Blizzard Warming

Leonthecat said:
Pollutant | Define Pollutant at Dictionary.com
dictionary.reference.com/browse/pollutant
Dictionary.com
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.
Click to expand...

Tom is just another denier playing more bullshit semantic word games.
 
I Love America said:
No you do not. You have flawed computer models that can't even account for water vapor.

I am still amazed that anyone over the age of five still believes in the myth that is man made global warming

Yet even though you claim to believe here you sit using a computer and contributing to the warming.

Have you no shame?
Click to expand...

Personal ad hom?

If that's all you have left?

I accept your concession.
 
Damocles said:
Right. Unless there is a real "shocker" like a fire in California in the summer, then suddenly localized events are signs of "global warming"...
Click to expand...

Ah but that's different, it's true when warmists say it.

Confirmation bias is a person’s tendency to favor information that confirms their assumptions, preconceptions or hypotheses whether these are actually and independently true or not. The phenomenon is also called confirmatory bias or myside bias.

Confirmation bias is a person’s tendency to favor information that confirms their assumptions, preconceptions or hypotheses whether these are actually and independently true or not. The phenomenon is also called confirmatory bias or myside bias.
So how does confirmation bias work? People already have preconceived assumptions at the start and to confirm these, what people tend to do is gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively and interpret these altogether in a biased way. These biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs.
The term confirmation bias was coined by the English psychologist Peter Wason. He also conducted a study that in the end demonstrated the phenomenon of confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Tom is just another denier playing more bullshit semantic word games.
Click to expand...

What the fuck are you on about now? Yes of course CO2 is harmful, the Apollo 13 astronauts found that out first hand. But they were breathing an atmosphere of 10% CO2 not 0.003%. Stop being such a disingenuous cretin ffs. Do you realise that if the CO2 level in the atmosphere dropped below 150 ppm then all photosynthesis would cease. Do you think that you know more than Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest physicists alive and contemporary of Einstein?

http://www.thegwpf.com/freeman-dyson-on-co2-climate-change/
 
Borboletta said:
Go to bed Grandad, you need the rest! You've demonstrated more than adequately that you have an extremely tenuous grasp of basic scientific concepts. No wonder that you've gravitated to the likes of Rune and Evince, birds of feather...
Click to expand...
You mean your honorary degree in Chemistry shill boy?
Take one up your butt for the Queen, Queenie.
 
Borboletta said:
What the fuck are you on about now? Yes of course CO2 is harmful, the Apollo 13 astronauts found that out first hand. But they were breathing an atmosphere of 10% CO2 not 0.003%. Stop being such a disingenuous cretin ffs. Do you realise that if the CO2 level in the atmosphere dropped below 150 ppm then all photosynthesis would cease. Do you think that you know more than Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest physicists alive and contemporary of Einstein?

http://www.thegwpf.com/freeman-dyson-on-co2-climate-change/
Click to expand...

You keep saying how more CO2 is always good. That's a stupid argument. No one can believe that more pollution can be beneficial to our environment. Not even you.
I'm pointing out that a balanced stability in the atmosphere is good, and that can not be maintained with unchecked wholesale carbon pollution.
Poor BORBO Trying to defend pollution for corporate oil.
 
Leonthecat said:
BREAKING NEWS!
POLLUTION WILL CAUSE IT!
Click to expand...

No, there's no actual science that shows this is the case. What we have are flawed models and man caused manipulation of them. The impacts of man caused carbons are so miniscule as to be meaningless to the discussion.
 
I Love America said:
Yet he erf warmed and cooled long before there was ever man made pollution.
Click to expand...

Pollution being causal does not indicate it is the only cause. This was never an "either or" argument.
That concept would require slightly mature thought to grasp.
Oh sorry, look who I am talking to.
loser.
 
