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.
You can go ahead and make the choice not to use anything that has a thing to do with AGW if you choose. Why don't you?
Well, only a teeny tiny miniscule amount of the population will do anything to significantly change their lifestyles.
Even the people who believe in AGW won't actually do anything about it.
Sorry, but I really don't see why destroying our economy for nothing is an answer.
Let's be real, it's just a "feel good" topic for people like you. It allows for you to thump your chest and act like you care about some cause, but when it really comes down to it, it's just ego.
That's like saying if you don't want lead in the air go install a catalytic converter on your car.
This will not be a unilateral approach, it needs to be unified through government programs. Some people will makes some choices but overall there needs to be a consensus.
Heard the same destroying the economy arguments for many common sense restrictions on industry for clean water and air going back decades, if the nation with the highest GDP in the world can't lead who will follow.
That's like saying if you don't want lead in the air go install a catalytic converter on your car.
This will not be a unilateral approach, it needs to be unified through government programs. Some people will makes some choices but overall there needs to be a consensus.
Heard the same destroying the economy arguments for many common sense restrictions on industry for clean water and air going back decades, if the nation with the highest GDP in the world can't lead who will follow.
LOL. I see you don't get it either, because the current carbon policies are essentially saying, "Some people must choose between putting on catalytic converters or paying a fine while others don't have to do anything at all."
You can go ahead and make the choice not to use anything that has a thing to do with AGW if you choose. Why don't you?
Well, only a teeny tiny miniscule amount of the population will do anything to significantly change their lifestyles.
Even the people who believe in AGW won't actually do anything about it.
Sorry, but I really don't see why destroying our economy for nothing is an answer.
Let's be real, it's just a "feel good" topic for people like you. It allows for you to thump your chest and act like you care about some cause, but when it really comes down to it, it's just ego.
What are you talking about? You don't know me and know nothing about how I live my life, so why the personal attack?
Science is not an opinion poll or a show of hands. If "polls" constituted valid science, we would still believe that evil humors cause disease and that smoking cigarettes is good for you. These concepts, of course, were supported by the majority in their time. Nor do abstracts in the literature mean anything at all, as abstracts do not undergo the rigorous peer review process of a conventional journal publication.
Liberals (who claim to uphold the priniciples of science) simply disregard THE CORNERSTONE OF SCIENCE (refuting the null hypothesis) in their zeal to embrace "global warming".
The concept of "global warming" is an embarrassment to conventional science. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who support this concept have no clue as to what constitutes valid science.
This coming from the guy who thinks that because the US is cooling that the entire globe is cooling, and you call yourself a scientist?
What are you talking about? You don't know me and know nothing about how I live my life, so why the personal attack?
Quick question. Are you posting from a library or did you feel the need to purchase your own computer, regardless of the carbon footprint created to make it, for the convenience?
CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas that absorbs and re-radiates in the infrared spectrum and plays a main role in the 'greenhouse' effect (and more recently an enhanced greenhouse effect.) This has been known for over 100 years. It's basic atmospheric radiative physics. The same radiative physics used by the airforce in developing accurate heat-seeking missiles in the 1950's. The absorption/radiative capacity of CO2 in the atmosphere was first empirically tested many years ago.
- Humans have been pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (and other greenhouse gases)
- The average global temperature has increased by about 0.8C since 1880.
- CO2 levels have not been as high as 400ppm since about 15 to 20 million years ago during the mid-Miocene. During the interglacial periods of the past 800,000 years, the CO2 never rose above 280 ppm according to ice-core studies. CO2 started to rise with the industrial age. The average global temperature of the planet is now starting to be warmer than most of the time humans have even existed.
- The sun's output has not changed enough in the last 50 years to have caused the increase in global warming in the last 50 years -in fact it's decreased slightly.
- Cosmic rays, if they play any part at all in seeding clouds (speculative) don't match the historical paleoclimate temperature records or instrumental temperature records at all.
- Orbital forcing is too long term (eccentricity is about 100,000k cycles, obliquity is around 42000k cycles and precession about 26,000k) Currently where the earth is at in the Milankovitch cycles, the global temperature should be decreasing not increasing.
