Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by The_Liberator
So you must want to do away with socialist programs like social security, medicare, the post office, public education, and on and on.

...and you people believe that every program that exists is "socialist"... Before social security there were other programs for retirees similar to "social security" and it wasn't invented by "socialists"... It just changed with time...

Also...public education existed before lefties came up with their socialist ideals, it was just that back in the day many people lived very far away from the few schools that existed, and kids had to help their parents because the parents didn't have tractors, and all modern equipment of today that makes it easier to farm, and do other jobs... It is also true that back in the day there were also many children who were home-schooled. Unfortunately there were also many people who couldn't send their children to school for one or another reason, or because they themselves were uneducated and didn't think it was that important for their children to be educated...

There are a lot of ideas, and programs that "socialists and lefties in general" love to try to claim they invented, but in fact have existed even before lefties were around...

BTW, have you heard that Social Security is going bankrupt and probably most of us in our 30s, or younger will not be getting any "retirement" because it is going bankrupt?...

The same thing with "medicare"... it isn't a "socialist" idea... You think that back in the old days there weren't doctors for older people?... It was just cheaper which allowed older people to pay for medical attention, instead of making people go into more debt like it is happening now even with "medicare and medicaid"....

And what in the world makes you think the "post office" is a socialist idea?...

BTW, real "socialist" programs and laws include the laws that parents cannot reprimand their children in public, that children must be taught/indoctrinated into what the government wants or the children will be taken away by the government...

The socialist programs and laws are the ones which have caused Americans to lose so many jobs because of environlunatic laws and regulations...

Real socialist programs are The Feds, and the IRA, both which were signed into law by a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT/socialist Woodrow Wilson...

Socialist programs and laws are the bailouts by the government, instead of allowing the free market to right itself by allowing "too big to fail" companies to go bankrupt...

Socialist programs are the ones giving more, and more power to the government...

Perhaps you don't know this, but "centralization" is a socialist idea, and it is what is giving a few people in government more, and more power...

Originally posted by The_Liberator
Let's also do away with minimum wage, the EPA, and all regulations for large corporations (essentially what conservatives want to do)

The EPA wants to label water vapor a pollutant... The EPA also tried to force AGW/Global Warming mania legislature without going through the normal channels, as it is the law of the land...

Obviously you are not aware that conservatives/Republicans want LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL...

Originally posted by The_Liberator
BUT it's ok to tell 2 men that they can't marry and it's okay for the government to tell women when they can and can't get an abortion (even if they are 12 years old and raped by their father).

Perhaps we should also allow pedophiles, and rapists to rape and marry children.... After all it is who they really are... It is their nature, and they cannot escape it...

BTW, I am not saying pedophiles and gay are the same, but if you are going to make one legal using the same argument you must make the other legal.

How about gay people stay together as in a couple without wanting to change the marriage process, and wanting to force everyone to accept their own opinions and desires?...

BTW, there is a country, in Europe of course..., where they passed a legislation in favor of pedophiles..., that they can seek minors for sex... in the U.S.A. the lefties passed the "hate crimes law" which includes the protection of pedophiles... Which btw passed thanks to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)...

That's part of what "socialist ideas" have brought to the U.S...

We are in this economic depression thanks to "socialist ideas"...

BTW, in case you didn't know most abortions are not because of rape, but because Johnny didn't use a condom and Jane just wanted to make Johnny happy...

BTW, if a 12 year old its unfortunately raped, (which imho all rapist should be at least castrated) how does it make the rape go away by killing the child?... The girl will continue having post dramatic stress, and other problems even after the fetus is dead. Perhaps something good can come from it, and she could give that child to someone else who cannot have children...

Originally posted by The_Liberator
Let's go ahead and teach creationism in schools while we're at it.....oh, and let's also make prayer mandatory in schools.....CHRISTIAN prayer that is!

Not even evolutionists can explain, and much less reproduce how life came out of the "primordial soup", and some evolutionists "believe' some other extra-terrestrial life must have been behind the "creation" of life...

