Can you really trust the science of global warming?

[RightyTighty]

What, you've falsified the greenhouse gas theory? Until you do falsify it you really can accept it as the best knowledge we have.

Nope. The greenhouse theory is still viable. What has not been shown to be viable is the human attribution. Mankind adds a mere five percent of the entire global budget of CO2 to the mix. Five percent. Add to that the fact that greenhouses are CLOSED systems, and the Earth is not, and the theory works very well in a small, controlled environment. Expand the region to the planet however and the theory fails.

The very mechanism of AGW is the theory that CO2 backscatters long wave IR back to the ground which reheats it. I challenge you to go to the desert sometime.
There you will discover that the heat retained by the ground is lost incredibly quickly. On the other hand, if you are on the beach in that same desert you will find the temperature is very pleasant throughout the night. That is because the ocean acts as a giant heat sink.

Now we get to the problem. Long wave IR doesn't heat water. Not even a tiny little bit because it is incapable of penetrating the skin of the water. UV radiation is the only mechanism that can heat the oceans as it is capable of penetrating to a depth of several hundred meters. Thus the very mechanism that could be in operation fails its very first test.

That's how science works. You promote a hypothesis and then you test it. If it fails you try something else. AGW supporters have failed every test, so now they just falsify their results.

So, all these scientists that agree with man-made climate change, the vast majority, are wrong but you are right?

What, you mean all three hundred or so of them? Yes, I am correct, and they are wrong.

Good to know. And just look at you, here, doing what you do. The future is (much safer).

Indeed it is. Having a scientist, a real scientist who is able to decode the nonsense of the AGW supporters is essential. That's why I'm here.

And do you think you have changed the mind of anyone, ever?

And what if you are wrong and they are right? And what if there was no money involved, would you still oppose say - solar energy, the burning of less fossil fuels?

 

[RightyTighty]

AGW has zero to do with science

That must be why scientists study it.

Q. How much must we reduce CO2 in order to stop manmade global Warming?
A. $15 Trillion

$15 trillion? Where'd you get that number from? What if it can't be stopped at all?

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm not hysterical. When my doctor tells me I am killing myself - I tend to listen.

The sun has finished it's solar max stage and is going into it's cooler minimum phase. You're gonna make it RT!

I'm not concerned (greatly). I want humanity to - end itself (and it will - given time).

"I'm not concerned (greatly). I want humanity to - end itself (and it will - given time)"

This is the first TRUTHFUL THING you have EVER SAID ABOUT LIBERALISM AND THE GLOBALIST AGENDA SINCE YOU JOINED USMB!
The left preaches doctrines of death and sings sonnets of slavery. There is nothing honest and uplifting, or freeing about The Leftist Collectivist Agenda.

With large parts of humanity being made up of people like you and those here, the death of the species would be a blessing.

In other words, you are a blind fanatic with a closed Myopic and Stagnant Mind, and you have no intelligent rebuttal to offer.
Like I said, if you are committed to your cause, your belief that CO2 is a poison, how about you simply quit exhaling it.

I am committed to - humans change things (and not for the better). I don't treat science as faith (or vice versa).

 

[westwall]

Only if 3.5 Billion of them on the Left would stop polluting the atmosphere by breathing.
All the CO2 and Hot Air generated by their piles of lies is giving the planet a fever.
And Lefty is The Virus.

So, you have no answer? Okay.

I gave you my answer.
How is CO2 a poison if people exhale it, and plants inhale it? It's essential to life on Earth, yet you want to eradicate it and tax it, and classify it as a poison.
If you believe that, then save the planet by you and 3.5 Billion of your whackadoodle fanatic brethren cease in polluting the atmosphere by breathing.

I made a bunch of points upstream. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand them.....there are the answers to questions which you really don't want to know the truth about anyways.

It's really simple. If one truly believes in a cause, they will die for it. So save the planet and quit breathing.

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

Who says? The planet is capable of supporting well over 10 billion with no technology. With tech the number jumps to 40 billion. Right now the population is going to peak at 9 billion and then taper off to around 6 billion, all with no need to murder people as you progressives love to do.

