Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1241  
Old 31.03.2013, 17:54
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
But I think "climate change" is inevitable, as the earth has always and always will go through cycles of temperature change (be it great or small)...
Why is this straw man constantly raised ? No-one dispute natural climate change cycles occur.

Quote:
The question is: How are we, as an exponentially-growing species with a limited amount of natural resources, going to adapt to the next dramatic shift in climate change?
That's not the question quite yet. It's getting pretty close, however.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1242  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:02
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 4,640
Groaned at 255 Times in 181 Posts
Thanked 9,561 Times in 3,589 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Smithy, I'm starting to think you'd argue with your own reflection in the mirror...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pancakes for this useful post:
  #1243  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:06
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
IMO, you're so deep in your dogma, that no matter what evidence nor how much evidence I presented, you'd deny the truth. I can't lead you to water, and I certainly can't get you to drink...
You need actual evidence, not politically- or greed-motivated nit picking.

It is telling that exactly the same methods are using by climate change denialists as we used by those denying the link between smoking and cancer, and continue to be used by Creationists trying to get religion taught alongside science.

Quote:
But, hey, let's play a few rounds of "Your Expert/My Expert." That would only reinforce my belief that the point isn't settled, and that the Environmental Movement's premises, methods, data, and models are very much in dispute...
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Why should I take anyone seriously when they trot out ridiculous straw men like this ?

"He must convince us that CO2 is a pollutant. But calling it a pollutant is an uninformed joke. CO2, along with oxygen and water is essential for all life."

Anyway, a quick Google will show up more than enough example of other people who have deconstructed his material.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1244  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:09
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Hmm..with this logic, i guess the world is totally screwed. (no sarcasm). And so, we should burn all the fossil fuels we want to with the full acceptance that we will make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves and the majority of other species around us. Its ok, kids, and we're not sorry about it. Its a natural process.
I like to brew my own beer. I add a small amount of yeast to a resource-rich closed system (jug of sweet malted grain sugars and water). The yeast multiply exponentially. It all seems so healthy and lively to watch, with all that commotion and bubbly yeast water. Until the point that the yeast have created so much waste product (alcohol) that they can no longer survive in their self-toxified jug, and they nearly all die. We have manipulated our planet in the same way we manipulate the yeast, only we are on the inside of the jug and there is no escape.
Alas, time to crack open a beer on a cold sunday afternoon. Happy Easter!....
I would not describe my post as logic, simply a series of facts.
My own view is that if the theory of global warming is correct then it is too late to reverse it. Our efforts should concentrate on learning to cope.

This theory does not explain why we have two decades of stable temperatures. Plenty of Physics theories had to be discarded because they no longer correctly described what was actually happening.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1245  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:09
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
This is a lie. There was never any widespread consensus about "global cooling".
About as much consensus as there is in "global warming." Also, I never claimed a consensus existed.


Quote:
View Post
There is little science in history that has been subject to as much scrutiny as climate change. Much like Evolution, another victim of the contemporary anti-science mindset taking over media and education, serious, well-researched, well-evidenced science refuting climate change would be groundbreaking.
It is under so much scrutiny because it is highly flawed, poorly descriptive, and poorly predictive. And if you can't win any points on the environmental front, change the subject to Evolution?


Quote:
View Post
Then on what basis can you argue we need to make "efficient and intelligent use of resources" ? By your logic, we have no way of knowing they're finite at all, nor that some as-yet undiscovered miracle will save us from ourselves.
I can observe that the Earth is finite in size. Obviously, this implies there can't be more resources than the total volume of Earth, less the volume of things observed not to be resources. I don't know that some miracle will come along, which, if you agree with the premise of limited resources, means that we must use resources efficiently and intelligently. See, that wasn't hard...

Quote:
View Post
It does not. That would be a lie. Environmentalists say that processes which have no natural equivalent are unnatural. Like, say, digging up and burning millions of years worth of accumulated carbon sinks in the space of a couple of centuries.
This is the Environmental Movement defining the terms, however. Fire is a natural process, and fossil fuels have burned long before mankind came along; changing the scale or the speed doesn't make a natural process suddenly unnatural. Moreso, it ignores that nature has been changing/evolving in a rapidly increasing, curvilinear fashion. It took billions of years to insect-level organisms, but less than a billion years to get from insect-level organisms to sentient organisms like humans. Even though this process has been accelerating, it is popular opinion that it is a natural process.