BTW, what a lot of people are against is that "atheists" want to ban most forms of prayer, that is except Islam...

Why is it so hard for you people to understand that there are many schools that parents send their children to because of their beliefs, and who are you to try to shove your own beliefs down the throat of other people?...

How about allowing prayer in schools were parents send their children to because of their belief?...

Originally posted by The_Liberator
I generally keep my cool, even when debating climate skeptics, but seriously conservatives kind of make me ill :-/

And this response of yours, like many others shows how ignorant you are...

There can be no "climate skeptics"... Are you that...uneducated that you don't understand what "climate" is?...

The climate changes all the time kid...and humans have NOTHING to do with it...

You AGW/Global Warming fanatic believers make me sick...

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Incorrect:

www.skepticalscience.com...

...and keep on posting from "skepticalscience"... it is the same as posting from wikipedia, and "Realclimate.org... all three have environlunatics such as Jones, and Mann, the same Mann that created the Hockey Stick Graph and tried to bury the Medieval and Roman Warm periods with the help of Jones and other associates...

Originally posted by The_Liberator
As for Al Gore, global warming has absolutely nothing to do with how much electricity Al Gore uses or whether you like or respect him as a person. I know you will disagree, but you are not thinking rationally and objectively my friend.

We are thinking objectively, you, and those who keep believing in Al Gore, and the One World Government movement "just want to save the planet" when these people keep driving their large limos, plus have a convoy of suvs, and use their own private jets, not to mention their mansions which no matter how many "environmentally friendly" light bulbs they use, they are still using more electricity than most people, and in fact use 3,4 and even 5 times more electricity, if not more, than "regular people"...

You AGW fanatic believers are so brainwashed that Al Gore goes to AGW meetings in his convo of two suvs and a Lincoln town limousine, and you people believe "he is doing it all for the environment"....

www.physorg.com...

This is why we still must tax fossil fuel consumption and use money raised to promote alternative energy sources. Even if AGW theoretically proves to be false.

reply to post by Maslo


If only humanity was that smart.

Instead we are finding new ways to get oil.

Oil from Bacteria

reply to post by Maslo


Honestly, we have all the power we will ever need. The sun, we just need to fund better ways to harness it, the sun will be there burning away long after the earth is gone.
Here is one of the best examples I have seen of showing how powerful sunlight really is
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Maslo
www.physorg.com...

This is why we still must tax fossil fuel consumption and use money raised to promote alternative energy sources. Even if AGW theoretically proves to be false.

edit on 9/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

So you people just want to make any excuse to increase taxes?... It is starting to sound as if you people, those who keep believing in AGW/Global Warming, have a business with Al Gore's and the One World government carbon taxes...

We don't need a One World Government to control us even more than we are controlled...

We don't need more taxes based on hoaxes, lies and exagerations...

We don't even need more taxes because some of you are ashamed of being human and want to get rid of your guilt by making everyone pay for global taxes on CO2, or any other new or old global taxes which are only making the rich elites, and certain scientists, rich...

What we actually need is for the AGW/Global Warming hoax to end, to disband the elitists, and groups that want a One World Government claiming "it is for the good of the planet" meanwhile they are getting rich off the guilt of a few naive people.

What we need is to get rid of every single law that is infringing in our God/Grandfather/insert any other supreme entity, or natural given rights to live as we see fit, instead of having environlunatic groups, and governments restrict our lives because a few people bought into the scam and are "feeling guilty of being human"...

What we need is to actually go after the real toxic chemicals and gases, which have nothing to do with CO2, and are the real cause for pollution...

What we need is for people to get off their behinds, and do some real research themselves instead of regurgitating the lies, and posting the same old videos from the Al Gore groups, and other similar groups who are taking advantage of how naive so many people are.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. There is not one single concise piece of evidence that shows CO2 causes the warming claimed by the AGW/Global Warming believers.

