Global Warming Liars

[Redfish]

I am aware that the planet's climate has been dynamic since we first developed an atmosphere. That isn't the question. You have no valid basis for your assumption that human effects are too small to have had any effect because we have. You appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is real (at least you haven't mentioned it). You're probably aware that without any greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -23C but that the greenhouse effect has warmed us to an average temperature of +15C. That's 38C of warming produced by water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, in that order. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal and oil in earnest, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. It is now about 415 ppm, an increase of more than 48% that both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping have shown to be entirely due to human emissions. So, because of us burning coal and oil and putting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that was formerly trapped in the Earth, that small portion of warming from CO2 has increased by 48%. Additionally, water provides a positive feedback. As the Earth's temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air increases, further increasing greenhouse warming. So, yes, humans can affect the climate and we have. The Sun, the Earth's tilt on its axis, the planet's orbital mechanics are all known and while they affect our climate, they have not been the primary causes of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years. The primary cause of that was greenhouse warming acting on our emissions. That is very well accepted science. It is accepted by more than 99% of all degreed scientists who study the climate. You are suggesting that you know better than those tens of thousands of PhDs. I have to ask YOU to wake up.

View attachment 680172
View attachment 680174
Both from: Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA

anyone can make a chart that tells whatever story the person paying for the chart wants. We humans are polluting the planet and have been for hundreds of years. What you cannot grasp is that there is no proven solid link between pollution and climate. I will never understand why you on the left refuse to address the real problem of pollution and focus on a bogus AGW agenda that accomplishes nothing but I guess the real goal has nothin to do with climate or pollution, but is really about controlling the activities of every person on earth. What is it about freedom that bothers you libs so much?

 

[Redfish]

I am aware that the planet's climate has been dynamic since we first developed an atmosphere. That isn't the question. You have no valid basis for your assumption that human effects are too small to have had any effect because we have. You appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is real (at least you haven't mentioned it). You're probably aware that without any greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -23C but that the greenhouse effect has warmed us to an average temperature of +15C. That's 38C of warming produced by water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, in that order. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal and oil in earnest, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. It is now about 415 ppm, an increase of more than 48% that both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping have shown to be entirely due to human emissions. So, because of us burning coal and oil and putting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that was formerly trapped in the Earth, that small portion of warming from CO2 has increased by 48%. Additionally, water provides a positive feedback. As the Earth's temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air increases, further increasing greenhouse warming. So, yes, humans can affect the climate and we have. The Sun, the Earth's tilt on its axis, the planet's orbital mechanics are all known and while they affect our climate, they have not been the primary causes of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years. The primary cause of that was greenhouse warming acting on our emissions. That is very well accepted science. It is accepted by more than 99% of all degreed scientists who study the climate. You are suggesting that you know better than those tens of thousands of PhDs. I have to ask YOU to wake up.

View attachment 680172
View attachment 680174
Both from: Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA

The climate probably is changing, but we are not causing it. and we cannot stop, reverse, or delay it.

 

[ReinyDays]

I am aware that the planet's climate has been dynamic since we first developed an atmosphere. That isn't the question. You have no valid basis for your assumption that human effects are too small to have had any effect because we have. You appear to believe that the greenhouse effect is real (at least you haven't mentioned it). You're probably aware that without any greenhouse effect, the average temperature of the Earth would be -23C but that the greenhouse effect has warmed us to an average temperature of +15C. That's 38C of warming produced by water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases, in that order. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began burning coal and oil in earnest, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm. It is now about 415 ppm, an increase of more than 48% that both isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping have shown to be entirely due to human emissions. So, because of us burning coal and oil and putting hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that was formerly trapped in the Earth, that small portion of warming from CO2 has increased by 48%. Additionally, water provides a positive feedback. As the Earth's temperature increases, the amount of water vapor in the air increases, further increasing greenhouse warming. So, yes, humans can affect the climate and we have. The Sun, the Earth's tilt on its axis, the planet's orbital mechanics are all known and while they affect our climate, they have not been the primary causes of the warming we've observed over the last 150 years. The primary cause of that was greenhouse warming acting on our emissions. That is very well accepted science. It is accepted by more than 99% of all degreed scientists who study the climate. You are suggesting that you know better than those tens of thousands of PhDs. I have to ask YOU to wake up.

View attachment 680172
View attachment 680174
Both from: Climate Change Indicators: Climate Forcing | US EPA

Very painful to read ... you're so close but just stubbornly cling to a few false ideas ...

... water provides a positive feedback ...

This is a runaway greenhouse effect, something you denouced earlier in this thread ... so which is it? ... you're saying water vapor will keep increasing just because water vapor is increasing ... hold an electric guitar next to the speaker and pluck the A-string ... hopefully the fuse will blow before you set the amp on fire ... if you ignore latent heat, you're wrong, don't be stubborn about this ...

People with PhD's don't violate Kepler's Laws ... you do ... how does axial tilt effect Earth's area in cross-section? ...

 

[Crick]

Water does provide a positive feedback. It also provides negative feedbacks. That does NOT equate to a runaway effect. Are you suggesting that water does NOT provide a positive feedback? I included axial tilt in that list because Redfish listed it as one of the causes he believe is causing the observed warming. I have to go to the store so keep Redfish entertained while I'm gone.

 

[Crick]

Science isn't about belief, it's about understanding ... religion is about belief ... or are you admitting the IPCC is based on dogma? ...

I bet you believe yourself clever and witty for that.

And I believe the Earth's axial tilt is responsible for our seasons - annual variations in our climate.

 

[Crick]

anyone can make a chart that tells whatever story the person paying for the chart wants.

This tells me you are stupid.

We humans are polluting the planet and have been for hundreds of years.

Wow, you got something right.

What you cannot grasp is that there is no proven solid link between pollution and climate.

You haven't the faintest idea what I can and cannot grasp. The problem here is not pollution, per se, but greenhouse gas emissions. Pollution fucks the planet in a thousand different ways but the discussion here is about the global warming being caused primarily by human emissions of CO2 as well as methane, nitrous oxide and polychlorofluorocarbons. That they cause warm the planet through the greenhouse effect is an established fact. If not, the planet would have an average temperature of -23C (-9.4F).

I will never understand why you on the left refuse to address the real problem of pollution

I hate to tell you but you will find a GREAT deal more concern about pollution among those of the left than among those on the right. And, of course, you have created the logical flaw of the false dilemma here. It is entirely possible to be concerned and take action both against pollution AND AGW. We are not forced to address only one or the other. We can do both.

and focus on a bogus AGW agenda that accomplishes nothing

That AGW agenda is eliminating the ICE powered automobile. That AGW agenda has converted a significant and growing portion of our electricity production to wind and solar sources. What's been done is not enough, but it is most certainly not "nothing"

but I guess the real goal has nothin to do with climate or pollution, but is really about controlling the activities of every person on earth. What is it about freedom that bothers you libs so much?

Do you object to laws that prevent you from murdering that annoying neighbor down the street? Do you object to laws that prevent your daughter's date from taking her out in the woods and raping her? Do you object to laws that prevent manufacturers from selling you devices that will predictably fail and endanger the lives of you and your family? We already live in a society that uses laws and regulations to attempt to protect us from dangerous behavior. Those laws have changed and developed in countless ways as our knowledge of what is and is not unreasonably dangerous has grown. That we should attempt to codify reductions in GHG emissions as we discover the avoidable harm they are doing to us is no more a tyrranical attempt to control your behavior than the library of laws under which you've lived without complaint your entire life.

Do you actually have ANYTHING in the way of scientific evidence that would support your contention that human actions are too inconsequential to affect global climate? I'll wait.

 

[ReinyDays]

Water does provide a positive feedback. It also provides negative feedbacks. That does NOT equate to a runaway effect. Are you suggesting that water does NOT provide a positive feedback? I included axial tilt in that list because Redfish listed it as one of the causes he believe is causing the observed warming. I have to go to the store so keep Redfish entertained while I'm gone.

Evaporation lowers temperature ... and that's taken into consideration when predicting the new equilibrium ... how are you accounting for latent heat in your claim temperatures keep going up? ... 2,200 J/g to evaporate water ...

 

[Crick]

Evaporation lowers temperature ... and that's taken into consideration when predicting the new equilibrium ... how are you accounting for latent heat in your claim temperatures keep going up? ... 2,200 J/g to evaporate water ...

My *claim* that temperatures keep going up? Why would I need to claim that? Are you disputing it?

 

[ding]

My *claim* that temperatures keep going up? Why would I need to claim that? Are you disputing it?

What do you think it will be in 15 years?

 

[MisterBeale]

This tells me you are stupid.



Wow, you got something right.



You haven't the faintest idea what I can and cannot grasp. The problem here is not pollution, per se, but greenhouse gas emissions. Pollution fucks the planet in a thousand different ways but the discussion here is about the global warming being caused primarily by human emissions of CO2 as well as methane, nitrous oxide and polychlorofluorocarbons. That they cause warm the planet through the greenhouse effect is an established fact. If not, the planet would have an average temperature of -23C (-9.4F).



I hate to tell you but you will find a GREAT deal more concern about pollution among those of the left than among those on the right. And, of course, you have created the logical flaw of the false dilemma here. It is entirely possible to be concerned and take action both against pollution AND AGW. We are not forced to address only one or the other. We can do both.



That AGW agenda is eliminating the ICE powered automobile. That AGW agenda has converted a significant and growing portion of our electricity production to wind and solar sources. What's been done is not enough, but it is most certainly not "nothing"


Do you object to laws that prevent you from murdering that annoying neighbor down the street? Do you object to laws that prevent your daughter's date from taking her out in the woods and raping her? Do you object to laws that prevent manufacturers from selling you devices that will predictably fail and endanger the lives of you and your family? We already live in a society that uses laws and regulations to attempt to protect us from dangerous behavior. Those laws have changed and developed in countless ways as our knowledge of what is and is not unreasonably dangerous has grown. That we should attempt to codify reductions in GHG emissions as we discover the avoidable harm they are doing to us is no more a tyrranical attempt to control your behavior than the library of laws under which you've lived without complaint your entire life.

Do you actually have ANYTHING in the way of scientific evidence that would support your contention that human actions are too inconsequential to affect global climate? I'll wait.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False​

• John P. A. Ioannidis

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, says Ioannidis, with ensuing confusion and disappointment.

journals.plos.org

 

[Likkmee]

1) AGW deniers love to react to consensus comments with the size of the Zimmerman/Doran survey. They conveniently ignore the numerous other surveys, polls and studies, examining the opinions of THOUSANDS of scientists and finding GREATER than 97% support for the IPCC's conclusions.

2) Isotopic analysis of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as well as a simple book-keeping analysis of the amount of CO2 that would be produced by the amount of fossil fuels humans have burned, BOTH show conclusively that virtually every fucking MOLECULE of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of fossil fuel.

3) AGW is an existential threat to fossil fuel industries. Anyone who thinks that they wouldn't bend the truth to hold off that threat, just as the tobacco industry did to the finding of tobacco's relationship to several different cancers, is an ignorant fool.

I midd the old days. The dust bowl was a blast !

July 2022 was third hottest on record for the U.S.

Parts of the nation saw historic flooding and intensifying drought

www.noaa.gov

 

[Likkmee]

What do you think it will be in 15 years?

I'll be skinny !

How Much Do The Bones In Your Body Weigh? | Calculate This!

This little calculator will help you determine how much the bones in your body weigh based on a percentage of your weight in pounds. The human skeleton represents approximately 14% of the average hum

calculate-this.com

 

[Redfish]

This tells me you are stupid.



Wow, you got something right.



You haven't the faintest idea what I can and cannot grasp. The problem here is not pollution, per se, but greenhouse gas emissions. Pollution fucks the planet in a thousand different ways but the discussion here is about the global warming being caused primarily by human emissions of CO2 as well as methane, nitrous oxide and polychlorofluorocarbons. That they cause warm the planet through the greenhouse effect is an established fact. If not, the planet would have an average temperature of -23C (-9.4F).



I hate to tell you but you will find a GREAT deal more concern about pollution among those of the left than among those on the right. And, of course, you have created the logical flaw of the false dilemma here. It is entirely possible to be concerned and take action both against pollution AND AGW. We are not forced to address only one or the other. We can do both.



That AGW agenda is eliminating the ICE powered automobile. That AGW agenda has converted a significant and growing portion of our electricity production to wind and solar sources. What's been done is not enough, but it is most certainly not "nothing"


Do you object to laws that prevent you from murdering that annoying neighbor down the street? Do you object to laws that prevent your daughter's date from taking her out in the woods and raping her? Do you object to laws that prevent manufacturers from selling you devices that will predictably fail and endanger the lives of you and your family? We already live in a society that uses laws and regulations to attempt to protect us from dangerous behavior. Those laws have changed and developed in countless ways as our knowledge of what is and is not unreasonably dangerous has grown. That we should attempt to codify reductions in GHG emissions as we discover the avoidable harm they are doing to us is no more a tyrranical attempt to control your behavior than the library of laws under which you've lived without complaint your entire life.

Do you actually have ANYTHING in the way of scientific evidence that would support your contention that human actions are too inconsequential to affect global climate? I'll wait.

I am just going to address one of your ignorant comments: "elimating the ICE powered automobile". Do you understand that EVs have to be recharged and that it takes a significant electrical current to do that? Do you also understand that there is not enough wind, solar, hydro power generation capacity to recharge even the EVs that are on the road today. The vase majority of recharges are done from fossil fuel generation plants. California has banned recharging at night because the grid cannot handle it. Then there is the cost of an EV. the original purchase price is just the start, 70K or so, then after about 2 years the battery has to be replaced for 10-15K and you have not even finished paying off the original purchase. and the recharges============are they free? The cost per mile of an EV is worse than a large pickup pulling a trailer. EVs are not the answer, and you don't even understand the question. The ignorance of you on the left is amazing, your indoctrination into bullshit and lies is complete.

 

[Redfish]

What do you think it will be in 15 years?

run, run, we are all going to boil

 

[Redfish]

My *claim* that temperatures keep going up? Why would I need to claim that? Are you disputing it?

the temp of planet earth has cycled up and down for millions of years, the idea that we humans can stop it is extreme ignorance, the idea that we are causing it is even more stupid.

 

[MisterBeale]

The ignorance of you on the left is amazing, your indoctrination into bullshit and lies is complete.

I'm not so sure about that. I think he is not indocrinated, I think he is being purposefully deceptive. No point in arguing with Crick, he doesn't debate from a place of honesty.

I have been watching him, I'm pretty sure he is a professional propagandist. This is probably not the only forum/discussion board/this corporate spy/intel agent, etc. does this on.

I would bet there is an account for this guy on FB, as well as on multiple discussion boards that lean right, libertarian, who care more about their liberties, then giving over control of resources to unelected global elites.

I completely destroyed his arguments, but? I did it FROM THE LEFT, and now? He is ignoring me. All you have to do, is expose him as the hypocrite that he is.

He doesn't give a shit about the, "planet," only about the power and money of those he is working for. . .

This is a documentary by a VERY, VERY, left wing documentary film maker, he would never acknowledge any of these facts. The real left know is he full of shit as well as you do.

He is a paid agent of oligarchs and global interlocking interests, he has been told all of this stuff.

He is a shady actor, so even if he DOES believe this garbage? He isn't acting in good faith, by pushing the global government garbage, or supporting the UN, or all the other global elites. . all of it is a scam, and I have proved it to him.

Beware Industry-Backed 'Nature-Based Solutions' Scam, Warns Global Climate Coalition​

"What corporations and big conservation groups call 'nature-based solutions' is a dangerous distraction."

Beware Industry-Backed 'Nature-Based Solutions' Scam, Warns Global Climate Coalition | Common Dreams

"What corporations and big conservation groups call 'nature-based solutions' is a dangerous distraction."

www.commondreams.org

Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs​

 

[Crick]

I am just going to address one of your ignorant comments: "elimating the ICE powered automobile". Do you understand that EVs have to be recharged and that it takes a significant electrical current to do that? Do you also understand that there is not enough wind, solar, hydro power generation capacity to recharge even the EVs that are on the road today. The vase majority of recharges are done from fossil fuel generation plants. California has banned recharging at night because the grid cannot handle it. Then there is the cost of an EV. the original purchase price is just the start, 70K or so, then after about 2 years the battery has to be replaced for 10-15K and you have not even finished paying off the original purchase. and the recharges============are they free? The cost per mile of an EV is worse than a large pickup pulling a trailer. EVs are not the answer, and you don't even understand the question. The ignorance of you on the left is amazing, your indoctrination into bullshit and lies is complete.

Hello Mr Fish,

I AM aware that EV's have to be recharged. The 4-year old next door is aware of it.

Let's just check that next claim. The US's total electrical capacity as of the end of 2021 was 1.14 billion kW. 27% of that, or 307.8 million kW was from renewable sources. The US has 607,600 EVs. A typical EV requires less than 7.2 kW to charge. So, charging every single EV in the US, SIMULTANEOUSLY, would require 4,374,720 kW or 1.4% of the renewable capacity of the US electrical system. So, your claim is BIGLY incorrect.

The majority of charging will be done with fossil fuel because fossil fuel still provide the majority of US electricity. No one has ever claimed otherwise. However, the proportion being generated from renewable sources is still growing at a tremendous pace, both here and abroad.

Yes, EVs are expensive, replacing their batteries is expensive and some recharging has to be paid for.

However, let's get back to what you CLAIMED you were doing with this post: addressing my statement that the agenda of folks on my side of this argument were "eliminating the ICE powered automobile". Your points here fail to address that at all. What will cover that is the fact that Ford, General Motors (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, GMC), Stellantis (Fiat-Chrysler), Volkswagen, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and others have all stated that they will stop producing ICE powered vehicles within the next decade or so. ICE-powered vehicle sales peaked in 2017 and have been in permanent decline ever since. I don't think anything else needs to be said

 

[MisterBeale]

However, let's get back to what you CLAIMED you were doing with this post: addressing my statement that the agenda of folks on my side of this argument were "eliminating the ICE powered automobile". Your points here fail to address that at all. What will cover that is the fact that Ford, General Motors (Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, GMC), Stellantis (Fiat-Chrysler), Volkswagen, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and others have all stated that they will stop producing ICE powered vehicles within the next decade or so. ICE-powered vehicle sales peaked in 2017 and have been in permanent decline ever since. I don't think anything else needs to be said

They are being forced to do this move, otherwise, institutional investors, and capitol markets will cut them all off. All of these automakers don't have much of a choice.

https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ESG-WorkingPaper-33_Schulz-and-Siriwardane.pdf

Corporate Technocrats Use ESG To Drive Technocracy

ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) is a United Nations inspired global scam to drive the world into Sustainable Development (aka Technocracy), control all resources and kill capitalism and free market economics all at the same time. ESG is backed by the UN, the World Economic Forum and...

www.technocracy.news

Republican States Resist Credit Rating Agencies' Use of ESG Criteria​

Republican States Resist Credit Rating Agencies' Use of ESG Criteria | JD Supra

Recently, the States of Idaho and Utah --both controlled by the Republican Party--sent letters to S&P, one of the three major credit rating agencies, ...

www.jdsupra.com

 

[Crick]

I just caught something on TV where some psychologist noted that people suffering from narcissism syndromes were really prone to buy into nutjob conspiracy theories. Automobile manufacturers were forced to install headrests and seat belts and padded dashes and collision resistant bumpers and backup cameras and anti-lock brakes. So what?

 

[ReinyDays]

... No point in arguing with Crick, he doesn't debate from a place of honesty ...

I think you're right ... he made a mistake lying in a thread dedicated to exposing lies ... the "I never said that" defense ...