Largest Tide Water Glacier In N. America Greatly Expanding

I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable.
Same here.

Once one applies logic, analytical thought, scientific acid tests that have survived centuries (i.e. repeatability and falsifiability), and the history of Malthusian declinism and all its modern permutations, the anthropogenic global warming myth comes apart like a cheap suit.


I too was once an intellectually lazy believer in AGW. As a grad student I had many conversations with other like-minded, liberal leaning friends - we all thought we were destroying the planet and something must be done.

As an associate professsor I had the privilege of meeting a wide array of actual experts in the field of physics, geology, meteorology etc., and what I discovered is that there was far less uniformity regarding AGW than I had been led to believe during my days as a student, and one highly regarded and influrential professor in particular spent about an hour breaking down the debate into simple points of reason, and historical scientific context - something I had never been privy to before. I left that meeting with a far more willing mind to explore this topic for myself. (That professor has since gone on to national attention and I say good for him!)

Since having my eyes opened to the possibility the AGW premise was, and had always been, deeply flawed and politically motivated, I further explored the details of global warming in even greater detail.

This time has led me to the simple conclusion that humankind's influence on the global climate as it pertains to CO2 is minimal - far less than naturally occurring sources. Also, CO2 is not a poison - it is of great benefit to the planet. Earth temperatures have fluctuated throughout history, and were significantly warmer as recently as 70 years ago. Glaciers have retreated and reformed countless times. And lastly - there is immense pressure on universities to subscribe to the AGW theory due to the vast amounts of funding attached to AGW - that funding has corrupted the actual science.

AGW has become a religion - a leap of faith, and those within academia who denounce it, are called out as heritics.

The good news is common sense has started to return to this discussion, and more and more people are looking into the actual science behind the issue.

Examples such as Chris, Old Rocks, etc. are becoming the minority.

db_pew_poll_AGW.gif
 
The evidence of our impact is too great to ignore. There is a "plastic continent" twice the size of Texas floating in the Pacific ocean. If this was invisible, like CO2, the same fools would be claiming it was a hoax too. Unfortunately, we can see the bits of plastic that are a by product of human industrialization.

I don't know how much CO2 and warming are currently affecting us but smog, waste, water polltuion, oceanic trash heaps and a long, long list of other human impacts lead to the inevitable conclusion that our actions are threatening our own existence, not to mention the undeniable impact on other creatures we share the planet with.

You can certainly take the position that the planet is ours to use up for our existence and that is how it is meant to be. I pretty much lean in that direction. We will not destroy the world, the world will destroy us. We absolutely have the means to make the planet unfit for human life. It isn't a matter of whether you acknowledge that or not. If you don't, you're irrelevant to the real options. Use our resources and planet sparringly and preseve it for as many generations as possible, or get all you can while you live and damn the unborn.
 
The evidence of our impact is too great to ignore. There is a "plastic continent" twice the size of Texas floating in the Pacific ocean. If this was invisible, like CO2, the same fools would be claiming it was a hoax too. Unfortunately, we can see the bits of plastic that are a by product of human industrialization.

I don't know how much CO2 and warming are currently affecting us but smog, waste, water polltuion, oceanic trash heaps and a long, long list of other human impacts lead to the inevitable conclusion that our actions are threatening our own existence, not to mention the undeniable impact on other creatures we share the planet with.

You can certainly take the position that the planet is ours to use up for our existence and that is how it is meant to be. I pretty much lean in that direction. We will not destroy the world, the world will destroy us. We absolutely have the means to make the planet unfit for human life. It isn't a matter of whether you acknowledge that or not. If you don't, you're irrelevant to the real options. Use our resources and planet sparringly and preseve it for as many generations as possible, or get all you can while you live and damn the unborn.

Another variation on the logical fallacy known as Pascal's wager. Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Just more evidence that the AGW scaremongers are more akin to a religious cult than anything else.
 
The evidence of our impact is too great to ignore. There is a "plastic continent" twice the size of Texas floating in the Pacific ocean. If this was invisible, like CO2, the same fools would be claiming it was a hoax too. Unfortunately, we can see the bits of plastic that are a by product of human industrialization.

