The Church of AGW: Book of Revelations

Well Al-Gore did more bad then good. Since when a polical figure speaks about such things, nobody gonna believe it.
It's just like science, in this case global warming and politics isn't a good match as like politics and religion doesn't mix very well.

But hey be relaxed, no worry, nothing serious will be done to solve this, since it just would simply cost too much money and nothing is realistic, there is no sollution, only the natural way, the hard way.

reply to post by soaringhawk
Maybe my understanding of what "warming " and "lie " actually mean is the problem here.I have heard your quote many, many times.Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma likes it and uses it often.Oklahoma has only working. oil rig that is actually located on its capital grounds.When you leave the capitol building and start down the steps there it is pumping away.Really, they are hard to miss since they are all over the state.Just about every family that has lived here for a generation,has at least one family member who has worked in the oil industry.If you think Mr.Inhofe isn't influenced by any of that when he uses that qoute in public...well that would be a lie. Now warming.Are there short term and long term cycles?Sure.Is it currentlly getting hotter faster and for longer than anytime in recent history? Yes. Well I took the bait soaringhawk, care to reply?

reply to post by jkeyes


What we're experiencing is all part of a cycle and I see you agree that some weather comes in cycles.

The whole idea that the earth is getting warmer and that humans need to act to slow or stop it is built on lies to further political agenda. Some feel there's evidence showing that the earth is becoming cooler. Yes, I feel the earth is changing or some outside force is affecting it and I don't feel it's part of a cycle.

I feel that natural disasters and the severity of them have been on the rise in recent years. Include also the sudden mass deaths of fish and other life in different parts of the earth for no reason. I sure do not know everything and I'm only after the truth. But the truth we're after may never be known.

What ever the truth is, there are politicians and other people that would use it to suit their agenda and its been happening a long time now.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Cool stuff!

What have they to add when we add the sum of this into the equation? Will it have any effect? also

Radiation leaking from our atmosphere (from Earth) is my theory; Maybe? Cancel-out each other?

It's really a fascinating thing to try and never giving-up, no matter how often we are wrong.

Your wisdom makes my head spin JPZ
in a good way, thanks!

reply to post by soaringhawkUsing global warming to further political agendas is the point of this thread.Where do you get that the earth is in a cooling trend?

reply to post by jkeyes


We've been in a cooling trend since 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013 depending on who you listen to ..... any data showing otherwise is obviously faked

Seriously, we've been cooling for around 4,000 years due to the decline in axial tilt, and whilst this will not be enough to start a new ice age (something we didn't realise back in the 70s - though even then the consensus was that CO2 emissions would counter the cooling and even lead to warming) it is expected to continue. Recent warming does not match expectations and can only be explained if we introduce albedo change and changes to atmospheric composition caused by human activity.

However, none of this is in the Bible. So it can't be true ......

I always know when I open up one of your threads, that it will be entertaining at least. This one will be informative to those that never delved too deeply into the subject. You remind me a lot of my eighth grade social studies teacher, the way you use the english language. To quote one of his favorite phrases "You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar"

It is pretty clear to me that the earth is always changing. While I do believe that we are having serious negative impact on this planet, garbage dumped into the ocean, destroying forests, oil spills, air polution, overfishing, killing off species..... The list goes on and on. I don't hold any delusions that anything we can do will stop the earth from going through it's natural cycles. We may have sped up the cycle with our human "contributions", but we didn't cause it. The earth has been going through cycles long before man was on it. Will continue to do so long after man, in all probability.

Climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, moonlanding deniers............. It has always been and I suppose it will always be. You can lead a horse to evidence, but .................

Originally posted by BellaSabre
Climate change deniers, holocaust deniers, moonlanding deniers............. It has always been and I suppose it will always be. You can lead a horse to evidence, but .................

Of course, instead of providing any evidence, you, much like far too many proselytizing AGW, instead use propaganda hoping to link skeptics to holocaust deniers and moonlanding deniers. If the science is so sound why are those who would insist it is avoiding relying on it and instead embracing logical fallacies? Logical fallacies is not science.

You can lead a religious adherent to science but you can't make them think.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I love your wit! You have made my day with your ironic sense of humor. And yes, I am a blasphemer and heretic!

Thank you!

JPZ, great write up!

*S&F*

While I always remain firm on my belief that TAXES solve nothing but filling pockets...which is my leading to believe that these people think that taxing will solve a problem...which it hasn't yet.
I will say that we humans have sure done alot to wreak havoc on our global ecosystem.
I'm not sure if it would have anything to do with a cycle, or any changes on Earth.
But when I see the smog in LA, or the complete coverage of Beijing with pollution, I wonder.
"What have we truly done and is it worse than the Earth would do without us helping?"
All for a dollar. Which is absolutely absurd seeing as we are perfectly capable of living without luxuries.
Luxuries which, in my eyes, are the product of all these "pollutions".
Blame corporations, blame capitalism, blame yourself (myself), or blame everyone else.
The point is that once greed runs the world, (or tries to) nothing is the same as it was.

I do believe that there will always be a group of men who try to profit from everything.
That, in turn, drives the corporations to loot and plunder nations...
Also, It drives the average Joe to enter the rat race and "succeed".
And it drives the UN to come up with a solution to a contrived problem.
All for a plan...an agenda if you will. Maybe the 21st agenda.

All in my utmost, albeit scattered, humble opinion.

Originally posted by TKDRL
It is pretty clear to me that the earth is always changing. While I do believe that we are having serious negative impact on this planet, garbage dumped into the ocean, destroying forests, oil spills, air polution, overfishing, killing off species..... The list goes on and on. I don't hold any delusions that anything we can do will stop the earth from going through it's natural cycles. We may have sped up the cycle with our human "contributions", but we didn't cause it. The earth has been going through cycles long before man was on it. Will continue to do so long after man, in all probability.

I don't think that we have to agree on what is causing climate change in order to address that above and beyond that, we need to change our behaviour in terms of the effect that we are having on the environment overall. To me, climate change could be related, or it could be exacerbated, or it could be quite independent of our influence. One way or another, that does not alter the fact that our behaviour is creating increasing toxicity in the environment, and that our practices are both depleting natural resources and undermining biodiversity. What should be understood and what is known within those communities that are studying sustainability, is that climate change is exacerbating the detrimental effect that we are having on our environment, and it is helping to speed up that problem. So whether we are having an effect on climate change, it is a far less of a clear and present danger, as opposed to climate changes effect on the environment that we have been shaping and depleting.

What sickens me is if you don't believe the hype of AGW you are all for destroying the environment according to the faithful It seems to me that the whole global warming scare has created some brand new problems. Those lovely new light bulbs that they are mandating we buy in the US are a case in point. They are a "green" technology How green is it to put mercury into our soil? If solutions like that are a sampling of the way's they [gov'ts and their lackeys]plan on addressing the issue we are doomed! See color me skeptical.

reply to post by conspiracy88


Actually, I am involved in several scientific experiments and the production of several inventions that can revolutionize the world, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions all around the world. What are you doing?

Also, how do you know I don't run my computer off of solar panels? How do you know I don't own an electric car/motorcycle charged by my solar panels? How do you know I don't just ride a bike to and from the store? How do you know I don't produce my own power with an exercise bike attached to a generator that charges batteries? You don't know... You really don't know crap.

Our greenhouse gas emissions are a huge problem, and anyone denying it is simply deluded.

Originally posted by hangedman13
How green is it to put mercury into our soil?

Mercury is already naturally in the soil, where do you think we get it from?

Did you know coal-burning power plants create mercury and release it in the air? If you use traditional filament light bulbs you will potentially be releasing more mercury in the air because it takes more energy to power them. If you use fluorescent lights, you will potentially be decreasing the amount of mercury in the air, and instead have a small amount safely contained in a glass bulb.

If people properly disposed of their fluorescent lights instead of just tossed them in the trash, there would be no problem that you speak of. Sure we would still have a few fluorescent lights breaking on accident, but there is so little amount of mercury in them that it's not an issue.

Also, advances in fluorescent technology has allowed light bulb manufactures to significantly reduce the amount of mercury that is in the bulbs. In the future, we may even not need mercury at all.

What displeases me is how people make such excuses to further justify their energy wastefulness.

Jean Paul Zodeaux,

AGW is already a proven fact. The only two uncertainties left to scientists are "how fast will warming occur" and "how much damage will be done". These two questions are also the only thing skeptics have left to argue about, and they cause a lot of uncertainty in the scientific community, which people then misinterpret as evidence against AGW. Most of the information provided in your original post stems from those two questions above, and none of it is evidence against AGW.

All of the following are scientific facts, and can be observed in small experiments;

Our atmosphere keeps Earth warm (FACT). The "greenhouse effect" is the process by which the atmosphere keeps Earth warm (FACT). The gases in our atmosphere cause the greenhouse effect (FACT). Increasing the amount of gases in our atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect (FACT). Increasing the greenhouse effect will increase the temperature (FACT).

The above facts are all that is needed to see there is a problem with the constant production of greenhouse gases with machines.

The only uncertainties that exist revolve around the natural processes found on Earth which utilize the gases in our atmosphere. The processes that concern us the most are known as the "Carbon Cycle". Although we know a great amount about the Carbon Cycle, it is difficult to model and predict, so it raises the one question of "how fast the Earth will warm".

So far, data shows that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically... This fact alone proves that the Carbon Cycle is very slow, and we are producing more than it can handle. Meaning, greenhouse gases are increasing, the greenhouse effect is increasing, and the Earth is technically warming (whether or not this is detectable in temperature data)...

There are several other scientific facts such as "carbon cycle feedback loops" which is also hard to model and predict, but will increase the rate that greenhouse gases are introduced into the atmosphere. Several processes of the Carbon Cycle are slowed down by increasing heat. So if we increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which increases the heat, it will also decrease the Carbon Cycle and further increase the greenhouse gases, which then heats up the atmosphere more, and increases the heat more, and in turn reduced the Carbon Cycle more, creating a feedback loop.

So again, AGW is a fact, the only questions left are how fast will things warm, and how much damage will it do.

The only talking points skeptics have left to argue are very minuscule. They only argue about the stupid corruption of political figures and their agendas, corrupt temperature data (which is not even needed to prove global warming is real), leaked e-mails that most didn't even fully understand and assumed it was something it is not, and uncertainties created by the rigorous standards that scientists uphold in order to be 100% certain. None of it proves the simple scientific facts listed above as being untrue.

Originally posted by Biliverdin

I don't think that we have to agree on what is causing climate change in order to address that above and beyond that, we need to change our behaviour in terms of the effect that we are having on the environment overall. To me, climate change could be related, or it could be exacerbated, or it could be quite independent of our influence

This is false evenhandedness.

One way or another, that does not alter the fact that our behaviour is creating increasing toxicity in the environment, and that our practices are both depleting natural resources and undermining biodiversity.

These are both bad, but only significant climate change from global warming might be damaging enough to pose a threat to the reasonable survival of satisfactory technological civilization.

5 degrees C in global temperature is the difference between now and the depth of the Ice Age. Agriculture was impossible at that time. Ice was a mile thick in New York. With unrestricted greenhouse emissions we might be on track to +5C on the hot side. That could be equally catastrophic to human survival of 9 billion people. We could have 90% die-off.

What should be understood and what is known within those communities that are studying sustainability, is that climate change is exacerbating the detrimental effect that we are having on our environment, and it is helping to speed up that problem. So whether we are having an effect on climate change, it is a far less of a clear and present danger, as opposed to climate changes effect on the environment that we have been shaping and depleting.

The problems are bad, but climate change will be worse than you think it is. It is predictable by laws of physics and those same physics say that we've hardly seen anything yet.

reply to post by senselessness

AGW is already a proven fact.

AGW is not a "proven fact" it is being bandied about as such by the proponents of AGW who are conflating the very real fact of climate change with anthropogenic cause. No one has proven that humanity is causing this warming trend. It is this kind of false assertion that damages the AGW position. If the AGW crowd cannot be honest about this then they are no different than any Christian claiming that the end times are fact because it is in the bible.

Our atmosphere keeps Earth warm (FACT). The "greenhouse effect" is the process by which the atmosphere keeps Earth warm (FACT). The gases in our atmosphere cause the greenhouse effect (FACT). Increasing the amount of gases in our atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect (FACT). Increasing the greenhouse effect will increase the temperature (FACT).

These (FACTS) you so emphatically and parenthetically state do not jive with this:

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.[11][12] In addition, some gases such as methane are known to have large indirect effects that are still being quantified.[17]

Oh my, look at that! Yet another uncertainty. It is unseemly to so boldly and parenthetically so declare you have determined these (FACTS) through all of this uncertainty.

Look, here's the deal. I have stated from the get go that I remain ambivalent regarding AGW. If you hope to convince me that human induced global warming is a (FACT) you are going to have to do better than linking carbon cycles that clearly show anthropogenic affect over the earth, but not so much so in terms of climate. Again, as I have openly stated, it is evident that humans affect the planet. What is not so evident is that climate change is caused solely by humans.

To make things worse for you there is the existence of NIPCC who counter many claims made by the IPCC. Instead of simply reifying and screaming parenthetically perhaps you could look at what the NIPCC has to say and reasonably refute their claims. That would go a lot further than just screaming (FACT) (FACT) (FACT). Let's establish the facts through a reasonable discussion instead of devolving into a "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" "Nope" "Yep" "No." "Yes" game of attrition.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by senselessness

 

AGW is not a "proven fact" it is being bandied about as such by the proponents of AGW who are conflating the very real fact of climate change with anthropogenic cause. No one has proven that humanity is causing this warming trend. It is this kind of false assertion that damages the AGW position. If the AGW crowd cannot be honest about this then they are no different than any Christian claiming that the end times are fact because it is in the bible.

Actually AGW is a proven fact... Scientific fact at that... You can't disprove the greenhouse effect.

You and many other deniers all make the same mistake... You don't realize that you don't have to see it happen to prove it will or is happening.

Just because they have yet to prove 100% that the CURRENT warming trend is caused by man (because it takes science many years to prove anything), it doesn't disprove the FACT that increasing greenhouse gases, like we currently are, WILL cause a warming trend like we are experiencing now.

One of the issues with deniers is they think temperature data, and current trends, can disprove the science behind the greenhouse effect. That is absurd.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Oh my, look at that! Yet another uncertainty. It is unseemly to so boldly and parenthetically so declare you have determined these (FACTS) through all of this uncertainty.

Actually, your quote from wiki is highly misleading, and is not a real uncertainty. The effect of CO2 on the atmosphere can, and has, easily been modeled via computer, and reproduced in real experiments. You and I can even reproduce the experiments in our own backyards. It's already a proven fact that CO2 is a very effective greenhouse gas.

Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase the greenhouse effect. The planet Venus which has an atmosphere made of 96.5% CO2 will easily confirm this...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
To make things worse for you there is the existence of NIPCC who counter many claims made by the IPCC. Instead of simply reifying and screaming parenthetically perhaps you could look at what the NIPCC has to say and reasonably refute their claims. That would go a lot further than just screaming (FACT) (FACT) (FACT). Let's establish the facts through a reasonable discussion instead of devolving into a "nuh-uh" "uh-huh" "Nope" "Yep" "No." "Yes" game of attrition.

I wasn't screaming FACT. I was just labeling the simple facts that explain global warming in it's simplicity.

Until the NIPCC can disprove the greenhouse effect, anything they say is hogwash.

Increasing greenhouse gases will increase the greenhouse effect. It really is that simple.

The NIPCC is so busy arguing current climate data and trying to blur the links between man and climate, that they are distracting you from that simple 1+1=2 equation.