[URL]http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613[/URL]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

it's nice to see you could dig up the one in a thousand scientists who disagree with global warming, while ignoring the other 999 :roll:

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

I never really understand the people that pump this stuff out there so triumphantly -- like virtually every single comment posted under that article -- about the absence of global warming. Assume that virtually every scientist in the world is wrong, and we take steps to reduce our carbon emissions, conserve energy, etc. without needing to. Would that be so bad? Do we really have to wait for the planet to be in crisis before we act? Can't we try to live greener just because?

With no disrespect to the people of Los Angeles, I am really disgusted every time I fly into LA to see that cloud of smog that hangs over an otherwise beautiful city. I'm an urban guy, but I love going to the mountains, beaches, lakes, rivers, etc. to take in nature. I'm no tree hugger, but I'd rather have beautiful natural environments to visit than not. There are reasons to try to live cleaner lives that have nothing to do with Al Gore.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

And an emeritus professor in my hometown no less...

I'm so ashamed.

*edit - I should add that pretty much the [I]entire[/I] climatology faculty at the UW has come out and said "He's a respected researcher, [B]but...[/B]"

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=toasty;501355]I never really understand the people that pump this stuff out there so triumphantly -- like virtually every single comment posted under that article -- about the absence of global warming. Assume that virtually every scientist in the world is wrong, and we take steps to reduce our carbon emissions, conserve energy, etc. without needing to. Would that be so bad? Do we really have to wait for the planet to be in crisis before we act? Can't we try to live greener just because?

With no disrespect to the people of Los Angeles, I am really disgusted every time I fly into LA to see that cloud of smog that hangs over an otherwise beautiful city. I'm an urban guy, but I love going to the mountains, beaches, lakes, rivers, etc. to take in nature. I'm no tree hugger, but I'd rather have beautiful natural environments to visit than not. There are reasons to try to live cleaner lives that have nothing to do with Al Gore.[/QUOTE] well said...I had the exact same thoughts after I'd read the article. What's the harm? Couldn't it help with something irrespective of climate change?

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

That is the common argument from the global warming crowd: that we (the non-believers) can always dig up just '1', while the [I]remaining gazillion[/I] agree that global warming is manmade.

I have yet to see a list of the global warming scientists that actually believe that we are creating this catastrophe, versus a list of scientists who actually disagree.

That is all that I hear: There is an overwhelming consensus. But it is utter nonsense. The believers just say that to keep convincing themselves, as if it were etched in stone.

But every single day I see new reports from scientists saying that it is not manmade, and that Mars and Venus are experiencing the same warming patterns.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=cosmo;501362] That is all that I hear: There is an overwhelming consensus. But it is utter nonsense. The believers just say that to keep convincing themselves, as if it were etched in stone. [/QUOTE]

If you're having a difficult time finding any reports from scientists who think that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, I'm not really sure what to tell you. Perhaps stepping outside of the right-wing echo chamber would be a good place to start. When Hannity, Rush, Savage, et al keep referring to the same study over and over again and denying the existence of anything to the contrary, it probably does seem like there is a drumbeat of support for even the most preposterous notions...

[QUOTE=cosmo;501362] I have yet to see a list of the global warming scientists that actually believe that we are creating this catastrophe, versus a list of scientists who actually disagree. [/QUOTE]

Gotta call bullshit on this tactic as well. Ask for something you know doesn't exist, and use the failure of anyone to provide it as evidence that you must be right. So, without further ado...

[IMG]http://www.wayodd.com/funny-pictures2/funny-pictures-really-weird-cat-13o.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote]I'm pretty sure we all know the earth is heating up due to the buildup of hatred (promoted primarily by the liberal elite). it's similar to the plot of ghostbusters 2, where it is all [I]truly[/I] explained.[/quote]

Higher and Hiiigher!

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

consensus proves nothing in science.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=88Mariner;501384]consensus proves nothing in science.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on that, but you know at some point, the bounds of reason need to creep into the equation. If an overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes that something is happening, I'm not sure it's rational to ignore that and latch instead onto a handful of dissenters. It's like those clowns that point to shortcomings of carbon-dating to prove that the Bible's timeline of the creation of the universe is accurate. At some point, you have to step back and say, "OK, I understand that this might not be 100%, but where are the facts most likely to come down?"