Quote:
View Post
Ultimately, your whole argument boils down to "we dont need to worry, ignore all the evidence, everything will sort itself out and we'll be just fine". Which, ironically enough, is barely one step short of the sort of irrational belief system underlying the typical religion you accuse the vast majority of scientists in the world to be participating in.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've repeatedly advocated for doing something, while at the same time questioning the "Global Warming" rationale. But since I'm questioning the underpinnings of your dogma, you refuse to see this.
Reply With Quote
  #1246  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:13
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: -
Posts: 1,640
Groaned at 26 Times in 22 Posts
Thanked 2,932 Times in 1,202 Posts
Russkov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I've repeatedly advocated for doing something...
So please enlighten us.
Reply With Quote
  #1247  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:16
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
This theory does not explain why we have two decades of stable temperatures.
On what do you base this statement ?
Reply With Quote
  #1248  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:20
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
On what do you base this statement ?
Don't answer this... It'll just be another "straw man" to this one...

I've presented data from my "quick Google" and this poster just says its bad data, so what is the point of presenting this poster with any data that disagrees with this poster's position?
Reply With Quote
  #1249  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:22
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 4,640
Groaned at 255 Times in 181 Posts
Thanked 9,561 Times in 3,589 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I think it's best to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming." I was recently told this by a friend of mine who is a mathematician and is currently at the ETH doing his PhD in modelling climate change.

Makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #1250  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:28
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
About as much consensus as there is in "global warming."
False.

Quote:
Also, I never claimed a consensus existed.
Sorry, I assumed when you wrote "we believed" you meant a more than just the royal "we".

Quote:
It is under so much scrutiny because it is highly flawed, poorly descriptive, and poorly predictive.
Yet the fundamental tenets remain unchallenged by anything vaguely resembling evidence and science.

Quote:
I can observe that the Earth is finite in size. Obviously, this implies there can't be more resources than the total volume of Earth, less the volume of things observed not to be resources.
Weren't you arguing just a few posts ago that the Earth is not a closed system ?

Quote:
Fire is a natural process, and fossil fuels have burned long before mankind came along; changing the scale or the speed doesn't make a natural process suddenly unnatural.
What natural process are you proposing could have dug up the quantity of coal, oil, and other fossil fuels humanity has been busily burning for the last few hundred years ?

Quote:
Moreso, it ignores that nature has been changing/evolving in a rapidly increasing, curvilinear fashion. It took billions of years to insect-level organisms, but less than a billion years to get from insect-level organisms to sentient organisms like humans. Even though this process has been accelerating, it is popular opinion that it is a natural process.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

Quote:
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I've repeatedly advocated for doing something, while at the same time questioning the "Global Warming" rationale.
How can you make an argument for "doing something" when you fundamentally believe the reason "something" needs to be done is wrong ?

Quote:
But since I'm questioning the underpinnings of your dogma, you refuse to see this.
That would require you to first present some actual science, rather than politically-motivated rhetoric.

"We don't know what's happening so we should ignore it" isn't science.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1251  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:29
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So please enlighten us.

Please find the post where I claimed to have the answers.

I'm happy to admit that I don't have the answers; I just also know that others don't as well. I know this is such a complicated subject that anyone claiming to have "the answers" shouldn't be believed...
Reply With Quote
  #1252  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:38
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Please find the post where I claimed to have the answers.

I'm happy to admit that I don't have the answers; I just also know that others don't as well. I know this is such a complicated subject that anyone claiming to have "the answers" shouldn't be believed...
So you're arguing we should ignore the existing theory "just because", yet have no alternative to offer ?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1253  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:39
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
..."We don't know what's happening so we should ignore it" isn't science.

Neither is your dogmatic belief in an unprovable something... Hence "religion." I guess this is a straw-man argument, too.

I can't take you seriously, because you won't even consider anything other than your own opinion on the subject. Even if I were to agree with you on something (which I've actually done to small degrees at times), you'll ignore it because I don't completely follow your belief system about the environment.

IMO, if you were truly concerned with the environment and truly wanting to ensure things were "better" you'd be willing to admit how much we don't know about the climate and the global ecosystem we are trying to protect, accept the humility this gives you, and start searching for real answers, instead of backing up anti-capitalistic dogma that only serves to keep developing countries poor, while protecting your way of life.

