More nails to the coffin on Global Warming Alarmists? - General

[QUOTE=dryer-lint;18593197][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/CO2-Temp.png/800px-CO2-Temp.png[/img] Well here's back a thousand years.[/QUOTE] yes and if you look back another thousand years it gets quite warm, warmer than today. that period is known as the little ice age unless you think the vikings caused global warming with bonfires or something

Here's a pretty long graph. You have to read it right to left though. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png[/img] At least validates CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

and that graph proves that the CO2 theory is quite honestly a load of bull, you can see the temperatures and CO2 levels have gone up and down in similar ways hundreds of thousands of years before we were even around polluting the air

[QUOTE=Idi Amin;18593075]In all seriousness fuck electric cars. I want a v8 69' dodge GTO Judge, orange with a black stripe. Not a plastic dildo car that runs for 10 hours at 20 mph before you have to recharge it.[/QUOTE] Electric cars can look exactly the same as engine powered cars, except the fact that you don't need to make room for a massive heavy engine with shit like radiators, hoses, belts, oil, intake/exhaust pipes, alternators etc. If we spent more money on developing better energy storage technology electric cars would have better mileage than gas cars right now.

Only a handful of things could cause Earth's observed global temperature increase: Changes in Solar input, an increase in greenhouse gases, or perhaps a change in albedo. There is no evidence that supports either an increase in solar input or a decrease in albedo. There is, however, a lot of evidence of an increase in greenhouse gases. CO2 is now at a higher atmospheric concentration than at any time in the last half million years. Futhermore, there is absolutely no doubt that humanity is the cause of it. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has jumped up 50% within the last 150 years, from 280ppm to 400ppm. This is a larger increase over a shorter period of time than anything that's ever been recorded in climactic history, ever. And the combustion of fossil fuels more than accounts for it. There is no doubt that CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution, and there is no doubt that the planet is warming. There is no doubt that the warming is caused by the CO2, and there is no doubt that humans are the responsible for it. This has been climatologist consensus for decades. The only opposition are figureheads paid by interest groups. That is all. In fact, all one needs to do is look at Venus. It's further away from the sun from Mercury but is constantly hundreds of degrees hotter, and this can all be attributed to its thick carbon dioxide blanket.

[QUOTE=Athena;18593294]Only a handful of things could cause Earth's observed global temperature increase: Changes in Solar input, an increase in greenhouse gases, or perhaps a change in albedo. There is no evidence that supports either an increase in solar input or a decrease in albedo. There is, however, a lot of evidence of an increase in greenhouse gases. CO2 is now at a higher atmospheric concentration than at any time in the last half million years. Futhermore, there is absolutely no doubt that humanity is the cause of it. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has jumped up 50% within the last 150 years, from 280ppm to 400ppm. This is a larger increase over a shorter period of time than anything that's ever been recorded in climactic history, ever. And the combustion of fossil fuels more than accounts for it. There is no doubt that CO2 levels have increased since the industrial revolution, and there is no doubt that the planet is warming. There is no doubt that the warming is caused by the CO2, and there is no doubt that humans are the responsible for it. This has been climatologist consensus for decades. The only opposition are figureheads paid by interest groups. That is all. In fact, all one needs to do is look at Venus. It's further away from the sun from Mercury but is constantly hundreds of degrees hotter, and this can all be attributed to its thick carbon dioxide blanket.[/QUOTE] I'm going to skip over all the other points you made and say this. Venus is not Earth are you stupid?

[QUOTE=Athena;18593294]In fact, all one needs to do is look at Venus. It's further away from the sun from Mercury but is constantly hundreds of degrees hotter, and this can all be attributed to its thick carbon dioxide blanket.[/QUOTE] 99% of our atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen. We don't have a thick carbon dioxide blanket.

[QUOTE=dryer-lint;18593445]I'm going to skip over all the other points you made and say this. Venus is not Earth are you stupid?[/QUOTE] Venus is similar in many ways to the earth. It is approximately equal in size and distance from the sun. Just because it's not a carbon copy doesn't mean it isn't useful for climate modeling. [QUOTE=rilez;18593497]99% of our atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen. We don't have a thick carbon dioxide blanket.[/QUOTE] That is obvious. The point I'm illustrating is just one example of the effect of high CO2 concentrations on temperature.

