Global Warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
   / Global Warming? #1,701  
Answer the simple questions of;
1. There were events over the last 10,000 years of warming much greater than today that could not have possibly been caused by fossil fuels, so how can you be so sure today's event and only today's, is caused by man?
2. What caused these previous events that doesn't exist today?
3. Almost without fail, each of these previous events was followed by a dramatic cooling event, many scientists today see hints that is about to happen again, why would this not be the case this time vs continued warming until the polar bears wear bikinis?
 
   / Global Warming? #1,702  
The 7 billion people are eating and much of the food has a link to fossil fuels. Shelter and clothing needs in most cases be traced to burning of fossil fuels. The consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists is that man's activities is accelerating the warming cycle.

Sorry to have to repost this but incase you didn't read it:
""Okay, I'll admit we need more efficiency and sustainability, desperately, in order to regain energy independence, improve productivity, erase the huge leverage of hostile foreign petro-powers, reduce pollution, secure our defense, prevent ocean acidification, and ease a vampiric drain on our economy. If I don't like one proposed way to achieve this, then I will negotiate in good faith other methods that can help us to achieve all these things, decisively, without further delay and with urgent speed.

"Further, I accept that 'waste-not, want not' and 'a-penny-saved, a-penny-earned' and 'cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness' and 'genuine market competition' used to be good conservative attitudes. But the "side" that has been pushing the Denial Movement — propelled by petro-princes, Russsian oligarchs and Exxon — hasn't any credibility on the issue of weaning America off wasteful habits. In fact, it's not conservatism at all!"
Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

---------
And the down side of maximizing effeciency and minmizing waste is????

Loren
 
   / Global Warming? #1,703  
Crash325- On your termite example - they eat wood, trees consume CO2 and give off O2, termites consume O2 and give off CO2. At this moment likely part of a balanced cycle. Fossil fuels release CO2 that has not been in our atmosphere for a few hundred million years.
The Energy Story - Chapter 8: Fossil Fuels - Coal, Oil and Natural Gas
The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago.

Looks like there is a difference.
 
   / Global Warming? #1,704  
Answer the simple questions of;
1. There were events over the last 10,000 years of warming much greater than today that could not have possibly been caused by fossil fuels, so how can you be so sure today's event and only today's, is caused by man?
2. What caused these previous events that doesn't exist today?
3. Almost without fail, each of these previous events was followed by a dramatic cooling event, many scientists today see hints that is about to happen again, why would this not be the case this time vs continued warming until the polar bears wear bikinis?

Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

A LITTLE HUMILITY

Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models. Hence, if an outsider perceives "something wrong" with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider is to ask "what mistake am I making?" — before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong.

In contrast, Deniers glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site. Whereupon they conclude that ALL of the atmospheric scientists must be in on some wretched conspiracy. Uniformly. At the same time.
---------

Now for my hypothetical; Suppose man over the next 50 years either bulldozed or burned every plant and tree possible along with all possible efforts to expose and burn every bit of coal, oil and gas we could find. On top of that detonate every nuclear bomb on earth along with all other explosives. Could that possibly accelerate a problem that could jeapordize man's existence? And more to the point, could the climate and atmospheric conditions be changed or is it true that there is nothing man can possible do to change our climate.

Even if your answer to that is no way man has any responsibility then how about decreasing our dependency on a relatively scarce energy source that countries have been known to go to war over.

Loren
 
   / Global Warming? #1,705  
Deny, deny,deny...reaccuse


I read a few weeks ago that the recent edict sent down from Uncle George Soros listed that as the buzz phrase of the week for liberal talking points. You follow your instructions from the dear leader admirably, congratulations!:thumbsup:
 
   / Global Warming? #1,706  
Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

A LITTLE HUMILITY

Skeptics go on to admit that it is both rare and significant when nearly 100% of the scientists in any field share a consensus-model, before splitting up to fight over sub-models. Hence, if an outsider perceives "something wrong" with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider is to ask "what mistake am I making?" before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong.

In contrast, Deniers glom onto an anecdotal "gotcha!" from a dogma-driven radio show or politically biased blog site. Whereupon they conclude that ALL of the atmospheric scientists must be in on some wretched conspiracy. Uniformly. At the same time.
---------

Now for my hypothetical; Suppose man over the next 50 years either bulldozed or burned every plant and tree possible along with all possible efforts to expose and burn every bit of coal, oil and gas we could find. On top of that detonate every nuclear bomb on earth along with all other explosives. Could that possibly accelerate a problem that could jeapordize man's existence? And more to the point, could the climate and atmospheric conditions be changed or is it true that there is nothing man can possible do to change our climate.

Even if your answer to that is no way man has any responsibility then how about decreasing our dependency on a relatively scarce energy source that countries have been known to go to war over.

Loren

No dogma or hyperbole, simple truths, answer the questions with accurate data and I'll be on your side. Of course you and all your liberal elitists together can't explain it so you throw out the buzz phrase dictated to you all from the top of your liberal hierarchy, mainly because liberals are dissuaded from actually thinking for themselves, that would be bad for the comrades and communal thought process.
 
   / Global Warming? #1,707  
Oh by the way, yes, if all the plants on earth were destroyed and all nuclear weapons detonated it would effect our morning commute. That's about as likely as AGW, so I wouldn't worry too much. Now talk about far fetched notions....:laughing:
 
   / Global Warming? #1,708  
If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

Don't worry - be happy!
 
   / Global Warming? #1,709  
If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe.

I am sure the deniers play the lottery, so with those odds, you'll have to do much better at proving your case Dusty.
"Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders won't be able to tell the difference"
 
   / Global Warming? #1,710  
Richard Muller, a known skeptic has changed his mind, say the headlines, and in truth he sort of did but here is overall statement and here is the overblown headline and article.

About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made
About-face: Former climate change skeptic now says global warming is man-made | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Here is his actual synopsis:
"I'm personally very worried," he says of global warming. Muller says that so far the warming has been "tiny," but that everything points to the process speeding up. "I personally suspect that it will be bad."

Now that shows a man firm in his convictions! :laughing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Top