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.
And that is an example of a logical fallacy. That the earth warmed before due to natural causes does not invalidate anthropogenic global warming theory; it simply means that natural causes have to be ruled out, and according to scientists calculations, natural climatic causes could not account for the significant changes in the earth's mean surface temperature over such a short period of time.
No, not a logical fallacy at all .... for 450,000 years, CO2 ... man made or otherwise, was never the cause of warming ... because the CO2 levels have been proven to rise AFTER a warming period, making it IMPOSSIBLE to be the cause. That's elementary logic, and fundamental cause and effect this simple shouldn't be confusing to anyone. So why are you so confused? Or are you just conveniently ignoring this fact? It's pretty important to the debate you know? As in ... it ends the debate before the debate even starts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
I would grant you that there is still probably a lot that they don't know about the degree to which man-made forces have impacted the climate, and what the consequences are, but there is little denying the fact that humans have greatly impacted the climate already. The earth's warming trend began in or around 1860, and has continued ever since, particularly since about 1978. Moreover, as I pointed out to you before, this warming trend was predicted.
No there is plenty to deny .... first, there has been no climate change AT ALL ... the various climatic regions of the planet are the same as they were 100 years ago ... so claiming that humans have already impacted climate greatly is absurd nonsense. I swear, debating you Global Warming Cultists is like reasoning with a cinder block.
What has been measured over the past few decades is not climate change ... it's basic temperature fluctuations that have been occurring since before man discovered fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Yes, something caused those changes, but that in no way precludes the fact that humans are changing the environment. Volcanoes and fires can, and have, destroyed large swaths of forests in the past; that doesn't mean that humans can't do the exact same thing. It is well within our capacity to do so, and we have. Bad logic, mate.
Read my lips, mate ..... first, warming happens ... then CO2 rises. Consequently, this tells us that increases in the earth's temperature causes CO2 to rise ... not the other way around. That's the "logical" logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Yes, and no. The problem with your hypothesis is that temperatures have largely not fluctuated; they have constantly been moving upward since about 1860, with the exception of a 30 year trend, but even then, the temperatures began moving upward after a precipitous drop in the late 1940s. After that point, with the exception of a year here and there, the temperatures have been rising and rising. This has been predicted. Even when it was easier for scientists to remain skeptical during the global temperature plateau, most credible scientists understood that the crap we were digging up and belching into the atmosphere by the millions of tons would have a major impact on climate. And they were right, and you're not.
No, this is not a yes and no game. It's either yes OR no ... not both. I know you Global Warmers like the yes and no options to hedge your bets (and you need something dramatic) ... but the answer is yes ... temperatures have fluctuated, just as they always have. And again, no climate change has occurred since 1860 either.
Show me somewhere on earth where the climate has changed? You can't because it hasn't happened. Continuing to make these claims doesn't make it true. You're only parroting the false claims of the disgraced liars at the IPCC. And why would you?
Secondly, contrary to other fraudulent claims that current CO2 levels are the highest in thousands of years, there have been three times within the last 200 years where the CO2 levels exceeded today's level ..... those took place in 1825, 1857, and 1942. I think it's safe to say that SUV's and industrial activity had little to do with those rises in 1825 and 1857?
And for the 1942 CO2 highs ... this coincided with a cooling period ... so how does that fit the CO2 causes global warming model? Answer ... it doesn't. It directly contradicts it, along with the double talk about the temperature has not fluctuated except .... blah blah blah. And I don't drink scotch, except on days that end in y.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
This is the one flimsy piece of evidence that you have in defense of your position -- the fact that it's not 90 degrees in Boston in winter. The point is, we don't want to wait to find out what that reality would be like.
Good lord ... how many times must it be said? Even if Boston did see 90 degrees in the winter, that would be WEATHER. Now if it stayed that way for a long period of time ... then we may be looking at a change in climate.
Climate is measured over centuries and thousands of years .... not decades, and certainly not in a single decade or even yearly. And, global temperatures in the past have been much hotter than they are today, and the Polar Ice caps are still there, which is why we can get ice core records. Furthermore, global temperatures correlate precisely with Solar cycles ... meaning, it's the bloody Sun that drives Climate ... always has, and always will, in spite of how many SUVs people drive, or how many filthy humans overpopulate mother earth.
You do realize this is the agenda you support, right? Reducing the numbers of these filthy human viruses infesting THEIR planet? That is the whole premise behind this fraud ... to convince the dummies to support their own demise. Fortunately, according to most recent polls, people are wising up, and recognizing these snake oil salesmen for who and what they are. Obviously, that doesn't include you.
You're absolutely right, it is impossible to take anyone seriously that continues to repeat man-made CO2 caused global warming like a broken freaking record, which has been the ENTIRE ARGUMENT of the pseudo-scientist frauds and UN bureaucrat pimps from DAY ONE. Carbon Tax, Carbon Footprint, Carbon Credits, Carbon, Carbon, Carbon for 10 non-stop years. If we had a dollar for every time one of the global warming clowns said "CO2" or Carbon Footprint", we could pay off the 14 Trillion national debt, and have change left over.
And the only thing exceeding the level of dishonesty of this global warming scam is for someone to come along NOW, after all of these years of incessant CO2 crap, claiming that CO2 was "only a tiny fraction of the discussion". Tiny fraction my butt ... who do you think is going to buy this load of nonsense? CO2 has been the ENTIRE ARGUMENT all along. Human generated CO2 created by industrial activity and burning fossil fuels. And it was a fraud in the beginning, and it's a proven fraud now ... and now that it's a proven scam, you can't scam your way out of it. Nobody is going to buy such a ridiculously false re-write of history, so why even try??
Totally shameless.
"Tiny fraction of discussion" That statement was referring to all of the variables affecting the changing climate.
It wasn't meant to imply that CO2 is a tiny fraction or not important. It is of huge importance, but there are many things to discuss from a science standpoint alone when it come to CC. It seems that lay people, especially those who think it's bunk science, almost always focus only on CO2 and omit most everything else.
Last edited by Ecovlke; 07-31-2011 at 07:34 AM..
Reason: proofing
More and more, the ignorant belief that all CO2 is "bad" and that the US economy is killing the planet (China is ok because they aren't evil Americans) is thankfully falling away.
Anyone who thinks that the emissions from vehicles is no worse than a bike, which has no emissions should do a test to prove it. Turn on your car. Go to your tail pipe and sit there and inhale it. Let us know how it turns out.
It wasn't meant to imply that CO2 is a tiny fraction or not important. It is of huge importance, but there are many things to discuss from a science standpoint alone when it come to CC. It seems that lay people, especially those who think it's bunk science, almost always focus only on CO2 and omit most everything else.
Go on, what are those "many other things" you speak of? I am interested to hear what you have to provide.
Anyone who thinks that the emissions from vehicles is no worse than a bike, which has no emissions should do a test to prove it. Turn on your car. Go to your tail pipe and sit there and inhale it. Let us know how it turns out.
And anyone that thinks driving a car instead of riding a bike is causing the earth's temperature to go up is a moonbat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
