was an excellent video. :thumb:

 

[Truppenzwei]

No, actually there are many places where the glaciers have receeded drastically, revealing mountaintops which have never been seen by man.

Really? Says who?

Some actual evidence

Regards
T.

 

[GuySmiley]

What about all the billions and billions of dollars the coal, gas and oil companies stand to lose if CO2 emissions become taxed or otherwise controlled?

Who wins from global warming being correct? Solar cell manufacturers, people associated with wind farms, maybe nuclear energy proponents.

Who among these do you think has the most money to lobby you and try to convince you of their argument . . .I'll give you a hint it isn't the solar people.

No not the solar people, the UN, who is already pushing that they be the ones to control the market on carbon credits. Its way beyond billions of dollars in grant money. Its control of the global economy. Thats enough to make me wary to just swallow global warming, or climate change, based on the word of people with billions to gain. Yet, I still drink pastuerized milk, I'm just wacky like that.

 

[DocJohnson]

Hide the Decline

 

[kmoney]

I was just talking about this very thing on the other green thread. Here's Van Jones:

“Right now we’re saying we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco-capitalism where at least we’re not, you know, fast tracking the destruction of the whole planet.
Will that be enough? No it won’t be enough. We want to go beyond systems exploitation and oppression altogether; but that’s a process.
And I thing what’s great about the movement that’s beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence, and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both very pragmatic and very visionary.
So the green economy will start off as a small subset, and we’re going to push it, and push it, and push it, until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

VAN JONES SHOCK ADMISSION: Goal is Complete Revolution

​

oh noes!!!! :shocked:













lain:

 

[Alate_One]

Alate - you are just plain wrong. I suggest you take some time and check out climate audit and wattsupwiththat.

The simple fact of the matter is that yes the climate is warming up, as it generally does in its cyclical way, the rate of that rise is consistent with the rate of rise seen previously prior to the MWP (which was warmer than now) and yes CO2 levels are rising, as they always do after global temperatures rise.

Oh and as for the sea levels, yes they are rising, by maybe a couple of millimeters a decade.

Go check the science, not the political advocacy of Al Gore, CRU etc.

So, you're suggesting two websites that are clearly advocacy groups on the other side (determined to show global warming as a fraud) as "balanced science"?

Even for you, Trupp, this is pretty sad. How about you link some actual peer reviewed papers from say, Nature or PNAS that support your position?

The EPA just decided to regulate CO2, the Copenhagen climate summit is going on . . . and you honestly think all these things are based on a gigantic conspiracy?

Yeah, and the moon landing was fake, HIV doesn't cause AIDS and vaccines cause autism too . . . . you get the denialist stamp. :wave:

 

[DocJohnson]

you get the denialist stamp

Better than the lemming stamp.

 

[Town Heretic]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for December 8th, 2009 10:11 AM

toldailytopic: Man made global warming crisis: is the hoax finally dead for good?

No. Things are just starting to heat up...lain:

 

[DocJohnson]

No. Things are just starting to heat up...

Yeah. Too bad it's not the temperature outside. The wind-chill factor today is -7. :mmph:

 

[Aimiel]

The glaciers which are receeding, will be either gone or all but gone, just with the CO2 levels we have today, within one generation.

National Geographic article excerpt below:


____________________________________________
Complicated Cause

Global warming fueled by greenhouse gas emissions appears to be the main cause of the melting glaciers, according to the University of Innsbruck's Psenner (see our global warming fast facts). Studies of prehistoric climate, though, suggest that Alpine glaciers nearly disappeared at least once in the past 10,000 years.

Thompson said past glacier meltdowns were likely related to changes in characteristics of Earth's orbit, which occur on cycles that last between about 20,000 and 100,000 years. Today's changes have occurred in the last hundred years.

The melting trend "is consistent with projections that have been made based on warming occurring due to increases in greenhouse gas in our atmosphere," Thompson said.

Psenner noted that the past glacial melting occurred when atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) were 280 parts per million. Today's carbon dioxide levels are approaching 385 parts per million.

"Even if we could manage to keep the CO2 level constant at 385 parts per million—mission: impossible—the glaciers will disappear within one generation," he said.

"So the disappearance of the glaciers is more a factor of time than of increasing temperature: They will be gone even if we keep the climate of today."

Source article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070123-alps-glaciers.html

 

[Memento Mori]

Yeah. Too bad it's not the temperature outside. The wind-chill factor today is -7. :mmph:

I could have used a little of that glacier recession on my car this morning, that's for sure.

 

[Alate_One]

No not the solar people, the UN, who is already pushing that they be the ones to control the market on carbon credits. Its way beyond billions of dollars in grant money. Its control of the global economy.

How exactly is the UN (which is really just a conglomeration of representatives from various countries) going to benefit? How are they going to "control the global economy".

Thats enough to make me wary to just swallow global warming, or climate change, based on the word of people with billions to gain. Yet, I still drink pastuerized milk, I'm just wacky like that.

Sounds like you're basing your decision on paranoia rather than actual science.