"The Science is settled", and other fairy tales

[desert dude]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm


"Environment: The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they're not even close.


Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don't.


But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth's climate to warm."

So much for the great consensus.

 

[canndo]

Show us those figures Desert dude.

 

[budbro18]

That shits crazy people in the 70s thought there was "global cooling"

And volcanoes put off more emissions than our whole world (not really but pretty close)

and those happen several times a day


i believe in green energy but something like global warming is too hard for even a couple billion people to achieve.

 

[hotrodharley]

Anybody who thinks man caused global warming is an idiot. Anyone who thinks man's additions to harmful atmospheric gasses is not leading to an acceleration of global warming is a total frigging dumbass.

 

[canndo]

That shits crazy people in the 70s thought there was "global cooling"

And volcanoes put off more emissions than our whole world (not really but pretty close)

and those happen several times a day


i believe in green energy but something like global warming is too hard for even a couple billion people to achieve.

The volcano argument has been soundly proven false in these threads several times now. Volcanoes produce only a small fraction of the gases that long term human acton emit.

BEcause people in the 70's believed one thing does not automaticaly imply that this thing new peceptioin is wrong. All it says is that model was not right.

Argument to incredulition - because you are unable to fathom a thing does not indicate that that thing is impossible.

 

[budbro18]

The volcano argument has been soundly proven false in these threads several times now. Volcanoes produce only a small fraction of the gases that long term human acton emit.

BEcause people in the 70's believed one thing does not automaticaly imply that this thing new peceptioin is wrong. All it says is that model was not right.

Argument to incredulition - because you are unable to fathom a thing does not indicate that that thing is impossible.

But either could be right.

I agree with what you're saying I'm not arguing that they are automatically wrong. But global warming is something the planet controls not us. It has hot cycles and cold cycles from the ice age to the inferno that was the end of the dinosaurs. It takes it in stride and adjusts accordingly. Our planets been inhabited by life for millions of years putting off toxic gasses that it naturally produces.

I know there are several things no one can fathom and it doesn't make them incorrect.

everybody calm down haha

im not tryna say the worlds flat. Haha

just saying we could pump all the greenhouse gasses into the air we want and we're not killing anyone but ourselves

the planet will survive no matter how hot it gets

 

[welshsmoker]

i watched an interesting channel 4 doc. called the great global warming swindle. that was an eye opener.

 

[hotrodharley]

i watched an interesting channel 4 doc. called the great global warming swindle. that was an eye opener.

Who produced and financed that doc?

 

[welshsmoker]

Who produced and financed that doc?

channel 4......

 

[cannabineer]

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm


"Environment: The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they're not even close.


Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don't.


But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth's climate to warm."

So much for the great consensus.

Science and polls are like rubber and glue. They don't speak to each other's validity. cn

 

[welshsmoker]

www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

 

[canndo]

But either could be right.

I agree with what you're saying I'm not arguing that they are automatically wrong. But global warming is something the planet controls not us. It has hot cycles and cold cycles from the ice age to the inferno that was the end of the dinosaurs. It takes it in stride and adjusts accordingly. Our planets been inhabited by life for millions of years putting off toxic gasses that it naturally produces.

I know there are several things no one can fathom and it doesn't make them incorrect.

everybody calm down haha

im not tryna say the worlds flat. Haha

just saying we could pump all the greenhouse gasses into the air we want and we're not killing anyone but ourselves

the planet will survive no matter how hot it gets

There is some dancing going on here. We ARE the planet. How is it that we somehow believe that we are separate and apart from a semi-closed system that we ourselves are involved in. Everything WE do is what in essence, the planet does. If we release all of the carbon that the earth sequestered over millions of years in a few short decades, in reality it was the planet itself that did it as we are of the planet an thus ARE the planet.

Your saying that "we cannot know" is denying our ability in science - we cannot know what causes disease, we cannot know what causes earthquakes, we are innocent and incapable of comprehension of any of our universe - is that what you are saying?

And yes, we can pump all the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and kill ourselves, and the "planet" will survive, so what? what we care about is our interaction with our planet and the fact that if we do not deal with what we do affects our ability to live here has great effect on our ability to continue . . being here.

 

[cannabineer]

There is some dancing going on here. We ARE the planet. How is it that we somehow believe that we are separate and apart from a semi-closed system that we ourselves are involved in. Everything WE do is what in essence, the planet does. If we release all of the carbon that the earth sequestered over millions of years in a few short decades, in reality it was the planet itself that did it as we are of the planet an thus ARE the planet.

Your saying that "we cannot know" is denying our ability in science - we cannot know what causes disease, we cannot know what causes earthquakes, we are innocent and incapable of comprehension of any of our universe - is that what you are saying?

And yes, we can pump all the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and kill ourselves, and the "planet" will survive, so what? what we care about is our interaction with our planet and the fact that if we do not deal with what we do affects our ability to live here has great effect on our ability to continue . . being here.

Agreed. The dichotomy is artificial and harmful imo. cn

 

[Doer]

Oh no, not another global cooling thread.

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh no, not another global cooling thread.

yes, indeed.

desert douche must have been feeling a little senile and cranky and decided that he was gonna make the thread that settles the issue once and for all.

too bad he's too dumb to realize that he posted nothing more than a fart in the wind.

a fucking poll.

of engineers.

i don't think he realizes the depths of his own mental retardation. sad.

