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.
Never fear- We will now be faced with the prospect of "global cooling". The same "global warming" loons will claim that man made CO2 is causing the cooling and will seek the usual "remedies":
increased taxes
limitations on industrial output
redistribution of wealth
a new jet for Al Gore
destroying the coal industry
raising electricity rates
It is now summer and my AC is running and using a lot of electric energy (according to my PEPCO bill) but the room I am in is confortably cool so its thermal energy is lower. But since energy is conserved the thermal energy of my house has increased because the energy brought in from the power line was not destroyed . I'll leave it up to the OP as to why this is not a contradiction. Understand such stuff and you will have a chance to talk about climate change with out talking nonsense.
With all the scientists telling us that through mans massive use of fossil fuels we are affecting our atmosphere in an abnormal/negative way, a quick Google search seems to give pause for concern and just maybe they know what they are talking about= https://www.google.ca/#safe=active&q...h+temperatures
As the atmosphere is what keeps life alive on this planet i'd certainly be erring on the side of caution on this issue.
Ultimately for all those rightwing arm chair key board commandos whose opinion is Global warming is all a hoax and we should do nothing, what are the consequences if you are wrong in your opinions about the state of our climate and the scientists are right?.
On the other hand what if all those that want to take seriously the scientists warnings and do something about this global warming trend are wrong and it all turns out to be a hoax?
I'd certainly take my chances with the latter course of action.
I don't think that cutting greenhouse gases enough to curb global warming requires radical sacrifices for every individual.
Sharing resources like computers isn't radical when you consider there are over 7 billion people on this planet. Let's say each person replaces their computer every 5 years and we only take into account 4 billion adults. That would be 8 billion computers each decade. Do you know what goes into making a computer?
You're looking at it in first world terms thinking that you get special exemptions because the rest of the world doesn't receive the same access to resources as you.
There are nearly a billion and a half people in the world who don't even have access to electricity - IEA - Energy poverty
As modern conveniences spread to the billions who don't have cell phones, computers, air conditioning, televisions, electric ovens, etc, etc, the per capita carbon footprint of the world is going to explode.
Should you receive some sort of special exemption?
Yes, the earth heats and cools periodically, but what you repeatedly, aggressively refuse to accept is that the existence of natural warming does not rule out the existence of anthropogenic warming.
What seems to be ruled out is the exaggerated claims of man-made warming, because for the past two decades there has not been any warming. They cannot claim human-induced CO2 is causing catastrophic man-made global warming, and then not have any warming, even though CO2 levels were still rising.
Do I think it would be great if we could cut back on CO2? Yes. Do I think it's such a dire threat that we need to cripple our economy? No!
If we want to find a replacement to fossil fuel energy, then we should be encouraging, promoting and helping our energy industry to find and develop a replacement. But instead we are punishing both the energy industry and it's consumers, with crippling and over burdensome taxes, regulations and policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Simply stating this over and over is like saying '1+1=2' over and over while other people are trying to talk about algebra.
Except the warmists claim 1+1=11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
And it has been proven that CO2 causes warming, and it has also been proven that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere. So....
And yet the planet is not warming as you people claimed it should. Nothing you have predicted has ever occurred. So obviously CO2 is not the all powerful climate forcing agent that you think it is, and you do not know as much as you think you do about the climate and how CO2 affects it.
What seems to be ruled out is the exaggerated claims of man-made warming, because for the past two decades there has not been any warming. They cannot claim human-induced CO2 is causing catastrophic man-made global warming, and then not have any warming, even though CO2 levels were still rising.
Do I think it would be great if we could cut back on CO2? Yes. Do I think it's such a dire threat that we need to cripple our economy? No!
If we want to find a replacement to fossil fuel energy, then we should be encouraging, promoting and helping our energy industry to find and develop a replacement. But instead we are punishing both the energy industry and it's consumers, with crippling and over burdensome taxes, regulations and policies.
Except the warmists claim 1+1=11
And yet the planet is not warming as you people claimed it should. Nothing you have predicted has ever occurred. So obviously CO2 is not the all powerful climate forcing agent that you think it is, and you do not know as much as you think you do about the climate and how CO2 affects it.
THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT. Earth is indeed warming up (i.e its Thermal energy is increasing). TEMPERATURE is not the same as thermal energy. The temperature of melting ice does not change and remains at zero dec C while ice remains to be melted or water remains to be frozen. Yet large amounts of heat energy are needed t melt ice or large amounts of energy are needed to freeze water into ice. So the planet may not show much temperature change until the last of the ice at the South pole melts and sea levels rise 100 meters or 300 ft for those who skipped that science class or forgot those child level science books in high school. CO2 is a warming agent as is oxygen nitrogen, ozone, hydrocarbon s and water. Any gas that has IR absorption bands is a greenhouse gas. Methane is a gas that increases the Greenhouse 100 times more than the equal amount of CO2 So farting might increase the Earths thermal energy more than driving a car to the Food Lion or Publix market! Most of the heat building up in the Earths environment is going to melt ice, heat up ocean waters and evaporate it too ( look at the increase in global cloud cover which paradoxically makes the air cooler under the clouds. But never take that to mean the thermal energy of the Earth is decreasing it is not. The Earth is getting darker in the IR as the DISCOVR spacecraft (The spacecraft suggested by Al Gore and originally named Triana) will illustrate. This is why the Earth will reflect less heat into space and store more heat in its thin layer of Oceans and atmosphere. Venus is completely cloud covered and reflects more solar radiation than the Earth but its surface is heated up to a nice 900 F or 500 C by the fact it has an atmosphere with 10,000 times the CO2 Earth it also has a lot of sulphur compounds that are good greenhouse gases too. In the IR it is the blackest object in the solar system and it acts like an optical light trap or black body standard used in our optical laboratories. Earth doesn't have to get this hot to exterminate mankind it only has to warm up to 45-50 deg C to do this.
"Done in by his stupidity" would be a poor epitaph for humanity.
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.
Here you go again with the null hypothesis bs....... Let me clear it up for you.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The following cases are examples where sufficient evidence has been presented and the null hypothesis can be rejected.
1 Climate change: that human influence has not changed Earth's climate.
2 Evolution: that species are not changed by natural selection to fit an ecological niche.
Given that the null hypothesis has been rejected it now falls to those who would wish to deny the evidence for global warming or evolution to present their counterarguments. The burden of proof is on them. The prior alternative hypothesis becomes the next default null hypothesis. Null hypothesis - RationalWiki
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.
