Man Made Global Warming is a Media Made Myth

Formaldehyde said:
What do you (collectively) have to say about those criticisms?
Click to expand...

Nothing, They're fluff.

I rather thoroughly discredited your source and you responded by finding a source from the opposite side of the argument and discrediting it. Unfortunately It had absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Of course that Al Gore film is inaccurate; i would not use it as an argument or as a reasonable presentation of evidence. the fact still stands that more than one person interviewed in the film, that existed to expose differing scientific opinions, filed a complaint with the company that funded it and won his case. Everything presented in the film no longer has scientific basis in that solar output and what have you are not in accordance with temperature increases.

Your documentary presents no new ideas, the ideas it does present use fabricated evidence and have been refuted by proper, peer-reviewed studies. Why are you still trying to defend this video? It is by far the weakest part of your argument on this thread.
 
You have to be a g-d'd fool bowing down to the altar of science and baseless numbers to think that fluctuations in solar surface temperatures do not have a great influence on the Earth's temperature.

That is what we have today. People cannot even think or imagine for themselves the enormity of the Sun. All they can do is harken to government statistical studies and rely on the experts to think for them.

We are nothing but tiny specks on a tiny rock revolving around a giant fireball whose temperature fluctuations of hundreds of degrees mean nothing but a slight breeze. Yet, we think, that somehow, our millions of tiny little metal boxes pumping out tiny bits of CO2 are somehow more powerful than the surface of the sun.

This is the degree that worship of science has taken us to. Suddenly, man controls the universe, and not visa versa.
 
Neomega said:
You have to be a g-d'd fool bowing down to the altar of science and baseless numbers to think that fluctuations in solar surface temperatures do not have a great influence on the Earth's temperature.

That is what we have today. People cannot even think or imagine for themselves the enormity of the Sun. All they can do is harken to government statistical studies and rely on the experts to think for them.

We are nothing but tiny specks on a tiny rock revolving around a giant fireball whose temperature fluctuations of hundreds of degrees mean nothing but a slight breeze. Yet, we think, that somehow, our millions of tiny little metal boxes pumping out tiny bits of CO2 are somehow more powerful than the surface of the sun.

This is the degree that worship of science has taken us to. Suddenly, man controls the universe, and not visa versa.
Click to expand...

So..To summarize:

'The Sun is really big, much bigger than us, and it is hot, much hotter than us. Therefore we have no need for statistical analyses of temperature or expert opinions, studies, data or theory to tell us what affects our atmosphere. After all, the sun is really big and we are really, really small.

I apologize for my mockery, but your post is trivial and absurd.
 
Orange Seeds said:
So..To summarize:

'The Sun is really big, much bigger than us, and it is hot, much hotter than us. Therefore we have no need for statistical analyses of temperature or expert opinions, studies, data or theory to tell us what affects our atmosphere. After all, the sun is really big and we are really, really small.

I apologize for my mockery, but your post is trivial and absurd.
Click to expand...

You forgot one part... to discount sun temp fluctuations is stupid.

One of the world's greatest scientists revolutionized the world by imagining, while admitting to have a poor grasp of mathematics.

He was roundly mocked, because his theories simply did not add up with the numbers, like Kelvin's estimations as to the age of the Earth.

People cant think for themselves anymore, and it is pathetic. Many weather and climate scientists analyze a tiny, tiny portion of the history and geography of a chaotic system, and then claim crisis is to come, and we need more funding to study this crisis.

then all their little followers jump on board and decry those who can keep an open mind, and imagine a bit more than numbers and computer models based on massive assumptions and tiny bits of collective statistics. People are actually projecting 50 - 100 years into the future!!* and some fools are actually saying we should start taking drastic measures to stop the warming, like blocking the sun. It is lunacy, pure and simple.

Science has never progressed well without the natural philosopher.


*50 - 100 YEARS!!!! Try predicting the climate one year from now first!!
 
