Welcome to the Growery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
What percentage of those gasses could be used by the plants near highways? We don't know. What percentage falls to the ground? Don't know. What percentage goes all the way to the stratosphere and is actually causing a problem? Don't know.
ITS BULLSHIT FUCKING SCIENCE GUYS!!!!!
1) Yes we do. The answer is "not anywhere near as much as we're emitting." 2) Yes we do. This is very fucking easy to measure also, and a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you're speaking way out of your league. 3) Once again; yes, we do know. Additionally, it's not just CO2 in the stratosphere that causes the issue. I don't know where you heard that the stratosphere was the only important layer of the atmosphere, but it's a pretty laughable notion for you to even bring up.
The only bullshit science going on in this debate is uneducated people like yourself who blindly spout ignorant fallacies without any sort of legitimate reason to bring them up.
What's your peer reviewed journal of choice? How much data have you gone through to reach this conclusion? Sleepless hours I assume.
Using an argument of peer pressure makes no argument against global warming itself. Going against Darwinian evolution is also academic suicide, that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is any less valid.
You're starting to sound like Ben Stein, rather than scientifically debating the data you debate the circumstances under which the data is created.
-------------------- kickin-two-hundo said: you know what i did in english class? I came to class stoned out of my mind every day, i chugged vodka in the back of class, i put dead fish in the ceiling tiles. i put a gallon of old milk and orange juice in the file cabinet before winter vacation. i brought snakes in a tied up sweater and let them loose during class. i didnt go to school to learn, i went because i had to. i didnt care, and i didn't fucking listen to that stupid bitch. and i still don't fucking care. i tore the pages out of her books and burned them, and threw away all the books in the class, two books per day.
Stratosphere was probably the only layer he could name off the top of his head.
-------------------- kickin-two-hundo said: you know what i did in english class? I came to class stoned out of my mind every day, i chugged vodka in the back of class, i put dead fish in the ceiling tiles. i put a gallon of old milk and orange juice in the file cabinet before winter vacation. i brought snakes in a tied up sweater and let them loose during class. i didnt go to school to learn, i went because i had to. i didnt care, and i didn't fucking listen to that stupid bitch. and i still don't fucking care. i tore the pages out of her books and burned them, and threw away all the books in the class, two books per day.
Another argument to present is that yes, plants are natural absorbers of CO2. However not only are we exceeding their capacity to absorb it but our continued deforestation is only making the situation worse.
I don't see what's so hard to understand. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which is normally recycled by plants to create sugars. We have not only in the last hundred years increased our CO2 output, but we have reduced the foliage necessary to recycle the CO2. Add onto the fact that a common way to clear jungle in the amazon for farms is by controlled burning it shouldn't be hard to see our continued methods are worsening our planets ability to recycle CO2, which increased concentrations cause warming.
Jungle doesn't just grow back you know.
-------------------- kickin-two-hundo said: you know what i did in english class? I came to class stoned out of my mind every day, i chugged vodka in the back of class, i put dead fish in the ceiling tiles. i put a gallon of old milk and orange juice in the file cabinet before winter vacation. i brought snakes in a tied up sweater and let them loose during class. i didnt go to school to learn, i went because i had to. i didnt care, and i didn't fucking listen to that stupid bitch. and i still don't fucking care. i tore the pages out of her books and burned them, and threw away all the books in the class, two books per day.
Quote: THEBats said: You're starting to sound like Ben Stein, rather than scientifically debating the data you debate the circumstances under which the data is created.
Ha, thats funny because I remember debating evolution with him a few years back.
For all the Global Warming Fundies Please watch this video by a guy that completely debunks the whole Global Warming Hoax. He exposes the lies and the corrupt 'science' that Al Gore used in his film An Inconvenient Truth.
The whole thing is a politically driven hoax.
Take the 1.5 hours of your day to watch this presentation. Since it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Global Warming Theory is a bold faced LIE
Quote: Harry_Ba11sach said: The only bullshit science going on in this debate is uneducated people like yourself who blindly spout ignorant fallacies without any sort of legitimate reason to bring them up.
The whole Global Warming Scare is based on bullshit science. Stats were pulled out of politicians asses Glaring facts that disprove the theory were ignored Time after time the politicians either ignored or changed the scientists information.
The video I posted is begging you to prove it wrong.
Although you wont be able to, I'm dying to hear your retort on it.
