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.
The media has been a co-conspirator to the global warming hoax and I take this latest example as one that reveals its utter desperation to maintain the greatest hoax of the modern era. The facts mean nothing to them. Real science means nothing to them. But reality is intruding on theirs and the United Nations environmental program just wrapped up Conference of Parties-19 in Warsaw, where more nations are now in open revolt.
The hoaxers tell us that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and human activities are increasing it; that much is true, but then they grossly exaggerate everything else, and make absurd predictions of doom and gloom.
Yet it seems like you guys push back at every environmental laws, so I question what anti-environmentalists consider to be to be "true environmental laws."
the only time i push back against environmental laws is when they go overboard, past the point of diminishing returns. for instance, the cars we have today are far cleaner than the ones we had in the 80s. in fact they put out about 5% of the HC and CO emissions the 80s cars did, and only about 2% of the emissions that cars of the 60s did. but internal combustion engines are always going to produce emissions, regardless of what fuel you use, so at some point we have a point of diminishing returns where the cost of eliminating emissions becomes far greater than the benefit.
remember that the higher you drive the cost of things and services, the less of those tings and services you get. now we can eliminate all carbon emissions if you want, but that means no more cars, no more power plants that are not nuclear or geothermal, or wind or solar, or hydroelectric, no more steel, no more recycling, no more hauling heavy loads across the country, no more flying, in fact no more high speed transportation of any kind except perhaps electric trains, and even those will be limited heavily. no more internet, we do have to save what electricity we produce without fossil fuels. so basically we shut down the planet, and go back to absolutely EVERYTHING being local.
And any other conservative pundits and politicians?
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not scientist. They don't even have college degrees. Yet when Rush Limbaugh yells on the radio that global warming is a lie, conservatives believe it. But why? Rush has zero qualifications on the issue.
But when 99.9% of climate scientist say that humans significantly contribute to increasing global temperature, conservatives deny it.
I just don't understand what the logical rationale for this is?
Limbaugh and Hannity do not pretend to be scientists, they read the papers, articles and studies by real climatologists, and scientists, and even invite them to be interviewed on their shows.
This is exactly what I am talking about. It isn't a lie, it's the truth.
There is nothing I can link you, scientific publications, or anything I can do to convince you that 99.9% of climate scientist agree on global warming.
Because it's not true. Seriously... Get a clue, here. Science, even among the tiny number of climate scientists, is wildly divided over all matters about this.
Oh, and 'consensus' is not science, it's politics. Even if 99.9% agreed on something that's false, it doesn't change to true. There is an objective truth, and we absolutely DO NOT HAVE the facts to find it.
Quote:
Yet you believe rush limbaugh instead.
???? What does Limbaugh have to do with this? You're citing politicians for your 99.9% argument, and then accusing me of not thinking and believing Rush Limbaugh, simply because I did my scientific homework. Amazing.
Limbaugh and Hannity do not pretend to be scientists, they read the papers, articles and studies by real climatologists, and scientists, and even invite them to be interviewed on their shows.
And yet ol' Rush says the way he knows it's a lie is because liberals believe in it.
His scientific method is absolutely breathtaking. :roll eyes: Bring on the Nobel...
That is an interesting take on what I have said and goes to another interesting point on global warming. It is true oceans, as well as the atmosphere and land surface all dissipate heat. The difference is that water dissipates heat at a slower rate then land and air. Furthermore if there were global cooling as you suggest and as you correctly note oceans dissipate heat, wouldn't ocean heat measurements show a decrease in the amount of heat joules stored over time? Clearly the measurements I show in post 7 suggest the opposite is happening which suggests, if you are a true scientist like you claim, you might be willing to adjust your hypothesis to the evidence.
As to the second law of thermodynamics I would again direct you to posts 37 and 48 key words being "isolated system" The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say any part of a system must trend towards entropy if that were true I seriously doubt humans, or life generally, would exist.
Great back peddling. You don't look quite as absurd by covering your tracks in that fashion.
I can see that you have educated yourself in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All of those PhDs conferred by voting "D" seem to have done you some good.
Regarding the "stored energy" in the oceans, I am sure that you have taken multiple temperature measurements ten miles down from the surface of the ocean and KNOW what the temps are at the bottom of the Marianna's Trench. Do you actually know what is constituted by 1 Joule?
PS- Don't argue science with people who actually have a background in science. It makes you look like an idiot.
I have said before that the 'issue' of global warming certainly gained legs when Rush Limbaugh began to talk about it, mainly in rebuttal to Al Gore's movie and lectures. I listened to Rush quite a bit during those days, but I did not take him too seriously. After all, back in grade school in the 1960s we had learned about the Greenhouse Effect, which itself dates back to the 1890s. I believe that Mr. Gore was (and is) claiming that the symptoms of the Greenhouse effect is happening more rapidly than suspected.
As I noted before, those who like to enter these type of threads yapping about the 1974 magazine cover about "A New Ice Age?" forget that one reason it was 'news' and thus sold copies was that the author of said piece flew against conventional scientific theory about how the world would be warming in the future. I even read the magazine (I think it was Time or Newsweek). However, many scientists wrote to refute the author's opinion, and the author's viewpoint soon sank from view.
I simply did not hear much quibbling about global warming until Rush started in on Gore (saying such stuff as 'follow the money' and 'liberal conspiracy towards a new world order', etc).
We don't, what other lies are you going to try spreading today?
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.
