dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2548

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Don't Mix This With Man-Made Global Warming

Man-made global warming is not "established science." There's been enough bad behavior on the part of the pro-man-made global warming crowd to cast significant legitimate doubt on this particular idea.

The "exaflood" myth can be dismissed based on its own demerits and nothing else. There is no need to possibly give it "credibility" by lumping it into the same category as legitimate criticism of the idea of man-made global warming.

HotRodFoto
Premium Member
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO

1 recommendation

HotRodFoto

Premium Member

said by pnh102:

Man-made global warming is not "established science." There's been enough bad behavior on the part of the pro-man-made global warming crowd to cast significant legitimate doubt on this particular idea.

The "exaflood" myth can be dismissed based on its own demerits and nothing else. There is no need to possibly give it "credibility" by lumping it into the same category as legitimate criticism of the idea of man-made global warming.

Global Warming Deniers = The New Flat Earth Society. /end discussion
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

The Earth's climate is cyclical and has been since the planet formed. Call it Global Warming or any other label that you'd like to apply, but it's a natural phenomenon.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to HotRodFoto

Premium Member

to HotRodFoto
said by HotRodFoto:

Global Warming Deniers = The New Flat Earth Society. /end discussion

So you have no problem validating all of the junk science that has occurred in order to "prove" that man-made global warming is true?

Perhaps you should read up on the "Climategate" scandal in which a significant number of leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK show plainly that the researchers weren't just fudging numbers, they were lying outright. If anything, this is a slap in the face to science as a process for solving problems.

At best, one cannot make any conclusion as to whether or not man has any impact on climate change. But if it was true, then why fudge the numbers or lie? Why not present the actual unbiased science that shows whether or not this is actually happening. The fact that the researchers had to lie shows that their claims had no merit.
pnh102

pnh102 to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

The Earth's climate is cyclical and has been since the planet formed. Call it Global Warming or any other label that you'd like to apply, but it's a natural phenomenon.

No doubt. It is well-documented that Earth's climate has changed significantly over the past 4.5-6 billion years that this planet has been around. I'd dare say natural phenomena, like volcanic eruptions, solar activity and other such things do far more to influence climate than man ever could.

cableties
Premium Member
join:2005-01-27

cableties to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
One high-altitude volcanic burst (lasting more than two weeks) can dump more hydrocarbons, microscopic ash, soot, sulfuric acid and methane in the atmosphere, circle the globe and contribute more in that two weeks than an industrialized nation can in 5 years.
Throw in multiple eruptions, on different hemispheres and you get mother nature cleaning off (aka burying) the parasites!
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD

2 recommendations

moonpuppy (banned) to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
You do realize facts do not matter to the Global Warming alarmists.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL

1 recommendation

tkdslr to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
The fossil record, science, and the mathematics are very clear on this subject. Mankind's rapid addition of CO2 to earth's atmosphere is directly responsible for the current energy imbalance that is warming up the lower biosphere.

If this effect is not mitigated in the near future, earth's biosphere will undergo another massive Extinction Level Event.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

said by tkdslr:

The fossil record, science, and the mathematics are very clear on this subject. Mankind's rapid addition of CO2 to earth's atmosphere is directly responsible for the current energy imbalance that is warming up the lower biosphere.

If you believe the junk science, sure.

And how is man's supposed rapid addition of CO2 any different than when natural phenomena do it? The fact remains that every time a volcano erupts, you have more crap go into the atmosphere than what all of man does.
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL

tkdslr to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
You claim that the ten's of thousands of peer reviewed papers written on the subject, are all junk science.

You are not qualified to make any informed judgement about any science, (good or bad).

All of the world government science academy's are in agreement..
The current cycle of AGW is real, and it's mankind's fault.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA
Hitron EN2251
Nest H2D

fuziwuzi to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
"Climategate" was a manufactured smear campaign by deniers and has been THOROUGHLY debunked. »mediamatters.org/researc ··· 12010002 Now, THAT is a "slap in the face" to lying deniers trying to further their lies onto the public.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo to HotRodFoto

Premium Member

to HotRodFoto
said by HotRodFoto:

Global Warming Deniers = The New Flat Earth Society. /end discussion

Round-earth truthers are quacks. The evidence for it is in dispute and directly contradicts my personal right to live a hedonistic life that fucks up everything and everyone else.
nutcr0cker
join:2003-04-02
Chandler, AZ

nutcr0cker to cableties

Member

to cableties
Totally agree global warming is junk science. Its not global warming but just another earth cycle. I can't believe that these are the same Idiots that still believe that the Earth is round. If earth was round, you would have already fallen off the planet. To add to their stupidity they even threw in some unsubstantiated ideas like humans evolved from monkeys LOL
en103
join:2011-05-02

en103 to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
The difference is...
1. "We" are doing it to ourselves - this 'can' be mitigated.
2. While volcanoes are erupting, unless they have a large plume, they're localized. What 'man' is doing, is on a global scale.
3. I do agree that earth itself has a cycle that we cannot control.

