For you haters, I'd like you to know that the temperature today will be about 14 degrees above average.
For you haters, I'd like you to know that the temperature today will be about 14 degrees above average.
seeker of truth wrote:
SO2 doesn't cause acid rain if it's pumped into the stratosphere, this only occurs in the troposphere. Also, if we cool the planet, we wouldn't have to worry about feedback processes kicking in like thawing tundra and melting ice-caps. Yes, it's a band-aid solution to increasing CO2 levels, but as I said before, even if the talks at Copenhagen were successful, CO2 emissions would still rise well above their current levels. At least, by using SO2 as a shield, we could control Earth's temperature fairly cheaply. I think that the biggest concern is ocean acidification, as sea-life has evolved to live in a certain pH and the oceans are becoming more and more acidic, potentially jeopardizing many species as more and more CO2 is taken up by the oceans. SO2 in the stratosphere will do nothing to address this and I'm not sure where the threshold lies.
Is there some sort of paper I could look at for this SO2 idea? I have a number of concerns, including cost of shooting stuff up there, interactions between troposphere and stratosphere and interaction between different layers of the atmosphere in general.
And carbonic acid in the ocean is a huge concern that is not discussed enough, in addition to other ocean issues. God, we treat the oceans like shit.
psa wrote:
For you haters, I'd like you to know that the temperature today will be about 14 degrees above average.
... and somewere else it will be cold.
C'mon dude, come up with something cogent.
See I never said which way I fall on this one. You however, obviously believe global warming is not a conspiracy. Well then in fact the other side must be true (as the next logical path of the argument in your first post). So, again, please explain to me your conspiracy theory as to why so many scientists would publish data contrary to man-made global warming.
Again I have no problem with the question of global warming... more that you are calling it a conspiracy (or asking for people's conspiracy theories... while clearly stating that the issue is not a conspiracy at all). And as per your definition of a conspiracy I can conclude that you sir are an idiot (as you define it well and use it so poorly). Maybe none of it is a conspiracy and it's just a really gray area... as you basically went on to say in many more words.
Good day
vivalarepublica wrote:
Its easy to skim through hundreds of papers focused on aspects of climate change throughout college, and also helps that I took a couple courses focused on climate change. There are scientific journals focused solely on climate change and its affects. Search "climate change journals" on your search engine.
From your explanations, you did not adequately explain why thousands of scientists and politicians and environmental activists would unite to perpetuate a climate change conspiracy over a period of decades. Politicians do love power, but they could use other conspiracies to stoke fear and infringe on our rights.
luv2run wrote:I am suspicious that anyone has actually read hundreds of papers in this field.
I think it is less of conspiracy (although some of the emails do give that impression) than scientists looking to either get grants (one gets no grants if there is not a "problem") or scientists with bias.
There is a faction of the Global warming (climate change is the proper term since it covers all the bases) that just wants government control and does not care much for freedom or capitalism. Not everyone is a watermelon (green on the outside, red--as in Commie---on the inside) but quite a few are.
There are far better conspiracy theories to have fun with and that also do not endanger our freedoms.
Seriously, please clean the straw men out of that argument before trying to discuss global warming. Conspiracy over decades? That's not the idea at all. The only actual data we have goes back to the late 1800s and it shows a slight warming trend, nothing to be alarmed about. The debate is over whether or not this is significant or whether it will actually be harmful or even if it will continue or is man-made. The data didn't have to be fabricated. It just doesn't mean what you think it means.
Beer gut with abs wrote:
See I never said which way I fall on this one. You however, obviously believe global warming is not a conspiracy. Well then in fact the other side must be true (as the next logical path of the argument in your first post). So, again, please explain to me your conspiracy theory as to why so many scientists would publish data contrary to man-made global warming.
Again I have no problem with the question of global warming... more that you are calling it a conspiracy (or asking for people's conspiracy theories... while clearly stating that the issue is not a conspiracy at all). And as per your definition of a conspiracy I can conclude that you sir are an idiot (as you define it well and use it so poorly). Maybe none of it is a conspiracy and it's just a really gray area... as you basically went on to say in many more words.
Good day
Based on my previous ramblings, there is a good chance that I might be a complete idiot and not be aware of my shortcomings. Perhaps the day of reckoning will arrive soon, and I will be humbled by my unrestrained stupidity. However, let's not resort to name calling. That sort of activity diverts from the issue at hand.
