Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Not politically expedient


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Not politically expedient Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/20/2013 12:40:19 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/20/2013 12:58:54 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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 cancer who else?

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/20/2013 1:00:35 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/20/2013 1:03:19 PM   
DomKen


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

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/20/2013 1:03:37 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/20/2013 1:17:35 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/20/2013 1:30:32 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline 		~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.

< Message edited by JeffBC -- 9/20/2013 1:33:38 PM >

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to DaNewAgeViking)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:10:36 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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.

Firm

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:21:32 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:23:30 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:26:03 AM   
DomKen


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

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:27:47 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:31:36 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 9/23/2013 10:32:20 AM >

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:34:19 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:43:16 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:45:17 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:51:39 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 10:53:42 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 12:13:55 PM   
DomKen


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

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Not politically expedient - 9/23/2013 12:15:10 PM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So ... is increased atmospheric CO2 levels leading or lagging world wide temperature rise?

leading.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Not politically expedient Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094