Climate Change a Hoax?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:

You say there is more green house gasses then previous yet we have been cooling for 11 years. It is a Hoax, The politicians are investing in these retarded “green” companies that are set to receive billions in start up funds. Al Gore has gone from $2 million to $100 million.

So if one can not dispute there is more Greenhouse gasses then previous and we are cooling then that proves right there that this Global warming hoax is just a way to scam the American people.

No it doesnt because that is as simple as more CO2 equals higher temperatures.

You cannot establish causality either way.

Maybe the sun was just cooler and when it warms again it will be several degrees warmer because we will have the effects of CO2 on top of it.

There can always be overriding factors and junk science is junk science no matter what side uses it.

[/quote]

My sarcasm didn’t carry well over the Internet. I agree with you junk science is junk science.

As far as I am concerned Climate Change is junk science. But lets be honest here this whole sky is falling bullshit was a giant ass scam done by the governments. The earth was around before us and will be around after us. We make such little impact that it really is a joke. I guess people need to feel like they are saving the world but all they have done is set the stage for the greatest depression we have ever seen.

This junk science has done more damage to my nation then any terrorist ever did. I can tell you what people are beginning to question this science and its not looking good for the whole “THE DEBATE IS OVER” crowd.

Where are the massive hurricanes that where supposed to destroy the east coast?

Is it not far more likely that the earth is going through its regular heating cooling cycles?

This Global Warming scam was also about scaring people… I think they have a name for that.

62

[quote]Nick Danger wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:

That is why warming causes increased CO2, and why CO2 increase lags (occur after) temperature increase rather than the other way around.

Thus I can’t see your argument as being “proof” that the ‘climate changers’ are wrong about the current situation. It’s also not proof they’re right.[/quote]

It appears that you’ve taken my words to mean more than what they actually said.

It is the anthropogenic climate changers that claim that their position is proven. All I need to do and care to do is to demonstrate that their position is not proven.

I don’t know why my statement regarding CO2 and the oceans would be disputed. This is physical chemistry as well as observed facts, recently discovered, regarding what has in fact occurred: CO2 rise lagging temperature rise.

On other points:

I have said that the computer models of anthropogenic climate changers are bogus science because they cannot “predict” decades that have already occurred when these decades are omitted from their database: therefore (though I did not explicitly state this) the models must be incomplete and are incapable of being verified, with regard to predicting say even a decade in advance, with data that already exists.

Why is that not a sound statement?

I have said that examination of the Russian data over many hundreds of thousands of years shows – given variation existing within those cycles – that the current last-hundred-thousand-years, including the present, is not significantly different than previous cycles that occurred without man: therefore, saying the present state must be due to man is not supported and does not follow from longer term evidence that we have.

Problems there?

I’ve stated that the majority of data used – which is from surface stations – is corrupted because the same stations are not being used across time and they are differently distributed, now being more urban.

Problem there?

I hadn’t stated, but it follows from what I said, that since the climate change models not only don’t predict CO2 rise lagging temperature rise, but predict the opposite, they’re provably flawed.

So given all this and more, why should we take an economic cost of trillions because persons willfully ignoring all the above claim “the debate is over” and their position is proven?

It is only either intellectual dishonesty, ignorance of the above, or inability to reason carefully that can explain a person insisting that man is the principal contributor to warming and that outcome can be substantially changed by man doing differently.

Any “climate change scientist” who is not aware of the above is an ignoramus, which leaves only intellectual dishonesty or inability to reason carefully as other possible explanations for continuing to maintain and propagandize such positions.

63

Climate change is yet another political tool with which to further neuter the United States. Van Jones articulated that perfectly.

64

Or let me put it a little more briefly and not with technical arguments:

Let’s say a person is a climate change scientist who works with these models as the sole thing he does, and it is pretty important to him whether he gets a decent-sized grant versus an utterly piddly one or even no grant at all.

Which works better?

“Senator, our climate change models prove beyond doubt – the debate is over – that manmade CO2 emission is threatening all life on Earth. Coastal areas will flood within 50 years, there will be devastating hurricanes, there will be droughts resulting in tens of millions of deaths by starvation. Indeed, we have indications that a ‘tipping point’ is likely where upon being reached, there can be no turning back but the planet will be doomed to runaway overheating. We need to refine those models yet further so that we can know more precisely just how much CO2 emissions must be reduced to avert these disasters.”

Or,

“Senator, actually our models cannot ‘predict’ decades that aren’t in the database, and certainly our models published in the 1990’s have failed to predict this current decade, and we’ve had other problems such as that our models have it that increased CO2 leads to increased warming whereas other recent studies have shown that in fact CO2 rise follows warming rather than precedes it. So we have a lot of work to do. We couldn’t say anything is proven at the current point. Can a billion dollars be allocated overall for further computer model climate research please, including a million dollars for my particular project?”

Whaddya think the temptation is going to be?

Whaddya think actually was argued in grant proposals?

65

[quote]John S. wrote:
Where are the massive hurricanes that where supposed to destroy the east coast?[/quote]

Another reason that what the AGW crowd argues is not even science at all is that it not falsifiable.

More hurricanes were predicted, but we have less?

Well, that is still man-made climate change because it is less!

