• German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”, Super Serial.
    78 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19310236]No one wants a better world unless it benefits them.[/QUOTE] I do
[QUOTE=Rundas;19310306]I do[/QUOTE] I can't really believe that, since a better world would in your eyes benefit you. If making the world a better place involved killing you I doubt you would be for it.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;19310353]I can't really believe that, since a better world would in your eyes benefit you. If making the world a better place involved killing you I doubt you would be for it.[/QUOTE] I would be for it.
[QUOTE=elitehakor;19310427]I would be for it.[/QUOTE] I'm going to have to agree. I say most of us would be for a better world if it involved killing elitehakor.
How many times does global warming need to be disproven? It's just a bid for more governmental power over people. [B]EDIT:[/B] Build nuclear power facilities, build that giant-ass solar plant in the middle of the desert, find ways to efficiently produce and use hydrogen-based vehicles. THEN you can complain to me.
It's really hard to see the truth behind all the politics, but I'm going to have to go with the "it's real" crowd by default since the right wing doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to science.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;19301143]Except that pretty much everything Glenn Beck has said and written has a verifyable source. Have you read his most recent book? It has a gigantic reference section.[/QUOTE] Lol
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19312845]How many times does global warming need to be disproven? It's just a bid for more governmental power over people.[/QUOTE] It hasn't been disproven you dummy. This article is a pile of crap written about a pile of shoddy science.
Oh fuck. That thing about the laws of thermodynamics makes alot of fucking sense.... For those who didn't do physics the laws of thermodynamics say that heat travels from warm regions to cold regions ONLY. Regardless of what anyone thinks the ground is always hotter than the atmosphere, hence why up in the sky is rather cold. Thusly, the atmosphere cannot heat the surface but indeed vise-versa the ground is what heats the atmosphere. ( In addition to radiated heat from the sun of course ) At least I think that makes sense. I don't see any reason to the contrary ( If someone does please post it )
[QUOTE=Killoch0;19314460]Oh fuck. That thing about the laws of thermodynamics makes alot of fucking sense.... For those who didn't do physics the laws of thermodynamics say that heat travels from warm regions to cold regions ONLY. Regardless of what anyone thinks the ground is always hotter than the atmosphere, hence why up in the sky is rather cold. Thusly, the atmosphere cannot heat the surface but indeed vise-versa the ground is what heats the atmosphere. ( In addition to radiated heat from the sun of course ) At least I think that makes sense. I don't see any reason to the contrary ( If someone does please post it )[/QUOTE] I might be mistaken but it isn't heat traveling from the atmosphere to the ground, but that the atmosphere allows heat from the sun in but doesn't let it out. It's the sun warming the ground, and the atmosphere not letting it build up rather than let out. Someone said it earlier but greenhouse effect [i]is[/i] real. Venus had a runaway greenhouse problem which is why it is so hot and why it has such a thick atmosphere. The debate about Climate Change is whether humans put out enough greenhouse gases(although now the main output is Co2, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and some hydrogen cars they are making are supposed to emit water vapor) to actually hurt the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=Killoch0;19314460]Oh fuck. That thing about the laws of thermodynamics makes alot of fucking sense.... For those who didn't do physics the laws of thermodynamics say that heat travels from warm regions to cold regions ONLY. Regardless of what anyone thinks the ground is always hotter than the atmosphere, hence why up in the sky is rather cold. Thusly, the atmosphere cannot heat the surface but indeed vise-versa the ground is what heats the atmosphere. ( In addition to radiated heat from the sun of course ) At least I think that makes sense. I don't see any reason to the contrary ( If someone does please post it )[/QUOTE] My first post in this thread has a link that refutes that claim quite well, I believe it's on the first page. And call me crazy, but I think that the scientists involved with climate research(which includes many thousands of scientists across many different fields) would have thought of the law of thermodynamics a long time ago. [editline]03:18AM[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;19314957]I might be mistaken but it isn't heat traveling from the atmosphere to the ground, but that the atmosphere allows heat from the sun in but doesn't let it out. It's the sun warming the ground, and the atmosphere not letting it build up rather than let out. Someone said it earlier but greenhouse effect [i]is[/i] real. Venus had a runaway greenhouse problem which is why it is so hot and why it has such a thick atmosphere. The debate about Climate Change is whether humans put out enough greenhouse gases(although now the main output is Co2, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and some hydrogen cars they are making are supposed to emit water vapor) to actually hurt the atmosphere.[/QUOTE] The debate about climate change in the public sphere may be about that, but scientists are largely not debating things such as that, but mostly dealing with the finer details of the theory.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;19313876]It hasn't been disproven you dummy. This article is a pile of crap written about a pile of shoddy science.[/QUOTE] stop rating yourself agree
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19326592]stop rating yourself agree[/QUOTE] When you can't argue for yourself: accuse your opponent of rating himself agree! [editline]10:21AM[/editline] I didn't even know you could rate yourself. Can you? [editline]10:21AM[/editline] yep, guess i can.
[QUOTE=lmaoboat;19296486]That's not fair to The Sun.[/QUOTE] Hey what about the onion?
Isn't believing this one research paper doing exactly what climate sceptics have been warning against for years - i.e. believing something just because it's a research paper. Seriously, why is this paper any more legitimate than any other papers suggesting climate change is happening? How the hell does it 'violate the first and second laws of thermodynamics'. Last time I checked there was external work being done on the earth, namely in the form of a gigantic star called the [b]sun.[/b] But none of that matters right? Because now you have something made by 'scientists' to justify your tin foil expenses amirite? Wait, didn't the same type of 'scientist' also publish a load of papers suggesting global warming did exist? It doesn't matter how many hundreds of papers are published with one view, as soon a single opposite one comes along with some guy saying the same thing that you think suddenly it's the only one that exists. :iceburn: look ma! I can do it too! Clearly this scathingly scientific burn confirms my argument.
I can't trust any of these information. Nobody is ever right
The "Typical Conservative" doesn't want to make a direct benefit off of global warming, as quite a few of you guys are assuming. It seems alot of people who are for Green-ing up our lives overlook the cost associated. It's still more expensive to get most of these green energy sources, which combined with the soured economy makes it a very bad time to be focusing on shifting our energy sources. I am all for green energy, but the problem I see is that it's still impractical as far as cost. The tax credits are a great way to help people alleviate the investment of these technologies, but the current approach is "Tax the old sources so nobody can afford to use them." Now how exactly is someone supposed to save up money to buy a more efficient car/house when they're subject to more taxes to pay for their current car/house's higher usage? [B]edit:[/B] More relevant to the thread. I like the argument these Physicists present, and I think it's just as reliable as the original scientists who started the Global Warming Theories.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;19293423]How does it violate the first law?[/QUOTE] it will either harm a human or allow a human to come to harm. also this doesn't disprove climate change at all, you're all a bunch of babies for instantly believing such a shitty source [QUOTE=Jenkem;19301143]Except that pretty much everything Glenn Beck has said and written has a verifyable source. Have you read his most recent book? It has a gigantic reference section.[/QUOTE] lmao, you think that glenn beck is even slightly legitimate [QUOTE=Golden-Death;19296052][img]http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4781/e091207petty.jpg[/img] Wahh.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Urkel01;19327528] lmao, you think that glenn beck is even slightly legitimate[/QUOTE] Number of references is now directly proportional to the reliability of the source. Amount of internet drama is also directly proportional to reliability. Wikipedia is now the most reliable scientific source in history.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.