Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Just for general information here, the CO2 content of Venus is 965,000 parts per million (96.5%). One might infer that the hellish temperatures on Venus are partly due to its high CO2 and also its closer location to the Sun than Earth.

Meanwhile, the public on Earth is alarmed by CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere at 500 parts per million (0.05%). The debate about anthropogenic global warming has to do with whether an increase from 0.035 % CO2 in 1940 to now something around 0.05% has any impact upon global climate. So the debate is about 0.015% additional CO2 over more than half-a-century..... I would call that debate ridiculous.

Of all the darn things to worry about ( hunger, disease, water shortages, inflation, energy costs, war, population growth, poverty, terrorism, etc. ) this has to be the most ridiculous worry I have ever seen in my life.... Yet, Al Gore won a nobel prize alarming the world about CO2 in the atmosphere!:rolleyes:

Now anthropogenic global warming is determined by governments to be "a settled issue", and cap-'n-trade legislation has been enacted in many countries. How ridiculous can this get? And no mind that CO2 is a natural gas on Earth, and CO2 is used by plants to live on this planet; without CO2, plants would perish.

What one has to ask: What are teachers teaching in public schools if the public is this dumb and can not reason this silly issue out? Even in colleges, the students can not reason this issue out; why is that? The numbers really do speak for themselves: 0.015% over 60 years is a darn small increase in CO2 in absolute terms, not to mention that CO2 is required for most life on Earth.

Oh yes, the hockey-stick possibility: Temps could go off and do the hockey-stick thingy...... But they don't. And Earth had much higher CO2 levels in its past complete with Ice Ages. CO2 does NOT have a hockey-stick thingy on this planet at anywhere near its current concentration in the atmosphere.

Finally, for the children here who might be reading this, an increase in CO2 to 0.05% from 0.035% in 1940 does represent a large percentage increase (43%). But the significance is near zero--- just as having a penny in your pocket and finding another penny on the ground would add 100% to your pocket change. (In percentage terms, you have done well indeed, but your actual gain is just one cent.)

[jiimbergin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Are you serious?:rolleyes::confused: I had not heard that one before, Al gore or his PR machine is taking credit for the internet, plausible deniability I suppose like the Bush Al Queda links to Iraq. I did not say it, have no idea how that rumor got started, but hey if helped bolster my credibility and my position, great.

Or do you believe the Al Queda piece of nonsense too? - no one person is responsible for the internet - and I would say least of Al Gore, in case your comment was not sarcasm, here is a brief article trying to trace the development of the internet.

http://www.nethistory.info/History%2...t/origins.html

Guess what you are being lied to ALL the time - it is one of the great challenges we face as a society, when our information sources have become this polluted - people do not know where to turn for reliable information - hence the constant debates, regarding the economy, AGW etc. and more and more people turning to alternative information sources, many of which are as bad or worse then the crap in the MSM when fraud becomes systemically embedded in societal structures, as one poster put it, Rome burns.

The actual quote in 1999 is "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

here is a link http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/goreinternet.htm

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Al Gore also invented the Internet. The Internet still turned out to be a big sucess in human progress.

Are you serious?:rolleyes::confused: I had not heard that one before, Al gore or his PR machine is taking credit for the internet, plausible deniability, I suppose like the war justification of Al Queda links to Iraq. I did not say it, have no idea how that rumor got started, but hey if helped bolster my credibility and my position, great.

Or do you believe the Al Queda piece of nonsense too? - no one person is responsible for the internet - and I would say least of Al Gore, in case your comment was not sarcasm, here is a brief article trying to trace the development of the internet.

http://www.nethistory.info/History%2...t/origins.html

Guess what you are being lied to ALL the time - it is one of the great challenges we face as a society, when our information sources have become this polluted - people do not know where to turn for reliable information - hence the constant debates, regarding the economy, AGW etc. and more and more people turning to alternative information sources, many of which are as bad or worse then the crap in the MSM when fraud becomes systemically embedded in societal structures, as one poster put it, Rome burns.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Al Gore also invented the Internet. The Internet still turned out to be a big sucess in human progress.

What has Al Gore's now inventing "Clean Tech" got to do with global warming? More Fox News retardation. Are you people really that dumb?

If the actually think there is no global warming then how about sell everthing you own and purchase water front property in the Maldives.

It is going cheep because it will soon be underwater - you could make a fortune!

You really don't know Al Gore's history with global warming???:confused: You need to read some more. http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-T...5736567&sr=8-2

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Al Gore also invented the Internet. The Internet still turned out to be a big sucess in human progress.

What has Al Gore's now inventing "Global Warming" got to do with the science behind global warming? More Fox News retardation. Are you people really that dumb?