We actually know that HIGHER levels of atmospheric CO2 are benefitial for all life on the planet simply because it increases the growth, and production/harvests of most plants and trees which means there is more food. We also know that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 allows for plants and trees to make better use of water, which means they need LESS WATER, which leaves more water for humans and animals.

We actually know that there is research which demonstrates that 1,200ppm-1,500ppm of atmospheric CO2 causes most plants, trees and green biomass to increase their growth and harvest from 26% to 60% more than with the atmospheric levels of CO2 that exist right now, which is around 380ppm-390ppm.

We actually know that throughout the geological recod of Earth there have been times with HIGHER levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present and it was cooler than it is now...

We actually know thanks to Earth's geological record that there have also been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than they are now and EARTH WAS WARMER...

The geological record of Earth shows that CO2 is not a culprit for "any noticeable warming"...

Yet despite all this we have people still believing the hoax even after it was shown to be a scam, and that even the main scientists who ahve been promoting the AGW/Global Warming lie had to fabricate false information, they even erased the records which does not allow other experts to check the claims of Jones, Mann et al.

We even have emails in which these "scientist crakpots" such as Jones, and Mann, discuss to use any legal, and illegal way to not allow dissenting research papers from being published, and also discussed not releasing information even if people used the FOI...

Not only that, we also discovered that the IPCC lied KNOWINGLY several times claiming for example that the Himalayan glaciers would met by 2035, when in fact it was based not only on speculation, but the claim was made, alongside many others, to force governments to accept the AGW/Global Warming scam...

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."
...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

We have known for several years, and thanks to several brave scientists that the IPCC has politicized AGW/Global Warming, and that they are not interested in science, but to shove down the throats of governments, and people the AGW/Global Warming lies for agendas which only have in mind the promotion of a One World Government, and more taxes for rich elites, and some scientists and scientific groups to get more funds and get richer...

Expert scientists such as Chriss Landsea have tried to warn us for years.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the
part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become
politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC
leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world
that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be
altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an
author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment
Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic
of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and
tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the
upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead
Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic
hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I
thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of
what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane
section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a
press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to
warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense
hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The
result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly
connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and
reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is
apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media
sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global
warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
...

www.climatechangefacts.info...

Chriss Landsea is not the only scientist who has been warning us for years that the IPCC and the topic of AGW/Global Warming is nothing more than a political tool.

Several scientists, including several scinetists who have worked for the IPCC have been giving us the same warning for years, yet the AGW believers just want to continue "BELIEVING" in their new found religion...

Scientists warn: The globe may not be warming

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC, has his doubts about global warming.

Christy told the Times of London: “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change.”

It has been compromised by urbanization and other factors. Christy has published research on stations in Africa, Alabama and California.

Christy: “The story is the same for each one. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

He is not alone. Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the IPCC to review its last report.

McKitrick told the Times of London: “We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCCs climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.”

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, told the Times of London: “The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years.”
...

blogs.dailymail.com...


We have also heard, or read how the AGW believers love to claim that "Climategate" has been exagerated, when even several scientists who believe or believed in AGW/Global Warming have said that Climategate IS A BIG DEAL...

Sprigg, adjunct research professor in the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, believes the planet is on a potentially dangerous warming path and atmospheric carbon dioxide is to blame. He also led the technical review of the first global warming report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. Clealry, Sprigg is no “outlier” or “rebel,” but one of the most respected and “mainstream” scientists in the field of climatology. So it came to a bit of shock to the audience when Sprigg expressed concerns about how contrarian scientists are treated with contempt by many of his colleagues.

Its not right, he said, that the game is rigged to keep skeptics out of peer-reviewed journals. It violates the scientific method to refuse to release raw data so others can test your theories. And its a big mistake to keep defending the likes of infamous “Hide the Decline” emailers Phil Jones and Michael Mann. The very credibility of the entire discipline of climate science is at stake, Sprigg said, and its time to stop ignoring this fact. As one might imagine, this all did not go over very well in the audience — who were undoubtedly expecting to hear a lecture ratifying their view that ClimateGate was no big deal when they saw Sprigg’s topic on the agenda.

