RE: Not politically expedient

RE: Not politically expedient (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Phydeaux -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 12:40:19 PM)
Since 1998 carbon in the atmosphere has doubled. Temperatures have not gone up. The theory that global warming is caused by CO2 is therefore: WRONG. Just like Nasa, CERN, the energy advocate, svenmark, and myself have been saying. And, like I reported earlier, increasing numbers of scientists agree.

thompsonx -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 12:58:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Since 1998 carbon in the atmosphere has doubled. Temperatures have not gone up. The theory that global warming is caused by CO2 is therefore: WRONG. Just like Nasa, CERN, the energy advocate, svenmark, and myself have been saying. And, like I reported earlier, increasing numbers of scientists agree. Besides the guy who claims that tobacco does not cause[8\|] cancer who else?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 1:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html a fifteen year plateau is .056 of the industrial revolution to today. the amounts of CO2 that is put in the air, and how much of that is anthropogenic has been repeatedly stated. quote: So, in demonstrating that there hasn't been any statistical warming since 1998, why should there be any start date used that isn't 1998? Why is a statistical nothingness constantly repeated as though it means something other than nothingness is what I am trying to figure out. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/industrialrevolution.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm One is forced to believe the plateau is because there are attempts to reduce greenhouse gasses and there have been some large programs of HFC reductions (yanno, the nasty refrigerants that are outlawed) and their lifespan appears to be 12 years, so it could be that. The question why is there the (very small) plateau of temp "stability", is a good one, of course more work needs to be done, and more tests need to be performed and theories aligned with data. But the bottom line, when we take a shit, we wipe our ass, we dont let nature clean it up. So, CO2 emissions aren't necessarily causing global warming? How old is the Earth? How long is the "Industrial Revolution to today" as part of the Earth's age? Even taking a Creationist's 8000 year claim, the 250 or so years is only 1/32, or 0.03125 of that time.

DomKen -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 1:03:19 PM)
Atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, roughly, 364 ppm. Today 395. Since 1998 temperatures have gone up as I've shown previously. NASA and CERN have made no such claims and virtually no scientists working in relevant fields agree.

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 1:03:37 PM)
I do not think that anyone in the science community are saying that co2 emissions are causing global warming, but they are contributing to it, I believe methane is more prolific as a greenhouse gas.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 1:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I do not think that anyone in the science community are saying that co2 emissions are causing global warming, but they are contributing to it, I believe methane is more prolific as a greenhouse gas. Methane gas has a stronger effect, but I think the relative concentrations of methane and CO2 shows that CO2 has a larger impact. Oddly enough, it turns out that water vapor has the biggest impact, though it's effect is among the weakest. There is just so much water vapor.

JeffBC -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/20/2013 1:30:32 PM)
~fast reply~ Some of you may find this video interesting. and/or This listing of common reasons for skepticism about global warming with some explanations. Finally, I'm digging around. Once I ran into a GREAT web site where a bunch of actual climate scientists hung out. It was neat because you could just go right to the horse's mouth and ask your question. I personally found the answers much more credible than tabloid headlines. I'll post that if I can find it again unless someone beats me to the punch.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:10:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ah screw it .... Here is substantially the same information, in a different article, by a different reporter ... IPCC Climate Report Struggles With Temperature Quirks Is the Huffington Post a better source for you? That is what I have read SUBSTANTIALLY from the other sources. The Mail is SUBSTANTIALLY the same? That is fuckin stupid. World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years HOw the fuck is that SUBSTANTIALLY the same? That is pure nutsucker spinning webs of deceit, and ignorance. Cement is lighter than air, according to the DailyMail. Ahhh, I get it. The headline is the entire article for you! No need to read beyond the name of the source, and the headline. [8\|] Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:21:32 AM)
Well, there were other things, but once I determine that the headline does not at all match the rest of the article, that the point of the article is to promulgate pure horseshit. . . I quit reading. It is not worth the waste of pixels.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:23:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I do not think that anyone in the science community are saying that co2 emissions are causing global warming, but they are contributing to it, I believe methane is more prolific as a greenhouse gas. Uhhh ... Classic. Simply classic. The entire basis of the AGW movement over the past 10 years or so has been: ... Mankind, through the industrial Revolution (burning coal, oil, etc) has drastically increased atmospheric CO2. This increased level of CO2 has caused/is causing a greenhouse effect that is raising global temperature therefore AGW (Anthropic Global Warming). The was the basis for the Kyoto Treaty's attempt to reduce world wide carbon emissions, the basis for "carbon credits" trading scheme, the basis for the drive to alternative "carbon friendly" energy, for the EPA to classify CO2 as a poison so that they could regulate it and so, so much more. And you've been right there, Ron, making those arguments. Now, you claim otherwise? Classic True Believer Syndrome. Inconvenient facts are simply ignored, pushed aside, or some alternate hypothesis thrown out there in order to hold onto some smidgen of a belief system. Firm

DomKen -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:26:03 AM)
Not that the right wingers will read and understand this but presented for the actually curious http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/18/climate_change_denier_article_updated_still_riddled_with_errors.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/23/global_warming_deluge_of_denial_on_its_way.html

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:27:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, roughly, 364 ppm. Today 395. Since 1998 temperatures have gone up as I've shown previously. NASA and CERN have made no such claims and virtually no scientists working in relevant fields agree. Are you saying that "no scientists working in relevant fields agree" that the source of AGW is increased man-made CO2? And neither has NASA? Firm

thompsonx -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:31:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, roughly, 364 ppm. Today 395. Since 1998 temperatures have gone up as I've shown previously. NASA and CERN have made no such claims and virtually no scientists working in relevant fields agree. Are you saying that "no scientists working in relevant fields agree" that the source of AGW is increased man-made CO2? And neither has NASA? Firm Absolutely the most stupid post I have read today. But: the day is still young.

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:34:19 AM)
Classic imbecile syndrome from the shiteaters. Please grab up a dictionary and learn to use it. If you cannot say anything but dishonest, projecting asswipe, then going over in the corner by your dish, laying down and grasping for at least a grain of knowledge might serve you better. Kyoto was about reducing greenhouse gasses (all of them) with a focus on Co2 as the most important GHG that humans release into the atmosphere. They are not the single CAUSE of global warming, a contributor (the biggest one due to the massive dumping). I suppose if I had used single in the first sentence, ignorant fucks would not have anything to misrepresent, but usually clauses (for the profoundly mental handicaps here; those between semi-colons or commas) mitigate, ameliorate and modify the sentence. Classic True Ignorance teabagger Syndrome. Inconvenient facts are simply ignored, pushed aside, or some alternate hypothesis thrown out there in order to hold onto some smidgen of a belief system.

thompsonx -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:43:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Classic imbecile syndrome from the shiteaters. Please grab up a dictionary and learn to use it. If you cannot say anything but dishonest, projecting asswipe, then going over in the corner by your dish, laying down and grasping for at least a grain of knowledge might serve you better. Kyoto was about reducing greenhouse gasses (all of them) with a focus on Co2 as the most important GHG that humans release into the atmosphere. They are not the single CAUSE of global warming, a contributor (the biggest one due to the massive dumping). I suppose if I had used single in the first sentence, ignorant fucks would not have anything to misrepresent, but usually clauses (for the profoundly mental handicaps here; those between semi-colons or commas) mitigate, ameliorate and modify the sentence. Classic True Ignorance teabagger Syndrome. Inconvenient facts are simply ignored, pushed aside, or some alternate hypothesis thrown out there in order to hold onto some smidgen of a belief system. There are some who feel that if they throw enough shit in the road everyone will be so busy trying to avoid stepping in it that they will not notice who is shoveling the shit.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:45:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Classic imbecile syndrome from the shiteaters. Please grab up a dictionary and learn to use it. If you cannot say anything but dishonest, projecting asswipe, then going over in the corner by your dish, laying down and grasping for at least a grain of knowledge might serve you better. Kyoto was about reducing greenhouse gasses (all of them) with a focus on Co2 as the most important GHG that humans release into the atmosphere. They are not the single CAUSE of global warming, a contributor (the biggest one due to the massive dumping). I suppose if I had used single in the first sentence, ignorant fucks would not have anything to misrepresent, but usually clauses (for the profoundly mental handicaps here; those between semi-colons or commas) mitigate, ameliorate and modify the sentence. Classic True Ignorance teabagger Syndrome. Inconvenient facts are simply ignored, pushed aside, or some alternate hypothesis thrown out there in order to hold onto some smidgen of a belief system. So ... is increased atmospheric CO2 levels leading or lagging world wide temperature rise? Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:51:39 AM)
I cannot tell you the definitive answer to that. What I can say, is that generally, we take a shit, we clean it up; neither saying, let nature handle it, nor we will get dirty again tomorrow when we shit why bother. And I am uncertain about Global Warming (or global cooling (and even why one would be forced to assume a steady and prolific march to higher temperatures that would graph like a hockey stick)), remembering that GW is a small subset of Climate Change.

thompsonx -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 10:53:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So ... is increased atmospheric CO2 levels leading or lagging world wide temperature rise? Firm Is that the same as asking if someone still beats their wife? For you not to know the answer is not believable. For you not to know the reason is typical. Surprise me...say something cogent.

DomKen -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 12:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, roughly, 364 ppm. Today 395. Since 1998 temperatures have gone up as I've shown previously. NASA and CERN have made no such claims and virtually no scientists working in relevant fields agree. Are you saying that "no scientists working in relevant fields agree" that the source of AGW is increased man-made CO2? And neither has NASA? Firm As always read what I write not the crazy shit you wish I wrote.

DomKen -> RE: Not politically expedient (9/23/2013 12:15:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So ... is increased atmospheric CO2 levels leading or lagging world wide temperature rise? leading.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875