Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
We're talking about science here, not human behavior.
|
Au contraire ..... Science is made up of human beings, consequently one cannot separate human behavior from science. And like other areas of science I mentioned previously, "Climate Science" demonstrates the same less admirable elements of human behavior ... dishonesty, lack of integrity, shamelessness, greed, and worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
More specifically, you're arguing that pumping out 25 billion tons of CO2 (only one of several greenhouse gases, by the way) will have no effect on the environment. Keep this figure in mind: 25 billion tons.
|
Got it! And in a classic demonstration of tactical deception, roll out the big scary numbers. But once the entire story is revealed, those big scary numbers aren't so scary.
So lets de-mystify the numbers .... first thing is, the so called green house gases make up about 1% of the total atmosphere ... 99 % is Oxygen and Nitrogen, roughly 21% and 78% respectively. Of that remaining 1% which are considered green house gases, water vapor is 95% of that. CO2 is a minuscule fraction of the total atmosphere, and a tiny fraction of the gree house gases, and man made CO2 a tiny fraction (3%) of that!
Yes, 25 Billion Tons sounds horrific!! Oh the humanity!!! God help us, I doubt we'll survive until lunchtime tomorrow!! The reality is, it's not really THAT BAD .... 25 Billion Tons of man made CO2, or 25 Gigatons or 25 GT for short, may sound pretty bad, but guess what? That represents about 3% of the total CO2 being released into the carbon cycle (yes there's a cycle, actually three ... short, medium and long cycles) of which 439 GT is released from the land and vegetation, and an additional 332 GT from the Oceans, making the total ratio of man made to natural release 25/796 GT, or .031 or 3%. That's 3% of the 1% of the total atmosphere.
So we're supposed to believe that this 3% contributed by man is some type of straw that is breaking the planet's back ... the other 97%, not so much ... but that 3% is a real problem? Perhaps, if you possess not one iota of basic common sense, you might buy this story ... but you really have to test the boundaries of gullibility to do so ... especially when you consider the fact that C02 has no causative affect in the warming cycle to begin with (a fact you keep conveniently avoiding in this discussion) ... but even if it did (and it doesn't), the effect of that 3% would be measurably insignificant, as would any potential benefit of reducing it.
Of course, as they say, the "Devil is in the details". If you were to reduce human CO2 production by half (1.5%), with no reasonable expectation of any significant benefit in doing so ... but doing it just to be on the safe side ... it is estimated that at least 2+ Billion people would necessarily have to die to accomplish the task. Isn't that charming? You planning on volunteering to be one of those 2 Billion? Or is that unfortunate fate reserved for the brown people of the third world countries?
This, my friend, is the agenda behind this AGW fraud .... population reduction, and total control of all human activity on Earth ... after all ... the moment you agree that man-made CO2 poses a planetary climate threat, you open the door wide to draconian restrictions on CO2 output. Since all human activity produces CO2, (including breathing) all human activity will be subject to regulation and restrictions from domestic household energy usage, to manufacturing, agriculture and food production, transportation and travel ... the list is endless and the consequences incalculable. There literally is no greater threat to liberty and freedom than that posed by accepting this unmitigated fraud, and allowing this to rule over our lives. Supporting this scam is an act of idiocy by those who are unwittingly advocating their own imprisonment, slavery, and destruction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
By comparison, the annual output from volcanoes is about 200 million tons. We already know from scientific research that volcanic output initially cools the air because it blocks out sunlight, and we know from geological and other forms of scientific evidence that the short term cooling will be replaced by long-term warming, other factors generally remaining constant -- geologists saying this, not even IPCC "alarmists". Thus, there is a logical reason to conclude that human output will, over time, have a major impact on climate. To deny that is similar to other forms of anti-environmental denials such as that human activity has an impact on biodiversity in forests and in oceans.