I recorded Sprigg’s remarks on video for Heartland, and (from what I could tell) mine was the only camera in the room. The footage below features Taylor — who is also managing editor of Environment & Climate News — asking Sprigg what he thinks the future holds for the wholly corrupted IPCC. Sprigg nodded as Taylor referred to “mounting scandals” at the IPCC and then responded:

“There will be some reform. I think there are going to be big changes in the peer review process for the IPCC. There will be — there are — calls for the head of [IPCC Chairman Raj] Pachauri. Some of my colleagues have written letters saying that he needs to be taken off the job.”
...

biggovernment.com...

Heck, we even know that most of the warming had been happening FAR AWAY FROM BIG CITIES AND FAR AWAY FROM POLLUTION... so if CO2 was the culprit the warming should have been higher at the source of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and not on remote locations far away from big cities.

Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.

www.nasa.gov...

Yet despite all these facts, and many more which are too numerous to repost again, we have many people who want to keep believing in the AGW/Global Warming scam, just because they have "feelings" based on wrong assumtions and they 'feel guilty of being human"...

You want to tackle pollution? CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT...

You want to tackle "Climate Change"?... There is NOTHING we can do except ADAPT...

The world and it's climate is ALWAYS changing, and all mankind can do, as we have done in the past, is to ADAPT to the changes...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Hi Electric,

Your work is appreciated by Em Wah at least. It's all about asking questions really, and making your own mind up, ot easy when there is so much ambiguity around.

With all due respect, for your two years of study, I've been involved with the science of AGW for 12 years. I also currently work with NOAA. While I would caution anyone against claiming that GW is completely false, I would also tell you that there is no absolute proof whatsoever that it is anthropogenic in nature. The current trends are completely within the bounds of historically established natural climatic variations. I also do not know of a single, serious climatologist, who is willing to leap forth and claim that human forcing is behind anything we've recorded as of yet. There are plenty of theories, loads of speculation, and massive amounts of research and field study currently taking place regarding this subject matter; but the more sensational claims do the science greater harm than not. It is easy for spotlight seeking bureaucrats to shout forth with extravagance, while the real scientists work the trenches, unbeknownst to the average individual (Not to mention the numerous times during which they've had their work hijacked, and grossly misrepresented by the former).

Btw, I appreciate your interest in AGW, and I completely support your studies into it. There are always two sides to any debate, and your point-of-view is much respected on my behalf. I urge you to keep pursuing your studies further, and take a look at the other side of the issue as well (You may have to dig deeper, but certainly someone possessing your interest can in fact do it!)

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


And with all due respect, how do you work with NOAA and seriously make this statement with a straight face:

I also do not know of a single, serious climatologist, who is willing to leap forth and claim that human forcing is behind anything we've recorded as of yet.

From NOAA's own web page: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

How do we know humans are the primary cause of the warming?

A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies.

NOAA's Climate Literacy Guide:
climate.noaa.gov...

(pg 2)

human activities—burning fossil fuels and deforesting large areas of land, for instance—have had a profound influence on Earth’s climate.

(pg 14)

The overwhelming consensus of scientific studies on climate indicates that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the latter part of the 20th century is very likely due to human activities, primarily from increases in greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from the burning of fossil fuels.

NOAA climatologists -

Administrator Jane Lubchenco:

I think the take-away message is that the evidence is in: Climate change is real, it’s causing changes in our own backyard, many of those changes are increasingly challenging to society, and therefore there is urgency in moving ahead with reducing heat-trapping pollution as soon as possible.

Source


Former Boss James Baker:

There is better scientific consensus on this than on any other issue I know—except maybe Newton’s second law of dynamics.

Source


And "serious" climatologists in general:
Expert credibility in climate change

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Originally posted by babybunnies
97% of climatologists agree that global warming is real?

Many so called "global warming deniers" also agree that global warming (or at least, climate change, which is what it should really be called) is real (myself included).

However, our biggest question is whether MAN MADE global warming is real. Especially since the global temperatures of every planet and moon in the solar system has increased at the same time as Earth's.

You can't look solely at global warming on Earth, while ignoring simultaneous global warming on other planets, and tell me that this is man made. While man has had an impact on Earth's environment to be sure, mankind has NEVER been able to influence the weather on a planetary scale. I remember when enviornmentalists used to be all about pollution and environment, not solely on global warming.

It wasn't that long ago (1970's) that every single climatologist in the world thought the next ice age would be upon us "in the next decade", due to extreme global cooling. At that time, all the data collected from the 1950's and 1960's supported their "global cooling" claims. Now that data has been mysteriously skewed by the spin doctors like Al Gore and that same data now shows "global warming" over exactly the same time period. I remember some of those Panorama BBC specials from the 1970's - they've been removed from existence now by TPTB and are extremely hard to find online.

Global Warming Climatologists also only look at the last 150 years of "recorded history" while ignoring the last 4.5 BILLION YEARS of history in ice core samples, which show this is a natural process that happens every 12,000 - 15,000 years or so, and that we're overdue for another global warming spell (last one was at the end of the last ice age), and that it's now coming due. At the end of the last ice age, TWO MILE THICK ice that covered North America melted in a few short years (they think less than 20) and sea levels rose 400 FEET in a matter of 10-20 years. It's a natural cycle, folks.

In the mid 1500's, 97% of the world's geographers and map makers also said that the world was FLAT, and the one guy who stood up and said "oh, hang on, all the data you're looking at is idiocy" was publicly ridiculed, tried by The Inquisition, found guilty of Heresy, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for even suggesting such a thing.

Scientists today who dare to come forward and even hint at the possibility that global warming is a hoax face the same sort of public ridicule, loss of job and funding, and banishment to obscurity.

While we don't deny that the world is warming up, us global warming "deniers" tend to think that there might be a big mysterious ball of fire at the center of the solar system that every so called climatologist out there seems to be ignoring that is causing all this heating up

edit on 2-11-2010 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)

I am in total agreement with what you say on all counts. The 70's programme I associate with was the highly funded, and brilliant BBC's "Horizon" which has been emasculated over recent years. I would also add that in the debacle that is "Global warming" scientific funding was curtailed or not available in other areas of research, and scientists had to resort to subterfuge to include "Global warming" as part of their otherwise unconnected research. I like to call it the "Squirrel effect" just google the phrase and add "global warming"

I think if we are ever going to change anything for the better then we must first change our ‘must have now’ attitude. I think it’s this attitude that has made us careless with regards to the planet and all things that dwell on it. We can rant about whatever we want and take sides as we feel but until we agree to change our collective attitude it’s hopeless. I’m actually sick of the throw away society I’m a part of. I’ve stopped buying bing bong products from China or wherever that just about do the job for 5 minutes and started to buy better quality items that cost a bit more but last a lot longer, maybe a lifetime. Oh and by the way, now that China has slapped a ban on sending rare earth materials out of China or its mines in Africa to anywhere but China we may not be getting a new crop of crap from them anymore anyway. Well, at least until they’ve reduced their stockpile of garbage on us by some considerable margin. The way I see it though, sadly, is that a collective attitude change cannot happen by choice. It will have to be thrust upon us for our own good. Whoever has the balls to do this would go down in history as the greatest as they’d probably save the planet (unless of course a world war resulted because of it because a lot of nations would be fairly miffed at the actions taken). For starters, I think we have to realise that cheap technology isn’t necessarily cheap and there are usually repercussions such as dangerous levels of pollution and high energy costs in sourcing materials or manufacture and day to day use, efficient and controlled responsible recycling etc etc etc). If this makes an item much more expensive to purchase then so be it. I’d like a Ferrari but can’t afford one. (Well maybe if I got rid of my wife and kids I could but that’s a different matter. I digress).

This would change the ‘must have now’ attitude into a ‘can have if you’re willing to pay the price and save up for ages’ attitude. Once this attitude change sets in then the knock on effect would take place as people would start to value what they have more highly and I believe that this would include the environment. Energy would be conserved and its usage reduced if we had to pay more for it due to factoring in costs ascribed above for instance. That new telling bone would only be purchased when absolutely necessary and when the other was worn out as opposed to the fashion of changing it every few months for updated this and that rubbish. We would probably funnel our technological thought processes into something that has intrinsic value too such as cleaner living, energy efficiency in the home and workplace, improved private and public transport and commercial air travel for example, as all of these areas would have cost implications too, but as necessary for our civilisation they could be focussed on much more readily to become a lot more efficient and less polluting. One snag with this theory though, we’ve all got to do it at the same time and that’s not going to happen because we’re weak, deceitful and untrustworthy. There’s always somebody prepared to do a deal with the devil and carry on regardless and make a fortune in doing so and that would wreck it for everybody else so we’d be back to square one.

So to surmise, we’re not going to change anything anytime soon unless it’s forced on us and everyone does it at the same time and no one is sneaky. Can you see that happening? Sorry I can’t so I think we’re just wasting our time arguing about it.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Maslo
www.physorg.com...

This is why we still must tax fossil fuel consumption and use money raised to promote alternative energy sources. Even if AGW theoretically proves to be false.

edit on 9/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

So you people just want to make any excuse to increase taxes?... It is starting to sound as if you people, those who keep believing in AGW/Global Warming, have a business with Al Gore's and the One World government carbon taxes...

We don't need a One World Government to control us even more than we are controlled...

We don't need more taxes based on hoaxes, lies and exagerations...

We don't even need more taxes because some of you are ashamed of being human and want to get rid of your guilt by making everyone pay for global taxes on CO2, or any other new or old global taxes which are only making the rich elites, and certain scientists, rich...

What we actually need is for the AGW/Global Warming hoax to end, to disband the elitists, and groups that want a One World Government claiming "it is for the good of the planet" meanwhile they are getting rich off the guilt of a few naive people.

What we need is to get rid of every single law that is infringing in our God/Grandfather/insert any other supreme entity, or natural given rights to live as we see fit, instead of having environlunatic groups, and governments restrict our lives because a few people bought into the scam and are "feeling guilty of being human"...

Read what I have written. I have never written I just want an excuse to increase taxes. But if I see a good reason why we have to increase taxes on one commodity (fossil fuels - limited resource) and use the money to subsidize another (sustainable energy generation) I will agree unless you show me why it would be a bad thing in the long run, when the fossil fuels run out. Its not to make the elities rich, unless those elities start to produce alternative energy, in which case they SHOULD be rich just like big oil elities are rich now.

Originally posted by cosmolidity
Why does everyone on this site try to convince everyone else they're going to die somehow. First of all, who cares? and second of all, global warming is a hoax. Many people have stepped down from prestigious positions within the scientific community because they were getting sick of the corruption and I suppose if you're an insider who steps out of the limelight because you're tired of the lies, then I tend to agree that perhaps global warming is bull#.

Oh wait, two natural disasters in one year? It must be global warming.

I can say that the weather in my area is perfect because I change it on my own, so yes, the weather is changed through human activity but I didn't know this was news.

Do some research. Forgive my bluntness, but you are completely ignorant of the facts.

reply to post by dingleberrysalad


Fair enough, and well said

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I understand and appreciate where you are coming from. However, with all due respect, you are irrational, selfish and incorrigible. I would have more success arguing with an avocado than with you so what is the point.

I look forward to the day that we are all starving to death and you have to explain to your children why you promoted your denialist nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that GW was real, man-made, and the most serious threat to ever face the human race.

For your sake I hope that hell does not exist.

Forgive my bluntness, but I can only take so much of your 'obviously' nonsensical arguments before I say enough is enough. You deniers suffer from some kind of pathology that I can't quite explain since I am not a licensed psychologist. It is painfully obvious, however, that your brains quite literally do not work right. I know you will argue that MY brain is the one not working correctly, but that is because your opinion is skewed by the fact that YOUR brain is not functioning correctly.

