[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Climate Change: Invalid Arguments (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/27/2013 2:06:02 PM EDT
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
...The warming trend started at the end of the "Little Ice Age," most recent glacial period, over 150 10,000 years ago. FIFY http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif True, the overall trend started after the peek cooling of the last ice age, but the recent warming started during the middle of the 19th century. This coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The alarmist would have us believe that it's our fault. Bilster PS Fuck AGW Fuck Obama Fuck Biden Fuck Holder Fuck Cuomo Fuck Swinestain |
|
I consider the whole argument a bit moot.
Man made or not man made, the climate will change, and continue to change, with or without our help. We will evolve or die off, such is the way of things. Right now there isn't a good energy alternative, and so it makes little sense to starve now so we don't starve later. When we finally figure out fusion on a practical scale, then we can start converting everything and kiss fossil fuels good bye. And perhaps the "problem" will correct, or it won't. The only thing that I find silly is the notion that the way the climate is RIGHT NOW is how we should strive to keep it for all time. Not only is that impossible, but it is also rather self centered to think that the way it is is the way it should be just because we're here right now. I mean, imagine how much it would suck right now if scientists were around right at the end of the last ice age and they were terrified of global warming and figured out a way to stop it. |
|
Scientist "We must reduce co2 output to save the world"
Other scientist "Let's eliminate all manmade co2 through iron fertilization" Scientist "We don't know enough about how the climate system works to know if eliminating co2 is a good idea, there's not enough evidence" If scientists and government officials were TRULY of the mindset that co2 increases caused global warming, they would be ok with iron fertilization. However they are scared to death of it. So, i'm curious why they are so dead set on co2 reduction, but when for a very, very small price we could eliminate the past 50 years worth of co2 production. |
|
Quoted:
True, the overall trend started after the peek cooling of the last ice age, but the recent warming started during the middle of the 19th century. This coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The alarmist would have us believe that it's our fault. Bilster PS Fuck AGW Fuck Obama Fuck Biden Fuck Holder Fuck Cuomo Fuck Swinestain Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...The warming trend started at the end of the "Little Ice Age," most recent glacial period, over 150 10,000 years ago. FIFY http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif True, the overall trend started after the peek cooling of the last ice age, but the recent warming started during the middle of the 19th century. This coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The alarmist would have us believe that it's our fault. Bilster PS Fuck AGW Fuck Obama Fuck Biden Fuck Holder Fuck Cuomo Fuck Swinestain I think what he is trying to tell you (assuming he gets it) is that the earth is in an ice age right now. An interglacial period, but still IN an ice age, one which has persisted for approx. the last 2.8 million years. The normal, "natural", condition of the earth is to not be in an ice age at all. From the Smithsonian: 
|
|
Quoted:
I spend my days regarding Co2 as a sign of life. That green shit in plants, chloroplasts, they like C02. They give us oxygen in return. They also give us sugar More Co2 means more plants and more oxygen and sugar. Saying that more CO2 is automatically a good thing because plants require it is faulty logic overly simplistic without accounting many other variables and factors involved. It like saying that if you take twice as many pills as you need to cure a illness, that you will be cured twice as fast. But most likely, taking extra pills will either harm you or kill you. |
|
Quoted:
I consider the whole argument a bit moot. Man made or not man made, the climate will change, and continue to change, with or without our help. We will evolve or die off, such is the way of things. Right now there isn't a good energy alternative, and so it makes little sense to starve now so we don't starve later. When we finally figure out fusion on a practical scale, then we can start converting everything and kiss fossil fuels good bye. And perhaps the "problem" will correct, or it won't. The only thing that I find silly is the notion that the way the climate is RIGHT NOW is how we should strive to keep it for all time. Not only is that impossible, but it is also rather self centered to think that the way it is is the way it should be just because we're here right now. I mean, imagine how much it would suck right now if scientists were around right at the end of the last ice age and they were terrified of global warming and figured out a way to stop it. Video is full of crap. Would happily watch on pay-per-view for him to debate KeithJ - I haven't seen such a beat-down since Rodney King got pulled over, |
|
Quoted: ...True, the overall trend started after the peek cooling of the last ice age, but the recent warming started during the middle of the 19th century. This coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The alarmist would have us believe that it's our fault. I'm OK with it being partly our "fault," but I do not see humans as entirely separate from nature. I don't believe in a grand consciously conceived plan for the destiny of Earth, but if our apparent role is to liberate a little of the carbon that was sequestered by plants hundreds of millions of years ago, so be it. Even with the worst-case scenarios described by the IPCC reports, Earth will be a lot more like it is today than it was during really hot times like the Jurassic. I've come to a conclusion that whether or not people resolve to put the brakes on fossil fuel consumption and actually implement some kind of strategy, the climate will continue to warm up to some point where whatever factors caused it to cool off in the past kick in. I believe it's too big for us to control. Warming isn't really a bad thing. If not for the warming that has occurred in the last 10,000+ years, we probably wouldn't be here at all. 18,000 years ago, a large portion of Europe and places like New York were covered with thick glaciers. The Midwest farm belts would not have been arable because it was too cold. |
|
Quoted:
I think what he is trying to tell you (assuming he gets it) is that the earth is in an ice age right now. An interglacial period, but still IN an ice age, one which has persisted for approx. the last 2.8 million years. The normal, "natural", condition of the earth is to not be in an ice age at all. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...The warming trend started at the end of the "Little Ice Age," most recent glacial period, over 150 10,000 years ago. FIFY http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif True, the overall trend started after the peek cooling of the last ice age, but the recent warming started during the middle of the 19th century. This coincides with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The alarmist would have us believe that it's our fault. Bilster PS Fuck AGW Fuck Obama Fuck Biden Fuck Holder Fuck Cuomo Fuck Swinestain I think what he is trying to tell you (assuming he gets it) is that the earth is in an ice age right now. An interglacial period, but still IN an ice age, one which has persisted for approx. the last 2.8 million years. The normal, "natural", condition of the earth is to not be in an ice age at all. That is a valid point. This ice age will continue as long as we have continental land masses in the High North. If the Arctic Ocean was not there, it would be like Antarctica instead, with no interglacial warming periods. Bilster PS Fuck AGW Fuck Obama Fuck Biden Fuck Holder Fuck Cuomo Fuck Swinestain |
|
Quoted:
Video is full of crap. Would happily watch on pay-per-view for him to debate KeithJ - I haven't seen such a beat-down since Rodney King got pulled over, Quoted:
Quoted:
I consider the whole argument a bit moot. Man made or not man made, the climate will change, and continue to change, with or without our help. We will evolve or die off, such is the way of things. Right now there isn't a good energy alternative, and so it makes little sense to starve now so we don't starve later. When we finally figure out fusion on a practical scale, then we can start converting everything and kiss fossil fuels good bye. And perhaps the "problem" will correct, or it won't. The only thing that I find silly is the notion that the way the climate is RIGHT NOW is how we should strive to keep it for all time. Not only is that impossible, but it is also rather self centered to think that the way it is is the way it should be just because we're here right now. I mean, imagine how much it would suck right now if scientists were around right at the end of the last ice age and they were terrified of global warming and figured out a way to stop it. Video is full of crap. Would happily watch on pay-per-view for him to debate KeithJ - I haven't seen such a beat-down since Rodney King got pulled over, This is the second video of this guys I've seen. What I've determined is that his logic and reasoning skills don't have much depth. |
|
Quoted:
Saying that more CO2 is automatically a good thing because plants require it is faulty logic overly simplistic without accounting many other variables and factors involved. It like saying that if you take twice as many pills as you need to cure a illness, that you will be cured twice as fast. But most likely, taking extra pills will either harm you or kill you. Quoted:
Quoted:
I spend my days regarding Co2 as a sign of life. That green shit in plants, chloroplasts, they like C02. They give us oxygen in return. They also give us sugar More Co2 means more plants and more oxygen and sugar. Saying that more CO2 is automatically a good thing because plants require it is faulty logic overly simplistic without accounting many other variables and factors involved. It like saying that if you take twice as many pills as you need to cure a illness, that you will be cured twice as fast. But most likely, taking extra pills will either harm you or kill you. Calling it a toxin is equally simplistic. Oxygen is certainly toxic at the right levels. |
|
Quoted:
Saying that more CO2 is automatically a good thing because plants require it is faulty logic overly simplistic without accounting many other variables and factors involved. It like saying that if you take twice as many pills as you need to cure a illness, that you will be cured twice as fast. But most likely, taking extra pills will either harm you or kill you. Quoted:
Quoted:
I spend my days regarding Co2 as a sign of life. That green shit in plants, chloroplasts, they like C02. They give us oxygen in return. They also give us sugar More Co2 means more plants and more oxygen and sugar. Saying that more CO2 is automatically a good thing because plants require it is faulty logic overly simplistic without accounting many other variables and factors involved. It like saying that if you take twice as many pills as you need to cure a illness, that you will be cured twice as fast. But most likely, taking extra pills will either harm you or kill you. Plants use less water, grow faster, and have higher yields in higher levels of CO2. And they sequester carbon while doing so. Pop quiz - what do pot growers pump into the air for their mary jane plants? Hint - CO2. |
|
Quoted: Plants use less water, grow faster, and have higher yields in higher levels of CO2. And they sequester carbon while doing so. Pop quiz - what do pot growers pump into the air for their mary jane plants? Hint - CO2. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I spend my days regarding Co2 as a sign of life. That green shit in plants, chloroplasts, they like C02. They give us oxygen in return. They also give us sugar More Co2 means more plants and more oxygen and sugar. Saying that more CO2 is automatically a good thing because plants require it is faulty logic overly simplistic without accounting many other variables and factors involved. It like saying that if you take twice as many pills as you need to cure a illness, that you will be cured twice as fast. But most likely, taking extra pills will either harm you or kill you. Plants use less water, grow faster, and have higher yields in higher levels of CO2. And they sequester carbon while doing so. Pop quiz - what do pot growers pump into the air for their mary jane plants? Hint - CO2. Not just pot farmers. Visit any modern greehouse operation where they're growing food crops. |
|
Quoted:
Plants use less water, grow faster, and have higher yields in higher levels of CO2. And they sequester carbon while doing so. Pop quiz - what do pot growers pump into the air for their mary jane plants? Hint - CO2. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I spend my days regarding Co2 as a sign of life. That green shit in plants, chloroplasts, they like C02. They give us oxygen in return. They also give us sugar More Co2 means more plants and more oxygen and sugar. Saying that more CO2 is automatically a good thing because plants require it is faulty logic overly simplistic without accounting many other variables and factors involved. It like saying that if you take twice as many pills as you need to cure a illness, that you will be cured twice as fast. But most likely, taking extra pills will either harm you or kill you. Plants use less water, grow faster, and have higher yields in higher levels of CO2. And they sequester carbon while doing so. Pop quiz - what do pot growers pump into the air for their mary jane plants? Hint - CO2. Greenhouses are controlled environments where introducing extra CO2 while keeping other variables (water, organic matter, soil, fertilizers) optimum is far easier than what occurs in nature. When you increase one variable, you have to increase the rest. More CO2 will only equal more growth only if there is more water and more nutrients available. Many experiments and studies have been conducted on this and there is plenty of reading on the net. In controlled greenhouse environments plants thrive, but in open-air environments not so much. Do some reading on Free AIr Concentration Enrichment. |
|
Yeah, I was gonna post the 50 to 1 site here. I helped fund it and am happy with the outcome. I haven't watched all of the interviews, but the couple I have are VERY interesting. Like how about 35% of the content of the last IPCC report were written by NON credentialed individuals (graduate students, undergrads, basically people that didn't have PhDs OR any real experience in their fields). It goes on and on. When the AUTHORITY on something says "THIS is going to happen over the next decade!!" and it doesn't... well... in the real world, we call them, oh, what's the word... oh yeah... WRONG. |
|
Quoted: Greenhouses are controlled environments where introducing extra CO2 while keeping other variables (water, organic matter, soil, fertilizers) optimum is far easier than what occurs in nature. When you increase one variable, you have to increase the rest. More CO2 will only equal more growth only if there is more water and more nutrients available. Many experiments and studies have been conducted on this and there is plenty of reading on the net. In controlled greenhouse environments plants thrive, but in open-air environments not so much. Do some reading on Free AIr Concentration Enrichment. Your scenario presupposes that the plant is already using ALL available nutrients. That is never the case, outside of a computer model. |
My favorite part is when he used a decade as evidence of global warming then dismissed people using a five year trend on a billions year old planet .
Ignoring how co2 works, ignoring how scientists are befuddled about lack of change, how one volcano spews more pollutants in the air than years of all human emissions, etc. Not to mention the asshole probably does not realize what all of the radiatively-active trace gases are and without them we never would have existed. But hey, fuck science, emotion Ftmfw. |
|
Quoted:
Personally, I'm more worried about the Ozone layer than I am about higher sea levels. I just don't see how there can be the addtion of 7billion carbon producing generators to the eco system and there NOT be any effect! You should really read up on the carbon cycle. |
|
Quoted:
You should really read up on the carbon cycle. Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I'm more worried about the Ozone layer than I am about higher sea levels. I just don't see how there can be the addtion of 7billion carbon producing generators to the eco system and there NOT be any effect! You should really read up on the carbon cycle. OK...done. Read 5 non-wiki articles (NOAA, NASA, Science, Science Daily, etc) Must be a conspiricy because they all say the human pop is having a detremental effect thru direct emission and loss of biosphere processors. |
|
Quoted: OK...done. Read 5 non-wiki articles (NOAA, NASA, Science, Science Daily, etc) Must be a conspiricy because they all say the human pop is having a detremental effect thru direct emission and loss of biosphere processors. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Personally, I'm more worried about the Ozone layer than I am about higher sea levels. I just don't see how there can be the addtion of 7billion carbon producing generators to the eco system and there NOT be any effect! You should really read up on the carbon cycle. OK...done. Read 5 non-wiki articles (NOAA, NASA, Science, Science Daily, etc) Must be a conspiricy because they all say the human pop is having a detremental effect thru direct emission and loss of biosphere processors. Think the phrase, above in bold, through again. |
|
You know, if you want to be a semantic prick about it, it's not man made at all. Man is simply freeing carbon that exists naturally, and was once free in the atmosphere, but was sequestered for a while by those dinosaur dick heads after dying and being buried for a really long time.
|
|
Quoted:
Think the phrase, above in bold, through again. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I'm more worried about the Ozone layer than I am about higher sea levels. I just don't see how there can be the addtion of 7billion carbon producing generators to the eco system and there NOT be any effect! You should really read up on the carbon cycle. OK...done. Read 5 non-wiki articles (NOAA, NASA, Science, Science Daily, etc) Must be a conspiricy because they all say the human pop is having a detremental effect thru direct emission and loss of biosphere processors. Think the phrase, above in bold, through again. Ok now your nit-picking. I'm done. |
|
Quoted: You know, if you want to be a semantic prick about it, it's not man made at all. Man is simply freeing carbon that exists naturally, and was once free in the atmosphere, but was sequestered for a while by those dinosaur dick heads after dying and being buried for a really long time. That's kind of the point, and it's more than just semantics. We are NOT creating carbon. |
|
Quoted:
We are NOT creating carbon. We are releasing huge amounts into the air. Yet temps haven't risen since '98. The CO2 we release will add slightly to warming. But what AGW theory really claims is that there are positive feedback loops which will dramatically increase warming. The lack of warming since '98, while huge amounts of CO2 have been released, suggests negative feedback, not positive feedback. Or, AGW theory is crap. |
|
Quoted: Video is full of crap. Would happily watch on pay-per-view for him to debate KeithJ - I haven't seen such a beat-down since Rodney King got pulled over, Quoted: Quoted: I consider the whole argument a bit moot. Man made or not man made, the climate will change, and continue to change, with or without our help. We will evolve or die off, such is the way of things. Right now there isn't a good energy alternative, and so it makes little sense to starve now so we don't starve later. When we finally figure out fusion on a practical scale, then we can start converting everything and kiss fossil fuels good bye. And perhaps the "problem" will correct, or it won't. The only thing that I find silly is the notion that the way the climate is RIGHT NOW is how we should strive to keep it for all time. Not only is that impossible, but it is also rather self centered to think that the way it is is the way it should be just because we're here right now. I mean, imagine how much it would suck right now if scientists were around right at the end of the last ice age and they were terrified of global warming and figured out a way to stop it. Video is full of crap. Would happily watch on pay-per-view for him to debate KeithJ - I haven't seen such a beat-down since Rodney King got pulled over, Yes. He could baffle and confound him with his various crackpot theories and obvious orders of magnitude errors. They don't call him Ol' Megajoules for nothing...
|
|
Quoted:
I consider the whole argument a bit moot. Quoted:
I consider the whole argument a bit moot. Eh, can't agree. It is worth knowing. Quoted:
Right now there isn't a good energy alternative, and so it makes little sense to starve now so we don't starve later. Yes, there is, at least for the grid. Nukes for the grid, and a switch to natural gas for transportation. NG still releases CO2, but less of it. If the AGW crowd was serious they would push nukes, not solar and wind nonsense. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, I was gonna post the 50 to 1 site here. I helped fund it and am happy with the outcome. I haven't watched all of the interviews, but the couple I have are VERY interesting. Like how about 35% of the content of the last IPCC report were written by NON credentialed individuals (graduate students, undergrads, basically people that didn't have PhDs OR any real experience in their fields). It goes on and on. When the AUTHORITY on something says "THIS is going to happen over the next decade!!" and it doesn't... well... in the real world, we call them, oh, what's the word... oh yeah... WRONG. Quoted:
Yeah, I was gonna post the 50 to 1 site here. I helped fund it and am happy with the outcome. I haven't watched all of the interviews, but the couple I have are VERY interesting. Like how about 35% of the content of the last IPCC report were written by NON credentialed individuals (graduate students, undergrads, basically people that didn't have PhDs OR any real experience in their fields). It goes on and on. When the AUTHORITY on something says "THIS is going to happen over the next decade!!" and it doesn't... well... in the real world, we call them, oh, what's the word... oh yeah... WRONG. 
|
|
Quoted:
OK...done. Read 5 non-wiki articles (NOAA, NASA, Science, Science Daily, etc) Must be a conspiricy because they all say the human pop is having a detremental effect thru direct emission and loss of biosphere processors. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I'm more worried about the Ozone layer than I am about higher sea levels. I just don't see how there can be the addtion of 7billion carbon producing generators to the eco system and there NOT be any effect! You should really read up on the carbon cycle. OK...done. Read 5 non-wiki articles (NOAA, NASA, Science, Science Daily, etc) Must be a conspiricy because they all say the human pop is having a detremental effect thru direct emission and loss of biosphere processors. Yup, are you trying to talk about methyl chloroform, cfc's,and carbon tetra chloride, or just life? |
|
Quoted: Ok now your nit-picking. I'm done. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Personally, I'm more worried about the Ozone layer than I am about higher sea levels. I just don't see how there can be the addtion of 7billion carbon producing generators to the eco system and there NOT be any effect! You should really read up on the carbon cycle. OK...done. Read 5 non-wiki articles (NOAA, NASA, Science, Science Daily, etc) Must be a conspiricy because they all say the human pop is having a detremental effect thru direct emission and loss of biosphere processors. Think the phrase, above in bold, through again. Ok now your nit-picking. I'm done. Science is hard! |
|
Quoted: We are releasing huge amounts into the air. Yet temps haven't risen since '98. The CO2 we release will add slightly to warming. But what AGW theory really claims is that there are positive feedback loops which will dramatically increase warming. The lack of warming since '98, while huge amounts of CO2 have been released, suggests negative feedback, not positive feedback. Or, AGW theory is crap. Quoted: Quoted: We are NOT creating carbon. We are releasing huge amounts into the air. Yet temps haven't risen since '98. The CO2 we release will add slightly to warming. But what AGW theory really claims is that there are positive feedback loops which will dramatically increase warming. The lack of warming since '98, while huge amounts of CO2 have been released, suggests negative feedback, not positive feedback. Or, AGW theory is crap. We are releasing what SOUNDS like huge amounts, until we put those amounts into perspective and context vs. the size of the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide already present. Then, it doesn't seem like such a huge amount. I concur with the rest of what you posted. |
|
Quoted: ...With the total failure of their models, it's all they have left. The Landscheidt Minimum is upon us, right on schedule.  we covered this pretty thoroughly in the last thread. landscheidt predicted a sharp downward trend in global temperatures beginning in 1998, and bottoming out in 2030. 15 of those 32 years have passed--so where is the sharp downward trend? this is especially troublesome since he specifically said that the trend would be obvious quite early in the "schedule". it is ceaselessly amusing to me that you talk long and loud about the absence of a strong warming trend as predicted by AGW theory, but aren't at all bothered by the absence of a cooling trend as predicted by landscheidt. if we're talking about predictions from 1998 to now (the timeframe in question), AGW theorists and landscheidt are equally wrong. if failed predictions invalidate the models, then both of them are invalid. and yet you are downright evangelistic when it comes to the veracity of landscheidt. this should strike any thoughtful person as an oddity. but carry on.
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where's KeithJ to teabag this little hipster (no beard, because that's "ironic")? |
|
Quoted: It's cute how you guys hold him in such esteem! Is he your Smiter of Scientiests? Lolzers. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where's KeithJ to teabag this little hipster (no beard, because that's "ironic")? there's no question that keith is one of the scientific authorities on this board. that said, i think the point kurg is making is that there are a lot of dittoheads on the board, like straphangers fluttering in the champ's wake. |
|
Quoted: It's cute how you guys hold him in such esteem! Is he your Smiter of Scientiests? Lolzers. Quoted: Quoted: I already engaged your Head Scientist (lol) long ago. It became clear he was just a hand-waver. He spouted off some crazy theory he said "proved" global warming was a fake. Only, well, it took me all of 5 minutes to see his obvious orders of magnitude error in one of his, lol, "calculations". This is why he's now called Megajoules (instead of Gigajoules). I immediately regretted wasting 5 minutes on him.
|
|
Quoted: Okay, Slappy, call KeithJ out to the pit. We'll see if you have a clue what you're talking about. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where's KeithJ to teabag this little hipster (no beard, because that's "ironic")? there's no question that keith is one of the scientific authorities on this board. that said, i think the point kurg is making is that there are a lot of dittoheads on the board, like straphangers fluttering in the champ's wake. |
|
Quoted: Okay, Slappy, call KeithJ out to the pit. We'll see if you have a clue what you're talking about. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I already engaged your Head Scientist (lol) long ago. It became clear he was just a hand-waver. He spouted off some crazy theory he said "proved" global warming was a fake. Only, well, it took me all of 5 minutes to see his obvious orders of magnitude error in one of his, lol, "calculations". This is why he's now called Megajoules (instead of Gigajoules). I immediately regretted wasting 5 minutes on him.  |