Global Warming Deniers

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW? our atmosphere has a mass of 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg or 5,000 trillion kilo grams or 11,023 trillion pounds.

It is awfully arrogant of us to think that we the number one cause of any changes in something this large.

..but the alarmist screw balls ignore numbers and only subscribe to pick and choose agenda driven dogma that the willing accomplices in the media drum beat. The< media action line is blame humans and construct rational that supports that agenda.

Ah yes, those crazy numbers. Don't get me wrong, providing big numbers out of context is a great argument... :roll: But trying to be scientific about this makes your case look a little weak.

It's estimated that each and every person in the US releases about 10,000 lbs of CO2 per year, that's about 3 trillion lbs of CO2 per year for the entire country. The US contributes about 25% of the CO2 output of the entire world, so call it 12 trillion pounds per year for the entire world...or 11 trillion lbs to make the math easier. That's about 0.1% of the mass of the atmosphere released in CO2 output, every single year. Now given that the atmosphere is only composed of 0.03% CO2 naturally, that is not an insignificant amount. It may be 1/10th of a percent, but that can be a lot if you know anything about chemistry.

That's a dramatic oversimplification, but it's silly to think that just throwing out a huge number like ProJo did makes your argument rock solid, in fact I'd say the numbers make the man-made global warming argument extremely possible. There are a lot of other factors, but ProJo's argument is silly. But that's the point, isn't it, you guys only use science to extent you CAN use it. Real science is sorely missing from the conversation.

 

[Genx87]

How much Co2 is spewed from forest fires, volcano's, or other natural causes?

And how much Co2 do plants take out of the atmosphere?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How much Co2 is spewed from forest fires, volcano's, or other natural causes?

And how much Co2 do plants take out of the atmosphere?

when you take down plants and trees at an increasing rate, the ability for the plants to purify the air decreases, which contributes more to global warming, which allows for more instances of forest fires.

 

[homercles337]

Im really dumbfounded at the (nearly?) complete lack of scientific knowledge of the deniers. Not knowledge of the climate, but just basic, pedestrian, everyday knowledge of how science works. It is really a sad thing that something scientific has been politicized and thus allowed the average idiot the "right" to interject opinion. "Lack of conclusions" and "the science is still out" are nothing more than duhversions. Those two statements have nothing to do with science. Not a god damn thing. The MMGW support == religion is even more idiotic and shows a complete lack of scientific understanding.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Genx87
How much Co2 is spewed from forest fires, volcano's, or other natural causes?

And how much Co2 do plants take out of the atmosphere?

when you take down plants and trees at an increasing rate, the ability for the plants to purify the air decreases, which contributes more to global warming, which allows for more instances of forest fires.

Gee do you think? Now can you provide me with some data? I am curious was to how much Co2 is belched out of the Earth on a yearly basis vs how much humans spit out.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Im really dumbfounded at the (nearly?) complete lack of scientific knowledge of the deniers. Not knowledge of the climate, but just basic, pedestrian, everyday knowledge of how science works. It is really a sad thing that something scientific has been politicized and thus allowed the average idiot the "right" to interject opinion. "Lack of conclusions" and "the science is still out" are nothing more than duhversions. Those two statements have nothing to do with science. Not a god damn thing. The MMGW support == religion is even more idiotic and shows a complete lack of scientific understanding.

When you start predicting doom and gloom and pro-actively try to shout people down or convert them. Science has been tossed for faith. Really the MMGW fanatics have only themselves to blame for the label.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Genx87
How much Co2 is spewed from forest fires, volcano's, or other natural causes?

And how much Co2 do plants take out of the atmosphere?

when you take down plants and trees at an increasing rate, the ability for the plants to purify the air decreases, which contributes more to global warming, which allows for more instances of forest fires.

So you ARE arguing about and in favor of MMGW.

Are you a 1,500 year cycle denier? To use your own words, do you believe it is some vast right wing conspiracy, are YOU a conspiracy theorist, or are you just dumb? haha :laugh:

Originally posted by: eits
nevermind, then. i guess you're not conspiracy theorists... you're just dumb. global warming isn't a religion haha :laugh:

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: K1052
Often the distinction isn't made between people who deny global warming is happening and those who question the event being heavily tied to human activity.

