Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, well done.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Best post in politics ever.

[NewTeaBag]

Why does the debate never steer away from is it or is it not happening?

IOW The evidence keeps pointing towards man's affect on a warming of the climate. You can argue the degree to which the effect will be ad nauseum but it is beyond doubt (for most) that industrialized man deffo has an affect.

I'm sure, upon Wacki's arrival, he can dismiss OPs arguments (assuming he hold his temper) with stacks of studies and statistics.

How about taking a new avenue of discusion.

Why is it necesarily BAD, that the climate is warming? Yes, yes, I've seen all the data/predictions about changes to sea levels and crops and forests etc. BUT all those things will simply affect man, and change the way they have to do things. Coastlines change, poulations levels go down, georaphical and political alliances shift. Why are these necesarily all BAD things?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Best post in politics ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[govman6767]

One question about science.

A natural byproduct of human digestion is methane. A gas which populates MOST uninhabitiable planets.

Is it possible that farting is contributing to global warming more than fossil fuel consumption????

[GoodCallYouWin]

I hear cow farting is the main cause of global warming. That's actually why I eat steak 12 meals a day... it's because I care.

[rubberloon]

I agree with Praetorian Card. The sunspot cycle is loosely correlated with recent temperatures. Apparently no sunspots were observed from 1650 to 1700, and currently we've just passed a maximum of the cycle, which is quoted at eleven years but varies a lot. Also you need temperature measurements in the same place under the same conditions without urban development, deforestation, power plants upwind, etc. That said there is evidence of increased temperatures since about 1650, but it was hotter around 1300 than now. Also there seems little proof of temperature increases since 1990. Government scientists obey orders and get the results their superiors want. Academic scientists are grant driven and politically correct and will also get results the grant givers want. The IPCC is committed to man made global warming and goes apeshit if anyone opposes their politically correct consensus. The mere fact they call it CONSENSUS tells everyone they ain't got proof worth a damn. I regard all politicians and bureaucrats as liars cheats thieves pimps and whores unless proven otherwise.

One associated problem is that CO2 should be higher in the atmosphere than observed. The level of production is known, and thus the level of removal is known, but the mechanism of removal is not. The LeChatelier principle (high school chemistry) states that a chemical system in equilibrium reacts to resist change. In this case adding C02 to the atmosphere would result in more CO2 being removed. I would expect a gross increase in phytoplankton, but that's just my personal guess.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the debate never steer away from is it or is it not happening?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the supporters continue to fail to provide good explanations for some of the flaws in the theories involved, and almost all of the scientific data I've seen has been either not scientific or an insignificantly tiny sample size.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet the AGW crowd can predict a 30' rise in seal level in a 100 years based on a natural warming trend over a couple decades? the whole cooling trend from the 1940-70s does not count, eh, even in wake of the industrial revolution? In 1975 Newsweek/Time wrote a cover on the coming ICE AGE.

AGW is simple alarmism and the movement has followers. Sadly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newsweek and Time are both very reliable scientific journals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what Newsweek states, what Time states, what wacki states about the ability of climiate models to accurately predict climate change. The bottom line is that the models are unproven in their predictive value.

Here's a link to a climate history graphic to the earth. Look up the most recent period on this graphic, the Pleistocene period, and see when it started. I've never stated that we shouldn't err on the side of caution. Just saying that we need to view the climate models for what they are at this point and that is unproven rather than gospel.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is a compelling argument on why this movement is a fraud. Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....Funny how the UN is the organization leading the charge, huh?


[/ QUOTE ]
Very played out arguement 'gee the weatherman is wrong alot' Well as it turns out meterology is different from climatology. I predict the weather next year in the sahara will be dry. It will rain alot in South East Asia, and there will be tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma. Many things where short term forcasting is difficult long term forcasting isn't as hard. I can't tell you exactly when it will snow in Norway, but I'm willing to bet it will be very cold in december in Oslo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem from a layman's perspective that I see with climatological predictions other than the norm: Last year's much more active season of hurricanes was predicted by all the experts. It didn't happen. Wacki ways in and responds something to the effect that the forecast models didn't take into account sand storms in Africa that suppresses initial formation of systems that could become hurricanes(if memory serves). My point is that it seems to the layman that if it is this easy to miss such an important variable with long term hurricane predictions that have a massive effect on the weather, how can one put faith in computer models that forecast climate decades in advance(teams of experts may easily not properly take into account even just one important variable, again as evidenced by hurricane predictions that did not come to fruition). To radically alter lifestyles because of models seems presumptuous to many, an 'oops we forgot' to properly take into account variable x doesn't cut it when the proposed remedies are radical and life altering.