Is Global Warming Real? · Page 28

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#541

Stupid is as Stupid does.... 😟

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

11 years ago

#542

So what exactly have you done in the last few years to lower greenhouse gas emissions? Do you even know what your carbon footprint is? I'm betting you haven't done a darn thing meanwhile I've been busting my butt with lowering industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

You want to do something for your grandkids and their grandkids. Send me $500 and I'll plant some trees.

HockeyDad wrote:

Don't be obtuce Le HockeyDad. It is obvious that this thread I started has raised the consensus of many of the people in this forum. Just think of the long term impact of so many coming to terms with the situation and doing their part – it is quite staggering.

Again, just another simple example of how liberals are Cbids’s most valuable resource.

- you're welcome.

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

11 years ago

#543

.... Of course human activity has a negative effect on the environment. Only a fool would deny that.

borndead1 wrote:

TMCTLT, you gonna let him talk to you like that?

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#544

Again, just another simple example of how liberals are Cbids’s most valuable resource.

- you're welcome.

Brewha wrote:

That made me laugh.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#545

No. The rich democrats are more concerned with reducing the earth's population.

tonygraz wrote:

Come on Tony. The rich (no need to add democrat or republican) are concerned with making profit off of whatever they're doing. The proper phrasing of your above statement (not stating I believe it) would be "The rich democrats are more concerned in making money while reducing the earth's population"

tamapatom
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#546

Democrats or Republicans......Cooling or warming which will be worse? Hey what about global cooling? Whose fault would that be?

I live on a lake with fluctuating lake levels and everyone who lives on the lake has an exact understanding of what the right level is.......the height of the lake when they bought and built a dock. If it goes up...someone is causing flooding and if it goes down there is too much well field pumping. Those human influences may indeed be having an effect but no one has figured out how to parse those influences separate from what might be happening naturally. So will things like this be easier to understand on a global scale? Understanding the law of gravity or the creation of compounds from elements was way easier than this.

Is climate changing? Always
So are we having an effect? Likely so ,everything matters to some degree
Are we having a significant enough effect that changing our actions will change end results? We don't know.
Are the long term consequences of change good, bad or just different. Probably all three....from the earth's perspective it is only the third.
Should we ignore the warnings? At our risk.
Should we go whole hog changing everything at the expense of human prosperity? That seems to be the biggest point of contention.

Your break is over, so now recommence the mudslinging.....Carry on.

tonygraz
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#547

victor809 wrote:

Perhaps, but some like Buffet and Gates and others are giving most of theirs away.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#548

Yeah. Buffet is a saint.

bgz
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#549

I say, just enjoy the nice weather while it lasts.

If the earth decides to belch one out and eradicate us all, not much we can do about it.

If a giant asteroid blind sides us, not much we can do about it.

If a blackhole decides to come rolling by to check out the neighborhood, not much we can do about it.

If scientists are wrong about the sun and it starts going red giant a couple billion years early, not much we can do about it.

If some crazy ass muslims get their hands on some nukes, we probably should have did something about it.

If global warming is a thing, and we're too PC to do something about an out of control population increase...

Well, chit tends to take care of it self in the end, not much we can do about that either.

Drink up, smoke up and enjoy it while it's here!

Besides, a bunch of old farts arguing about it ain't going to change anything.

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

11 years ago

#550

tamapatom wrote:

I would point out that few people – quite few in fact - really understand the laws of gravity or creation of compounds from elements. Especially in light of us still looking for the graviton or that so few people have ever studied chemistry.

That as it may be, everyone – most everyone – gets the basics. Walk off a cliff and you fall. Add salt to water and you get saltwater. You don’t need a PhD to “get it” at the basic level.

The effects of greenhouse gases and climatology are just complex enough subjects to leave a lot of people guessing – not the experts, but the rest of the people. In fact, they stopped calling it “Global Warming” because too many dim bulbs were saying “The lake dun froze solid this winter, we ain’t got no global warming”. But our industrial pollution is altering the climate – not in a good way. And we will all set about trying to stop it. Sooner or later, it is really just a question of how long we wait.

Now I know that the real debate is fueled by the fact that a lot of businesses stand to gain or lose from industry shifting to cleaner practices. But the guvmut didn’t put the incandescent light bulb to death for no reason – it was an energy waster. And so industry must retool so we can all use LEDs. Let’s just try to remember that is why there is so much controversy and mis-information over GW. As for the science of it, the debate was over long ago.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#551

the light bulb thing reminds me of the Freon thing.... Dupont just happened develope a new freon they could make a ton of money off but first they had to convince the world (or a couple congressmans) that R22 was evil... guess what..?? 🤐

Edited by user 11 years ago | Reason: Not specified

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#552

LEDs are great, why did we get them btw?