It looks like from the available evidence that the earth is indeed warming somewhat. If this is a natural cycle, a man made one, or some combination thereof isn't nearly as clear. We still have relatively little understanding of the Earth's climate processes and even less data to back up our theories. Due to media attention and a good sales pitch a cult (for lack of a better term) has sprung up around the totally man made warming camp despite the deficiencies in our knowledge of our planet's climatology and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it gets branded a denier.

Why are some of the best replies never quoted in here? This post sums it up. There is a lack evidence on both sides to produce a concrete conclusion. Hence, all the controversy.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Genx87
How much Co2 is spewed from forest fires, volcano's, or other natural causes?

And how much Co2 do plants take out of the atmosphere?

when you take down plants and trees at an increasing rate, the ability for the plants to purify the air decreases, which contributes more to global warming, which allows for more instances of forest fires.

..Alaska, Canada,North America and South America are c02 sinks. Eco-theists fail to acknowledge or dismiss the sink facts because it undermines their political bias to establish co2 emission credit rackets and punitive energy tax.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052
Often the distinction isn't made between people who deny global warming is happening and those who question the event being heavily tied to human activity.

It looks like from the available evidence that the earth is indeed warming somewhat. If this is a natural cycle, a man made one, or some combination thereof isn't nearly as clear. We still have relatively little understanding of the Earth's climate processes and even less data to back up our theories. Due to media attention and a good sales pitch a cult (for lack of a better term) has sprung up around the totally man made warming camp despite the deficiencies in our knowledge of our planet's climatology and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it gets branded a denier.

Why are some of the best replies never quoted in here? This post sums it up. There is a lack evidence on both sides to produce a concrete conclusion. Hence, all the controversy.

Negative.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: K1052
Often the distinction isn't made between people who deny global warming is happening and those who question the event being heavily tied to human activity.

It looks like from the available evidence that the earth is indeed warming somewhat. If this is a natural cycle, a man made one, or some combination thereof isn't nearly as clear. We still have relatively little understanding of the Earth's climate processes and even less data to back up our theories. Due to media attention and a good sales pitch a cult (for lack of a better term) has sprung up around the totally man made warming camp despite the deficiencies in our knowledge of our planet's climatology and anyone who doesn't subscribe to it gets branded a denier.

Why are some of the best replies never quoted in here? This post sums it up. There is a lack evidence on both sides to produce a concrete conclusion. Hence, all the controversy.

Negative.

Then prove it. I took a meteorology course in college 4 years ago where this subject was brought up and this is what my professor of over 20 years told the class. Sorry, but I am inclined to believe the guy who has dedicated his life to studying this subject rather than any AT scientists. There is evidence out there that supports many theories, but no proof.

 

[Jaskalas]

World's carbon dioxide emissions rising at alarming rate

Carbon dioxide ? the greenhouse gas considered most responsible for global warming ? has been emitted into the Earth's atmosphere at a dramatically accelerating pace since 2000, researchers reported Monday.

"Carbon dioxide is rising at a much faster rate than before," says study co-author Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in California. "In the 1990s, CO2 emissions increased by about 1.3% per year. Since 2000, the growth rate has been 3.3% per year." The researchers calculate that global carbon-dioxide emissions were 35% higher in 2006 than in 1990.

What's especially troubling, notes lead author Josep Canadell of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, is most climate scenarios used by scientists and policymakers to predict temperature increases are based on the 1.3% rise.

Predictions of accelerated doom and gloom.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

World's carbon dioxide emissions rising at alarming rate

Carbon dioxide ? the greenhouse gas considered most responsible for global warming ? has been emitted into the Earth's atmosphere at a dramatically accelerating pace since 2000, researchers reported Monday.

"Carbon dioxide is rising at a much faster rate than before," says study co-author Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in California. "In the 1990s, CO2 emissions increased by about 1.3% per year. Since 2000, the growth rate has been 3.3% per year." The researchers calculate that global carbon-dioxide emissions were 35% higher in 2006 than in 1990.