I haven't been able to figure out how this became such a politicized issue. We all share the same planet, and in the cost-benefit analysis, it seems like a good idea to try to preserve it, regardless of whether we are, in fact, causing global warming.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

An interesting side-note (at least interesting to me) apropos of my previous comment: I used to take a pretty dim view of global warming, as you can tell from some of my posts on the topic from a couple of years ago. Over time, though, evidence has continued to develop and at some point, you just can't ignore it any more. You just can't. I'm still open to the idea that I'm wrong about it and this is all just part of the natural cycle of things, but there is too much evidence to just pretend there's nothing noteworthy going on.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote=toasty;501386] If an overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes that something is happening, [/quote]

pre age of discovery- "[B]the earth is flat[/B]!!"

[quote]I'm not sure it's rational to ignore that and latch instead onto a handful of dissenters. [/quote][B]

^[/B]Christopher Columbus. I'm just sayin...

:Cheerz:

i'm with you on the global warming thing tho, and agree wholeheartedly with your post above.

i don't really give a shit if global warming is happening or not, living a little more green and making less of a footprint can't be a bad idea. i'm in.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

it's all just a matter of opinion at this point. none of you guys know if that scientist is right or not.

that said, sure it's always a good idea to produce less pollution.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

who is to say that our current climate is the most ideal climate anyways?

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=88Mariner;501413]who is to say that our current climate is the most ideal climate anyways?[/QUOTE]

If you believe the doomsday scenario, it would be the people that live from 0-10 feet above sea level. ;)

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

comparing mars and venus with earth is real intelligent, since obviously they have the same climate conditions, amount of water and o2 and ability to support life that we do ;p

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=88Mariner;501413]who is to say that our current climate is the most ideal climate anyways?[/QUOTE] who is to say it isn't? But it is working, so why must we f^*k with it?

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote=karaquazian;501482]comparing mars and venus with earth is real intelligent, since obviously they have the same climate conditions, amount of water and o2 and ability to support life that we do ;p[/quote]

Apparently you do not have the intelligence to understand what I was saying: The warming patterns on Venus and Mars are the same as what is happening here on Earth. Hence the huge numbers of scientists that are coming out by the day saying the same thing: sunspots are at their highest levels, and that it's a solar cycle.

Not manmade.

We can all agree that pollution is rising among the highly populated areas on this planet. It's just not affecting our climate being that manmade CO2 is at a whopping 3-5%.

All of the scientists with courage that are coming out against the global warming mafia say the same thing: It's all about the bling $$$.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

@ cosmo: what exactly is the downside of reducing pollution and carbon emissions? Even if you think global warming is BS, there are a thousand other reasons to look into alternative energy sources. Among other things, wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell the Mid-East that we don't need them anymore?

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=cosmo;501645]We can all agree that pollution is rising among the highly populated areas on this planet. It's just not affecting our climate being that manmade CO2 is at a whopping 3-5%.[/QUOTE] Ok, so even if I agree it's not affecting our climate, it is unquestionably affecting our air quality. Have you ever been to Los Angeles? The air is almost thick enough with pollution to take a bite out of. So why not do something about the air quality, even if it has nothing to do with climate?

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote=toasty;501379]If you're having a difficult time finding any reports from scientists who think that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, I'm not really sure what to tell you. Perhaps stepping outside of the right-wing echo chamber would be a good place to start. When Hannity, Rush, Savage, et al keep referring to the same study over and over again and denying the existence of anything to the contrary, it probably does seem like there is a drumbeat of support for even the most preposterous notions...

Gotta call bullshit on this tactic as well. Ask for something you know doesn't exist, and use the failure of anyone to provide it as evidence that you must be right. So, without further ado... [/quote]

So in a nutshell, I'm an idiot who listens to misinformation from talk show hosts?