Murder people? They seem to be pretty good at that without my help.

Progressives are better at mass murder than all of the religions of the world combined over the last 2000 years. That is part of the AGW mantra which is "we need to reduce the human population" and you stipulated that in one of your posts here. Every "solution" for the "global warming problem" seems to revolve around massive government control and ultimately a mass reduction in population.

Correct me if I'm wrong. With evidence of course.

 

[The Original Tree]

I wonder, do you think seven billion people doing what they do changes anything at all?

Only if 3.5 Billion of them on the Left would stop polluting the atmosphere by breathing.
All the CO2 and Hot Air generated by their piles of lies is giving the planet a fever.
And Lefty is The Virus.

So, you have no answer? Okay.

I gave you my answer.
How is CO2 a poison if people exhale it, and plants inhale it? It's essential to life on Earth, yet you want to eradicate it and tax it, and classify it as a poison.
If you believe that, then save the planet by you and 3.5 Billion of your whackadoodle fanatic brethren cease in polluting the atmosphere by breathing.

I made a bunch of points upstream. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand them.....there are the answers to questions which you really don't want to know the truth about anyways.

It's really simple. If one truly believes in a cause, they will die for it. So save the planet and quit breathing.

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

Who says? The planet is capable of supporting well over 10 billion with no technology. With tech the number jumps to 40 billion. Right now the population is going to peak at 9 billion and then taper off to around 6 billion, all with no need to murder people as you progressives love to do.

We can support even more than that if we actually could find a way to increase CO2.

Read anything about Terraforming and there are three primary things you have to do.

1.) Is get the temperature of a planet within a range to allow for water to be in a liquid state primarily. CO2 cannot do that. You need another method. If that were true, Mars would have life and be warmer. It's atmosphere is mostly CO2.

You need plate tectonics and a large moon to create tidal forces upon the planet and it's crust and to keep a planet's core spinning to generate a magnetic field which will block out harmful radiation.

So the first thing you would do is find a way to do the impossible..... Place a moon in orbit roughly about a 3rd the size of your planet. Our moon is 27% of The Earth. so roughly a 3rd is what you need, and the orbit has to be a specific distance from your planet. Too far and it spins away in to space. Too close and it crashes in to your planet. It has to be perfectly distanced.

2.) Once you do that, The Carbon Cycle can begin on that planet. That means chemical weathering can occur, and CO2 can be released from rock and OXIDIZE which means the Carbon separates from the O2 leaving you with Oxygen (small amounts, but yes O2). OMG... Isn't REAL SCIENCE FUN?

3.) Once the Carbon Cycle Begins you can then plant small areas of crops in enriched soil, because chemical processes allow CO2 to break down to O2 and Hydrogen to combine with O2 make H20 or water. From there the plants can then use the minerals in the soil, and they can be broken down and absorbed by the roots. The plants release more Oxygen which in turn helps to break down more CO2 which then begins to feed the Carbon Cycle. As the atmosphere becomes thicker and richer in usable CO2 and O2, life can become possible. Things like precipitation can occur. Weather patterns emerge.

Anyone who has really studied science in depth will admit that even an advanced civilization would have nearly an impossible time terraforming a planet.

And I have not even spoken about the importance of having a tilted axis, and the importance of The Seasons in maintaining habitable conditions on Planet Earth.

Earth is a Miracle whether you believe in God or not. Too many impossible and miraculous things had to happen to make life possible.

To think that "MAN" can control the Climate on Earth, control the Carbon Cycle, even to change it just an imperceptible immeasurable fraction is a deluded game only Fools Play with their own primitive minds.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW has zero to do with science

That must be why scientists study it.

Q. How much must we reduce CO2 in order to stop manmade global Warming?
A. $15 Trillion

$15 trillion? Where'd you get that number from? What if it can't be stopped at all?

Why can't it be stopped?

 

[westwall]

Nope. The greenhouse theory is still viable. What has not been shown to be viable is the human attribution. Mankind adds a mere five percent of the entire global budget of CO2 to the mix. Five percent. Add to that the fact that greenhouses are CLOSED systems, and the Earth is not, and the theory works very well in a small, controlled environment. Expand the region to the planet however and the theory fails.

