By the way, I do not have time for a point-by-point refutation of all 100 reasons why climate change is natural but have you noticed that many of the "reasons why climate change is natural", valid or not, aren't even that. One example:
14 "wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions "
This has nothing at all to do with whether or not climate change is natural.
Discredited? It's 4000 to 67. I am truly sorry that you actually believe the propaganda set out by the left. You my friend are under their mind control. Now be gone and follow the rest of the sheeple.
Not sure what you mean by 4000 to 67. I can cite the IPCC, the National Academy of Scientists, the Royal Society, the AAAS and so on, and you will just take this as proof that the plot is bigger than we thought, while you guys cite Drudge links to op-ed pieces by journalists and rightwingers. Why is the Royal Society or NAS unscientific and this guy (not a scientist at all and most of his points wrong or irrelevant) considered proof of something? It's just inane.
Tell me how this is wrong: 1-Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
How is this wrong? Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
HOW IS THIS WRONG? It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
I didn't say I didn't read it, I said I didn't have time for a point by point rebuttal. Some of them are probably true, for example "It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."
Sounds about right but do you think this fact was somehow not known or overlooked by climatologists?
"Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere."
Don't think this is true. From what I've read historical c02 levels varied from about 180ppm (during ice ages) to about 280ppm during warmer periods. Today its about 388 and rising. C02 is a greenhouse gas (undisputed) and it's rising. Hmmm... wouldn't expect that to have any effect, right?
You seem to left out the most important fact: 1-Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
Nothing about the other points I refuted. As for this one, it may well be true since geological history covers billions of years and the industrial period only a few hundred, but this is entirely irrelevant to this debate. The current rise in C02 levels is caused by man, and in the opinion of most scientists directly related to rising temperatures.
The 388ppm IS low compared to the earth's history. It doesn't really matter because it's the man made percentage that is important which is 0.00022%. Why is that so hard for you to understand???? IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU! The current rise is not caused by us. It's natural you dingbat.
A new moron has appeared. Really, climatologists have just ignored the sun or that C02 is .04% or less? Solar variation has been measured and is not the cause of global warming, despite the pseudo-science.
And getlive, I don't know what to say. The percentage of the total c02 output over all of geological time is completely irrelevant and if you can't see that you are cognitively impaired.
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.
How could I have missed this one? Am I supposed to be impressed by this? Jesus. I could counter that in my own list: 56) People who deny AGW are stoopid poopy-heads. There, done.
How is it irrelevant? Sigh. OK, C02 is released by nonhuman factors obviously and obviously over a 4.5 billion year period there's going to be a lot more pre-human C02. The increase in C02 levels in our lifetime is caused by man.
The problem is you can't think on your own which is why your explanation is that of a first grader. The fact that the earth's climate has drastically changed, more than you can even comprehend, in it's lifetime before humans came along means that humans are not contributing. So what happened all those years before man came? Why did the earth heat and cool so dramatically in it's history? The fact that the human contribution in geological history is so minute, yet the earth still went through it's dramatic phases means that humans are not contributing to the warming that is occurring now. Think on your own for once and you will be able to give intelligent answers.
OK, so they found some ways to estimate solar levels during Egyptian times. Today they can measure the solar output directly. They know it is NOT the cause of global warming.
Donkey don't be an idiot, of course the sun warms the earth. If the sun went away we would all freeze in minutes. But solar variance is not the cause of global warming. Scientists know this because they measure solar variance.
You guys never link to any actual science, just moronic articles like this one.
“Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
I've got the science on my side. The National Academy of Science and the Royal Society. You've got squat and that's becoming increasingly clear. You'll buy anything, no matter how dubious and discredited,if it supports your position.
31 comments:
Two reasons to just dismiss this article:
1) the author is not a scientist
2) it's bullshit
By the way, I do not have time for a point-by-point refutation of all 100 reasons why climate change is natural but have you noticed that many of the "reasons why climate change is natural", valid or not, aren't even that. One example:
14 "wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions
"
This has nothing at all to do with whether or not climate change is natural.
Game over.
You mean you don't have any good reasons to refute any and all 100 points! You got nothin', just like you always do. Get a job.
Repeating the same stupid, tired, debunked and discredited bullshit over and over and over accomplishes nothing for you
Discredited? It's 4000 to 67. I am truly sorry that you actually believe the propaganda set out by the left. You my friend are under their mind control. Now be gone and follow the rest of the sheeple.
