Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|4974|Sea to globally-cooled sea
a few weeks ago we argued about global warming.... and I was challenged by some very belligerent people to show where I've read good research about man-made global warming being false.

here is Spark, in true form, as polite and mature a debater as ever:

spark wrote:

Put up or shut up. Give a decent scientific argument or shove your religious supremacy up your ass.
Well, spark, HERE'S YOUR LINK

the problem with the global warming debate is, it is not actually a debate.  It's a fight, with the believers in global warming actively trying to squash the argument, rather than feel the argument out.  For these people, global warming is so obvious that we don't have time to argue about it, let's tax tax tax and levy fines, and then (and this is the convenient part) when we don't die from rising waters in 10 years, they take the credit.

there is tons and tons of research out there, but Spark, this one's for you.

you too, cameron.

An analysis by  Bloomberg News on December 6 found:  "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." (emphasis added) link
and link

...and link...

...and still more link

and lastly, even if there was global warming, it has officially stopped.

If you respond, Spark, please do not flame me personally.  I do my research.  I am not a sucker for the deliberate misconceptions in Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth."

There are always 2 sides to an argument.  What are you afraid of, by refusing to learn the other side of the argument?  Why are the global warming crowds so belligerent?

Last edited by G3|Genius (2007-12-11 18:12:46)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5110

very well done I must say
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|4979|Washington, DC

That's pretty interesting evidence.

All I have to ask though, and this is to all the camps... regardless of the cause and rate of global warming, what the hell harm is there in researching cleaner energy and more efficient use of energy?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|5110

Hurricane wrote:

That's pretty interesting evidence.

All I have to ask though, and this is to all the camps... regardless of the cause and rate of global warming, what the hell harm is there in researching cleaner energy and more efficient use of energy?
Nobody says there is harm.  But handing out nobel peace prizes for it is retarded at best.
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|4974|Sea to globally-cooled sea

Hurricane wrote:

That's pretty interesting evidence.

All I have to ask though, and this is to all the camps... regardless of the cause and rate of global warming, what the hell harm is there in researching cleaner energy and more efficient use of energy?
I'm not against researching and trying to find more efficient use of energy.  I'm extremely enthusiastic about getting off our dependence of Middle East oil.

I'm against higher taxes, I'm against government mandating regulations.

Last edited by G3|Genius (2007-12-11 18:21:12)

Reject_Wolf
Former Karkand Addict
+32|4931|Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Hurricane wrote:

That's pretty interesting evidence.

All I have to ask though, and this is to all the camps... regardless of the cause and rate of global warming, what the hell harm is there in researching cleaner energy and more efficient use of energy?
Yeah, I have thought this for a long time, but of course the economic reasons are all they need I suppose.  : /
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|4949|132 and Bush

I heard there used to be rivers in the Sahara also..lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yellowman03
Once Again, We Meet at Last
+108|4583|Texas
i think people are spending too much time debating on whether global warming is real or not, and not paying attention to the increased temeratures and the screwed up weather we're having. I like the facts you have, and i could go either way on this debate. I personally think we need more action and less arguing. Reducing our dependence on buring fossil fuels isn't only good for the environment, it also gives good air to breathe...there are alot of unknown benefits to what we now call "saving the enviornment."
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|4974|Sea to globally-cooled sea

Reject_Wolf wrote:

Yeah, I have thought this for a long time, but of course the economic reasons are all they need I suppose.  : /
I think that it really is in everyone's best interest to get off of such a volatile resource as oil.  Right now there is more incentive than ever for companies to find a cheaper source of energy.  What would taxing do besides piss people off?
G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|4974|Sea to globally-cooled sea

Yellowman03 wrote:

i think people are spending too much time debating on whether global warming is real or not, and not paying attention to the increased temeratures and the screwed up weather we're having. I like the facts you have, and i could go either way on this debate. I personally think we need more action and less arguing. Reducing our dependence on buring fossil fuels isn't only good for the environment, it also gives good air to breathe...there are alot of unknown benefits to what we now call "saving the enviornment."
I don't mind talking about helping the environment.  It upsets me that to the people behind the global warming movement, the ends justify the means.  They do not care how badly we are manipulated into reducing our emissions, as long as in the end we reduce our carbon output.  That offends me.. I'm sorry.