The very mechanism of AGW is the theory that CO2 backscatters long wave IR back to the ground which reheats it. I challenge you to go to the desert sometime.
There you will discover that the heat retained by the ground is lost incredibly quickly. On the other hand, if you are on the beach in that same desert you will find the temperature is very pleasant throughout the night. That is because the ocean acts as a giant heat sink.

Now we get to the problem. Long wave IR doesn't heat water. Not even a tiny little bit because it is incapable of penetrating the skin of the water. UV radiation is the only mechanism that can heat the oceans as it is capable of penetrating to a depth of several hundred meters. Thus the very mechanism that could be in operation fails its very first test.

That's how science works. You promote a hypothesis and then you test it. If it fails you try something else. AGW supporters have failed every test, so now they just falsify their results.

So, all these scientists that agree with man-made climate change, the vast majority, are wrong but you are right?

What, you mean all three hundred or so of them? Yes, I am correct, and they are wrong.

Good to know. And just look at you, here, doing what you do. The future is (much safer).

Indeed it is. Having a scientist, a real scientist who is able to decode the nonsense of the AGW supporters is essential. That's why I'm here.

And do you think you have changed the mind of anyone, ever?

And what if you are wrong and they are right? And what if there was no money involved, would you still oppose say - solar energy, the burning of less fossil fuels?

Yes. Several. And on this Board. Over the last seven years that I have been here I have helped dozens of people understand the science, and the stunning lack thereof on the part of the AGW supporters, and they have gone on to do the same with their groups. Dealing with religious nuts, such as yourself, is very helpful. Your points are so easy to dispose of you are the perfect foil to show the failings of AGW theory, and how the supporters have nothing to back up their BS.

 

[RightyTighty]

So, you have no answer? Okay.

I gave you my answer.
How is CO2 a poison if people exhale it, and plants inhale it? It's essential to life on Earth, yet you want to eradicate it and tax it, and classify it as a poison.
If you believe that, then save the planet by you and 3.5 Billion of your whackadoodle fanatic brethren cease in polluting the atmosphere by breathing.

I made a bunch of points upstream. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand them.....there are the answers to questions which you really don't want to know the truth about anyways.

It's really simple. If one truly believes in a cause, they will die for it. So save the planet and quit breathing.

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

Who says? The planet is capable of supporting well over 10 billion with no technology. With tech the number jumps to 40 billion. Right now the population is going to peak at 9 billion and then taper off to around 6 billion, all with no need to murder people as you progressives love to do.

Murder people? They seem to be pretty good at that without my help.

Progressives are better at mass murder than all of the religions of the world combined over the last 2000 years. That is part of the AGW mantra which is "we need to reduce the human population" and you stipulated that in one of your posts here. Every "solution" for the "global warming problem" seems to revolve around massive government control and ultimately a mass reduction in population.

Correct me if I'm wrong. With evidence of course.

People trying to save the planet for humanity (and others) are not - in general, planning to slaughter humanity. For that you just let humans do what they do - kill each other off.

 

[westwall]

Only if 3.5 Billion of them on the Left would stop polluting the atmosphere by breathing.
All the CO2 and Hot Air generated by their piles of lies is giving the planet a fever.
And Lefty is The Virus.

So, you have no answer? Okay.

I gave you my answer.
How is CO2 a poison if people exhale it, and plants inhale it? It's essential to life on Earth, yet you want to eradicate it and tax it, and classify it as a poison.
If you believe that, then save the planet by you and 3.5 Billion of your whackadoodle fanatic brethren cease in polluting the atmosphere by breathing.

I made a bunch of points upstream. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand them.....there are the answers to questions which you really don't want to know the truth about anyways.

It's really simple. If one truly believes in a cause, they will die for it. So save the planet and quit breathing.

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

Who says? The planet is capable of supporting well over 10 billion with no technology. With tech the number jumps to 40 billion. Right now the population is going to peak at 9 billion and then taper off to around 6 billion, all with no need to murder people as you progressives love to do.