As scientists publishing data contrary to the conventional idea of anthropogenic climate change, I have no conspiracy theory for their actions. I imagine they are motivated by a desire to do good work, get paid, study what they believe to be the correct take on climate change. Occasionally, the skeptics make good points (transparency of data, for one). My OP was not concerned with a conspiracy behind their actions. I was referring to a conspiracy theory about the motivations for climate change enthusiasts to continually fib data, enact legislation, and continue with doom-and-gloom reports on the effects of climate change. To my knowledge, I have found little concrete evidence about a systematic effort involving many nations to increase government control and infringe upon our individual rights. I apologize for any misunderstandings.
psa wrote:
For you haters, I'd like you to know that the temperature today will be about 14 degrees above average.
Since when are skeptics 'haters?'
Since when is this even a hate issue? Please don't push it in that direction.
vivalarepublica wrote:
Beer gut with abs wrote:See I never said which way I fall on this one. You however, obviously believe global warming is not a conspiracy. Well then in fact the other side must be true (as the next logical path of the argument in your first post). So, again, please explain to me your conspiracy theory as to why so many scientists would publish data contrary to man-made global warming.
Again I have no problem with the question of global warming... more that you are calling it a conspiracy (or asking for people's conspiracy theories... while clearly stating that the issue is not a conspiracy at all). And as per your definition of a conspiracy I can conclude that you sir are an idiot (as you define it well and use it so poorly). Maybe none of it is a conspiracy and it's just a really gray area... as you basically went on to say in many more words.
Good day
Based on my previous ramblings, there is a good chance that I might be a complete idiot and not be aware of my shortcomings. Perhaps the day of reckoning will arrive soon, and I will be humbled by my unrestrained stupidity. However, let's not resort to name calling. That sort of activity diverts from the issue at hand.
As scientists publishing data contrary to the conventional idea of anthropogenic climate change, I have no conspiracy theory for their actions. I imagine they are motivated by a desire to do good work, get paid, study what they believe to be the correct take on climate change. Occasionally, the skeptics make good points (transparency of data, for one). My OP was not concerned with a conspiracy behind their actions. I was referring to a conspiracy theory about the motivations for climate change enthusiasts to continually fib data, enact legislation, and continue with doom-and-gloom reports on the effects of climate change. To my knowledge, I have found little concrete evidence about a systematic effort involving many nations to increase government control and infringe upon our individual rights. I apologize for any misunderstandings.
Explain to me why this has to be a conspiracy instead of just being plain-out wrong?
It's a conspiracy because some people believe it to be true. It also can be plain-out wrong at the same time. Most people believe conspiracies to be wrong in the first place. Only the vocal majority find it to be true.
shut up wrote:
Explain to me why this has to be a conspiracy instead of just being plain-out wrong?
I'm through with global warming threads on letsrun. The arguments of climate change deniers do not impress me enough to change my opinion on the matter. I've been underwhelmed by the responses on this thread. And my arguments probably are not strong enough to change their opinion.
For all you truth seekers out there, go investigate election reform (http://www.freeandequal.org/). That's an issue in this country that needs more attention.
vivalarepublica wrote:
I'm through with global warming threads on letsrun. The arguments of climate change deniers do not impress me enough to change my opinion on the matter. I've been underwhelmed by the responses on this thread. And my arguments probably are not strong enough to change their opinion.
For all you truth seekers out there, go investigate election reform (http://www.freeandequal.org/). That's an issue in this country that needs more attention.
I am glad that you wont be posting on GW again your posts are DUMB.
vivalarepublica wrote:
It's a conspiracy because some people believe it to be true. It also can be plain-out wrong at the same time. Most people believe conspiracies to be wrong in the first place. Only the vocal majority find it to be true.
shut up wrote:Explain to me why this has to be a conspiracy instead of just being plain-out wrong?
You are making absolutely no sense. And you don't know what a conspiracy is.
Booker was subsequently found to be accurate, (in Britain) about such matters as swine flu scare, mad-cow disease scare, bird flu scare, foot and mouth scare, salmonella scare amongst others and saw the weaknesses in the global warming ‘science’ long before it became the subsequent scandal.
This is part of what he had to say on asbestosis - hardly denying the disease exists, just pointing out how those with vested interests are creating unnecessary alarm.