The science behind global warming is simple and correct. People like Al Gore and Fox News retards making predications on how the climate with shift or not is just speculation.

It is no different then the anti-Evolution retards. A new fossil gets discovered and the Christian fundamentalist radicals claim it disproves the science behind evolution.

If you actually think there is no global warming then how about sell everthing you own and purchase water front property in the Maldives. Post the property title on here once you've done it so we can track your purchase on Google Earth.

because it will soon be underwater - you could make a fortune!

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Again those of you who support AGW, never never reply to any of the specific points of the deniers. I doubt you can show that any of major deniers get any help in any way from Big Oil. All of the deniers, including those here on itulip all agree in conservation, energy research etc. I began to recycle before most of you had even heard the term. I have been big into "green" since the late 60s. But AGW is a religion, not real science.

Just for general information here, the CO2 content of Venus is 965,000 parts per million (96.5%). One might infer that the hellish temperatures on Venus are partly due to its high CO2 and also its closer location to the Sun than Earth.

Meanwhile, the public on Earth is alarmed by CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere at 500 parts per million (0.05%). The debate about anthropogenic global warming has to do with whether an increase from 0.035 % CO2 in 1940 to now something around 0.05% has any impact upon global climate. So the debate is about 0.015% additional CO2 over more than half-a-century..... I would call that debate ridiculous.

Of all the darn things to worry about ( hunger, disease, water shortages, inflation, energy costs, war, population growth, poverty, terrorism, etc. ) this has to be the most ridiculous worry I have ever seen in my life.... Yet, Al Gore won a nobel prize alarming the world about CO2 in the atmosphere!:rolleyes:

Now anthropogenic global warming is determined by governments to be "a settled issue", and cap-'n-trade legislation has been enacted in many countries. How ridiculous can this get? And no mind that CO2 is a natural gas on Earth, and CO2 is used by plants to live on this planet; without CO2, plants perish.

What one has to ask: What are teachers teaching in public schools if the public is this dumb and can not reason this silly issue out? Even in colleges, the students can not reason this issue out? 0.015% over 60 years is a darn small increase in CO2 in absolute terms, not to mention that CO2 is required for most life on Earth.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Again, the 'oil companies are evil' thread.

How many times must I repeat: "Follow the money"

Exxon spending on 'deniers': $23 million

Federal spending on global warming research: $30 billion - including the all the American leaders of AGW: Hansen et al.

Al Gore as a conduit for believer's donations: From $2M net worth in 2000 to an estimated $100M net worth in 2008

http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/20...-trail-part-2/

So, cui bono?

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Again those of you who support AGW, never never reply to any of the specific points of the deniers. I doubt you can show that any of major deniers get any help in any way from Big Oil. All of the deniers, including those here on itulip all agree in conservation, energy research etc. I began to recycle before most of you had even heard the term. I have been big into "green" since the late 60s. But AGW is a religion, not real science.

Global warming, especially AGW, is a debate fraught with problems, not the least of which is geologic time scale. And you're right, I've not taken the time to respond in depth on this thread. I'm just too busy with work to take the time. This, of course, does not mean you guys are correct...

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I'm definitely not fluent in the details of both sides, but I know when to go on the offensive, and it's when curious people reasonably point out discrepancies and are told to sit down and shut up.

You'll find a great amount of information in the half dozen or more long debates on melting glaciers, (or lack there of) and AGM, (or lack there of), on iTulip, (I think some are in Select News so you might have to join to see them). No one here will tell you "to sit down and shut up" unless you go way, way off topic...or...you defend Al Gore's Nobel Prize...

[jiimbergin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

c1ue is unrelenting but hardly without intellect. That said, I think you're correct. Until Exxon, et. al. can find a way to make a buck off AGM they will continue to play their role as the cigarette companies of the 21st century - Our research shows there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer. It's just a modern update - There's no link between heightened CO2 and global warming because there is no global warming...:rolleyes:



Oh great! Can't wait for the extinction event.

We know from recent human stupidity, (CFCs, another corporate gift), that a lack of ozone can cause higher winds that have a cooling effect. But to compare the earth 500 million years ago to the modern world is only useful in that you may get someone to take the bait and get themselves tangled in a fruitless argument.

We're getting cap and trade because that's what your boys at Exxon want. We want a straight carbon tax - You produce CO2, you pay a tax on it. A carbon tax would have the effect of moving us away from polluting fossil fuel and funding research into less harmful energy sources.

