Oh Look - Warmists wrong...AGAIN! Kilimenjaro gets it snow cap back (Putin, interview)
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.
Except we are seeing deforestation at an alarming rate.
Really? Where?
But that's beside the point that Co2 is not the problem as the cabal would have some believe. Imagine, we were once taught Co2, the very thing we exhale, was a good thing, that this planet would be dead without it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1
On the larger scale. It's pretty much accepted by most scientists that global climate change is also affected by humans. To what extend, that is still up for debate. Seeing how we influence the climate...shouldn't we try to lower our impact?
No, that's the point, it is not pretty much accepted. Seeing how the Earth's temperature has risen MAYBE a 1/2 a degree in 150 years (), out of 6 billion, I'm not seeing the problem. Of course, if you could tell me the optimum temperature of the Earth, that might help.
Do you DENY that Co2 IS the lifeblood of the planet?
Just because something is necessary in small quantities doesn't mean it's good in larger ones. Water is necessary for plants, but giving most plants more water after a certain point doesn't help, and flooding certainly doesn't help plants. Similar for CO_2. But you claimed CO_2 can't do anything since it is only 0.0038% of the atmosphere.
Quote:
Imagine, we were once taught Co2, the very thing we exhale, was a good thing, that this planet would be dead without it.
Also because, without it, the earth's temperature would be extremely cold, possibly 20 or 30°F+ colder.
But that's beside the point that Co2 is not the problem as the cabal would have some believe. Imagine, we were once taught Co2, the very thing we exhale, was a good thing, that this planet would be dead without it.
No, that's the point, it is not pretty much accepted. Seeing how the Earth's temperature has risen MAYBE a 1/2 a degree in 150 years (), out of 6 billion, I'm not seeing the problem. Of course, if you could tell me the optimum temperature of the Earth, that might help.
Well, I guess you would have to have plant material, or any living material to start with, wouldn't you?
Is that the best you can come up with?
Do you DENY that Co2 IS the lifeblood of the planet?
Wow. Okay, you have NO CLUE about deforestation and desertification?! Really? About 8 million sq. acres of forest have been cleared since 1949. 90% of West Africa's virgin forests are gone for either farming or urban uses. 88% of forests in South East Asian have been cleared. Forests once covered about 17% of the Earth, now it's about 8%. This isn't even controversial. It's not even news...conservation of forests is an important issue regardless of political beliefs. So now, you're reducing forests, a main way to convert C02 into O2 while increasing CO2.
Not to mention that CO2 intake does not increase indefinitely per plant; there is a satiation point. That point depends per plant. Photosynthesis cycles can only occur so many times. There are only so many chlorophylls to conduct this process. This means that the CO2 increase at a certain point doesn't help plants.
We know that human growth has contributed to climate. If you deny it, then you are in the MINORITY. A small minority of people.
Of course you can't answer my questions. In fact, you've avoided answering them because simply put you don't know. Instead of realizing that YOU'RE being exactly what you accuse people who accept the reality of climate change (hyper political) you divert and not even answer questions to justify your position.
So you don't have the data to prove the majority of scientists wrong, let alone back your original claim that the snow caps receding is not a result of climate change? Again if you are able to answer those questions, it would make your footing a little more solid.
Majority of scientists?
/sigh
You need to stop reading the media and agenda sites. There is no majority view on AGW, and even if there were, it has no bearing on the facts of the issue. Consensus never was, is, or will be an element of the scientific process. Consensus means nothing.
Yeah the whole "Junk Science" effort to discredit "Global Warming" "Climate Change" - WHATEVER you choose to call it - is the modern-day equivalent of the tobacco industry's attempt to convince people that "smoking is really harmless" that occured back in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc - and they use the very SAME techniques. They hire a handful of prostitute scientists to nitpick on tiny flaws in a handful of the studies and blow them way out of proportion in order to discredit the rest of the studies - which (as whole) respresent VERY SOLID science, they personally attack the "messengers", they pump money into their political lobbying efforts to buy as many politicians as possible and shut down legislation deemed harmfull to THEIR business interests, and generally attempt to sway those simpletons out there who just don't understand how science works. All in all it's a pretty effective technique - after all it worked very well for the tobacco industry for decades before the evidence of just how bad tabacoo was for you became completely overwhelming.
