The Global Warming Scam

If you press 'peek' in the bottom right hand corner of my post, you'll be able to see how I wrote this message to make this appear as a quote. This would make your posts much easier to read.

To be more accurate, you put those concentrations into a "perspective" that was dumber than a bag of hammers, and many people pointed out your silly mistake.Since then you have almost entirely substituted whining for argument.

Ah, you're thinking of *AlGore*--the evil anti-Al Gore. That was one of the ur-Park episodes.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

If I find a cancer researcher who smokes cigarettes does this disprove the link between cigarettes and cancer? What we are condemning is your penchant for misrepresenting the facts. Your diatribe against graphical representation of data is a prime example. You have twisted yourself into logical knots in order to deny the impact that carbon dioxide has on the greenhouse effect.It is a fact that prior to the Industrial Revolution carbon dioxide levels hit a peak of 300 ppm in the last 400,000 years which spans several glaciation cycles. The current level is around 375 ppm. This is 25% higher than at any point in the last 400,000 years as recorded in several ice cores. Do you think it is just a coincidence that this spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincides with massive use of fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide?So I have to ask. What do you think will happen when you increase the concentration of a potent greenhouse gas by 25%? Do you think less heat, more heat, or the same amount of heat will be trapped in the atmosphere? I would hope that any answer you give is supported by scientific data, no? Why is it that Global Warming deniers are all about style but not about substance?

What is so wrong with wanting a cleaner planet? Do you honestly think that the energy we use (coal and oil, for example), is going to be around forever? Given the option, and without mandate, would you choose for the harder choice to be green, or continue to drive your gas guzzling SUV? The resources that our planet has DO regenerate (some of them), but not at the rate we are using them.What about landfills? Would you want to live next to a landfill? Given the exponential growth of the human population, do you honestly think we can continue out wasteful ways and keep piling on trash with no side effects?I propose this for those opposed: park your car in your garage. Turn it on and stand in there. Obviously, it is not an accurate representation, but you quickly get the point. Secondly: build a house on or near a landfill. Feel like recycling yet?Take a look at this documentary: Home (embedding is disabled for this video). See that? Those are rivers. Would you drink from that water?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Melting of permafrost releases methane through the decomposition of organic matter...ie. Warming temps melt permafrost releasing methane which contributes to warming the atmosphere which warms the ocean which releases CO2.Iirc from my 2 geology classes I took.Methane will oxidise to form CO2 but i'm unsure how much of an effect that reaction has on atmospheric concentrations.

NPR was talking about this the other day. It's a spiralling affect that, frankly, there's little we can do about. It would take the unified effort of the entire world over the next 30 years to reverse the effects of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, the world is anything but unified on this issue.We can debate about this all we want. GW is pretty much unstoppable at this stage in the game.

I have often wonder why it is generally the case that if one professes to be a conservative one must absolutely be against having a cleaner planet. Now, I am not simply just talking about the famous ones like Ann Coulter (who once said that god gave us this planet to plunder and rape all we want). Ordinary everyday conservatives tend to have this attitude as well.Can anyone explain why if one is a conservative one must be against a cleaner planet? This seems to defy my common sense. Because common sense tells me that if you are a conservative you're suppose to want to preserve this planet, which is suppose to be god's gift for humanity. Whenever I get a gift from my family, I don't just trash it. I cherish it and keep it in good shape. If conservatives consider this planet to be god's gift for man, why do they keep wanting to destroy it?

Because by the very definition, "conservative" means conserving what is happening now.Any change whatsoever would not be conserving the current status quo. So conservatives want to continue doing exactly what is going on now: take whatever you want and don't worry about consequences that won't affect you.

Nij is right about the definition of conservative. It is the disruption of his status quo that has Lewis so upset.For the foreseeable future global warming advocates will be no more effective than dogs barking at cars. We've always assumed that technology will solve all problems, and so far this has been the case, sort of. I say 'sort of,' because oftentimes yesterday's technological solutions cause tomorrow's crises. A good example is the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides that has made food plentiful in much of the world, but at the expense of polluting the environment.We'd better hope that technology can solve global warming, because the world will never agree to curtail growth and reduce living standards to a degree that could have an impact. Of course, it'll happen anyway if technology can't bail us out.We can argue about things like how long it would take us to use up all the fossil fuels or how long it would take us to cause global climate change, but I hope there's no disagreement that it is certainly within our power to eventually do these things.--Percy

Yes, but why add to the problem? Why make things worse by not addressing the tremendous impact that we have on the world? We should not be throwing up our hands and saying 'Sad, but nothing we can do.' There are ways we can begin limiting our output of GHG's into the atmosphere.

The reverse is true also. If we think that by presenting the facts in a forthright and honest matter will change people's minds then we are living in fantasy world. People (like the originator of this thread) have made an emotional decision that GW is a scam, and no amount of evidence will change their mind. There are also people who may very well accept the facts but see no reason to change their lifestyle unless everyone else does first.Shall we call it pragmatic pessimism?

Do you recall what happened when the government started listening to the scientists and began to ban or limit the use of CFC's?

There ARE "ozone hole deniers", ya know....... There are people who think that was also a lie purported by big brother....

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

That might be the case, but you don't have nearly the same level of incredulity and invictive that you do with GW or AGW.I disagree that there is nothing to do about it because people deny its validity. It just means that there is a lot more work to do to convince people that there is a problem and something can be done about it.