|
More double talk and straw man arguments ... you cherry pick volcanoes, but don't discuss the real numbers as outlined above, showing man's CO2 contribution as MINUSCULE relative to the total carbon cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Again, try to keep up here. I'll reiterate this until the light bulb goes on: we're not talking about natural mechanisms solely. Nobody on this forum is denying that natural mechanisms warm the earth; what we're arguing is your assumption that man-made mechanisms cannot warm the earth, which is absurd.
|
It's absurd for you to speak for anyone other than yourself, let alone everyone on this forum ... because you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. In fact, you're way off. And I'm directly challenging the mainstream pseudoscience that claims CO2 as the driver of TODAY'S Global Warmin/Climate Change. And that has been the mantra, repeated over and over for over a decade. It's toatal BS, and most people have now figured that out. Try to catch up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
If humans can recreate the destructive power of a natural volcanic eruption, why can't they also recreate the destructive effects of other natural phenomena? The fact that nature is destructive does not mean that humans are not destructive as well. This argument of yous is just an abortion of logic and critical thinking -- it really is.
|
I never suggested that humans can't be destructive. I'm sure most would agree that some humans are very good at destroying things. But destroying things has nothing to do with Global Warming ... unless of course you mean destroying the planet? I suggest that self destruction would come long before we could possibly destroy the planet.
And, to be honest, that is the AGW argument in a nutshell, with the proposed solution being to intentionally destroy ourselves first, in order to prevent us from destroying the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Why can't humans warm the earth? Because you can't see it? Because you can't understand the science behind the explanation? Because it was 105 in Phoenix yesterday and because it was 110 at this same time last year?
|
Why do you believe humans are warming the Earth? Because you been fed this BS and have bought into it hook-line and sinker? Because you are drowning in Kool-Aide? OR is it because you have a secret loathing of the human species?
There's another point being overlooked here. I'm of the opinion that warmer is better than colder, for a very long list of reasons which shouldn't require a great deal of explanation for those who consider themselves in the brilliant category. CO2 is a beneficial gas, and the more of it the better, because it provides the environment for more abundant vegetation on the planet, offering more sustinence for all of the other life that relies on that as a source of food.
Secondly, I understand very well, the science as it has been presented, and it's a totally transparrent con job for which a 9 year old SHOULD be able to see right through, like a clean pane of clear glass. OK?
And I don't confuse weather with climate ... so what happened in Phoenix this year compared to last is totally irrelevant to the conversation of climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Stop making such utterly simplistic conclusions and start thinking about the arguments people are making, not just the simplistic rebuttals that you read about on Newsmax.
|
I don't read Newsmax ....but my suggestion to you is to stop ignoring the very simplistic relationship between global warming cycles and rising CO2 levels, which precludes CO2 from being a causative factor, since the rising levels of CO2 occur 800 years after a warming period. This doesn't require a degree in Rocket Science .... even the most unsophisticated among us should find that concept easy to grasp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Natural forces created global warming in the past; therefore, natural forces can cause global warming in the future. YES! I agree with that.
|
Good ... we're making progress. Now, the only missing piece of the puzzle is for you to grasp the fact that CO2 played no role in those natural forces which caused the multiple warming cycles of the past. Then, you'll see how preposterous it is to believe it magically does now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Natural forces created global warming in the past; therefore, it is not plausible to conclude that human activity can also cause global warming. NO!
|
Yes ... YES!!!!! Why would you consider it plausible or reasonable to conclude that the same mechanisms at work in the past are not also the same mechanisms at work today? Why would you find it more plausible that a totally unique cause exists today, while dismissing the natural cycles of climate that have been taking place for hundreds of thousands of years? Your thinking is completely backwards, and you have the nerve to question my logic? You're demonstrating a level of cognitive dissonance that's actually quite disturbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Do you see the difference? Hopefully, others do, but I won't hold my breath.
|
I see the Twilight Zone, that's what I see. But, speaking of holding your breath ... that's really the bottom line solution you're advocating ... that we all need to stop exhaling all of this CO2. So feel free to start without us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Not quite. The temperatures could be within the range, but even if that is the case, there is still one question: what is causing the change, a natural phenomenon, or are humans causing the earth to warm faster than it would by itself.
During natural warming cycles, carbon and other gases are absorbed by natural forces. There is a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas that is not caused by human activity. In fact, human activity accounts for a very, very small amount of the greenhouse gases that we know of. Even IPCC "alarmists" and "swindlers" would agree with you.
Their point? It's that humans are added volumes and volumes, by the billions of tons each year, and by the trillions of tons each decade, carbon which cannot be absorbed through natural processes. Thus, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is beginning to spike, and we know this by way of many different measurements, not those which are calculated by some quack who is hardly even recognized for his scientific contributions. The most reliable measurements are not those that were taken in the 19th Century by scientists working near industrial factories in industrial centers; they come from ice cores and other proxy data that can be accessed, compared, and analyzed consistently and reliably. In other words, the science is still on the side of the "alarmists" and "swindlers" -- unless you have something that trumps the data.
There is no evidence that reliably supports this at all. At best, some of the proxy data does show an increase in carbon and a natural warming trend that occurred, but the data shows that the carbon output has been abruptly and consistently increasing since 1860 -- again, using consistent and reliable ice core data here. Moreover, the temperatures have been increasing as well, and we can tell by using both proxy data (tree rings, etc) and more recently, we have the benefit of meteorological instrumentation. Thus, once again, you're wrong.
Point one: that there were economic benefits as a result of warming is of no effect on this discussion, which is whether man-made global warming is real.
|
When ever a crime is committed, the standard operating procedure is ... "follow the money", so for you to claim that money isn't relevant to the debate, well, that's just childish naivete'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Point two: I did not vote for Al Gore. I don't care one whether he says another word on the matter again. He could just as well go back to his Tennessee farm and sip on some Jim Beam for all I care. Might do us all a favor as he those of us who do understand that global warming is a reality would have one less political distraction to deal with.
The science that has been used to establish a consensus among climatologists is not fabricated; it is a lengthy, large, voluminous body of work, and it is scientific fact. There have been embarrassing miscalculations and prematurely published predictions made about such things as the rate at which snow would melt in the Himalayas, but other than that, the overall body of science is dead on.
|
Fraud supporting a fraud ... first, there is no consensus .. there are only those who have joined the AGW bandwagon, and those who oppose it. Those who oppose it are attacked, ridiculed, marginalized and blocked out from the mainstream, by being refused publication in scientific journals which tout themselves as "peer reviewed", which is just another way of saying "conforming to accepted dogma". It's a form of group think and control ... anyone stepping outside the box is either reeled back in, or excommunicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Ah yes, that's it. I'm glad you finally got to your point. Let's take a high profile example and project it to discredit all science. Yeah, smart move, bud. One guy at the New York Times plagiarizes, so anyone who writes is a plagiarist. This is typical of the mainstream right wing these days, and it's what I expected you eventually be reduced to. You're taking an objective argument and turning it into a subjective one instead. Nice try. You'll probably fool a lot of your fellow Americans that way, as we tend to be an inquisitive bunch of gibbons these days, but you're not going to fool me or others who are otherwise properly educated.
|
You keep injecting this "Right Wing" nonsense into the debate ... but my opinions have nothing whatsoever to do with politics ... that is apparently the little box you live in ... this right-left illusion.
I don't know what you're blathering about with the "New York Times" and this "one guy" crap. The whole freaking lot of these frauds at the UN, it's IPCC, the Climate Centers like East Anglia CRU have been exposed repeatedly for engaging in overt fraud and manipulation of data to support this "good science" you embrace ... and the consensus opinion that doesn't exist.
But you aren't going to be fooled .... nosirree!!
You need to read and research more ... and do less talking. Start here:
IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2377-ipcc-researchers-admit-global-warming-fraud - broken link)
Data Disproves Global Warming Computer Models (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8399-data-disproves-global-warming-computer-models - broken link)
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: NASA keeps mum on data that could disprove anthropogenic global warming theory
There's tons of resources, and no excuse for such ignorance you've demonstrated here.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
