Global Warming. Here's the thing.

[myself]

Pascal's wager isn't a scientific argument.....It's a religious argument.

Prima facie evidence that the warmers are a pseudo-scientific cult.

Did Pascal make some sort of similar argument about something. What I said didn't come from him. That was pure me. And your denial of human caused global warming is an un-scientific cult.

 

[myself]

CO2 does not drive climate change.

With a statement like that, I would have to imagine that "ding" is the sound your small rock hard brain makes against your skull when you quickly tilt your head over to one side.

 

[myself]

Even Nasa believes northern hemisphere glaciation controls the Earth's climate. Must have something to do with the highest and lowest average temperatures are in sync with the northern hemisphere hot and cold seasons and not the southern hemisphere hot and cold seasons. You seriously need to learn some actual science and stop focusing on unreliable computer models.

My position has been consistent; CO2 does not drive climate change. Throughout earth's history CO2 is a proxy for temperature. Unlike today though CO is leading and sea level rise and temperature are not following it because CO2 is a minor green house gas.

I have some graphs for you and all the other human caused global warming deniers around here. There are MANY like them. But these should do.

 

[Oddball]

Did Pascal make some sort of similar argument about something. What I said didn't come from him. That was pure me. And your denial of human caused global warming is an un-scientific cult.

Your argument is a classic Pascal's wager fallacy....IOW, completely flawed reasoning....Sorry you're too dense to comprehend that.

My "denial" is based upon science...Or more correctly, the complete dearth of it from your side.....If anyone is the blind cultist, it's you, Corky.

 

[Oddball]

I have some graphs for you and all the other human caused global warming deniers around here. There are MANY like them. But these should do.

View attachment 533318

View attachment 533321

View attachment 533322
View attachment 533323View attachment 533324

View attachment 533325

Oooooo.....Pretty multi-colored graphs!...We've totally not seen those before!

Correlation doesn't equal causation, Gomer Pyle.

The Vostok ice cores (y'know, real science) show that CO2 concentrations lag temperature increases.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And when things go wrong with them, such as it did in Chernobyl and Fukushima,

We can't build safer reactors today? To save the planet?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wasting trillions of dollars is nothing new to the U.S. Next, our economy is already in shambles.

Your solution is to make things worse? You're not very bright.

 

[Oddball]

We can't build safer reactors today? To save the planet?

No!

They only answer that the warmer cult will accept is grow The State, tax the living shit out of you, and make you travel around on bicycles and rickshaws...You, you, you, you denialist, you!

 

[Rambunctious]

Well we sure as hell were able to control it to the degree of causing it to get hotter at an ever accelerating rate.

But that's not control...we need to live with hotter temps bigger storms and fires...When I was a kid we lived in the SF valley...we had fires in the hills almost every summer but they never got out of control...they would bulldoze strips of hillside and it created fire breaks so they could snuff out the flames...

Many thought it was ugly and a sin against nature to do that so they stopped...three years later they had the biggest fire ever...it burned all the way to Malibu destroying hundreds of homes in its path....did they learn?...no....

In windy hot areas they should bury electrical lines cut dead tress down and remove dry brush and cut fire breaks in the hills...in other words live with it responsibly...not just scream the end of the world is here....

 

[myself]

Oooooo.....Pretty multi-colored graphs!...We've totally not seen those before!

Correlation doesn't equal causation, Gomer Pyle.

The Vostok ice cores (y'know, real science) show that CO2 concentrations lag temperature increases.

Yeah, And like any cultist, you deny them and the science behind them. Also, it doesn't really matter even "if" CO2 lags or precedes temperature rise. They're both going in the same direction.

 

[ding]

With a statement like that, I would have to imagine that "ding" is the sound your small rock hard brain makes against your skull when you quickly tilt your head over to one side.

Well... I have an engineering degree and worked in engineering for 37 years. So I'm well versed in science and logic and I've been studying this subject for almost 20 years.

What about you?

 

[ding]

I have some graphs for you and all the other human caused global warming deniers around here. There are MANY like them. But these should do.

