Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Do people reject Climate Change because ¨Liberals¨ are behind the research?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by iAWESOME, Feb 16, 2014.

Page 3 of 18
  1. Burz

    Burz New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,991
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes it is. Venus is a meteor.
     
    Burz, Feb 17, 2014
    #51
  2. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Although Earth's climate is almost entirely determined by factors quite apart from the contributions of living organisims, all living organisms do contribute something to climate. Some contribute much more significantly than do humans and our activities; two that come to mind are algae and bacteria. Insects contribute much more to 'greenhouse' gases than do human activies. It's am matter of scale.

    Anthrogenic-catastrophic-global climate change is an anthropocentric arrogance. We're simply not all that.

    The 'science' behind anthropocentric-catastrophic-global climate change is so transparently false that only those with with an inflated sense of self can't see right through it. A.-C.-G. climate change appeals to human ego even though it is an offense to logic. Some serve ego. Some serve logic. I choose logic.

    The emporer has no clothes!
     
    bricklayer, Feb 17, 2014
    #52
  3. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,669
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bluespade, Feb 17, 2014
    #53
  4. Riot

    Riot New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,637
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As soon as I see the president making changes in his personal life then I will consider it. He doesn't think it's a real threat so why should I?
     
    Riot, Feb 17, 2014
    #54
  5. Bear513

    Bear513 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bear513, Feb 17, 2014
    #55
  6. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We don't speak with posters who only come on during recess.
     
    Subdermal, Feb 17, 2014
    #56
  7. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,669
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Forgot, better go get the pitchfork and torch.
     
    Bluespade, Feb 17, 2014
    #57
  8. Theodelite

    Theodelite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    494
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Dead wrong. There was never 'scientific consensus' on global cooling. Somebody speculated about a possible coming ice age and popular magazines and other sensationalist media ran with it. Most scientists who were asked about it laughed heartily. For those who are not old enough to remember it, here is a link that might help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling


    No. Cigarette companies knew for many years about the adverse effects of tobacco, and fought to prevent the information from becoming public. They concealed the truth while they pushed cigarettes to teenagers. They are continuing this practice in third world countries. They deserve all the blame that can be given them. They deserve to be sued into oblivion.
     
    Theodelite, Feb 17, 2014
    #58
  9. Bear513

    Bear513 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yea I forgot we all are children of the corn
     
    Bear513, Feb 17, 2014
    #59
  10. Bear513

    Bear513 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any one who links from Wikipedia there debate is mute
    Just saying
     
    Bear513, Feb 17, 2014
    #60
  11. Burz

    Burz New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    2,991
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    iT IS ALSO A METEOR
     
    Burz, Feb 17, 2014
    #61
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,013
    Likes Received:
    3,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It makes perfect sense answer it or you prove that you know nothing of chemistry and your claims of high school level facts are false.

    What happens to all of that CO2 gas in the atmosphere?
     
    Soupnazi, Feb 17, 2014
    #62
  13. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,013
    Likes Received:
    3,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They accomplished nothing and did nothing.

    The alarmists told us it was too late to save anything anyways just as they always do with climate change only to see the earth go on doing the same old thing with no environmental catsotrophe such as the prediction by many alarmists ( including Gore ) that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2013. Yes he stated exactly that prediction in his film and it was based on exact statements by many leading " climatologists".

    The EPA did not DEAL with Acid rain they only increased regulation which handicapped and raised taxes on the little guy while ignoring the big polluters who although doing environmental damage were not causing acid rain because acid rain was a farce.

    - - - Updated - - -

    No it is a planet there is a difference
     
    Soupnazi, Feb 17, 2014
    #63
  14. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,669
    Likes Received:
    2,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/

    This is very debatable. Please tell me the exact quantum mechanic which allows CO2 to store infrared energy. Anfd while we are at it, have you ever heard of the concept of limits? Let's say there is a single CO2 atom in the entire atmosphere. How much infrared energy will it store? None is the correct answer. Suppose we double, triple and quadruple the amount of CO2. Are we still going to have no IR energy stored in by atmospheric CO2? Of course. There is an eventual point where CO2 may be able to store IR energy, but until that point is reached, then your statement that a higher percentage of CO2 will trap more heat is just wrong.

