44 replies to this topic

[rippleman]

http://news.discover...ate-110627.html



Don't believe everything you hear unless they/you can back it up with numbers

fear sells and sell well, hence why "global warming" has a huge following... i have to take off right now but when i get back i can link 100X more pages back to you saying the opposite of what you linked... just like religion, people seem to believe what they choose to believe based on fear of the unknown, as in they are not in control so they must have something they can influence... nature currently is beyond mass control at the moment. i am not scared Could i be wrong? Yes.

[Solid Knight]

Guys, I don't think you all understand. These guys are proposing the ultimate weapon.

[TPreston]

fear sells and sell well, hence why "global warming" has a huge following... i have to take off right now but when i get back i can link 100X more pages back to you saying the opposite of what you linked... just like religion, people seem to believe what they choose to believe based on fear of the unknown... i am not scared Could i be wrong? Yes.

That doesn't matter when you are up against mountains of peer reviewed evidence, But hey i trust some random guys on the Internet more than i trust the collective findings of the worlds climatologists... Oh wait i don't

[JaredFrost]

Im no rocket scientist but i think there might be a tiny chance that pumping 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year into earths atmosphere might have an effect on our climate

While true, that same CO2 was in the atmosphere previously hundreds of millions of years ago, life continued and thrived, whether it's human life is
another question.

But the planet itself will go on, with or without humans, and with the chance of causing a possible extinction level event, I think we should look for
another method.

I have no suggestions either.

[theyarecomingforyou]

nature does that more in a single event... the volcano that erupted in the phillipines put more CO2 in the atmosphere in one single event that humans have done in their ENTIRE existence. Humans causing global warming is like saying ants are killing the US transportation infrastructure.

Not true!

Here is a quote from NewScientist:

"Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust. But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions."

So there you have it - humans produce 99 times more CO2 each year than volcanoes. Fact.

Stop spreading anti-science propaganda.

[TPreston]

Not true!

Here is a quote from NewScientist:

"Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust. But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions."

So there you have it - humans produce 99 times more CO2 each year than volcanoes. Fact.

Stop spreading anti-science propaganda.

What else is a libertarian to do when faced with global warming ? Grow a backbone and say "sucks2bme" guess my economic/political philosophy ain't gonna work too well here!

Of course not ill just stick my head in the sand and pretend i know more about climate science than climatologists

[Routerbad]

That doesn't matter when you are up against mountains of peer reviewed evidence, But hey i trust some random guys on the Internet more than i trust the collective findings of the worlds climatologists... Oh wait i don't

I would, random guys on the internet aren't relying on sensationalism to ensure the government keeps giving them grant money. Climatologists have been found several times to be fixing numbers to generate fear and political angst. Keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of climatologists, geologists, etc that disagree with the notion of man made global warming, who have had a hard time getting published because of the current 'climate' of climate science. Short version? Its a racket.

[TPreston]

I would, random guys on the internet aren't relying on sensationalism to ensure the government keeps giving them grant money.

Yeah like that whole biology racket

Climatologists have been found several times to be fixing numbers to generate fear and political angst.

Citation needed.

Keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of climatologists, geologists, etc that disagree with the notion of man made global warming,

1 Citation needed.
2 appeal to authority

who have had a hard time getting published because of the current 'climate' of climate science.

Just like those fgolgs at the ICR who cant get their work published because of "darwinisim" give me a break.

Short version? Its a racket.

Prove it, Overturn climate science and when your done with that overturn cosmology,biology etc

[theyarecomingforyou]

Keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of climatologists, geologists, etc that disagree with the notion of man made global warming, who have had a hard time getting published because of the current 'climate' of climate science. Short version? Its a racket.

So you believe that the 97% of scientists who agree that climate change is man-made are corrupt, yet somehow the 3% who disagree aren't? Following that logic, I could simply argue that the 3% who disagree are on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry - in fact there is evidence to support that. Further, is it not more likely that media organisations and politicians are being funded by the fossil fuel industry and therefore have a vested interest in discrediting climate science?

Your denial of observable fact and common sense is astounding. Oh well, another one for my ignore list.

[vincent]

Here we go again....

[BillyJack]

lol, Man kind IS going to kill our selves.

This would make a great movie. In the movie humans accomplish their goal and the earth finally cools down. We are all having a drink and talking about it when all of a sudden a mega volcano erupts and spills dust into the atmosphere. One guy looks at the other and says, "Oh ****". The movie ends.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Here we go again....

Yeah, it's not a bad song but I'm not sure how it relates to the topic. I'd have to argue that this video by Noam Chomsky is more relevant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQCTTKvNkic

[rippleman]

The whole point is NO ONE knows for sure and its all speculation. When it comes to climate change, for every person saying one thing another person is saying the other. When you factor in the fear part, people will tend to believe the worst.

[Hum]

Guys, I don't think you all understand. These guys are proposing the ultimate weapon.

[TPreston]

The whole point is NO ONE knows for sure and its all speculation

This is stupid of course no one knows for sure! no one knows for sure that this entire universe isnt an elaborate computer simulation FFS. Absolute certainty is absolutely useless!

With that aside we can be as confident in the current modal of climate science as with any other area of science.

When it comes to climate change, for every person saying one thing another person is saying the other

Facepalm, You could say this about evolution,heliocentric solar system,germ theory ? Should we discard those too because i can provide you real life examples of people denying all three.

1 http://www.icr.org/
2 http://geocentrism.com/
3 http://naturalnews.com/

How is this any different from the idiots at the websites above ? And how the hell are we ment to prove anything when all someone has to do according to you is create a blog and years of scientific research are voided ?

. When you factor in the fear part, people will tend to believe the worst.

What people believe is irrelevant, Its what people can prove thats important