I'm a little hesitant to waste my time watching and rebuking that video because the last 10 "facts" from you that I've debunked have gone completely ignored. I'd appreciate if you'd take the time to respond to TheBats and Myself as we've taken for you. Otherwise this is less of a debate and more of us just talking to the internet for no reason. We've made some very legitimate points, and you seem to just completely skim over them and ignore that they exist because they don't fit in with your conspiracy-nut worldview
Quote: niteowl said: For all the Global Warming Fundies Please watch this video by a guy that completely debunks the whole Global Warming Hoax. He exposes the lies and the corrupt 'science' that Al Gore used in his film An Inconvenient Truth.
Irrelevant: Al Gore is not a climatologist. If you'd like discuss actual science instead of popular film I'll take this seriously.
Quote: Harry_Ba11sach said: I'm a little hesitant to waste my time watching and rebuking that video because the last 10 "facts" from you that I've debunked have gone completely ignored. I'd appreciate if you'd take the time to respond to TheBats and Myself as we've taken for you. Otherwise this is less of a debate and more of us just talking to the internet for no reason. We've made some very legitimate points, and you seem to just completely skim over them and ignore that they exist because they don't fit in with your conspiracy-nut worldview
Quote: niteowl said: For all the Global Warming Fundies Please watch this video by a guy that completely debunks the whole Global Warming Hoax. He exposes the lies and the corrupt 'science' that Al Gore used in his film An Inconvenient Truth.
The whole thing is a politically driven hoax.
Take the 1.5 hours of your day to watch this presentation. Since it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Global Warming Theory is a bold faced LIE
.
Quote: THEBats said: Now tell me, why on earth would I trust the opinion of a Roman Catholic politician over someone who actually works in the field of science? Hell, any field of science would do, but this guy does not have a degree in anything remotely related to science. Not to mention his view on AIDS is as follows, ""There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."
Rather than posting videos which you think answer your questions for you, which they don't as there's plenty of faulty science in that video, why don't you debate us word for word? Rather than copy and paste, watch videos on the subject from people not qualified enough to teach high school science, why don't you make an attempt to express yourself in your own words, and debate our points made.
The only evidence for that is the planet mars, and even then scientists link other factors for mars warming and don't detect an overall warming trend for the planet globally but rather a regional trend.
-------------------- kickin-two-hundo said: you know what i did in english class? I came to class stoned out of my mind every day, i chugged vodka in the back of class, i put dead fish in the ceiling tiles. i put a gallon of old milk and orange juice in the file cabinet before winter vacation. i brought snakes in a tied up sweater and let them loose during class. i didnt go to school to learn, i went because i had to. i didnt care, and i didn't fucking listen to that stupid bitch. and i still don't fucking care. i tore the pages out of her books and burned them, and threw away all the books in the class, two books per day.
well it's actually a very complex equation involving Milankovitch cycles, Solar output variation, and alteration of global Albedo (from ice-recession, and land-use change). That said, we have a very good handle on exactly how much those other variables influence our climate (it's literally one of the oldest sciences in existence), both in historical trends, empirical data, and from climatological modeling. We can say with a very high degree of certainty that the rate of temperature change we're experiencing right now is considerably above the historical and predicted rates. Nearly every single climate model, no matter how complex, falls below our current rate of change until they factor in anthropogenic carbon emissions.
Quote: Harry_Ba11sach said: We can say with a very high degree of certainty that the rate of temperature change we're experiencing right now is considerably above the historical and predicted rates.
You need to check who did those 'tests'. Many were blown out of proportion.......
Such results add to the overwhelming evidence provided by other paleoclimate records that have shown, in their words, that "Holocene climate was punctuated by widespread cooling events, recurring every ~1500 ± 500 years (Bond et al., 1997; Bianchi and McCave, 1999; Broecker, 2000; Mayewski et al., 2004; Debret et al., 2007; Allen et al., 2007)." And since this periodicity suggests that the world was fully ripe for a recovery from the last of these coolings (i.e., the Little Ice Age), 20th-century global warming is seen to be neither unusual, unnatural nor unprecedented, which latter three adjectives are routinely - but very wrongly - used by climate alarmists to suggest that the most recent upward swing of this recurrent temperature cycle was caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It was not. It was merely time for the earth to naturally recover from the coldest interval of the current interglacial period, which further suggests that a good deal of warming was only to be expected. link
Virtually every study done on medieval climate (prior to the global warming scare ~1990-95) showed a much higher mean temp than they show now.
Quote: Nearly every single climate model, no matter how complex, falls below our current rate of change until they factor in anthropogenic carbon emissions.
Here is another article that flies in the face of global warming....
A recent article in the journal Science has provided a new, detailed climate record for the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), also know as the Medieval Warm Period. It was the most recent pre-industrial warm period, noted in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. The researchers present a 947-year-long multi-decadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. The interesting thing is that the MCA had basically been removed from the climate record by Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” history graph that was adopted by the IPCC a decade ago.
