Global Warming

#51
#51
I am going to get a bit off topic here as I have already had these same discussions in other threads.

Is it just me or has there been much more recent seismic and volcanic activity than normal? It seems to me every two or three weeks there is another major event and now we have a volcano shutting down much of European air travel. Does anyone have any thoughts or am I just imagining the uptick in trend?
 
#52
#52
g8terh8ter_eric said:
This is wrong. Check this out...

Global Warming Petition Project

Over 31,000 scientists disagree.
Click to expand...

How many times have I broken down that this petition is utter garbage? Like, 3 times? And yet it keeps getting brought up. Many of the "scientists" on this list have nothing to do with a relevant field. Many of them are doctors.

eric, the reason I may come across "closed-minded" is because I have seen the same tired argument from skeptics, unchanged, over the last five to seven years. If you don't believe me, check the other threads on this forum and see how THIS LIST keeps getting brought up to refute that most scientists are not in agreement on this issue, and each time I have to point out how bogus this list is.

http://www.volnation.com/forum/politics/91202-so-much-global-warming-5.html#post3356034

http://www.volnation.com/forum/poli...g-two-biggest-scare-tactic-4.html#post3364465

Ironic, looks like one of the times it has been brought up, it was by YOU.

There are people who are long dead on this list. There are people who never existed on this list. There are lots of orthopedic surgeons and pediatricians on this list.

This list is a joke, and has been debunked thoroughly.


I wonder why one of the themes of this year's national geography conference is all about climate change, if the majority of these scientists don't think it is real or unnatural?

Quit drinking the conservative kool aid. Of course the Earth is always changing, no one is saying otherwise (anymore, skeptics used to claim that actually). That doesn't address the rapid change in atmospheric CO2 from non-natural processes, and the possible long-term ramifications of that.
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
IPorange said:
How many times have I broken down that this petition is utter garbage? Like, 3 times? And yet it keeps getting brought up. Many of the "scientists" on this list have nothing to do with a relevant field. Many of them are doctors.

eric, the reason I may come across "closed-minded" is because I have seen the same tired argument from skeptics, unchanged, over the last five to seven years. If you don't believe me, check the other threads on this forum and see how THIS LIST keeps getting brought up to refute that most scientists are not in agreement on this issue, and each time I have to point out how bogus this list is. There are people who are long dead on this list. There are people who never existed on this list. There are lots of orthopedic surgeons and pediatricians on this list.

This list is a joke, and has been debunked thoroughly.


I wonder why one of the themes of this year's national geography conference is all about climate change, if the majority of these scientists don't think it is real or unnatural?

Quit drinking the conservative kool aid. Of course the Earth is always changing, no one is saying otherwise (anymore, skeptics used to claim that actually). That doesn't address the rapid change in atmospheric CO2 from non-natural processes, and the possible long-term ramifications of that.
Click to expand...

You try to debunk the list, but you don't address the people in there that are in the field that are relevant to the discussion, even if that list gets knocked down to 15,000 names by doing that . Your quick to dismiss the list as a whole, because some of them may not be part of the scientific community that is directly related to the research. I'm going to give my opinion on this subject, one last time, and ignore any further man made climate change threads from here on out.....

1. Man-Made GW or CC is not real. We have had much warmer periods in the Earth's history, and those are ignored. When they are brought up, people tell them to fly a kite and buy in to the madness.

2. The conspiracy theorist element of this agenda is VERY real. It's the biggest reason that this crap is still around. It has been debunked by many scientists, that aren't orthopedic surgeons, but yet you and the mainstream media won't have anything to do with it.

3. All this is about is money. If something comes down the pike that offers more money from the government than MMGW theories, you will see a huge change in direction in research, and it will become a novelty, which is largely what it is right now with current set of people involved.

4. This is also about private companies realizing they can get tax payed funded research, and they will never have to invest a dime of their own money. Look at what Al Gore has to gain from this BS.

5. Do you remember when scientists thought that the Earth was flat, and the Sun revolved around the Earth?? Yeah, those same scientists were proven completely wrong, and are starting to be proven wrong in regards to MMGW.

