The best argument against global warming

[IanC]

S Tuba- your link doesn't actually say much of anything. he admits the fraud of the global warming scientists but then just dismisses it. he acknowledges that the same genre of scientists thought that the world was cooling in the 70's but neglects to explain how the total about face came to be. but he is POSITIVE they got it right this time. what do you think the odds are that the same cadre of so called scientists will be back to declaring global cooling in 25 years? pretty high! they can't even make accurate measurements, let alone come up with supposedly iron-clad theories about how and why things are changing.

 

[Avatar4321]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

it's always great to see someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever insist all of the scientists in the world have got it wrong because he has a gut feeling.

Let me see - who should I believe on this one - Oreo or Stephen Hawking?

If you could point out a paper by Stephen Hawking about global warming, it might help your case. But I doubt he has written once since he is a theoretical physicist and doesn't work in that field.

So since Stephen Hawking doesn't work in that area, I have no reason to believe that he has any more expertise than Oreo does. In fact, since I don't know Oreo's level of expertise, there is quite a possibility that he is more qualified than Hawking is in this particular field.

As each and every one of us needs to analyze the evidence placed before us, which is the more logical conclusion:

1) The world is warming despite a decrease in tempature for the last 12 years. When notable scientists in this area have been exposed as making up data and ignoring data that is inconsistant with their theories. Where we are supposed to believe that every contradictory evidence supports this theory. That as the world warms up we are going to enter into an ice age. And how the theory is conveninently used in political circles to scare people into supporting economic policies that have previously been rejected as complete failures by their own merit

Or

2) The world has always been increasing and decreasing in tempature since it began as the evidence actually shows. That there is no specific tempature the world is supposed to be and that we as humans need to accept that and merely adapt like every other species in existance.

Tough choice really.

 

[Avatar4321]

Do you have any actual scientific arguments to make or would you prefer to just state how you feels things must be?

The fact that the tempature's been going down since 1998 isnt scientific enough?

That's where I stopped reading.

Course you did. Why on earth would you actually want to look at the data. That doesn't help your agenda does it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

he admits the fraud of the global warming scientists

He says nothing of the sort. If you're going to insist on simply fabricating facts to suit your argument then I'll just go ahead and say "you win" and find someone more intelligent to debate with.

 

[Sheldon]

The Climate-gate emails were a deliberate cover up of contrary data.

Why? Because global warming deniers say so? Well if they say so then it must be true.

Is that it?

We can have a look at those emails, if you want, but you'll be in quicksand if you're contending that those emails weren't an attempt to suppress data that didn't support a certain outcome.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

it's always great to see someone with absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever insist all of the scientists in the world have got it wrong because he has a gut feeling.

Let me see - who should I believe on this one - Oreo or Stephen Hawking?

If you could point out a paper by Stephen Hawking about global warming, it might help your case. But I doubt he has written once since he is a theoretical physicist and doesn't work in that field.

So since Stephen Hawking doesn't work in that area, I have no reason to believe that he has any more expertise than Oreo does. In fact, since I don't know Oreo's level of expertise, there is quite a possibility that he is more qualified than Hawking is in this particular field.

As each and every one of us needs to analyze the evidence placed before us, which is the more logical conclusion:

1) The world is warming despite a decrease in tempature for the last 12 years. When notable scientists in this area have been exposed as making up data and ignoring data that is inconsistant with their theories. Where we are supposed to believe that every contradictory evidence supports this theory. That as the world warms up we are going to enter into an ice age. And how the theory is conveninently used in political circles to scare people into supporting economic policies that have previously been rejected as complete failures by their own merit

Or

2) The world has always been increasing and decreasing in tempature since it began as the evidence actually shows. That there is no specific tempature the world is supposed to be and that we as humans need to accept that and merely adapt like every other species in existance.

Tough choice really.

You would have saved yourself a lot of typing by saying "My way or the highway!"

 

[Avatar4321]

The science of this was established in the 1860s, as you may be aware. It's not a particularly difficult thing to understand that if you place 1billion cars and 1 thousand coal fired power plants on earth, they will release staggering quantities of carbon.

And more carbon dioxide means more plant life which converts that carbon into oxygen so we can breath. It's an amazing thing called the circle of life.

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't work when you are clearing vegetation faster than its growing.

There is more vegetation now then the past 500 years. In fact, if the world actually was warming, there would be more tropical and temperate climates for vegetation. You see nature doesn't need us. It works fine on it's own. Sunlight + warmth + carbon dioxide + more moisture in the air = more plants.

You really don't understand how resilient life is on this planet do you? Who on earth taught you science?

You do realize we breath out carbon don't you? The logical conclusion of the global warming wackos is mass murder.

Wow. You don't understand math very well, do you?

I understand math quite fine. Which is exactly why the logical solution to the global warming "problem" is to kill the humans. That's what makes you people so incredibly dangerous. Creating a phoney problem caused just because humans breath out. It's insane.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The fact that the tempature's been going down since 1998 isnt scientific enough?

That's where I stopped reading.

Course you did. Why on earth would you actually want to look at the data. That doesn't help your agenda does it?

The statement : "The fact that the tempature's been going down since 1998" is clearly evidence that what follows will not have anything to do with data or science.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We can have a look at those emails,

We could take a look at the stolen emails, but then they'd be explained to you, and you wouldn't understand and/or like the explanations, so what would be the point? The fact your more interested in stolen emails than anything else is clear proof the science doesn't mean much to you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Maybe you should actually provide evidence for Global warming. You can start by providing scientific evidence demonstrating what tempature the earth is supposed to be. Which wont be easy since the earth has been shifting tempatures for billions of years.

.

Well, we know for a simple and undisputed fact that.

- 95% of all glaciers worldwide are in retreat, with the pace of retrreat having sped up since 1950

- that ocean PH levels are changing

- that arctic sea ice is thinning every year

- that the western antarctic ice shelf is collapsing

- that global mean temperatures are rising

- that ocean levels are rising

- that countries like spain and australia are experiencing unprecedented drought.

How would you explain these factors?

Lumpy -

I treat every serious poster with respect. I don't think those that limit themselves to one liners, abuse and off-topic attacks warrant the same treatment.

I would explain them as being the mind child of the easily duped.

Of course ice melts every year. It's called summer. It refreezes in the winter.

Draughts have happened for millions of years. Since the beginning of human history there have been countless records of draughts. Though apparently all the rain and snow fall is due to global warming too. You guys need to stop claiming that everything proves global warming because it just shows how phoney your theories are.

And as mentioned before global tempatures have gone down for the past 12 years. Why do you think they started changing global warming to climate change. The earth isnt warming.

 

[Avatar4321]

S Tuba- your link doesn't actually say much of anything. he admits the fraud of the global warming scientists but then just dismisses it. he acknowledges that the same genre of scientists thought that the world was cooling in the 70's but neglects to explain how the total about face came to be. but he is POSITIVE they got it right this time. what do you think the odds are that the same cadre of so called scientists will be back to declaring global cooling in 25 years? pretty high! they can't even make accurate measurements, let alone come up with supposedly iron-clad theories about how and why things are changing.

They've already started to. It's why they changed global warming into climate change. Because the tempatures just arent warming up enough.

 

[Sodafin]

Maybe you should actually provide evidence for Global warming. You can start by providing scientific evidence demonstrating what tempature the earth is supposed to be. Which wont be easy since the earth has been shifting tempatures for billions of years.

.

Well, we know for a simple and undisputed fact that.

- 95% of all glaciers worldwide are in retreat, with the pace of retrreat having sped up since 1950

- that ocean PH levels are changing

- that arctic sea ice is thinning every year

- that the western antarctic ice shelf is collapsing

- that global mean temperatures are rising

- that ocean levels are rising

- that countries like spain and australia are experiencing unprecedented drought.

How would you explain these factors?

