Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

[Oddball]

No, they are arguing in favour of technologies which produce pollution.

Technologies which are outdated, inefficient and by and large easily replaceable by technologies which are cleaner, cheaper and will cost consumers less.

Were that true, those technologies would and could flourish without massive subsidies to prop them up...The economic benefits would be readily be realized by people whose business it is to invest in such efficiency.

Does anyone here seriously think any western country will be using coal in 2100?

Speculation and begging the question are irrelevant and logically fallacious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wonder what motivates the 'dudes' to so vehemently argue (essentially) for polluters? I'm not a scientist nor have I put in the time to study geological data or other obscure and arcane records. I know emperically car exhaust is harmful to living things, and SMOG isn't nice to breath. I know the ice pack up north is melting, that our seas will rise as a result and that large peices of Antarctica have broken off and set adrift. I know in the past industry has choose to fuck up our environment to increase the bottom line and that our rivers, the great lakes and our oceans are the most profitable dumps for those who don't give a shit for 'we the people' or our kids or theirs.
So what motivates the 'dudes'? Greed, some pathology to stand out from the crowd no matter the consequence or are they simply stupid?

and yet, no one is arguing in favor of pollution.

i wonder what pathology forces you to demonize those who disagree with you?

Thanks for sharing dudette. No one is arguing in favor of pollution, but you dudettes failure to recognize industrial pollution as a problem. Caiming it is temporary and therefore not climate change or a warming of the worlds environment is based solely on ideology, not science.
You see, dudette, even if we are wrong, and human activity is not changing the worlds environment globably, it has and will continue to fuck up environments locally. So the jejune banter you conservatives post ignores serious problems, and to whine that global warming is a canard is both stupid and short sighted, for what if you are wrong.
See, I can call you dudettes stupid, but in a kinder, nicer way.

 

[MaggieMae]

Right...You vapid claim that I'm taking the side of "polluters" is non sequitur on not one front, but two:

1) I cannot control what anyone else says, does or thinks.

2) Claiming an essential trace atmospheric element as "pollution", in order to make the overall stretch of illogic.

Your equally pedantic lecture on axioms, theorems, postulates, etc. is also irrelevant, making it a trifecta of non sequitur.

Good job....Now shut off your computer and stop breathing.

Thanks for sharing, oh, and I appreciate the fact that you have (at best?) an ability to use a thesaurus. Sadly it escapes you that your use of words is clearly pedantic, while my use of terms descriptive for the debate at hand are instructive - at least for those unwilling to remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Sinatra]

Dude -

I am happy to be able to bring you up to speed on this.

C02 - like Vitamin D - is normal and natural only in normal natural quantities. The issue here is not the presence of C02, but it's concentration.

And yes, I can back this up with scientific analysis if you wish.

I'm plenty "up to speed" on the subject, thank you very much.

The scientific analyses (the controllable and reproducable ones anyways) concerning CO2 concentrations are done in terms of a closed system, not the context of a dynamic evolving ecosystem, with more variables and compensatory mechanisms than can be numbered or accounted for. Computer models are of ZERO merit, as they cannot possibly take every variable into account and are only as perfect as the imperfect people who write their codes and set their parameters.


Increasing the carbon content from .03% to .04% isn't enough to alloy iron into steel....I'm pretty well boned up on basic statistical probabilities as well.

___

They can be very flawed. And the premise that if x amount of CO is emitted, that then increased all atmospheric Co2 by x amount is simply incorrect.

The earth's climate/atmosphere is an incredibly dynamic and ever-changing entity. Humankind plays a far more important part in environment, and a far less important part in overall climate. The entire premise of "man-made" global warming is both ignorant and arrogant...

 

[Sinatra]

Ah Oh, someone is actually using logic, common sense and science to discuss the climate change hoax...



Daily Express | UK News :: Climate change is natural: 100 reasons why

___

 

[Old Rocks]

Dude -

I am happy to be able to bring you up to speed on this.

C02 - like Vitamin D - is normal and natural only in normal natural quantities. The issue here is not the presence of C02, but it's concentration.

And yes, I can back this up with scientific analysis if you wish.

I'm plenty "up to speed" on the subject, thank you very much.