Quote:
View Post
So you're arguing we should ignore the existing theory "just because", yet have no alternative to offer ?
No, I'm arguing we should ignore the existing theory because its flawed, not descriptive (one of the three types of theories, in that it correctly describes a phenomena, which GW doesn't do), not predictive (the models don't hold up when compared with reality, probably because they're full of assumed values for things we cannot measure or don't understand completely), and now highly politicized. Like I've said before, the current iteration of "Global Warming"/"Global Climate Change" as posited by the mainstream Environmental Movement, is a political theory masquerading as an environmental movement, just as the medieval Church was a political organization masquerading as a religious organization. But again, we're going in circles, because you'd argue with a post, if it would argue back...
Reply With Quote
  #1254  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:46
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Neither is your dogmatic belief in an unprovable something...
I'm quite happy to be upfront about my "dogmatic" belief in the basic principles of science.

Quote:
I can't take you seriously, because you won't even consider anything other than your own opinion on the subject.
Sure I will. But to be convincing it needs to come with evidence. Or, at the very least, a soundly-argued rationale.

Quote:
Even if I were to agree with you on something (which I've actually done to small degrees at times), you'll ignore it because I don't completely follow your belief system about the environment.
I'll only ignore it if it's demonstrably wrong or a logical fallacy. Hence the reason when you regurgitate old Fox News-esque soundbites, I ignore them.

Quote:
IMO, if you were truly concerned with the environment and truly wanting to ensure things were "better" you'd be willing to admit how much we don't know about the climate and the global ecosystem we are trying to protect, accept the humility this gives you, and start searching for real answers, instead of backing up anti-capitalistic dogma that only serves to keep developing countries poor, while protecting your way of life.
Now that would be a straw man.

Quote:
No, I'm arguing we should ignore the existing theory because its flawed, not descriptive (one of the three types of theories, in that it correctly describes a phenomena, which GW doesn't do), [...]
How does it not correctly describe the phenomena ?

Quote:
[...] not predictive (the models don't hold up when compared with reality, probably because they're full of assumed values for things we cannot measure or don't understand completely),
What predictions ?

Quote:
[...] and now highly politicized.
Heliocentrism was highly politicised. Are you arguing it should have been discarded because of that ?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
  #1255  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:51
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I'm quite happy to be upfront about my "dogmatic" belief in the basic principles of science.



Sure I will. But to be convincing it needs to come with evidence. Or, at the very least, a soundly-argued rationale.


I'll only ignore it if it's demonstrably wrong or a logical fallacy. Hence the reason when you regurgitate old Fox News-esque soundbites, I ignore them.



Now that would be a straw man.


You'll only consider things that agree with what you already believe, if they're presented in the manner with which you are familiar, come from sources of which you approve, and you're open-minded? Have another fun 20 years watching the "Global Warming" models not predict the actual climate trend...

Last edited by Jobsrobertsharpii; 31.03.2013 at 19:21.
Reply With Quote
  #1256  
Old 31.03.2013, 19:05
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 4,640
Groaned at 255 Times in 181 Posts
Thanked 9,561 Times in 3,589 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I'm curious as to just what exactly a skeptic or non-skeptic would consider to be a reliable source of information regarding climate change...(?)

I asked myself this after just doing a bit of research online. For example, here's a page from Nasa.gov:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

After reading this, I asked myself whether or not I would consider NASA a reliable source. Yet I can't find a reason why I shouldn't.

The majority of skeptical information (that denies climate change) seems to come from non-Scientific sources. Or so I've found.

Can someone point me to a reliable, scientific source that denies the reality of climate change?
Reply With Quote
  #1257  
Old 31.03.2013, 19:16
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I'm curious as to just what exactly a skeptic or non-skeptic would consider to be a reliable source of information regarding climate change...(?)

I asked myself this after just doing a bit of research online. For example, here's a page from Nasa.gov:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

After reading this, I asked myself whether or not I would consider NASA a reliable source. Yet I can't find a reason why I shouldn't.

The majority of skeptical information (that denies climate change) seems to come from non-Scientific sources. Or so I've found.

