Global warming ‘isn’t the great threat we were told’

Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
635
But it is abundantly clear that you have an agenda. I don't know what that agenda is, but you are committed to being wrong just to support it.
How am I wrong???? Most of what I have posted here is videos and quotes from world associations and accredited world climate scientists. They are giving evidence of their studies that show the claims for global warming/climate change is propaganda/scam. So is that your motive to discredit their findings by questioning MY agenda and saying I am committed to being wrong? So am I to conclude by your assumption that you are no longer interested in contributing productively???
CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere,
A constructive and inquisitive question here is, as you quoted Columbia University, are you suggesting that 4% water vapor is more the cause of climate change than the 0.04% of CO2?
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
How am I wrong???? Most of what I have posted here is videos and quotes from world associations and accredited world climate scientists. They are giving evidence of their studies that show the claims for global warming/climate change is propaganda/scam. So is that your motive to discredit their findings by questioning MY agenda and saying I am committed to being wrong? So am I to conclude by your assumption that you are no longer interested in contributing productively???
No you haven't. You've cherry-picked arguments that you think agree with you.

An Inventory:
1. You posted an OPINION piece by Sky News, a Murdoch-owned propaganda mouthpiece that has laughingly low truthfulness ratings.
2. You posted an OPINION piece by ABC Australia from 2014 that tried to suggest that climate change was over because we had a few years of slower temperature rise, and which is now out of date. See the little flat spot on the line midway between 2000 and 2020? That's what they were trying to say was the end of Global Warming in your video.
globaltemp-png.55823
3. You posted a video from scientist Dan Britt who actually admits Man-Made Climate Change is real but seems mostly interested in what the earth was like 50 million years ago.
4. You posted this link to Climate.gov which you seem to think sides with you that the climate has always been changing, but if you actually read the article, you'd notice that it was because of those ancient changes in climate, scientists know that man-made climate change is real.
5. You posted a link to lists of volcanic eruptions and falsely blamed global warming on volcanos, and then doubled down by getting the mechanism on how volcanos affect the climate exactly backward. (Hint: Volcanos cause more cooling than they cause warming, you got this wrong)
6. You posted a link to Green Peace on overfishing, which I agree with on principle, however, overfishing is not a primary cause of global warming.
7. You said this "Granted 197 ft rise in sea levels is nothing to sneeze at but 12,000 and 7,000 years ago just confirms that global warming is a naturally reoccurring event." That 5,000-year range is roughly the same size as ALL OF RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY. And since you can't Math, that works out to 0.04 inches per year which is slower than the 0.06 - 0.08 inches per year we are experiencing now.
8. A few posts later, you unironically post "And you know that the current climate change is faster than past ones how?"
9. You posted this link to NASA, and this is where it has become abundantly clear you have an agenda without regard to facts, you use that link to point out the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as if it is some sort of "gotcha!" moment while ignoring this same statistic in that article:
The composition of Earth’s atmosphere has most certainly been altered. Half of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the last 300 years has occurred since 1980, and one quarter of it since 2000.
And again, since we know that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases, measurements like this one should be of concern.
1914
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
A constructive and inquisitive question here is, as you quoted Columbia University, are you suggesting that 4% water vapor is more the cause of climate change than the 0.04% of CO2?
At this point, I have to ask what your native language is... because either there is a language barrier or a learning disability here. He's talking about what amounts to clouds. There are days without clouds (so I'm told... I live in Pittsburgh, so I wouldn't know). And no, I am not saying that water vapor is more of a cause of climate change. Neither is the researcher from Columbia. Furthermore, water vapor has a natural release system in the form of rain.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
That's a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. Just proves to me you don't have ANY understanding of what's being discussed. :rofl:
No, I have actually read the articles you posted. You post things you think agree with you, but then ignore the rest of the article. It smacks of a troll furiously Googling to quickly find a statistic that seems to support the false argument without reading the whole article... and then, uh-oh, the article actually counters the point you're trying to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FTL

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
8,094
That, along with Acid Rain, are things we actively did to change our behavior and start repairing the damage.
The evidence certainly seems to point that way.

It's slightly concerning that same can't be said for CO2 emissions though. Scientific modelling seems to suggest that even if CO2 emissions were stopped altogether it would still take hundreds of years for temperatures to stop rising and thousands to reverse back to pre-industrial levels.
 

rafalp

Desu Ex
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
1,224
The evidence certainly seems to point that way.

It's slightly concerning that same can't be said for CO2 emissions though. Scientific modelling seems to suggest that even if CO2 emissions were stopped altogether it would still take hundreds of years for temperatures to stop rising and thousands to reverse back to pre-industrial levels.
This is interesting. Can you link to the science model demonstrating this?
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
The evidence certainly seems to point that way.

It's slightly concerning that same can't be said for CO2 emissions though. Scientific modelling seems to suggest that even if CO2 emissions were stopped altogether it would still take hundreds of years for temperatures to stop rising and thousands to reverse back to pre-industrial levels.

Yes, different things "metabolize", for lack of a better word, in the atmosphere at different speeds. CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries unless we develop some sort of scrubbing technology.

Volvo years ago put a coating on the radiator of the S80 that would scrub ozone from the air as the car moved.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,705
CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries unless we develop some sort of scrubbing technology.
You know what we could do with that? Stop burning/cutting down the rainforest, it’s quite good at the CO2 thingy.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
This is interesting. Can you link to the science model demonstrating this?