What's especially troubling, notes lead author Josep Canadell of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, is most climate scenarios used by scientists and policymakers to predict temperature increases are based on the 1.3% rise.

Predictions of accelerated doom and gloom.

..good example of media willing accomplice drum beat. a day doesn't go by without a similar misery milker media action line.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When has that stopped people before?

Didn't you know that the Jews are behind 9/11?

i just find it ironic, because they're typically the ones who are quick to call people conspiracy theorists if they disagree with the official story on something.

i was just wondering if the global warming deniers are liking their tin foil hats.

Yes, because looking at it rationally there are no other explanations for the temp. variation. Man made events cause 100% of the changes involved in the Co2 levels, temp differences, and global weather pattern changes.

If "deniers" are conspiracy theorists, or "stupid" for not believing that, then does that make you an ego-centric moronic lemming?

 

[jonks]

The way I see it, it took how long for the "there is no global warming" people to get to "global warming is not a man-made phenomenon" to get to "ok, man has an affect on global warming, but it's not significant"? Multiply that timeline out and eventually you'll get to "it's a problem, we're making it worse and we are now going to address that." Say, another 10-20 years, or when Florida sinks, whichever happens first. It's still funny to me how this is a partisan issue, but then what isn't?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337
Im really dumbfounded at the (nearly?) complete lack of scientific knowledge of the deniers. Not knowledge of the climate, but just basic, pedestrian, everyday knowledge of how science works. It is really a sad thing that something scientific has been politicized and thus allowed the average idiot the "right" to interject opinion. "Lack of conclusions" and "the science is still out" are nothing more than duhversions. Those two statements have nothing to do with science. Not a god damn thing. The MMGW support == religion is even more idiotic and shows a complete lack of scientific understanding.

When you start predicting doom and gloom and pro-actively try to shout people down or convert them. Science has been tossed for faith. Really the MMGW fanatics have only themselves to blame for the label.

No, its a totally nonsensical comparison conjured up by the deniers. "Faith" has nothing to do with this argument (save for the fact that your ilk likes to belittle others with it). Follow the evidence is all one needs to do. Claiming that there is "lack of conclusions" or that "the science is still out" or that "one 'scientist' X argues against the evidence" shows a complete lack of basic scientific knowledge. That is not how science works. If only 100% certainty, a conclusion, is going to convince the deniers then you guys have no clue how science works, or why we try to convince you that we know better than you. We understand science. You have made it *very* clear that you do not.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When has that stopped people before?

Didn't you know that the Jews are behind 9/11?

i just find it ironic, because they're typically the ones who are quick to call people conspiracy theorists if they disagree with the official story on something.

i was just wondering if the global warming deniers are liking their tin foil hats.

Yes, because looking at it rationally there are no other explanations for the temp. variation. Man made events cause 100% of the changes involved in the Co2 levels, temp differences, and global weather pattern changes.

If "deniers" are conspiracy theorists, or "stupid" for not believing that, then does that make you an ego-centric moronic lemming?

Stick to economics and finance. Have you ever had a *single* science course? Its claims like yours that just scream "i know nothing about science" to me.

 

[StageLeft]

I still don't understand why GW is even that bad. It's like people love the temperatures where they are. Or maybe they're already too hot and we should do what we can to entice an ice age?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When has that stopped people before?

Didn't you know that the Jews are behind 9/11?

i just find it ironic, because they're typically the ones who are quick to call people conspiracy theorists if they disagree with the official story on something.

i was just wondering if the global warming deniers are liking their tin foil hats.

Yes, because looking at it rationally there are no other explanations for the temp. variation. Man made events cause 100% of the changes involved in the Co2 levels, temp differences, and global weather pattern changes.

If "deniers" are conspiracy theorists, or "stupid" for not believing that, then does that make you an ego-centric moronic lemming?

Stick to economics and finance. Have you ever had a *single* science course? Its claims like yours that just scream "i know nothing about science" to me.

