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.
OK, I will. Your wacko green-religion isn't shared by as many as you think. Today I will do a couple of things that run counter your faith, and there's nothing you can do about it!
That's your response to this? >
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor. Collectively these are called greenhouse gases.
The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.
The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to do so.
The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.
The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.
The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.
Up to this point virtually all scientists are in agreement — including those few global warming "skeptics" who understand the science and the data. Consequently the skeptics need to somehow attack this final leg of the argument: The increase in temperature has been caused by the increase in greenhouse gases.
There are no national or international scientific organizations that dispute these facts, so that puts the burden of proof on skeptics to refute the above facts. Global warming denialism - RationalWiki
What don't you agree with and why? What do you believe is 'wacko' and 'religious' about those evidence-based mainstream science statements of fact?
What don't you agree with and why? What do you believe is 'wacko' and 'religious' about those evidence-based mainstream science statements of fact?
There's nothing I can do with you. You are the product of the green cult that's infiltrated our education system.
You actually believe what you say! My job is to counter your silly proposition that humans can effect climate events.
I'll continue to live my life doing whatever I want and there's nothing you can do about it. Today I'll go out on my boat and do a little fishing, and tonight I'll burn two-weeks worth of trash. All in your name!
I don't attend your Church of the EPA.
In early 1998, some of the biggest fossil fuel companies in the world were hatching a plan to hijack the science of human-caused global warming......In a memo the plan boldly declared its goal would be to convince “a majority of the American public” that “significant uncertainties exist in climate science”.
Science?
The entire AGW scare has nothing to do with science. There is no credible science behind it. It is political, and nothing more. It is designed to change behaviors to suit the desires of the environmentalist Liberals who wish to dictate how we should live.
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
There's nothing I can do with you. You are the product of the green cult that's infiltrated our education system.
You actually believe what you say! My job is to counter your silly proposition that humans can effect climate events.
I'll continue to live my life doing whatever I want and there's nothing you can do about it. Today I'll go out on my boat and do a little fishing, and tonight I'll burn two-weeks worth of trash. All in your name!
I don't attend your Church of the EPA.
The thought processes (or lack thereof) of science-deniers are rather fascinating.
So why did the last great ice age end? And what happened after it did?
So why does anyone think a similar consequence did not occur in 1850?
Why don't you tell us how you think the "last great ice age" ended, what happened after it did, and why you think a "a similar consequence occurred in 1850". Be specific.
Did you bother to watch the Dr Richard Alley lecture I posted on past ice-ages? Or read anything from the American Institute of Physics source I linked to? You would know the answers to your questions if you had.
Sincerely, I meant civility, not offence. Surely a sincere person can accept that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
2. Yes, I subscribed to several Usenet groups years ago. I've been using internet message boards/forums since the late 1990's and even ran a forum for several years. I used to use dial-up bulletin boards back in the pre-internet days.
In 1990 I was working my bunwahs off supporting a family. I was not intimately involved in UseNet at all. When I retired and had time on my hands, this is when I got involved. Never saw the term "climate change" on my usenet groups. Perhaps because I was dealing with the true believers, who were parroting what their masters told them to say. I was familiar with the BBS's and even their interface with UseNet back then. However my interest was running business networks, not chatting about global AGW whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
3. The term Climate Change has been used since the 1950's and Global Warming since the 1970's in the academic Journals, and the term Climate Change is in the IPCC title which was founded in 1988. They mean different things. Global warming refers to global temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and all the changes that increasing greenhouse gases will affect. It's not rocket science. I can't help what you personally bother to read or not read. The fact that you choose to read and refer to a so-called 'report' by the "NIPCC" founded by Fred Singer in cahoots with the Heartland Institute, tells me a lot. The fact that you don't seem to read the academic Journals or refer to published research papers as sources, also tells me a lot.
So the tiny bit of CO2 output by the nascent industrial age ended and ice age, but the last 70 years of the auto age and the coal fired and natural gas fired is having immeasurable effect at all?
Obviously you have read the propaganda about NIPPC and the Heartland Institute, but you have never had the intellectual curiosity, let alone honest, to dig into what NIPPC is doing. Hint - NIPPC does not deny climate change. They explore the consequences based upon, yes, PEER REVIEWED papers. But since your mind is closed, of course your bigotry would prevent you from exploring. Ylu wou,d know that if you were open minded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
4. Well that's great that you don't actually deny the earth has been warming. Plenty do.
Many are ideologues. On your side too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
5. I have never claimed the 'science is settled', so why do you claim I do? Science is never 'settled'. However there comes a time when the evidence is so overwhelming that continual 'debate' about a basic fact like adding more CO2 into the atmosphere adds to the greenhouse effect, gets ridiculous. This is well established evidence-based science, including the basic physics of atmospheric radiative transfer, and has been for a long time. Some people are still trying to 'argue' against this like they try to argue against the basics of evolution.
Wow! You claim the science is never settled. Despite the early hour, I'm off to the adult beverage store to buy the appropriate liquid with which to toast you.
In the mean time, the AGW argument remains that coincidental to the age of the automobile, climate is changing, ignoring completely the climate history of the past 12,000 years.
Obviously you have read the propaganda about NIPPC and the Heartland Institute, but you have never had the intellectual curiosity, let alone honest, to dig into what NIPPC is doing. Hint - NIPPC does not deny climate change. They explore the consequences based upon, yes, PEER REVIEWED papers. But since your mind is closed, of course your bigotry would prevent you from exploring. Ylu wou,d know that if you were open minded.
The 'peer review' happens entirely within the echo chamber of the usual network of right-wing think tanks, or they use whatever ancient, debunked papers they can find to support their agenda.
Open-minded doesn't mean you need to entertain right-wing BS.
The NIPCC has as much credibility as a schizophrenic rant by Alex Jones... I don't feel the need to take those seriously either.
I cannot for the life of me understand WHY you think that a proudly, openly political organization such as Heartland would have any interest in sponsoring a genuinely scientific conference. The only possible explanation for the existence of the NIPCC is that they want to advance their own political goals.
Last edited by Spatula City; 03-08-2015 at 12:32 PM..
OK, I will. Your wacko green-religion isn't shared by as many as you think. Today I will do a couple of things that run counter your faith, and there's nothing you can do about it!
In what way is that a response to my post?...Looks more like you are trolling to me.
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.