From the link Bionic Rooster supplied:

Changes to our atmosphere associated with reactive gases (gases that undergo chemical reactions) like ozone and ozone-forming chemicals like nitrous oxides, are relatively short-lived. Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.

So even if we stopped all fossil fuel use tomorrow... the CO2 already in the air would stay there for centuries and continue to warm the planet. It turns into a feedback loop because the rising temperatures also end up causing methane release causing more global warming.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
635
No, I have actually read the articles you posted. You post things you think agree with you, but then ignore the rest of the article. It smacks of a troll furiously Googling to quickly find a statistic that seems to support the false argument without reading the whole article... and then, uh-oh, the article actually counters the point you're trying to make.
All I can say is if you are not happy with this discussion feel free to start your own.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
All I can say is if you are not happy with this discussion feel free to start your own.

I'm quite comfortable hanging your false statements and
default_tinfoil.gif
theories out to dry, thanks.

It is a slow week for me, the boss is on vacation, no deadlines I need to worry about. Tee up a few more for me to wack into the weeds.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
635
I'm quite comfortable hanging your false statements and
default_tinfoil.gif
theories out to dry, thanks.

It is a slow week for me, the boss is on vacation, no deadlines I need to worry about. Tee up a few more for me to wack into the weeds.
And you accuse me of being a troll
As you posted above to rafalp I have covered both sides. So you cherry pick what you agree with and don't agree with to what end? You don't even make sound arguments against the scientific community. You just have some bone to pick with me personally as it appears.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
And you accuse me of being a troll
As you posted above to rafalp I have covered both sides. So you cherry pick what you agree with and don't agree with to what end? You don't even make sound arguments against the scientific community. You just have some bone to pick with me personally as it appears.

I haven't a *clue* who you are and I honestly don't care. I can only hope that you will someday pull your head out of whatever right-wing corporate bootlicking websites you are reading that feed you this stuff.

I used your own link to shoot down your flawed line of reasoning. That doesn't mean you covered both sides. You used that link to try and dismiss the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere by saying it was just a tiny percentage, but you failed to read the rest of your own link and what it was saying.

Of course I'm not making arguments against the scientific community. I agree with them. What I disagree with is the title of this thread and all the faulty logic used to get to the conclusion it proposes.

Global warming IS the great threat we were told... and I've just spent 9 pages of posts to swat away the crackpot theories like "It's Volcanos!" or "It's just a natural process".

It is not volcanoes, it's not overfishing, it's not the shifting of the magnetic poles, what we are experiencing now is not natural, we should be cooling.

It is CO2 in the atmosphere that we are putting there causing a feedback loop that has thrown the whole system out of wack. It may take a few decades, but there will be famine, large migrations, loss of life, and loss of cities. and probably even wars over resources. Some of that has already started. It is the beginning of the end, but it is still the end if we don't change course.

It is too late to just cut back on CO2 emissions, we need to find a way to do CO2 scrubbing to start removing it from the atmosphere if there is to be any hope.
 

Pete

Flavours of Forums Forever
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
2,705
I must admit I am enjoying this posting and debunking of theories more than the endless debates on when XenForo is going to push a new release, or whether IPS is terrible for abandoning the hobbyist market, please keep it up!
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2013
Messages
635
there will be famine, large migrations, loss of life, and loss of cities. and probably even wars over resources. Some of that has already started. It is the beginning of the end, but it is still the end if we don't change course.
Dooms day propaganda to blame CO2 as many of these events have occurred pre industrial for thousands of years. Best you hind in the hole you claim I dug so you don't get zapped by the predicted solar flare pointed at earth.
 

Oldsmoboi

Fan
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
734
Dooms day propaganda to blame CO2 as many of these events have occurred pre industrial for thousands of years. Best you hind in the hole you claim I dug so you don't get zapped by the predicted solar flare pointed at earth.
Yes they have happened in the past. Climate change will cause them to happen much more frequently.

Yet again, you fail to read the effing article! You've gotta start reading past the headline!
From your OWN LINK:
it's worth noting that an M-class flare would probably not be particularly disruptive in any case.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,496
The evidence certainly seems to point that way.

It's slightly concerning that same can't be said for CO2 emissions though. Scientific modelling seems to suggest that even if CO2 emissions were stopped altogether it would still take hundreds of years for temperatures to stop rising and thousands to reverse back to pre-industrial levels.
I don't think reverting temperatures to pre-industrial levels is attainable. However, If we can find ways to stop increasing CO2 levels from significantly increasing, we can keep the temperature down to below 2 degrees C. At least that's what many of the models predict. At those levels, and given sufficient time, the oceans and rain forests may be able to begin reducing CO2 again.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,496
If we trust NASA, we also trust the UN?
Interesting videos. It's always good to have a different viewpoint. However, it should be pointed out that Peter Taylor does not represent the UN or it's stance on climate change. He just happened to work for them for a while.

Taylor's commentary goes against the majority of the science being done on climate change. So far, his predictions on cooling haven't come to fruition, nor do they seem likely to, based on the currently accepted models. This may be showing my bias, but his forays into shamanism and spiritual yoga also make me skeptical about his arguments.
 
Top