global warming - it's real, dummies!

krudsparov

 "claiming that anyone has said that "the planet will boil over" is a case in point"

That's not correct, they may not have used those words but they've threatened us with "runaway global warming" which amounts to the same thing. I don't doubt oil company propaganda but if you think the propaganda is a one way street you're blinkered, lies and corruption run very deep.      

pretzel2

nope, the planet will be just fine, it isn't going to "boil over". we won't be fine, and other animal species won't be fine, because we didn't evolve in the kind of climate we are creating, and it is changing so rapidly. one side has science, the other side has propaganda. these are not the same thing. i notice you don't address the failure of the very very rich oil companies (and coal companies) to finance scientific research that shows the science is flawed. for one thing, it is hard for them to find reputable scientists to do this. the small group of scientists they regularly trot out at congressional hearings  haven't produced any research that shows the basic science, known since the 1800's, is wrong; their strongest attempt at this was the BEST study, which produced results agreeing with the science. there are a few fringe scientists, christie and lindzen and the like,  who occasionally produce papers that are regularly shredded in analysis by other scientists. no corruption, just scientists practicing science. or judith curry, who doesn't publish any more. 

pretzel2

then you have the non scientists, like mckitrick and the guy who calls himself robert goddard, even though that isn't his name. they produce a lot of bullshit, which has no scientific validity. 

87654321

Well its an argument I guess ww but somewhere between a weak and irrelevant one seeking to lay things at the door of a few company associates from the 70s/80s. If thats all the guardian luvvies have to scapegoat then you will have to run with it though. Plenty of alternate views put forward around 30/40 years ago and with time folks may place things into perspective. Question might arise why is fossil use today at a much greater amount than 1980 and as populations continue to rise fossil use will continue to increase.

pretzel2

nope seeking to lay blame with the executives who decided to ignore their own scientists and institute a propaganda campaign based on the successful delaying tactics used by the tobacco industry. in other words, seeking to lay blame with the responsible parties. we use more fossil fuels today because there are more people and more cars and ships and tanks using them, and because the civilization is organized around fossil fuels. the perspective is, the scientists are more likely to know about the science than fossil fuel shills, and are far more likely to tell the truth about it, as the exxon coverup demonstrates. 

wickiwacky

@87 - either way it doesn't change the fact that continuing to put 37 gigatonnes of co2 into the atmosphere every year will cause us huge problems in the future.

wickiwacky

The thing the science deniers have yet to produce is EVIDENCE. Not one shred of data has been shown on this forum or anywhere else. That's because it doesn't exist. The deniers are politically or financially motivated - not concerned with the truth or our future safety or prosperity. 

If you think that temperature is not going up - show us your temperature measurements.

If you think that co2 is not going up - show us the data 

Otherwise it is just ignorant speculation...

krudsparov

Temperature going up doesn't prove we've done it all, it has always been on its way up or on its way down long before we turned up. There's been 4 main warm periods since the last ice age similar to the current one and this is not the warmest, this trend has happened after previous ice ages also, it's normal, Co2 has risen each time and has tended to follow the warming not cause it. Mark my words, in the future we will be blamed for causing global cooling and getting taxed for that as well. As for evidence, the natural climate change deniers refuse to even consider it, there's been plenty on here and mountains of it on the net but it's dismissed out of hand, burying your head in the sand doesn't change anything, you're being conned.

Ziggy_Zugzwang

Congratulations Wickiwacky, you have compressed the most disingenuous ignorance within one paragraph I have ever seen in over twenty years access to the internet.

 

Where shall we begin:

'The thing the science deniers have yet to produce is EVIDENCE. '

Well for one thing, its being assumed by AGW groupies that the burden of proof relies with us pejoratively described 'deniers'. The use of the word 'denier', beyond the boundaries of this discussion is linked to other paradigm questioning fields. As such the usage of 'denier' is chosen for debating impact. AGW relies on debating rhetoric in the public arena and not critical thinking.

 

'Not one shred of data has been shown on this forum or anywhere else.'
I''m not going to bother reexamining this mostly ship of fools thread. Suffice to say 'Channel 4' documentary and 'Jolly Hockey Sticks'. Once again also BURDEN OF PROOF.

 

'The deniers are politically or financially motivated - not concerned with the truth or our future safety or prosperity. ' Al Gore, the media prophet of the AGW theory has an oil background and is heavily interested in carbon cap and trade. Oil and banking benefit from restricting their commodity, just as the oil companies benefited from the feigned outrage of Arabs in the Yom Kippur war that was contrived to raise oil prices. (See William Engdahl) Further the supposed divestment of the Rockefellers from oil and supporting 'green causes' is also a psyop. It echoes the Standard Oil monopoly breakup that saw them making more money. The important thing about oil is it's petro dollar aspect.

 

If you think that temperature is not going up - show us your temperature measurements.
That is neither here or there. Piers Corbyn amongst others have demonstrated the sun as the driver of climate. If you are not a paid shill I feel sorry for the small intellectual cell in which you've confined yourself, if a shill there is a hot place in Hades waiting for you.

 

If you think that co2 is not going up - show us the data

Otherwise it is just ignorant speculation...
Carbon dioxide is not the most important greenhouse gas. Show us the data? That's rich coming from the hockey sticks brigade.  No, you are ignorant. God knows what intellectual or moral plane you live on to spout so much nonsense.

 

WilliamAC1230
Man made global warming=politically motivated pseudoscience with a multi million dollar global carbon tax as the end game. Co2 is plant food. It’s harmless. Use your air conditioners and drive your cars. It’s going to be alright
pretzel2

oh jesus, another very long winded post filled with nonsense. scientists study ing the subjet have produced mountains of evidence. that's why every national science orgainzation supports the science. people who claim it isn't happening, or has some other cause, have not.  i notice at the dne you refer to "hockey sticks", which you apparently don't know have been replicated over and over. seriously, why do you bother?

WilliamAC1230
Multi trillion dollar*
pretzel2

william governments don't profit off taxes, companies do. the fossil fuel companies are some of the richest countries on earth. they buy legislators. they are quite capable of defending themselves by financing science to question agw. they don't, by and large, because they know the science is good.

WilliamAC1230
Objective reality discredits man made global warming
WilliamAC1230
Could it be possible that the fossil fuel companies fund the bought and paid for pseudoscience?
WilliamAC1230
I’m really asking
wickiwacky
Ziggy_Zugzwang wrote:

Congratulations Wickiwacky, you have compressed the most disingenuous ignorance within one paragraph I have ever seen in over twenty years access to the internet.

 

Where shall we begin:

'The thing the science deniers have yet to produce is EVIDENCE. '

Well for one thing, its being assumed by AGW groupies that the burden of proof relies with us pejoratively described 'deniers'. The use of the word 'denier', beyond the boundaries of this discussion is linked to other paradigm questioning fields. As such the usage of 'denier' is chosen for debating impact. AGW relies on debating rhetoric in the public arena and not critical thinking. Blah blah - get over it snowflake 

 

'Not one shred of data has been shown on this forum or anywhere else.'
I''m not going to bother reexamining this mostly ship of fools thread. Suffice to say 'Channel 4' documentary and 'Jolly Hockey Sticks'. Once again also BURDEN OF PROOF.

 The Hockey Stick was a manufactured scandal about nothing and investigations have come to that conclusion

'The deniers are politically or financially motivated - not concerned with the truth or our future safety or prosperity. ' Al Gore, the media prophet of the AGW theory has an oil background and is heavily interested in carbon cap and trade. Oil and banking benefit from restricting their commodity, just as the oil companies benefited from the feigned outrage of Arabs in the Yom Kippur war that was contrived to raise oil prices. (See William Engdahl) Further the supposed divestment of the Rockefellers from oil and supporting 'green causes' is also a psyop. It echoes the Standard Oil monopoly breakup that saw them making more money. The important thing about oil is it's petro dollar aspect.

More bollocks based on conspiracy theories.

 

If you think that temperature is not going up - show us your temperature measurements.
That is neither here or there. Piers Corbyn amongst others have demonstrated the sun as the driver of climate. If you are not a paid shill I feel sorry for the small intellectual cell in which you've confined yourself, if a shill there is a hot place in Hades waiting for you.

 There is no Hell - grow up. 

If you think that co2 is not going up - show us the data

Otherwise it is just ignorant speculation...
Carbon dioxide is not the most important greenhouse gas. Show us the data? That's rich coming from the hockey sticks brigade.  No, you are ignorant. God knows what intellectual or moral plane you live on to spout so much nonsense.

 

 

Well you have thrown a few insults around but still no data or evidence. You choose to trust Piers Corbyn (whoever he is) but reject the overwhelming majority of experts who have studied climate science their whole lives. They have also considered all the alternatives to co2 and ruled them out on the basis of measurements, observations and data. Really Ziggy - I feel sorry for you - being so closeminded and out of touch with reality must be a burden. 

 

Elroch
WilliamAC1230 wrote:
Man made global warming=politically motivated pseudoscience with a multi million dollar global carbon tax as the end game. Co2 is plant food. It’s harmless. Use your air conditioners and drive your cars. It’s going to be alright

This is like the guesses of a 5 year old who knows literally nothing about the science and has a punt based on something he has heard and partially understood.

Elroch
WilliamAC1230 wrote:
Could it be possible that the fossil fuel companies fund the bought and paid for pseudoscience?

No, this makes literally no sense at all.

Could it be that computer viruses are spread between keyboards by people shaking hands?

(Just thought I'd return the favour).

WilliamAC1230
Oh hey Elroch. How’s the weather?