quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
It's funny, you mention all the conservatives sitting around having beer reassuring themselves. Yet, what I see is Phydeausx providing actual scientific quotes and liberals all spouting the exact same belief with no attachment to science at all. I think you're projecting there Peon.

At this stage it's become rather like presenting scientific evidence of evolution. There's so much of it, one doesn't know where to start. And that was accepted a long time ago.

In a fundamental sense the non-deniers have left behind the argument that the deniers are still involved in. It's not to quite to the same degree but, nowadays, the result is similar: I'd no more engage in a 'human-induced climate change or no?' argument than I'd engage in a 'Old Testament or Evolution?' argument - and I think that's a widespread feeling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well they were all gloom and doom about the ozone at one time. They said that once those certain types of flourocarbons gets up there they are a catalyst, which means the emerge from the chemical reaction unscathed and will do it again. What happened to that ? What's more, there neer was an ozone layer. It is heavier so it always concentrated over the equator, and it is likely there was never any over the poles. But see the angle of incidence of the sunlight is so oblique up and down there they don't need ozone to protect them. Near the equator, you real DO need ozone up there. They also failed to mention that every time a rocket gets launched it is like releasing about a million pounds of Freon 12.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UCdFbyL8y0

Personally, I believe that whatever we emit does affect the environment.

The ozone layer used to be depleting and there was all these doom and gloom about it completely disappearing and the Sun will scorch the earth. And we identified the type of products that was killing the ozone layer. And we were educated about it, and more people made efforts not to do use products or do things that will kill our ozone layer and our ozone healed back again to healthy levels.

But those who thinks climate change is a hoax, what is the main reason that you think is bogus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UCdFbyL8y0

Personally, I believe that whatever we emit does affect the environment.

The ozone layer used to be depleting and there was all these doom and gloom about it completely disappearing and the Sun will scorch the earth. And we identified the type of products that was killing the ozone layer. And we were educated about it, and more people made efforts not to do use products or do things that will kill our ozone layer and our ozone healed back again to healthy levels.

But those who thinks climate change is a hoax, what is the main reason that you think is bogus?

I believe we can do better.

(And we should).

Whether we're causing global climate change.....whether global climate change is part of our (current and....ongoing) history or.....whether....we're all doomed.....

Kinda seems immaterial to me.

We are at a unique technological place in history.

If we don't want the coasts to flood....if we (KNOW) that C02 emissions cause trapped heat.....

We can affect that...and at a cost that isn't detrimental to our global GDP. In fact, oddly....thanks to technology....we can affect it for less than the cost of the result!

So.....why are we debating the issue?

It isn't an issue to be debated.

We can do better....uniquely....technologically.

(Why don't we?)

And anyone that says "because we shouldn't have to!!!!".....we'll......they're simply.....uhhhmmm....

Stooooopit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UCdFbyL8y0

Personally, I believe that whatever we emit does affect the environment.

The ozone layer used to be depleting and there was all these doom and gloom about it completely disappearing and the Sun will scorch the earth. And we identified the type of products that was killing the ozone layer. And we were educated about it, and more people made efforts not to do use products or do things that will kill our ozone layer and our ozone healed back again to healthy levels.

But those who thinks climate change is a hoax, what is the main reason that you think is bogus?

I believe we can do better.

(And we should).

Whether we're causing global climate change.....whether global climate change is part of our (current and....ongoing) history or.....whether....we're all doomed.....

Kinda seems immaterial to me.

We are at a unique technological place in history.

If we don't want the coasts to flood....if we (KNOW) that C02 emissions cause trapped heat.....

We can affect that...and at a cost that isn't detrimental to our global GDP. In fact, oddly....thanks to technology....we can affect it for less than the cost of the result!

So.....why are we debating the issue?

It isn't an issue to be debated.

We can do better....uniquely....technologically.

(Why don't we?)

And anyone that says "because we shouldn't have to!!!!".....we'll......they're simply.....uhhhmmm....

Stooooopit.

