- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,588
- Reaction score
- 468
- Location
- Western Europe
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Personally I love hot steamy days, so bring it on please. More more more, I want hot sun and sweathy summers and lightly dressed wet women in the streets. So yes, please pollute some more.
You're probably going to be disappointed. The effects of global warming will likely make Europe much, much colder once a certain threshold is passed. The reason that Europe is so much warmer than North America at the same latitude is because of the North Atlantic Current. If Arctic and Greenlandic ice melts, it will eventually shut off the current, and Europe could become as cold as (or colder than) Canada.
Yes, I do know that. Which would be pretty cruel. But for now, I enjoy record war springs, summers and autums.
May it be that climate change is caused by something humans dont understand? like tiny long time shifts between the sun and the earth that we havent figured out yet because we were only "smart enough" the last few HUNDRED years. What is there is some kind of rotation or relation between the sun and the earth that takes several hundred years? How do we know the exact temperatures 300 years ago? How can we possibly know and compare today with centuries ago. Isnt it a slight possibility that human caused environmental problems are just some theory we have that is not reality?
Maybe its a combination? Maybe its none of those things, but relations of things in our galaxy, or some kind of magnetic field that affects things. Maybe the core of the earth got warmer for some kind of reason related to the Sun. Or maybe the complete orbits and relations between the Sun and our earth is yet something we are not nearly able to figure with certainty.
Well, we know that greenhouse gases warm the planet. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was when we started pumping abnormally large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Logic would suggest that there is some relationship there.
Global Warming is a joke and most of the "science" behind it is flat out gibberish.
I am open. the earth is warming ie "global warming" but not in the context that the alarmists indicate IMO. The earth has natural warming/cooling cycles, and we are in one now. Is man accelerating the issue? maybe, but not to the degree that Gore and his con man tactics suggest. He is a crook. Head of a "carbon emission credit" corp and then he scares the **** outa people so that they go buy credits? :rofl
I am open. the earth is warming ie "global warming" but not in the context that the alarmists indicate IMO. The earth has natural warming/cooling cycles, and we are in one now.
Which one of the non-controversial statements I listed above do you dispute?
A) That the greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm.
B) That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
C) That humans are responsible for a large amount of the carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere.
Or do you accept all three of them, and still dispute the logical conclusion?
Originally Posted by Kandahar
Which one of the non-controversial statements I listed above do you dispute?
A) That the greenhouse effect causes the earth to warm.
B) That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
C) That humans are responsible for a large amount of the carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere.
Or do you accept all three of them, and still dispute the logical conclusion?
A) I agree
B) I agree
C) I agree
Agreeing to all three does not mean that the conclusion you support is correct or logical.
Conspiracy bullshit. Even if true, this doesn't negate AGW.There are many variables up to and including personal agendas by people who stand to make a profit from the fear generated by "Global Warming".
What does it matter what caused those? You've already accepted the premises that show we are warming the earth. Past fluctuations have little to do with what we're talking about.The Earth has natural warming and cooling cycles. What caused the Little Ice Age in Europe in the 1400's or the Medieval Climate Optimum that preceded it?
More raising of questions rather than examining the science and giving credible answers. Looks an awful lot like a conspiracy theory to me...Is man totally to blame here?
Are we but a minor factor contributing to something larger?
Can something Interstellar be contributing? Pulsars can wipe out atmospheres, perhaps something less destructive can poke a hole in one? A few years ago a bunch of satellites were wiped out around Earth due to interstellar winds.
:roll: The conspiracy theorist is strong in you child.Gore and his movie are just playing on fear and agendas.
You cannot be serious. Let me put it in logical form.
Conspiracy bullshit. Even if true
Anyone familiar with logic need not know what his conclusion is, but what the conclusion is. That was not my interpretation, it was just what logically followed.What is his logical conclusion? It is illogical to attack my statement if you do not know what his logical conclusion is now, isn't it?
Well Gore does this, yes. He is a politician and he understands the apathetic nature of people. The problem is that people take Gores "alarmism" as reason to be apathetic.I know more about this than you would like to think, I am sure. I am not here to debate science, because people have science that can back up either side. I am here to tell you that I think that the science that supports global warming is taken out of context in an effort to scare people and there will be less harm than is conveyed.