In closing, I would like to say the following:

I'm done debating with the irrational thinking of deniers. You are incapable of debating facts and you quite literally make me sick. I hate you. Goodnight

reply to post by The_Liberator

I look forward to the day that we are all starving to death and you have to explain to your children why you promoted your denialist nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that GW was real, man-made, and the most serious threat to ever face the human race.

Ooohh, just hear the compulsive urgency in that statement. But where is the justification for it?

reply to post by Nathan-D


Go learn how a frickin' logarithm works FIRST and then ask that question.

please don't say it's 10,000 times worse , it is not. While it is bad, and the ignorance of our environment will eventually lead to the destruction of humanity, we have time to make a change NOW just as it was reiterated in your videos.

I will be doing everything in my power to ensure that this doesn't happen, please help me by following through on the suggestions contained in this video

-choosing not to consume beef
-Promoting and exposing green and free energy
-political activism at all levels

there were others, but i watched this video yesterday and im afraid i forget the rest.

while my next suggestion might be a bit out there, it is for tha mature and open minded:

-ask for help from the positive forces of the galaxy. they will come down and prevent this all with technology if we all pray for it. I have a funny feeling that this is going to happen anyways.

none the less, it doesnt help to try and it will only take less than ten seconds of your time and I urge you to do this. I dont care if you think your crazy for doing it or im crazy for telling you to do it, you will be proved wrong.

reply to post by mc_squared

learn how a frickin' logarithm works FIRST and then ask that question.

I know how it works thank you very much and in CO2's case, it has an ever-diminishing warming effect because CO2's strong absorption lines are quickly saturated and adding increasing amounts of the gas results in absorptions on the margins of the strong lines and further absorption on the weak lines. That's why you need ever increasing amounts to get the same temperature increments (so hypothetically speaking to produce the same warming from an increase between 100-200ppm you would need to essentially double that initial concentration, around 200-400ppm). Funny thing is, you accuse me of not comprehending CO2's logarithmic nature, while ignoring the fact that you don't even understand something as simple as 'cause and effect'. Throughout 800,000 years of glaciological records CO2 has always followed temperature fluctuations on average by 800 years. Given this simple fact CO2 cannot possibly be causation. Get back to me when you finally manage to grasp the simple scientific principle of 'cause and effect'. By the way, below is a graph from David Archibald showing how increments of CO2 produce faster-diminishing increments of radiative forcing. Amazingly, the first 100ppm of CO2 has more warming effect than the other 290ppm combined. If you do decide to rebut this graph make sure you do it with science though, or some half-decent explanation, not just ad hominem rebuttals and unsubstantiated character assassinations.



Link: wattsupwiththat.com...

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen
With all due respect, for your two years of study, I've been involved with the science of AGW for 12 years. I also currently work with NOAA. While I would caution anyone against claiming that GW is completely false, I would also tell you that there is no absolute proof whatsoever that it is anthropogenic in nature. The current trends are completely within the bounds of historically established natural climatic variations. I also do not know of a single, serious climatologist, who is willing to leap forth and claim that human forcing is behind anything we've recorded as of yet. There are plenty of theories, loads of speculation, and massive amounts of research and field study currently taking place regarding this subject matter; but the more sensational claims do the science greater harm than not. It is easy for spotlight seeking bureaucrats to shout forth with extravagance, while the real scientists work the trenches, unbeknownst to the average individual (Not to mention the numerous times during which they've had their work hijacked, and grossly misrepresented by the former).

Btw, I appreciate your interest in AGW, and I completely support your studies into it. There are always two sides to any debate, and your point-of-view is much respected on my behalf. I urge you to keep pursuing your studies further, and take a look at the other side of the issue as well (You may have to dig deeper, but certainly someone possessing your interest can in fact do it!)

Bullsh*t.