AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[petros]

In so far as your "reason" for doing so, that is insultingly transparent to all but the most devout earth-rangers, eco-fascists and blind faithful - the "reason" is that you are too heavily invested in your position and simply too proud.

Oh no no no no. This isn't fully fascism, it's all the Marxist idealisms combined. This is a global liquidation of billions of people all in the name of " I don't giive a ****, I want more and I'm not going to share with anyone not the right colour AND class".

Pollution and alleged resource shortages stops in it's tracks with 80% of the people gone.

Greenocide

Tired of Red or Blue? Try NEW Soylent Green!!!

 

[L Gilbert]

Logic is not always correct. However, it is logical that the heat Earth contains by itself is entropic; it is breaking down. That means that if Earth is warming, the other source must be why. If the sun cycles then it is perfectly reasonable to think Earth's warmth cycles similarly. However, the latest warming cycle has had a faster onset than previous others. It is also lasting longer than the previous ones. Now, with that in mind, what has changed? The sun's output? No. What's left is that Earth is retaining more of the heat faster than it used to. Why? What has changed? The content of the atmosphere has changed.
Think of some other occurrences. EG, pH balances in the ocean are dropping. Why? Crap from the atmosphere is why.
If one follows the evidence, it is pretty clear and does not take faith of any sort.

 

[petros]

In the past 100 years volcanism and tectonic movement has doubled along with massive shifts in the magnetic poles now which deflect solar energies far far differently than just 30 years ago.

 

[Tonington]

In the past 100 years volcanism and tectonic movement has doubled along with massive shifts in the magnetic poles now which deflect solar energies far far differently than just 30 years ago.

So:

1. What type of energy is in flux here?
2. What is the magnitude and direction the flux changed in? Can we estimate the forcing it imposes on our climate?
3. What kinds of predictions does this allow you to make, about the trajectory of our climate over the next few decades, and out to one century?

 

[L Gilbert]

In the past 100 years volcanism and tectonic movement has doubled along with massive shifts in the magnetic poles now which deflect solar energies far far differently than just 30 years ago.

Lots less ice means lots less reflection. Lots more particulates in the atmosphere means lots more retention. Like I said, though, Earth's self-contained heat is entropic. When Earth was young there was lots more volcanic activity than now even, yet the cycle persisted and Earth cooled. Earth warmed slower and then cooled slower than it has been the last century or so.

 

[petros]

Lots less ice means lots less reflection. Lots more particulates in the atmosphere means lots more retention. Like I said, though, Earth's self-contained heat is entropic. When Earth was young there was lots more volcanic activity than now even, yet the cycle persisted and Earth cooled. Earth warmed slower and then cooled slower than it has been the last century or so.

For sure. It's all about displacement if you follow the magnetic poles through time then you see that the ice caps follow those constantly varying magnet poles. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed it is how our magnetosphere distrubutes it that has changed drastically in the past 100 years.

 

[L Gilbert]

For sure. It's all about displacement if you follow the magnetic poles through time the you see that the ice caps follow those constantly varying magnet poles. The amount of solar radiation hasn't changed it is how our magnetosphere distrubutes it that has changed drastically in the past 100 years.

Redistribution is not warming. We are warming, whether an area is cooling from a warmer period while another area warms from a cooler period is irrelevant.
If my house has an average temp of 21, and it is increasing at a rate of a degree a week, it is warming. If I drop the temp in a warm room to a cooler room at the same time as warming the temp in another room, the average temp of the house still increases at the same rate it was.

 

[Scott Free]

Logic is not always correct.

Well, it is certainly better than its alternative; of that any rational person must be certain.

However, it is logical that the heat Earth contains by itself is entropic; it is breaking down.

So some internal mechanism is causing us to over heat?

That means that if Earth is warming, the other source must be why. If the sun cycles then it is perfectly reasonable to think Earth's warmth cycles similarly. However, the latest warming cycle has had a faster onset than previous others. It is also lasting longer than the previous ones. Now, with that in mind, what has changed? The sun's output? No.

The earth isn't the only solar body that is heating up, so yes! the sun must be heating up. You're right too, it is a natural cycle.

What's left is that Earth is retaining more of the heat faster than it used to. Why? What has changed? The content of the atmosphere has changed.
Think of some other occurrences. EG, pH balances in the ocean are dropping. Why? Crap from the atmosphere is why.
If one follows the evidence, it is pretty clear and does not take faith of any sort.

The atmosphere acts as a blanket and does retain heat. Carbon does trap heat. Non of these facts are in doubt.

What is in doubt is that they, in and of themselves, are the reason for planetary warming. That mankind's paltry 0.24% contribution to global carbon or Al Gores retarded conclusion that if carbon saturation continues planatary warming will too (a big fail), or, THAT ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER BODIES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM WARMING UP!!!

So the big question, does car exhaust cause global warming? The answer must be no. In fact it doesn't even contribute. The sun is our source of heat therefore the warming energy comes from the sun. If that is true then we could expect other solar bodies too would be warming up - oh wait, they are!!!

It is both absurd and ridiculous to think what we drive could possibly affect the sun. The whole AGW debate is simply preposterous. It is asinine, it is a scam, it is irrational and it is foolishness.

The whole AGW debate has proved to me that the age of reason is over. We have gone back to the "science" of the middle-ages whereby people try and rationalize their beliefs.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well, it is certainly better than its alternative; of that any rational person must be certain.

Usually. Logic depends upon previous knowledge a lot. If there is no previous knowledge to provide landmarks for the logic. Logic is no better than guesswork.

So some internal mechanism is causing us to over heat?

rofl No.

The earth isn't the only solar body that is heating up, so yes! the sun must be heating up. You're right too, it is a natural cycle.

That's been unnaturally modified by something. Yep.

The atmosphere acts as a blanket and does retain heat. Carbon does trap heat. Non of these facts are in doubt.

What is in doubt is that they, in and of themselves, are the reason for planetary warming. That mankind's paltry 0.24% contribution to global carbon or Al Gores retarded conclusion that if carbon saturation continues planatary warming will too (a big fail), or, THAT ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER BODIES IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM WARMING UP!!!

Perhaps you doubt what scientists have been saying about Earth warming, but some people even doubt the warming part. I don't think anyone is disputing that we haven't been in anatural warming cycle, what I do think is that people are doubting that that there's any influence by humans on the cycle. In which case, no-one's been able to explain why this particular cycle has had a faster onset than the others in the past and why it is lasting longer than the past ones.

So the big question, does car exhaust cause global warming? The answer must be no. In fact it doesn't even contribute. The sun is our source of heat therefore the warming energy comes from the sun. If that is true then we could expect other solar bodies too would be warming up - oh wait, they are!!!

Why must the answer be "no"? Any effort I've seen trying to prove this "no" has been trounced by the science.
Like I said the natural cycle is occurring. BUT, Earth's is protracted. There's a reason.

It is both absurd and ridiculous to think what we drive could possibly affect the sun.

Right. We don't affect the sun. We affect what we live on.

The whole AGW debate is simply preposterous. It is asinine, it is a scam, it is irrational and it is foolishness.

That's is exactly what the debate is. If people had good sense, made an attempt to understand the science, left their pet prejudices behind, there'd be no debate. But, people are people, and the deniers of AGW also deny the science, so we get debate.

The whole AGW debate has proved to me that the age of reason is over. We have gone back to the "science" of middle-ages where by people try and rationalize their beliefs.

Yep. That's exactly what deniers are doing.

 

[Scott Free]

Why must the answer be "no"? Any effort I've seen trying to prove this "no" has been trounced by the science.

No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers.

I'm not going to explain logic to you. There are plenty of books you could read on the subject if you're interested, but I don't think that you are.

 

[Tonington]

Spot the contradiction:

The atmosphere acts as a blanket and does retain heat. Carbon does trap heat. Non of these facts are in doubt.



So the big question, does car exhaust cause global warming? The answer must be no. In fact it doesn't even contribute.

See it?

No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers.

Where does one find this black list?

 

[Scott Free]

Spot the contradiction:

There is no contradiction because I am talking about cause not effect :roll:

 

[Tonington]

There is no contradiction because I am talking about cause not effect :roll:

You said carbon traps heat, that is a cause, and an effect...

 

[L Gilbert]

No one is trounced. Skeptics just lose their funding and get black listed by their peers.

Sceptics are one thing. It's good to be sceptical. Outright denying something without the having knowledge about it is just plain bias and stupid.

I'm not going to explain logic to you. There are plenty of books you could read on the subject if you're interested, but I don't think that you are.

So a while back you said carbon traps heat but then you say does car exhaust cause warming and answered yourself with, "no". You do know that burning petroleum releases carbon into the air don't you? If you do then you are contradicting yourself. And you attempt to explain to me that my logic is faulty? roflmao

 

[petros]

Redistribution is not warming. We are warming, whether an area is cooling from a warmer period while another area warms from a cooler period is irrelevant.
If my house has an average temp of 21, and it is increasing at a rate of a degree a week, it is warming. If I drop the temp in a warm room to a cooler room at the same time as warming the temp in another room, the average temp of the house still increases at the same rate it was.

A good example is the previous (Wisconsonian) ice age. Magnetic north and the ice cap sat in the middle of James Bay (as far south in comparisson to Edmonton on the lateral) while Siberia was lush and green enough to support mammoths year round.

That cannot be coincidence.

 

[Scott Free]

Where does one find this black list?

Where one finds anything these days: google.

But here, I'll do the heavy lifting for you (again).


List

There are probably more but I expect they're driving taxis.

More

 

[L Gilbert]

A good example is the previous (Wisconsonian) ice age. Magnetic north and the ice cap sat in the middle of James Bay (as far south in comparisson to Edmonton on the lateral) while Siberia was lush and green enough to support mammoths year round.

That cannot be coincidence.

lol No, but I never said it was. Either way, it has nothing to do with the average temp of the planet other than to maybe make the average temp fluctuate in those regions. Earth's average temp was either warming, cooling or staying static regardless of which regions' temps were fluctuating.

Whining about people being blacklisted is not refuting AGW. Neither is contradicting oneself.

 

[Tonington]

List
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-black-list.html

So your contention is that they are losing funding? How does Roger Pielke Sr. get 460 citations, the 68th most cited climatologist if he has no funding?

He doesn't seem to have any hardship publishing.

 

[Scott Free]

Sceptics are one thing. It's good to be sceptical. Outright denying something without the having knowledge about it is just plain bias and stupid.

Any argument must be logical to be valid. No knowledge whatever is needed to check the logic of an argument (except the knowledge of how to test the logic).

If an argument is logical it doesn't follow that it is correct, but only that it could be.

If an argument is not logical it does follow that its conclusion was arrived at improperly. That doesn't mean the conclusion is false (though it likely is) but that the conclusion was arrived at by some other means than logic.

So a while back you said carbon traps heat but then you say does car exhaust cause warming and answered yourself with, "no". You do know that burning petroleum releases carbon into the air don't you? If you do then you are contradicting yourself. And you attempt to explain to me that my logic is faulty? roflmao

1) Humans have contributed a tiny fraction of the carbon in the atmosphere (0.24%)

2) The atmosphere is already saturated. More carbon does not equal more heat.

3) The atmospheric carbon isn't a heat source. The sun is the heat source. Therefore it is the sun that causes warming.

 

[petros]

lol No, but I never said it was. Either way, it has nothing to do with the average temp of the planet other than to maybe make the average temp fluctuate in those regions. Earth's average temp was either warming, cooling or staying static regardless of which regions' temps were fluctuating.

Whining about people being blacklisted is not refuting AGW. Neither is contradicting oneself.

If extreme regions that didn't recieve as much energy as before warm up the whole planet will warm up until the regions that used to get the energy cool off which takes time. At that point they will claim our carbon tax scheme is a success.