AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Let me be the first to apologize for any unwarranted posts I have made.
Then point us to the conclusive proof that humans haven't interfered with the course of climates.
:roll:
Then point us to the conclusive proof that humans haven't interfered with the course of climates.
:roll:
Same same.
There are a ton of theories, and that in itself is representative of the myriad of 'potential realities' that exist in today's perspective.
Deniers like to point to news items that deal with cold weather in their quest to deny the truth. Conveniently, they ignore record heat and fires such as those in Russia, Australia, California, or the Northwest.
If you want answers look into who started the whole "movement'. The answers are not in any data set anywhere. There is no data set for an idealism this sick and twisted.
You know that they will never do anything like that Petros... For those in the extreme camp(s) anti & pro AGW, selectivity of information and sources is an absolute necessity in preserving their position and saving face.
On M. Strong note, look into "who" invested into India coal-fired plants just prior to Kyoto... You probably know the answer, but for those that don't, it will raise tremendous issues regarding government office, ethical and moral conflicts.
On M. Strong note, look into "who" invested into India coal-fired plants just prior to Kyoto... You probably know the answer, but for those that don't, it will raise tremendous issues regarding government office, ethical and moral conflicts.
Not so much for you and your "camp".
http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/07-001.pdf
I guess China's been fooled, too, huh? :roll:
Beijing Auto Expo focuses on green technology
Financial Service Provider China YiBai Focuses on Green Energy and Low Carbon Sector - Yahoo! Finance
http://gulfnews.com/business/opinion/china-focuses-on-clean-renewable-technology-1.525074
So all the industrial nations have been fooled and only you and your "camp" know the truth. lmao
I have posted this before in other threads, but here are several reasons for reducing carbon emissions and turning to greener technology that have nothing to do with global warming:
1. Reduction of air pollution produced by carbon based fuels - almost certainly thousands of Canadians die each year due to illnesses caused by breathing polluted air. It is important to realize that burning fuels such as coal and oil add not just CO2 to the atmosphere, but large quantities of toxins as well, including mercury, nitrogen oxides, SO2, and others.
2. Freedom from dependence on notoriously unstable oil-producing states such as Iran and Venezuela. This is not as important for Canada as it is for the USA, but since our economies are linked it might be a very good idea.
3. The fact that in terms of oil production at no time in the last forty years has the rate of new discoveries exceeded consumption. Relying on a declining resource is a sure-fire recipe for future disaster.
4. Elimination of the severe environmental damage created by the extraction of carboniferous fuels.
1. Reduction of air pollution produced by carbon based fuels - almost certainly thousands of Canadians die each year due to illnesses caused by breathing polluted air. It is important to realize that burning fuels such as coal and oil add not just CO2 to the atmosphere, but large quantities of toxins as well, including mercury, nitrogen oxides, SO2, and others.
2. Freedom from dependence on notoriously unstable oil-producing states such as Iran and Venezuela. This is not as important for Canada as it is for the USA, but since our economies are linked it might be a very good idea.
3. The fact that in terms of oil production at no time in the last forty years has the rate of new discoveries exceeded consumption. Relying on a declining resource is a sure-fire recipe for future disaster.
4. Elimination of the severe environmental damage created by the extraction of carboniferous fuels.
I gave a response as worthy as your response in turn deserved. You obviously didn't read any of the papers I linked to. You said you hadn't seen anything conclusive and empirical. I gave you empirical, and pretty much as conclusive as it gets.
You quibbled about my choice of words like apparent, which means obvious, and associated. There is an association between a melting ice cube, and the temperature in your kitchen.
These are hardly reasons against the science in the links.
I guess by choosing not to read it though you can legitimately remain ignorant about what the science actually says.
I've often wondered and speculated that he was in bed with one (or more) of the companies that you were to "buy" carbon offsets from.
Are you familiar with the group(s) that he's invested with?
I've taken a look at the studies you've posted and I stand by my comments to date. I do not question the legitimacy of the study(s), but your entire argument hinges on assumed and speculative relationships. Further, these studies have considered individual components and ask the reader to make a giant leap in believing that the consequence (GW) is the direct byproduct.
What you've offered is akin to a detailed explanation of how an alternator works in a car and later claims that this info is enough to build an engine.
That is where these "studies" fail.
So, I'll ask again; can you provide definitive and conclusive research that explains past events?
This concept is ground zero for any research that would lead to understanding the myriad of systems working at present and until that day comes, everything else is speculation and conjecture.
That doesn't count if you have shares in oil stock. The shares are your viable excuses to pollute and snivel about conspiracies.
So which of the following are you invested with? Shell, Exxon, BP, Conoco, National Oil Corp., Chevron, Petrobras, Saudi Arabian Oil Co.
lol Looking at is not reading or understanding.
As much as yours?
And we all know how many giant leaps there are in deniers arguments.
It's still more than you have.
Probably not, but then human investigation into prehistorical issues will always lack some of the evidence.
To be specific, it is highly specialised and highly educated conjecture. So if the experts simply have conjecture, how is it that you can claim with certainty that humans have not significantly impacted the atmosphere? :tard:
Anna. None of what you responded to was actually directed at you, so if Tonnington wishes to respond, then I'll get back to him/her on it.
BTW, I don't invest much in the bigs as they are capitalized on such a massive scale, it is near impossible for me to make any meaningful cash on dividends or capital gains... That said, I do get involved with the juniors, preferably in oil, as I can do much better... And ofcourse there is the added benefit of some of the gasoline from those producers is in my tank as well as yours. So, it's a win-win for me in the end.
BTW, I don't invest much in the bigs as they are capitalized on such a massive scale, it is near impossible for me to make any meaningful cash on dividends or capital gains... That said, I do get involved with the juniors, preferably in oil, as I can do much better... And ofcourse there is the added benefit of some of the gasoline from those producers is in my tank as well as yours. So, it's a win-win for me in the end.
It's out wherever anyone can reply to it.
BTW, yup, some people just love polluting for profit.
The items that run my vehicle that holds my tank will soon be replaced by all electric drive. Cost = about $5000.
So is herpes... You go after that too?:ky:
It's hot today... I'm thinking that I'd better start the car and get the A/C running for 10-15 minutes to cool 'er down a bit before I drive to the corner store.
Actually it isn't. Loads of people manage to avoid it by default.
:roll: Big surprise there. Irresponsibility and immaturity are rampant.
You're mistaken. We can identify today why a species goes extinct, even though for some in the past we can't conclusively say why.
But regardless, you've asked before about the past, and I've given you the links which you obviously didn't read. Milankovitch cycles, and feedbacks. But you don't need to know anything about the rhythms of the orbit of our planet to observe that the greenhouse effect has been enhanced by human activity. They are mutually exclusive.
Lets not say this is just a local event, we have a heat wave that pretty much reaches around the globe. June, July hottest months in recorded history. If this is not global warming, what is it? Seems it just might be nothing man can do about it, just adapt or become extinct.
18 states endure deadly stretch of steamy weather
JACKSON, Miss. – This heat wave isn't just stifling — it's deadly.
Extreme temperatures continued Thursday across a large swath of the country, killing more than a dozen people, at least two police dogs and likely contributing to the death of Franklin the rhinoceros at a Mississippi zoo. Arkansas fire departments were volunteering to hose down overheated cattle, and people as far north as Maine were trying to stay cool.
High school football teams and marching bands practiced indoors or canceled altogether. Tennessee election officials touted air-conditioned polling places as a way to bring in voters, and many cities set up [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]cooling [COLOR=#366388 !important]centers[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] for those who needed a break from the sun.
18 states endure deadly stretch of steamy weather - Yahoo! News
18 states endure deadly stretch of steamy weather
JACKSON, Miss. – This heat wave isn't just stifling — it's deadly.
Extreme temperatures continued Thursday across a large swath of the country, killing more than a dozen people, at least two police dogs and likely contributing to the death of Franklin the rhinoceros at a Mississippi zoo. Arkansas fire departments were volunteering to hose down overheated cattle, and people as far north as Maine were trying to stay cool.
High school football teams and marching bands practiced indoors or canceled altogether. Tennessee election officials touted air-conditioned polling places as a way to bring in voters, and many cities set up [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]cooling [COLOR=#366388 !important]centers[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] for those who needed a break from the sun.
18 states endure deadly stretch of steamy weather - Yahoo! News
The difference in this issue is that you are claiming that you do know why.
... And you were unable to answer the question then, just as now.
The links you've offered in the past not only offered a speculation and conjecture at best. The fact is, no scientific discipline (or combination thereof) possesses enough understanding to establish nor offer that explanation. If the existing science as you believe it, is capable of providing definitive causation, then it would be child's play to generate that "retroactive" explanation.
But this is not the case, is it?
All you have provided Tonnington are a few select components that may or may not be related to any opportunity for anthropogenic warming that may or may not be coincidental with a natural warming trend that we are experiencing today.
So, I'll ask for the third time: Do you have any research that conclusively and definitively explains the global weather patterns (in the context of warming/cooling) as have been experienced over the millenia?