The scientific analyses (the controllable and reproducable ones anyways) concerning CO2 concentrations are done in terms of a closed system, not the context of a dynamic evolving ecosystem, with more variables and compensatory mechanisms than can be numbered or accounted for. Computer models are of ZERO merit, as they cannot possibly take every variable into account and are only as perfect as the imperfect people who write their codes and set their parameters.


Increasing the carbon content from .03% to .04% isn't enough to alloy iron into steel....I'm pretty well boned up on basic statistical probabilities as well.

God damn, Dooodeee...... You are still posting stupidity.

Tyndal discovered the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in 1858. Arrnhenius established the physics of global warming in 1896. He predicted the rise in tempertures would happen as the CO2 in the atmosphere increased.

The science of AGW is well established, and your kind of idiocy long dismissed by anyone with the least intellect.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dude -

I am happy to be able to bring you up to speed on this.

C02 - like Vitamin D - is normal and natural only in normal natural quantities. The issue here is not the presence of C02, but it's concentration.

And yes, I can back this up with scientific analysis if you wish.

I'm plenty "up to speed" on the subject, thank you very much.

The scientific analyses (the controllable and reproducable ones anyways) concerning CO2 concentrations are done in terms of a closed system, not the context of a dynamic evolving ecosystem, with more variables and compensatory mechanisms than can be numbered or accounted for. Computer models are of ZERO merit, as they cannot possibly take every variable into account and are only as perfect as the imperfect people who write their codes and set their parameters.


Increasing the carbon content from .03% to .04% isn't enough to alloy iron into steel....I'm pretty well boned up on basic statistical probabilities as well.

___

They can be very flawed. And the premise that if x amount of CO is emitted, that then increased all atmospheric Co2 by x amount is simply incorrect.

The earth's climate/atmosphere is an incredibly dynamic and ever-changing entity. Humankind plays a far more important part in environment, and a far less important part in overall climate. The entire premise of "man-made" global warming is both ignorant and arrogant...

The fact that you believe that we can increase the GHGs in the atmosphere without having a major effect is indictutive of the lack of logic on your part. Or the fact that ideology plays a more important part in your thought processes than does reality.

 

[Oddball]

Blablablablaa.

Arrnhenius established his experiment in a bell jar, not on a planetary scale in a constantly dynamic environment.

Your continued brushing aside of that undeniable fact establishes you as USMB's leading willful ignoramus flat-Earfer.

 

[del]

few people realize that one of the obstacles the apollo project had to overcome was developing glasscutters capable of piercing the giant bell jar that covers the earth. without it, the apollo spacecraft would have just bounced off like a moth hitting a screen door in june.

unsurprisingly, the technology is classified and won't be unsealed until 2072, if then.

 

[Sodafin]

[
I'm plenty "up to speed" on the subject, thank you very much.

.

Quite clearly you are not.

You apparently did not know that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in decline - and are still yet to acknowledge the point.

You apparently do not understand that a chemical harmless in small concentrations may be harmful in large concentrations, and you have ignored the science proving that CO2 concentrations are already effecting, for instance, ocean PH. And as a result, damaging marine life.

I'm more than happy to provide scientific analyses backing these points up - but I doubt you would look at them.

 

[Sodafin]

Tyndal discovered the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in 1858. Arrnhenius established the physics of global warming in 1896. He predicted the rise in tempertures would happen as the CO2 in the atmosphere increased.

The science of AGW is well established, and your kind of idiocy long dismissed by anyone with the least intellect.

Excellent point.

I've found a lot of sceptics seem to think there was no talk of climate change prior to Al Gore - in reality the science pre-dates his interest by a century.

 

[Oddball]

[
I'm plenty "up to speed" on the subject, thank you very much.

.

Quite clearly you are not.

You apparently did not know that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in decline - and are still yet to acknowledge the point.

You apparently do not understand that a chemical harmless in small concentrations may be harmful in large concentrations, and you have ignored the science proving that CO2 concentrations are already effecting, for instance, ocean PH. And as a result, damaging marine life.

I'm more than happy to provide scientific analyses backing these points up - but I doubt you would look at them.

Acknowledging the point still doesn't prove causality....Which neither you nor any of the AGW moonbats can do, on demand and in the context of a dynamic system.

