Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by James Cessna, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    So, has that information "pre-dated" the agenda and where is your proof that there is a world wide conspiracy of scientists that crosses multiple disciplines?

    And do not confuse poor journalism with good science
     
  2. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gald you asked, Bird.

    Here ya go!

    University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes

    Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.

    And there is much more reliable evidence of the radical Left fabricating evidence of so-called “global warming”

    Related Articles


    Scientist at centre of leaked email row stands by his findings
    25 Nov 2009

    Climategate: Phil Jones accused of error of judgment
    03 Dec 2009

    Is climate change debate misleading?
    24 Nov 2009

    Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims
    24 Nov 2009

     
  3. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ha-Ha!

    Me too, Dingo.

    Let's increase our national debt by another trillion dollars so we can all feel good inside while our national economy collapaes around us!

    This liberals and leftists in this group are a very dangerous and a very misinformed group of people.

    They never provide any hard scientific data that supports the theory of global warming. All they can do is provide a chart form NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years.

    I repeat. This is not credible evidence of "global warming". The global surface temperature of the earth increased much more than this during the Medieval Warm period of 900 CE to 1300 CE. As guess what my friends! ... Fossil fuels were not in use during this time and did not contribute to these much larger temperature increases.

    Case closed. Problem solved. Global warming to due to natural processes and has nothing to do with the increases in the trace amounts (280-390 ppm) of CO2 we have seen over the past several decades.
     
  4. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I accept your fail.
     
  5. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, again, you do not want to discuss; just preach your religion and repeat the same dogma over and over. Got it! :frustrated:
     
  6. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I should note most well-respected scientists now believe we will soon be entering a new period of global cooling. We know from satelliite data the surface temperature of the earth has graduallly stopped increasing. The next 5-10 years will tell which group is correct, the naturalists (like myself) or the global "alarmists" (like the leftists and devout liberals in our group).
     
  7. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe you will enjoy the followng discussions.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...ts-we-cant-win-game-so-lets-change-rules.html

     
  8. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Show me the null hypothesis that is rejected which proves CO2 forces global climate.

    SHOW IT!!!!!!!!!!

    You cannot and you still spew. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - A. Lincoln

    My religion is science. Yours is rent seeking and totalitarian edicts usurping liberty.

    Also, shouldn't you go running to the mods about now?
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Unless you can explain what you are talking about it looks like (but not necessarily is) that you do not fully understand what you are saying. So once again I cordially invite you to elucidate upon your points so we may indulge in the banter known as "debate"
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Actually there were loads

    because they had to cross out all the other factors

    What you are in fact asking for is the summation of thousands of research articles - the only place you will find that is the IPCC

    That is, if that is what you are actually asking for

    IF however you are asking for the experimental hypothesis underpinning the research into the absorption spectrum of CO2 - well again we are talking multiple research studies done world wide over the last century and a half at least

    In other words what you are asking is meaningless - it is like asking someone to "prove" every tree in a forest has an exact number of leaves
     
  11. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except for a few minor items you seem to ignore about the jurassic.


    CO2 was about 10 times higher than today, there was 30% more oxygen and the global temperature was at least 6C higher, polar ice caps did not exist, and the continents as we know them had not yet formed. True Mammalian life was yet to evolve.

    Naturally any life existing at that time would be completely adapted to the atmosphere.

    The issue isn't about life flourishing in an atmosphere with higher CO2 content and perhistoric examples of higher trace gas percentages mean absolutely nothing in this debate.
     
    Bowerbird and (deleted member) like this.
  12. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The IPCC is the ultimate dog poop in the ice cream. They have politicized every bit of this issue.

    That you point to them reveals your fraud.
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Bwa ha ha ha ha!

    Thought that would be rejected out of hand

    Now how about we settle on ONE aspect of climate change and settle the science on that hmmmmm?

    Tell you what - let us look under "There is no empirical evidence" and see what we find?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
    The first link take us here

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/20...ry-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

    Here is a sample of the papers on the list

    Is this what you wanted?? Please let me know!
     
  14. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Empirical evidence is still miles away from an overarching test of an important hypothesis that would prove CO2 forces global climate.

    You haven't got it today. If you did, you've have a working global climate model. You do not.

    It's important in life to understand what you do not know. Get back to me when you attain that level.
     
  15. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only the anti-science crowd would consider science a religion. Most real scientists would never make such a statement.

    And I am still waiting for you to state what you would consider to be the null hypothesis and why.

    BTW, You really should learn to stop drawing conclusions without evidence. I did not go running to the mods. You are wrong about AGW and you are wrong about me running to the mods. After you ask a mod, I'll be waiting for your apology. (not that I expect one)
     
  16. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The warmists in this group cannot satisfactorily demonstrate that CO2 is a principal cause of global warming. All they can do is "arm wave" and call people names who don't agree with them!

    This liberals and leftists in this group are a very dangerous and a very misinformed group of people.


    They never provide any hard scientific data that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming. All they can do is provide a chart form NOAA or NASA that shows the global surface temperature of the earth has increased by only 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years.

    I repeat. This is not credible evidence of "global warming". The global surface temperature of the earth increased much more than this during the Medieval Warm period of 1000 CE to 1300 CE. As guess what my friends! ... Fossil fuels were not in use during this time and did not contribute to these much larger temperature increases.

    Case closed. Problem solved. Global warming to due to natural processes and has nothing to do with the increases in the trace amounts (280-390 ppm) of CO2 we have seen over the past several decades.
     
  17. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Followed by asking me to prove a negative. LOL.
    That's all on you. It's your hypothesis. You need to prove it's falsifiable. My bet is you haven't a clue how the process works.
     
    BroncoBilly and (deleted member) like this.
  18. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What negative am I asking you to "prove"?
    I do not have an hypothesis; I have a theory.
    My bet is that you cannot find a blog that states the null hypothesis so you are stuck.

    Did you ask a mod yet as to who reported you? Or are you going to ignore your mistake?
     
  19. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Recycling is driving me nuts! Every other week I commit a crime because I have to put trash in the garbage bin. Where I live the garbage is picked up every week and the trash every two weeks. Simple logic would tell you this is wrong.

    You go to the store and buy groceries. Come home cook them, eat them and deposit the majority of the waste in the toilet. The containers however goes in the trash bin. It fills up in just a few days with shredded paper, newspapers, plastic bottles, boxes and plastic shopping bags. The garbage however is minimal as we don't throw away much food at all.

    Global warming is like garbage and trash...the garbage they feed us ends up as trash when closely inspected...after digestion, there is very little truth to it.
     
  20. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It took a few decades to link smoking to cancer.

    It'll probably take a few decades to link human emissions to climate change.

    There is science that clearly demonstrates that increasing CO2 in a closed environment does increase temperature. There can be no dispute of this.

    As for deniers, it is a counter intuitive position. Logic dictates that dumping billions of tons of CO2 into a closed environment must have an effect over time. Afterall, a closed system has only so much absorption capacity.

    All that remains to be proven is to what extent human carbon emissions contribute to climate change.

    For deniers to dismiss all the science done in this area, particularly when they don't have much grasp of the science in the first place is the equivalent of believing that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries. Can't shake faith with science no how.
     
  21. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These discussions were very good.

    The "alarmists" simple cannot bring themselves to truthfully admit their flawed theory of man-made global warming is demonstratively wrong!

     
    Subdermal and (deleted member) like this.
  22. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very good, bclark.

    "Global warming" is a religion to the far-Left "warmists" in this group.

    In their minds, to question the tenants of "global warming" is to question the oracles of the "Ten Commandments" given to Moses by God.
     
  23. Subdermal

    Subdermal Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    12,185
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fallacy of Composition.

    We do not have a closed environment; it is affected by cosmic rays and the output from the sun, as well as gravitational pull of the moon - and possibly other things we have not yet considered.

    False Dichotomy - based upon a false premise.

    Yeah. That's a big one. Of course, the AGW acolytes keep insisting that the science is settled.

    I don't see dismissal; I see dissenting opinions which carry weight. I see major arguments and stark disagreements over the conclusions being drawn, and I see credible scientists on both sides.

    But one side makes more sense to me.
     
  24. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are indeed correct, Subdermal.

    There have been many instances in the earth's geologic past where the an increase in the earth's global temperature came first and this event was later followed by an increase in rising CO2 levels.

    If the "warmists" in our group would do a little research, they would know this statement is true and it has been proven true time and time again.
     
  25. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are mistaken, Jonsa.

    You have been duped and carefully led down a path by well-connected corporatists and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and very misguided energy policies promulgated by the Obama administration.

    "When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect.

    Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions.

    The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

    And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed corporatists to convince them that in accepting the unproven view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence, righteousness and virtue. Instead, they are changing our national energy policy for the benefit of corporations and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and perhaps misguided policies [promulgated by the Obama administration].

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100072360/warmists-we-cant-win-the-game-so-lets-change-the-rules."
     

Share This Page