Neomega, I don't think people are ignoring the Sun. At least, not the way some people would have you think they are. Solar flux is quite factored into many analyses. I see it all the time.

As for our 'little boxes pumping out CO2'. Don't be tricked into think they're having no effect. I mean, oil alone is being consumed at about 1000 barrels per second. The CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere has changed the acidity of the ocean: and this change in acidity is large enough to have changed the acoustics of whalesong.

We're not talking about little effects here.
 
El_Machinae said:
Neomega, I don't think people are ignoring the Sun. At least, not the way some people would have you think they are. Solar flux is quite factored into many analyses. I see it all the time.

As for our 'little boxes pumping out CO2'. Don't be tricked into think they're having no effect. I mean, oil alone is being consumed at about 1000 barrels per second. The CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere has changed the acidity of the ocean: and this change in acidity is large enough to have changed the acoustics of whalesong.

We're not talking about little effects here.
Click to expand...

line up 33 x 33 barrels of oil in the crater of Mount St Helens, then walk 30 miles away, and see what it looks like.

How can it possibly be proven CO2 emissions have changed ocean acidity? Pinatubo, St. Helens aside, there are 10's of thousands of miles of massive thermal vents at the bottom of ocean floors that have no serious way of being studied on a large scale right now.

What we can study, however, is our little tiny tail pipes, and since we can study those, we focus on them like they are the major contributor, when in fact, they are dwarfed by the gasses released by oceanic thermal vents every day. And when I say dwarfed, I mean like on the scale of 100,000 to one or more.
 
The vast majority of quotes come from geologists. Geologists tend to emphasize the fact that the Earth has been through many climate states in its history. Of course in geological timescales, the speed of change and the notion that some changes might not be good for humans don't seem to register.

That is my experience anyway. The climatologists and most earth scientists in general believe strongly in dangerous anthropogenic climate change. The geology department doesn't seem to care so much.
 
Neomega said:
You forgot one part... to discount sun temp fluctuations is stupid.

One of the world's greatest scientists revolutionized the world by imagining, while admitting to have a poor grasp of mathematics.

He was roundly mocked, because his theories simply did not add up with the numbers, like Kelvin's estimations as to the age of the Earth.

People cant think for themselves anymore, and it is pathetic. Many weather and climate scientists analyze a tiny, tiny portion of the history and geography of a chaotic system, and then claim crisis is to come, and we need more funding to study this crisis.

then all their little followers jump on board and decry those who can keep an open mind, and imagine a bit more than numbers and computer models based on massive assumptions and tiny bits of collective statistics. People are actually projecting 50 - 100 years into the future!!* and some fools are actually saying we should start taking drastic measures to stop the warming, like blocking the sun. It is lunacy, pure and simple.

Science has never progressed well without the natural philosopher.


*50 - 100 YEARS!!!! Try predicting the climate one year from now first!!
Click to expand...

I think you're making a worthless argument. You accuse the Climate change movement, and science, of not "think[ing] for themselves anymore." and that such people are "little followers" of "numbers and computer models based on massive assumptions and tiny bits of collective statistics." Well that all sounds nice but its all just baseless accusations.

Your posts have a wonderful literary flare but anaemic critical evaluation. Here it is apparent that you are philosophically opposed to using Evidence to learn about our world? If not, then what was the point of that post? The entire thing seems to favour supposition over evidence. I'm not sure what your 'Open mind' can envision that the rest of us cannot.

As well, solar fluctuations do not account for this and the last century's warming trend as both have been closely measured since the 60's and they simply do not correlate.

Finally, it is rudimentary science to predict the climate one year from now, in fact every major meteorological institution can do so loosely. Either you cannot distinguish weather from climate or you have little knowledge about modern climatology.
 
Orange Seeds said:
I think you're making a worthless argument. You accuse the Climate change movement, and science, of not "think[ing] for themselves anymore." and that such people are "little followers" of "numbers and computer models based on massive assumptions and tiny bits of collective statistics." Well that all sounds nice but its all just baseless accusations.
Click to expand...