Can someone point me to a reliable, scientific source that denies the reality of climate change?
List of 1100+ peer-reviewed papers that are skeptical of AGW/ACC
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1258  
Old 31.03.2013, 20:20
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

i think the real problem i see is that the environment is co-opted to push through business concerns, some of which, IMO, are bad for the environment.

for instance:

- bio-fuels. there's now legislation which mandates that certain amount of petrol etc. has to be from bio-fuels. i highly doubt that bio-fuels are net energy producing i.e. to produce a unit of energy from bio-fuels probably requires more than one unit to be put in and don't forget agriculture depends on petroleum industry for fuel, fertiliser as well as direct and indirect power consumed (e.g. electricity, manufacture of equipment, purification of water, transportation and processing etc. etc.). bio-fuels is just madness. this is before you even consider the ecological impact and the impact on food costs.

- renewables. huge amounts of money has been poured into subsidies for solar panels etc. without a full study being done on whether these will actually be net energy producing over time (assuming they last their rated lifetime).

- carbon trading. probably the biggest scam to produce money for carbon trading industry. everybody is jumping on CO2 emissions to a frightening degree given the lack of science behind it. you'd expect the science to have come first and been conclusive before such an amount of political and economic energy was put behind it

the sad thing is that the money and political capital could have been put behind ideas and initiatives which would have an immediate and clear result (energy saving, higher costs on electricity usage with a fixed rebate to encourage less wastage, investment into technologies and infrastructure, more stringent efficiency and standards, etc.)
__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.

Last edited by Phil_MCR; 31.03.2013 at 22:09.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1259  
Old 31.03.2013, 20:51
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,790
Groaned at 151 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 4,757 Times in 1,873 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
And with this type of logic we're going to kill our planet and ourselves faster, all in the name of "saving" it...
How is that exactly? Please give us some facts and not just gibberish (you already told us you had proof that global warming doesn't exist, which we would all be very happy to know about, but you have yet to share them with us. But that was also when you told us that you don't believe in science, after ranting that 'environmentalists' are so tied to their dogmatic beliefs, so I don't expect much from you). But if you can, please answer: How will burning less fossil fuels kill ourselves and our planet faster in the name of saving it?

Quote:
View Post
Unlike your beer tun, Earth is not a "closed" system, as numerous external factors have significant influence on the Earth. Solar activity has more impact on observable climactic phenomena than do the activities of the entire human population, for example.
You're right, the earth is technically an open system when it comes to energy, but closed for everything else (with the exception of incoming meteors). It receives energy from light and UV rays, and radiates infrared heat back into space. In burning fossil fuels, we are creating additional heat on the earth, and at the same time creating conditions which hamper it's ability to shed infrared heat into space. Am i wrong? Please disprove me.

You say that the 'global warming' crowd is so tied to it's 'beliefs' that it wants to excommunicate those who disagree and not carry on a dialogue or argument. Ironically, who do you think are maintaining this EF thread with people like yourself? Again, we'd all love to see the evidence you've got that global warming isn't happening. The great thing about science is that it is all about evidence and not belief.

Last edited by pilatus1; 31.03.2013 at 20:52. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1260  
Old 31.03.2013, 20:58
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
How is that exactly? Please give us some facts and not just gibberish (you already told us you had proof that global warming doesn't exist, which we would all be very happy to know about, but you have yet to share them with us. But that was also when you told us that you don't believe in science, after ranting that 'environmentalists' are so tied to their dogmatic beliefs, so I don't expect much from you). But if you can, please answer: How will burning less fossil fuels kill ourselves and our planet faster in the name of saving it?



You're right, the earth is technically an open system when it comes to energy, but closed for everything else (with the exception of incoming meteors). It receives energy from light and UV rays, and radiates infrared heat back into space. In burning fossil fuels, we are creating additional heat on the earth, and at the same time creating conditions which hamper it's ability to shed infrared heat into space. Am i wrong? Please disprove me.

You say that the 'global warming' crowd is so tied to it's 'beliefs' that it wants to excommunicate those who disagree and not carry on a dialogue or argument. Ironically, who do you think are maintaining this EF thread with people like yourself? Again, we'd all love to see the evidence you've got that global warming isn't happening. The great thing about science is that it is all about evidence and not belief.
Did you read the last 2 pages? You're saying the same stuff the last guy said...



Quote:
View Post
Sounds like you are either incapable or too lazy to answer my questions.
Or I already answered them when the other guy asked them. I guess the answer to my question, is "No, you didn't read the last 2 pages." Sounds like you're lazy or incapable of reading the information provided.

Last edited by Jobsrobertsharpii; 31.03.2013 at 22:52.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0