|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-07-2011, 03:04 AM
Yes, I mean they produce more C02 than everything humans do period..that includes coal plants, cars..oil, all of it. Thats a fact Jack. Everything GLobal Warming gurues have been blathering is hyperbole BS designed to allow them complete controle of governments. Hell, the Orginal founder of Green Peace LEFT his own organization because it became full of Nit wit Communists.
It's just a basic smoke and mirrors campaign to blind you to the far darker intent they really have. History repeats itself once again. There is a petition, signed by 31,000 climatoligists, includeing over 9000 scientists with PHD's. Who have signed a petition calling this load of malarky exactly what it is. Now, if you want to live your life a certain way becuase you are afraid you will cause the planet to overheat, that's fine, your free to do that. But I'm not going to, and that's my right as well. That's the big issue here, many of us aren't going to stop liveing the lifestyles we enjoy. So unless your advocateing force to MAKE us live the way YOU WANT us too. Your just going to have to accept that. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-07-2011, 06:59 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-08-2011, 01:30 AM
No MMM you don't, they would dictate your whole life for you. "Global warming" is a hoax. A massive scam to take controle of your life. Co2 emissions are only .083% of total greenhouse gases and humans only account for 12% of that..in total. This is information right off the EPA and Smithsonian web sites. Simple math really. Besides, as was reported in the USA Today just this morning, grapes are again being grown in southern England...Just like they were in 1300...LIKE I said they were. The warming trend is just cyclical and coensides with the sun.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-08-2011, 02:55 AM
Is smoking is bad for your health also a big scientific hoax Ryzorian?
All accepted scientific evidence supports the notion that smoking is bad for your health and increases the risk of numerous cancers and other ailments. Is all that just made up as well? If not, what is the difference between the two streams of science? Both follow similarly strict scientific methods. Basically dismissing and denying the science of climate change is no different to dismissing and denying the science of the harmful effects of smoking. Or like denying that the earth is round rather than flat. Your dismissal of the role of C02 as a greenhouse gas only shows a rather incredible willful ignorance of the science behind it. Please explain the motives behind creating such a huge hoax. What is it's purpose? And just how did they get most of the cliamte scientists around the world to play along? How did they convince most governments that the science is valid? (even if they disagree on how to tackle the issue). Please show a link to the scientific paper that shows that cows and termites produce more C02 than all human activities. Put up or shut up on this issue. If the warming trend just coincides with the sun then why has temperature increased so much in the last 60 years when there has been virtually no upward trend at all of solar irradiance? What is driving this temperature increase? It can't be explained by the sun alone. If it was that easy then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you would actually like to educate yourself at all (I doubt it) have a look at some of the papers listed on the following link regarding the role of C02. It lists papers going back to 1861. Way before any of your conspiracies started I can assure you. Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties And in relation to your claim that this is all a hoax to change the way we live. This is completely untrue. The science isn't about changing anything. The science is what the science is. The policies to deal with what the science is telling us are what will affect us. But even those policies aren't really about changing the way we live they are mostly about changing how we source our energy for the lifestyles we lead. Moving away from our reliance on fossil fuels which contribute so much extra C02 into the atmosphere. We have the technology already to mostly move away from this reliance but of course the industries that currently exploit these non-renewable resources are amongst the most powerful companies on the planet and some countries whole economies are reliant on selling these resources. So yes there are very powerful groups who don't wish to see these industries decline. One way or another though it's inevitable. These resources will eventually run out. How soon we make the transition must weigh up a whole lot of political factors like effects on economies and the environment. To deny the science like you do is just stupidity. I'm all for a robust debate around the policies to deal with how we affect the climate but attempting to debate the actual science with a denialist like yourself is an exercise in futility.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-08-2011, 08:04 AM
Gonative; There is no science concerning "Global warming". It's all based on freakish computer models developed by the very individuals who wish to controle your life. The Smithsonian and the EPA itself, at their own websites, confirm that C02 gas barely contrize .083% of all global greenhouse gases released ( of wich water vapor is the largest) and that of that .083%, humans just contribute 12%. That's barely anything. NO, global warming is not a big deal, nor is it a threat to you and yours. It's just a fact of nature that happens on a regular basis.