Saying it doesn't make it so. For example: Fox News.I have already admitted that the Earth is in a warming cycle. I admit more than you seem to want to face. I am balanced.
I'm not attacking you in particular. Your way of "dealing" with the issue while trying to look scientifically knowledgeable is just another step in the evolution of the skeptic. "Agreeing" with the science while maintaining your original skepticism is still largely unscientific. You can continually modify the skeptics position to agree with the science, but why not just agree with the science?You are the one that is blinded and attacking. Typical. If a person doesn't agree wtih ALL that you say then they must be this or that, huh? :lol:
I agree there are a lot of variables and this makes it difficult to predict exactly what is to come. Utilizing this fact to maintain your skepticism is known as an argument from ignorance.There are a lot of variables. You are not able to answer the hows or whys, you are only able to regurgitate the Goosestep Agenda apparently.
:2wave:
Sauwan
I agree there are a lot of variables and this makes it difficult to predict exactly what is to come. Utilizing this fact to maintain your skepticism is known as an argument from ignorance.
Johnny_Utah
What is his logical conclusion? It is illogical to attack my statement if you do not know what his logical conclusion is now, isn't it?
Johnny_Utah
I am open. the earth is warming ie "global warming" but not in the context that the alarmists indicate IMO. The earth has natural warming/cooling cycles, and we are in one now. Is man accelerating the issue? maybe,
You cannot be serious. Let me put it in logical form.
------
- If G then W. (G=greenhouse gas, W=Earth warms)
- All C's are G's (C=carbon dioxide)
- If C then W. (From 1 and 2)
- C (you accept humans produce C)
Therefore W
That's about as logically sound as you can get granting you accept the premises.
Conspiracy bullshit. Even if true, this doesn't negate AGW.
What does it matter what caused those? You've already accepted the premises that show we are warming the earth. Past fluctuations have little to do with what we're talking about.
For example: Take the temperature of a block of aluminum sitting on my back porch. During the summer it is warm, during the winter it is cold. Now if I apply a heat flux of 10,000 W/m^2 to this block, telling me that because the block has naturally fluctuated in temperature in the past doesn't tell me much. That applied heat flux is what we're interested in.
In the case of GW, the exact heat flux quantity is questionable, however it is increasing due to the reflection of radiated heat that normally would be exiting the system of the earth and its atmosphere. It is only amplified by the fact that as CO2 raises temperatures, more water evaporates and enters the atmosphere. (FYI water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas)
More raising of questions rather than examining the science and giving credible answers. Looks an awful lot like a conspiracy theory to me...
:roll: The conspiracy theorist is strong in you child.
Effective sarcastic humor from Maximus, that's rare.The winter in Europe is the mildest since they started measuring. The popular ski places of the alps were mostly shut and the temperature in Norway was about 5dC higher than average winter temperatures.
Last summer was the warmest summer in memory of those who experienced it, heatwaves struck Europe. Yet this summer is expected to get even warmer than last summer.
So who else is thinking that humans are too stupid to figure out the exact roatations of the earth, especially related to the sun and that this is just natural swings of the earths geology that goes so slow that humans have not noticed it until now? Maybe we are simply closer to the sun, maybe the sun is just having a cycle of extra warming, or maybe its because the tiny humans with their tiny machines have created this global warming?
Personally I love hot steamy days, so bring it on please. More more more, I want hot sun and sweathy summers and lightly dressed wet women in the streets. So yes, please pollute some more.
Originally Posted by Sauwan
Anyone familiar with logic need not know what his conclusion is, but what the conclusion is. That was not my interpretation, it was just what logically followed.
Well Gore does this, yes. He is a politician and he understands the apathetic nature of people. The problem is that people take Gores "alarmism" as reason to be apathetic
Saying it doesn't make it so. For example: Fox News.
I'm not attacking you in particular. Your way of "dealing" with the issue while trying to look scientifically knowledgeable is just another step in the evolution of the skeptic.
I agree there are a lot of variables and this makes it difficult to predict exactly what is to come. Utilizing this fact to maintain your skepticism is known as an argument from ignorance.
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?