Global Warming is a hoax.

[dairygirl4u2c]

fair enough, to acknowledge merit in the other side.
that's all i ever wanted to hear.

my frustration is monstly with monk. (but also anyone who insists there's nothing to worry about, but at least they are not [mod]Language. --Era Might[/mod] about it... especially considering how wrong i think the opposite position here is. then being an [mod]Language. --Era Might[/mod] isn't even justified.. cause they are wrong... they are just an [mod]Language. --Era Might[/mod])
he's not capable of engaging in a give and take conversation. he only intends to, to put it nicely, teach others, and not listen to anyone else or be taught.

[quote](even if 30 volcanos went off each year, as i said... consider how much LA alone puts out, plus all the smoke stacks etc)[/quote]

my point in mentioning that, is to show that it's totally plausible, that we could be the equivalent of volcanoes.

besides that though, as should have been implied, there is the fact, note, fact, that there's almost twice the CO2 out there as has ever been, in hundreds of thousands of years, as i cited and is in gore's movie etc. that alone should be enough to say maybe we're at least up there with the volcanoes. at least.

plus, besides these points. why post the point of 30 volcanoes? is it only cause one would think we can't get even close to 30? it seems like bad judgment to me to say we couldn't get even close. but, even did half of what they do.... that means we're still probably signficant, too, if 30 is significant. (if the volcanoes point is to say they are signfiant..... or else, why post 30 volcanoes, if they're not significant?) (i'm not sure what ever happened to teh one argument, that a volcano puts out the same as we do in five hundred years thing. my bet is that it was forgot, and it's too painful for anyone to admit [mod]Language. --Era Might[/mod], given what i've posted before and given thet there's no sources for that argument)

[Fr. Bruno]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1599228' date='Jul 13 2008, 10:17 PM']Yeah, and my point stands, dogma has no place in science, and -- as a consequence -- the Vatican is not competetant to determine who is right in this dispute.[/quote]

The question has nothing to do with the relationship between dogma and science.
The quote I mentioned is not from the Vatican either.

[XIX]

lol...


nvm

Edited July 14, 2008 by XIX

[hérisson]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1599579' date='Jul 14 2008, 06:12 AM']A nice collection of articles that show mainstream media is extremely bias: [url="http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html"]http://schnittshow.newsradio610.com/globalwarming.html[/url]
The Great Global Swindle



The media lies. Al Gore lies. IPCC lies.

Calling anyone spewing this hoax a "scientist" is laughable. There should be an IQ requirement to be called a scientist because there are many "scientists" who have to have a below average IQ because it does not take much study to see what a hoax "man made global warming" is.

God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

If you really belive your sources are credible, then please tell us why you trust them rather than those who say the opposite. Considering all those who do not share your opinion as liars is not an argument, it's rather an insult... which does not add to your credibility. The great majority of scientists consider lobal warning a reality ; those who don't are just serving particular interests (economical, political...) and do not deserve our attention.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]it's rather an insult...[/quote]
it's an ad hominem. in the fullest sense of the word practically. sometimes people say calling names, while backing up your assertion with credible arguments is an ad hominem but it's not as they used credible arguments too. here, he has no credible arguments or data, so it's truly an ad hominem, ie,, arguing from name calling instead of reason.

he has no credibility. he doesn't have any credible sources other than number and assertions out of nowhere that refute what i've posted.
all anyone here is doing, is essentially gut speaking that it's not from us.

true, they show that it's warming generally in the big timescale perspective, and not from us. BUT, i've posted actual creditble authority (not just numbers from no where etc that contradict actual facts) that says, that shows all the warming factors listed by the opposition to be inadequate to describe the current warming, and evidence that we could cause warming and lots of evidence in that regard, so the burden is on those against it to show authority as to why they are right that there is nothing ot worry about. otherwise, they have to concede that the evidence does seem to indicate, that maybe, just maybe, at least maybe, there is something to this.
otherwise, it's all essentially ignorance, a lack of comprehension ability, andor unsubstantiated gut speak.

Edited July 15, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]From Scientific American, 9/6/06:
“The debate on global warming is over. Present levels of carbon dioxide-nearing 400 parts per million in the earth’s atmosphere-- are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650,000 years and could easily surpass 500 ppm by the year 2050 without radical intervention.” [Besides seeing that this level is unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years] scientists know the extra carbon dioxide in the air is from fossil fuels by looking at the carbon isotopes.[/quote]

remember, the graphs show that it's almost twice the level as it's ever been.

also, did you know that 95% percent of statistics are made up?

Edited July 15, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[XIX]

it's only 84%

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Our influence on Earth's climate did not begin a few decades or centuries ago, but 8000 years before; with the birth of agriculture (see anthropocene).