Lumpy -

I treat every serious poster with respect. I don't think those that limit themselves to one liners, abuse and off-topic attacks warrant the same treatment.

I would explain them as being the mind child of the easily duped.

Of course ice melts every year. It's called summer. It refreezes in the winter.

And as mentioned before global tempatures have gone down for the past 12 years. Why do you think they started changing global warming to climate change. The earth isnt warming.

You've got to laugh, haven't you?

A dozen different surveys establish that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in rapid retreat, and your explanation is that they melt every summer?

And you wonder that people aren't taking your thoughts very seriously?

btw, Stephen Hawking HAS addressed climate change issues.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There is more vegetation now then the past 500 years.

Link?

It works fine on it's own. Sunlight + warmth + carbon dioxide + more moisture in the air = more plants.

Really? So if I cut those plants down, nature will magically grow them back overnight while I sleep?

You really don't understand how resilient life is on this planet do you? Who on earth taught you science?

How resilient is it? Please quantify in units of resiliency.

I understand math quite fine. Which is exactly why the logical solution to the global warming "problem" is to kill the humans.

That's as logical a solution to the global warming problem as amputating one's legs is a solution to being overweight - yes - both will solve the problem - but not in a good way.

If you're actually interested in solutions to GW other than killing everyone, let us know! But you aren't.

That's what makes you people so incredibly dangerous.

You're the idiot who suggested the only solution was to exterminate the human population, not me.


But I am glad to see you using scientific arguments - finally. "You are dangerous and want to kill humanity" is a great scientific argument, it clearly demonstrates your willingness to debate real science.

 

[Avatar4321]

You would have saved yourself a lot of typing by saying "My way or the highway!"

True. But as that isn't what I said, it would have been pointless to say that.

However, since you lack the intellectual honesty to actually discuss the topic you started, I doubt I'll have much more to say.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's why they changed global warming into climate change. Because the tempatures just arent warming up enough.

Nope, that's not why. But you don't actually care why, so don't pretend.

 

[Sodafin]

It's why they changed global warming into climate change. Because the tempatures just arent warming up enough.

I'm just amazed that people find this tuff so difficult to understand.


This is the fundemental difference between weather and climate. Even in a warming climate we will still get individual weather systems which will bring ‘miserable’ weather. There is indisputable evidence that the climate is changing. The average global surface temperature has risen by 0.6 °C in the past 140 years. Globally, nine out of the ten hottest years ever recorded have occurred since 1990. Here in the UK, four out of five of the hottest years ever recorded over a 330-year period have occurred since then.

Met Office: Climate change - Frequently asked questions

 

[SpidermanTuba]

However, since you lack the intellectual honesty to actually discuss the topic you started....

How would you even know?

 

[Sheldon]

We can have a look at those emails,

We could take a look at the stolen emails, but then they'd be explained to you, and you wouldn't understand and/or like the explanations, so what would be the point? The fact your more interested in stolen emails than anything else is clear proof the science doesn't mean much to you.

Nice bluster, but I responded to the author's assertion that they were "tiny errors", and not an example--however isolated--of politicized science. They were deliberate, not errors. He downplayed that, but I don't like when science gets twisted for policy goals.

Try again, Tuba.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We can have a look at those emails,

We could take a look at the stolen emails, but then they'd be explained to you, and you wouldn't understand and/or like the explanations, so what would be the point? The fact your more interested in stolen emails than anything else is clear proof the science doesn't mean much to you.

Nice bluster, but I responded to the author's assertion that they were "tiny errors",

I'm not sure what that has to do with the stolen emails. You're confusing your climategates. He was referring to errors in the massive IPCC reports.

They were deliberate, not errors.

I'm not even sure if its worth asking this, but I will dare to be bold and inquire how the fuck do you know?

 

[Sheldon]

Have you seen the emails, Spiderman?

No you know what? If you had, you wouldn't have asked that question in the first place. By your own admission, it doesn't matter in the context of the GW debate. This is a red herring.