Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

The abbreviated term ppm = parts per million. So if you divide 370 by a million, you get .00037. And if it is up from 280 it used to be .00027. So the change is what I have been calling nothing: .0001. That is zero.

You can't simply argue that we are the source of the warming being that we make up a small fraction of the greenhouse gases to begin with. That is why scientists are now coming out after all of the Global Warming hysteria to argue that, being that we have been seeing higher sunspot activity over time, the common conclusion is that it is the sunspot activity rather than it being manmade. I can pull up several recent articles citing their arguments as such.

But I guess these scientists are a small minority versus the 'overwhelming consensus' that I always hear about.

[WaveSculptor]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2S5OGS-g9g&NR=1

You can watch all 8 parts.

There are both NASA and IPCC experts in the film.

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

You can watch all 8 parts.

There are both NASA and IPCC experts in the film.

Really? Golly!!!

I have to hand it to you, dude, this thread is fascinating -- not the content, but the amount of effort you've put into tracking down the smattering of opposing viewpoints on this issue to make it seem like you're not just making shit up. How much effort have you put into this thread so far? And isn't the end result of your argument that we pollute more, we take worse care of the earth, and we keep on keepin' on with this whole oil thing? I just do not see the outrage at the suggestion that perhaps we ought to reduce our carbon emissions and live cleaner lives, regardless of the reasons. Also, I've said it a number of times before, but it bears repeating -- there are plenty of reasons to look into alternatives to oil that have nothing to do with global warming.

Are so blinded by ideology that you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot to avoid doing something at Al Gore's suggestion?

[rubyraks]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

^I repeat....

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

^I repeat....

I know, but:



can't ... look ... away...

[KinKyJ]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

Did any of you debaters catch this post? http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/...1&postcount=76

That said, I don't give a hoot whether global warming is real or not: we still need to invest in renewable energy and cleaner technology. Why? We're going to run out of oil by 2050, less dependance of oil and gas mean less political power for the OPEC and Russia, less energy use means lower bills for yourself and let's not forget the pollution our lifestyle causes. Really, this problem is beyond CO2. If you're too dumb to understand, keep on ignoring the future, maybe it'll go away...

Really, people who say nothings wrong and we can all keep on living like little happy consumers are either too ignorant to live or too lazy to alter their consumption pattern. People who think that living ecologically means cutting back on comfort belong to the category of retards above.

Really, why is it that we laugh at obese people? I mean hello, they endanger their health because they "don't want to give up their burgers" or "are too damn lazy to work out". Well, people who consume without using their brain are just alike... Think about it.

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

Really? Golly!!!

I have to hand it to you, dude, this thread is fascinating -- not the content, but the amount of effort you've put into tracking down the smattering of opposing viewpoints on this issue to make it seem like you're not just making shit up. How much effort have you put into this thread so far? And isn't the end result of your argument that we pollute more, we take worse care of the earth, and we keep on keepin' on with this whole oil thing? I just do not see the outrage at the suggestion that perhaps we ought to reduce our carbon emissions and live cleaner lives, regardless of the reasons. Also, I've said it a number of times before, but it bears repeating -- there are plenty of reasons to look into alternatives to oil that have nothing to do with global warming.

Are so blinded by ideology that you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot to avoid doing something at Al Gore's suggestion?

The link that I posted, with all 8 segments, produces no ideology whatsoever. It provides rebuttals to the global warming supporters claims. And rather than going through all two hours in order to write or type down ALL of the pertinent information, I thought I would let you see for yourself. It's a no-win situation. It's unbelievable. I provide arguments early in the debate, then I am asked where I found my information. Then when I provide the link to one of the most informative links from the scientific standpoint to rebut the warming claims, I am bitched at for not giving my own thoughts, when I have done just that earlier on.

But, lets ask how much you have given thus far. So far, I have seen nothing more than personal attacks and endless, pointless diatribes. Nothing debateworthy. Nothing useful. Not to mention the childish pictures of cats pleasing themselves too.

Humans contribute 6? gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere. As stated in the film, animals and bacteria produce 150 gigatons. Twenty five times more than humans. This alone shows how miniscule of an effect that us humans have on the climate.

More noteworthy are the data that they put forward: the tracking of sunspots over the past several hundred years. As sunspots increase, the temperature starts to rise steadily over a long period of time. As the temperature rises, the co2 starts to rise with it. So we've found that the co2 increases as the temperature rises. Not the other way around (ie. co2 being the factor for the temperature increase).

The conclusion is that the sun is the primary factor at work. And the scientists produce evidence to support these claims. As one of the scientists says on the film: It's crazy to point to one small factor (manmade co2) when there are many other factors throughout nature working in unison causing the Earth to warm.
Focusing on one small aspect, human contribution, is quite naive.

Toasty, a scientist pointed out that people like to call co2 a pollutant. But we need co2 to live. All living things need co2 to survive. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

But, lets ask how much you have given thus far. So far, I have seen nothing more than personal attacks and endless, pointless diatribes. Nothing debateworthy. Nothing useful. Not to mention the childish pictures of cats pleasing themselves too.

