You can collect data and make up any conclusion. At least that what I can deduce by the scientists who say there is global warming, and now say there is acidification of the oceans. Next thing they say is outer space is all screwed up too.
You can collect data and make up any conclusion. At least that what I can deduce by the scientists who say there is global warming, and now say there is acidification of the oceans. Next thing they say is outer space is all screwed up too.
TCB wrote:
global warming and ocean acidification are two different issue with the same cause.
Ok, and that cause is? Increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Historically, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have always followed, not preceded, global warming. This suggests that increased CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of global warming. But as you say, this thread isn't about global warming (even though "global warming" is in the subject title). It's about ocean acidification. So why are looking for global warming deniers to respond? As one "global warming denier" (or as I prefer to call myself, APW skeptic), I agree with you that increased CO2 will acidify the oceans. But how much of the CO2 is manmade and much is escaping from the thawing tundra (as an effect of natural warming) is anyone's guess. Troll.
why is it every time I post on thread, the thread dies? Makes life very boring. (yes, LetsRun feedback is my life)
What's so funny is that the likes of Hannity dismiss AGW by saying the oceans pick up all the CO2, so there's no problem. Gah.
This is pretty sad. I forgot that I just replied to this thread. 2 minutes later, I saw it was bumped to the top with 23 posts and thought "finally, someone responded!". Clicked on the thread only to be reminded that I'm talking to myself. God I'm a loser.
foolishness wrote:
You think.
Based on what? What you simply want to believe?
Do you fools really think all of our emissions don't go anywhere or amount to anything?
Thinking today that our emissions into atmosphere just disappear and have no cumulative effect is akin to living in the 19th century and thinking whales would just replenish themselves and forever be an inexhaustible resource.
Based on basic logic you fing retard. The earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling for hundreds of thousands of years, long before man was there to warm it. I can't believe how stupid you people must be.
Until Obama produces a birth certificate, global warming is a socialist, terrorist conspiracy against jesus.
i find it strange that people can't make the leap from: "the earth has warmed and cooled before man" to "man can influence the warming and cooling."
It's like saying animals went extinct before man, ergo man had nothing to do with the extinction of the dodo.
How can you accept the science behind "the earth has warmed" and blindley discount the science behind "causes of the current warming"? They largely come from the same body of work.
It makes it almost impossible to argue the science if your fundamental ability to reason is impaired.
What a great summary, and in Letsrun! Everything you've said is on point. I interpreted global warming religionists from a different perspective, from their proposed solutions, having learned about the religionists from two of their most effective con men, Amory Lovins and John Holdren (currrently our Presidential Science Advisor):
When any solution to greenhouse gases fails to put nuclear power at the top of the list as a remedy, since it emits no greenhouse gases, I know the fix is in. You've shown the money trail. This is the science trail.
The bamboozled public whimpers, "But we need SAFE energy." How many people have been killed in the 60 year history of commercial nuclear power by its nuclear attribute? Answer. None. Chernoble was not a commercial reactor, and not just because it was built by the USSR. It had no conainment whatsoever. It was a graphite core reactor like the one under the stadium at U of Chicago, and designed to produce plutonium for weapons. Even Chernoble didn't kill as many, 30-60, as a single coal or oil plant in a year from pollution effects, about 200. In fact coal emits considerably more radionucleotides than a nuclear plant.
As for the alternatives - they are a sad boondoggle. Not only is every solar technology dangerous, at best the sun is high enough in the sky for eight hours, usually closer to six, requiring storage or backup of 3 to 4 times its peak capacity. Solar's real bugaboo is energy flux density. Get a pencil and paper and figure the sun, under ideal circumstances, provides about 600 watts/square meter. You will find, assuming about 10% conversion efficiency (and that is unrealistically generous when all losses are accounted for) that a solar array to compete with an average sized nuclear plant, about 1000 megawatts, would need to be about 12 miles square. How many people will be hurt maintaining thousands of tracking arrays? We have reliable accident statistics for similar activities, like roof repairing. The answer is lots and lots. And when the sun is down, enormous storage facilities would have to be developed, filled with ethylene glycol. Solar is a myth, except for heating swimming pools and assisting home water heating in sunny climates, or powering highway signs.
Wind power is a wonderful tax credit. You should see the mile after mile of still windmills in the Altomont pass just East of Livermore California. For the Dutch, when they had no nuclear power, windmills were relatively useful. For American farmers, windmills pump water and may generate a little elctricity - when the wind blows. When it doesn't the Dutch have nuclear and a farmers use oil (though not so efficient when they dilute it with ethanol, which reduces efficiency and increases pollution). But the Chinese and Japanese will happily sell us windmills which taxpayers will subsidize, until they no longer can.
The French, building upon U.S. technology from Westinghouse, sell electricty to other countries, generate over ninety percent of their electricty from nuclear, have the cleanest air in Europe, and recycle their fuel.
That is why China is building 112 nuclear plants over then next twenty years, and why we might build 1, while lots of environmental lawyers will make lots of money protecting us, until our nation's final financial collapse!
I agree that nuclear should constitute a very large portion of our "alternative" energy portfolio as we move forward.
I don't understand, are you saying that because you think the proposed solutions don't work the problem must be made up?
I think most climatologists, if they have an opinion on the solution (again, there is a difference between identifying the scientific problem and finding the political solution) are proponents of nuclear energy.
That said, a lot of the tax credits do seem to support alternative energy industries that are currently inefficient (although windmill farms can be designed to produce electricity when the wind isn't blowing).
How do you respond, deniers?
Your GF is fat
Troll Yanker wrote:
Ok, and that cause is? Increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Historically, increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have always followed, not preceded, global warming. This suggests that increased CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of global warming. But as you say, this thread isn't about global warming (even though "global warming" is in the subject title). It's about ocean acidification. So why are looking for global warming deniers to respond? As one "global warming denier" (or as I prefer to call myself, APW skeptic), I agree with you that increased CO2 will acidify the oceans. But how much of the CO2 is manmade and much is escaping from the thawing tundra (as an effect of natural warming) is anyone's guess. Troll.
thanks for responding to my question, i think you were the only one who committed a rational thought to it. now just watch the video. there is certainly a chance that global warming is not caused by man (the IPCC says its 10% chance). Volcanos and suns spots have in the past caused the Earth's climate to change radically, but there is not much evidence that that is happening now. Remember correlation vs causation goes both ways. You don't have a monopoly on that argument, you too need to prove sun spots are causing the Earth to get warmer right now. The IPCC says there is a 90% chance that global warming is man made because they know how much CO2 is being produced by man and they know it is enough to drastically change the overall content of the atmosphere.
And don't listen to the conspiracy theorists. The AP and Reuters have done investigations into those leaked emails and found no evidence of any conspiracy or hoax, just that a hand full of lazy scientists have gotten frustrated because their research is ignored by politicians and are willing to exaggerate their claims to promote action. Money is an issue on both sides, almost all the research conducted against global warming has been by the oil and coal industries.
And I suppose you believe the U.S. government wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks?
but what about 500 AD when the romans were growing grapes in england and the vikings had farms in greenland? Clearly the earth was hotter then? And btw each time mt. Pinatubo erupts it puts out much more CO2 than man has ever put out.
from another perspective. Let's just say it's true. But so what? You ain't going to budge anyone from their seats. The human race is much tougher than you think. Go up a few degrees mother earth we can handle it. Ok acidification of the seas. What makes you think that humans aren't evolving to compensate for environmental factors? Last I checked organisms react and cope Darwin's theory. If you look at the leading thinkers they do speculate that human genes change with change to the environment hence different cultures genome react differently to foreign soil, food, etc, etc. Watch the local "3rd" world guy wolf down drink and food that considered "dirty". But he can take it, but a developed world guy would get sick or die ingesting.
I assume this is a troll? the first part actually goes toward proving anthropogenic global warming, the second is just completely false.
ironic123 wrote:
but what about 500 AD when the romans were growing grapes in england and the vikings had farms in greenland? Clearly the earth was hotter then? And btw each time mt. Pinatubo erupts it puts out much more CO2 than man has ever put out.
I assume this is a troll? the first part actually goes toward proving anthropogenic global warming, the second is just completely false
All I know is I'll be dead before any of the truly catastrophic outcomes of AGW come to fruition. After that, I don't care what happens.
If anyone is actually interested in educating themselves on global warming:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/global-climate-change_1.pdf