Look, there is too much out there to show this is all for show and about people trying to get money. If this was a true science, there wouldn't be SO many scientists that were once MMGW supporters now going up against the same science they were once researching.

Now, I'm done with this topic on this board.

Good day. :hi:
 
#54
#54
Can I get a link showing scientists thought the Earth was flat or revolved around the Sun?


Those were actually religious scholars and magicians...
 
#55
#55
IPorange said:
Can I get a link showing scientists thought the Earth was flat or revolved around the Sun?


Those were actually religious scholars and magicians...
Click to expand...

So, those people weren't scientists, because what, they didn't have computers or public funding?? Come on man.
 
#58
#58
LawVol13 said:
I'm no scientist and I certainly can't engage you in a scientific debate, but how do you respond to ocean levels rising if there is no global warming?
Click to expand...

What data can you produce that shows rising sea levels??

How much is sea level rising over an extended period??

I didn't say there is no warming, the Earth has been generally warming, with fluxuations, since the last great ice age.

The Earth was warmer about a thousand years ago than now, there was a 'little ice age' between then and now and the Earth has been naturally warming since the end of that.

Convient to the marxist/socialist dogmas this warming has coincided with the industrial revolution.

Those two events are coincidental and not cause/affectual!!
 
#59
#59
MG1968 said:
but, there was a consensus...
Click to expand...

Funny the global warmers should bring up earth the center of the universe and the earth is flat theories, that is exactly how I think of their disproven climate control dogma.


And the most ironic thing about their whole solution is that it admittedly doesn't even solve the problem they say exists but it does put an unbearable burden on most of the world while enriching a few international financiers beyond measure and creates for them a steady supply of golden eggs.
 
#60
#60
Ok, I got it.

"Man Made" global warming is caused by what?
Answer- MAN!

Answer to that problem.
A reduction in man.

Any volunteers?
 
#61
#61
g8terh8ter_eric said:
So, those people weren't scientists, because what, they didn't have computers or public funding?? Come on man.
Click to expand...

Science isn't just an attitude or state of mind. It is a specific philosophy. Citing beliefs from the dark ages, when religion and superstition reigned supreme, as evidence against science is idiotic.
 
#62
#62
IPorange said:
Science isn't just an attitude or state of mind. It is a specific philosophy. Citing beliefs from the dark ages, when religion and superstition reigned supreme, as evidence against science is idiotic.
Click to expand...

So, it's only today's science that holds all the answers huh?? Don't you think that everything involved in studying climate change is in it's infancy, and at best is guess work because there are SOOOOO many differing opinions on it, scientific and not?? I'm sure you aren't that naive that you think everything is settled, because climate change has been happening on this Earth for a long time, and it has been MUCH more topsy turvey in the past, WAY before the industrial age. Scientists 500 years from now will look upon our time and I'm sure call the scientists of this time idiots as well, so don't get too comfortable.
 
#64
#64
g8terh8ter_eric said:
So, it's only today's science that holds all the answers huh?? Don't you think that everything involved in studying climate change is in it's infancy, and at best is guess work because there are SOOOOO many differing opinions on it, scientific and not?? I'm sure you aren't that naive that you think everything is settled, because climate change has been happening on this Earth for a long time, and it has been MUCH more topsy turvey in the past, WAY before the industrial age. Scientists 500 years from now will look upon our time and I'm sure call the scientists of this time idiots as well, so don't get too comfortable.
Click to expand...

Its absurd to suggest that scientist of 500 years ago are on equal footing as those of today, and likewise those of today compared against those 500 years from now. The point still stands, citing beliefs of 500 years ago to discount science today is idiotic. Of course 500 years from now we will look pretty stupid, but are you suggesting that those same beliefs that are now a 1000 years old are still valid in some way to refute the scientists conclusions? Please.

In my opinion, as long as religious belief continues to hold onto iron age beliefs and myths while trying to incorporate them with modern scientific conclusions they will always be a leg down from the scientific thought process. Continue to believe the creator of the entire universe decided to concern himself with tribal conflicts in the middle east thousands of years ago. The rest of us heathens aren't buying it.
 
