Simple Simon
Simpleton
is this the biggest strawman, or the dumbest troll post in the history of CFC?
Man Made Global Warming is a Media Made Myth
- Thread starter Daryl95
- Start date
is this the biggest strawman, or the dumbest troll post in the history of CFC?
What's with Italy now?
As for General Electric, that's just your run of the mill corporate corruption, which I am surprised that you admit exists. For that matter, Edison wasn't even a scientist, he was merely an inventor.
co2 + h2o ⇌ hco3− + h+
Thanks for the links, all....
..especially for the comments in the articles.
The argument basically boils down to this... it is all a delicate balance, and we are destroying that delicate balance.... but when nature does something truly awesome and powerful, like liquidate a mountain cap, or constantly pump out gasses from volcanoes that would make all the Chinese coal plants blush with jealousy, or the delicately balanced volcanoes underseas, then it has little to no effect, because that doesn't fit with current environmentalist models and observations.
An interesting comment was about Henry's law, and after using Henry's law, someone said "well, that simply doesn't fit observation". Well, Henry's law is an absolute chemical law, so if the observations don't fit, there is something wrong with the observation, not the law.
And what about water vapor... isnt that the biggest greenhouse gas... and it is about 20 times more common in the atmosphere than CO2.
Therefore humans made the Earth and its chemical reactions are all human made? You do realize posting a chemical formula, snarky as it may be, and truthful as it may be, adds nothing to the discussion of whether it is man made or not, do you not?
Oh, and there was lots of proof through observation of Eugenics too.. .and it was popularly accepted almost world wide. Oops.
..especially for the comments in the articles.
The argument basically boils down to this... it is all a delicate balance, and we are destroying that delicate balance.... but when nature does something truly awesome and powerful, like liquidate a mountain cap, or constantly pump out gasses from volcanoes that would make all the Chinese coal plants blush with jealousy, or the delicately balanced volcanoes underseas, then it has little to no effect, because that doesn't fit with current environmentalist models and observations.
An interesting comment was about Henry's law, and after using Henry's law, someone said "well, that simply doesn't fit observation". Well, Henry's law is an absolute chemical law, so if the observations don't fit, there is something wrong with the observation, not the law.
And what about water vapor... isnt that the biggest greenhouse gas... and it is about 20 times more common in the atmosphere than CO2.
Therefore humans made the Earth and its chemical reactions are all human made? You do realize posting a chemical formula, snarky as it may be, and truthful as it may be, adds nothing to the discussion of whether it is man made or not, do you not?
Oh, and there was lots of proof through observation of Eugenics too.. .and it was popularly accepted almost world wide. Oops.
Coolest April Ever?
How is your talking out of your ass supposed to further this discussion?
Merkinball
Deity
Italy, oh...ya know, just your standard hundreds of millions being funneled into organized crime families for windmill construction. That's all. Nothing to see here.
It's really quite similar to the type of corruption that's occurred in upstate NY with GE and other windmill manufacturers.
Why would you be surprised that I'd admit corporate corruption? Stuff like that isn't a result of a free market. It's a result of corporations trying to take out as much from the tax paying base as they can through government contracts. It's much easier than actually surviving in the free market dontchya know?
And yeah, I know all about Edison. I had a professor that constantly railed against Edison. Did you know he tried using cow dung in his lightbulbs before he got it to work?
Anytime you blur government with a non-government entity you're going to have corruption. And the bigger that government gets, the more corruption you're going to have. Just take a look at that "global warming" budget over the last twenty years.
But hey, thanks for the paycheck...
You mean like the snarky gas equation you emitted?
You're talking about corruption that is caused by the inevitable mix of corporation and government that happens in a capitalist country, not about science. True free markets as such don't and won't exist, unless you plan to move to Somalia. As well, nothing which you have mentioned has anything to do with science, merely corruption in infrastructure development. I would have thought you were talking about corruption in specific discoveries, not run in the mill corporate corruption. And no, you can have corruption in a government with a small size. Corruption isn't limited to the existence of a government at all, actually.
Sure, but as I said, he was an inventor, not a scientist. He tinkered. He didn't care much for the scientific method, much less the scientific theories behind his work.
So all what you have done is vindicated the fact that corporations will distort science when it is in their self interests. Good to know! As if that wasn't blindingly obvious.
Murky
Deity
here is a one up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLJDrsaJmk&NR=1 Ann Coulter
That rocks dude!
Seriously, its difficult to understand why anyone would listen to people like Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter. Beck stumbles on his own words and Coulter is a blatant plagiarists.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
CO2 + H2O ⇌ HCO3- + H+ ⇌ H2CO3
There appears to be some sort of weird format issue going on...
Orange Seeds
playing with cymbals
i'm not sure i understand. Are you trying to say that because things are unpredictable, we can't estimate anything?
yes, but it is highly variable making up between 1-4% of the atmosphere and lasts for very short periods of time and also increases albedo by large amounts.
the point of that bit of information was to show there is substantive theoretical basis for human activity increasing ocean pH: We know that we put a lot of co2 into the atmosphere, we know that atmospheric CO2 leaches into seawater via precipitation, we know that carbonic water is acidic, we know that the ocean pH is, by and large, increasing.