I don't know how much CO2 and warming are currently affecting us but smog, waste, water polltuion, oceanic trash heaps and a long, long list of other human impacts lead to the inevitable conclusion that our actions are threatening our own existence, not to mention the undeniable impact on other creatures we share the planet with.

You can certainly take the position that the planet is ours to use up for our existence and that is how it is meant to be. I pretty much lean in that direction. We will not destroy the world, the world will destroy us. We absolutely have the means to make the planet unfit for human life. It isn't a matter of whether you acknowledge that or not. If you don't, you're irrelevant to the real options. Use our resources and planet sparringly and preseve it for as many generations as possible, or get all you can while you live and damn the unborn.


I have no problem with logical attempts to curb overall pollution, which the United States has been doing successfully for decades.

It is the man-made Global Warming nonsense that wreaks havoc on the sensible approach to sound environmentalism.

Sound environmentalism does not offer up billions in profits and expanded control though - and so, man-made Global Warming is what is attempting to drive policy.
 
The evidence of our impact is too great to ignore. There is a "plastic continent" twice the size of Texas floating in the Pacific ocean. If this was invisible, like CO2, the same fools would be claiming it was a hoax too. Unfortunately, we can see the bits of plastic that are a by product of human industrialization.

I don't know how much CO2 and warming are currently affecting us but smog, waste, water polltuion, oceanic trash heaps and a long, long list of other human impacts lead to the inevitable conclusion that our actions are threatening our own existence, not to mention the undeniable impact on other creatures we share the planet with.

You can certainly take the position that the planet is ours to use up for our existence and that is how it is meant to be. I pretty much lean in that direction. We will not destroy the world, the world will destroy us. We absolutely have the means to make the planet unfit for human life. It isn't a matter of whether you acknowledge that or not. If you don't, you're irrelevant to the real options. Use our resources and planet sparringly and preseve it for as many generations as possible, or get all you can while you live and damn the unborn.

Another variation on the logical fallacy known as Pascal's wager. Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Just more evidence that the AGW scaremongers are more akin to a religious cult than anything else.

There is no "pascal's wager" there. I don't beleive anyhting but what I see. I can see the island of plastic. I can see dead fish. I can see dead birds with a belly full of bottle caps.

I can't see CO2. And neither can you. I make no claim one way or the other about it's effects, becasue I don't know. You DO make a cliam. But you don't know either. The only fallacy is yours pal.
 
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

Since 2001, the global temperature has been on a downward trend. During the same period, if we are to believe what you have been telling us, the additions to the planet's CO2 has been increasing. Also, the cummulative total has been increasing as has the rate of increase.

If CO2 was decreasing and the Global Temperature was dropping that would support your case.

If CO2 was increasing and the Global Temperature was increasing, THAT would support your case.

In the real world, CO2 has been increasing and the rate of increase has been increasing. The temperature has been falling. Your case seems to be falling apart.

If your assertion is correct, then natural law is being broken and all that we depend upon for consistancy in the universe is ending. If your assertion is wrong, then we may continue in the knowledge that natural law persists.

Since you are proposing something that is not proven and is not apparent, it is incumbant on you to prove it. Go ahead.

No my case is that CO2 will cause the Earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity, so my case has not "fallen apart." You have just misrepresented my case. Why? Because you have nothing left but lies.


That is only a part of your case. You have tied the warming of the planet to the rise of CO2 and tried to demonstrate that this warming is occurring caused primarily by CO2 and extending that to a prediction of dire consequence.

You have also tied a program of prudent reductions of the emissions of CO2 by Man to a way in which we can stop the warming and avoid the dire consequence. If CO2 is not a primary causer of the warming, reducing the amount of CO2 is a particularly stupid thing to do given the almost universal use for the stuff for the good of man.

You case seems to be that Man is affecting the climate, making it warmer, that this will ultimately be a bad thing and Man can undo this effect by reducing man-made emissions of CO2.

