Still confused about climate change...
Well, why don't *you* tell us?
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5837009 ... t=#5837009
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5837032 ... t=#5837032
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5841846 ... t=#5841846
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5843212 ... t=#5843212
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5848703 ... t=#5848703
Physician, heal thyself!
The above posts are all made by you in a 20-page thread where you systematically (primarily through the use of red herrings) disregard almost all evidence presented by other posters about the effect of CO2 on climate...
Well, it's just that I have seen these posts around the web and they say there's no evidence CO2 causes climate change. Why would people still believe that?
I don't disregard evidence and I am not a climate change denier. I do not deny we can cause it or other factors can. I have questioned the outcome simply because I have seen a lot of errors.
All I am wondering is why there are people who say there is no evidence CO2 causes climate change...
There's not enough space to go into detail, but I'll hit the high points.
Higher CO2 levels (proven) when the earth was COLDER.
Evidence that CO2 levels really have a negligible impact on weather/climate compared to other factors man has no control over.
Proof that the whole global warming/climate change is more about pushing a political agenda on the masses to serve the interest of the few holding power than actually doing a darn thing to "save" the planet.
Proof that ever single proposal to be "greener" (short of sensible recycling of products so we don't pack full the landfills), is a big money suck from developed countries into undeveloped countries AND the end analysis of the environmental impact is that the "green" solutions are worse than simply making existing processes a little more efficient than they currently are.
No such evidence exists.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5836410 ... t=#5836410
May I also reiterate what I previously stated when you previously made the exactly same claim:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5838505 ... t=#5838505
Nobody doubts "climate change." The climate is ALWAYS changing. The debate is over the laughable contention that man plays a significant and controlling factor.
We can't significantly increase or decrease the planet's temperatures. We are insignificant.
It's one thing to not deliberately pollute the environment. It's another to believe that our activity is having a catastrophic effect on the world ecosystem.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5836410 ... t=#5836410
Have you ever considered that it might be wise to actually *read* the responses to your posts?
It was "global warming" until the winters started getting colder when it suddenly shifted to "climate change" and the former term was no longer in vogue. Right or wrong, it's part of the current narrative......
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
A very good article on the subject.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2629 ... reversible
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
Higher CO2 levels (proven) when the earth was COLDER.
Evidence that CO2 levels really have a negligible impact on weather/climate compared to other factors man has no control over.
Proof that the whole global warming/climate change is more about pushing a political agenda on the masses to serve the interest of the few holding power than actually doing a darn thing to "save" the planet.
Proof that ever single proposal to be "greener" (short of sensible recycling of products so we don't pack full the landfills), is a big money suck from developed countries into undeveloped countries AND the end analysis of the environmental impact is that the "green" solutions are worse than simply making existing processes a little more efficient than they currently are.
You do have to admit we shouldn't alter the landscape as much as we would like and do...wouldn't you say the way we alter the landscape could cause problems...like clear cutting forests and building large, sprawling mega cities? And what about the Ozone layer although there is evidence it is repairing itself.
And as far as the polar vortex thing goes...when I was a kid, we had the absolute worst ones - several- in fact, year after year. They would start in December and linger into January, busting pipes, washing machines and contributing to all kinds of headaches. They called them cold fronts or Siberian Express. Now there's all this talk of climate change, they must be called Polar Vortex. It was the same thing. Weeks of daily high temps from 5 to 10 degrees F and nights well below 0. It was awful. So you see, that Polar Vortex thingie has actually been less infrequent as of late.
Now they talk about it like it's a new thing due to climate change. So you see, they do make mistakes when they talk about this subject, like, pretending weather extremes didn't exist before. I know for a fact they existed when I was a kid. I was there.
Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 24 Sep 2014, 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Our society is dependent on oil (and to a lesser extent gas and coal). We give a lot of money to oil companies. The radiative forcing effect of CO2 and the effects of the associated temperature rise mean that we can't rely as much on oil. This is unfortunate for oil companies, who have an incentive to fund dissent. It is also unfortunate for society at large - the cost of living without oil etc. is much higher than with (or else living standards are lower). This makes people willing to accept the dissent ahead of the scientific consensus.