Anyone who says otherwise is either deluded or involved in the hoax to controle your life. Cheap fuel is needed for the lifestyle America has and it's readily available. Onward, leave those who would get in the way of what is our natural right, get out of the way or be over run.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-08-2011, 02:29 PM
So you'll totally disregard the advice experts who've spent lifetimes of study and reasearch? You'll believe in fairytales from a book a couple of thousand years old but deny the accumulated wisdom of more than 150 years of scientific research. I truly feel sorry for people like you. You are so deeply deluded it's frightening. And it's not just on this subject. We see it in nearly every topic you contribute to on these forums. Everything based on a lack of knowledge. Everything just based on deluded ideology surrounded by conspiracies and religious fanaticism. I despair for America if there are many more like you.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-08-2011, 11:50 PM
Science is about asking questions, trying to disprove every theory ever brought forth as a way to means test it. "Global Warming" doesn't allow anyone to question it or bring out facts to counter it..facts wich do exist..I just told you where you could get them.
I'm Not deluded, I'm a Enviromental science Major, it's my field of study..and I'm telling you it's bunk..as a scientist. There is far more evidence out there from decades of resreach that debunk the whole Global warming hoax for what it is, a hoax... Hell, back in the 70's those same "global warming" types thought we were headed into an ice age..So wich is it? hotter or colder? Gonative, it's people like me that fought the British so America could be free, it's people like me who fought the civil war so slaves could be free, it's people like me who fought the Nazi's so the ovens were turned off. It's people like me who defeated the Soviet empire because we believed our way was the right way. I'm not going to let some fake report in some UN headquarters dictate to me how I can live.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
10-09-2011, 01:09 AM
Quote:
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-09-2011, 04:13 AM
Quote:
Your life is just full of so many contradictions isn't it? You love the oil which fuels your industry but the science which allows us to find oil by undersatanding the geomorphology and by using dating techniques show us that the earth is billions of years old. Yet because of your religious dogma you disregard this science even though you reap the benefits of it . You continually harp on about how the strong prevail against the weak and that it's a dog eat dog world but even though this is what natural selection and evolution is all about you deny this science as well. We all know that greenhouses assist in keeping temperatures warmer within for plant growth and seed germination. Yet even though the same principles apply in our atmosphere you deny the science of this as well. You show an incredible lack of knowledge of the role of C02 as a greenhouse gas. That it is opaque to such a wide portion of the infrared spectrum is why it is such an important player in our climate. This has been proven by satellite and terristrial data. I gave links to two papers that show this. Of course you will not have read them (wouldn't want to educate yourself now would you?). You live in a world surrounded by appliances and technology that is only possible because of science yet you continually deny large portions of it because of religious dogma and closed minded ideology. How you live with such contradictions is quite beyond me. Nothing you have said about the science of global warming comes from the science. You make grandiose claims but never back any of it up with links to any evidence. I bet you get all your information from one of two blogs on the internet and that's it. Blogs by people who are not bound by any of the rigours of scientific methods, peer review or little things like the truth. And for your information in the 1970's there were extremely few papers purporting that it would get cooler (care to list any?). The vast bulk of the science even then was predicting warming due to increasing C02. The media seemed to jump onto the cooling predictions at the time, mostly because of some particularly cold winters in the US in the late 70's, but it was not a reflection of where the science was at the time or where is was going. Once again you have no idea of what you are talking about (like that's a surprise). To suggest that the UN reports are fake is just idiocy. They are only a representation of the current science. Nothing more, nothing less. If there is supposedly so much science out there that disproves any of the fundamental principals of AGW then please list some of them. Show us what proof you believe you have. You just keep making a whole lot of ridiculous statements with nothing to back it up. That may work for someone like you who believes in religious fairytales as it's basically the same principle. Expecting belief in something for which there is absolutely no proof. Sorry but as a true skeptic that doesn't fly with me.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
10-09-2011, 04:44 AM
Quote:
Still from research done it is clear that at least 95% of those who are directly involved in climate science research support the theory of AGW. That's about as close to a consensus as you could get I reckon. You can view the petition here Global Warming Petition Project One of the things that I really love on their site is the 'Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research' section. It shows just one 'scientific' paper. Yep just one. And let's look at it. Who is the principal author? Arthur B. Robinson. Funnily enough the same guy who started the petition. He is the founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He has a doctorate in chemistry. All sounds incredibly impressive doesn't it? The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) is a non-profit organization. It is a private research institute that studies biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging. Now I'm not sure how any of this relates to climate science. Well it's pretty clear that none of it does. If you read about him on wiki you'll see he's been involved in some pretty weird stuff and that he is funnily enough the editor and publisher of a newsletter called Access to Energy. And guess what he doesn't believe in the science of global warming!! Who would have guessed that!! It's laughable. And where was this groundbreaking paper that debunks the science of global warming published? In a medical journal. Let's just be clear as well that it wasn't published as a scientific paper but as a review. Read more about the petition, Robinson and his institute at the following link Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch And this is the sort of 'science' that Ryzorian puts so much faith in. It's just sad.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
