Restriction Towards American's Rights and Freedoms

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:
kilonewton wrote:
Question for the global warming denialists: what do you think about the theory of evolution? If you reject it, why? If you accept it, how is accepting the scientific consensus here different from accepting it on climate change?

There is 100 years of acccumulated data to support the theory of evolution.

There is anecdotal evidence at best to support man made global warming. [/quote]

You highlighted the important part here. You’re not arguing against global warming (are you?) you’re arguing against man made Global Warming… this debate is fine, although I predict it’ll ultimately be proven that man DOES have an effect (I just don’t know how strong that effect is).

[quote]
The fact that the IPCC is and always was a political pressure group does not help and neither does the fact that the same people who were wrong all along (Club of Rome, et al) jump on board to finally ram their agenda through.

Should there be global warming … [/quote] Wait, did you just deny Global Warming? Just throwing wood on the flames or what?

[quote]…the debate is far from over though because it could still not make sense to try to act against it. The horror scenarios have not come true so we could prevent a negligible amount of warming at ridiculously high costs. No doubt that some would benefit, but definitely not we all as a whole.

Not that we could do anything as long as Brazil, China and India are not on board because they have more pressing problems right now. [/quote]

This is a good debate to be had: What (if anything) should be done.

I don’t really feel like looking it up right now, but I’m guessing you’ve the answer. Why don’t you tell us what the IPCC says about it and why you think they’re wrong?

42

[quote]kilonewton wrote:

Plus, what are we denying?

Please describe the mechanism that leads from more CO2 to higher temperatures and why it could not possibly be that warmer oceans mean more CO2 in the atmosphere.

You’ve really never heard of the greenhouse effect?
CO2 is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared radiation. Light from the sun passes through the atmosphere, and strikes the earth, which emits most of the energy back as infrared radiation. If the light isn’t absorbed, it passes through the air back into outer space. If it is, it instead warms up the molecule it strikes, ultimately warming the whole earth. The more C02 in the atmosphere, the more this happens. All of this can be demonstrated very easily in the lab.
[/quote]

How big of a percentage of green house gases is CO2 and how much do we contribute to it?

43

[quote]orion wrote:

How big of a percentage of green house gases is CO2 and how much do we contribute to it?

[/quote]
Can you be bothered to spend five minutes reading Wiki?

''When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[6]

* water vapor, which contributes 36â??72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9â??26%
* methane, which contributes 4â??9%
* ozone, which contributes 3â??7%''

All but the first are produced in excess by human activity. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 360ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; since the natural processes that emit and absorb CO2 haven’t changed appreciably in this time, it follows that the the change is anthropogenic.
This chart (File:Carbon History and Flux Rev.png - Wikipedia) sums it up pretty well.

44

[quote]kilonewton wrote:
orion wrote:

How big of a percentage of green house gases is CO2 and how much do we contribute to it?

Can you be bothered to spend five minutes reading Wiki?

''When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[6]

* water vapor, which contributes 36â??72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9â??26%
* methane, which contributes 4â??9%
* ozone, which contributes 3â??7%''

All but the first are produced in excess by human activity. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 360ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; since the natural processes that emit and absorb CO2 haven’t changed appreciably in this time, it follows that the the change is anthropogenic. This chart (File:Carbon History and Flux Rev.png - Wikipedia) sums it up pretty well.
[/quote]

We only produce 3-5 % of all CO2 emissions though and we do now that CO2 increases in the atmosphere tend to follow global warming.

45

[quote]kilonewton wrote:
Question for the global warming denialists: what do you think about the theory of evolution? If you reject it, why? If you accept it, how is accepting the scientific consensus here different from accepting it on climate change? [/quote]

Theory aside, evolution being accurate or not has little to no impact on our current lives. If gov’t were to propose sweeping legislation that would forever change our lives based on the theory of evolution, I’ll care whether it is logical or not.

46

[quote]kilonewton wrote:
orion wrote:

How big of a percentage of green house gases is CO2 and how much do we contribute to it?

Can you be bothered to spend five minutes reading Wiki?

''When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[6]

* water vapor, which contributes 36â??72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9â??26%
* methane, which contributes 4â??9%
* ozone, which contributes 3â??7%''

All but the first are produced in excess by human activity. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 360ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; since the natural processes that emit and absorb CO2 haven’t changed appreciably in this time, it follows that the the change is anthropogenic.
This chart (File:Carbon History and Flux Rev.png - Wikipedia) sums it up pretty well.
[/quote]

You, my friend, are an idiot. None of these are produced in an significant percentage by human activity.

47

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Sometimes you folks are exhausting, you know that?

LOL. Welcome to PWI, where Obama’s birthplace is a constant debate (oh, and he’s really Indonesian), Global Warming is not (it’s a hoax), and conspiracy theories flow like beer in Wisconsin (most involving those damn homosexuals). Sit back and enjoy the show. [/quote]

You’re forgetting central bankers. The fat cats driving the NWO through gay marriage activism.

48

[quote]dhickey wrote:
kilonewton wrote:
orion wrote:

How big of a percentage of green house gases is CO2 and how much do we contribute to it?

Can you be bothered to spend five minutes reading Wiki?