We should at least take measures not to kill ourselves any faster than nature would.
kem09030
join:2004-11-29
Rushville, IL

1 recommendation

kem09030 to tkdslr

Member

to tkdslr
If you look at the data it appears we are in or very close to a mass extinction event. It is probably inevitable with how much the oceans are changing, becoming acidic. As CO2 levels rise the oceans absorb more CO2 which lowers pH in the ocean. This makes it harder for animals that make shells to precipitate the CaCO3 or calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate dissolves in relatively weak acid solutions. Oceans have been acidic in the past but Earth was not a particularly nice place to live.

Needless to say we need to burn less fossil fuels and emit less CO2. We are dumping toxins and polluntants (Hg, Pb, As, U, and many other elements and compounds) in the medium we live in, air, and expect all will be well. The uranium above comes from burning coal. While animals breathe out CO2, common point used in discussions, nature has a way to take care of that, plants. Plants can only absorb so much then the CO2 is in excess of what can be taken care of naturally.

I don't try lay out the facts for those that don't believe in global warming as most of them refuse to even look or read the information provided. Instead they go by what they hear on TV or in news reports. Both of those are poor sources for information on science subjects as those writing the stories have little or no clue how science works. Kind of like the it only a theory argument has come up over the years without people understanding what a theory in science is.

Extinction: »www.nature.com/nature/jo ··· 678.html
(Requires subscription to read article but abstract is available free)

Ocean Acidity: »www.sciencedaily.com/rel ··· 2542.htm
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to nutcr0cker

Member

to nutcr0cker
If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

Were they the stupid ones that just didnt get it?

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

said by Skippy25:

If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

Were they the stupid ones that just didnt get it?

Dogs evolved from wolves, and there are still wolves.
calibax
join:2000-12-08
Sunnyvale, CA

1 recommendation

calibax to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
As a result of the allegations, there have been eight separate investigations of the Climate Research Unit and other climate scientists involvded. All of the investigations have concluded that there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations

These were not trivial investigations either. They included the UK House of Commons, the UK Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, the EPA, the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, and the national Science Foundation. None of these organizations found any evidence of the alleged misconduct.

I don't know if your deliberately ignoring the results of these investigations or whether you just aren't keeping up with the topic. Google is your friend in this matter.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to Maxo

Member

to Maxo
LOL, and they are extremely close to one another in virtually every single physical way still. Their abilities to react with their world are 100% the same and their intelligence/knowledge is still pretty equal. So from an evolutionary standpoint, they haven't done shit to progress.

Try again.

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo

Premium Member

said by Skippy25:

LOL, and they are extremely close to one another in virtually every single physical way still. Their abilities to react with their world are 100% the same and their intelligence/knowledge is still pretty equal. So from an evolutionary standpoint, they haven't done shit to progress.

Try again.

My point is only that animals can change without the animal they came from changing too. It is not a prerequisite of evolution that all animals to change the same and at the same time. Not all primates need to become extinct before one can evolve.
The primates we are believed to have evolved from died off a very long time ago, and no primate that was around at that time is around today, according to the fossil records.
Maxo

Maxo to calibax

Premium Member

to calibax
said by calibax:

As a result of the allegations, there have been eight separate investigations of the Climate Research Unit and other climate scientists involvded. All of the investigations have concluded that there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations

These were not trivial investigations either. They included the UK House of Commons, the UK Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, the EPA, the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, and the national Science Foundation. None of these organizations found any evidence of the alleged misconduct.

I don't know if your deliberately ignoring the results of these investigations or whether you just aren't keeping up with the topic. Google is your friend in this matter.

Yes, but the global warming debunker-debunkers have been debunked.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

1 edit

1 recommendation

pandora to kem09030

Premium Member

to kem09030
We have been warmer, and colder. For the past few million years earth has been in an ice age. Currently we are in an interglacial period, known as the Holocene Epoch. Since the glaciation of Antarctica 80% of the time the earth has been in an ice age. During an ice age much of North America, Europe and many other continents aren't habitable by humans as they are covered with ice sheets.

The greatest danger to humanity and to most animal populations is another glaciation, which will eventually arrive.

The Holocene maximum was a period before human technology (other than making fire) and human population (other than in the millions) existed and was a warmer climate period than we experience today.

Anthropomorphic warming is likely to be of little consequence compared to natural climate variation.

Worse the leaks, at least in part, appear to have been falsified. Which would be typical of the global warming folks, who have a long record of fraud.

Visit »www.climatedepot.com/ to begin and understand the nature of our climate and the sad state of the science being used to analyze it.

I recall the first earth day, and subsequent earth days. I recall reading about global cooling as the problem confronting the earth. Then too, the science was settled. Cooling or warming, politicians, corporations, and environmentalists will all try to grab power and money from consumers.

If CO2 from fossil fuels does warm the earth, it's a good thing. I don't believe it can, but welcome the opportunity to plant palm trees in my Northeast driveway. Let me know when that will happen.