...
The bottom line? Once again the climate models used by the IPCC and other climate catastrophists are shown to be inaccurate, incomplete and not up to the job of predicting future climatic conditions. What does the IPCC have to say about all of this? Here is a quote from Paleoclimate, chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC report:
"Palaeoclimate science has made significant advances since the 1970s, when a primary focus was on the origin of the ice ages, the possibility of an imminent future ice age, and the first explorations of the so-called Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Even in the first IPCC assessment (IPCC, 1990), many climatic variations prior to the instrumental record were not that well known or understood. Fifteen years later, understanding is much improved, more quantitative and better integrated with respect to observations and modelling."
Meaning all of the earlier IPCC predictions were wrong because they really didn’t know what they were doing. Of course that didn’t prevent them from predicting a coming climate catastrophe with great confidence. The thing that they don’t tell us is that their current “improved” predictions, which are also based on computer models, simply can not be considered accurate either. If the Holocene truly marks the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age and a return to the conditions that prevailed during the Pliocene, parking your SUV and buying carbon credits won’t do a thing to stop it.
In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was "a discernible human influence on global climate".
In their previous 1990 report [33], the IPCC illustrated their, then, understanding of how global climate had changed, not just during the previous 95 years, but also the past 1,000 years. In so doing they presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.
Fig.1 - Global temperature since 900 AD
This graph asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today (as suggested by the opening lines to the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer), while it was much cooler during the Little Ice Age (as suggested by John King). Historical records from all over Europe, and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound impact on human society. For example, the colonisation of Greenland by the Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed, while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent `frost fairs' being held on the river ice.
The dating of these two climatic events depends to some extent on what one regards as `warm' and `cold' in comparison with present temperatures, but the following dating approximates these events -
1) `Medieval Warm Period' (AD 700 - 1300) 2) `Sporer Minimum' cool period (AD 1300 - 1500) 3) Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 - 1560) 4) `Little Ice Age' (`Maunder Minimum') (AD 1560 - 1830) 5) Brief warmer period (AD 1830 - 1870) 6) Brief cool period (AD 1870 - 1910) 7) 20th century warm period (AD 1910 - 2000)
As to what caused these two major climatic events, the most probable candidate is the variable sun, particularly with respect to the Little Ice Age. This is because we have direct observations of sunspot counts going back to 1600 AD, which allows us to compare variations in the sun with variations to global climate. Fig.2 shows how the sun has changed over time, the radiation being greatest during a sunspot maximum and least during a sunspot minimum, both recurring on an 11-year cycle.
Fig.2 - The Solar Cycle since 1600 AD
This account of climatic history contains two serious difficulties for the present global warming theory.
1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?
2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?
Both propositions posed a serious threat to continued public acceptance of the climate modeller's catastrophic view of future climate. This is because new findings in solar science suggested that the sun, not greenhouse gases, were the primary driver of 20th century climate trends.
Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts was the primary author of the GRL paper, and in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history [16].
Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' [22]. Fig.4 shows Mann's revision of the climatic history of the last millennium.
Fig.4 - The `Hockey Stick'
At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.
As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.
In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.
Now that I have provided you with evidence that the IPCC was toying with the numbers....will you please take the time to watch that video. He goes into far more detail on the hoax than I can.
Earth has gone through many hot times. Back in the Renaissance time they had record heat waves just like we are having. The sun is having increased solar activity which is completely normal, if you research you will find that saturn, jupiter etc. Are actually heating up as well. So it is not just us, and the nwo and government are using this as an excuse that WE are causing this but this is false. The excuse gave the government the right to throw carbon taxes on us and many other taxes. And if really pay attention now they are saying(or have ben saying) That kids are adding to this. Gore pitched that humans are leaving a carbon foot print due to high child birth rates etc. And if you look china has already put law on child birth. Chinese are only allowed to have one child per family, first where fined for having more, now they are being jailed for having more then 1 child per household. Eventually the sun will calm down and the heat will recede, this has nothing to do with humans. The arctic ice melting etc, it's caused by the sun heating the earth, not the earth trapping gasses. This is also giving them the excuse to spray chem. trails into the atmosphere. Their flawed logic is spraying chemicals, aluminum's and metals into the atmosphere will help "reflect" the sun. They create a panic, and then provide a solution that they see fit. you have to understand carbon levels have ben high in the past, this is normal. Just because its happening now does not mean that we are the main cause.I do believe it is a hoax, its ben proven they paid off half the scientists who claimed global warming was happening to say it was happening.
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