Oh that's right the piggy tail pieces of garbage ones didn't last like they claimed and we're mercury filled.....

Also make sure you ignore water vapor and sun radiation.

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#553

Oh that's right the piggy tail pieces of garbage ones didn't last like they claimed.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Another broken Obama promise... 🤐

Brewha
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

11 years ago

#554

Also make sure you ignore water vapor and sun radiation.

ZRX1200 wrote:

I can’t. I burn too easily and don’t do well in high humidity (makes me feel sticky).
Guess that’s why I favor a dryer climate….

eric.feldkamp
Rookie

11 years ago

#555

Uh, no.
Sorry Z, it was the church that held that we were at the center of the universe. And when Copernicus (a scientist) shared his findings that the earth orbited the sun, they ran him out of the country for his blasphemy.

Brewha wrote:

Fiction. The notion that the church believed in a flat earth was made up on the late 19th century as anti-religious propaganda. Google up "myth of the flat earth" for more on that. Ironically, it's the people that consider themselves better informed that have fallen for the propaganda. Calling someone a flat-earther is a public declaration of your own ignorance, not theirs.

You're also very wrong on the the relationship between the Church and Copernicus.

eric.feldkamp
Rookie

11 years ago

#556

Some random Anti-AGW bullet points:

On the theme of flat earthers: The models used by "scientists" to test their "theories" and provide "predictions" about our future climate more closely resemble aquariums than an actual place. They are flat-earth models, making AGW an actual flat-earth theory.

Recent scientific discoveries have greatly downgraded the greenhouse effect of CO2. The AGW industry hasn't quite caught up to that yet.

During the Phenarozoic period, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been as much as 10 times the current amount, well over the threshold for supposed runaway global warming, but the earth has experienced warming and cooling cycles that don't correlate at all to CO2.

The temperature range for earth over the last half a billion years has been roughly14C to 24C. During approximately 2/3 of those half billion years the earth has been close to that 24C upper limit. For the other 1/3 we've been close to the lower limit. The periods during which the earth experiences temperature in the intermediate range are typically very short, ~12000 years is the norm.

Our current interglacial period is about that long so we should expect either a rapid cooling (return to a few hundred thousand years of glaciation) or warming (many millions of years of tropical heat) sometime soon.

The entire industry bases their models on the data provided by a couple of very secretive groups. The actual raw data is not made available to the scientific community, rather the set released has been "corrected" prior to being employed in modelling.

Computer modelling and predictions aren't science. Actual science requires experimentation that is falsifiable, verifiable and repeatable. On many factors, what is often called AGW theory barely qualifies as conjecture, let alone as a hypothesis. Yet we are told to accept it as fact.

eric.feldkamp
Rookie

11 years ago

#557

Another factor ro consider: Experiments and real world data have shown that increases in atmospheric CO2 significantly reduces the water requirements of plants. Something to do with fewer and smaller pores in the leaves, primarily. GIven the intense water requirements of modern agriculture, increased CO2 has the potential to have a major positive impact on current and future water crises and expand the range of arable land. The Sahara is even experiencing rapid greening at the edges that are opening land to grazing for the first time in thousand of years. Given the steady decrease in CO2 over the last half billion years, it's even likely that the earth was reaching a critical low in CO2 concentrations that would have greatly reduced vegetation.

eric.feldkamp
Rookie

11 years ago

#558

HD, your right, but from what I have read increased water vapor is caused by increased CO2 levels. So to decrease the water vapor levels you need to decrease the CO2 levels.

gryphonms wrote:

That's a core feature of AGW theory (well, not that the CO2 directly results in more wator vapor, but that some small amount of additional heating from CO2 results in more water vapor that creates a lot of heating). The catastrophic warming predictions rely on that "positive feedback" effect. Reality however hasn't cooperated. The environment doesn't react in such a linear fashion and there are several ways that the climate self-stabilizes. Among those are the formation of clouds that reflect heat back to space.

tonygraz
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#559

Quadruple post outrage !!!!

sd72
Herf-A-Holic

11 years ago

#560

Prolly another Victor account. Or another guy who knows everything, about everything, even relationships between people from hundreds of years ago. What was Copernicus's favorite color?

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: