I'm just disgusted by the games these politicians play. Don't they have more important business to attend to? Like making some useful and helpful laws?
I'm just disgusted by the games these politicians play. Don't they have more important business to attend to? Like making some useful and helpful laws?
Polly P wrote:
Then come back here and apologize, libtard.
Ms Polly Prissypants, please loosen your thong. It has crawled deep into your thinking parts and has stopped the blood flow to your brain.
The US Senate essentially stated the obvious - that climate changes all the time. They just as easily could have passed a resolution stating the the Earth revolves around the sun.
The Dems got trolled big time on this one, and it's not hard to see how this could happen. The Dems really can't separate the fact that "climate change" is different from "man-made climate change". I'm starting to think their obfuscationary ignorance is genetic ...
Some facts to consider ...
1. There is dissention on the notion that atmospheric CO2 has increased over the last 100 years. Most of the earlier studies that tried to establish a low-ball IPCC number for pre-industrial CO2 used chemical analysis, and they were all over the place in terms of an exact number. Some had pre-1900 CO2 at 400ppm. This shouldn't be surprising since global CO2 levels are never consistently the same worldwide. CO2 tends to stream in the atmosphere, so you'll have some areas with high CO2 measures and others with lower CO2 levels.
2. The amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere from the combustion of hydrocarbons pales in comparison to the CO2 emitted from the average volcanic eruption. If the Earth could not adjust to variations of atmospheric CO2, none of us would be here in the first place.
3. Rule #1 of scientific analysis: Correlation does NOT equal causation. This is another disconnect being used by the AGW promoters, aka it is man's CO2 emissions that is CAUSING (alleged) global warming. No one ever stops to consider that it is equally valid to assert that it is (alleged) global warming that is CAUSING (alleged) increases in atmospheric CO2. In truth, there has never been a cause-and-effect relationship between historic estimates of atmospheric CO2 and concurrent historic estimates of average temperutures. During the Ice Age we had estimated atmospheric CO2 levels of over 5,000ppm. During the Medevial Warming, we had estimated CO2 levels of under 200ppm. One simply cannot make the erstwhile CO2/temperature connection with any ort of sanity.
4. (The BIG one) For the sake of argument, let's say the AGW promoters were 100% right in there fantasy of cause-and-effect. Okay, so what is the "solution" they always promote? Using the power of the police state to shut down a certain percentage of hydrocarbon usage among consumers. So what would that do? Not a damn thing. For you see, the notion of "climate change" is not quantifiable. What exactly would be meant by "reducing" climate change? Temps stop rising? Well, they already are flatlining, have been since 1998. A reduction in extreme weather events? Well, we've already seen a reduction in the number of Class 5 tornados and hurricanes evan as human CO2 emissions increase. The fact is, there is no legitimate calculation of benefit that would arise from forced reduction of human CO2 emissions, just more human suffering as energy prices go up and consumer choice diminishes.
Idiots.
1. It's
2. A
3. Hoax
Loot wrote:
1. It's
2. A
3. Hoax
How could nearly 100% of our senators been so wrong?
obfuscation feeds libturds wrote:
The US Senate essentially stated the obvious - that climate changes all the time. They just as easily could have passed a resolution stating the the Earth revolves around the sun.
The Dems got trolled big time on this one, and it's not hard to see how this could happen. The Dems really can't separate the fact that "climate change" is different from "man-made climate change". I'm starting to think their obfuscationary ignorance is genetic ...
Actually they did separate the natural from the man-made. There were at least three resolutions and only one of them did not include the man-made qualifier. Republicans voted for all three resolutions, so it looks like a win for Obama.
It's interesting that you use the Earth's orbit as an example given that there was a time when the powers-that-be chastised scientists for for stating that truth. Idiots indeed.
[quote]obfuscation feeds libturds wrote:
The US Senate essentially stated the obvious - that climate changes all the time. They just as easily could have passed a resolution stating the the Earth revolves around the sun.
/quote]
Every one of your 4 points pretty much proves that you know virtually nothing about this subject. The more you talk, the deeper the hole gets.
"hoax"?
You guys are amazing. You believe stories about talking snakes and pregnant virgin women, and you call conclusions from published scientific data, gathered all around the world, a "hoax"?
Depends on the published data, of course .. your boy Willie Soon (one of the most frequently referenced climate change skeptics in the world, particularly by your clown Inhofe) is busted AGAIN for not disclosing his funding.
The hoax is ^this^ fraud.
Some facts to consider
Your #1 is a bald-faced lie. CO2 has increased over the past 100 years. You can point to shoddy science is you like, but the Keeling Curve has provided continuous stationary measurements for over 50 years.
Your # 2 is irrelevant. Natural variability has caused and will continue to cause the climate to change. What we're interested in is the human component to it.
Your # 3 proves, without a shadow of doubt, that you're an idiot. Correlation does NOT equal causation should be changed to 'Correlation does NOT NECESSARILY equal causation. The 21 men that were beheaded in Libya also happened to die. But in your world, because correlation does NOT equal causation, then perhaps these men died of natural causes. Your 'examples' from the past, while containing some truth, do not necessarily apply to today's climate because we didn't have humans artificially pumping carbon into the atmosphere at these levels.
Your # 4 further shows your complete misunderstanding of the problem at hand. Dealing with climate change is as much or more about planning/figuring out what the changes are likely to be in the future than it is about trying to stop emitters from emitting.
Phoqu ewe wrote:
Why do people continue to post/say/recite in any manner the same tired nonsense? Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. The quantity that it releases can be estimated fairly accurately. The rate at which it causes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to raise can be estimated. The effect of that (small percentage) increase on global average temperatures can be estimated. Back of the envelope calculations would show you that this predicts a noticeable effect of human industry on global average temperature.
Bullcrap, bullcrap, bullcrap. You're a gullible twat, a swindler, a below-average-intelligent person, and most probably a liberal.
The back of the envelope calculations show that there is no way humans, or for that matter natural catastrophes, can significantly raise the global average temperature. And this was the scientific consensus until around 1990. Around that time, the hoaxers invented the feedback model which assumed that for every ounce of CO2 that humans let out there would be a "feedback effect" (just like when you put a mic close to a loudspeaker) that would amplify the effect of that single ounce of CO2 into several tons. So the scientific basis for the global warming hoax is this alleged "greenhouse effect" young people have been indoctrinated with.
Let me get this straight: There is no way the minuscule amount of CO2 humans let out can cause a global warming effect by itself. To explain anthropogenic warming you need to assume that CO2 causes what we physicists call a "runaway effect", which means that a small initial energy input leads to a huge energy release after a series of amplifications. Such processes are extremely rare in nature. They do happen though. An atomic bomb is a runaway process, and you also have runaway processes in stars and black holes and so on. However, that the Earth's climate is an unstable process is so far fetched and unlikely that only extremely ideologically biased unscientific dumb@sses would agree.
And you, my friend, are one of those dumb@sses.
You mad, bro?
real scientist wrote:
Phoqu ewe wrote:Why do people continue to post/say/recite in any manner the same tired nonsense? Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. The quantity that it releases can be estimated fairly accurately. The rate at which it causes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to raise can be estimated. The effect of that (small percentage) increase on global average temperatures can be estimated. Back of the envelope calculations would show you that this predicts a noticeable effect of human industry on global average temperature.
Bullcrap, bullcrap, bullcrap. You're a gullible twat, a swindler, a below-average-intelligent person, and most probably a liberal.
The back of the envelope calculations show that there is no way humans, or for that matter natural catastrophes, can significantly raise the global average temperature. And this was the scientific consensus until around 1990. Around that time, the hoaxers invented the feedback model which assumed that for every ounce of CO2 that humans let out there would be a "feedback effect" (just like when you put a mic close to a loudspeaker) that would amplify the effect of that single ounce of CO2 into several tons. So the scientific basis for the global warming hoax is this alleged "greenhouse effect" young people have been indoctrinated with.
Let me get this straight: There is no way the minuscule amount of CO2 humans let out can cause a global warming effect by itself. To explain anthropogenic warming you need to assume that CO2 causes what we physicists call a "runaway effect", which means that a small initial energy input leads to a huge energy release after a series of amplifications. Such processes are extremely rare in nature. They do happen though. An atomic bomb is a runaway process, and you also have runaway processes in stars and black holes and so on. However, that the Earth's climate is an unstable process is so far fetched and unlikely that only extremely ideologically biased unscientific dumb@sses would agree.
And you, my friend, are one of those dumb@sses.
1990? I was reading about this in the early 1970s.
The difference between a climate scientist and a physicist is that the climate scientist has to learn everything the physicist does, but then apply it to the real world.
real-er scientist wrote:
The difference between a climate scientist and a physicist is that the climate scientist has to learn everything the physicist does, but then apply it to the real world.
Yes, Al Gore is a great physicist. And he invented the Internet too.
Except that Al Gore isn't a climate scientist (applied physicist).
Blind Lemon Chicken wrote:
Last month, ninety-eight senators voted to pass a resolution declaring that “climate change is real and not a hoax.” (Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi was the lone no vote.)
So who missed this critical vote and why?
Quite.
Everything we have burned since the start of the Industrial Revolution has increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.028% to 0.04%.
We can breathe quite happily with 100 times that concentration.
Plants grow more quickly up to 1000ppm.
It's not about breathing, Binks. Google "Greenhouse Effect" and come back when you've educated yourself.
Loot wrote:
Climate change is real. Even an infant can figure that out. Man made climate change is not real.
So, all the pollution recorded from our country, and especially China, eating a hole in the ozone layer, that isn't man made?
Blind Lemon Chicken wrote:
Last month, ninety-eight senators voted to pass a resolution declaring that “climate change is real and not a hoax.” (Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi was the lone no vote.)
No one can deny the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence. The tide has turned and Republican representatives are admitting to the obvious in an effort to seem less ridiculous to the voters.