Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#21 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:35 PM

Eugenicists, phrenologists, and Freudian psychologists were scientists too


So what part of the science are you disputing? Do you think CO2 levels are not actually rising/ have nothing to do with human activity? Do you not believe atmospheric CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?

There have been plenty of flawed scientific theories throughout history which have been proven wrong, but they weren't proved wrong by somebody saying, "well I dont care what evidence you have, other scientists were wrong before you so I dont believe anything you have to say"

#22 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:58 PM

CO2 being a greenhouse gas is no more in dispute than CFCs cause a breakdown of O3.

The catch for the latter is justifying how a heavier-than-air molecule gets miles above the surface to perform this breakdown. Yet is was accepted as a slam dunk for anyone in the know about science just two decades ago.

Now the crux of arguments that have yet to be made is just how significant is anthropomorphic contributions to global temperature with respect to all other variance that we know of. If what scientific inquiry has found is true, then the earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling LONG before people inhabited it. There are DEMONSTRATED accounts of variance of solar activity, volcanic activity, and oceanic activity that FAR OUTWEIGH anthropomorphic CO2 emissions.

Any climatologist that claims otherwise is a fraud. Hell, the trajectories that were projected just a decade ago are NOTHING CLOSE to what they claimed. Tom Brokaw ran with that widely accepted view and proclaimed that NYC would be underwater by this time due to rising sea levels due to global warming.


I would suggest reading State of Fear by Michael Creighton. His 20 page bibliography from a decade ago does FAR MORE actual research than that picture book by Al Gore that is still touted as indisputable science.

So the question remains, with everything that we were SO SURE about in the past and turned out to be SO WRONG about, are we certain that we should support policies that clearly have ulterior motives that have nothing to do with environmental concerns? Europe has already seen hundreds of billions of dollars exchange hands due to the carbon credit scam. Who made out the best? Surprise! Politicians!

#23 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,783
  • Reputation: 535
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 05:57 PM

Tom Brokaw? Michael Creighton? Al Gore? Now we're talking about SCIENCE!

I just called up my climatologist buddy and told him about those cycles of heating and cooling the earth went through in the past. He had never thought of that either. What an idiot.

#24 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:11 PM

Tom Brokaw? Michael Creighton? Al Gore? Now we're talking about SCIENCE!

I just called up my climatologist buddy and told him about those cycles of heating and cooling the earth went through in the past. He had never thought of that either. What an idiot.


Take a quick gander at the bibliography and references cited for State of Fear and then get back to me on that

#25 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,885
  • Reputation: 3,405
  • LocationShallotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:12 PM

Take a quick gander at the bibliography and references cited for State of Fear and then get back to me on that


Have you read said sources? Not the bibliography, but the actual sources?

#26 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:14 PM

Have you read said sources? Not the bibliography, but the actual sources?


A couple, yes. And I bet that's two more than you

#27 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,885
  • Reputation: 3,405
  • LocationShallotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

A couple, yes. And I bet that's two more than you


Hah, you would be surprised. Good job being defensive for no reason though, jerk.

#28 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 389
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:17 PM

Hah, you would be surprised. Good job being defensive for no reason though, jerk.


I would be surprised given the utter lack of any effort for anyone to approach the substance of what I've put forth.

#29 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • Joined: 10-May 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,885
  • Reputation: 3,405
  • LocationShallotte, NC
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:19 PM

I would be surprised given the utter lack of any effort for anyone to approach the substance of what I've put forth.


I haven't been a part of this discussion before now - in this thread anyhow. Regardless, I'll leave you to it.

#30 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,945
  • Reputation: 18,375
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 12 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

Eugenicists, phrenologists, and Freudian psychologists were scientists too





elucidate

elucidate

elucidate

elucidate



Spoiler



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users