Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Reality is more alarming than the fiction huh?
I'll say this though. I've made some damn good money off of the fears of fools and by golly I see no reason to stop.
Caveat emptor!
I'll say this though. I've made some damn good money off of the fears of fools and by golly I see no reason to stop.
Caveat emptor!
The crux of the argument is whether or not water vapour is a driving force. You can deliberate on the scientific community, political schema, or any other tag line you want. But if you're going to debate science of your claim, then stick to the science of your claim. And as is shown by multiple sources. Even your sacred NASA is on board and trying to rectify this false meme:
The researchers built a model for Earth's atmosphere and the heat it absorbed, and then ran it with differing levels of noncondensing gasses. With water vapor alone, the greenhouse effect collapsed and the model froze over.
This suggests that carbon dioxide levels account for 80 percent of the greenhouse effect, not 20, as previously thought.
NASA: Carbon Dioxide, Not Water Vapor, Is Causing Earth to Warm
So, you want to prove some scientific claim? Then show me some science that proves water vapour is a driving force. Oh, and by the way, out of context quotes don't count. This isn't Fox News.
Last edited:
How about we start with you explaining this comment in light of this direct quote from your enviro-bible: "Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour. "
I'm not sure what you want me to say about that cap. Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas. And it is also true that humans only have a small influence in the amount of atmospheric water vapour. That's great. None of that denies that C02 is the driving factor for climate change.
Now that you've lost that argument. What do you have next cap?
Would you like me to post the NASA link again?
Would you like me to teach you how water vapour exists as a result of increasing temperature again?
Would you like me to teach you how C02 drives this temperature up?
Would you like to learn about the greenhouse effect itself?
Would you like to learn how to properly post quotes without skewing their meaning?
Would you like to move on to your next failed attempt?
What do you say cap? How would you like to get handled next?
wait a minute....this NASA study says the opposite of what y'all are bellowing. Now it says carbon dioxide and other noncondensing gases -- such as methane, nitrous oxide and ozone are the feedback and vapour is 75% of the problem.
Well gee. Thanks I like having my vapour stuff confirmed and slam dunked. BUENO!
Still haven't addressed the primary question:
I've emboldened your quote in case you missed it last time
Petros, regarding that quote, the greenhouse "effect" is what comes after the "cause". The effect which is in part, water vapour, is a result of the cause - the increase in temperature due to carbon in the atmosphere. Notice the term 'feedback mechanisms'. Water vapour is a feedback mechanism that occurs because of C02 in the atmosphere. That feedback mechanism only exists because of increasing temperature. Without increased temperature, the water vapour freezes. It freezes and ceases to be water vapour. It freezes because when water gets cold... it freezes. So, what you're deriving from that quote is not true. We can discuss that in further detail if you are confused.
Same with you cap. There is no mention in the IPCC report of water vapour as an influence on climate change. You twisted my statement based on the word 'influence'. In your quote, the human influence of water vapour is not significant, even though there is a mention of influence. In my statement, I'm clearly refering to water vapour as an influence on climate change. You changed the context of the word 'influence' to suit your need. That's a pretty sneaky fallacy, but not unexpected from you. If you want to continue getting slapped around, go ahead and continue your deceptive tactics while I effortlessly call them out.
Same with you cap. There is no mention in the IPCC report of water vapour as an influence on climate change. You twisted my statement based on the word 'influence'. In your quote, the human influence of water vapour is not significant, even though there is a mention of influence. In my statement, I'm clearly refering to water vapour as an influence on climate change. You changed the context of the word 'influence' to suit your need. That's a pretty sneaky fallacy, but not unexpected from you. If you want to continue getting slapped around, go ahead and continue your deceptive tactics while I effortlessly call them out.
Last edited:
I believe it is fair to say that we will never completely understand all variables and interactions. In fact it's a red herring. We don't need to identify or understand all variables to be able to reach conclusions.
What do you have against models anyways? The scientific method is a model...statistics is very important for scientific analysis. Engineers use statistical models to identify inefficiencies in processes. Biologists use models to study energy flow. Chemists use models to study protein folding. Immunologists use models to test vaccine efficacy. Statistics is needed to analyze data. If it wasn't, then scientists could make one measurement and proceed. It's statistics which explains quantitatively why a sample size of one is insufficient.
Models are useful tools in a scientist's tool kit.
I'm unaware of which comments you're referring to. Water vapour is included in the IPCC reviews. Just not on the list of forcings. It's a feedback responding to those forcings.
Editorializing. The most abundant does not mean the most important.
Where does a monetized CO2 sit on that list of evil gasses? Lower? Middle? Upper?
Is this good because it's just vapour?
Vapour is not good or bad just because it's vapour. If you took an enormous vacuum cleaner and sucked up all the vapour, it is true that you would reduce warming to some degree. But then we would still be left with the cause of this warming which would still increase temperatures, and you would screw up the atmosphere altogether.
Think of the worst lady gaga song you can think of being played on the radio. Lady Gaga is the C02 and the radio is water vapour. There are plenty of radios amplifying her crap, but to get rid of her completely, one needs to kill the source.
Think of the worst lady gaga song you can think of being played on the radio. Lady Gaga is the C02 and the radio is water vapour. There are plenty of radios amplifying her crap, but to get rid of her completely, one needs to kill the source.
Is this good because it's just vapour?
You should wallpaper your shack with that photo.
How do you prove cause when you can't or refuse to seperate man made from natural.
is this natural? Does it trap or release heat from the surface of the planet?
is this natural? Does it trap or release heat from the surface of the planet?
It would clash with my Habs toilet paper.
If you removed carbon dioxide and trace gases entirely from the atmosphere, so that it's water vapour alone, the temperature of this planet is 268 °K, which can't support liquid water. It's a snowball. In fact the greenhouse effect of water vapour is practically non-existant at this temperature, there is very little vapour in the atmosphere. Unless the sun is 13% brighter, which won't happen for about another billion years. It's only when you add carbon dioxide, and the feedback with water vapour that we can have a planet with condensed water on the surface. To call one of those gases the most important is highly misleading. It lacks context.
- Status