''When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[6]

* water vapor, which contributes 36�??�?�¢??72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9�??�?�¢??26%
* methane, which contributes 4�??�?�¢??9%
* ozone, which contributes 3�??�?�¢??7%''

All but the first are produced in excess by human activity. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 360ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; since the natural processes that emit and absorb CO2 haven’t changed appreciably in this time, it follows that the the change is anthropogenic.
This chart (File:Carbon History and Flux Rev.png - Wikipedia) sums it up pretty well.

You, my friend, are an idiot. None of these are produced in an significant percentage by human activity.[/quote]

Are you literate? Look at the second graph I linked to. See the blue line, total FOSSIL FUEL BURNING (the amount of carbon we add to the air by burning stuff), and the red line, TOTAL FLUX (that is, the total carbon surplus deficit or surplus for the Earth’s atmosphere). Note that the second line is consistently about two-thirds the level of the first. This shows that 1) increase in atmospheric carbon is entirely due to human activity and 2) natural processes are a net absorber of carbon, though not enough to cancel out the amount of shit we burn. Do they not teach kids how to read graphs in fourth grade any more?

For methane (the biggest source of which is cattle farming), about half of all methane comes from human activity, and you’re talking out of your ass once again. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm

49

[quote]kilonewton wrote:
dhickey wrote:
kilonewton wrote:
orion wrote:

How big of a percentage of green house gases is CO2 and how much do we contribute to it?

Can you be bothered to spend five minutes reading Wiki?

''When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[6]

* water vapor, which contributes 36�???�??�?�¢??72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9�???�??�?�¢??26%
* methane, which contributes 4�???�??�?�¢??9%
* ozone, which contributes 3�???�??�?�¢??7%''

All but the first are produced in excess by human activity. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 360ppm since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution; since the natural processes that emit and absorb CO2 haven’t changed appreciably in this time, it follows that the the change is anthropogenic.
This chart (File:Carbon History and Flux Rev.png - Wikipedia) sums it up pretty well.

You, my friend, are an idiot. None of these are produced in an significant percentage by human activity.

Are you literate? Look at the second graph I linked to. See the blue line, total FOSSIL FUEL BURNING (the amount of carbon we add to the air by burning stuff), and the red line, TOTAL FLUX (that is, the total carbon surplus deficit or surplus for the Earth’s atmosphere). Note that the second line is consistently about two-thirds the level of the first. This shows that 1) increase in atmospheric carbon is entirely due to human activity and 2) natural processes are a net absorber of carbon, though not enough to cancel out the amount of shit we burn. Do they not teach kids how to read graphs in fourth grade any more?

For methane (the biggest source of which is cattle farming), about half of all methane comes from human activity, and you’re talking out of your ass once again. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm
[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you had a graph. sheesh…

50

[quote]dhickey wrote:
tom63 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Nik – that’s a weird jumble of information, some of which I can address off the top of my head.

The midcentury drop in global temperatures was due to sulfur dioxide and other industrial pollutants which chill the atmosphere. That was an independent effect, working in the opposite direction as the warming trend. With regulation and technological advancement, most of those pollutants are no longer being produced, and temperatures have reversed.

Global temperatures have not been falling since 2000. 2007 was the second warmest year on record, according to NASA.

Weather is not climate, and the link between climate change and tornadoes is shaky, but 2008 was a record-setting US tornado season. There’s been no decrease in tornadoes. Climate Roundup: Tornadoes, Coral, Drought - The New York Times.

The IPCC is not all scientists, and that’s common knowledge. They don’t do research, they assemble reports from the primary research.

The issue with the developing world actually is a serious question. We don’t know whether the burden of climate change mitigation is worth it. This is the one point where I’m not completely sold; if what it takes to reduce carbon is to make the world poorer on net, I think we should call it quits. But that’s where the debate is – the cost-benefit analysis – and not on whether all the geophysicists are swindlers.

Global warming is a scam.

How can you be so sure the indicators these “scientists” use actually could predict temperatures in a repeatable and falsifiable fashion. In fact, they cannot.

No scientist I know believes these lies paid for by Al Gore and the American tax payer.

Their own models to prove it predict wrong when you put in past weather data.

If I’m shooting and the scope says I’m on and I’m missing, I re zero the scope. I don’t keep missing.

Even if you get it to hit at a certain distance, you don’t know why it is now hitting. Was it scoped propery before for a different distance? Are the hash marks inncorrect for the ballistics of the cartridge you are firing? Is the barrel bent? Will a different bullet weight and charge refuse to stabilize due to the twist rate of the barrel?

Even if they get a model to work, they have no way of pinpointing what is causing the results.[/quote]

All very true. I was being simplistic, but you are right.

51

[quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you had a graph. sheesh…[/quote]

So do you consciously decide to lie about everything, or is it more of an I-just-don’t-care attitude?

52

[quote]tom63 wrote:
All very true. I was being simplistic, but you are right.[/quote]

I thought it was a good analogy, so added a bit to it.

53

[quote]kilonewton wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you had a graph. sheesh…

So do you consciously decide to lie about everything, or is it more of an I-just-don’t-care attitude?[/quote]

If I make a graph showing the opposite, are we even?

54

[quote]dhickey wrote:
kilonewton wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you had a graph. sheesh…

So do you consciously decide to lie about everything, or is it more of an I-just-don’t-care attitude?

If I make a graph showing the opposite, are we even?[/quote]

If you can source that graph to peer-reviewed studies, then of course. But you can’t.