As to rising sea levels, the projection by the UN climate committee within the bell curve is for a foot to a foot and a half. That is the same change in sea level we had over the past century. In other words, sea levels rose, before modern technology about as much as they are anticipated to rise in the next century.

Karl, science before political dogma, PLEASE! Fraudulent leaked documents, are not science or news, if anything the fraud may be news, though I doubt you'll put up another article indicating the fraud.

We are enjoying an interglacial period in a long ice age. Warmth has propelled humanity to the best standard of living it has ever enjoyed. Warmth is good for humanity. We thrive when the world is warm.
kem09030
join:2004-11-29
Rushville, IL

kem09030 to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
The Earth is around 4.6 billion years old. The error on that is 100 million years. Definitely not the 6 billion years you have there.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25 to Maxo

Member

to Maxo
So your suggestion is that we are a mutation or a genetic drift from monkey's that somehow got so separated from our environment that makes us no where close in anyway to that of a monkey?

You certainly can't use the only other "theory of evolution" that is the process of natural selection. You just ruled that out yourself.

Your "believed to have evolved from" statement says it all as what died off and can't be found are the actual links (mutations and genetic drifts) between us and monkeys. So we have monkeys that have not evolved and are still around and we have humans that apparently have, but none of the other things between? How convenient is that.
slckusr
Premium Member
join:2003-03-17
Greenville, SC

slckusr to cableties

Premium Member

to cableties
said by cableties:

One high-altitude volcanic burst (lasting more than two weeks) can dump more hydrocarbons, microscopic ash, soot, sulfuric acid and methane in the atmosphere, circle the globe and contribute more in that two weeks than an industrialized nation can in 5 years.
Throw in multiple eruptions, on different hemispheres and you get mother nature cleaning off (aka burying) the parasites!

Volcanos are natural function of the earth though, something that happens through earths history, Humanities release of c02 and other gasses is not natural or expected by the earth. So yes 1 volcano can mess things up but when you combine 1 volcano with all of our(humanities) exploits, then you get the problems. Global warming might be a natural process but to suggest we play no part in that, well yea.
tkdslr
join:2004-04-24
Pompano Beach, FL

tkdslr to pandora

Member

to pandora
The current cycle of mankind/AGW energy imbalance/forcing is far in excess of the variations which triggers ice ages.

HotRodFoto
Premium Member
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO

HotRodFoto to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

said by HotRodFoto:

Global Warming Deniers = The New Flat Earth Society. /end discussion

So you have no problem validating all of the junk science that has occurred in order to "prove" that man-made global warming is true?

Perhaps you should read up on the "Climategate" scandal in which a significant number of leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK show plainly that the researchers weren't just fudging numbers, they were lying outright. If anything, this is a slap in the face to science as a process for solving problems.

At best, one cannot make any conclusion as to whether or not man has any impact on climate change. But if it was true, then why fudge the numbers or lie? Why not present the actual unbiased science that shows whether or not this is actually happening. The fact that the researchers had to lie shows that their claims had no merit.

And you apparently have no problem with speaking GOP propaganda? Ask yourself why it is that other countries have outside of the United States pretty much see it as a fact. Are you getting it yet how corporations who have a vested interest in things are putting their money behind things which move to discredit Global Warming? Think about it. Do you REALLY think companies such as big oil support green energy initiatives?

lol @ "Climategate". How about the BEST project (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) which the Koch bros actually help fund which showed the effects of Global Warming and debunked "Climategate" completely?

Fudge the numbers? How is not fudging the numbers when corporations are supplying astro-turf propaganda to keep their bottom line and profit margins in check?

Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium Member
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL

Maxo to Skippy25

Premium Member

to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

So your suggestion is that we are a mutation or a genetic drift from monkey's that somehow got so separated from our environment that makes us no where close in anyway to that of a monkey?

You certainly can't use the only other "theory of evolution" that is the process of natural selection. You just ruled that out yourself.

Your "believed to have evolved from" statement says it all as what died off and can't be found are the actual links (mutations and genetic drifts) between us and monkeys. So we have monkeys that have not evolved and are still around and we have humans that apparently have, but none of the other things between? How convenient is that.

I'm not arguing for or against evolution here. I was only pointing out that your argument, stating monkeys must be extinct for us to evolve from them, doesn't follow any sort of logic.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora to tkdslr

Premium Member

to tkdslr
said by tkdslr:

The current cycle of mankind/AGW energy imbalance/forcing is far in excess of the variations which triggers ice ages.

We are currently IN an ice age. Triggering something we are currently experiencing isn't really possible, now is it? The Holocene interglacial period (the interglacial period we are currently in) has been longer than usual. It will come to an end.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus to Skippy25

Member

to Skippy25
Today's monkeys did evolve from earlier primates, just not as much as us. Evolution is random, genetic defects are much more likely than things like a big brain. Evolution is kind of like winning the lottery, it's pretty rare. But if you bought a lotto ticket every day for 100 million years, you'll probably hit the jackpot.