In a study at the University of Virginia, ancient human activities have shown to have affected the climate. Key discrepancies in levels of greenhouse gases revealed by ice cores show that during the previous three periods between ice ages, levels of carbon dioxide and methane in the air fell in lock-step with decreases in summer sunshine caused by cyclical changes in Earth's orbit. However after the most recent ice age, which peaked around 12,000 years ago, both gases broke the set pattern.

Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide began to increase 8000 years ago, followed by methane 5000 years ago, even though summer sunshine has been decreasing. "Both gases followed the expected trend for a while but then went up instead of down."

After removing possible natural causes for the greenhouse gas increases, it is probable that early farmers who cleared forests in Europe, India and China accounted for the surge of carbon dioxide, while rice paddies and burgeoning herds of livestock produced the extra methane.

Over time this activity laced the atmosphere with about 40 parts per million of carbon dioxide and 250 parts per billion of methane, enough to produce nearly 0.8 °C of warming before 1700, around the dawn of industrialisation.[/quote]

[ironmonk]

Interesting stuff on solar output..

[url="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html"]http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html[/url]

[url="http://www.space.com/spacewatch/cams.html"]http://www.space.com/spacewatch/cams.html[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation[/url]

[url="http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/space/solterr/output.html"]http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/space/solterr/output.html[/url]

[url="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/sun_weather_010828-1.html"]http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...r_010828-1.html[/url]

[url="http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175"]http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175[/url] <- in 1991 Gore shouted the Earth was in balence.

Solar output been increasing .05% each decade since the 1970's... hence our hot weather, but it's dropping off...


The "Man Made Global Warming Going Green" religion is for people who:[list]
[/list][list]
[*]Don't do the research
[*]Do the research and fail at critical analysis
[*]People who are self centered to make themselves feel like they are actually making a difference about something that matters.
[/list]
The fact that we've only been keeping history on temperature about a hundred years speaks volumns.
The fact that the heat records on file were about 80 years ago speaks volumns. It's been this hot before, it'll cool again... just like it did before.
The fact of "volcano facts".
The fact that there is a great ball of chaotic fire called the sun that fluctuates over many years speaks volumns.
The fact that the earth's temp has been in fluctuation over the past 4 billion years speaks volumns.


herisson,

[quote]The great majority of scientists consider lobal warning a reality[/quote]
No they don't.

First off, just because someone is a scientist does not mean that they know what they are talking about.

Secondly, there are quite a few that just parot other studies, and then when one takes the time to examine these so called "studies", they have many many 'holes' in logic and science.

[quote]If you really belive your sources are credible, then please tell us why you trust them rather than those who say the opposite.[/quote]

The same people preaching global warming, preach abortion, enslavement of the poor and middle class via welfare, anti-God, anti-Freedom, pro-marxist propaganda.

The question is not why you should believe the sources I have cited, but what in the world are you thinking listening to the followers of evil.

Go to the links, do the research.

At the most "Man Made Global Warming" is a theory, and a very bad one at that.

A few other things....

[quote][url="http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html"]http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popup...1696238792.html[/url]
[b]Gore gets a cold shoulder[/b]
Steve Lytte
October 14, 2007
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.
His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.
"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."
At his first appearance since the award was announced in Oslo, Mr Gore said: "We have to quickly find a way to change the world's consciousness about exactly what we're facing."
Mr Gore shared the Nobel prize with the United Nations climate panel for their work in helping to galvanise international action against global warming.
But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.
However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.
"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.
During his speech to a crowd of about 300 that included meteorology students and a host of professional meteorologists, Dr Gray also said those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error.
He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
He said his beliefs had made him an outsider in popular science.
"[b]It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants[/b]."[/quote]


[quote]The American Physical Society had been a proponent of the “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming/climate change — until now. While the main organization has not addressed its position — yet — a major unit within APS has declared global warming unproven and that the IPCC’s conclusions unsupportable. The APS will re-open the debate on global warming with a new paper accusing the IPCC of deliberate obfuscation (via Memeorandum):
...
[url="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/18/consensus-collapses-aps-re-opens-debate-on-global-warming/"]http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/18/cons...global-warming/[/url][/quote]



I've been saying it was a hoax since they started preaching it because their "studies" and "proof" did not add up, as it was filled with illogical conclusions.

It's a hoax and in the next five years they'll hopefully stop the 'Chicken Little' cries that the sky is falling. These same people will cry that the earth is doomed for an ice age in 20 years.

Bottom line, we currently cannot effect the weather. The earth is much bigger and tougher than these wack jobs on the news would have you believe.

The same people who kill babies preach MMGW... why would you even give them the time of day with their wack job theories?


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1603846' date='Jul 19 2008, 11:47 PM']First off, just because someone is a scientist does not mean that they know what they are talking about.[/quote]
Well obviously you, the non-scientist, know much more about this than the people who actually study it. How silly of us to question you.

Edited July 20, 2008 by fidei defensor

[hérisson]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1603846' date='Jul 20 2008, 08:47 AM']Interesting stuff on solar output..