Nice.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

3 to 5 percent of what? The gasses which interact with infrared radiation and thus cause the greenhouse effect (which is clearly demonstrable whether or not you believe in global warming) make up only a single percent of the Earth's atmosphere, yet they are responsible for an average surface temp difference of 20-30 degrees celsius. From the time that humans have walked the Earth up until the dawn of the industrial age, CO2 had never had a higher atmospheric concentration than 280 parts per million, yet now it has reached 380 ppm, and continues to rise by about 2-4 ppm anually. The reason CO2 is a focal point of the debate is the length of its stay in the atmosphere is much greater than that of water vapor, which also disperses heat through scattered cloud covering.

But others here have raised excellent points. Just as deterrence is not sufficient reason to impose the death penalty, uncertainty about global warming doesn't justify the 'Phoenix brown cloud' getting any thicker. We also have to think about air and water quality, as well as the impact our relentless consumption is having on biodiversity. Limiting our impact on the ecosystem just makes sense, no particular scientific validation necessary.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=cosmo;501674]So in a nutshell, I'm an idiot who listens to misinformation from talk show hosts?

Nice.[/QUOTE]

I don't see the part where I called you an idiot, but if listening to right-wing talk makes you feel like an idiot, far be it for me to disagree. :lol:

In all seriousness, I do find it hard to believe that you could be getting information from a variety of diverse sources yet be totally unfamiliar with the idea that lots of real scientists believe in global warming and think we are the cause. You may think they're wrong, but the fact that they are out there is beyond serious dispute. The only possible explanation is that you're getting all of your information from a single source (BTW, the Fox News/Rush/Drudge/etc Echo Chamber counts as one source) or ignoring anything you hear to the contrary.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote=WaveSculptor;501683]3 to 5 percent of what? The gasses which interact with infrared radiation and thus cause the greenhouse effect (which is clearly demonstrable whether or not you believe in global warming) make up only a single percent of the Earth's atmosphere, yet they are responsible for an average surface temp difference of 20-30 degrees celsius. From the time that humans have walked the Earth up until the dawn of the industrial age, CO2 had never had a higher atmospheric concentration than 280 parts per million, yet now it has reached 380 ppm, and continues to rise by about 2-4 ppm anually. [B]The reason CO2 is a focal point of the debate is the length of its stay in the atmosphere is much greater than that of water vapor, which also disperses heat through scattered cloud covering.[/B]

But others here have raised excellent points. Just as deterrence is not sufficient reason to impose the death penalty, uncertainty about global warming doesn't justify the 'Phoenix brown cloud' getting any thicker. We also have to think about air and water quality, as well as the impact our relentless consumption is having on biodiversity. Limiting our impact on the ecosystem just makes sense, no particular scientific validation necessary.[/quote]

[SIZE=2]What do you mean 3-5% of what?! You are supposed to be an expert on global warming, but all you seem to come up with is the simple description of what greenhouse gases are! WATER VAPOR constitutes for 95% of Earth's greenhouse gases. The remaining factor is said to come from man. NASA stated in their report that in the last 18+ years, no discernable warming trends took place.

So, according to the Global Warming hysterics all of this warming took place within a window of 30 years, being that their argument has been that all of the warming took place over the last half century. And that window was at the beginning of the last half century. [/SIZE] There are many other holes in their theories, but this is just one of the ones that I could think of off the top of my head.

And your rise in the 280 to 380 per million is nil. That is NOTHING. [SIZE=2]Water vapor is up to 400,000 parts per million, thus proving how prominent water vapor is compared to CO2. CO2 is up to 370 parts per million, not 380. Divide that by a million. That comes up to close to zero. The small change, from 280 to 370, is virtually nothing at all. I do not even know why they use that factor to further their hollow arguments. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]It's nothing. [/SIZE]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=cosmo;501816] And your rise in the 280 to 380 per million is nil. That is NOTHING. [SIZE=2]Water vapor is up to 400,000 parts per million, thus proving how prominent water vapor is compared to CO2. CO2 is up to 370 parts per million, not 380. Divide that by a million. That comes up to close to zero. The small change, from 280 to 370, is virtually nothing at all. [B]I do not even know why they use that factor to further their hollow arguments.[/B] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]It's nothing. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Dude, PPM is a unit of measure that is used when very small amounts of a substance can be very significant. Think 370 ppm is so close to zero that it's "nothing?" Water that is contaminated with .01 ppm of arsenic is considered unsafe to drink, but that's even less than nothing, right? What do you think happens when you drink a glass that is 370 ppm?

