Anyone still believe in global warming?

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Yup, anytime

Incidentally, just thought I'd comment on something else you wrote:

I think that it is our duty to live our lives with the environment in mind. I think this doesn't have anything to do with carbon emissions or whatever. Problems can only be dealt with when you start with the roots. It is very simply. If we use and demand less, and when we use we do so with respects to our home, our planet. We will be fine.

Change starts with you !

This is EXACTLY what people like me - and I'm sure 99% of the other "AGW believers" (the ones who aren't politicians at least) are preaching

This issue always gets drowned out in all the talk about taxes (and maybe that's part of the conspiracy?) - because what's at the heart of the real global warming agenda is this: sustainability, resource management, energy efficiency, and above all else learning how to live in balance with nature instead of just taking and taking from it incessantly.

The world we live in today is all about greed and maximizing profit above all else. It is run under a total paradox of requiring infinite economic growth within a closed system of finite resources.

All of us "warmists" are just trying to advocate a way of living centered around maximizing our efficiency while minimizing our impact on the Earth. Some people really need to start seeing the bigger picture here and remembering that instead of just getting their minds so stuck on the political BS that clouds it.

I mean look at it this way - even if carbon emissions did end up having nothing to do with global warming - what are the "roots" creating them? Coal plants, oil refineries, deforestation, over-consumption. What is wrong with wanting to live in a world without these things? I think this cartoon says it all about how ridiculous the entire global warming "debate" is in the first place:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82070b251afa.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by dementedtheclown

 

Anyone with even the slightest understanding of science "believes" global warming is real. Those who attempt to mis characterize and or troll on it imply that one's belief is in some way affecting of reality. Facts do not need belief. People will be screaming it isn't real even while its all going down in flames.

Welcome.

the fact that you really think this is extremely arrogant. you even put "believes" in quotes.
reading this just reeks of snide pretense. ugh.

you do realize that the current amount of co2 in our atmosphere is vastly lower than during the cretaceous or jurassic periods, right? man isn't driving the earth into uncharted territory here. man made runaway global warming as a crisis is a farce to fleece the world population of money and to monopolize the new energy market.

reply to post by mc_squared


i agree completely, but there is one problem. and this is the huge energy cartels that dominate society. to control a people's means of power, their means of getting around, means controlling their lives. numerous extremely efficient and nearly free energy sources have been suppressed over the past hundred years. you can't just explain away what happened to tesla's career, his research after his death, what happened to his labs, etc.

we could have gone down a very different path, but tptb benefit from having the population shackled to their monthly oil, coal, gas, etc bills. and they do benefit from pollution, resulting sickness, cancer and depopulation as well. all crisis is profitable and a means to control.

There is climate change. Though it looks as if Global Warming is just a liberal sham to lower the profits of oil companies in order to sever major funding that is forwarded to the republican party.

reply to post by mc_squared


Pollution and global warming are different. And there are other various categories. So in essence we could curb pollution without having a belief in GW. Pollution and environmental destruction are indeed very dire situations. "Business as usual" is causing the time left to save our planet to pass away faster and faster by the minute.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

To illustrate: how much of a PPM change in your biochemistry does it take to kill you-of pretty much any chemical?

The fact that a very small amount of chemical can kill you has nothing to do with the mechanism of warming. There is 1 molecule of CO2 per 2600 others homogeneously spread throughout the atmosphere. 10mg of a chemical like Morphine, for instance, provides sufficient molecules for the comparatively smaller number of receptors in the medulla that are needed to be blocked and is already considered a largish dose. I don't see or understand the scientific principle that allows 1 molecule of CO2 to heat up 2600 molecules around it to cause significant warming. Each molecule would have to be heated to hundreds of degrees to create sufficient energy transfer. It's analogous to heating up one grain of rice and using that single grain to heat up 2600 others. It baffles my mind.

entire historic output of CO2, since the industrial revolution, was less than 1 years worth of Volcanic CO2 emissions.

That presumably doesn't include all of the underwater volcanoes which we can't monitor?

Anyone with even the slightest understanding of science "believes" global warming is real.

I guess scientists like Richard Lindzen, Svensmark, Paltridge, Douglass, Spencer, David Archibald, as well as 800 international scientists according to the US Senate Minority Report haven't got "even the slightest understanding of science?"

Okay, the Earth is/is not/might be warming up, I just do not accept so little gas can have so much effect! (CO2 at 383 parts per million).

It depends what time-frame you pick. The Earth has been warming for the last 300 years since the LIA - long before we started heavy industrialization. Though it's been cooling for 3,000-4,000 years since the Holocene Maximum. Anyway, I don't believe AGW. It reeks of Y2K. Once the Chicken-Little AGW scare story has passed, no doubt the bureaucrats will role out another manufactured scare story to encourage the public to part with more of their cash.

Hrm, straw men galore. The PPM comment was in response to the implication that tiny changes cant be catastrophic. It's called a juxtaposition to illustrate one such effect.

The comment about Volcanos-I didn't write that, think it came from part of a quote reply or similar.

I think it is interesting and telling that detractors of global warming lock onto some weird idea that all CO2 is man made then try and knock that falsity down.

Easiest way to explain the position is this: Natural rhythm-say like the oceanic tides. The planet warms and then cools, warms and then cools. Many factors are involved from planetary tilt, rotation, proximity.. hell maybe even flocks of angry butterflies in Brazil flapping as frantically as they can. Just lots of factors. Then you have what I call "Tip factors". Tips factors include saturation. See if the world has been balanced at (arbitrary numbers alert) say, 1000 parts per thousand, then come the warm ups and more plants grow resulting in reduction of CO2/carbon to say... 500 PPT-this cause the recession of the heat tide-planet cools. All the carbon gets locked away in plants and ice like the Taiga permafrost.

All is swell cause thats the natural pattern.

Then along comes man, man makes worthless crap and toys and generates a whole lot of waste. The carbon shoots to 5000 parts per thousand. This tips the balance. Especially when we are happily burning and cutting down every tree we can reach to make bum wipes. This means less plants to store it all away.

As the world heats even marginally-it starts to snowball. Now a rational sane person would ask "Lordtyp0? Why would you say such a thing? Please explain your logic?". .. Well since you asked nicely-I shall.

All the carbon in the Taiga. Locked away for thousands and thousands of years in the algae and permafrost. Well it's gonna start thawing. As it thaws its going to be releasing all that it's stored and shoot the content up again.


Here is the problem with people who do not understand the scientific method nor even cause and effect. They always stop at one cause, then straw man that 'cause' to feel safe about things. Everything in reality is a precarious balance, if one factor gets tossed out of whack it can be dire for all. Humans are happily throwing it all out of whack and frankly-casual observations show that the more things tip-the faster things fall.

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by dementedtheclown

 

Anyone with even the slightest understanding of science "believes" global warming is real. Those who attempt to mis characterize and or troll on it imply that one's belief is in some way affecting of reality. Facts do not need belief. People will be screaming it isn't real even while its all going down in flames.

Welcome.

the fact that you really think this is extremely arrogant. you even put "believes" in quotes.
reading this just reeks of snide pretense. ugh.

you do realize that the current amount of co2 in our atmosphere is vastly lower than during the cretaceous or jurassic periods, right? man isn't driving the earth into uncharted territory here. man made runaway global warming as a crisis is a farce to fleece the world population of money and to monopolize the new energy market.

When did stating facts become a show of arrogance? Seems more that someone claiming tested and testable theories- (not ideas like "I've got a theory" but Theories like: Hey, this has been peer reviewed and tested and confirmed a whole lot of times)- claiming established theories are false based on basement 'science' and reports commissioned by profiteers of denying facts and spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt for profit.

I do not think "Arrogance" means what you think it means.

reply to post by dementedtheclown


No , and Let Al keep his Booby Prize . If you tried to take it away from him , he just might Lecture You To DEATH !




i297.photobucket.com...

reply to post by lordtyp0

Then along comes man, man makes worthless crap and toys and generates a whole lot of waste. The carbon shoots to 5000 parts per thousand. This tips the balance.

5000 parts per thousand? That makes no sense. You mean 388ppm? What makes you think that a small increase of CO2 can "tip the balance" and cause catastrophic warming? We already know that CO2 behaves logarithmically and the more CO2 that gets churned into the atmosphere has a progressively weaker radiative forcing response.

Especially when we are happily burning and cutting down every tree we can reach to make bum wipes. This means less plants to store it all away.

Satellite data show there's actually been an increase in the overall planetary biomass.

All the carbon gets locked away in plants and ice like the Taiga permafrost.