Again those of you who support AGW, never never reply to any of the specific points of the deniers. I doubt you can show that any of major deniers get any help in any way from Big Oil. All of the deniers, including those here on itulip all agree in conservation, energy research etc. I began to recycle before most of you had even heard the term. I have been big into "green" since the late 60s. But AGW is a religion, not real science.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Why is that? That is about the most retarded thing I've seen on here. LOL. and solar and wind power would be very radical actions, cutting tax subsidies to Exxon is radical, oh my god, please turn off Fox News now before you do anymore damage.

c1ue is unrelenting but hardly without intellect. That said, I think you're correct. Until Exxon, et. al. can find a way to make a buck off AGM they will continue to play their role as the cigarette companies of the 21st century - Our research shows there is no link between tobacco and lung cancer. It's just a modern update - There's no link between heightened CO2 and global warming because there is no global warming...:rolleyes:

Oh, by the way, I should mention that there was an Ice Age at the end of the Ordovician period when CO2 levels were 4000ppm - or 10 times what you're calling a trigger point.

The supercontinent of Gondwana drifted over the south pole, initiating a great Ice Age that gripped the earth at this time. The end of the period is marked by an extinction event.

Oh great! Can't wait for the extinction event.

If CO2 is such a big factor - there should not have been any ice, anywhere, anyhow with CO2 so high. The earth should have been a scorched ball similar to Venus.

We know from recent human stupidity, (CFCs, another corporate gift), that a lack of ozone can cause higher winds that have a cooling effect. But to compare the earth 500 million years ago to the modern world is only useful in that you may get someone to take the bait and get themselves tangled in a fruitless argument.

But the financial consequences of these are far better understood by everyday people unlike the 'cap and trade'.

We're getting cap and trade because that's what your boys at Exxon want. We want a straight carbon tax - You produce CO2, you pay a tax on it. A carbon tax would have the effect of moving us away from polluting fossil fuel and funding research into less harmful energy sources.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

As I'm newly-attuned to this debate (curses!), I think a paraphrase of an iTulip gem is in order:

It's almost worth The Global Warming Debate to learn how little our big men know.

Aren't we living with the consequences of the assurances of our 'big men' right now? If we've learned anything, isn't constant questioning of our beliefs and leaders more important than ever right now?

I'm definitely not fluent in the details of both sides, but I know when to go on the offensive, and it's when curious people reasonably point out discrepancies and are told to sit down and shut up.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Oh, by the way, I should mention that there was an Ice Age at the end of the Ordovician period when CO2 levels were 4000ppm - or 10 times what you're calling a trigger point.

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ord...Ordovician.htm

The Ordovician Period is the second period of the Paleozoic Era. This important period saw the origin and rapid evolution of many new types of invertebrate animals which replaced their Cambrian predecessors. Primitive plants move onto land, until then totally barren. The supercontinent of Gondwana drifted over the south pole, initiating a great Ice Age that gripped the earth at this time. The end of the period is marked by an extinction event.

If CO2 is such a big factor - there should not have been any ice, anywhere, anyhow with CO2 so high. The earth should have been a scorched ball similar to Venus.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Venus/atmosphere.html

Earth Venus
N₂ 0.79 2
O₂ 0.20 < 0.001
Ar 0.01 0.005
CO₂ 0.0003 64
H₂O ~ 0.02 0.003

Total 1.00 66

--------------------------
H₂O 3 km 0.5 mm

Oh, there's 213,000 times as much CO2 on earth per unit as Venus.

Why is that? That is about the most retarded thing I've seen on here. LOL. and solar and wind power would be very radical actions, cutting tax subsidies to Exxon is radical, oh my god, please turn off Fox News now before you do anymore damage.

Yes, you too can pay me $10000 or I will curse your kids and grandkids.

And you too can perhaps read the thread to understand what was actually said as opposed to your anti-Fox news-tinted glasses.

For the record I don't watch ANY TV - Fox, CNN or otherwise. It is all crap.

And I have no issue with cutting subsidies for energy or putting a gas tax if the true goal is reducing dependence on foreign oil.

But the financial consequences of these are far better understood by everyday people unlike the 'cap and trade'.

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Again, the burden of proof is on those advocating radical action.

Why is that? That is about the most retarded thing I've seen on here. LOL. and solar and wind power would be very radical actions, cutting tax subsidies to Exxon is radical, oh my god, please turn off Fox News now before you do anymore damage.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

All joking aside, there is a CO2 concentration that will create a tipping point.

I've already posted the historical CO2 vs. temperature record.

There is no evidence there whatsoever of a tipping point at 390 ppm or even at 560 ppm.

Here it is yet again.



If anything, there is a tipping point at 4000 ppm (downward). Another at 2000 ppm (downward).

But rather the temperature and CO2 levels seem randomly correlated if anything.

Again, the burden of proof is on those advocating radical action.