 

[fb360]

yes, indeed.

desert douche must have been feeling a little senile and cranky and decided that he was gonna make the thread that settles the issue once and for all.

too bad he's too dumb to realize that he posted nothing more than a fart in the wind.

a fucking poll.

of engineers.

i don't think he realizes the depths of his own mental retardation. sad.

Even engineers stay out of this conversation because at this point it is merely speculation. Of course it would be far fetched to say humans have no impact; and few advocate that argument. But, to say that humans are the sole reason for changes in climate is insanely moronic. We have ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years that ALL say that our climate is constantly changing. To what degree of correlation modern humans have with climate change is up for debate, and that is why we stay out, because we normally base our work on mathematics exclusively. We normally don't concern ourselves with hypotheticals and theoretical

 

[Dr Kynes]

The volcano argument has been soundly proven false in these threads several times now. Volcanoes produce only a small fraction of the gases that long term human acton emit.

BEcause people in the 70's believed one thing does not automaticaly imply that this thing new peceptioin is wrong. All it says is that model was not right.

Argument to incredulition - because you are unable to fathom a thing does not indicate that that thing is impossible.

not true at all.

volcanic and geological Co2 release is significant, but is relegated to the "baseline" because it is unavoidable, uncontroillable and inescapable.

without geological co2 releases co2 levels would be dropping due to photosynthesis and co2 sequestering by coral growth and whatnot. without human co2 emissions co2 levels in the atmosphere would hold steady or very gradually drop.

the fact remeains that between geology microbial action and other "natural" sourtces of co2 human co2 emissions are pretty small, but since co2 levels ARE rising ever so slowly, and we cant stop swamps from decomposing dead plant material or prevent the earth from offgassing, or prevent termites from farting, human co2 sources are the only thing in our control.

the numbers:

human sources of co2: 29 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.
"natural" sources: 750 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7.html

the importance of the tiny increase in global co2 levels and it's possible effects are the bone of contention, but the fact remeains "natural" co2 production exceeds human co2 production by an enormous margin, and thats a FACT.

the reason the 1970's global ice age scare is relevant is because the SAME people who were making that claim are making this new claim, using the SAME evidence to sell two fundamentally different hypotheses, theres one guy in paarticular who's name is escaping me, but in the 70's he was shouting from the rooftops, going on network tv and predicting a frosty doom for us all within 30 years, then just a few years later he started shouting an opposite doomsday scenario with even less cause.

if the climate clowns want people to take your ideas seriously, how about NOT using fabrications and lies to bolster their claims?

when the fabrications are revealed it undermines their position and makes people angry, and as a result a great deal of anger is also leveled at the cassandras who repeat the lies based on their trust of the climate clowns and their shitty "science"

also, consensus still does not make for scientific fact. we cant all vote for mars to have a breathable atmosphere and expect the universe to comply.

 

[fb360]

also, consensus still does not make for scientific fact. we cant all vote for mars to have a breathable atmosphere and expect the universe to comply.

Liberals seem to think so

But I'm pretty sure their belief is that we will instantly evolve to survive in that condition

 

[UncleBuck]

not true at all.

volcanic and geological Co2 release is significant, but is relegated to the "baseline" because it is unavoidable, uncontroillable and inescapable.

without geological co2 releases co2 levels would be dropping due to photosynthesis and co2 sequestering by coral growth and whatnot. without human co2 emissions co2 levels in the atmosphere would hold steady or very gradually drop.

the fact remeains that between geology microbial action and other "natural" sourtces of co2 human co2 emissions are pretty small, but since co2 levels ARE rising ever so slowly, and we cant stop swamps from decomposing dead plant material or prevent the earth from offgassing, or prevent termites from farting, human co2 sources are the only thing in our control.

the numbers:

human sources of co2: 29 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.
"natural" sources: 750 gigatonnes per annum on average in 2009.

source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7.html

the importance of the tiny increase in global co2 levels and it's possible effects are the bone of contention, but the fact remeains "natural" co2 production exceeds human co2 production by an enormous margin, and thats a FACT.

the reason the 1970's global ice age scare is relevant is because the SAME people who were making that claim are making this new claim, using the SAME evidence to sell two fundamentally different hypotheses, theres one guy in paarticular who's name is escaping me, but in the 70's he was shouting from the rooftops, going on network tv and predicting a frosty doom for us all within 30 years, then just a few years later he started shouting an opposite doomsday scenario with even less cause.

if the climate clowns want people to take your ideas seriously, how about NOT using fabrications and lies to bolster their claims?

when the fabrications are revealed it undermines their position and makes people angry, and as a result a great deal of anger is also leveled at the cassandras who repeat the lies based on their trust of the climate clowns and their shitty "science"

also, consensus still does not make for scientific fact. we cant all vote for mars to have a breathable atmosphere and expect the universe to comply.

lol.

silly bircher.

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

 

[Rancho Cucamonga]

investors dot com LOL Great source.

If anyone thinks that heavy industrialized activities that pour millions of tons of pollutants into the air and water annually, and the overpopulation that has been going on for a few centuries causing more natural resources to be used up and more pollutants to go into the air and water, if you think all that "human activity" is not partially to largely responsible for climate change then you my friend are the one supporting and perpetrating a fairy tale.

I'm not Al Gore nutty about the environment but I'm also not a complete buffoon who denies human activity is to some degree reasonable for a good part of our climate change.