I also do not like the way there is a free pass for those who are outspoken about the global warming debate.  With Al Gore refusing to reduce his own house's huge black hole of energy, and with the UN summit meeting in a resort, calling for all those jets to fly from all over the world like that...with the global warming summits not happening over teleconference and other such exemplary methods, it seems to me that there are those who make the rules, and those whom they intend to force to follow the rules. 

Some animals are more equal than others, as Orwell put it.

Lastly, I do not like the way they are trying to implement change.  Rather than giving tax benefits for those who find an alternative energy source, they place a huge tax burden on the consumer, who has no choice in energy source.  Now, I know this opens a HUGE window of debate, but suffice to say, everything you buy at a store is brought there by truck.  Even if corporations are taxed rather than the consumer, who do you think is going to ultimately pay for it?  It costs more to run the truck, so the wholesale price goes up, and the price gets passed down the economic chain to you and me.
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|4497|'straya

Yellowman03 wrote:

i think people are spending too much time debating on whether global warming is real or not, and not paying attention to the increased temeratures and the screwed up weather we're having. I like the facts you have, and i could go either way on this debate. I personally think we need more action and less arguing. Reducing our dependence on buring fossil fuels isn't only good for the environment, it also gives good air to breathe...there are alot of unknown benefits to what we now call "saving the enviornment."
QTF

i never thought i'd agree with someone from Texas

but u've proved me wrong lol

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2007-12-11 18:33:59)

G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|4974|Sea to globally-cooled sea
lol Quoted Truth For
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5023|Canberra, AUS
You're claims that 'I'm all for environmental changes' don't make sense after you just posted (which, by the way, flies in the face of several decades of environmental science...)

I don't understand why you resist so strongly a carbon tax. Wouldn't that be an effective way to get people to actually THINK about what they are doing?

The thing is, at the moment the majority of the research is already done. we know how to reduce climate emissions. It doesn't really need anything new.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
[email protected]
Certified BF2S Asshole
+131|4804|The edge of sanity

Spark wrote:

climate emissions
Climate emmisions so basiclly your saying CO2 correct? Well the fact of the matter is that most of the CO2 comes after the fact of increased tempatures.


https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/4229/co2concentrationslgka3.gif

https://img137.imageshack.us/img137/479/lagtimefo3.gif

Last edited by [email protected] (2007-12-11 18:54:09)

G3|Genius
Pope of BF2s
+355|4974|Sea to globally-cooled sea
spark, I'm saying taxing the consumer helps no one.  it simply hurts the economy.

and why are you so obnoxious?
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5023|Canberra, AUS

G3|Genius wrote:

spark, I'm saying taxing the consumer helps no one.  it simply hurts the economy.

and why are you so obnoxious?
Does it? Does adjusting the tax system while keeping it revenue neutral - so if there is a tax hike in one area, there is a tax break in another cause that much harm?

I'm thinking of the example of the Australian GST (10%). Before, there is a big outcry over the supposed impact it would have on the consumer, but after, it really disappeared from public consciousness and became a part of life. People got over it, it wasn't really that important.

@LibSlayer: Well, yes. On a natural cycle, temperature often drives CO2 (probably through alterations to oceanic carbon 'sinks', but I won't speculate here). But it is a well-known fact that the planet is kept much, much, much warmer - about 40-60 degrees warmer - by greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, co2 and methane) than it would be otherwise (think of Mars as a good comparison). However, increasing one of the major greenhouse gases (which does make a sizable percentage of our atmosphere in general) by a third to half cannot fail to have short AND long-term effects.

I know someone is gonna mention water vapor. But think of this: Isn't usually a bit colder on cloudy days?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|4342|Truthistan
WOW good research

Science basic 101 is cause and effect. The UN Scientists have simply ignored this basic rule of science. Carbon dioxide is an effect of rising temperature NOT the cause of temperature rise.
There is a very simple reason for this and you can look at your bottle of coke as an example of the way the oceans work. Our oceans breath. When water temperature rises the oceans exhale carbon dioxide, just like warm coke vigorously bubbling when you take the cap off. When oceans cool off, they breath in carbon dioxide similar to the idea of the coke where it bubbles less when it is cold.

