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.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,749,909 times
Reputation: 7185
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
I think that people who claim that man has no impact on the planet's climate are living in a dream world. Of course we are going to have an impact. Oil was formed over eons and eons ago by tiny plankton like creatures laying on top of the oceans. They breathed in the poisonous atmosphere and secreted oil and exhaled oxygen. When they died they sunk to the bottom of the oceans and formed fields of oil formed by cleaning up the poisonous air.
So the last 120 years or so these other little creatures called humans have been pumping that oil to the surface and turning it back into poisonous gasses. And they've been pretty efficient at it.
What we've already done if we stop today will still be affecting the climate ten thousand years from now.
Were you in a dreamworld when you surveyed geology 101 for poets?
Water vapor content is consistent in the atmosphere on the scale of tens of millenia. So lets use the 5.53%
That is not 99% "natural".
If I were to add 5.53% arsenic or other toxic chemical to your drinking water would that be fine with you? Can 5% have an effect on an a system?
Carbon is not a toxic chemical, so why compare to arsenic? Carbon is produced in massive quantities by nature. So, 94% of all carbon is from natural sources. The other 6% is not toxic.
And water vapor is one of the "greenhouse gases", so why exclude it?
Even my sophomores understand the simplest one. What happens when you increase the amount of CO2 in a system?
Prediction: Increase in amount of CO2 will correlate with increase in Global Average Temperature. Status: True
Prediction: Increases will effect poles more intensely than temperate and tropical regions Status: True
Prediction: Plants and animals will change migration and an increase in invasive species poleward. Status: True
What is speculative about any of that?
The more predictions I make the better chance some will be true. And particularly if they are so general in nature as to be useless and impossible to support or refute.
Lots of AGW predictions have not come true.
None of the predictions you list have anything to do with AGW. They are just the results of climate change.
12 Pages in the current thread, and still no one has produced a study proving a link between man's activities and Climate Change.
Same result as the last dozen threads on the subject... unsurprisingly.
The perfect 0-for-everything record of failure, which has existed for the last 40-plus years of Global Whatever fanatics insisting that government take over and "fix" the climate, goes on.
12 Pages in the current thread, and still no one has produced a study proving a link between man's activities and Climate Change.
Same result as the last dozen threads on the subject... unsurprisingly.
The perfect 0-for-everything record of failure, which has existed for the last 40-plus years of Global Whatever fanatics insisting that government take over and "fix" the climate, goes on.
Considering there's 10 people arguing against one person, and she has a job, I think maybe some patience is in order.
So the reason that Manmade-Global-Whatever fanatics have racked up a perfect record of failure to present even ONE study proving a link between man's activities and Climate Change, across the entire country for 40-plus years despite all their caterwauling and strident demands that government spend $trillions and clamp down on everyone's lifestyle, is because bloggers didn't want to pay the access fees to the studies?
I have to admit, that's a new one. I hadn't heard that particular excuse for their failure, before.
Hats off to seattlenextyear!
Since you ignore any actual cites given to you, I will just stop replying.
It maybe more intellectually honest to be upfront and admit nothing will convince you.
Well, their mantra is that we are being manipulated by the lies of big oil. With that sort of reasoning, there is no other conclusion than to come up with silly excuses as to why their position is failing.
Its the aliens I tell ya! They are brain washing people! *chuckle*
Ah, the strawman. I knew that one was coming.
Where have I mentioned oil? Or any policy at all?
No where.
But since I understand and accept the science you are assuming that you know my politically ideology. Shame on you.
Carbon is not a toxic chemical, so why compare to arsenic? Carbon is produced in massive quantities by nature. So, 94% of all carbon is from natural sources. The other 6% is not toxic.
And water vapor is one of the "greenhouse gases", so why exclude it?
Arsenic is not natural? Maybe you should revisit some basic chemistry. Arsenic occurs naturally in drinking water all over the world.
Additionally, there is a very real difference between carbon and carbon dioxide. IF we are going to discuss carbon in the atmosphere we have to add in methane. That is an even stronger greenhouse gas.
We can also discuss oxygen, nitrogen, whatever, if you like as well since they are part of the atmosphere. But water vapor is remarkably constant in the atmosphere. And while it maybe a greenhouse gas it also provides albedo which CO2 (or any form of carbon in the atmosphere) does not.
The more predictions I make the better chance some will be true. And particularly if they are so general in nature as to be useless and impossible to support or refute.
Lots of AGW predictions have not come true.
None of the predictions you list have anything to do with AGW. They are just the results of climate change.
Lots of predictions regarding the theory of gravity (graviton anyone?) haven't been proven out either. So what? That is how we refine theories in science. Blaming science for being scientific is silly.
So far no one has refuted the evidence presented in any of the papers I have produced. If you do not have access to science DM your email address and I will send you a pdf from work tomorrow.
But really, the deniers are unwilling to examine the evidence because they do not like what it MIGHT mean for policy. And that is the definition of close minded.
I have heard whining about policy but nothing refuting the actual science.
Since you ignore any actual cites given to you, I will just stop replying.
It maybe more intellectually honest to be upfront and admit nothing will convince you.
Oh no, no no. Now they'll accuse you of not knowing anything. You could maybe cite a page from Skeptical Science. If they won't accept Science Magazine as a credible source, they might accept a blog. They really like their blogs on here. I just saw a whole thread started based on a post on Glen Beck's blog, as if that was some sort of credible news source.
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.