The moral of the story: when someone is describing something in ppm, it does not mean that it should be ignored. Quite the contrary.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote=toasty;501906]Dude, PPM is a unit of measure that is used when very small amounts of a substance can be very significant. Think 370 ppm is so close to zero that it's "nothing?" Water that is contaminated with .01 ppm of arsenic is considered unsafe to drink, but that's even less than nothing, right? What do you think happens when you drink a glass that is 370 ppm?

The moral of the story: when someone is describing something in ppm, it does not mean that it should be ignored. Quite the contrary.[/quote]

[SIZE=2]The abbreviated term ppm = parts per million. So if you divide 370 by a million, you get .00037. And if it is up from 280 it used to be .00027. So the change is what I have been calling nothing: .0001. That is zero.

You can't simply argue that we are the source of the warming being that we make up a small fraction of the greenhouse gases to begin with. That is why scientists are now coming out after all of the Global Warming hysteria to argue that, being that we have been seeing higher sunspot activity over time, the common conclusion is that it is the sunspot activity rather than it being manmade. I can pull up several recent articles citing their arguments as such.

But I guess these scientists are a small minority versus the 'overwhelming consensus' that I always hear about. [/SIZE]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote=cosmo;501816][SIZE=2]What do you mean 3-5% of what?! You are supposed to be an expert on global warming, but all you seem to come up with is the simple description of what greenhouse gases are! WATER VAPOR constitutes for 95% of Earth's greenhouse gases. The remaining factor is said to come from man. NASA stated in their report that in the last 18+ years, no discernable warming trends took place. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]So, according to the Global Warming hysterics all of this warming took place within a window of 30 years, being that their argument has been that all of the warming took place over the last half century. And that window was at the beginning of the last half century.[/SIZE]

There are many other holes in their theories, but this is just one of the ones that I could think of off the top of my head.

And your rise in the 280 to 380 per million is nil. That is NOTHING. [SIZE=2]Water vapor is up to 400,000 parts per million, thus proving how prominent water vapor is compared to CO2. CO2 is up to 370 parts per million, not 380. Divide that by a million. That comes up to close to zero. The small change, from 280 to 370, is virtually nothing at all. I do not even know why they use that factor to further their hollow arguments. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]It's nothing.[/SIZE] [/quote]

1. At no point did I claim authority on the subject, but I can certainly claim the advantage of being able to listen and critically evaluate all sides of the argument, rather than address only those points to which I have a cookie cutter rebuttal locked and loaded.

2. By what I've read, water vapour could only account for 90% of the greenhouse effect if it were purely concentrated, which it isn't. I'll say again that it has a counter-effect of dispersing heat through scattered cloud cover, which CO2 does not.

3. A molecule of Water Vapor remains in the atmosphere an average of 10 days before condensing. Compare that to the average atmospheric lifespan of a CO2 molecule (200-400 years) which must be reabsorbed photosynthetically, and you might begin to understand why parts per million is a significant measurement. That is, if Toasty's arsenic analogy was too concise.

4. I can't help but notice you don't provide a link to said NASA report, which I'd love to read. In the meantime, here is a link to an interview with a NASA climatologist who directly contradicts what you claim the report says. He also debunks the sunspot theory, saying the last period of intense solar activity was in the 50s iirc. [URL="http://www.twis.org/audio/2007/04/24/"][COLOR=deepskyblue]http://www.twis.org/audio/2007/04/24/[/COLOR][/URL]

5. The industrial revolution extends back 200 years, not 30. There has been a visible trend of rising CO2 concentrations for the past 150 years, which has greatly intensified over the past half century.

6. There are holes in every theory. It is much more difficult to confirm than disconfirm, but hey, why make an informed decision when you can just form an opinion?