Same thing will happen with "Global Warming", "Climate Change" - WHATEVER you choose to call it. Eventually the evidence will be so clear and so overwhelming that the problem IS real and IS - at least to some degree - Man-made, that even the deniers will be forced to admit it (or look pretty dumb). In this case however, this "Junk Science" lobby is aided by the fact that the situation and the science involved is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than in the tobacco case. Climate changes is not driven by just one thing - ie the amount of CO2. It's a very complicated process with LOTS of factors involved - things like natural cycles of the sun (which can modify solar output), random events like the solar system passing through vast particals of instellar dust and gas (which can reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth), natural buildup and depletion of CO2 and other terrestrial gasses in the atmosphere (which can change how effectively the atmosphere retains or releases heat), the gradual adjustment of the angle of the earth over time), catastophic events such as massive volcanic eruptions (which themselves may be part of natural cycles of magma rotation within the earth) or meteor or comet impacts. The fact is, the number of things which can and have impacted the earths climate is HUGE - all of which makes understand long-term climate patterns very very difficult and often open to interpretation. In all - it's a much much more complicated situation than simply making the connection (and understanding how connection occurs) between tobacco and cancer - and look how long the "smoking is harmful" deniers managed to fight that.
The fact is however, evidence is definitely building that:
1) Something is definitely happening in regards to the climate (ie it's gradually getting warmer overall)
2) Mans creation of greenhouse gasses IS playing a substantial (perhaps not the ONLY) part in it
Already, EVERY major scientific organization that has studied the subject has come to THAT conclusion (EVERY SINGLE ONE - WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION!!!!). This includes both international scientific organizations, national-based scientific organizations based in foriegn nations, AND scientific organizations here at home - if they've looked into the issue they've come to the conclusion that "Global Warming" "Climate Change" - WHATEVER you want to call it - IS happening and it IS (at least in part) caused by our emission of greenhouse gasses. This list of organizations is a "who's who" of the scientific world - and they ALL say the same thing. To me, that says a LOT - certainly more than a few scattered opposing scientists here and there - ESPECIALLY when you consider WHO is funding those scientists' research (and in the vast majority of those cases the folks funding the research are the companies with the most to lose if limits are placed on CO2 emissions).
Quite frankly, the idea that ALL these varied scientific organizations - made up of the world's top scientists - ALL reached these same conclusion erroniously, or ALL decided "sell out" (when their funding sources are really varied) is a pretty silly "tin-foil hat" conclusion - particularly so when the so much of the "denier" funding can be shown to have come from a pretty small cadre of sources. You tell me which one of these seems more likely to be telling the truth: "That the vast majority of scientists - from a variety of disciplines, nations and organizations (and with varied and multiple funding sources) - that have studied the issue all conclude more or less the same thing (ie "It's real and we're helping to cause it" - OR - "That a very small minority of scientists - all more or less sharing the very same small collection of funding sources (from donors who have a vested interest in slowing down or completely stopping "Climate Change" legislation) - are telling the truth (ie "It's not real and/or we're not helping cause it".
Hmmmmm
That's a TOUGH choice (NOT).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 03-24-2011 at 08:49 AM..
It snows in San Diego and this guy thinks things are AOK.
It has snowed in San Diego before, question is... did you know that, and how many times has it snowed, and when?
So, what conclusion can you draw from the fact that it snowed? By all means, please explain to us the process to which you come to your conclusion. Please leave all speculation at the door and only provide that which can be shown to be evident.