This cycle can lag by hundreds of years behind temperature change because the oceans take a long time to warm up and to cool off. Hence the lag in time from when temperature changes until carbon dioxide is released by the oceans.

The real cause of "global warming" is the sun. it has cycles of increased and decreased activity. Now as far as I know there are no humans on the sun causing the sun's cycles and therefore global warming is not caused by man. But if you want to disagree and find out for sure, then there are a few politicans and scientists that I want to nominate to be shot into the sun.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|4638|√Čire
What would happen to your body if you continually smoked shitloads of cigarettes or sat in a room continually filled with noxious fumes?

What would happen to a plant if you continually exposed it to pollutants and gave it polluted water?

What do you think happens to our planet when we continue to increase the amount of pollution we pump into it each year?

Scientific fact and fiction aside I just don't see mankind's increasing pollution as anything other than a negative thing that should be proactively tackled in the present. Does anyone out there actually think our polluting doesn't do any harm? I mean I know there may be other reasons and contributing factors behind certain aspects of current climate change but what is the harm in trying to cut down emissions anyway?
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|5023|Canberra, AUS

Diesel_dyk wrote:

WOW good research
Hardly. Most of us have seen this before.

Science basic 101 is cause and effect. The UN Scientists have simply ignored this basic rule of science. Carbon dioxide is an effect of rising temperature NOT the cause of temperature rise.
Welll.... are you a scientist?
There is a very simple reason for this and you can look at your bottle of coke as an example of the way the oceans work. Our oceans breath. When water temperature rises the oceans exhale carbon dioxide, just like warm coke vigorously bubbling when you take the cap off. When oceans cool off, they breath in carbon dioxide similar to the idea of the coke where it bubbles less when it is cold.
Yes, it minute amounts compared to what we have now. 20-50ppm, not 150-200ppm.

This cycle can lag by hundreds of years behind temperature change because the oceans take a long time to warm up and to cool off. Hence the lag in time from when temperature changes until carbon dioxide is released by the oceans.
So... where was this massive temperature jump which caused the aforementioned increase?

The real cause of "global warming" is the sun. it has cycles of increased and decreased activity. Now as far as I know there are no humans on the sun causing the sun's cycles and therefore global warming is not caused by man. But if you want to disagree and find out for sure, then there are a few politicans and scientists that I want to nominate to be shot into the sun.
So, if I take it that you're right, because both temperature and CO2 have been increasing for the last century - paticularly in the last 30 years, though, solar output has been doing the same? Perhaps not.

You seem to be doing a common thing - you're making the conclusions before you see the data, and hoping then that the data matches your conclusion. It doesn't work like that.

Come on... SURELY you guys know the entire basis of the greenhouse effect? Someone outline it to me.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
[email protected]
Certified BF2S Asshole
+131|4804|The edge of sanity

Spark wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

spark, I'm saying taxing the consumer helps no one.  it simply hurts the economy.

and why are you so obnoxious?
@LibSlayer: Well, yes. On a natural cycle, temperature often drives CO2 (probably through alterations to oceanic carbon 'sinks', but I won't speculate here). But it is a well-known fact that the planet is kept much, much, much warmer - about 40-60 degrees warmer - by greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, co2 and methane) than it would be otherwise (think of Mars as a good comparison). However, increasing one of the major greenhouse gases (which does make a sizable percentage of our atmosphere in general) by a third to half cannot fail to have short AND long-term effects.

I know someone is gonna mention water vapor. But think of this: Isn't usually a bit colder on cloudy days?[/b]
Ok well, two things. One how come scientist back in the 1970s, before everyone was concerned about all this CO2 stuff and greenhouse gases, they were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age? Which in turn leads me to my next question. How exactly would global warming be caused by the emmision of CO2 gases? Would they not create more cover from the sun thereby creating cooler tempatures?

