• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10:10 - Global warming 'no pressure' *Somewhat graphic*

Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I was being facetious, of course. IMHO, human caused CO2 is too small a contribution to global warming to even consider. That being said, I am in favor of using less fossil fuels like coal and oil. I an also in favor of using more nuclear, and especially, more conservation.

Ok. But you need to understand that the thing you said about volcanoes is grossly inaccurate. (as far as CO2 is concerned anyway. Not sure how the numbers match on sulfur dioxide or some of the other crap volcanoes spit out)

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes

In fact, volcanoes actually act as a net cooling influence on the planet because while they spit out CO2, the ash clouds reflect sunlight back into space.
 
Last edited:
Re: Epic Green Fail 10:10

It's a joke. How do people not get that? How do people watch this and take this literally?

I love the comment that gets spliced in:

"If you think this is a joke, change the subject to abortion. Is it funny now?"

Well, no, because now it doesn't make any sense. Hilarious how desperate the denialist industry is.
 
Last edited:
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Ok. But you need to understand that the thing you said about volcanoes is grossly inaccurate. (as far as CO2 is concerned anyway. Not sure how the numbers match on sulfur dioxide or some of the other crap volcanoes spit out)

Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?



In fact, volcanoes actually act as a net cooling influence on the planet because while they spit out CO2, the ash clouds reflect sunlight back into space.

Depends on your sources of info, I guess.
I got my info from a science show on the television, National Geographic channel, IIRC. It was just a few days ago, and already I forget the title...
 
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Depends on your sources of info, I guess.
I got my info from a science show on the television, National Geographic channel, IIRC. It was just a few days ago, and already I forget the title...

So the USGS is off by a couple orders of magnitude? Because TV told you?

Well, if you've got some evidence I'm interested in that. Maybe they were talking about the sulfur or some other substance, things we've cut back on drastically with our clean air laws.
 
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

So the USGS is off by a couple orders of magnitude? Because TV told you?

Well, if you've got some evidence I'm interested in that. Maybe they were talking about the sulfur or some other substance, things we've cut back on drastically with our clean air laws.
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

I was talking about all pollutants from volcanoes, not just CO2....guess I could have been clearer on that...
 
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Archer is hilarious. And good for the environment! And it helps prevent cancer!*

*may not actually prevent cancer.
 
And if Glenn Beck had made that commercial with the teacher speaking about honoring our Founding Fathers' ideas and the two kids in the class who refused were blown up, then I'm sure you'd all still be laughing.....right?
 
Last edited:
And if Glenn Beck had made that commercial with the teacher speaking about honoring our Founding Fathers' ideas and the two kids in the class who refused were blown up, then I'm sure you'd all still be laughing.....right?

Well, the British accents would make the commercial confusing, so probably not.
 
It's a joke. How do people not get that? How do people watch this and take this literally?

I love the comment that gets spliced in:

"If you think this is a joke, change the subject to abortion. Is it funny now?"

Well, no, because now it doesn't make any sense. Hilarious how desperate the denialist industry is.

Yes, I get it, it's a JOKE... but it was pulled because of the MESSAGE the joke delivers... and that is simply : "Do what we say or we'll kill you. No pressure. hahaha '

This one was a 'joke' too :


but properly speaking, it is not so much the chemicals themselves as their concentration (ppb) and the level of the atmosphere where they are concentrating.

Yes..

sorry... having difficulty making much sense of the above. CO is more toxic than CO2 to breathe, yes. we can (and do) pass CO2 as well as we do the other inert gases such as Argon which is the gas with the greatest concentration in the breathable atmosphere. CO, though, is lethal. But the danger posed by CO2 is not its lethality when breathed, but it effects on the climate.

it's OVERSTATED effect on climate, so ya... I'd say the pollutants that are having ACTUAL nefarious IMPACTS ON LIFE, that's SOMEWHAT more pressing then CO2 which is a natural biproduct of life on earth... plants use it as a nutrient, and frankly, in the atmosphere as it is, plants are STARVED for this nutrient (UP TO roughly a DOUBLING of atmospheric concentrations)

increased cloud cover is a result of increase ocean temperatures which is a result of increased atmospheric temperatures. the oceans can only cool by passing heat energy through the atmosphere which it cannot do if the atmosphere is already warmed.. increased ocean temps increase vaporization, itself a cause of increase heat retention... and so on...

But it also requires nuclei which is the result of a separate reaction, or else it remains as relative humidity.

and i believe there are a lotta folks working very hard to counter the effects of acid rain.