    We do know that CO2 will eventually begin to store radiated infrared energy, but what is the point where physicists have been able to store IR energy in a lab? Is it anywhere near the less than 400 parts per million which is currently in the atmosphere?

    http://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/

    But how does the CO2 levels today compare to past levels? Peer reviewed studies show that with a similar climate as we have today, the earth had five to twenty times the CO2 concentrations we have now.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/uol-aae080910.php

    How can this happen? You just told us that you add more CO2, you get more heat. Clearly the relationship to CO2 and the Earth's temperature is much more tenuous than you and the acolytes of Church of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change infer.

    So the science is not so simple that any grade schooler can decipher. To pretend otherwise is disingenius. The earth is a tremendously complex and intrarelated system and statements like 'Add more CO2, get more heat' are way too simplistic to even grasp the nature of the problem.
     
    Lee S, Feb 17, 2014
    #64
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,013
    Likes Received:
    3,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming either.

    No one fought to prevent any such knowledge about tobaccoe as you claim it was known decades ago that smoking was bad for you.
     
    Soupnazi, Feb 17, 2014
    #65
  16. A Canadian

    A Canadian New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We all use our own facts, I guess
     
    A Canadian, Feb 17, 2014
    #66
  17. Bluespade

    Bluespade Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    15,669
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No.
    A metor or shooting star is a visible streak of light from a meter
    oid or micrometeroid heated and glowing from entering Earth's atmosphere as it sheds material in it's wake.
     
    Bluespade, Feb 17, 2014
    #67
  18. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's wonderful to see liberals playing so fast and loose with historical record. Hell: since liberals play so recklessly with the 'agreed upon' science of AGW, who is surprised when they kick it into gear when it is no longer politically convenient to laud AGC? After all, the whole idea of global cooling was just an outlier, right?

    But wait. How much was being said about global cooling at the time? More importantly: are they trying it again? Do you really think we're going to believe people like you now? With your track record?

    Here's the funny. You act as though 'the sensationalist media' is an entity separate from this PAC. Ha. The 'sensationalist media' is your mouthpiece. You cannot divorce one from the other; there are honest scientists who publish research and then object when their work becomes warped and manipulated and proclaimed as part of a conclusion with which they cannot agree, and thus it is the AGW - or AGC - machine that eats. Just how much do you think any of us would worry about AGW scaremongering without a complicit media?

    Just how much do you think we'd even concern ourselves with the battiness of liberalism if the media wasn't your lapdog??

    It's comedic that "Climatology" both creates such a tangled ball of yarn with which the media kitty plays, and nicely provides itself so many 'loose ends' that can be pulled to in retrospect claim things like "well, we WARNED you that 'anything could happen'; man has so drastically altered the environment"...don'tchaknow.

    :roll:

    Look at this gem from skepticalscience.com:

    Convenient!

    In fact...I wonder what eventual outcome couldn't be fully explained with this sort of prosaic masturbation. I can't produce one.

    Knock me over with a feather. Inhaling smoke is bad for you. Holy cripes. Stop the presses.

    Here's a hint for personal responsibility allergic liberals: if you couldn't figure out that inhaling smoke is bad for you, you deserve to die a horrible cancerous death. That, btw, also goes for marijuana, which you've been fully tickled to push through - showing just exactly how bad you REALLY feel about inhaling.

    :roll:
     
    Subdermal, Feb 17, 2014
    #68
  19. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For anyone who thinks for a second that the AGC machine wasn't in full swing in the 1970's, you need only consult with the CIA on it, courtesy of WattsUpWithThat.
     
    Subdermal, Feb 17, 2014
    #69
  20. TRFjr

    TRFjr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    17,331
    Likes Received:
    8,800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no one is denying the earth is warming it is part of an ongoing cycle for billions of years. what the argument is is man causing it even though it has happen time after time over and over again without man
     
    TRFjr, Feb 17, 2014
    #70
  21. Bear513

    Bear513 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have a study planet, with no humans on it? Or just upset?
     
    Bear513, Feb 17, 2014
    #71
  22. Troianii

    Troianii Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    Messages:
    13,464
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ^_- because scientists can't isolate variables? :wall:
     
    Troianii, Feb 17, 2014
    #72
  23. Bear513

    Bear513 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientists can not even perdict next weeks weather.

    Who you trying to fool?
     
    Bear513, Feb 17, 2014
    #73
  24. Bear513

    Bear513 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can never win in this debate because as a species we are way to young.

    It is what it is.

    Way to much to learn.
     
    Bear513, Feb 17, 2014
    #74
  25. Riot

    Riot New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    7,637
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Riot, Feb 17, 2014
    #75
Page 3 of 18

Share This Page