The only disputable part is the numbers: how bad is it?
yes, people are often wrong. Should we give up trying to be right?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
YAAAAAAY! There hasn't been a global warming thread on CFC in months. Happy time! 
All the scientists at the time said that. And they were, in fact, all wrong.
For two thousand years after Aristotle, spontaneous generation was accepted by educated scientists as fact. A hundred years ago, continental drift was a hypothesis accepted by almost nobody (though the idea was first raised way back in 1596!) Fifty years ago, science didn't think global warming was happening (at that time, it was global cooling that everybody was scared of). And so on.
Personally, I happen to agree with you--I think man-made global warming is a great big lie--but the "they can't all be wrong" argument doesn't really cut it for me.
Actually, they can. A thousand years ago, modern science (i.e. the science that was current at the time) said that cutting a hole in an insane person's skull would cure their insanity.
All the scientists at the time said that. And they were, in fact, all wrong.
For two thousand years after Aristotle, spontaneous generation was accepted by educated scientists as fact. A hundred years ago, continental drift was a hypothesis accepted by almost nobody (though the idea was first raised way back in 1596!) Fifty years ago, science didn't think global warming was happening (at that time, it was global cooling that everybody was scared of). And so on.
Personally, I happen to agree with you--I think man-made global warming is a great big lie--but the "they can't all be wrong" argument doesn't really cut it for me.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Ah. So when you attack the other side's propaganda, it is evil and vile and you would have to be stupid to believe it. But when your own propaganda gets attacked and is found to be even more lacking, it is "nothing" and "they're fluff".
They have not been refuted for the most part. There were indeed some inaccuracies in the documentary, which is inevitable when laymen try to get involved with understanding and interpreting the significance of scientific research. But they have been corrected long ago and basic premises are still quite sound for much of their disagreements. You apparently have no idea what you are even talking about. You think everything has been resolved and that only your side has any worthy arguments. That is patently false.
Hello, pot...
At least you are occasionally honest about your own apparent ignorance in this subject and the field of science. But it certainly doesn't stop you from trying to ridicule anybody who has the temerity to disagree with your own admitted "uninformed" opinions on the subject.
This isn't science. It is a witch hunt. It is the environmentalist version of the neocon's Swift Boat attack.
Berzerker
Deity
Where did I say weather was climate? The former is just a short term version of the latter, and my post cited records going back over 100 years. Do 100 years of weather qualify for climatology analysis?
Better say yes or you've just shot down all that warm weather the global warming crowd is relying on.
Berzerker
Deity
Well, many global warming arguments look to the last 150 or so years and point to the warming trend. That trend followed the mini ice age, a period when much of the northern hemisphere was reverting back to an ice age climate... for about 500 years. This is why the Pilgrims nearly got wiped out, and the "year without summer" (google it) provides a nice example of what volcanic out gassing can do. Now, global dimming could be said to occur with out gassing, obviously the dust from an eruption will block sunlight for a few months or maybe even a year or two. But there are other aspects to global dimming, some guy saw the clear skies following the travel ban after 9/11 and concluded contrails have a dimming effect which led to more studies, including what certain gases do at the top of tall cloud formations. They can spur crystal formation which act like mirrors reflecting sunlight away. I'm sure global dimming will become a new field of science
I'm not the one bringing up baseless nonsense and omitting mention of verifiable, credible sources.
All of the figures and scientific theories I've brought up in this thread -- in one way or another -- come from peer-reviewed sources (i.e. academic journals).
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Many of which are highly disputed and are still quite theoretical and open to much further research. When science become as politicized as this, it can't help but distort the peer review process - at least to some degree. It has gotten to the point where I am basically skeptical of nearly everything that the "believers" now produce to support their theories. Billions, and possibly even trillions, of dollars hang in the balance. Science has never had a test of its basic ethics like this before - well at least not since the days of Copernicus...
This... debate... ugh... I'm in the general field of environmental sciences and I just can't stand it anymore. I chose to focus on other topics which are far more interesting and pressing to me.
For me, global warming, well, it's happening, probably we have something to do with. Let's just try to do better as a civilization and reduce pollution, if we were wrong, oh well...
Debating with people who don't want to believe in global warming or the effect of humans on it is like... It's frickin' pointless. Well... It's like when some guy with cancer keeps smoking and eating only bacon because it can't REALLY be proven that his cancer is linked to his feeding and smoking habit. As far as I can tell, he can shove it, may his soul go to hell. I'll be busy doing something useful.
For me, global warming, well, it's happening, probably we have something to do with. Let's just try to do better as a civilization and reduce pollution, if we were wrong, oh well...
Debating with people who don't want to believe in global warming or the effect of humans on it is like... It's frickin' pointless. Well... It's like when some guy with cancer keeps smoking and eating only bacon because it can't REALLY be proven that his cancer is linked to his feeding and smoking habit. As far as I can tell, he can shove it, may his soul go to hell. I'll be busy doing something useful.
Accept it or work on disproving/debunking it. Those are the only choices one really has.
Politicised only when it comes to dealing with the issue.
