|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bin Laden and Al Gore are now two peas in a pod | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
I invite all of you climate change deniers to a wine tasting in my garage. With my car running. Oh, and the doors are closed. If you live, you can have a barbecue next to my natural gas well, sans protective clothing.
I have never denied the reality of "climate change." If you will read closely what I said, I always said "man-caused climate change." Yes, I believe that pumping C02 into the atmosphere, 95% which comes from non man-made sources, has no affect. If you believe C02 is the real bad boy, then let's all stop breathing and also stop letting things decay! I'm sure the world will be a better place without any humans here to polute it. Then maybe evolution can start all over again and get it right, assuming evolution is the answer to why we are here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Please show us your research into this as to how you formed the conclusion that man induced CO2 has no effect on climate change. Edited by bluescat48, : missing phrase There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Ok. I'll sit in your garage with a cow while you sit in my garage with my car running. Who's going to die here?
If you had to guess, would you say that there are more or less stock animals than cars? (don't forget to calculate India and China). That's not even factoring in all of the coal plants, the natural gas wells that spew toxic shit into the air as well as pollute the groundwater, and all of the other types of petroleum processing facilities that burn off shit into the air. You see, earth is ok with animals because life has evolved to live here. Animals and people exhaling gases is natural because we have *GASP* plants and trees that use those gases to convert into O2. What is NOT natural is all of the other pollutants that are burned off as a result of the aforementioned processes. So again I say: would you prefer to be stuck in a garage with a cow (or even multiple cattle) or a running car? "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Please show us your research into this as to how you formed the conclusion that man induced CO2 has no effect on climate change.
By the same token, please show us how the 5% of man-caused C02 causes climate change!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Please answer my question.
As for your question we now have more than the original 100%, The added CO2plus the clearing of much of the natural CO2 filters (rain forests) increased the level even higher. Edited by bluescat48, : missing <> Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given. Edited by bluescat48, : "/" screw up There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It is not just 5 percent.. it is 5 percent year after year after year.
If you look at the ice core samples, and see how much carbon dioxyde was in the atmosphere 200 years ago, we have 30% more in the atmosphere today. While a lot of the excess CO2 is being absorbed by the ocean, it is also causing the oceans to be more acidic..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
ScienceDaily writes: "When you look at the leading scientists who have made any sort of statement about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, you find 97 percent of those top 100 surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC's assessment," he said. That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he said. ScienceDaily writes: "We really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole discussion," Anderegg said. "We hope to put to rest the notion that keeps being repeated in the media and by some members of the public that 'the scientists disagree' about whether human activity is contributing to climate change." And to dispel the "hive mind" BS about science and scientists:
William Anderegg writes: "When you stop to consider whether some sort of 'group think' really drives these patterns and could it really exist in science in general, the idea is really pretty laughable," he said. "All of the incentives in science are exactly the opposite. "If you were a young researcher and had the data to overturn any of the mainstream paradigms, or what the IPCC has done, you would become absolutely famous," he said. "Everyone wants to be the next Darwin, everyone wants to be the next Einstein." Source So yea, it's pretty much only morons who think man has NOT caused climate change. "A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise A morning filled with 400 billion suns The rising of the milky way" -Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You know that hockey stick graph:
I've been wondering where we at with that nowadays... It seems to me that last year, 2009, wasn't that bad WRT Global Warming. Has anyone seen any of the temperature data from that year and where it would be on the hockey stick graph?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
As far as I can tell from the data from the NCDC it would be pretty much in line with the values on the far right of the graph, a bit above 0.5.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As far as I can tell from the data from the NCDC it would be pretty much in line with the values on the far right of the graph, a bit above 0.5. What were you looking at that told you that? Aren't all those graphs that are linked to with the X's from data published in 2008? Are you sure they include the 2009 data? or am I doing it wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Aren't all those graphs that are linked to with the X's from data published in 2008? I don't think so, the 2008 paper was detailing improvements in temperature anomaly analysis. Given there are 9 columns to the right of 2000, and the fact that the graph is different from the one from 2008, I don't see why there is any reason to doubt that this includes the data for 2009. For a verbal breakdown see here. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't think so, the 2008 paper was detailing improvements in temperature anomaly analysis. Given there are 9 columns to the right of 2000, and the fact that the graph is different from the one from 2008, I don't see why there is any reason to doubt that this includes the data for 2009. Oh, I see. The 2008 ones referece a paper from 2005. I thought the paper in the 2009 one was where they were pulling the data from, and saw the 2008 and thought it didn't have the 2009 data yet, or something like that. But yeah, it does seem to have the 2009 data. Hey, Thanks for the help!
For a verbal breakdown see here . Yeah, that one is much better. Thanks again. 2009 didn't seem that hot where I live so I was curious what the rest of the world was seeing. From the link:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3024 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
CO2 levels in the atmosphere in ages past have been much higher than they are now, when human population was non-existant! So blaming current climate-change fluxuations on the 5% man-caused CO2 seems to be quite a stretch.
If you and others truly believe man is the cause of current climate change fluxuations, I would start a crusade to plant more trees, rather than enact cap & trade laws to curb man-caused CO2 emissions, or maybe you could join those who have designed artificial tree machines to take CO2 out of the atmosphere? The basic problem is that many at this forum don't believe God will take care of His first creation until He creates a new heaven and a new earth! Genesis 8:22, "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." Rev 21:1, "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth ; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea." Blessings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
CO2 levels in the atmosphere in ages past have been much higher than they are now, when human population was non-existant! So blaming current climate-change fluxuations on the 5% man-caused CO2 seems to be quite a stretch. CO2 was very much higher at times way in the geological past than it is now. Earth was a much warmer place than now at many of those high-CO2 times, too. And I still don't know what this "5%" you keep mentioning is supposed to be. The atmosphere currently has 36% more CO2 than it did in 1832, and over 20% more than it did in 1960. Go see the well-footnoted article at Wikipedia if you want some leads: Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
The basic problem is that many at this forum don't believe God will take care of His first creation until He creates a new heaven and a new earth! Isn't that alleged to be going to happen within the lifetimes of people who heard Jesus's words? Or at least really soon now? "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
What the heck does religious mythology have to do with whether global warming is man induced or nature induced?My beliefs, your beliefs and the beliefs of others on this forum have no effect on the cause of global warming.
The problem is that the area where the trees would help are the areas that have been cleared of trees, ie: rain forests Edited by bluescat48, : typo no [/qs] Edited by bluescat48, : misplacement Edited by bluescat48, : lost paragraph There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024