No the scientists are not the little followers. It is people that come on off topic forums and laugh at those who disagree with them that are the little followers.

Your posts have a wonderful literary flare but anaemic critical evaluation. Here it is apparent that you are philosophically opposed to using Evidence to learn about our world?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, what I am opposed to is the obsession humanity has with itself, and its belief that it is bigger than it really is. To me, it is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of a city dweller, the world is clogged with humans. But spiders and insects have a combined weight over 40 times that of humans. Of course, this is no surprise to the peoples that live in jungles.

If not, then what was the point of that post? The entire thing seems to favour supposition over evidence. I'm not sure what your 'Open mind' can envision that the rest of us cannot.
Click to expand...

Again, the evidence is strongly focused on human activity, and might I add, it is focus don human activity that is much easier to quantify and predict than natural activity. Fossil fuel use patterns are much more predictable than volcanic explosions and thermal vent or solar temperature fluctuations. But if the latter are factored into future predictive models, they really put human impact to shame, and make the climatologists practice moot. If the sun's surface decreased by 200 degrees in the next 100 years, no amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans would be able to stop the cooling.

As well, solar fluctuations do not account for this and the last century's warming trend as both have been closely measured since the 60's and they simply do not correlate.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. :rolleyes: That's what I am talking about. Human arrogance.

Finally, it is rudimentary science to predict the climate one year from now, in fact every major meteorological institution can do so loosely.
Click to expand...

loosely. :rolleyes:

Either you cannot distinguish weather from climate or you have little knowledge about modern climatology.
Click to expand...

Oh Jesus. Don't insult my intelligence.
 
Orange Seeds said:
solar fluctuations do not account for this and the last century's warming trend as both have been closely measured since the 60's and they simply do not correlate.
Click to expand...

But solar output was not accurately measured during the mini ice age (we do have sun spot maps showing a decline in activity in the 17th century), combined with 5x the volcanism. And we are comparing our warming trend now with that period when ice age like conditions returned to parts of the northern hemisphere.
 
Berzerker said:
we've had another cool april here in Kansas. Last year was in the coolest 25% since 1895 and this year is sure to qualify.
Click to expand...

April here was over 4 K warmed than the 100 year average..... will you ever learn that weather is not climate?


Oh, it would mean using facts, not propaganda, to form opinions. My bad - you will NEVER be willing to learn.
 
Neomega said:
No the scientists are not the little followers. It is people that come on off topic forums and laugh at those who disagree with them that are the little followers.
Click to expand...

No one is laughing at people disagreeing, people are laughing because people with no evidence to back up their disagreement are asserting intellectual superiority.

Neomega said:
Absolutely not, what I am opposed to is the obsession humanity has with itself, and its belief that it is bigger than it really is. To me, it is a matter of perspective. From the perspective of a city dweller, the world is clogged with humans. But spiders and insects have a combined weight over 40 times that of humans. Of course, this is no surprise to the peoples that live in jungles.
Click to expand...

I cannot comment on this.

Neomega said:
Again, the evidence is strongly focused on human activity, and might I add, it is focus don human activity that is much easier to quantify and predict than natural activity. Fossil fuel use patterns are much more predictable than volcanic explosions and thermal vent or solar temperature fluctuations. But if the latter are factored into future predictive models, they really put human impact to shame, and make the climatologists practice moot. If the sun's surface decreased by 200 degrees in the next 100 years, no amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by humans would be able to stop the cooling.
Click to expand...

It is? Show me, prove to me that your statement is valid. I honestly cannot say how well we measure volcanic activity but i imagine that would be an area of very close observation due its violent impacts. I would also be very surprised if a mean known volcanic output is not already factored in to estimations. In fact, i am so certain that they would of done so that i will risk my reputation on it and assert that they have. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Again, about the sun: Of course the sun has an impact but we have measured no substantial change in the suns output. So saying that if the suns temperature were to drop by 200 degrees we would be in trouble is as relevant as saying if every volcano erupted next year no amount of pollution reduction would save us.