7. CO2 was measured at 370 ppm around 2000. I humbly submit that it is closer to 390 now, as the rate of increase has been relatively constant for the past 50 years. I chose 380 to be on the safe side.

8. If the factor was insignificant, it couldn't further the argument. Ever hear of scientific notation? That's how we keep track of influential statistics on the scales of the very large and the very tiny. What you don't know can hurt me, so give it some more thought. I assure you I will too.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

:BangHead:

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

X 1000000000000

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

i have read the same message on this thread 15 times put in 16 different posts.................... does that make sense? probably not. get my point? make a poll imo.

ride your bicycle!!

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=cosmo;502693][SIZE=2]The abbreviated term ppm = parts per million. So if you divide 370 by a million, you get .00037. And if it is up from 280 it used to be .00027. So the change is what I have been calling nothing: .0001. That is zero.

You can't simply argue that we are the source of the warming being that we make up a small fraction of the greenhouse gases to begin with. That is why scientists are now coming out after all of the Global Warming hysteria to argue that, being that we have been seeing higher sunspot activity over time, the common conclusion is that it is the sunspot activity rather than it being manmade. I can pull up several recent articles citing their arguments as such.

But I guess these scientists are a small minority versus the 'overwhelming consensus' that I always hear about. [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://weirdpicturearchive.com/img/truehotdog.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[IMG]http://www.madfam.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10060/normal_1157796863351ef0.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2S5OGS-g9g&NR=1[/URL]

You can watch all 8 parts.

There are both NASA and IPCC experts in the film.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=cosmo;503130] You can watch all 8 parts.

There are both NASA and IPCC experts in the film.[/QUOTE]

Really? Golly!!! :Nice:

I have to hand it to you, dude, this thread is fascinating -- not the content, but the amount of effort you've put into tracking down the smattering of opposing viewpoints on this issue to make it seem like you're not just making shit up. How much effort have you put into this thread so far? And isn't the end result of your argument that we pollute more, we take worse care of the earth, and we keep on keepin' on with this whole oil thing? I just do not see the outrage at the suggestion that perhaps we ought to reduce our carbon emissions and live cleaner lives, regardless of the reasons. Also, I've said it a number of times before, but it bears repeating -- there are plenty of reasons to look into alternatives to oil that have nothing to do with global warming.

Are so blinded by ideology that you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot to avoid doing something at Al Gore's suggestion?

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

^I repeat.... :BangHead:

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=rubyraks;503186]^I repeat.... :BangHead:[/QUOTE]

I know, but:

[IMG]http://sithoughts.mu.nu/archives/trainwreck.jpg[/IMG]

can't ... look ... away...

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

Did any of you debaters catch this post? [URL]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showpost.php?p=490661&postcount=76[/URL]

That said, I don't give a hoot whether global warming is real or not: we still need to invest in renewable energy and cleaner technology. Why? We're going to run out of oil by 2050, less dependance of oil and gas mean less political power for the OPEC and Russia, less energy use means lower bills for yourself and let's not forget the pollution our lifestyle causes. Really, this problem is beyond CO2. If you're too dumb to understand, keep on ignoring the future, maybe it'll go away...

Really, people who say nothings wrong and we can all keep on living like little happy consumers are either too ignorant to live or too lazy to alter their consumption pattern. People who think that living ecologically means cutting back on comfort belong to the category of retards above.

Really, why is it that we laugh at obese people? I mean hello, they endanger their health because they "don't want to give up their burgers" or "are too damn lazy to work out". Well, people who consume without using their brain are just alike... Think about it.

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote]Really? Golly!!!

I have to hand it to you, dude, this thread is fascinating -- not the content, but the amount of effort you've put into tracking down the smattering of opposing viewpoints on this issue to make it seem like you're not just making shit up. How much effort have you put into this thread so far? And isn't the end result of your argument that we pollute more, we take worse care of the earth, and we keep on keepin' on with this whole oil thing? I just do not see the outrage at the suggestion that perhaps we ought to reduce our carbon emissions and live cleaner lives, regardless of the reasons. Also, I've said it a number of times before, but it bears repeating -- there are plenty of reasons to look into alternatives to oil that have nothing to do with global warming.