Show me one accurate prediction that any catastrophe you mentioned will occur and is a result of what man does? Show me your cost estimate for your cheap solutions? Show me a technology that works better than the technology that feeds this world right now? Show me any evidence that anything you've said above isn't just the koolaide that you were given talking for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
It's funny, you mention all the conservatives sitting around having beer reassuring themselves. Yet, what I see is Phydeausx providing actual scientific quotes and liberals all spouting the exact same belief with no attachment to science at all. I think you're projecting there Peon.

At this stage it's become rather like presenting scientific evidence of evolution. There's so much of it, one doesn't know where to start. And that was accepted a long time ago.

In a fundamental sense the non-deniers have left behind the argument that the deniers are still involved in. It's not to quite to the same degree but, nowadays, the result is similar: I'd no more engage in a 'human-induced climate change or no?' argument than I'd engage in a 'Old Testament or Evolution?' argument - and I think that's a widespread feeling.

With evolution they project what ought to be and are frequently right. It's a foundation of science to be able to do that. With climate science, there has not been one correct prediction. Show me a climate computer models I can download and review the assumptions. Show me a climate computer model that includes El Niño events. Show me a climate computer model that accurately models the sun and clouds. Show me a climate projection from twenty years ago that accurately predicted twenty years of no heat increase. Show me a current climate computer model that can show me why the temperature has not risen in twenty years.

There are several places to start Peon. Pick one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well they were all gloom and doom about the ozone at one time. They said that once those certain types of flourocarbons gets up there they are a catalyst, which means the emerge from the chemical reaction unscathed and will do it again. What happened to that ? What's more, there neer was an ozone layer. It is heavier so it always concentrated over the equator, and it is likely there was never any over the poles. But see the angle of incidence of the sunlight is so oblique up and down there they don't need ozone to protect them. Near the equator, you real DO need ozone up there. They also failed to mention that every time a rocket gets launched it is like releasing about a million pounds of Freon 12.

The ozone layer is getting smaller over Antarctica. While this is good for people with exposed skin and eyes down there, it's actually going to contribute to that area getting warmer, as ozone is itself a Greenhouse Gas.

So, we bend over backwards to stop releasing CFC's that eat away at the ozone layer, and 30-some years later, it's having a great effect (the life cycle of CFC's in the air is decades, so it's entirely reasonable that it's taken this long), and yet, it's also going to contribute to at least one area of the world getting warmer.

I think that demonstrates - and quite well - that we don't really know what impact we're having on the planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well they were all gloom and doom about the ozone at one time. They said that once those certain types of flourocarbons gets up there they are a catalyst, which means the emerge from the chemical reaction unscathed and will do it again. What happened to that ? What's more, there neer was an ozone layer. It is heavier so it always concentrated over the equator, and it is likely there was never any over the poles. But see the angle of incidence of the sunlight is so oblique up and down there they don't need ozone to protect them. Near the equator, you real DO need ozone up there. They also failed to mention that every time a rocket gets launched it is like releasing about a million pounds of Freon 12.

The ozone layer is getting smaller over Antarctica. While this is good for people with exposed skin and eyes down there, it's actually going to contribute to that area getting warmer, as ozone is itself a Greenhouse Gas.
So, we bend over backwards to stop releasing CFC's that eat away at the ozone layer, and 30-some years later, it's having a great effect (the life cycle of CFC's in the air is decades, so it's entirely reasonable that it's taken this long), and yet, it's also going to contribute to at least one area of the world getting warmer.
I think that demonstrates - and quite well - that we don't really know what impact we're having on the planet.

Desi.....please stop using logic and rational thought.....you're confusing people.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well they were all gloom and doom about the ozone at one time. They said that once those certain types of flourocarbons gets up there they are a catalyst, which means the emerge from the chemical reaction unscathed and will do it again. What happened to that ? What's more, there neer was an ozone layer. It is heavier so it always concentrated over the equator, and it is likely there was never any over the poles. But see the angle of incidence of the sunlight is so oblique up and down there they don't need ozone to protect them. Near the equator, you real DO need ozone up there. They also failed to mention that every time a rocket gets launched it is like releasing about a million pounds of Freon 12.

The ozone layer is getting smaller over Antarctica. While this is good for people with exposed skin and eyes down there, it's actually going to contribute to that area getting warmer, as ozone is itself a Greenhouse Gas.
So, we bend over backwards to stop releasing CFC's that eat away at the ozone layer, and 30-some years later, it's having a great effect (the life cycle of CFC's in the air is decades, so it's entirely reasonable that it's taken this long), and yet, it's also going to contribute to at least one area of the world getting warmer.
I think that demonstrates - and quite well - that we don't really know what impact we're having on the planet.

Desi.....please stop using logic and rational thought.....you're confusing people.

I know, I know. It's a character flaw. I admit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UCdFbyL8y0

Personally, I believe that whatever we emit does affect the environment.

The ozone layer used to be depleting and there was all these doom and gloom about it completely disappearing and the Sun will scorch the earth. And we identified the type of products that was killing the ozone layer. And we were educated about it, and more people made efforts not to do use products or do things that will kill our ozone layer and our ozone healed back again to healthy levels.

But those who thinks climate change is a hoax, what is the main reason that you think is bogus?

I believe we can do better.

(And we should).

Whether we're causing global climate change.....whether global climate change is part of our (current and....ongoing) history or.....whether....we're all doomed.....

Kinda seems immaterial to me.

We are at a unique technological place in history.

If we don't want the coasts to flood....if we (KNOW) that C02 emissions cause trapped heat.....

We can affect that...and at a cost that isn't detrimental to our global GDP. In fact, oddly....thanks to technology....we can affect it for less than the cost of the result!

So.....why are we debating the issue?

It isn't an issue to be debated.

We can do better....uniquely....technologically.

(Why don't we?)

And anyone that says "because we shouldn't have to!!!!".....we'll......they're simply.....uhhhmmm....

Stooooopit.

Show me one accurate prediction that any catastrophe you mentioned will occur and is a result of what man does? Show me your cost estimate for your cheap solutions? Show me a technology that works better than the technology that feeds this world right now? Show me any evidence that anything you've said above isn't just the koolaide that you were given talking for you.

I didn't mention (or quote) any catastrophe's.

I didn't specify any technology...only that we, uniquely, in this time, are better and more prepared for any possibilities (that exclude polluting our planet).

Perhaps you're aware of some impending catastrophe's. If so, maybe you can quote or reference them?

(Wanna try again?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
It's funny, you mention all the conservatives sitting around having beer reassuring themselves. Yet, what I see is Phydeausx providing actual scientific quotes and liberals all spouting the exact same belief with no attachment to science at all. I think you're projecting there Peon.

At this stage it's become rather like presenting scientific evidence of evolution. There's so much of it, one doesn't know where to start. And that was accepted a long time ago.

In a fundamental sense the non-deniers have left behind the argument that the deniers are still involved in. It's not to quite to the same degree but, nowadays, the result is similar: I'd no more engage in a 'human-induced climate change or no?' argument than I'd engage in a 'Old Testament or Evolution?' argument - and I think that's a widespread feeling.

With evolution they project what ought to be and are frequently right. It's a foundation of science to be able to do that. With climate science, there has not been one correct prediction. Show me a climate computer models I can download and review the assumptions. Show me a climate computer model that includes El Niño events. Show me a climate computer model that accurately models the sun and clouds. Show me a climate projection from twenty years ago that accurately predicted twenty years of no heat increase. Show me a current climate computer model that can show me why the temperature has not risen in twenty years.

There are several places to start Peon. Pick one.

and also peon, perhaps start another thread on the part I boldened above. theres nothing that can be said about "evolution" that can be shown to be factually true and that successfully explains the presence of the myriad of species all arising from primordial soup that's gets struck by lightning (or whatever), natural selection due to advantages conferred by genetic defects, add a few billion years and presto, here we all are.

have at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UCdFbyL8y0

Personally, I believe that whatever we emit does affect the environment.