Fight absurdity with absurdity, I say. As I indicated in this thread, it is high time that rational people stopped legitimizing preposterous positions by taking the bait and debating them as if they were worthy of serious consideration. The Bush Noise Machine relies upon the idea that if you repeat something enough, people will eventually believe it must be credible regardless of whether or not there is any basis in fact. For example, some people (probably including you) still honestly believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 -- notwithstanding that not even Bush makes that claim anymore.

It's ridiculous, it hurts the process, and I'm not going to participate in it anymore. Instead, ludicrous arguments will be responded to in kind:

[KinKyJ]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

But, lets ask how much you have given thus far. So far, I have seen nothing more than personal attacks and endless, pointless diatribes. Nothing debateworthy. Nothing useful. Not to mention the childish pictures of cats pleasing themselves too.

Humans contribute 6? gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere. As stated in the film, animals and bacteria produce 150 gigatons. Twenty five times more than humans. This alone shows how miniscule of an effect that us humans have on the climate.

More noteworthy are the data that they put forward: the tracking of sunspots over the past several hundred years. As sunspots increase, the temperature starts to rise steadily over a long period of time. As the temperature rises, the co2 starts to rise with it. So we've found that the co2 increases as the temperature rises. Not the other way around (ie. co2 being the factor for the temperature increase).

The conclusion is that the sun is the primary factor at work. And the scientists produce evidence to support these claims. As one of the scientists says on the film: It's crazy to point to one small factor (manmade co2) when there are many other factors throughout nature working in unison causing the Earth to warm.
Focusing on one small aspect, human contribution, is quite naive.

Toasty, a scientist pointed out that people like to call co2 a pollutant. But we need co2 to live. All living things need co2 to survive. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

So basicly you're saying we should all relax because CO2 is "not a pollutant"? You haven't read the post just above yours.

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

Fight absurdity with absurdity, I say. As I indicated in this thread, it is high time that rational people stopped legitimizing preposterous positions by taking the bait and debating them as if they were worthy of serious consideration. The Bush Noise Machine relies upon the idea that if you repeat something enough, people will eventually believe it must be credible regardless of whether or not there is any basis in fact. For example, some people (probably including you) still honestly believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 -- notwithstanding that not even Bush makes that claim anymore.

It's ridiculous, it hurts the process, and I'm not going to participate in it anymore. Instead, ludicrous arguments will be responded to in kind:

The bold can be labeled as pure dishonesty. Can anyone honestly name any prominent conservative or republican that stated that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? Bush never used that as an argument. Never.

That is a broad assumption by the left, yet no one holds this view on the right. I find it amuzing how the left continually uses that argument, being that no one has stated such.

Your comments border on the absurd. And please quit using your tired photos with your lame punch-lines.

It's not funny!

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

So basicly you're saying we should all relax because CO2 is "not a pollutant"? You haven't read the post just above yours.

No. I wholeheartedly agree with you. It's obvious that there are areas that contain high amounts of carbon dioxide. The heart of all of the large cities throughout the world, no doubt.

And I am all for new alternatives to energy. I just do not buy these fear-mongering articles coming out from scientists, such as the recent one saying that global warming is worse than nuclear war.

The claims are getting more absurd by the day. These guys will say anything in order to get grants and funding. And it's as if they have to keep pushing the envelope to get recognized:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070627/67914064.html

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

The bold can be labeled as pure dishonesty. Can anyone honestly name any prominent conservative or republican that stated that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? Bush never used that as an argument. Never.

That is a broad assumption by the left, yet no one holds this view on the right. I find it amuzing how the left continually uses that argument, being that no one has stated such.

OK, by virtue of word-parsing, it is conceivable that Bush never actually said, "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks." Those words probably never left his lips, I'll give you that. Assuming that to be the case, though, check this out from September 6, 2003:

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

Are you telling me that 70% of the country -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- all came to this conclusion on their own, wholly unaided by anything Bush and his buddies might have said? Come on, man. My comments border on the absurd? You can't even see the Border of Absurd from where you're standing. You are at least two states past, by my estimation.

The backpedaling is obnoxious:

-Saddam was involved in 9/11!!! Oh wait, he wasn't? We never said that.
-Saddam has WMDs!!! Oh wait, he doesn't? OK, he was still an imminent threat, though, sooooo...
-Saddam was an imminent threat!!!!!! Hang on a sec -- never mind...

It goes on an on.

And please quit using your tired photos with your lame punch-lines.

It's not funny!

Not really intended to make you or really anyone other than me laugh. I don't really participate in the nonsense thread in GYY, so it gives me an excuse to look up ridiculous photos, which is fun. The bald cat in the sweater was my favorite so far.

[rubyraks]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting at the White House.

see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...8970-2004Jun17 and

In a speech to the conservative Madison Institute in Orlando on Monday, Cheney called Hussein ''a patron of terrorism" and said ''he had long established ties with Al Qaeda."

see: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...sein_al_qaeda/

nothing misleading about either of those...I'm sure

and one more for sanity's sake:

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...8970-2004Jun17 and

see: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...sein_al_qaeda/

nothing misleading about either of those...I'm sure

and one more for sanity's sake:

You are getting the two mixed up. Saying that Saddam was tied to al qaeda, which he was, is different than saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

And they never said that.