[QUOTE=Athena;18593501]Venus is similar in many ways to the earth. It is approximately equal in size and distance from the sun. Just because it's not a carbon copy doesn't mean it isn't useful for climate modeling. That is obvious. The point I'm illustrating is the effect of high CO2 concentrations on temperature.[/QUOTE] except 97% of Venus' atmosphere is composed of CO2 while ours is composed of 0.038% CO2 [editline]11:26PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Athena;18593501]That is obvious. The point I'm illustrating is just one example of the effect of high CO2 concentrations on temperature.[/QUOTE] and we have no effect on such a small part of the atmosphere, is what I'm saying.

[QUOTE=rilez;18593526]except 97% of Venus' atmosphere is composed of CO2 while ours is composed of 0.038% CO2[/QUOTE] What's your point? CO2 has been established as a greenhouse gas for decades now, universally so. There is insurmountable proof that it traps heat at the surface; Venus is just one example. Just because the percentages vary does not invalidate the relationship.

See how I successfully predicted that he would skip over everything else in your argument and go straight for venus?

[QUOTE=rilez;18593085]looking at a chart over the past 200 years is hardly evidence supporting the current global warming hypothesis if you take a look at figures from the last million years you'll see those steep climbs all the time, not even a million years if you look 2000 years back [img]http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/blog_2000%20Years%20of%20Global%20Temps,%20Graph.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I love how a bullshit graph is pulled out to respond to the other one.

[QUOTE=Lazor;18593626]I love how a bullshit graph is pulled out to respond to the other one.[/QUOTE] yes a bullshit graph created by a research scientist at the University of Alabama who worked at NASA

What I see here is not legitimate skepticism. It is bad faith skepticism that attempts to nitpick any inconsistency to sow doubt or reaffirm. This indifferent to the [url=http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair]Lenski affair.[/url] What happened in this event was not even bad science. It wasn't even science at all. An error was made in a report, and when called on it, the authors stonewalled instead of admitting it. This is reprehensible, but no rational person would ever let this stain the reputation of thousands of honest scientists and climatologists, nor would it cause someone to doubt anthropogenic climate change.

fuck arguing with global warming alarmists i got better things to do

I'll consider that as admitting defeat. edit: It's funny because you said you'd leave the thread but you didn't. Now you're a liar.

[QUOTE=Athena;18593786]I'll consider that as admitting defeat.[/QUOTE] I don't like arguing when I have no chance of getting through to the other side. If you consider that victory then more to you

Obviously the Wiccans have been conversing with the Sun and pleading with it to increase in both size and warmth in order to trick the inhabitants of Earth into reducing industrial activity and therefore return the planet into it's earlier, more natural states.

I'm going to get yelled at for this but I still think we're just accelerating a natural cycle of temperature change. (basing this off what evidence I've heard since I'm not a climatologist.) We certainly aren't helping things out, however.

people still believe in global warming? the green movement is a load of bull crap, especially when they say hybrids can save the world. diesels have better fuel economy and have the same co2 emissions as hybrids but people are too stupid to look that shit up because they are too lazy. not to mention, the batteries you need for hybrids do waaaaay more damage to the environment than building an ordinary car.

[QUOTE=schrollbach;18594127]people still believe in global warming? the green movement is a load of bull crap, especially when they say hybrids can save the world. diesels have better fuel economy and have the same co2 emissions as hybrids but people are too stupid to look that shit up because they are too lazy. not to mention, the batteries you need for hybrids do waaaaay more damage to the environment than building an ordinary car.[/QUOTE] do the oil companies pay you to say that? one battery lasts what? 5 years? how much gas would you burn in that time? what do we do when all the oil is gone in 10 years? also, i'd like a stat/study on diesel emitting the same as a hybrid car. who is profiting off this green movement? the lightbulb companies? [QUOTE=Idi Amin;18593075]In all seriousness fuck electric cars. I want a v8 69' dodge GTO Judge, orange with a black stripe. Not a plastic dildo car that runs for 10 hours at 20 mph before you have to recharge it.[/QUOTE] the tesla roadster blows that car out of the water. 0-60 in 3.7 seconds :v:

[QUOTE=Foda;18594236]one battery lasts what? 5 years.[/QUOTE] rofl, maybe you should look up what nickel mining does to the environment

[QUOTE=Foda;18594236]do the oil companies pay you to say that? one battery lasts what? 5 years? how much gas would you burn in that time? what do we do when all the oil is gone in 10 years? also, i'd like a stat/study on diesel emitting the same as a hybrid car. who is profiting off this green movement? the lightbulb companies? the tesla roadster blows that car out of the water. 0-60 in 3.7 seconds :v:[/QUOTE] Do pro global warming companies pay you to say that? Electric power is far better, yes, but that's not the point. The point is that man has not made the impact people think we have. It's a global cycle the planet goes through. It gets hotter, then cooler. Deal with it, we didn't cause it, and we can't stop it. Though we have affected it, guess what affects it more. Fucking Cows.

The way I see it, climate problems caused by fossil fuels are still a century off. Running shit out of oil and being forced to fight war after war after war to capture the dwindling reserves is going to clusterfuck EVERYTHING in more like 20 years.

if you read the responses from the scientists the hackers allegedly stole emails from, it clears a lot of misconceptions up Also, ignoring the whole "warming" aspect of climate change, co2 emissions are seriously fucking up the oceans and are going to kill off a lot of fish; when that happens, there will be a pretty assy famine in places like Asia that rely on such sources of food. This is a result of too much co2 dissolved in sea water, and fish death is compounded by dying coral. It's a p serious issue that is largely ignored, regardless what you think about global warming if the ocean dies off then we're pretty fucked. Another thing, when talking about climate change, please don't resort to platitudes from cable news as that doesn't do anyone any good.

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;18594914]if you read the responses from the scientists the hackers allegedly stole emails from, it clears a lot of misconceptions up Also, ignoring the whole "warming" aspect of climate change, co2 emissions are seriously fucking up the oceans and are going to kill off a lot of fish; when that happens, there will be a pretty assy famine in places like Asia that rely on such sources of food. This is a result of too much co2 dissolved in sea water, and fish death is compounded by dying coral. It's a p serious issue that is largely ignored, regardless what you think about global warming if the ocean dies off then we're pretty fucked. Another thing, when talking about climate change, please don't resort to platitudes from cable news as that doesn't do anyone any good.[/QUOTE] The ocean is absolutely essential to life everywhere else on the planet, it should be watched and protected just as thoroughly as the atmosphere.

see here: [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rising-acidity-in-the-ocean[/url] anyone that denies man-made climate change is pretty much an imbecile at this point; climate change does not just revolve around temperature

[QUOTE=M_B;18592214]the debate on global warming is like the debate on religion. it's going to be discussed forever, it's already been a [highlight]hot[/highlight] topic in news and held many arguments for the last 50 years or so.[/QUOTE] The debate on global warming is like the debate on evolution vs. creationism. All the scientists agree that global warming is happening and we're the cause, yet politicians and common people haven't quite realised this yet.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;18594986]The debate on global warming is like the debate on evolution vs. creationism. All the scientists agree that global warming is happening and we're the cause, yet politicians and common people haven't quite realised this yet.[/QUOTE] No it's not. Evolution and Creation are two different things. One is a proven theory backed up by tangible evidence and the other is a 2000 year old book. Global Warming and skeptisicm is the debate on whether it is an actual occurance and if it is, does human activity affect it?

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;18595058]No it's not. Evolution and Creation are two different things. One is a proven theory backed up by tangible evidence and the other is a 2000 year old book. Global Warming and skeptisicm is the debate on whether it is an actual occurance and if it is, does human activity affect it?[/QUOTE] The problem with that view is that it isn't nuanced enough. Regardless as to whether or not humans are responsible for global warming, we still have a responsibility to protect the environment from deforestation and other such disasters. We can't just, for example, conclude that global warming is natural (due to sun spots, volcanoes, or what have you) and then use that to justify building a shitload of new coal power plants. The fact that global warming is even debated in relation to things like cap and trade is a problem, as it's still a Very Bad Thing to pollute the air.