Yeah the whole "Junk Science" effort to discredit "Global Warming" "Climate Change" - WHATEVER you choose to call it - is the modern-day equivalent of the tobacco industry's attempt to convince people that "smoking is really harmless" that occured back in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc - and they use the very SAME techniques. They hire a handful of prostitute scientists to nitpick on tiny flaws in a handful of the studies and blow them way out of proportion in order to discredit the rest of the studies - which (as whole) respresent VERY SOLID science, they personally attack the "messengers", they pump money into their political lobbying efforts to buy as many politicians as possible and shut down legislation deemed harmfull to THEIR business interests, and generally attempt to sway those simpletons out there who just don't understand how science works. All in all it's a pretty effective technique - after all it worked very well for the tobacco industry for decades before the evidence of just how bad tabacoo was for you became completely overwhelming.
Same thing will happen with "Global Warming", "Climate Change" - WHATEVER you choose to call it. Eventually the evidence will be so clear and so overwhelming that the problem IS real and IS - at least to some degree - Man-made, that even the deniers will be forced to admit it (or look pretty dumb). In this case however, this "Junk Science" lobby is aided by the fact that the situation and the science involved is MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than in the tobacco case. Climate changes is not driven by just one thing - ie the amount of CO2. It's a very complicated process with LOTS of factors involved - things like natural cycles of the sun (which can modify solar output), random events like the solar system passing through vast particals of instellar dust and gas (which can reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the earth), natural buildup and depletion of CO2 and other terrestrial gasses in the atmosphere (which can change how effectively the atmosphere retains or releases hear), the gradual adjustment of the angle of the earth over time), catastophic events such as massive volcanic eruptions (which themselves may be part of natural cycles of magma rotation within the earth) or meteor or comet impacts. The fact is, the number of things which can and have impacted the earths climate is HUGE - all of which makes understand long-term climate patterns very very difficult and often open to interpretation. In all - it's a much much more complicated situation than simply making the connection (and understanding how connection occurs) between tobacco and cancer - and look how long the "smoking is harmful" deniers managed to fight that.
The fact is however, evidence is definitely building that:
1) Something is definition happening in regards to the climate
2) Man's creation of greenhouse gasses IS playing a substantial (perhaps not the ONLY) part in it
Already, EVERY major scientific organization that has studied the subject has come to THAT conclusion (EVERY SINGLE ONE - WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION!!!!). This includes both international scientific organizations, national-based scientific organizations based in foriegn nations, AND scientific organizations here at home - if they've looked into the issue they've come to the conclusion that "Global Warming" "Climate Change" - WHATEVER you want to call it - IS happening and it IS (at least in part) caused by our emission of greenhouse gasses. This list of organizations is a "who's who" of the scientific world - and they ALL say the same thing. To me, that says a LOT - certainly more than a few scattered opposing scientists here and there - ESPECIALLY when you consider WHO is funding those scientists' research (and in the vast majority of those cases the folks funding the research of the companies with the most to lose if limits are placed on CO2 emissions).
Quite frankly, the idea that ALL these varied scientific organizations - made up of the world's top scientists - ALL reached these same conclusion erroniously, or ALL decided "sell out" (when their funding sources are really varied) is a pretty silly "tin-foil hat" conclusion - particularly so when the so much of the "denier" funding can be shown to have come from a pretty small cadre of sources. You tell me which one of these seems more likely to be telling the truth: "That the vast majority of scientists - from a variety of disciplines, nations and organizations (and with varied and multiple funding sources) - that have studied the issue all conclude more or less the same thing (ie "It's real and we're helping to cause it" - OR - "That a very small minority of scientists - all more or less sharing the very same small collection of funding sources (from donors who have a vested interest in slowing down or completely stopping "Climate Change" legislation) - are telling the truth (ie "It's not real and/or we're not helping cause it".
Hmmmmm
That's a TOUGH choice (NOT).
Ken
wow, lets see... liken your opponent to some nefarious purpose. Proclaim a consensus, that the science is settled and validated, and then jump to the solution phase.
*chuckle*
I think you pretty much hit all your talking points.
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.
