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

Originally posted by C0bzz

Emotional appeals, typical...

You criticize the 'The_Liberator' for emotional appeals, and then you go off on a ridiculous rant about electronic surveillance. That's called hypocrisy.

What's so ridiculous about it? You're probably just angry that I've criticized the Freemasons. And that's not what "hypocrisy" means.

You misquoted your own source, which does NOT say that methane gas is some how trapped in the ice. It says that methane is simply a waste product of the microbes living under the ice sheet. This is what the global warming alarmists tend to gloss over: that most "greenhouse gas" is simply waste that is produced by living creatures, NOT automobiles and power generators.

And you misread the source and now you're criticizing 'The_Liberator' for misquoting the source. Uhuh. This is what it actually shows:

imgur.com...

And here's the study:

Remobilization to the atmosphere of only a small fraction of the methane held in East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming, yet it is believed that sub-sea permafrost acts as a lid to keep this shallow methane reservoir in place.

www.sciencemag.org...

No. That source is within this source climateprogress.org...
Doesn't count.
Uhuh. That's that ish.

Thus if the permafrost melts from warming, the methane stored underneath may get released into atmosphere, would could cause significant global warming. It is therefore considered a positive feedback.

Where does methane come from? Osama bin-Laden?

It would be disingenuous to suggest that there is no money involved on both sides of the climate debate. However your statistic was made up on the spot, and the study in question was by:

1 International Arctic Research Centre, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99709, USA.
2 Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, Vladivostok 690041, Russia.
3 Stockholm University, Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research and Department of Applied Environmental Science, Stockholm S-10691, Sweden.

www.sciencemag.org...

Are you saying those scientists are paid out?

All of those institutions are funded mostly by government grants. US and Russia are members of G8, and the University of Stockholm works closely with the Chinese and Japanese governments.

Are you saying that scientists are infallible?

because at least 95% of "greenhouse emissions" is water vapor.

Irrelevant. What matters is the difference between GHG emissions and the amount of GHG absorbed. Unequivocally the difference is caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide, although feedbacks both positive and negative from the warming this CO2 will cause, will also play a significant part.

Ok, then, Mr. Science, what's the difference?

Saying that people's opinions cannot be trusted because they are "unqualified" is an ad-hominem attack. Even the article you cited contains an ad-hominem attack ("mainstream versus skeptical").

You act as if ad hominem invalidates the argument. It does not necessarily.

It distracts from the message and criticizes the messenger for wearing ugly shoes. Ugly shoes don't validate your argument.

Also

Oblivious to physics, chemistry and climate science, the principal weapon of climate “skeptics” remains ad-hominem slur (“Gore lied”), conspiracy theories and ad-infinitum use of terms such as “alarmism” and even “ecofascism”.

bravenewclimate.com...

That is also an ad-hominem attack, and does not explain who or what is a "climate skeptic."

And I noticed that you cited a website called bravenewclimate.com

And remember in August when there was a massive solar flare? A few days later, temperatures on Earth soared, followed by record-breaking heat waves. Mind you, this happened after the solar flare.

i.imgur.com...

Any questions?

That chart shows an net increase in solar activity since 2008, as do these charts: sidc.oma.be...

Oh, and btw, Russia is preparing for the coldest winter in 1000 years. Radiators are selling like hot cakes.

Well, that's cherry picking firstly. Secondly, that's why weather and climate do not have the same meaning. We will still have cold records with or without global warming.

Greater-than-average freezing decreases the mean temperature.

Yes, and people shouldn't be trying to play God trying to intentionally cool the Earth's temperature.

Nor should we arrogantly unintentionally warm the Earth's temperature.

"We" who? You personally?

Notice that the push is more to reduce energy usage rather than to contain global warming per se.

Efficiency means more efficient cars, less transmission losses, better insulation and so on. Clean Energy means wind turbines, nuclear, cogeneration among others.

That's more a dilemma for the automobile industry than regular people. Unfortunately, in American society corporations only respond to messages that are broadcast to the public. Most commerical ads are not to attract consumers, but to attract investors.

Wind technology as it exists now simply does not work, because:
- It's a danger to birds
- It creates noise pollution
- It affects the jet stream, which is technically climate change

Although wave power and geothermal don't share these problems, more studies are needed to assess their effect on the climate.

This is because of electronic surveillance, which uses massive amounts of electricity. If the intelligence community continues to increase their levels of domestic electronic surveillance, they will effectively burn out the infrastructure.

No, that's just some ridiculous theory that you made up on the spot.

What's ridiculous about it, that it's not supported by so-called "scientists?"

A quick search on internal combustion engines reveals that they typically have an energy efficiency of 18%-20%, which is far lower than the efficiency of the electrical transmission system

So are you saying that technology has stopped improving, or that all "climate skeptics" are taking payments from Big Oil ?

In any case it is easier to replace the electrical infrastructure with clean energy, because it is physically impossible to have a nuclear powered car, a solar powered car, or a wind powered car. You need electricity.

In case you were unaware, nuclear generators produce a heckuva lot more energy than coal. That's why nuclear submarines run for 25 years on a golf-ball sized piece of uranium. The issue with nuclear powerplants is massive waste, and that components can be modified to produce nuclear weapons.

Biofuels at this stage are not a terribly good idea, I suppose the only reason the automotive industry makes such claims is because electric cars are simply not good enough at this moment in time, although it looks like PHEV will take off.

Gasoline-electric hybrid cars already do 150 miles per gallon and are actually common outside of the US. Electric cars in the US would exponentially increase the load on the infrastructure, which is already fragile. They might also cause electromagnetic pollution, which is a much more serious threat than global warming.

The climate is changing because it is getting warmer. Global warming in this context therefore for the most part equals climate change. I don't even know why there are two terms for it because in practice they mean the same thing.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote. Climate change also includes other factors such as the shift of the north and south poles.


The Wikipedia article for greenhouse gas has this to say:

The impacts of population growth, economic development, technological investment, and consumption had overwhelmed improvements in energy intensities and efforts to decarbonize
secure.wikimedia.org...

The article cites the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, which says:

GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century ... At the global scale, declining carbon and energy intensities have been unable to offset income effects and population growth and, consequently, carbon emissions have risen ... The decline of the carbon content of energy (CO2/TPES) was the highest in Western Europe, but the effect led only to a slight reduction of CO2 in absolute terms.
www.ipcc.ch...

Seeing that the organization received a Nobel Peace Prize and was funded by the University of Cambridge (a major contributor to the anthropogenic global warming theory), the report is a suprising read. It concludes that reducing carbon emissions is futile in reducing the greenhouse effect without:
- Reducing energy consumption
- Manufacturing more "carbon sinks"

Manufacturing carbon sinks basically means rewilding farmland and suburban living areas. This involves more than planting trees and farming coral reefs. It also involves reintroducing natural predators. People living in these areas would be packed into urban cities, like what happens in any third-world country (and on Dora the Explorer).

The mission statement for the Rewilding Institute is here: rewilding.org...
Notice its logo -- three pyramids in a formation which look like the pyramids at Giza.

The biggest winner of cap-and-trade could have been the Russian government with its vast Siberian forests, but these methane people are putting up roadblocks.

And let's not forget that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change endorses cap-and-trade. For extra brownie points, they changed the Kyoto Protocol, which previously only called for action to prevent "acid rain."

Originally posted by The_Liberator
Read my previous post on the page before this one.

The page before this one has three posts, which are all either ad-hominem attacks or emotional appeals.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


It's OFFICIAL NOW, GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX ...............


www.youtube.com.../c/25EB67459A86D7EE/0/VebOTc-7shU

Originally posted by The_Liberator
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.

Ah, so since you have no way to counter my argument in ANY intelligent manner, now you resort to insults, and to try to push your ignorant rant down my throat, by using "irrational, ignorant, selfish, and incorrigible" arguments that do not present any sort of evidence to back your claims but the already debunked BS which has been posted by other "believers of AGW....

And please don't use intelligence, and your name together in one sentence, because you lack the grey matter to actually make a concise, and intelligent argument to counter the tons of proof that AGW is nothing more than a lie, and a false religion for people like you...

Originally posted 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.

First of all, there have been several times when the human race has gone through periods of massive droughts, massive starvation, which is occurring right now, and dramatic Climate Changes WHICH WERE ALL NATURAL...

Who they heck are you to claim "it is man made" when the cream of the crop scientists behind the AGW lie/false religion had to lie, tried to prevent information from being leaked, talked about using legal and illegal ways to keep people in the dark regarding AGW, and in general had to use false claims, and exagerations trying to shove their false religion down everyone's throat?...

BTW, the fact is that one of the main things you AGW religious fanatics want to do, and are forcing governments to do is to "capture atmospheric CO2" based on a false RELIGION. Now, that one action alone it is going to cause crops worldwide to stun their growth and lessen the production of global harvests which will cause more mass starvation... Not to mention the massive taxation which will follow, as well as the eroding of more of our individual rights because of the draconian laws which your false prophets have been implementing and they want to implement even more...

So who in the heck is the " irrational, selfish and incorrigible" to the point of being like discussing with an avocado because you don't want to stop believing in your FALSE RELIGION that is AGW?...

Your decisions, and demands are going to cause MASS STARVATION alongside with the problems that NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE will continue to cause...

Nice try to twist NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE into your false religion that is AGW....

Originally posted by The_Liberator
For your sake I hope that hell does not exist.

For your sake, and the sake of the religious fanatics around the world believing AGW when your false prophets have been shown to be hoaxers, i hope there is no higher being, or beings looking at what people are doing, and as you said, I hope there is no hell...

Your so called "action to combat AGW" includes the trapping of atmospheric CO2, which as I said will cause even more mass starvation because when plants have less food, which that is what CO2 is, they grow less, and produce less, hence YOU, and YOURS will cause more massive starvation because you want to keep your "false religion" alive...

Originally posted by The_Liberator
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.

To put it bluntly, since you have no factual, and concise argument to counter the massive amount of information that shows your FALSE RELIGION is nothing more than a hoax, you have to resort to insults, and belittling comments because you can't present any counter argument against the massive amount of evidence that points to AGW being debunked as a false religion...

Originally posted by The_Liberator

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

edit on 11-11-2010 by The_Liberator because: (no reason

Good to know.. I am tired of arguing with "followers of false prophets" who do not want to admit they just want to continue believing in their false religion even after their "false prophets" have been shown to be nothing more than arrogant, and selfish hoaxers...

Enough is enough...
extra DIV