Yes, but there are also people working on getting GMO salmon mixed into the food chain... there's depleted uranium being used in training grounds around the US ( http://library.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00418777.pdf ). So, maybe it'd be a good idea to concentrate on the pollution, you know that is toxic and will cause deaths and or mutations in the lifeforms exposed?? Sure that's not going to feel 'globally significant'... but at least the results would accomplish more good then creating 'global carbon taxes'...

we do not fully understand a lot of things. we understand many things well enough to appreciate how they can affect us. we understand how temperature affects climate and how climate affects us well enough to know that modifying the atmosphere in such a way as to increase the heat absorbtive chemisty to the point that it will change the overall planet temperature will have significant, even severe repurcussions. and no, no one is lying.

But when you fail to consider that while we add CO2 which would have an increasing effect on temperatures, you'll also have more particulates in the atmosphere creating a 'dimming' effect that offsets this... So, if you focus JUST on CO2 you can't get the full picture...

BUT, you ALSO have to consider the sun's energy making it to the planet... and the global levels of cloud cover would ALSO be significant because if there's heavy clouds, an area will be (if only slightly) cooler then it would be under the full force of the sun's rays.

So, once we fully understand the cycles involved, and the simultaneous long and short cycles... and how each one impacts the climate, we might find the difference created by man's contribution amounts to 1 degree difference over where man's influence is not so strong... BUT, things like volcanoes alone can pump out in one shot DECADES worth of man's machine produced CO2 (under the recent points I feel that it would as a minimum be appropriate to have the 'green movement' specifiy that the 'bad' CO2 is what comes off of machines and industry, but NOT from the people through exhalation.... if this HAS been done on an official basis, please correct me)

and... you think they are pocketing those billions?

Not that simply no... but once they have a surplus, they would be bad capitalists if they didn't invest SOME of that money so that the profits might be used to maintain their labs in the event that the funding dries up...

or that they depend on them to keep their jobs?

Well, they have their jobs because they've been 'good alarmists' some of them.

you think that there are not sufficient areas of science begging investigation that they have to fabricate them? sorry... paranoic ranting.

No no... what I'm saying is that these people stumbled across a multi-billion dollar arena, and they want to PROTECT that source of income as best they can... and on SOME LEVELS they have been CAUGHT ADMITTING to these charges. Also admissions of oil company funding, tax evasion, and so on, but that's not as detrimental to the case either way.

there is no reason whatsoever to accept that premise except that you may have investments in industries that will be affected by reduction of greenhouse gasses OR are inclined to be duped by those who are... or you are simply paranoid.


You don't get it, oil companies like BP WANT to make oil consumption a taboo... if they get to charge an 'environmental fee' for using oil based products, well, who does that benefit?? Even if it's in the form of tax collection, you take that tax collected and use it for other investments... and by the time you have to pay the taxes, there's so many write-offs that the taxes are a fraction of what was collected.

can you qualify ANY of these as being the cause for the 'false science' you claim?

The emails say all that needs to be said about 'false science'... and here's the deal : I'm NOT disputing MOST science, JUST specifically that one area which happens to be the source for other institutions due to their close work with the IPCC.

and doubtless, you can show this... show the attempted murders of the fine, heroic scientists that tried to "reveal the ugly truth"? You have made a great many claims in your post. can you show ANY ONE of them to be true?

I've done it so many times... and every time I get retorts showing the opposite from the 'scientists' that are caught up in the scandal... think about that. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

wow! you really have it bad! well, i have to thank you for your demonstration of a true anti-science nutty theory. i defy anyone to beat it. and i defy you to provide reliable evidence to demonstrate any of it.

Well.. Unlikely activist? Osama bin Laden calls for action on climate change | World news | guardian.co.uk

To cite another example of the members of 'team get green or get off' (the planet) being the moral characters that 'care about the earth'.

geo.[/QUOTE]
 
Yes, I get it, it's a JOKE... but it was pulled because of the MESSAGE the joke delivers... and that is simply : "Do what we say or we'll kill you. No pressure. hahaha '

This one was a 'joke' too :


Did you seriously just use an Audi commercial as proof that the "green police" want to get you?


it's OVERSTATED effect on climate, so ya... I'd say the pollutants that are having ACTUAL nefarious IMPACTS ON LIFE, that's SOMEWHAT more pressing then CO2 which is a natural biproduct of life on earth... plants use it as a nutrient, and frankly, in the atmosphere as it is, plants are STARVED for this nutrient (UP TO roughly a DOUBLING of atmospheric concentrations)

You talk later about not looking at the big picture. Yes, plants can handle more CO2, but a higher temperature is harmful to them.