I've ignored nothing...In fact I'm very aware of the fact that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only would bring it to a ratio analogous to six cents : $100.00....Still not enough to make it more than a trace element, let alone make it present in "large concentrations".

 

[Sodafin]

Dude -

I don't think there is any point discussing 'why' something happens before sceptics come to acknowledge 'what' is happening.

1. Do you accept that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat?

2. Do you accept that ocean ph is changing rapidly?

3. Do you accept that arctic and antarctic ice are steadily thinning?

If your answer to each of these is 'yes', then we can move on. If not, then will you commit to reading scientific reports if I post them for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Sodafin, Doooodeee....... won't read anything that might interfere with his delightful state of ignorance. As indicated by his statement concerning how Arrnhenius's studies were carried out.

 

[Sodafin]

Sodafin, Doooodeee....... won't read anything that might interfere with his delightful state of ignorance. As indicated by his statement concerning how Arrnhenius's studies were carried out.

I suspect you are right - which is why I asked him to commit to reading the material before I spend an hour digging it out and posting it!

I find a lot of climate sceptics only remain sceptical by carefully avoiding the science.

 

[Si modo]

Sodafin, Doooodeee....... won't read anything that might interfere with his delightful state of ignorance. As indicated by his statement concerning how Arrnhenius's studies were carried out.

I suspect you are right - which is why I asked him to commit to reading the material before I spend an hour digging it out and posting it!

I find a lot of climate sceptics only remain sceptical by carefully avoiding the science.

 

[saveliberty]

Dude -

I don't think there is any point discussing 'why' something happens before sceptics come to acknowledge 'what' is happening.

1. Do you accept that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat?

2. Do you accept that ocean ph is changing rapidly?

3. Do you accept that arctic and antarctic ice are steadily thinning?

If your answer to each of these is 'yes', then we can move on. If not, then will you commit to reading scientific reports if I post them for you?

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away | News.com.au

USATODAY.com - Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening

It is in English, not stupid, so you my have trouble with it.

 

[Oddball]

Dude -

I don't think there is any point discussing 'why' something happens before sceptics come to acknowledge 'what' is happening.

1. Do you accept that 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat?


2. Do you accept that ocean ph is changing rapidly?

3. Do you accept that arctic and antarctic ice are steadily thinning?

If your answer to each of these is 'yes', then we can move on. If not, then will you commit to reading scientific reports if I post them for you?

1) They've been retreat for centuries. Would you feel any better if the Earf were covered in glaciers down to 45° latitude?

2) If they are, how do you go about definitively tracing the source and what do you then do about it, if man can indeed do anything?

3) No, they are not. There is much evidence to suggest that they are now in expansion.

I'm sure that you can come up with all sorts of papers that portend doom and gloom for modern industrial man. That business has been in full bloom since at least Malthus. BTW, did you know that of the 11,000 scientific papers that the IPCC has taken in, less that 10% of them have been used as alleged "proof" that industrial man is to blame for global warm...er....I mean climate change? Doesn't such a starkly small number make you wonder what's in the other 90+% of the papers?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Use flawed logic and trumped-up unverifiable numbers to prop up bad science and you're going to get called on it.

Deal with it.

P.S...Correlation still doesn't equal causation....That's what's known as "non sequitur".

Not only is it verifiable - it is unchallenged.

Please look at the Wikipedia overview of the science posted, and if you would like to look at the actual science, let me know and I will post it.

Causation is not the issue here - let's establish what we know is happening first, and then you can tell me why you think it is happening.

btw - Please stick to the topic.

Wikipedia doesn't *ahem* cut any ice here, either.

The receding glaciers are generally invoked as evidence of the alleged anthropogenic cause. If you don't know that, then then you haven't engaged in many of these conversations. Moreover, there are glaciers that have been expanding over recent years, yet they almost never receive any mention by the warmist doomsayers.

Growing Glaciers

It's a lot easier to stick to the topic when you don't use flawed logic and sources that can be edited by anyone who wants to take the time to do so.

once again a link to iceagenow. hahaha, embarrassing.

 

[Oddball]

So, I gather that you can't refute the information and will just attack the source?