Not sure what you mean by 4000 to 67. I can cite the IPCC, the National Academy of Scientists, the Royal Society, the AAAS and so on, and you will just take this as proof that the plot is bigger than we thought, while you guys cite Drudge links to op-ed pieces by journalists and rightwingers. Why is the Royal Society or NAS unscientific and this guy (not a scientist at all and most of his points wrong or irrelevant) considered proof of something? It's just inane.
What's inane your lack of reading the link. You yourself said you didn't have the time to read all of it. So read it, then talk to me.
Then, just give me 50 reasons why you think different.
Tell me how this is wrong:
1-Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
How is this wrong?
Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere
HOW IS THIS WRONG?
It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere
READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE JACK ASS
I didn't say I didn't read it, I said I didn't have time for a point by point rebuttal. Some of them are probably true, for example "It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere."
Sounds about right but do you think this fact was somehow not known or overlooked by climatologists?
"Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere."
Don't think this is true. From what I've read historical c02 levels varied from about 180ppm (during ice ages) to about 280ppm during warmer periods. Today its about 388 and rising. C02 is a greenhouse gas (undisputed) and it's rising. Hmmm... wouldn't expect that to have any effect, right?
You seem to left out the most important fact:
1-Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
IT'S NOT US
Nothing about the other points I refuted. As for this one, it may well be true since geological history covers billions of years and the industrial period only a few hundred, but this is entirely irrelevant to this debate. The current rise in C02 levels is caused by man, and in the opinion of most scientists directly related to rising temperatures.
You didn't refute the first point, you agreed.
The 388ppm IS low compared to the earth's history. It doesn't really matter because it's the man made percentage that is important which is 0.00022%. Why is that so hard for you to understand???? IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU!
The current rise is not caused by us. It's natural you dingbat.
A new moron has appeared. Really, climatologists have just ignored the sun or that C02 is .04% or less? Solar variation has been measured and is not the cause of global warming, despite the pseudo-science.
And getlive, I don't know what to say. The percentage of the total c02 output over all of geological time is completely irrelevant and if you can't see that you are cognitively impaired.
How is it irrelevant?
55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.
How could I have missed this one? Am I supposed to be impressed by this? Jesus. I could counter that in my own list: 56) People who deny AGW are stoopid poopy-heads. There, done.
How is it irrelevant? Sigh. OK, C02 is released by nonhuman factors obviously and obviously over a 4.5 billion year period there's going to be a lot more pre-human C02. The increase in C02 levels in our lifetime is caused by man.
The thing about solar radiation is that it can be and is measured very precisely and I do not believe this was ignored by the IPCC.
The problem is you can't think on your own which is why your explanation is that of a first grader. The fact that the earth's climate has drastically changed, more than you can even comprehend, in it's lifetime before humans came along means that humans are not contributing. So what happened all those years before man came? Why did the earth heat and cool so dramatically in it's history? The fact that the human contribution in geological history is so minute, yet the earth still went through it's dramatic phases means that humans are not contributing to the warming that is occurring now. Think on your own for once and you will be able to give intelligent answers.
Thanks for the suggestion but I will continue to get my science from the scientists, not the idiots.
Scientists discover the sun! How could they have missed it. This is too stupid to respond to.
OK, so they found some ways to estimate solar levels during Egyptian times. Today they can measure the solar output directly. They know it is NOT the cause of global warming.
Gary if you are seriously arguing that the sun does not warm the earth, then please dont ever come back to this blog again.
I mean you have had to noticed that it is colder during the day than it is at night right?
Do you think thats because of dirty coal and SUV's???
Jackass. Serious. Just go away.
Donkey don't be an idiot, of course the sun warms the earth. If the sun went away we would all freeze in minutes. But solar variance is not the cause of global warming. Scientists know this because they measure solar variance.
You guys never link to any actual science, just moronic articles like this one.
Interesting article which proves my point:
“Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."
For the real climate change hoax:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279-deniergate-turning-the-tables-on-climate-sceptics.html?full=true
sorry i missed this whole exchange....well not really.
while it is fun to watch gary make a fool of himself i have found that it is a waste of time trying to argue religion with people.
global warming is gary's religion.
good luck with that.
I've got the science on my side. The National Academy of Science and the Royal Society. You've got squat and that's becoming increasingly clear. You'll buy anything, no matter how dubious and discredited,if it supports your position.
You don't have science. You have political bullshit on your side. Baaaaaaaa
Post a Comment