Neomega said:
loosely. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes Loosely. Your eye-rolling is vainglorious. Of course the estimate is not precise, it need not be. Climatology is the study of averages and trends.
 
Berzerker said:
But solar output was not accurately measured during the mini ice age (we do have sun spot maps showing a decline in activity in the 17th century), combined with 5x the volcanism. And we are comparing our warming trend now with that period when ice age like conditions returned to parts of the northern hemisphere.
Click to expand...

Alas, I know not enough to comment. As i understand it, this is one of the backings for global dimming theory? Which, to my uninformed mind, seems sensical.
 
Orange Seeds said:
Alas, I know not enough to comment. As i understand it, this is one of the backings for global dimming theory? Which, to my uninformed mind, seems sensical.
Click to expand...

We're at a sun-spot low right now. As in, there are no sun spots. This is already accounted for in the models, though, and has little effect.
 
People cannot even think or imagine for themselves the enormity of the Sun
Click to expand...

It may be big, but the sun is very far away.

And its getting cooler, but earth is not.
 
Neomega said:
You forgot one part... to discount sun temp fluctuations is stupid.
Click to expand...
Indeed it is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650

*50 - 100 YEARS!!!! Try predicting the climate one year from now first!!
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this is really weak.

The theory is about a long term trend and has nothing to do with year to year fluctuations.

bigdog5994 said:
im gonna wait for the Mythbusters to solve this one
Click to expand...
They're planning it right after debunking the 9/11 conspiracies.

Neomega said:
You have to be a g-d'd fool bowing down to the altar of science and baseless numbers to think that fluctuations in solar surface temperatures do not have a great influence on the Earth's temperature.

That is what we have today. People cannot even think or imagine for themselves the enormity of the Sun. All they can do is harken to government statistical studies and rely on the experts to think for them.

We are nothing but tiny specks on a tiny rock revolving around a giant fireball whose temperature fluctuations of hundreds of degrees mean nothing but a slight breeze. Yet, we think, that somehow, our millions of tiny little metal boxes pumping out tiny bits of CO2 are somehow more powerful than the surface of the sun.

This is the degree that worship of science has taken us to. Suddenly, man controls the universe, and not visa versa.
Click to expand...
We control zilch. If we did, we wouldn't have a problem now would we? :) Control implies making it do as we will. And I really, really would like you to show me a single scientist who claims we control the Universe, or even the Earth. But we do influence a lot of things.

Why this astrological strawmen?
Neomega said:
line up 33 x 33 barrels of oil in the crater of Mount St Helens, then walk 30 miles away, and see what it looks like.

How can it possibly be proven CO2 emissions have changed ocean acidity? Pinatubo, St. Helens aside, there are 10's of thousands of miles of massive thermal vents at the bottom of ocean floors that have no serious way of being studied on a large scale right now.

What we can study, however, is our little tiny tail pipes, and since we can study those, we focus on them like they are the major contributor, when in fact, they are dwarfed by the gasses released by oceanic thermal vents every day. And when I say dwarfed, I mean like on the scale of 100,000 to one or more.
Click to expand...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638

So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
Ocean sinks

Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the paycheck Global Warming!

And for all you tools out there that don't science can ever lead to corruption, have you taken a look at what's happening in Italy? Or how about General Electric? Lulz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Narz
Is it the end or the beginning?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
815
EvaDK
EvaDK
Zardnaar
Binge Drinking NZ: Goon before Noon.
Replies
6
Views
962
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Left Wing Sexism From Government Minister?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
2K
Lexicus
Lexicus
Narz
Globalization
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
4K
Narz
Narz
Zardnaar
So How Bad Is It Overseas?
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
4K
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
K
Top Bottom