gfm7175; said:How do you know it's "human-made"?
There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"... A colder gas cannot heat a warmer surface. That is attempting to make heat flow backwards, which is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics...
No one uses fossils for fuel... They don't burn very well...
We need to eat.
So are you proposing a ban on beef consumption? That'll help out all of the starving people in this world HOW exactly?
CO2 isn't a problem... Global Warming is merely a buzzword... Much of the data presented for global warming is just a bunch of random numbers cooked by the religious practitioners of global warming...
Denying climate change is delusional and it may in fact be the biggest threat to human survival.
Ask yourself "What if we're wrong, what are the consequences of our stubborn denials about the effects man has on climate change and global warming?" "How will the planet be better if we continue on this path?"
What do you gain by denying climate change and what do you lose if you accept it as factual?
I do believe we have been lied to about GW in that data has been manipulated and misused, but I voted No because I didn't think it was the 'right' doing the lying.
gfm7175; said:Atmospheric CO2 is not an issue... It can't warm the Earth... A colder gas cannot heat a warmer surface; that attempts to make heat flow backwards and denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics...
I sure have.
Okay.
Gases absorb a small amount, yes, but not nearly what you think they do.
There is no such thing as "greenhouse gas"...
Nobody burns fossils for fuel... They don't burn very well...
There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"...
Nobody burns fossils for fuel... There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas"...
Trees are farmed... Our forests are just fine...
Are people and animals supposed to hold in their farts? This is ridiculous...
Correct, nobody uses fossils for fuel. Yes, I drive a gasoline powered vehicle.
Yes, I heat my home with natural gas. I also heat it with firewood during the winter.
There is no such thing as a "fossil fuel"... fossils don't burn... I do make use of oil and natural gas though, and yes, they power industry and are used for electricity and etc...
YAYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a huge conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of scientists and every major science institution on the planet lying to you, right?
After I got lied to for a decade and a half that margarine was better for me than butter, and so I made the sacrifice, only to get told "OOPS, we were all wrong about that, it is actually the other way around, sorry not sorry" all bets were off.
The cholesterol and fat advice errors were even worse.
"If you must eat eggs then limit to 2 a week".
"Dont forget to include baked goods"
barf
That's great. Just don't accept any science at all then. Why not try jumping off a tall building with no parachute because, you know, you just can't trust those physicists about gravity. They might be lying, and you could catch them out!
Apparently you are unaware that the overwhelming consilience of evidence for anthropogenic global warming is from many different lines of investigation across many different fields of science. It would be very difficult to 'fake' in some huge conspiracy.
That's got nothing to do with earth sciences. But great. Just don't accept any science at all then. Why not try jumping off a tall building with no parachute because, you know, you just can't trust those physicists about gravity. They might be lying, and you could catch them out!
Apparently you are unaware that the overwhelming consilience of evidence for anthropogenic global warming is from many different lines of investigation across many different fields of science. It would be impossible to 'fake' it in some huge worldwide conspiracy.
It has to the geniuses becoming big time liars because they are not very good people and then acting shocked and amazed when they lose their credibility.
Science is in big trouble, and it is well earned, because it has become both corrupt and lazy.
You clearly have much deeper problems than ignorance of science.
Your lack of willingness to engage or be civil indicates otherwise of course.
But off with you then, I would not want to waste our times.
I will keep looking.
but your also not able to adapt to a degree or two of warming. You must live in a controlled environment that prohibits the sun to shine on you and you have to have a constant temperature, or you die.
Your gullibility makes it very easy for the 'right' to lie to you.
shrug...
Your abject willingness to believe...otherwise known as faith...makes it very easy for the "warmers" to lie to you.
yawn...
Instead of spouting nonsense, how about you rebut those top 10 lies?
Faith is not evidence-based. Science is. Try to learn the difference.
Instead of gullibly and faithfully believing any old evidence-free nonsense you read on some conservative non-science website, how about you rebut every report/summary on global warming by all the major science institutions around the world and the hundreds of thousands of published research papers underlying them.
Then you can work on overturning the laws of physics.
And yet, you STILL do not dispute the charges of lying.
Anyway, the faithful frequently trot out "evidence". It doesn't change the fact that their belief is based on faith.
Overturned the laws of physics yet?
And STILL you don't dispute the charges of lying.
You are dismissed.
I hate to use the word "lie", because it serves to prevent reasonable discussion, just as calling someone a "denier". Why not just tell them to shut up and go away?
There is a lot of misdirection and placing blame in the wrong places, and there are a lot of people making a lot of money off "global change". The global weather system is always changing and always will - even when it's 4000 degrees out side a few billion years in the future, and a few million years ago when glaciers where parked on what is now the Great Lakes.
The real issue is the redirection of money into "global change prevention". There is no "prevention". The USA is too small and there is no proof that man is the cause. If the glaciers were still covering the Great Lakes, would the global change people still be calling for stopping it? Probably. That does not mean in the spirit of being a good housekeeper we can't recycle and conserve resources, but blaming people and spending their money on preventing or mitigating a natural process is a waste of money.
The jobs created are paid for in money drained out of the economic system and are basically "make work". We have a lot of better areas to put "make work" to work where it will do some good.
BTW, the global change folks never want to tell me what the want the climate to be.
Let's not forget our termite friends:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...be-emitting-dangerous-amounts-of-1394135.html
Argument of the Stone Fallacy...Your post is nothing but buzzwords and nonsense.
Compositional Error Fallacy, specifically Bigotry... I am not interested in your bigotry...I suspect you also believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Inversion Fallacy. YOU are doing this...Mate, you're arguing against an imaginary 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A colder body cannot warm an already warmer body. Heat does not flow backwards. Denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...Of course a colder body can radiate towards a warmer body.
A colder body cannot warm an already warmer body...It's the NET flow of energy (from a warmer body to a cooler body) that matters. Or do you believe in magick intelligent photons?
Inversion Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.Sheesh. Read a fricken' basic textbook on heat transfer.
Inversion Fallacy. Insult Fallacy.Try taking some basic science classes without your fingers stuck in your ears, or reading a couple of science textbooks with your eyes open. I suspect you will find that impossible.
There is no "long established physics" of this... The "greenhouse effect" doesn't exist.Even worse, he rejects the basic long established physics of the earth's natural 'greenhouse' effect.
No, it is not.That's the equivalent of believing the earth is less than 10,000 years old or is flat.
Because it is a good tool to "control the masses" with...Why is global warming a political thing?
Global Warming is not science; It is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument.It should be about the science.
Plenty of people reject evolution for one reason or another...I don't see very many conservatives say evolution is false
Evolution is not science; it is a religion.and most of them have accepted the science
Global Warming is also a religion; one based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument.but when it comes to global warming they refuse to believe it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?