Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#51 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

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

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:09 PM

Global warming is real, just like global cooling is real.

But the climate changes on its on. It's natural. The climate has changed back and forth for billions of years.

Taxing people for their 'carbon output' (the end-game of the 'global warming' establishment) is nothing but a fraud to tax people even more and to set up a global tax in preparation for the soon coming global government.


Why do people believe that we can control the climate? We are nothing compared to the power of nature. It will do what it will do, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.


I am all for keeping our environment, air and water clean for future generations, but a global carbon tax will not do that, it is just a scam to implement more taxes.


So you think its a coincidence that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 40% while humanity has simultaneously spent trillions of dollars drilling for, processing, and burning carbon containing compounds from inside the earth?

Or do you just think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

#52 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:25 PM

If they used the sources they claim for their graph, then they fudged the data


And why do you say that?

#53 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:34 PM

btw PhillyB to address that figure specifically, http://www.skeptical...ycle-length.htm talks about it.

#54 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • posts: 13,399
  • Reputation: 1,145
SUPPORTER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:03 PM

So you think its a coincidence that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 40% while humanity has simultaneously spent trillions of dollars drilling for, processing, and burning carbon containing compounds from inside the earth?

Or do you just think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?



Well when you have urban areas cutting down all the vegetation that might just have something to do with it. But no it cant be that its all the cars and aerosol's.

#55 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,043
  • Reputation: 239
  • LocationFlorida
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

So you think its a coincidence that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased 40% while humanity has simultaneously spent trillions of dollars drilling for, processing, and burning carbon containing compounds from inside the earth?

Or do you just think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?


I think that we should limit our CO2 emissions in order to help keep our atmosphere clean, but like I said, a carbon tax will not solve anything other than to line the pockets of the people behind the establishment.


A super volcano emits more CO2 in a couple days than humans have emitted in our entire existence... and guess what, the climate always returns back to normal.

Chemical pollution is much more of a concern than CO2 emissions.


It is no coincidence that most of the people who believe that a carbon tax will fix the problem are the same people who think that big government and spending trillions of dollars is the solution for any problem. They are being used as pawns for those who exploit them.


The Earth has been here for over 4 billion years. It has seen Ice Ages and volcanic enduced greenhouse warming for billions of years, and it always bounces back.



Now I do believe that we need to continue to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because they are not going to last forever and we need to find a renewable source before it is too late. That being said, this global initiative is based more on scamming more money from the people and for political points than it is about 'saving the planet'.

#56 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:27 PM

Well when you have urban areas cutting down all the vegetation that might just have something to do with it. But no it cant be that its all the cars and aerosol's.


why would urban and suburban areas have the same temp, then? or are you saying that deforestation is likely contributing to climate change?

#57 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

The Earth has been here for over 4 billion years. It has seen Ice Ages and volcanic enduced greenhouse warming for billions of years, and it always bounces back.


When people talk about saving the planet, they aren't talking about saving literally the earth and ground, but the things that live on it.

Sure, life will survive even in the most dire of predictive models, but the point is that life as we know it probably won't.

#58 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,043
  • Reputation: 239
  • LocationFlorida
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 06:38 PM

When people talk about saving the planet, they aren't talking about saving literally the earth and ground, but the things that live on it.

Sure, life will survive even in the most dire of predictive models, but the point is that life as we know it probably won't.



That is the nature of things. I believe there is actually a law of science that states given time, nothing remains the same.



During the Earth's existence, 99% of the species that ever lived here either went extinct or adapted to changes before humans ever even walked the Earth.

Everything is doomed to extinction. It is the nature of things.

#59 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

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

Posted 17 February 2013 - 07:13 PM

I think that we should limit our CO2 emissions in order to help keep our atmosphere clean, but like I said, a carbon tax will not solve anything other than to line the pockets of the people behind the establishment.

A super volcano emits more CO2 in a couple days than humans have emitted in our entire existence... and guess what, the climate always returns back to normal.

Chemical pollution is much more of a concern than CO2 emissions.
It is no coincidence that most of the people who believe that a carbon tax will fix the problem are the same people who think that big government and spending trillions of dollars is the solution for any problem. They are being used as pawns for those who exploit them.

The Earth has been here for over 4 billion years. It has seen Ice Ages and volcanic enduced greenhouse warming for billions of years, and it always bounces back.

Now I do believe that we need to continue to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because they are not going to last forever and we need to find a renewable source before it is too late. That being said, this global initiative is based more on scamming more money from the people and for political points than it is about 'saving the planet'.


Well the idea of using a "carbon tax" to limit emissions was proposed as a free market alternative to simply mandating a certain portion of our energy production come from non-carbon sources. I'm no expert on how the money from carbon taxes are used (I suppose its up to the individual country), but several European countries are getting a sizable portion of their energy from non-carbon sources

And its not really a question of whether life on earth will continue- it will. The question is whether its smart to willfully make the planet less livable for humanity. Sure, like you said, a supervolcano would be worse than global warming, but it would also be a catastrophic disaster. There is no reason preparing for one scenario should prevent preparing for another.

Hell, if there is one threat I think we should do something about now its meteors. So far we just have a vague map of the random objects flying around the solar system, and nothing to actually prevent a strike

#60 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,886
  • Reputation: 388
HUDDLER

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:25 AM

And why do you say that?


Actually the discussion below the article lays a lot of it out. There's a lot of picking and choosing of data. A fair look at the raw data can be found here:

http://www.swpc.noaa...centIndices.txt

A better look at solar cycles and how the resultant spots affect global temperature can be found with a quick wiki search.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users