#67
#67
rjd970 said:
Its absurd to suggest that scientist of 500 years ago are on equal footing as those of today, and likewise those of today compared against those 500 years from now. The point still stands, citing beliefs of 500 years ago to discount science today is idiotic. Of course 500 years from now we will look pretty stupid, but are you suggesting that those same beliefs that are now a 1000 years old are still valid in some way to refute the scientists conclusions? Please.

In my opinion, as long as religious belief continues to hold onto iron age beliefs and myths while trying to incorporate them with modern scientific conclusions they will always be a leg down from the scientific thought process. Continue to believe the creator of the entire universe decided to concern himself with tribal conflicts in the middle east thousands of years ago. The rest of us heathens aren't buying it.
Click to expand...

No, I'm stating that thinking today's scientific theories are somehow either unquestionable or completely solid in their core theories, is absurd. There is nothing to suggest that ANY of the science that occurs with MMGW is solid, and because of the scare tactics that have been used in the past 10 years, people believe we need to do something because they think the polar ice caps are going to melt in the next 5 years. I would almost bet, that if Al Gore and some scientists hadn't got together and figured out how to milk governments of billions in the name of science, climate change science would probably be more sensible and controlled. Instead, more scientists are becoming more and more skeptical of the alarmist theories, and moving to MUCH more conservative theories on climate change and it's ACTUAL effect on human beings and human beings actual effect on climate. It's been shifting so much over time, that it's really ludicrous to suggest we are going to doom the planet in 100 years.
 
#68
#68
KB5252 said:
I am going to get a bit off topic here as I have already had these same discussions in other threads.

Is it just me or has there been much more recent seismic and volcanic activity than normal? It seems to me every two or three weeks there is another major event and now we have a volcano shutting down much of European air travel. Does anyone have any thoughts or am I just imagining the uptick in trend?
Click to expand...

I have noticed.

Mathew 24: (7), Mark 13: (8) and Luke 21: (11) are almost identical.

Can't say there is any correlation, who knows?

Mathew 27:51-54 is also interesting, plust Revelation 6:12.

Johnny Cash ('J. R.' to family and friends) filmed a movie about the life of Christ, 'The Gospel Road,' and shot most of it on sites as closely as possible to where the actual events were known to have taken place.

When attempting to film the crucifixion scene such supernatural events began to happen that the film crew stopped filming and that scene wasn't in the movie.

The shameless P T Barnum of the global warming circus, al-Gore tried to use Cash's funeral to promote himself and I'll bet y0u my bottom dollar that J R never voted for the sob.

During the depression the Cash family lived for a while on one of FDR's collective farms and were thoroughly disgusted with the socialist experiment.

There now, right back on topic. :)
 
#69
#69
Depending on how many fine particles the Iceland volcano hurls into the atmosphere will effect global tempatures over the next few months.

I am relying on IPorange to correct me if I'm wrong, but those particles could result in minor cooling because those particles will refract sunlight. That is certainly not man made.

The climate and other earth cycles is just something we, as humans, cannot control.
 
#70
#70
g8terh8ter_eric said:
No, I'm stating that thinking today's scientific theories are somehow either unquestionable or completely solid in their core theories, is absurd. There is nothing to suggest that ANY of the science that occurs with MMGW is solid, and because of the scare tactics that have been used in the past 10 years, people believe we need to do something because they think the polar ice caps are going to melt in the next 5 years. I would almost bet, that if Al Gore and some scientists hadn't got together and figured out how to milk governments of billions in the name of science, climate change science would probably be more sensible and controlled. Instead, more scientists are becoming more and more skeptical of the alarmist theories, and moving to MUCH more conservative theories on climate change and it's ACTUAL effect on human beings and human beings actual effect on climate. It's been shifting so much over time, that it's really ludicrous to suggest we are going to doom the planet in 100 years.
Click to expand...

I'll defer to TennTradition on the science behind the climate change stuff, I simply don't understand it.