Are so blinded by ideology that you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot to avoid doing something at Al Gore's suggestion?[/quote]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]The link that I posted, with all 8 segments, produces no ideology whatsoever. It provides rebuttals to the global warming supporters claims. And rather than going through all two hours in order to write or type down ALL of the pertinent information, I thought I would let you see for yourself. It's a no-win situation. It's unbelievable. I provide arguments early in the debate, then I am asked where I found my information. Then when I provide the link to one of the most informative links from the scientific standpoint to rebut the warming claims, I am bitched at for not giving my own thoughts, when I have done just that earlier on. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]But, lets ask how much you have given thus far. So far, I have seen nothing more than personal attacks and endless, pointless diatribes. Nothing debateworthy. Nothing useful. Not to mention the childish pictures of cats pleasing themselves too. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Humans contribute 6? gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere. As stated in the film, animals and bacteria produce 150 gigatons. Twenty five times more than humans. This alone shows how miniscule of an effect that us humans have on the climate.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]More noteworthy are the data that they put forward: the tracking of sunspots over the past several hundred years. As sunspots increase, the temperature starts to rise steadily over a long period of time. As the temperature rises, the co2 starts to rise with it. So we've found that the co2 increases as the temperature rises. Not the other way around (ie. co2 being the factor for the temperature increase). [/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]The conclusion is that the sun is the primary factor at work. And the scientists produce evidence to support these claims. As one of the scientists says on the film: It's crazy to point to one small factor (manmade co2) when there are many other factors throughout nature working in unison causing the Earth to warm. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Focusing on one small aspect, human contribution, is quite naive. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Toasty, a scientist pointed out that people like to call co2 a pollutant. But we need co2 to live. All living things need co2 to survive. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[QUOTE=cosmo;503489] [SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]But, lets ask how much you have given thus far. So far, I have seen nothing more than personal attacks and endless, pointless diatribes. Nothing debateworthy. Nothing useful. Not to mention the childish pictures of cats pleasing themselves too. [/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

Fight absurdity with absurdity, I say. As I indicated in [URL="http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43155"]this thread[/URL], it is high time that rational people stopped legitimizing preposterous positions by taking the bait and debating them as if they were worthy of serious consideration. The Bush Noise Machine relies upon the idea that if you repeat something enough, people will eventually believe it must be credible regardless of whether or not there is any basis in fact. For example, some people (probably including you) still honestly believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 -- notwithstanding that not even Bush makes that claim anymore.

It's ridiculous, it hurts the process, and I'm not going to participate in it anymore. Instead, ludicrous arguments will be responded to in kind:

[IMG]http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/cat-had-a-rough-night.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[quote=cosmo;503489][SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]But, lets ask how much you have given thus far. So far, I have seen nothing more than personal attacks and endless, pointless diatribes. Nothing debateworthy. Nothing useful. Not to mention the childish pictures of cats pleasing themselves too.

[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Humans contribute 6? gigatons of co2 into the atmosphere. As stated in the film, animals and bacteria produce 150 gigatons. Twenty five times more than humans. This alone shows how miniscule of an effect that us humans have on the climate.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]More noteworthy are the data that they put forward: the tracking of sunspots over the past several hundred years. As sunspots increase, the temperature starts to rise steadily over a long period of time. As the temperature rises, the co2 starts to rise with it. So we've found that the co2 increases as the temperature rises. Not the other way around (ie. co2 being the factor for the temperature increase). [/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]The conclusion is that the sun is the primary factor at work. And the scientists produce evidence to support these claims. As one of the scientists says on the film: It's crazy to point to one small factor (manmade co2) when there are many other factors throughout nature working in unison causing the Earth to warm. [/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Focusing on one small aspect, human contribution, is quite naive. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Arial]Toasty, a scientist pointed out that people like to call co2 a pollutant. But we need co2 to live. All living things need co2 to survive. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.[/FONT][/SIZE][/quote]So basicly you're saying we should all relax because CO2 is "not a pollutant"? You haven't read the post just above yours.