The ozone layer used to be depleting and there was all these doom and gloom about it completely disappearing and the Sun will scorch the earth. And we identified the type of products that was killing the ozone layer. And we were educated about it, and more people made efforts not to do use products or do things that will kill our ozone layer and our ozone healed back again to healthy levels.

But those who thinks climate change is a hoax, what is the main reason that you think is bogus?

I believe we can do better.

(And we should).

Whether we're causing global climate change.....whether global climate change is part of our (current and....ongoing) history or.....whether....we're all doomed.....

Kinda seems immaterial to me.

We are at a unique technological place in history.

If we don't want the coasts to flood....if we (KNOW) that C02 emissions cause trapped heat.....

We can affect that...and at a cost that isn't detrimental to our global GDP. In fact, oddly....thanks to technology....we can affect it for less than the cost of the result!

So.....why are we debating the issue?

It isn't an issue to be debated.

We can do better....uniquely....technologically.

(Why don't we?)

And anyone that says "because we shouldn't have to!!!!".....we'll......they're simply.....uhhhmmm....

Stooooopit.

Show me one accurate prediction that any catastrophe you mentioned will occur and is a result of what man does? Show me your cost estimate for your cheap solutions? Show me a technology that works better than the technology that feeds this world right now? Show me any evidence that anything you've said above isn't just the koolaide that you were given talking for you.

I didn't mention (or quote) any catastrophe's.

I didn't specify any technology...only that we, uniquely, in this time, are better and more prepared for any possibilities (that exclude polluting our planet).

Perhaps you're aware of some impending catastrophe's. If so, maybe you can quote or reference them?

(Wanna try again?)

If we don't want the coasts to flood....don't you read what you write? You said thanks to technology we can affect "it" for less than the cost of the results.

I think you need to try again. Show me the technology and the cost estimates you base your statements on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

So bounty, you don't believe in climate change? What is the main reason?

I believe because, I have a great interest in wines, and vineyards in Europe are getting higher alcohol levels and riper fruits because they are experiencing warmer temperatures. And every year, it gets warmer. Australia is absolutely crazy. They used to be like 12.5% to 13.5% and now, many are like 15% to 16%. Results of global warming too.

I see it in wines, because, generally, the level of alcohol is determined by how hot the temperature of the region is, and the fruit that it came from. As if it will result in higher sugar levels, thus higher alcohol content. There is this unusual pattern of alcohol just going up up up. And it's due to warmer and warmer weather every year.

Bordeaux is benefiting from this because they are turning from cool climate to some serious hot climate, they grow grapes that benefit from hotter sun.

But for already hot climates, I think it's making all their wines excessively jammy.

Something is changing. But whether this is cylindrical, and will just pass, or if it will just get so hot until the whole north and south pole melts. I don't know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


What I do take on board is that to call science "settled" before the science can be measured, shown to be repeatable, and completely opn to all inspection is extreme.

Whatever. See my last post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
that was yesterdays bs, today we are concerned with another ice age.

Really? So where's the drop in average temperatures that's causing that, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
that was yesterdays bs, today we are concerned with another ice age.

Really? So where's the drop in average temperatures that's causing that, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
Isn't it supposed to continue expanding for a few billion years first before it begins to contract?

If it is then it could prove global warming is a natural occurrence of the sun growing bigger, but I don't remember reading about the expansion part.

Actually, the sun remains at a comparatively stable size. To my understanding of the sun, it is sunspot activity that effects earth's magnetism (magnetic field) rather than so much the earth's temperature.

Sunspot activity affects the sun's gravitational field which acts to shield earth from cosmic (and other ) radiation. Weakening of the solar field results in greater radiation hitting the earth and earth's atmosphere. Svenmark showed those radiations were uniquely responsible for cloud formation, storm formation and increased temperature. For example, Svenmark et. al 2007.

The earth's magnetic field (also weakening) screens most of the equatorial regions. But just like you (should have) learned in elementary school the circular magnetic patterns result in greater radiation at the poles.

Guess where the only signs of "global" warming are occuring... Thats right.. at the poles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
]

I don't see anyone denying that the climate is changing.

Some certainly do question whether Man is driving it, though.