Another factor to debunk global warming

that is a very strong argument against us causing global warming. regardless, we need to be researching alternative energy sources or more efficient ways to use what we are using. i recall a press release in my environmental ethics course a few years ago, it was about 3m and their waste reduction. it's not about saving the environment, it's about "waste" which is just that, wasted resources that could be turned into profit.



And THAT is the reason to pursue and develop more "Earth Friendly" energy alternatives along with the whole, "Why give so much money to Bronze Age cultures that want to make the rest of us into a Bronze Age culture, too" thingy.

Still, though, we must be wary of our "experts". It is the government experts that assured that if we drilled only in deep water, we would be guarenteed that no oil spilled from a deep water well would ever reach shore. So much for the 'experts".

Responsibly pursuing clean energy and aggressively trying to free ouselves from the use of fossil fuels is a purely economic goal. Tying it to Global Warming is a swindle.

As an economic goal it makes sense and is supportable rationally.

As a method to avoid Global Warming, it's a snake oil solution to a problem that isn't a problem.
 
Aah ... but here's the thing ... all environut scientists do, and most do for more funding (as with many studies). It was actually an eye opener for many people, but not in helpful way to the hoaxers of GW. It demonstrated just how far the "love everything" people will go just to make a point, and money. When science gets too muddied with so much exaggeration and lies it becomes more and more difficult to find the truth, and the truth is never as simple as "if we do A then B will happen", as any real scientist will tell you.

Very true, that's why I'm not a big fan of computer modeling, but the facts remain the same, all data gathering shows were warming.

...because the data is cherrypicked to produce the desired result.


The problem is that NOT all data shows we are warming.

It is only if we track temperatures over a specific period, in the case of the AGW proponents, between 1750 and today, we find warming. That the warming probably started prior to that is ignored.

That the warming started after a sudden cooling is ignored. That the warming started during an 8000 year period of cooling is ignored. That the warming has not warmed us to the point we were at 8000 years ago is ignored.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
 
That's not proof of anything, but that you don't grasp the subject. Those that do, discuss it. Those that don't, talk about Gore.


I believe in the real science not the junk science. It's natural and not man made.


This is how REAL SCIENCE works.

The infra-red absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


What's junk about that?


What makes it junk is that you are ignoring the other million or so variables that must be used in the equation.
 
This is how REAL SCIENCE works.

The infra-red absorption characteristics of CO2 and other GHGs are well documented.

The concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, including some potent ones not found in nature, has been going up since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.


What's junk about that?
Pretending that those are the only factors driving climate.


Not pretending anything. Just trying to show the logic of the situation. What's wrong with what I said? Just because there are other factors effecting climate, doesn't change what I presented. They're irrelevant to the syllogism provided. Find the flaw and I'll come to your side. Warning, so far no one's been able to. Throwing out irrelevancies not dealing directly with the three lines presented isn't an argument, it's a logical fallacy.


The most recent warming started before the industrial Revolution.

If the warming started before the causes you claim caused the warming, then you are arguing that the future caused the past. No?
 
Planets warm and Planets cool. Humans and other animals on Earth will either adapt or they wont. All this hysterical fear mongering really is pointless unless you see big money in it. The Polar Bears will either adapt to the Planet warming or they wont. It really is that simple in the end. It is what it is.
 
Very true, that's why I'm not a big fan of computer modeling, but the facts remain the same, all data gathering shows were warming.

...because the data is cherrypicked to produce the desired result.


The problem is that NOT all data shows we are warming.

It is only if we track temperatures over a specific period, in the case of the AGW proponents, between 1750 and today, we find warming. That the warming probably started prior to that is ignored.

That the warming started after a sudden cooling is ignored. That the warming started during an 8000 year period of cooling is ignored. That the warming has not warmed us to the point we were at 8000 years ago is ignored.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

If you're saying that data is being ignored, you're lying. That's just the Climategate hoaxers trying to fudge the data, all the while screaming that the other side is doing it. From years of officiating sports leagues, I've learned that the people to watch most closely are those who constantly compain that others are cheating. That's the deniers' M.O., because it's all they really have.
 
...because the data is cherrypicked to produce the desired result.


The problem is that NOT all data shows we are warming.

It is only if we track temperatures over a specific period, in the case of the AGW proponents, between 1750 and today, we find warming. That the warming probably started prior to that is ignored.

That the warming started after a sudden cooling is ignored. That the warming started during an 8000 year period of cooling is ignored. That the warming has not warmed us to the point we were at 8000 years ago is ignored.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

If you're saying that data is being ignored, you're lying. That's just the Climategate hoaxers trying to fudge the data, all the while screaming that the other side is doing it. From years of officiating sports leagues, I've learned that the people to watch most closely are those who constantly compain that others are cheating. That's the deniers' M.O., because it's all they really have.


I'm not saying that the "scientists", that term sounds so monolithic, ignor the data. It is the proponents who ignor it. You ignored what I said in your response. So much for my "lie".

We are nowhere near as warm as we have ever been in a planetary sense. We are nowhere near the highest concentration of CO2 ever. Even during this Intergalcial which seems unique among Interglacials in its stability, duration and societal evolution, we have been warmer than we are now.

In order for a panic to cause action, there should really be some basis for the panic besides Chicken Little hysteria. I have asked pretty consistantly for proof that a disaster is in the offing. From Dr. James Hansen who missed his prediction by 300% to old Rocks, the evidence of superior knowledge of what is happening is missing and the call to extreme action is empty.

You are welcome to prove your case.
 
...because the data is cherrypicked to produce the desired result.


The problem is that NOT all data shows we are warming.

It is only if we track temperatures over a specific period, in the case of the AGW proponents, between 1750 and today, we find warming. That the warming probably started prior to that is ignored.

That the warming started after a sudden cooling is ignored. That the warming started during an 8000 year period of cooling is ignored. That the warming has not warmed us to the point we were at 8000 years ago is ignored.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

If you're saying that data is being ignored, you're lying. That's just the Climategate hoaxers trying to fudge the data, all the while screaming that the other side is doing it. From years of officiating sports leagues, I've learned that the people to watch most closely are those who constantly compain that others are cheating. That's the deniers' M.O., because it's all they really have.






Climategate hoaxers?:lol::rofl::rofl: :lol:

Now I know for sure you're lost. Anyone who can possibly have that belief AFTER Phil Jones admitted it was all true is simply not a sane individual. You need some help my friend.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top