Yes, I had several. Instead of attacking me, then dispute it.

People sit around thinking that GW was caused by man or that we somehow have some massive affect. We cannot definitively say that we are having that much of an effect, we simply try to tie two things together. Sure, you can sit around claiming we know, but in truth, we don't.

There are so many variables in this universe, many of them have had documented effects.

I'm not saying that MMGW isn't the truth, I just want more facts. I take the same tact with most other things in life.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: homercles337
Im really dumbfounded at the (nearly?) complete lack of scientific knowledge of the deniers. Not knowledge of the climate, but just basic, pedestrian, everyday knowledge of how science works. It is really a sad thing that something scientific has been politicized and thus allowed the average idiot the "right" to interject opinion. "Lack of conclusions" and "the science is still out" are nothing more than duhversions. Those two statements have nothing to do with science. Not a god damn thing. The MMGW support == religion is even more idiotic and shows a complete lack of scientific understanding.

When you start predicting doom and gloom and pro-actively try to shout people down or convert them. Science has been tossed for faith. Really the MMGW fanatics have only themselves to blame for the label.

No, its a totally nonsensical comparison conjured up by the deniers. "Faith" has nothing to do with this argument (save for the fact that your ilk likes to belittle others with it). Follow the evidence is all one needs to do. Claiming that there is "lack of conclusions" or that "the science is still out" or that "one 'scientist' X argues against the evidence" shows a complete lack of basic scientific knowledge. That is not how science works. If only 100% certainty, a conclusion, is going to convince the deniers then you guys have no clue how science works, or why we try to convince you that we know better than you. We understand science. You have made it *very* clear that you do not.

You have to be a pretty blinded to not see the similarities between religion and the MMGW crowd.

 

[Jaskalas]

It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

 

[Genx87]

I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87
I love the Hurricane prediction. Supposedly after 2005 we were going to see endless Katrina's. Last year didnt even see a single storm hit us. This year have we had anything more serious than a Cat 2 make landfall on our soil?

We are coming up on the last month of the season and so far it has been really quiet for the past two seasons after all of those global warming fanatics predicted doom and gloom for us.

And a check with NOAA shows "There are no tropical cyclones at this time."

You love it because you think it's an argument against man-made global warming. It's not, because while the "fanatics" were trumpeting doom and gloom, the reasonable folks who support the theory were not. Nice try.

Actually it is, indirectly. The point to take home and memorize is that the science behind this, like behind many things, is pretty damn vague and contradictory. Climatologists are constantly fugging up their predictions and their models are constantly wrong. There is simply no consistent, proven trend in any of this stuff--at least not quantifably. We know that the world is probably warming overall but beyond that we don't know to what degree, we don't know how much it is sped up/slowed down by man, and we also don't have the faintest clue whether it will even be a net positive or negative.

I remain incredulous at the people who buy this all hook line and sinker and it's being promoted by the same scientific method and study that doesn't yet know what the weather will be seven days from now with any kind of reliable accuracy.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
It?s odd when the media (did you watch CNN last night?) blame the California fires on Global Warming when:

1: They blame Global Warming for worse hurricanes, thus having proven it raises the sea temperature.

2: The fires are made worse by historic record shattering drought.

3: The drought is made through a WELL known weather pattern called La Nina, which is COOLER than average water temperatures.

So much for consistency eh?

This post is a good exemple of why I lack faith in scientist, and how our media is pushing the GW thing like a religion. It just makes me even more of a sceptic.

1. Blaming GW for worse hurricanes Oreally? WTF are they? Several years ago, a longer term forcast (which many GW supporters is more accurate than shorter term forcast) predict increased hurricane activity from GW. It's been the opposite the past 2 yrs.

2. Fires made worse by drought? I'm hearing the exact oposite from sources. Thye claim without the drought there would have been more undergrowth to serve as fuel for the fires, making them much worse. Well, which is it?

3. Yep

The lack of (scientifically predicted) hurricanes has lead to the drought here in the South East. The point is, science needs to keep working at it. They ain't got it right yet.

Fern