My case is that while Man is emitting CO2, the warming effect is so slight as to be unnoticable and I present as evidence the vascillation of temperature both up and down in the face of consistantly rising CO2 and the recent, 2001-2009, downward slide of temperature again in the face of consistantly rising CO2.

So, my challenge to you is to prove the case or drop it. I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable. Support it and I might go back to your side.

Once again, you misrepresent my case. You make a lot of assumptions.

I never said that CO2 was the primary cause for the earth warming. The primary cause of the earth warming is the sun. But CO2 works within the context of solar activity. The scientists at MIT estimate this effect will be to raise the Earth's average temperature 9 degrees by the end of this century.

Likewise, I never said that the rising in CO2 will be a bad thing. If the sun were to suddenly plunge into an Ice Age level of activity, CO2 warming might be a good thing. But the problem is that the BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere each year are causing the level of CO2 to rise continuously. That means every day that passes the effect of CO2 on the Earth's temperatures is greater and greater. And the positive feedback of arctic methane is starting to kick in, and that may have an even greater effect than the CO2. So the odds are that continuously raising the level of CO2 with no end in sight is going to have a dramatic effect on the people of the Earth.
 
Last edited:
No my case is that CO2 will cause the Earth to warm within the context of the Sun's activity, so my case has not "fallen apart." You have just misrepresented my case. Why? Because you have nothing left but lies.


That is only a part of your case. You have tied the warming of the planet to the rise of CO2 and tried to demonstrate that this warming is occurring caused primarily by CO2 and extending that to a prediction of dire consequence.

You have also tied a program of prudent reductions of the emissions of CO2 by Man to a way in which we can stop the warming and avoid the dire consequence. If CO2 is not a primary causer of the warming, reducing the amount of CO2 is a particularly stupid thing to do given the almost universal use for the stuff for the good of man.

You case seems to be that Man is affecting the climate, making it warmer, that this will ultimately be a bad thing and Man can undo this effect by reducing man-made emissions of CO2.

My case is that while Man is emitting CO2, the warming effect is so slight as to be unnoticable and I present as evidence the vascillation of temperature both up and down in the face of consistantly rising CO2 and the recent, 2001-2009, downward slide of temperature again in the face of consistantly rising CO2.

So, my challenge to you is to prove the case or drop it. I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable. Support it and I might go back to your side.

Once again, you misrepresent my case. You make a lot of assumptions.

I never said that CO2 was the primary cause for the earth warming. The primary cause of the earth warming is the sun. But CO2 works within the context of solar activity. The scientists at MIT estimate this effect will be to raise the Earth's average temperature 9 degrees by the end of this century.

Likewise, I never said that the rising in CO2 will be a bad thing. If the sun were to suddenly plunge into an Ice Age level of activity, CO2 warming might be a good thing. But the problem is that the BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere each year are causing the level of CO2 to rise continuously. That means every day that passes the effect of CO2 on the Earth's temperatures is greater and greater. And the positive feedback of arctic methane is starting to kick in, and that may have an even greater effect than the CO2. So the odds are that continuously raising the level of CO2 with no end in sight is going to have a dramatic effect on the people of the Earth.[/QUOTE]



Your saying that your not saying what you're saying and then you say it again.

Of course the Sun is the primary causer of climate on this planet. In what place do you put the effect of CO2?

The prediction of dire consequence is greatly appreciated as a thing of consistancy.
 
That is only a part of your case. You have tied the warming of the planet to the rise of CO2 and tried to demonstrate that this warming is occurring caused primarily by CO2 and extending that to a prediction of dire consequence.

You have also tied a program of prudent reductions of the emissions of CO2 by Man to a way in which we can stop the warming and avoid the dire consequence. If CO2 is not a primary causer of the warming, reducing the amount of CO2 is a particularly stupid thing to do given the almost universal use for the stuff for the good of man.

You case seems to be that Man is affecting the climate, making it warmer, that this will ultimately be a bad thing and Man can undo this effect by reducing man-made emissions of CO2.

My case is that while Man is emitting CO2, the warming effect is so slight as to be unnoticable and I present as evidence the vascillation of temperature both up and down in the face of consistantly rising CO2 and the recent, 2001-2009, downward slide of temperature again in the face of consistantly rising CO2.

So, my challenge to you is to prove the case or drop it. I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable. Support it and I might go back to your side.

Once again, you misrepresent my case. You make a lot of assumptions.

I never said that CO2 was the primary cause for the earth warming. The primary cause of the earth warming is the sun. But CO2 works within the context of solar activity. The scientists at MIT estimate this effect will be to raise the Earth's average temperature 9 degrees by the end of this century.

Likewise, I never said that the rising in CO2 will be a bad thing. If the sun were to suddenly plunge into an Ice Age level of activity, CO2 warming might be a good thing. But the problem is that the BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere each year are causing the level of CO2 to rise continuously. That means every day that passes the effect of CO2 on the Earth's temperatures is greater and greater. And the positive feedback of arctic methane is starting to kick in, and that may have an even greater effect than the CO2. So the odds are that continuously raising the level of CO2 with no end in sight is going to have a dramatic effect on the people of the Earth.[/QUOTE]



Your saying that your not saying what you're saying and then you say it again.

Of course the Sun is the primary causer of climate on this planet. In what place do you put the effect of CO2?

The prediction of dire consequence is greatly appreciated as a thing of consistancy.

Ouch.

It used to be kinda fun to watch you all kick Chris to the curb time and again regarding this topic - but now it's too much like picking on the stuttering kid. You feel a bit guilty watching the poor bastard getting defeated at every turn...
 
That is only a part of your case. You have tied the warming of the planet to the rise of CO2 and tried to demonstrate that this warming is occurring caused primarily by CO2 and extending that to a prediction of dire consequence.

You have also tied a program of prudent reductions of the emissions of CO2 by Man to a way in which we can stop the warming and avoid the dire consequence. If CO2 is not a primary causer of the warming, reducing the amount of CO2 is a particularly stupid thing to do given the almost universal use for the stuff for the good of man.

You case seems to be that Man is affecting the climate, making it warmer, that this will ultimately be a bad thing and Man can undo this effect by reducing man-made emissions of CO2.

My case is that while Man is emitting CO2, the warming effect is so slight as to be unnoticable and I present as evidence the vascillation of temperature both up and down in the face of consistantly rising CO2 and the recent, 2001-2009, downward slide of temperature again in the face of consistantly rising CO2.

So, my challenge to you is to prove the case or drop it. I was once a proponent of your side of the argument and found it to be unsupportable. Support it and I might go back to your side.

Once again, you misrepresent my case. You make a lot of assumptions.

I never said that CO2 was the primary cause for the earth warming. The primary cause of the earth warming is the sun. But CO2 works within the context of solar activity. The scientists at MIT estimate this effect will be to raise the Earth's average temperature 9 degrees by the end of this century.

Likewise, I never said that the rising in CO2 will be a bad thing. If the sun were to suddenly plunge into an Ice Age level of activity, CO2 warming might be a good thing. But the problem is that the BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere each year are causing the level of CO2 to rise continuously. That means every day that passes the effect of CO2 on the Earth's temperatures is greater and greater. And the positive feedback of arctic methane is starting to kick in, and that may have an even greater effect than the CO2. So the odds are that continuously raising the level of CO2 with no end in sight is going to have a dramatic effect on the people of the Earth.[/QUOTE]



Your saying that your not saying what you're saying and then you say it again.

Of course the Sun is the primary causer of climate on this planet. In what place do you put the effect of CO2?

The prediction of dire consequence is greatly appreciated as a thing of consistancy.

Why do you keep lying about what I am saying? Is it because you have no case of your own?

I never said anything about "dire consequences." I said "dramatic effects." If we are headed for another ice age, those effects could be positive, but the odds are they will not be.

All you can do is lie about my position. How sad for you.
 
Once again, you misrepresent my case. You make a lot of assumptions.

I never said that CO2 was the primary cause for the earth warming. The primary cause of the earth warming is the sun. But CO2 works within the context of solar activity. The scientists at MIT estimate this effect will be to raise the Earth's average temperature 9 degrees by the end of this century.

Likewise, I never said that the rising in CO2 will be a bad thing. If the sun were to suddenly plunge into an Ice Age level of activity, CO2 warming might be a good thing. But the problem is that the BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere each year are causing the level of CO2 to rise continuously. That means every day that passes the effect of CO2 on the Earth's temperatures is greater and greater. And the positive feedback of arctic methane is starting to kick in, and that may have an even greater effect than the CO2. So the odds are that continuously raising the level of CO2 with no end in sight is going to have a dramatic effect on the people of the Earth.




Your saying that your not saying what you're saying and then you say it again.

Of course the Sun is the primary causer of climate on this planet. In what place do you put the effect of CO2?

The prediction of dire consequence is greatly appreciated as a thing of consistancy.

Why do you keep lying about what I am saying? Is it because you have no case of your own?

I never said anything about "dire consequences." I said "dramatic effects." If we are headed for another ice age, those effects could be positive, but the odds are they will not be.

All you can do is lie about my position. How sad for you.

Really? Then why not start using facts yourself.
 
[/COLOR]



Your saying that your not saying what you're saying and then you say it again.

Of course the Sun is the primary causer of climate on this planet. In what place do you put the effect of CO2?

The prediction of dire consequence is greatly appreciated as a thing of consistancy.

Why do you keep lying about what I am saying? Is it because you have no case of your own?

I never said anything about "dire consequences." I said "dramatic effects." If we are headed for another ice age, those effects could be positive, but the odds are they will not be.

All you can do is lie about my position. How sad for you.

Really? Then why not start using facts yourself.


He needs Old Rocks to whisper "facts" in his ear.
 
[/COLOR]



Your saying that your not saying what you're saying and then you say it again.

Of course the Sun is the primary causer of climate on this planet. In what place do you put the effect of CO2?

The prediction of dire consequence is greatly appreciated as a thing of consistancy.

Why do you keep lying about what I am saying? Is it because you have no case of your own?

I never said anything about "dire consequences." I said "dramatic effects." If we are headed for another ice age, those effects could be positive, but the odds are they will not be.

All you can do is lie about my position. How sad for you.

Really? Then why not start using facts yourself.

I do. All you do is lie.
 
Once again, you misrepresent my case. You make a lot of assumptions.

I never said that CO2 was the primary cause for the earth warming. The primary cause of the earth warming is the sun. But CO2 works within the context of solar activity. The scientists at MIT estimate this effect will be to raise the Earth's average temperature 9 degrees by the end of this century.

Likewise, I never said that the rising in CO2 will be a bad thing. If the sun were to suddenly plunge into an Ice Age level of activity, CO2 warming might be a good thing. But the problem is that the BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere each year are causing the level of CO2 to rise continuously. That means every day that passes the effect of CO2 on the Earth's temperatures is greater and greater. And the positive feedback of arctic methane is starting to kick in, and that may have an even greater effect than the CO2. So the odds are that continuously raising the level of CO2 with no end in sight is going to have a dramatic effect on the people of the Earth.[/QUOTE]



Your saying that your not saying what you're saying and then you say it again.

Of course the Sun is the primary causer of climate on this planet. In what place do you put the effect of CO2?

The prediction of dire consequence is greatly appreciated as a thing of consistancy.

Ouch.

It used to be kinda fun to watch you all kick Chris to the curb time and again regarding this topic - but now it's too much like picking on the stuttering kid. You feel a bit guilty watching the poor bastard getting defeated at every turn...

,,,
 
Why do you keep lying about what I am saying? Is it because you have no case of your own?

I never said anything about "dire consequences." I said "dramatic effects." If we are headed for another ice age, those effects could be positive, but the odds are they will not be.

All you can do is lie about my position. How sad for you.

Really? Then why not start using facts yourself.

I do. All you do is lie.

Show me one lie that I have said.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top