We can support even more than that if we actually could find a way to increase CO2.

Read anything about Terraforming and there are two primary things you have to do.

1.) is get the temperature of a planet within a range to allow for water to be in a liquid state primarily.
CO2 cannot do that. You need plate tectonics and a large moon to create tidal forces upon the planet and to keep a planets core spinning to generate a magnetic field.
So the first thing you would do is find a way to do the impossible..... Place a moon in orbit roughly about a 3rd the size of your planet. Our moon is 27% of The Earth.

2.) Once you do that, The Carbon Cycle can begin on that planet. That means chemical weathering can occur, and CO2 can be released from rock and OXIDIZE which means the Carbon separates from the O2 leaving you with Oxygen (small amounts, but yes O2). OMG... Isn't REAL SCIENCE FUN?

3.) Once the Carbon Cycle Begins you can then plant small areas of crops in enriched soil, because the minerals can be broken down and absorbed by the roots. The plants release more Oxygen which in turn helps to break down more CO2 which then begins to feed the Carbon Cycle. As the atmosphere becomes richer in usable CO2 and O2, life can become possible. Things like precipitation can occur.

Anyone who has really studied science in depth will admit that even an advanced civilization would have nearly an impossible time terraforming a planet.
Earth is a Miracle whether you believe in God or not. Too many impossible and miraculous things had to happen to make life possible.

Already have and many, many years ago. That's where the 40 billion population number comes from.

 

[westwall]

I gave you my answer.
How is CO2 a poison if people exhale it, and plants inhale it? It's essential to life on Earth, yet you want to eradicate it and tax it, and classify it as a poison.
If you believe that, then save the planet by you and 3.5 Billion of your whackadoodle fanatic brethren cease in polluting the atmosphere by breathing.

I made a bunch of points upstream. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand them.....there are the answers to questions which you really don't want to know the truth about anyways.

It's really simple. If one truly believes in a cause, they will die for it. So save the planet and quit breathing.

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

Who says? The planet is capable of supporting well over 10 billion with no technology. With tech the number jumps to 40 billion. Right now the population is going to peak at 9 billion and then taper off to around 6 billion, all with no need to murder people as you progressives love to do.

Murder people? They seem to be pretty good at that without my help.

Progressives are better at mass murder than all of the religions of the world combined over the last 2000 years. That is part of the AGW mantra which is "we need to reduce the human population" and you stipulated that in one of your posts here. Every "solution" for the "global warming problem" seems to revolve around massive government control and ultimately a mass reduction in population.

Correct me if I'm wrong. With evidence of course.

People trying to save the planet for humanity (and others) are not - in general, planning to slaughter humanity. For that you just let humans do what they do - kill each other off.

Oh? How does one reduce population?

 

[RightyTighty]

AGW has zero to do with science

That must be why scientists study it.

Q. How much must we reduce CO2 in order to stop manmade global Warming?
A. $15 Trillion

$15 trillion? Where'd you get that number from? What if it can't be stopped at all?

Why can't it be stopped?

Because it's too late. We are past the tipping point.

 

[cnm]

So, you don't believe the ones distributing our money, but you do believe that giving our money away somehow makes for nicer weather. Let's see where the conspiracy really lies, leftie:

I believe in data, not fuckwit conspiracy theories. The scientific data has consensus. Nor does the solution to the problem have a bearing on the data.

 

[RightyTighty]

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

Who says? The planet is capable of supporting well over 10 billion with no technology. With tech the number jumps to 40 billion. Right now the population is going to peak at 9 billion and then taper off to around 6 billion, all with no need to murder people as you progressives love to do.

Murder people? They seem to be pretty good at that without my help.

Progressives are better at mass murder than all of the religions of the world combined over the last 2000 years. That is part of the AGW mantra which is "we need to reduce the human population" and you stipulated that in one of your posts here. Every "solution" for the "global warming problem" seems to revolve around massive government control and ultimately a mass reduction in population.

Correct me if I'm wrong. With evidence of course.

People trying to save the planet for humanity (and others) are not - in general, planning to slaughter humanity. For that you just let humans do what they do - kill each other off.

Oh? How does one reduce population?

One lets humanity do what it does best - destroy itself.

 

[cnm]

Nope. The greenhouse theory is still viable. What has not been shown to be viable is the human attribution.

Yeah, whatever. I've seen you conflate relative and absolute humidity to suck in a rube.

 

[westwall]

So, you don't believe the ones distributing our money, but you do believe that giving our money away somehow makes for nicer weather. Let's see where the conspiracy really lies, leftie:

I believe in data, not fuckwit conspiracy theories. The scientific data has consensus. Nor does the solution to the problem have a bearing on the data.

Fine. Present us with some data. Not computer models, which anyone with a brain knows is not data, but real, empirical, non screwed with data.

 

[westwall]

Nope. The greenhouse theory is still viable. What has not been shown to be viable is the human attribution.

Yeah, whatever. I've seen you conflate relative and absolute humidity to suck in a rube.

Partially. But the long wave IR issue is factual. Your opinion, isn't.

 

[RightyTighty]

I'm still wondering, if it's too late to do anything, the world will just fall apart, are you still going to say that humans had nothing to do with it?

 

[bripat9643]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

 

[The Original Tree]

So, you have no answer? Okay.

I gave you my answer.
How is CO2 a poison if people exhale it, and plants inhale it? It's essential to life on Earth, yet you want to eradicate it and tax it, and classify it as a poison.
If you believe that, then save the planet by you and 3.5 Billion of your whackadoodle fanatic brethren cease in polluting the atmosphere by breathing.

I made a bunch of points upstream. If you have the intellectual capacity to understand them.....there are the answers to questions which you really don't want to know the truth about anyways.

It's really simple. If one truly believes in a cause, they will die for it. So save the planet and quit breathing.

The planet should have 1/10th the number of humans living on it currently. And the planet is no the issue - the ability of us to live on it is.

I say people change things - you say they don't. One of us has a future and it isn't you.

People change nothing. The sun determines how warm or cold we are. SCIENCE calls it Solar Maximum and Solar Minimum, and there isn't a thing people or cows or volcanoes can do to change it. Your carbon footprint is the same as a golden retriever's where the sun is concerned.
Keep your money and enjoy the weather like the thriving polar bears are doing.....

It's a carbon based planet and there is a carbon cycle. CO2 has actually decreased over time as more and more of it gets locked in volcanic rock, and the oceans, sedimentary rock. Some of this is released by Chemical Weathering in to the cycle again and volcanism and life processes. But the Idiots calling it a poison have a political agenda, and they really don't give a phuck about science despite the fact they have Science degrees.

Same as Liberal School teachers don't give a phuck about actually educating children, they want to indoctrinate them in to PC culture and Liberal Theology.

PC culture and Liberal Theology? Be nice to other kids and other religions have rights? Terrible, just terrible.

Separation of Church and State means that our Tax Dollars should not go to fund Pseudo Science and the Followers of The Church of Climatology.

 

[RightyTighty]

Science is science and it is a political by it's nature. An example would be the theory of relativity or quantum theory. There is no politics in that so the people who work on these ideas can't have a political agenda. They could have other agendas but it wouldn't be political. We can't say the same thing about the theory of man made global warming because so many people in this field are believers or detractors in it's political agenda. Can we really trust any of them because of this?

A lot of people do something in politics that they don't do in any other field which is lie or exaggerate their claims in order to achieve a political agenda. The people who either push global warming or say it is wrong could be lying in both directions so I wonder if we can trust any scientist on this issue since they may be lying in order to advance their own political agenda behind this. Whatever that happens to be.

I don't want to pick on the left on this because it is also equally possible that anti-global warming scientist may not be telling the complete truth on this matter either. I'm just asking whether or not we can trust anyone on this subject since it has been so politicized at this point. The research on this may be corrupted because of this.

Can you really trust the science of global warming?

Yes, as far as it goes.

There is no science to global warming. It's a con.

And why would all these people, unlike you educated people, be involved in a con?