The 2000-2009 decade was predicted to be warmer, but wasn’t?

Doesn’t disprove it or even count as evidence against.

CO2 levels are found to lag temperature increase rather than drive temperature increase?

Doesn’t disprove it.

Hot winter? That helps prove it.

Really cold winter? Or several of them? Maybe even decades of them? Doesn’t disprove it.

NOTHING that happens can disprove it. No matter what that might be. Hell, even finding ourselves well into an Ice Age would not count as disproving it.

Warmer or colder, more hurricanes or less, more drought or less, more snow or less, more ANYTHING or less, any outcome helps demonstrate AGW to be true and no conceivable outcome counts as disproof or even as evidence against.

Thus, it isn’t even science.

66

[quote]John S. wrote:

This Global Warming scam was also about scaring people… I think they have a name for that.[/quote]

Politics?

67

[quote]orion wrote:
John S. wrote:

This Global Warming scam was also about scaring people… I think they have a name for that.

Politics?[/quote]

I was going to go with terrorism… but whats the difference.

68

[quote]orion wrote:
anonfactor wrote:
First video in a good collection of videos on the subject.

all I did was remove your , [/quote]

Thanks, don’t know why it didn’t work the first time. Also, I posted the wrong video; the correct one is below.

The second video deals with what Bill Roberts was talking about earlier.

I don’t want to post the whole collection on the board but I recommend you check them out.

69

[quote]John S. wrote:
If only there was something on this planet that used CO2 for food.

[/quote]

And this is what happens to those. ‘Just two-by-fours on a stump’ right?

71

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
John S. wrote:
Where are the massive hurricanes that where supposed to destroy the east coast?

Another reason that what the AGW crowd argues is not even science at all is that it not falsifiable.

More hurricanes were predicted, but we have less?

Well, that is still man-made climate change because it is less!

The 2000-2009 decade was predicted to be warmer, but wasn’t?

Doesn’t disprove it or even count as evidence against.

CO2 levels are found to lag temperature increase rather than drive temperature increase?

Doesn’t disprove it.

Hot winter? That helps prove it.

Really cold winter? Or several of them? Maybe even decades of them? Doesn’t disprove it.

NOTHING that happens can disprove it. No matter what that might be. Hell, even finding ourselves well into an Ice Age would not count as disproving it.

Warmer or colder, more hurricanes or less, more drought or less, more snow or less, more ANYTHING or less, any outcome helps demonstrate AGW to be true and no conceivable outcome counts as disproof or even as evidence against.

Thus, it isn’t even science.[/quote]

Dang, it’s a crapshoot, just like some of the supplements I take!..

72

[quote]pushharder wrote:
spurlock wrote:
John S. wrote:
If only there was something on this planet that used CO2 for food.

And this is what happens to those. ‘Just two-by-fours on a stump’ right?

And after that this is what happens to those clearcuts. Funny how you can kill a plant and then turn right around and grow some more of them suckers. In fact, it’s downright phenomenal.[/quote]

Ancient forests don’t grow back. At least not for a few thousand years.

74

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
pushharder wrote:
spurlock wrote:
John S. wrote:
If only there was something on this planet that used CO2 for food.

And this is what happens to those. ‘Just two-by-fours on a stump’ right?

And after that this is what happens to those clearcuts. Funny how you can kill a plant and then turn right around and grow some more of them suckers. In fact, it’s downright phenomenal.

Ancient forests don’t grow back. At least not for a few thousand years.

Neither do ancient cattle. Or ancient hogs. Or ancient mackerel. Or ancient humans.[/quote]

So what are you trying to prove Push? That it’s ok to destroy old-growth ecosystems (or non-domesticated animals) for green paper or increased numbers in a bank account?

Keep in mind here, that I’m being a GIANT hypocrite since this was one of the 36 jobs I’ve dabbled in.

76

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Curse Vulcan, for he and he alone hath clearcutted this ancient forest. Let his name ring hollow with nary a word of praise. He is a vicious and evil logger and shall be brought low someday when the god of Gore issues his summary judgment and he is sentenced to retreat to the bowels of this celestial orb (where the temperature is “millions of degrees”).[/quote]

Ah yes, but Vulcan does not do this so he can buy tickle-me Elmo dolls and Taco Bell.

79

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
pushharder wrote:
spurlock wrote:
John S. wrote:
If only there was something on this planet that used CO2 for food.

And this is what happens to those. ‘Just two-by-fours on a stump’ right?

And after that this is what happens to those clearcuts. Funny how you can kill a plant and then turn right around and grow some more of them suckers. In fact, it’s downright phenomenal.

Ancient forests don’t grow back. At least not for a few thousand years.

Neither do ancient cattle. Or ancient hogs. Or ancient mackerel. Or ancient humans.[/quote]

For our own benefit the human population shouldn’t be supported on meat. We don’t need to raise as many cattle, hogs, or mackerel as we need to raise plants. As Polan describes in his book “In Defense of Food”, Ideal human health is achieved by “Eating food, not too much, mostly plants”. The ironic thing is, we cut down forests to grow plants to feed massive amounts of cattle. If humans ate mostly plants, we would get sick less, have lower rates of colon cancer (a common western phenomenon), and potentially save our environment.