[url="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html"]http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html[/url]

[url="http://www.space.com/spacewatch/cams.html"]http://www.space.com/spacewatch/cams.html[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation[/url]

[url="http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/space/solterr/output.html"]http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/space/solterr/output.html[/url]

[url="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/sun_weather_010828-1.html"]http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...r_010828-1.html[/url]

[url="http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175"]http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175[/url] <- in 1991 Gore shouted the Earth was in balence.

Solar output been increasing .05% each decade since the 1970's... hence our hot weather, but it's dropping off...
The "Man Made Global Warming Going Green" religion is for people who:[list]
[/list][list]
[*]Don't do the research
[*]Do the research and fail at critical analysis
[*]People who are self centered to make themselves feel like they are actually making a difference about something that matters.
[/list]The fact that we've only been keeping history on temperature about a hundred years speaks volumns.
The fact that the heat records on file were about 80 years ago speaks volumns. It's been this hot before, it'll cool again... just like it did before.
The fact of "volcano facts".
The fact that there is a great ball of chaotic fire called the sun that fluctuates over many years speaks volumns.
The fact that the earth's temp has been in fluctuation over the past 4 billion years speaks volumns.
herisson,
No they don't.[/quote]

They do. Those who don't are not independent, but only serving particular political or economical interests.

[hérisson]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1603846' date='Jul 20 2008, 08:47 AM']Interesting stuff on solar output..


Go to the links, do the research.[/quote]

When I do research, I use [b]reliable[/b] resources and I only quote people who are trustworthy.
Here is one :

[i]The scientific evidence for global warming and for humanity’s role in the increase of greenhouse gasses becomes ever more unimpeachable, as the IPCC findings are going to suggest; and such activity has a profound relevance, not just for the environment, but in ethical, economic, social and political terms as well. The consequences of climate change are being felt not only in the environment, but in the entire socio-economic system and, as seen in the findings of numerous reports already available, they will impact first and foremost the poorest and weakest who, even if they are among the least responsible for global warming, are the most vulnerable because they have limited resources or live in areas at greater risk. We need only think of the SIDS as one example among many. Many of the most vulnerable societies, already facing energy problems, rely upon agriculture, the very sector most likely to suffer from climatic shifts. [/i]

Do you know who said this ?

Edited July 20, 2008 by hérisson

[hérisson]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1603846' date='Jul 20 2008, 08:47 AM']The same people preaching global warming, preach abortion, enslavement of the poor and middle class via welfare, anti-God, anti-Freedom, pro-marxist propaganda.[/quote]

I never heard anyone "preaching" global warming. It's just a matter of recognizing facts.
Among those who do are a great majority of scientists, but also a lot of Christians and even Church reprensetatives.
Accusing them of [i]"preaching abortion, enslavement of the poor and middle class via welfare, anti-God, anti-Freedom, pro-marxist propaganda"[/i] is not only an insult...

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i can give him that he posted this, which is new:

[quote]Solar output been increasing .05% each decade since the 1970's... hence our hot weather, but it's dropping off...[/quote]

even assuming it's true, i'm not sure off hand what conclusions to draw. i'd have to look into it more, as a good objective minded person would do.

still preaching about solar out put even though i posted the study i gave that said solar only accounts at most for a third of the warming.
he did provide that quote though, so superficially.... the answer is that that .5 increase is not enough to be the main reason, the warming.... if both are true, that is.
but, it could be that there's conflicting information on this.
the only objectie response is to look into it more.

he's still preaching about volcanoes, not sure why, given everything i've posted concerning them. the fact that we have twice the CO2 in the atomosphere than we ever have, should at least make a person wonder whether we can indeed do more damage than a volcano,,, again not to mention all the other stuff i've posted on that



that he claims the issue is resolved, is a joke. even after posting hte .5 stat, but especially before it.
i very strongly question the integrity, andor critical thinking ability of iron given what's been said so far, and given that his ultimate argument is merely ad hominem. (maybe he's just busy,,,, i don't know, he is smart, so i'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. he's just making it really really hard to)

Edited July 20, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

that there could be bad scientists out there, cuts both ways.
eg, the hockey stick arguments, earlier,,, shows that someone claiming to be objective minded, can easily be clouded by the simplistic reasoning.
people shouldn't get hung up, on being the little guy fighting the establishment, the consensus, when the consensus is right. it's too easy to fall into thinking that the consensus is generally or often wrong, and so here, it must also be wrong.

the consensus can be right, and looks like it's on the right track here. that's life, deal with it.

EPA etc says man made global warming being teh main reason, is "very likely" to be true.
i don't know what the probability is,,,, but the signs all point to it being hte case.
circumstantial evidence, what would work in a court of law, all adds up.
(of course, thre's still the possibility it's all wrong buuut. )