Global Warming Farce

Status
Not open for further replies.
.

Dixie,

On FP.com you clearly and directly contradicted the scientific consensus about evolutionary biology. You went on to "invent" your own interpretation of how evolution works - directly contradicting scientific consensus.

Nothing you say about real science can be believed. You're scientifically-illiterate.
 
When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.

Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then. It's certainly less than it was when factories churned it out with no regulation. But why don't you post us a "cite" or "claime" to back yourself up, if you really think this is so?
 
Cypress said:
Dixie,

On FP.com you clearly and directly contradicted the scientific consensus about evolutionary biology. You went on to "invent" your own interpretation of how evolution works - directly contradicting scientific consensus.

Nothing you say about real science can be believed. You're scientifically-illiterate.

It's okay Prissy, if you can't stay on topic, I understand. Really!
 
Dixie said:
When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.

Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then. It's certainly less than it was when factories churned it out with no regulation. But why don't you post us a "cite" or "claime" to back yourself up, if you really think this is so?


I believe worldwide, pollution is far greater today than 1969. Worldwide.
 
Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then.

You scientifically-illiterate, evolution-hating dumbass.

Carbon dixoxide has never been regulatated.

We DID regulate other pollutants like pesticides, VOCs, and petrochemicals since the 1960s. NOT greenhouse gases like CO2.
 
Dixie said:
When you say "our pollution" are you meaning the US or the world... B/C I belive world pollution to be worse than ever over the past 40 years... not better then previously.

Then what good was all the environmentalist bullshit? I think you are foolish if you really think we are producing more pollution now than we were in 1969. I think I read that we had cut it by something like 90% since then. It's certainly less than it was when factories churned it out with no regulation. But why don't you post us a "cite" or "claime" to back yourself up, if you really think this is so?


If you belive that you are an idiot.
 
like I said...vehicle miles driven IN AMERICA have tripled since 1970. Pollution worldwide is worse and getting moreso.
 
Jarod said:
If you belive that you are an idiot.

Dixie's incapable of distinguishing between different kinds of environmental pollution.

Yes, we cleaned lead and sulfur out of gasoline. They are regulated. There are some improvements in air quality and acid rain because of it.

Carbon dioxide emissions have never been regulated.
 
Cypress said:
Dixie's incapable of distinguishing between different kinds of environmental pollution.

Yes, we cleaned lead and sulfur out of gasoline. They are regulated. There are some improvements in air quality and acid rain because of it.

Carbon dioxide emissions have never been regulated.


http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.


Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.
 
Dixie, are greenhouse gasses more or less prevelant today versus 40 years ago. You are claiming both?
 
Beefy said:
I believe worldwide, pollution is far greater today than 1969. Worldwide.
Which is what counts, since the ecosystem can't really be effectively segmented or partitioned. Pollution doesn't stop at purely political borders.
 
Jarod said:
Dixie, are greenhouse gasses more or less prevelant today versus 40 years ago. You are claiming both?

Doesn't matter. Didn't you read? Greenhouse gasses are not responsible for change in atmospheric temps. They are also uncertain how carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere, only about 50% of it is attributable to man, if their theories are correct.
 
In some respects I disagree with Dixie. I think man is having an effect on global warming. I think that our "progress" has effected the natural balance of this world. What I am not so sure of is that it is as drastic of an effect as some alarmist want us all to believe. I do agree that the natural climate is cyclical and believe it will continue to be.

I sure as heck am not going to bury my head in the sand over this an hope it will go away.

Immie
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Which is what counts, since the ecosystem can't really be effectively segmented or partitioned. Pollution doesn't stop at purely political borders.

I'm not so sure that all those years of burning coal and whale oil, no industrial regulation, etc., were "cleaner" than post-1972, when the 'ecology movement' came online. I mean, that was essentially what prompted such a movement, wasn't it?
 
I think it is moot regardless of whether you believe it or not. Morality will tell us (I gave a christian version earlier) that we have responsibility for the life around us. To not take it without good reason. Changing our environment, even in the most local circumstances, in a negative way works against that particular understanding.

In essence, what I am trying to say is that moral action dictates us to act in the same manner as those who do believe in our activity causing global warming, even if we don't.

BTW - I am one who does believe that our action causes changes to the global environment.
 