J Craft said:
Climate Change: 'Hoax' Or Crime Of The Century?
Global warming and Climate change alarmists are perpetuating a hoax of epic proportions to line their own pockets and provide them with some greater sense of purpose. The climate has changed for centuries and will continue to do so with or without the help of mankind's miniscule contributions to CO2. Back in the 70's it was panic over the coming Ice Age - then it was Global Warming - now, unable to predict the future of climate at all they simply shout the warning... "climate change" - as if that means anything. Mostly they're after increased taxes and control over the masses who mindlessly gobble up this nonsense. But thankfully there's plenty of rational people trying to combat the climate change alarmists including John Colemen (founder of the Weather Channel), Mark Henderson, a contributing writer for Forbes and Dennis Byrne a Chicago writer (see links below).

http://www.greatglobalwarming.com
Click to expand...

Just because you drink the koolaid doesn't mean anyone else is as stupid as you are dumbfuck.
Now go defend Sarah Palin you mental midgit.
 
Leonthecat said:
You keep saying how more CO2 is always good. That's a stupid argument. No one can believe that more pollution can be beneficial to our environment. Not even you.
I'm pointing out that a balanced stability in the atmosphere is good, and that can not be maintained with unchecked wholesale carbon pollution.
Poor BORBO Trying to defend pollution for corporate oil.
Click to expand...

Yes that is a stupid argument and it is also one that I have never made, classic strawman. I expect the CO2 concentration to reach around 600-700ppm before it starts to fall as more and more nuclear fission reactors including thorium, and fusion reactors come on-stream. Biotechnology will also play a big part in the future as well. You would do well and stop spouting spurious bollocks all the time and listen to the greatest living physicist views on the subject.

Freeman Dyson is a scientist of enormous stature. For more than four decades, he taught theoretical physics at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study - described by the New York Times as "the most rarefied community of scholars" in the US.

In a recent 8,000-word profile, the Times says Dyson is "a scientist whose intelligence is revered by other scientists." One colleague describes him as "infinitely smart." Another says: "You point Freeman at a problem and he’ll solve it. He’s extraordinarily powerful.”

Dyson is also a longstanding member of JASON - "a small government-financed group of the country’s finest scientists" that evaluates matters of an often classified nature. At JASON meetings, in which everyone present is considered brilliant, reports the Times, someone will idly pose a math question and Dyson will quickly provide an answer, pointing out that "the smallest such number is 18 digits long."

In the words of one of Dyson's colleagues, "When this happened one day at lunch, the table fell silent; nobody had the slightest idea how Freeman could have known such a fact or...could have derived it in his head in about two seconds.”

Dyson, who has written several books and received numerous awards (including 21 honorary degrees), is a big-picture thinker. The Times says he's known for his "interpretive clarity" and his "penetrating ability to grasp the method and significance of what many kinds of scientists do." Now 85, Dyson has lived in the same house for more than 50 years and has been married to the same woman for equally as long. His car bears an Obama bumper sticker.

For the past four years, he has also challenged prevailing ideas about climate change. In a nutshell, he thinks the computer-generated models being used to predict long-term climate consequences are flawed because scientists have too little information about many of the variables that must be taken into account.
In 2007, Dyson reminded a Salon writer: "I was in the business of studying climate change at least 30 years ago before it became fashionable." Having seen many faddish notions come and go, Dyson is distressed that many environmentalists now believe "global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet."

Although the public thinks that "anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment," he feels the opposite is true.
"Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists," he insists. But they believe old-fashioned pollution and nuclear weapons are bigger concerns.
Based on Dyson's understanding of where the science of biotechnology is headed, he feels that "in 50 years, this whole problem of fossil fuels will evaporate." Just as computer technology has transformed the world in recent decades, he foresees a future in which biologists are able to manipulate the fuel-producing - and carbon dioxide processing - properties of trees.

"We'll have an ample supply of fuel without having to dig it out of the ground," he insists. "Fifty years is long enough for that kind of technology to take over the world, and 50 years is short enough so that the climate won't have changed very much in the meantime."

Dyson may or may not be correct about global warming. But as he himself points out, his arguments deserve to be heard. Silencing our finest minds won't lead to a better future.

Click to expand...

http://www.noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman_dyson.php
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top