Doesn't mean much. Even if all CO2 was released from permafrost we cannot possibly return to previous high-levels because much of that earlier CO2 has been sequestered by coccolithophores as chalk and corals as plankton.

All the carbon in the Taiga. Locked away for thousands and thousands of years in the algae and permafrost. Well it's gonna start thawing. As it thaws its going to be releasing all that it's stored and shoot the content up again.

And where is the evidence that CO2 has ever significantly pushed up temperatures?

Here is the problem with people who do not understand the scientific method nor even cause and effect.

Are you kidding? It has been proven by glaciological records that CO2 lags temperature fluctuations by, on average, 800 years. As temperature increases, CO2 increases and as temperature falls, CO2 falls. Ergo, CO2 is an effect of temperature change, not the cause. It remains absolutely impossible to explain how an increase in CO2 can cause an increase in temperature that occurred hundreds of years earlier. Because the cause and effect link is the other way around, the AGW alarmists try to work around this fact by claiming that a small perturbation of CO2 can cause a positive feedback loop from water vapour which will amplify CO2's infinitesimal warming effect, although this has been shown to be false because there is no tropospheric hotspot and thus no amplification from WV. Additionally, radiosonde measurements show that relative humidity has fallen (Paltridge 2009).

They always stop at one cause, then straw man that 'cause' to feel safe about things. Everything in reality is a precarious balance, if one factor gets tossed out of whack it can be dire for all.

And what do you base the idea on that Earth's climate is in precarious balance? The Earth's climate has been very stable for the last 600 million years, there's only been a 10°C global average temperature variation, despite super volcanoes releasing more CO2 than we ever could, asteroids, continental drifts, Milankovitch transitions, 20% of the atmosphere comprising of CO2, etc, so we know that a small increase in CO2 is not enough to push the Earth into a runaway greenhouse effect.

Hrm, straw men galore.

No strawman. I was just pointing out that your analogy was redundant. That's all.

Here is the problem with people who do not understand the scientific method

You don't understand the science. Don't pretend you do.

reply to post by lordtyp0


for the man of 'facts' you claim to be, you didn't even address the one FACT i did bring up in that paragraph. if you'd care to, feel free, otherwise i really don't care to see you dance around the issue.


and as for what you just said, yes, you can state a fact like a pompous, snide, arrogant person. it is very easy. unfortunately for you, you stated an opinion fueled by a whole lot of money, like a pompous, snide, arrogant person.

did you ever hear what this guy had to say about what it's like to be a part of the APS now a days? oh money. you make the world go round.

I never fell for the Global Warming Hoax, and found it amusing that scientists, trying to prove it, had to distort, manipulate, and delete data. There actions, without a doubt, was the final nail in the Global Warming Hoax.

reply to post by dementedtheclown


Here is a very Interesting discussion about the Issue of Global Warming given by Britian's Lord Monckton . Some of the things he dicusses here are Controversal , so you be the Judge of the Validity of it or not .



www.prisonplanet.com...

Originally posted by Carseller4
I never fell for the Global Warming Hoax, and found it amusing that scientists, trying to prove it, had to distort, manipulate, and delete data. There actions, without a doubt, was the final nail in the Global Warming Hoax.

Well you're wrong. Because scientists NEVER did those things. You're just parroting the propaganda you've heard, but the CRU scientists have all been exonerated and cleared of any wrongdoing, let alone deleting/manipulating data.

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by dementedtheclown

 

Here is a very Interesting discussion about the Issue of Global Warming given by Britian's Lord Monckton . Some of the things he dicusses here are Controversal , so you be the Judge of the Validity of it or not .



www.prisonplanet.com...

If you knew anything about Monckton you wouldn't trust that bug-eyed liar for a single second...

Originally posted by Ruffian
There is climate change. Though it looks as if Global Warming is just a liberal sham to lower the profits of oil companies in order to sever major funding that is forwarded to the republican party.

I gave you a star for this. That is honestly the best (and closest to the truth!) take on the global warming "conspiracy" I've ever seen.

But as for this -

Pollution and global warming are different.

Just because the oil lobbyists and your republican overlords like to pump you full of sunshine about how much CO2 is not a pollutant, and it's the air we breathe, and it's good for plants, and it will solve world hunger and bake delicious muffins and score more goals than Wayne Gretzky, etc, doesn't change the fact that the CO2 on trial here is the kind that comes from land use changes and the fossil fuel industry - not your lungs.