Damocles said:
I think it is moot regardless of whether you believe it or not. Morality will tell us (I gave a christian version earlier) that we have responsibility for the life around us. To not take it without good reason. Changing our environment, even in the most local circumstances, in a negative way works against that particular understanding.

In essence, what I am trying to say is that moral action dictates us to act in the same manner as those who do believe in our activity causing global warming, even if we don't.

BTW - I am one who does believe that our action causes changes to the global environment.

I do not disagree that we should do everything we can to protect the environment. That was not what I was trying to say.


"In essence, what I am trying to say is that moral action dictates us to act in the same manner as those who do believe in our activity causing global warming, even if we don't."


I agree with that statement in full.

Immie
 
Just because we discussed something in FP.com .. does not mean we cannot discuss it here .....

Dixie .. I fully understand what you are trying to say .. and I agree with you .. A) to attribute global warming soley to human activity is just as ignorent to say that global warming doesnt exist at all or better yet ... "it exists only because"

There is plenty of Archeological evidence that the earth has gone through these types of temperature shifts, along with other Scientific explanations such as the Sun delivering stronger rays, and yes a gargantuan asteroid that collided into the earth at the turn of the last century.. blasting an enormous amount of metallic dust into the atmosphere. The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs! The science journal documents this finding by a Russian Scientist. This is not junk science!

Again, the argument isnt against global warming, the argument is the why .....


There are several factors involved including cyclical activity and other phenoms as discussed in the following article....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm


Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.



Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun
Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.

The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.
 
"Take the Hydrogen Car... Seems like a great and wonderful solution on paper... A car that runs on manufactured hydrogen, and emits H2O. Great, right? No more harmful pollution! But has anyone thought about the ramifications of 20-30-50 years of pumping H2O into the atmosphere? In a century, will people be debating the impending crisis of turning our planet into an aquarium? Will there be widespread flooding because of this? If every vehicle on the planet is producing water that wasn't being produced before, what do you think is going to happen? Sure, it evaporates, but where does it go? ...That's right... we don't get rid of it."

My fucking god Dixie. Are you retarded? Please tell me you didn't just say that.

It evaporates, and it rains back down. Just like any other water that evaporates. The main problem with hydrogen is it's efficiency factor... it takes more energy to make than gas. Mind you, all fuels will have a negative energy factor. We use them merely for convenience, so we won't have to spend 12 hours powering up our batteries for a fuel source. But Hydrogen's energy loss is a bit too great currently... and until we have power plants that don't use fossil fuels it really won't matter much (even though power plants are far more efficient than our car engines).

Ethanol and other gasses could work though. Ethanol doesn't burn clean, but it doesn't introduce any new carbon into the atmosphere, either, so it won't contribute to global warming.
 
Also covered ad naseum, klattu.

No scientist has ever claimed humand are "SOLELY" responsible for climate change. Please stop making that assertion.

The scientific consensus is that humans are contributing and accelerating global warming, by pouring tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day.

Scientists have looked at whether natural causes can account for the rapid acceleration of warming, and concluded that by themselves, they can't. Humans are a significant source of the observed warming.

This is the scientific consensus. Deal with it. You cons were wrong for the last twenty years, when you said there was no global warming. Now, you're changing your story again, because you were wrong the first time.

At all the major scientific organizations who've looked at it in great detail - from IPCC, to Bush's own agencies: USEPA, National Science Foundation, to NOAA have made a judement on this: humans are contributing and accelerating global warming.
 
Dixie: Take the Hydrogen Car... Seems like a great and wonderful solution on paper... A car that runs on manufactured hydrogen, and emits H2O. Great, right? No more harmful pollution! But has anyone thought about the ramifications of 20-30-50 years of pumping H2O into the atmosphere? In a century, will people be debating the impending crisis of turning our planet into an aquarium? Will there be widespread flooding because of this? If every vehicle on the planet is producing water that wasn't being produced before, what do you think is going to happen? Sure, it evaporates, but where does it go? ...That's right... we don't get rid of it."

Watermark: My fucking god Dixie. Are you retarded? Please tell me you didn't just say that.


He doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle. Or evolution. Or climate science.

He is scientifically illiterate, and has no crediblity addressing any thread pertaining to science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top