Which makes them look deceptive. If global warming is true, then why change the name ? My first thought is that it's like a "snake oil salesman" who changes his pitch when a past buyer complains that the product didn't cure his baldness.
Also, the meterologists on Detroit tv say for Americans this winter it will be even colder than the unprecedented cold of last year, guess they will say that CO2 is causing this cooling ?
I am not either denying or confirming. I am just saying information and fact before everyone panics and decides to do all these things only to find the drought continues. One way to cool the planet down for sure is to leave all forests and plant life alone and quit clear cutting. Even simple cytoplasmic bacteria can cause enough release of oxygen to cool the earth down. It caused a massive global ice age in the past, just from them. We do need all that nice, refreshing oxygen to breathe.
If the scenario arises there are so many humans on earth that it becomes one big giant mega city there will be trouble then. I think the worst things we do as a species is over populate and significantly alter habitats yet no one talks about that just CO2 gas when to me it seems obvious that lack of oxygenating plants might be worse and the more the population increases, the more concrete jungles and to feed all the people you need plenty of clear space for mono cultures of crops, too, which aren't as efficient as the forests and marshes that grow bacteria at cleansing and healing the atmosphere. The solution could be more oxygen.
Which makes them look deceptive. If global warming is true, then why change the name ? My first thought is that it's like a "snake oil salesman" who changes his pitch when a past buyer complains that the product didn't cure his baldness.
Also, the meterologists on Detroit tv say for Americans this winter it will be even colder than the unprecedented cold of last year, guess they will say that CO2 is causing this cooling ?
The global average temperature is still predicted to rise. However, the picture is more complicated than it simply getting hotter. We'll see stronger hurricanes, for example, because the oceans will be warmer and there will be more evaporation. Also, there may be some localised cooling, particularly in Europe, due to the disruption of halide currents by the melting Arctic ice.
"Cytoplasmic" is not the adjective you are looking for. Perhaps you mean "photosynthetic"?
Whilst that would make the planet cooler than if we didn't do it, it would not allow us to continue to burn fossil fuels with gay abandon. It would be a laudable cause of action, although somewhat unrealistic.
We're also not short on oxygen. We need plants for the products of photosynthesis, not the waste product.
There is considerable conversation about significantly altering habitats and overpopulation. Not only are those issues tightly linked to greenhouse gas emissions, but the people who talk most about climate change are also those talking about habitat loss and overpopulation.
The solution is not "more oxygen". Oxygen doesn't make things cooler. Rather, carbon dioxide makes things warmer; carbon dioxide is "fixed" in photosynthesis, which releases oxygen as a waste product.
Which makes them look deceptive. If global warming is true, then why change the name ? My first thought is that it's like a "snake oil salesman" who changes his pitch when a past buyer complains that the product didn't cure his baldness.
Oh, for the love of Nod.
First of all. Climate scientists did *not* change the term from "global warming" to "climate change". This nonsense claim has been repeated so often that skepticalscience.com even made a page specifically addressing it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... basic.html
From the above link I present an article from 1955 with the illustrative title: "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change":
Source:
Plass, G. N. (1956). The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus, 8(2), 140-154.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1206.x/pdf
Second of all, the term goes back even further to 1861 (where the greenhouse effect caused by both CO2 and methane was suggested):
Source:
Tyndall, J. (1861). XXIII. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conduction.?The bakerian lecture. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 22(146), 169-194.
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Paper ... l-1861.pdf
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Neurologically Confused |
17 Feb 2024, 10:32 pm |
Tedium, routine and change |
21 Jan 2024, 6:39 am |
Suggestion to the change of the name Wrong Planet |
11 Feb 2024, 4:56 pm |
Green Day song lyric change earns my respect |
15 Jan 2024, 10:49 pm |