However, my point is all things being equal, the scientific approach gives the most practical answers possible at the time, whether they utlimately turn out to be right or wrong. I can agree with you that with the climate change research it isn't always necessarily the case that all things are equal.
 
#71
#71
CountVolcula said:
Depending on how many fine particles the Iceland volcano hurls into the atmosphere will effect global tempatures over the next few months.

I am relying on IPorange to correct me if I'm wrong, but those particles could result in minor cooling because those particles will refract sunlight. That is certainly not man made.

The climate and other earth cycles is just something we, as humans, cannot control.
Click to expand...

It depends on what the particles are. Some particles will absorb light, others will reflect. In general, volcanoes tend to have a net cooling effect. I imagine this is from the sulfur oxides.
 
#72
#72
rjd970 said:
I'll defer to TennTradition on the science behind the climate change stuff, I simply don't understand it.

However, my point is all things being equal, the scientific approach gives the most practical answers possible at the time, whether they utlimately turn out to be right or wrong. I can agree with you that with the climate change research it isn't always necessarily the case that all things are equal.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion on the political solution to the percieved (or non existant if some prefer) problem, ie; cap and trade legislation. (which even the staunchest of global warming advocates says does little if anything to stem CO2 emmissions which supposedly cause GW.) ?????
 
#73
#73
TennTradition said:
It depends on what the particles are. Some particles will absorb light, others will reflect. In general, volcanoes tend to have a net cooling effect. I imagine this is from the sulfur oxides.
Click to expand...

For your consideration:


planes_volcanos.png
 
#74
#74
Interesting numbers. Volcanoes aren't huge CO2 events in general, as this seems to bear out. Also, a big difference between this volcano and the big ones like Pinatubo is that the sulfur oxides that are blowing out aren't getting into the highest parts of the atmosphere, so they should rain out relatively quickly (month or two), unlike Pinatubo's lasting effects for a year or more.

While it doesn't affect the numbers reported in the diagram, there were some other numbers on the spreadsheet the diagram references that I'm not sure I buy. The author of the spreadsheet takes total emissions from volcanoes like Pinatubo and then divides them by 365 to get emissions per day. However, these numbers are then compared to actual flux numbers (true emissions per day), which isn't a fair comparison, unless I misunderstood how he/she was using the numbers. Regardless, that didn't end up impacting the numbers in the diagram, so I suppose it's a moot point.
 
#75
#75
IPorange said:
Science isn't just an attitude or state of mind. It is a specific philosophy.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, can you outline that philosophy??

I thought science literally meant knowledge.

I also think misusing science to support some philisophy leads to preaching pseudo-science as fact when it isn't that and in fact is merely a theory, in this case based on half-truths and outright lies and used as a tool to advance political and/or economic ideals that actually have noting at all to do with the physical sciences.




TennTradition said:
Interesting numbers. Volcanoes aren't huge CO2 events in general, as this seems to bear out. Also, a big difference between this volcano and the big ones like Pinatubo is that the sulfur oxides that are blowing out aren't getting into the highest parts of the atmosphere, so they should rain out relatively quickly (month or two), unlike Pinatubo's lasting effects for a year or more.

While it doesn't affect the numbers reported in the diagram, there were some other numbers on the spreadsheet the diagram references that I'm not sure I buy. The author of the spreadsheet takes total emissions from volcanoes like Pinatubo and then divides them by 365 to get emissions per day. However, these numbers are then compared to actual flux numbers (true emissions per day), which isn't a fair comparison, unless I misunderstood how he/she was using the numbers. Regardless, that didn't end up impacting the numbers in the diagram, so I suppose it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

I was just being funny, not trying to prove anything.

You do bring up something else interesting, when you say 'moot' point, do you mean 'debatable?'

That is the dictionairy definition of 'moot,' even though most people always use the word to mean just the opposite.

BTW, I ran accross a youtube video last week filmed from a private yacht in the south pacific of a brand new island being formed by a volcano.

Wild stuff, first just wide open sea and then in short order, poof, a brand new island not previously on any charts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top