- The stratosphere is also cooling, which is a classic sign of how the greenhouse effect works and evidence against solar irradiation causing the additional warming (the stratosphere would be warming if the sun was the cause of the additional warming).
- O2 in the atmosphere is decreasing due to increased CO2.
- The ratio of C13/C12 in CO2 is also decreasing which is evidence that the additional CO2 is from fossil fuels, not from the biosphere/oceans
- PH levels in the Oceans are changing and becoming more acidic as they are taking in more CO2.
- The Ocean Heat Content has been steadily increasing.
- The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. Arctic sea-ice has been on a declining trend.
- Long term Shelf ice in Western Antarctica is rapidly breaking up.
- Migration patterns are changing for a range of species
And that's only some of the highlights.
Just read the science Journals: There are 10000s of research articles about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change and 1000s of scientists from a range of different fields involved all over the world in Universities and private research facilities as well as government funded research.
How can any rational person seriously believe this is all a political 'hoax'? It would have to be a massive complex worldwide conspiracy with everyone involved keeping silent for the past 50 years. Everyone would have to be corrupt. All the evidence would have to be faked. And the laws of physics would have had to be faked as well. Is that sort of thinking rational? No
Quick question. Are you posting from a library or did you feel the need to purchase your own computer, regardless of the carbon footprint created to make it, for the convenience?
I don't think that cutting greenhouse gases enough to curb global warming requires radical sacrifices for every individual. (If I'm wrong about that, then gw is inevitable because we can be fairly certain that a majority of individuals will not voluntarily make radical personal sacrifices.) There are some reasonably good arguments for thinking that we can do the required cutting by making better use of some technologies that we already have. Consider this paper, for example:
Every technology they examined "has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale." They identify 15 current options that could be scaled up to cut greenhouse gases:
Improved fuel economy
Reduced reliance on cars
More efficient buildings
Improved power plant efficiency
Substituting natural gas for coal
Storage of carbon captured in power plants
Storage of carbon captured in hydrogen plants
Storage of carbon captured in synthetic fuels plants
Nuclear power
Wind power
Solar photovoltaic power
Renewable hydrogen
Biofuels
Forest management
Agricultural soils management
Of course, at the rate of technological growth, it is reasonable to expect that some ingenious new technologies will come along to help too. Hopefully, for example, we could pursue fusion rather than fission nuclear power. And, of course, a break-through in battery technology would change the playing field substantially. In any case, we can start by doing more of certain things that we can already do, and most of these things (with the exception of nuclear power) would actually be good to do anyway, even if we ultimately fail to have any impact on global warming.
How can any rational person seriously believe this is all a political 'hoax'? It would have to be a massive complex worldwide conspiracy with everyone involved keeping silent for the past 50 years. Everyone would have to be corrupt. All the evidence would have to be faked. And the laws of physics would have had to be faked as well. Is that sort of thinking rational? No
Hyperbole much?
I will leave the indiscriminate usage of the terms "Everyone" and "All" to you, but let's talk about the idea of conspiracies, shall we?
First, a definition from the Merriam Websters dictionary: Conspiracy - noun con·spir·a·cy \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\ : a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
How often do you believe that humans work together towards an end that they do not want others to know about, that is illegal or arguably harmful to someone in some way? Is it:
A. Constantly and in large numbers (More than a thousand groups of people conspiring at any one time)
B. Frequently, but in not very large numbers (Less than a thousand groups of people conspiring at any one time)
C. Occasionally, with significant gaps of time existing when there are NO conspiracies occurring anywhere on the planet Earth.
D. Never
{Hint: The Answer is A. People do this all this time}
Last edited by Spartacus713; 06-18-2015 at 06:40 AM..
I will leave the indiscriminate usage of the terms "Everyone" and "All" to you, but let's talk about the idea of conspiracies, shall we?
First, a definition from the Merriam Websters dictionary: Conspiracy - noun con·spir·a·cy \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\ : a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
How often do you believe that humans work together towards an end that they do not want others to know about, that is illegal or arguably harmful to someone in some way? Is it:
A. Constantly and in large numbers (More than a thousand groups of people conspiring at any one time)
B. Frequently, but in not very large numbers (Less than a thousand groups of people conspiring at any one time)
C. Occasionally, with significant gaps of time existing when there are NO conspiracies occurring anywhere on the planet Earth.