So how many ways are there that global warming is synonymous with pollution?

Maybe some pictures will help:

Coal Plants

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59f355793784.jpg[/atsimg]

Coal Ash

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/426ecdf52fa4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/51931e60afd3.jpg[/atsimg]

The Environmental Disasters They Create

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ef1e8f6bbc51.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4104951a598c.jpg[/atsimg]

Mountain Top Removal for Coal Mining

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d490f696342.jpg[/atsimg]

Deforestation

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e783922b3e7b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/79b94c8d3c57.jpg[/atsimg]

Tar Sands

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5536495eb28d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84700f0bfa98.jpg[/atsimg]

Their Waste Water...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/824d9dc3709c.jpg[/atsimg]

...And The Results

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/35e45b9e7769.jpeg[/atsimg]

Nitrogen Fertilizer Production...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/be5366a87734.jpg[/atsimg]

...Which Contaminates Groundwater

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3518ad8efc3.jpg[/atsimg]

Speaking Of Contaminated Groundwater - This...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e368ad893e9.jpg[/atsimg]

...Is The Result Of Hydraulic Fracturing aka "Fracking" for Oil & Natural Gas

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55c9ead58243.jpg[/atsimg]

Which Goes To Oil Refineries, Which Expel CO2

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c96ca28d108b.jpg[/atsimg]

And So On...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/265a9e677b84.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b6f82dd0ed0.jpg[/atsimg]


To say global warming has nothing to do with pollution is so myopic and naive, and shows how brainwashed those of you that automatically reject it are - not us kooky hippies.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


It wasn't just Peter Sinclair that debunked Monckton either. A group of climate scientists put together a full report tearing him a new one.

In my opinion this weasel should be indicted for lying to Congress.

Climate scientists eviscerate Lord Monckton’s attempt to disinform the U.S. Congress

Nine 'profoundly wrong' claims made by Ukip deputy leader refuted by climate experts in a document filed with US Congress

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

for the man of 'facts' you claim to be, you didn't even address the one FACT i did bring up in that paragraph. if you'd care to, feel free, otherwise i really don't care to see you dance around the issue.


and as for what you just said, yes, you can state a fact like a pompous, snide, arrogant person. it is very easy. unfortunately for you, you stated an opinion fueled by a whole lot of money, like a pompous, snide, arrogant person.

did you ever hear what this guy had to say about what it's like to be a part of the APS now a days? oh money. you make the world go round.

The facts...

reply to post by NoHierarchy


You are wrong. I downloaded the emails and files. They are filled with references to covering up the numbers, changing the sample groups to "increase" temperature data and suggestions on how to block access to the raw data. I gave the computer code used to generate the temperature projections and it is GIGO. He changed over 400 data sources changing the temperatures to 120 below zero and the temperature results still showed an increase. He found the self limiting subroutines in multiple locations. It's math manipulation Enron would have loved. BTW the first two companies backing Cap and Trade were....... are you ready for it???? Enron and GE.

Originally posted by GJPinks
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

You are wrong. I downloaded the emails and files. They are filled with references to covering up the numbers, changing the sample groups to "increase" temperature data and suggestions on how to block access to the raw data. I gave the computer code used to generate the temperature projections and it is GIGO. He changed over 400 data sources changing the temperatures to 120 below zero and the temperature results still showed an increase. He found the self limiting subroutines in multiple locations. It's math manipulation Enron would have loved. BTW the first two companies backing Cap and Trade were....... are you ready for it???? Enron and GE.

I don't believe you, so why don't you prove it?

Also, the reason corporate scum like Enron and GE support cap n' trade is BECAUSE THEY CRAFTED CAP N' TRADE. Cap n' trade is an industry-friendly corporatist/capitalist COP-OUT that only shuffles carbon emissions around. It barely does a thing to seriously reduce greenhouse gases. They can go on doing business as usual without too many boo-boos to their bottom line via cap n' trade. What we SHOULD be doing is forcing these companies to switch to renewables or SHUT DOWN. They don't deserve to survive... in fact, they should have been destroyed by a citizen revolt years ago, but this country is filled with too many apathetic/indulgent cowards and idiot right-wing corporatist apologists for that to happen.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by dementedtheclown

 

Anyone with even the slightest understanding of science "believes" global warming is real.

Anyone with even the slightest understanding of science FUNDING "believes" global warming is real.