Yes, but there are also people working on getting GMO salmon mixed into the food chain... there's depleted uranium being used in training grounds around the US ( http://library.lanl.gov/la-pubs/00418777.pdf ). So, maybe it'd be a good idea to concentrate on the pollution, you know that is toxic and will cause deaths and or mutations in the lifeforms exposed?? Sure that's not going to feel 'globally significant'... but at least the results would accomplish more good then creating 'global carbon taxes'...

OH GOD, DO TWO THINGS AT THE SAME TIME? UNPOSSIBLE!


But when you fail to consider that while we add CO2 which would have an increasing effect on temperatures, you'll also have more particulates in the atmosphere creating a 'dimming' effect that offsets this... So, if you focus JUST on CO2 you can't get the full picture...

Those particulates are things we've already been reducing, because they're the chemicals that are more directly harmful like you mentioned above. That issue isn't "solved," but we've cut back already. CO2's warming influence is beating out the particulates.

BUT, you ALSO have to consider the sun's energy making it to the planet... and the global levels of cloud cover would ALSO be significant because if there's heavy clouds, an area will be (if only slightly) cooler then it would be under the full force of the sun's rays.

Yes, but on the other hand, water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well. Clouds will absorb outgoing infrared radiation. Clouds can provide either a warming or cooling influence, depending on the situation.

So, once we fully understand the cycles involved, and the simultaneous long and short cycles... and how each one impacts the climate, we might find the difference created by man's contribution amounts to 1 degree difference over where man's influence is not so strong... BUT, things like volcanoes alone can pump out in one shot DECADES worth of man's machine produced CO2 (under the recent points I feel that it would as a minimum be appropriate to have the 'green movement' specifiy that the 'bad' CO2 is what comes off of machines and industry, but NOT from the people through exhalation.... if this HAS been done on an official basis, please correct me)

Volcanoes are a cooling influence. Yes, a massive eruption can outdo our CO2 emissions, but those particulates you mentioned cause a net cooling in the case of a volcano. Scientists track that, what gives you the idea we don't understand the influence. They also track the sun's output, and have been doing so for a long time. They also track the milankovitch cycles, those changes in orbital factors that cause the "long" cycles. They also track El Nino/La nina. Put it all together, and you're left with the current warming trend being caused primarily by CO2. The sun just hit a record low, yet temperatures rose. El Nino is just a heat storage mechanism, it will influence temperatures short term but can't cause a 50-year warming trend. Orbital mechanics and continental configuration do not change significantly on a 100-year timeframe.

Just because you personally don't understand the cycles doesn't mean nobody has looked into it. I especially like when people bring up the sun's influence on temperature, as if nobody had bothered to check and see if that's the cause of the current warming.

You don't get it, oil companies like BP WANT to make oil consumption a taboo... if they get to charge an 'environmental fee' for using oil based products, well, who does that benefit?? Even if it's in the form of tax collection, you take that tax collected and use it for other investments... and by the time you have to pay the taxes, there's so many write-offs that the taxes are a fraction of what was collected.

This is just plain retarded. They have billions and billions of barrels of oil left to sell to us. Higher gas prices will push alternative fuels to be developed and implemented faster. You think they want to throw that all away so they can make a tiny return on investment in between the sale and tax time? What makes you think they'd be able to write off these taxes?



The emails say all that needs to be said about 'false science'... and here's the deal : I'm NOT disputing MOST science, JUST specifically that one area which happens to be the source for other institutions due to their close work with the IPCC.

This is just wrong. You're still bringing this up, it's hilarious. You do not at all understand the scope of the CRU's work. They didn't make the instrumental record. They played around with trees.

I've done it so many times... and every time I get retorts showing the opposite from the 'scientists' that are caught up in the scandal... think about that. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

Multiple independent investigations found no evidence of tampering.



Well.. Unlikely activist? Osama bin Laden calls for action on climate change | World news | guardian.co.uk

To cite another example of the members of 'team get green or get off' (the planet) being the moral characters that 'care about the earth'.

geo.

More idiocy. You denialists really are desperate.
 
And if Glenn Beck had made that commercial with the teacher speaking about honoring our Founding Fathers' ideas and the two kids in the class who refused were blown up, then I'm sure you'd all still be laughing.....right?

I think if the commercial was for converting to Christianity and non-believers were blown up it, the makers of that commercial would have been arrested for hate speech.
 
I think if the commercial was for converting to Christianity and non-believers were blown up it, the makers of that commercial would have been arrested for hate speech.


You got it.
 

Both liberals and conservatives enjoyed this commercial. Liberals because they thought all those things were a great idea and took it seriously. Conservatives because it made the greenies look like idiots.

(sigh) too bad the idiots seem to be winning.

Just thought of something....where were the green police during the labor union/commie/socialist rally?
 
Both liberals and conservatives enjoyed this commercial. Liberals because they thought all those things were a great idea and took it seriously. Conservatives because it made the greenies look like idiots.

(sigh) too bad the idiots seem to be winning.

Just thought of something....where were the green police during the labor union/commie/socialist rally?

Over here in Australia trying to invent our way out of the mess America has made of the world

See - just posting broad slanderous statements really proves nothing
 
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I think exploding people with a button is hilarious, and anyone who doesn't is a communist.

I don't think being blown up by communists is funny. I think those who force this stuff down our throats are a bunch of communists who want us all living in shacks eating grass for the rest of our lives in a feeble attempt to try and control the weather, which is something we shouldn't be trying to do in the first place.

I think it's hypocritical because are they telling us that they oppose man made climate change and yet want to change the climate themselves?
 
Did you seriously just use an Audi commercial as proof that the "green police" want to get you?

No... I was using it to demonstrate what counts as 'jokes' these days... though, I wouldn't be surprised if there was the creation of some sort of 'eco-cops' sometime in the future, it's not some sort of concern for me...

You talk later about not looking at the big picture. Yes, plants can handle more CO2, but a higher temperature is harmful to them.

Well, realistically, there are all sorts of plants that are suited for all sorts of different climates... like you don't see palm trees in Canada, as an example. I was mostly just saying that in greenhouses it's not uncommon to pump in extra CO2 so that plants can grow more efficiently.


OH GOD, DO TWO THINGS AT THE SAME TIME? UNPOSSIBLE!

Well, if you go the route of CO2 elimination, then you're talking about shutting down industrialized nations, which in turn would limit the production of the other toxins (short of some drastic innovations)... whereas, targeting the specific TOXIC issues might be detrimental to certain industries that cannot find CLEAN ways to run their business, it would NOT be so detrimental to the economy.

Those particulates are things we've already been reducing, because they're the chemicals that are more directly harmful like you mentioned above. That issue isn't "solved," but we've cut back already. CO2's warming influence is beating out the particulates.

Right, that's because there are environmental standards... not so much in places like China and Cambodia where most of our industry now resides. Beyond that, you're talking like we can actually trust what's been reported for climate temperatures for the past 20 or so years... unfortunately the fraudsters are still in control of the science.

Yes, but on the other hand, water vapor is a greenhouse gas as well. Clouds will absorb outgoing infrared radiation. Clouds can provide either a warming or cooling influence, depending on the situation.

Agreed... it's not as simple as 'clouds = cooling'... but everything else being equal if the world is 50% cloud cover the overall climate will be somewhat warmer then if there's 80% cloud cover (the numbers are arbitrary).

Volcanoes are a cooling influence. Yes, a massive eruption can outdo our CO2 emissions, but those particulates you mentioned cause a net cooling in the case of a volcano. Scientists track that, what gives you the idea we don't understand the influence. They also track the sun's output, and have been doing so for a long time. They also track the milankovitch cycles, those changes in orbital factors that cause the "long" cycles. They also track El Nino/La nina. Put it all together, and you're left with the current warming trend being caused primarily by CO2. The sun just hit a record low, yet temperatures rose. El Nino is just a heat storage mechanism, it will influence temperatures short term but can't cause a 50-year warming trend. Orbital mechanics and continental configuration do not change significantly on a 100-year timeframe.

The temperatures ROSE after the solar energy dropped off because they stopped taking measurements from the higher altitude stations, installing more stations near artificial heat sources, etc... I'm sorry, but the climate has been SLIGHTLY cooling for a number of years now. That's the problem when you take the words of sources that get caught in scientific fraud.

Just because you personally don't understand the cycles doesn't mean nobody has looked into it. I especially like when people bring up the sun's influence on temperature, as if nobody had bothered to check and see if that's the cause of the current warming.

Of course they did... and when it didn't give the answers they wanted... these "scientists" simply lied about it.

This is just plain retarded. They have billions and billions of barrels of oil left to sell to us. Higher gas prices will push alternative fuels to be developed and implemented faster. You think they want to throw that all away so they can make a tiny return on investment in between the sale and tax time? What makes you think they'd be able to write off these taxes?

Ok, here's the common misconception about oil price... the 'supply' is NOT the 'global supply'... it is the 'reserves of refined supply'... but since the oil companies also own the refineries they control the supply and so ultimately demand the price they want. It's called an oil CARTEL for a reason.

They would not be 'throwing it away'... they just get to charge an 'environmental premium'. As for 'tiny return'... you've gotta be kidding... these major oil companies have TEAMS of book keepers looking for EVERY possible loophole and manipulation possible to pay the LEAST amount of taxes possible. You'd be amazed at what you can write off through creative justifications.

This is just wrong. You're still bringing this up, it's hilarious. You do not at all understand the scope of the CRU's work. They didn't make the instrumental record. They played around with trees.

Right, and they committed scientific fraud on such a massive scale that it boggles the mind. Further, I have also demonstrated how almost 90% of the recording stations (in america alone) are unacceptably close to artificial heat sources... and even the change of paint from a whitewash to a latex paint added to the increase... then the changes of locations from high altitude (cooler) stations to concentrations on lower (warmer) regions... Then there was the climate model software which once the source code became available showed just how they would manipulate data to get the desired outcome.

Multiple independent investigations found no evidence of tampering.

Yes, and if Al Capone had his choice of a jury he wouldn't have been convicted either.

More idiocy. You denialists really are desperate.

I agree, this is asinine on it's face... That wasn't the point though... the point was to demonstrate what lengths the propaganda arm of the enviro-fascist movement is going to go in order to get what they want... in the words of Holdren : "the deindustrialization of the united states" as well as demonstrated with this commercial with it's message of 'go green or DIE.'

Now, OF COURSE this is not the mentality of MOST people... most people are good people and legitimately want to do good and actually care about the earth. The scientists on some level are likely in the same category... BUT, there IS a faction politically, scientifically, etc... WHO DO view this 'environmentalist' movement as a means of control... control over industry, control over manufacturing, and ultimately control over life itself.

Whether the climate gets warmer or cooler, it's always in flux... and life will always adjust. Realistically speaking, there are more benefits to a hotter climate the a cold climate, longer growing seasons, larger areas open to agriculture, etc... So, EVEN IF you're right and we're heating the planet... it's not going to cause catastrophe rather it would likely be beneficial on the whole.
 
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I don't think being blown up by communists is funny. I think those who force this stuff down our throats are a bunch of communists who want us all living in shacks eating grass for the rest of our lives in a feeble attempt to try and control the weather, which is something we shouldn't be trying to do in the first place.

I think it's hypocritical because are they telling us that they oppose man made climate change and yet want to change the climate themselves?

Wait, what? Where did you get this bizarre idea about weather control? Al Gore is not Lex Luthor.

And this thing about controlling the weather by not affecting the weather... do you even read what you post?
 
Last edited:
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I was trying to say we shouldn't be controlling the weather and they want to because they want to stop something which as far as I can tell, isn't neither happening or man-made.
 
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

I was trying to say we shouldn't be controlling the weather and they want to because they want to stop something which as far as I can tell, isn't neither happening or man-made.

So, no, you don't read what you post. They want to stop something that isn't happening? At least, that's what I guess you meant, double negatives are fun.

The world is definitely getting warmer. Period. End of story. If you think otherwise, I don't know what to tell you. You're just wrong.
 
Re: No Pressure, cut your carbon!

Wait, what? Where did you get this bizarre idea about weather control? Al Gore is not Lex Luthor.

The powerful coalition that wants to engineer the world's climate | Environment | guardian.co.uk
and 2 editorials just from a 5 second search.
Post Carbon - 'Plan B' for saving the planet: geoengineering
Geoengineering: "The Horrifying Idea Whose Time Has Come"? - NYTimes.com

The world is definitely getting warmer. Period. End of story. If you think otherwise, I don't know what to tell you. You're just wrong.

Ok... Once again you've either been deceived or are attempting to deceive...

Raw data (USHCN) :
ushcn_unadjusted_us_map.jpg


Published data :
ushcn_adjusted_us_map.jpg


Source Divergence :
nasa_uah_rss_divergence.jpg


So, why is NASA's data getting so much warmer then the other sources... well, when you cherry pick data points like :
ghcn_giss_250km_anom03_2008_2008_1951_1980.jpg


Rather then take a whole picture as in :
uah_march_2008.jpg


The point is that the more these fraudsters are exposed the more outlandish statements are going to be made trying to push the world into accepting their eco-fascist agenda... thats not to say ALL the scientists are fraudsters, but the main groups at the global level ARE... they even wrote books about it that I've pointed you (deuce) towards but you called it 'conspiracy theory'... I even pointed you to the study of how 'environmentalists' have been found to be less moral, more likely to steal and lie as an 'offset' to the good they've done by being stewards of the environment.
 
The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment

The b.s. petition was debunked years ago. It's a bunch of dentists and retired weathermen. Welcome to the GW conversation, but we've already covered this.
 
Back
Top Bottom