RE: Settled Science

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Settled Science

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Settled Science

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Settled Science - 2/4/2012 4:44:22 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Just because that happened that time doesn't mean it always happens that way. As a matter of fact we know for a fact that this time the CO2 rise preceeded the warming.

Firstly, the presence of CO2 in the air at high levels for 15,000 years while the temp was plunging into a new glaciation shows CO2 has no causal effect on temperature. But hey, if the facts don't fit then out with that inconvenient shit!

Secondly, we know for a fact that the CO2 rise preceded the warming??? This is from the Harvard research article you cited: Fossil fuel burning had a minor role until the mid-twentieth century So, bullshit on CO2 rose first.

Minor role doesn't mean no role. CO2 is a GHG that is a fact. To deny that fact is to deny all of physics and chemistry. Are you really doing that?

quote:

quote:

You're denying that fossil fuels are in excess of 300 million years old?

Nope. But you didn't say fossil fuels. You said CO2 came from a source sequestered yatta, yatta.

Where do you think the carbon came from? Burning fossil fuels which have been out of the biosphere for more than 300 million years.

quote:

quote:

Where did I ever write settled science? Skeptics who are always wrong aren't skeptics. The fact that denialists all have connections to the old energy industries is simple fact and just as relevant as pointing out that the people who claimed tobacco did not cause cancer were in the employ of the tobacco industry.

Look at your first two sentences. You deny settled science and then you claim the sceptics are always wrong

And the sceptics ALL have connections to old energy? Silly ass statement you cannot prove.

You need to learn to read for comprehension. I wrote that skeptics that are always wrong aren't skeptics not that skeptics are always wrong. There is a significant difference.

As to the denialists all being in the employ of the old energy industries I invite you to find a scientist involved in climate research who denies GW who isn't in the employ of the old energy industries.

quote:

quote:

So no response besides hand waves?

What other response can there be to your hysteria about Germany and China owning the future clean fuel industries when the major issue in alarmist AGW is that there will be no future. *waves the other hand.

You really have no idea what you're talking about I guess.

People concerned about AGW are not claiming it will sterilize the planet of all life or even likely kill all of humanity, although that is possible, but that it will cause our culture to collapse.

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 121

RE: Settled Science - 2/4/2012 10:20:25 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

People concerned about AGW are not claiming it will sterilize the planet of all life or even likely kill all of humanity, although that is possible, but that it will cause our culture to collapse.

I don't want to put too fine a point on it but I have heard many (what does one call them?) "AGW Supporters" (I guess?) loudly proclaim that we are killing the planet and ourselves with it. I made reference to the people with sandwich boards and bells, earlier because some of the "AGW Supporters" remind me of that fervor and zealotry.

Again, I can't prove that they're wrong and I do not deny that the way we live is affecting the earth. I'd be a fool to do so. I just believe that it is not as dire a situation as some of the more alarmist "AGW Supporters" would have us believe. I have heard Vice President Gore make many an impassioned plea using phrases similar to "the end of mankind" and the "end of all we know" and even "the end of the earth". It's why I keep mentioning him. He's the most visible and recognizable "AGW Supporter".

His pleas and urgings would mean a lot more to me if he weren't making so much money (Movies, books, investments in green energy, etc.) on his exhortions that the world is coming to an end.

I believe we are affecting the global environment. I don't believe we're destroying it.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 122