View attachment 533318

View attachment 533321

View attachment 533322
View attachment 533323View attachment 533324

View attachment 533325

We are in the interglacial cycle of an ice age which began 2.7 million years ago. Congratulations... you just proved the planet warms during an interglacial phase.

We are 2C below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles. So if the previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today, how do you know that CO2 is responsible for the warming you think you are seeing?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, And like any cultist, you deny them and the science behind them. Also, it doesn't really matter even "if" CO2 lags or precedes temperature rise. They're both going in the same direction.

There is no science behind them.....They are pretty colored charts and graphs that appeal to easily conned rubes like you.

If you say that it doesn't matter whether CO2 lags the increase in temperature, then it is YOU who is the science denier, Corky..

 

[myself]

We can't build safer reactors today? To save the planet?

Reactors won't save the planet. That's not the real problem. You probably seen my graphs in post #23. Compare them to this graph. There are now over 7 billion people on the planet. And as long as people have the freedom to screw freely, it isn't going to slow down.

 

[myself]

No!

They only answer that the warmer cult will accept is grow The State, tax the living shit out of you, and make you travel around on bicycles and rickshaws...You, you, you, you denialist, you!

Solar panels. Does your roof have any? Does any of your neighbors roofs have any? Probably not. But probably to you, solar panels don't work. Right?

 

[ding]

Yeah, And like any cultist, you deny them and the science behind them. Also, it doesn't really matter even "if" CO2 lags or precedes temperature rise. They're both going in the same direction.

Actually it does matter if CO2 lags or precedes temperature. It matters quite a lot. Prior to the industrial revolution CO2 was a proxy for temperature because of ocean sequestration. All the graphs (CO2, sea level and temoerature) moved in unison with CO2 lagging temperature and sea level rise. However since the industrial revolution the linkage between CO2, temperature and sea level is broken. So as CO2 has risen, you no longer see the same correlation with temperature and sea level.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What if there is nothing to human caused global warming, but we did something about it anyway. What's the worst that could happen. We live more equitably within our ecological environment. But what is the worst that can happen if human caused global warming is real. As I think it is. And accelerating. As I think it is also. The worst is that humans don't have long for this planet. You decide. Which approach is best.

1. China produces double our CO2, convince them first

2. There isn't one single experiment that shows any increase in temperature when CO2 increases from 280 to 400PPM.

 

[ding]

Reactors won't save the planet. That's not the real problem. You probably seen my graphs in post #23. Compare them to this graph. There are now over 7 billion people on the planet. And as long as people have the freedom to screw freely, it isn't going to slow down.

View attachment 533341

There absolutely is a correlation between population and CO2 emissions as every person has a carbon footprint. Even third world countries.

Of course this means that the US isn't the problem.

 

[Oddball]

Solar panels. Does your roof have any? Does any of your neighbors roofs have any? Probably not. But probably to you, solar panels don't work. Right?

Good thing those contraptions last forever, don't rely upon totally environmentally unfriendly manufacturing processes, and are 100% recyclable!

Oh wait.....

 

[myself]

But that's not control...we need to live with hotter temps bigger storms and fires...When I was a kid we lived in the SF valley...we had fires in the hills almost every summer but they never got out of control...they would bulldoze strips of hillside and it created fire breaks so they could snuff out the flames...

Many thought it was ugly and a sin against nature to do that so they stopped...three years later they had the biggest fire ever...it burned all the way to Malibu destroying hundreds of homes in its path....did they learn?...no....

In windy hot areas they should bury electrical lines cut dead tress down and remove dry brush and cut fire breaks in the hills...in other words live with it responsibly...not just scream the end of the world is here....

"Control" or not, it happened anyway. If we can make it happen, we can make it not happen. Not sending our manufacturing jobs to wage slave countries with lax or nonexistent environmental standards would be a good start. And all those massive ships that shop cargo from China to the U.S., I bet they alone burn quite a lot of fuel. I would rather live like a cave man than see the world basically torched.