D. Never
{Hint: The Answer is A. People do this all this time}
Stop with the deflecting. Address the science:
CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas that absorbs and re-radiates in the infrared spectrum and plays a main role inthe 'greenhouse' effect (and more recently an enhanced greenhouse effect.) This has been known for over 100 years. It's basic atmospheric radiative physics. The same radiative physics used by the airforce in developing accurate heat-seeking missiles in the 1950's. The absorption/radiative capacity of CO2 in the atmosphere was first empirically tested many years ago.
- Humans have been pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (and other greenhouse gases)
- The average global temperature has increased by about 0.8C since 1880.
- CO2 levels have not been as high as 400ppm since about 15 to 20 million years ago during the mid-Miocene. During the interglacial periods of the past 800,000 years, the CO2 never rose above 280 ppm according to ice-core studies. CO2 started to rise with the industrial age. The average global temperature of the planet is now starting to be warmer than most of the time humans have even existed.
- The sun's output has not changed enough in the last 50 years to have caused the increase in global warming in the last 50 years -in fact it's decreased slightly.
- Cosmic rays, if they play any part at all in seeding clouds (speculative) don't match the historical paleoclimate temperature records or instrumental temperature records at all.
- Orbital forcing is too long term (eccentricity is about 100,000k cycles, obliquity is around 42000k cycles and precession about 26,000k) Currently where the earth is at in the Milankovitch cycles, the global temperature should be decreasing not increasing.
- The stratosphere is also cooling, which is a classic sign of how the greenhouse effect works and evidence against solar irradiation causing the additional warming (it would be warming if the sun was the cause of the additional warming).
- O2 in the atmosphere is decreasing due to increased CO2.
- The ratio of C13/C12 in CO2 is also decreasing which is evidence that the additional CO2 is from fossil fuels, not from the biosphere/oceans
- PH levels in the Oceans are changing and becoming more acidic as they are taking in more CO2.
- The Ocean Heat Content has been steadily increasing.
- The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. Arctic sea-ice has been on a declining trend.
- Long term Shelf ice in Western Antarctica is rapidly breaking up.
- Migration patterns are changing for a range of species
And that's only some of the highlights.
Just read the academic science Journals: There are 10000s of research articles about the evidence for anthropogenic climate change and 1000s of scientists from a range of different fields involved all over the world in Universities and private research facilities as well as government funded research.
How can any rational person seriously believe this is all a political 'hoax'? It would have to be a massive complex worldwide conspiracy with everyone involved keeping silent for the past 50 years. Everyone would have to be corrupt. All the evidence would have to be faked. And the laws of physics would have had to be faked as well. Is that sort of thinking rational? No
How can any rational person seriously believe this is all a political 'hoax'? It would have to be a massive complex worldwide conspiracy with everyone involved keeping silent for the past 50 years. Everyone would have to be corrupt. All the evidence would have to be faked. And the laws of physics would have had to be faked as well. Is that sort of thinking rational? No
Deflection request denied.
I am addressing your conclusion, which is clearly not scientific and is wildly exaggerated to the point of almost being silly.
You invoked the idea of conspiracies and did so in a clearly misleading way, so I want to make sure anyone who is reading this is aware of that. So, I am asking you again:
First, a definition from the Merriam Websters dictionary: Conspiracy - noun con·spir·a·cy \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\ : a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
How often do you believe that humans work together towards an end that they do not want others to know about, that is illegal or arguably harmful to someone in some way? Is it:
A. Constantly and in large numbers (More than a thousand groups of people conspiring at any one time)
B. Frequently, but in not very large numbers (Less than a thousand groups of people conspiring at any one time)
C. Occasionally, with significant gaps of time existing when there are NO conspiracies occurring anywhere on the planet Earth.
D. Never
{Hint: The Answer is A. People do this all this time}
Please spare us the Deflection, Denial and Denigration tactics and let's just have a straight discussion about this, can we?
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.