By the Way make sure that you knwo that humanity is not the biggest producer of carbon dioxide as per the carbon cycle

https://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3381/carboncyclenasajy1.jpg
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|4342|Truthistan
First -Pollution and global warming are two seperate issues.
Second - in good research I meant the compliation of web sites
Third- Are you a scientist?
Fourth - Polution is a local problem not a global problem. Pollution is not causing global warming but pollution does make life miserable for people. Becuase pollution makes life miserable for people, people make life miserable for politicans, but politicans don't want to hurt their business buddies or push industry out of their country or even just ot another part of the same country. But if Polution is a local problem and solving that problem will cost your constutency jobs - THE ISSUE THEN IS WHAT TO DO?
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|4342|Truthistan
The answer about what to do is to turn your local problem into a global issue - hence global warming.
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|4795|Chicago, IL

[email protected] wrote:

Spark wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

spark, I'm saying taxing the consumer helps no one.  it simply hurts the economy.

and why are you so obnoxious?
@LibSlayer: Well, yes. On a natural cycle, temperature often drives CO2 (probably through alterations to oceanic carbon 'sinks', but I won't speculate here). But it is a well-known fact that the planet is kept much, much, much warmer - about 40-60 degrees warmer - by greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, co2 and methane) than it would be otherwise (think of Mars as a good comparison). However, increasing one of the major greenhouse gases (which does make a sizable percentage of our atmosphere in general) by a third to half cannot fail to have short AND long-term effects.

I know someone is gonna mention water vapor. But think of this: Isn't usually a bit colder on cloudy days?[/b]
Ok well, two things. One how come scientist back in the 1970s, before everyone was concerned about all this CO2 stuff and greenhouse gases, they were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age? Which in turn leads me to my next question. How exactly would global warming be caused by the emission of CO2 gases? Would they not create more cover from the sun thereby creating cooler temperatures?

By the Way make sure that you know that humanity is not the biggest producer of carbon dioxide as per the carbon cycle

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3381 … asajy1.jpg
CO2 warms the atmosphere, and offers little in the way of cooling (think Venus, 98% CO2, and 900 degrees)

But i did notice that your diagram does not show natural sources of CO2...

Volcanoes can release billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in a matter of hours, and volcano eruptions are a fairly common occurrence.

It is also important to remember that CO2 is considered a trace gas, it is less than one percent of the atmosphere by mass, and even doubled or tripled, would not compose even one percent of the earth's atmosphere.  Historically speaking, the current level of carbon dioxide is among the lowest known http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu … 07_1.shtml.

both the carbon levels and the global temperature have cycled dramatically in the past, and will continue to do so in the future, people can stop predicting the end of the world at the hands of a harmless gas...

https://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/raw/CCC_Fig4_3_2.jpg
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|4949|132 and Bush

S.Lythberg wrote:

CO2 warms the atmosphere, and offers little in the way of cooling (think Venus, 98% CO2, and 900 degrees)
It's also 24 million miles closer to the sun.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|4342|Truthistan
Governments would never invest billions of dollars into ANY research without some real serious return. Billions of dollars go into global warming research and what comes out of this popcorn research is

1. Preventing the flight of industry. the solution to local pollution problems is through the imposition of global pollution controls (Kyoto). This has the effect of securing industry in already polluted areas because other countries now must place the same restrictions on these companies as would be necessary in already polluted places. This directly harms thrid world development and development in places like Canada where population is low but land mass is high - there is no real reason to cap emissions in these countries except to deny these countries there economic advantage that they have from having lots of space. The only problem is tht you have to get people in those countries to buy into the popcorn research - thats when you trot out the pop stars.

2. Governments gain new revenue streams through taxes and gains a new reason to tax gasoline even more. That makes bureaucrats happy.

3. Politicans get to claim they are environmentalists with the requisite photo ops

4. Speculators in commodities and futures market get to make zillions on carbon credits, which is really a false currency made of absolutely nothing but a BS idea on how to create a market and cost ordinary people huge sums of money.

5. Scientists are bought off. Scientists in the field get huge grants, these scientists churn out a few papers making outlandish claims of climate doom that will possibly, might maybe, given a small degree of probability, happen sometime, between the time they get their fat university pension and when they die. In otherwords, the academics are playing the academic game and don't really care. They will be long gone before people realize that its all BS.

Its all one big cycle of BS where everyone is getting greased, from the politicians, industrialists, scientists, and pop stars EXCEPT ordinary people who will be the ones paying for it all. 

There is loads of money to be made in the Global Warming scam. BUT SHHHHH!!!! don't say anything you might ruin the ride.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2007-12-11 21:19:57)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard