Author Topic: Global Warming (Read 16698 times)

straffo · « **Reply #480 on:** March 05, 2007, 04:24:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
Prominent French Scientist turns skeptic:

You should not believe this ,Allegre never was prominent and "il sucre les fraises" (check http://www.bonjourdefrance.com/n11/expidio5.htm)

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #481 on:** March 05, 2007, 04:38:24 PM »

Pro: Blablabla blabla! bal bla blA!!! blablabalabal bla!??! blaaa
Contra: Blablablablabla bal bla blabal bla!??! blaaa BLA!!1!

...meanwhile the earth collapsing...

FastFwd · « **Reply #482 on:** March 05, 2007, 04:54:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mace2004
You're really not very bright now are you FF? Your belief that I'm less than 25 years old is as asinine and baseless as your belief that we need to "solve" global warming even if it isn't man made.

I never said anything about 25 - I said "twenty-something". By my calculations you are now 25 or maybe 26. You ARE morpheus, aren't you?

Quote

If you are the "mature" individual you claim to be than your maturity and experience should also have brought a degree of healthy skepticism.

Well what you have is not a degree of healthy skepticism, but a massive overdose of kneejerk denialism.

moot · « **Reply #483 on:** March 05, 2007, 04:58:00 PM »

Which advances the purpose of this thread, greatly.

Hawco · « **Reply #484 on:** March 05, 2007, 05:00:10 PM »

How many pages are we up to now ?

john9001 · « **Reply #485 on:** March 05, 2007, 05:06:51 PM »

the earth is not collapsing, the earth is doing fine, it's the humans that may be in trouble

Mace2004 · « **Reply #486 on:** March 05, 2007, 05:07:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FastFwd
I never said anything about 25 - I said "twenty-something". By my calculations you are now 25 or maybe 26. You ARE morpheus, aren't you? Well what you have is not a degree of healthy skepticism, but a massive overdose of kneejerk denialism.

That's good, you again fail to address any issue but instead attempt to belittle the person you're debating.

I'll remind you again what our disagreement is. You believe that we should "solve" global warming even if it's not a man-made problem. I'm simply saying the world changes, as it always has, even before us bad people started generating a tiny percentage of CO2. If there's any "denialism" going on, it's simply a result of your inability to accept that the world is not static. It seems this is causing some degree of panic for you...therefore "we" must do something. It's sort of like when your mommy left you at day care the first day. Something was different and that scared you so you cried.

FastFwd · « **Reply #487 on:** March 05, 2007, 05:10:41 PM »

Come on, fess up. You ARE morpheus, aren't you? See, I'm not as stupid as you said.

Mace2004 · « **Reply #488 on:** March 05, 2007, 05:15:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FastFwd
Come on, fess up. You ARE morpheus, aren't you? See, I'm not as stupid as you said.

Actually, that comes very close to confirming it.

FastFwd · « **Reply #489 on:** March 05, 2007, 06:00:47 PM »

Quote

I'll remind you again what our disagreement is. You believe that we should "solve" global warming even if it's not a man-made problem. I'm simply saying the world changes, as it always has, even before us bad people started generating a tiny percentage of CO2.

So you're saying that the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 that man has been releasing into the atmosphere annually in the age of electricity and powered vehicles has no bearing at all on the ecological equilibrium of the planet? Well, think of the money that could have been saved in Paris! Instead of assembling a panel of scientists to analyse this, all expert in their respective fields, from hundreds of countries, they could have just written to Mace2004 and got the answers right here in the AH O club!

SteveBailey · « **Reply #490 on:** March 05, 2007, 06:23:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
In case you are not aware this is the United States Official Policy on Climate Control:

Sure as a result of pressure from liberal kooks.

These are the same clowns that said we were entering a new ice age in the 70's. Curval, you simply believe everything you read... i don't.

Hawco · « **Reply #491 on:** March 05, 2007, 06:25:20 PM »

Any chance we could get this thread to 20 pages? Hope so:D

Mace2004 · « **Reply #492 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:11:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hawco
Any chance we could get this thread to 20 pages? Hope so:D

Working on it dude....half-way there:aok

lazs2 · « **Reply #493 on:** March 06, 2007, 08:34:11 AM »

so ghostft...

What would you suggest? since it is such an important thing.. we should simply DO SOMETHING FOR GAWDS SAKE BEFORE WE ALL MELT!!!!!

We need to oxenegate the gasoline! do it now... Add MTBE to every gallon and save the planet from global warming! we can study it later and get the real numbers.

And that's the point... "almost certainly" and "massive" and "significant" aren't numbers.... Just like "soon" is not time and... when lawyers use the term "soon" it has no meaning a normal human would understand to be "soon"

"massive" by scientists means little to the layman. "significant" to a scientist often means a number with a decimal point and a lot of zeros in front of it.

There are many reasons to conserve and to find alternatives for things like oil and coal and wood but "man made global warming" isn't one of em.

lazs

Mace2004 · « **Reply #494 on:** March 06, 2007, 09:29:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by FastFwd
So you're saying that the BILLIONS of tons of CO2 that man has been releasing into the atmosphere annually in the age of electricity and powered vehicles has no bearing at all on the ecological equilibrium of the planet? Well, think of the money that could have been saved in Paris! Instead of assembling a panel of scientists to analyse this, all expert in their respective fields, from hundreds of countries, they could have just written to Mace2004 and got the answers right here in the AH O club!

It seems you're impressed by the word "BILLIONS". The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5,000 TRILLION TONS. Of this, CO2 makes up something like .03 percent. Also, of that .03 percent the vast majority comes from nature and man's contribution (even if it is "BILLIONS" of tons) is only a fraction of what nature produces so no, I'm not particularly impressed with "BILLIONS" even if you like to capitalize it. Cow flatulance introduces far more CO2 into the atmosphere than man does yet I don't see you running around plugging cow bung holes. BTW, I never said that pollution caused by man has no bearing at all, I'm just saying I don't buy into the dire and catastrophic predictions from people with both political and financial stakes in them.

Also, yes, they probably could have saved quite a bit by eliminating their little meeting in Paris. There are been plenty of posts in this thread pointing to opinions, most of them pretty authoritative, that disagree with the alarmists. This is a repeat in this thread but well worth reading again if you love the idea of groups of really, really, smart people getting together to "solve" world problems.

Again, my argument with you though is with what you said:

Quote

...if it's a natural fluctuation, you're saying that there's not much we can do. I agree that there's not much we can do about what NATURE is doing, but there's a great deal we can do about what WE are doing, and thereby offset what nature is doing in order to get atmospheric CO2 concentrations to within safe levels.

You want us to invent is a program to "solve" global warming even if it's not caused by man. In other words, you want the world to stay static, exactly as it was when you were a little child. You'd go beyond "solving" a crisis to dictacting what the weather should be and that, my friend, is foolish.