Customer Discussions > Science forum

A Simplified Global Warming Question


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 76 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 9:32:46 AM PDT
af: Not sure if I agree that trees are essential to having O2 in the atmosphere. There are plenty of other land plant species, and there is also the phytoplankton in the oceans.

BPL: Unfortunately, the phytoplankton--the base of the ocean food chain--have decreased by 40% in the last half century.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 9:48:16 AM PDT
Overeating whales?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 1:56:43 PM PDT
@arpard
LOL
Uh, no.
How about temp & pH?
;)

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 4:32:27 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 19, 2012 4:33:15 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 19, 2012 4:33:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 19, 2012 5:16:11 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 6:10:57 PM PDT
KM says:
I question the accuracy of your premise. Assuming 40% of the earth's land mass actually is "cleared", that neither equates with man having cleared it, nor with man having removed all living things, even where he has altered the landscape. I live in a populated area, with so many trees I can't see any of my neighbors, and if you look on Google Earth, you can barely see my house, or any of my neighbors homes, either. Hardly the global warming/raze everything that's green kind of habitation your question implies.

Additionally, if you take a drive out to NM, TX, AZ, or Las Vegas, you will find that MASSIVE tracts of land are "cleared", yet no human cleared them. Ditto the large tracts of land in Africa that no human cleared, yet no vegetation exists there, either (Sahara Desert alone is 3.5 million sq miles, just about exactly the same size as the entire US, counting water and land).

Mother nature does a pretty good job of clearing massive tracts of land all on her own, with no help from humans of any sort. (Unless, of course you're blaming me for the Grand Canyon).

While you're busy bemoaning the CO2 from the cow flatulence of the farmers livestock, perhaps you should cast your eye of blame towards the lightning, too, for starting all those fires that burn out of control every year, burning massive forests, while those pesky Humans keep trying to put them out.

The earth is a huge place, and just because 40% of the land mass is not covered in trees, does not mean that humans did it. Antarctica and all the other ice covered land masses account for 30% of the earth's land mass, and non frozen deserts account for another huge portion, so the 40% you're alluding to is probably almost entirely accounted for just by deserts and frozen wastelands that humans had nothing to do with.

As to "global Warming", or climate change in general, there is no mystery involved. The Earth has experienced ice ages, and warmer periods all throughout history, before, and after Humans appeared on the surface. Without Global warming, my home would be under a Glacier right now, and humans didn't even exist at the time those glaciers receded, so no one "denies" global climate change, they merely disagree as to the cause of it.

Since there is a Mountain of evidence that the Earth has changed temps pretty dramatically all on it's own, for billions of years, without human interference, or intervention, "Reasonable" humans can certainly be expected to question the dubious claims of Al Gore and the cadre of "scientists" who all have massive money at stake, if their claims of MAN MADE global warming are debunked.

Since they have ALL been caught in lie after lie, and withholding/squashing any contrary information, it is not at all surprising that even poorly informed people would question their motives, and need have no religious beliefs at stake to to find their claims (and relentless demands for money and sacrifice) less than compelling. I know I do, and I have no religious feelings on the matter at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 6:32:38 PM PDT
jpl says:
A Simplified Global Warming Question

jpl: Hey, Weasel, there's no such thing as "A Simplified Global Warming Question". Climatology is a complicated science. The air contains numerous elements you've never heard of. Study climatology for a while and see if you can again come up with "A Simplified Global Warming Question".

Suggestion: Don't believe something just because you hear it often or because someone wrote a book about it. Educate yourself.

Oh, golly gee, sorry if I offended you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 19, 2012 6:39:37 PM PDT
CH: We say global warming will be good. I mean warm weather, less ice and snow, more food. That will be good

TS: So do Creationists hate people who live in warmer climates? Is that your premise?

CH: Must be awful guys when youre stumped by them dumbell nascar hick Texas Creationsits. You Betcha
Doesnt never get no worse, huh fellas?

TS: Ever hear about those people who are too dumb to know they are dumb? In fact, they can even be so deluded they think they are instead "brilliant"?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 7:38:56 AM PDT
Oh.

:)

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 8:48:10 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 8:50:40 AM PDT
KM: Since there is a Mountain of evidence that the Earth has changed temps pretty dramatically all on it's own, for billions of years, without human interference, or intervention,

BPL: There is no evidence that it has ever done so this fast.

KM: "Reasonable" humans can certainly be expected to question the dubious claims of Al Gore and the cadre of "scientists" who all have massive money at stake, if their claims of MAN MADE global warming are debunked.

BPL: Al Gore is not a scientist, so why you deniers persist in identifying AGW theory with him is beyond me. The theory was first proposed by the Nobel-prize-winning physical chemist Svante August Arrhenius in 1896.

KM: Since they have ALL been caught in lie after lie, and withholding/squashing any contrary information, it is not at all surprising that even poorly informed people would question their motives, and need have no religious beliefs at stake to to find their claims (and relentless demands for money and sacrifice) less than compelling.

BPL: Except that the accusations of fraud and lying are themselves lies. Here's some more information:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Climategate.html

KM: I know I do, and I have no religious feelings on the matter at all.

BPL: No, but you sure do have political feelings on the matter, as evidenced by the Al Gore crack. What you don't have is enough knowledge of science to judge from the evidence what's actually happening.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 3:26:06 PM PDT
The Weasel says:
jpl says:
A Simplified Global Warming Question

jpl: Hey, Weasel, there's no such thing as "A Simplified Global Warming Question". Climatology is a complicated science. The air contains numerous elements you've never heard of. Study climatology for a while and see if you can again come up with "A Simplified Global Warming Question".

Suggestion: Don't believe something just because you hear it often or because someone wrote a book about it. Educate yourself.

Oh, golly gee, sorry if I offended you.
****
The suggestion wasn't offensive at all -- however the "golly gee" was conscending and unnecessary - why add that part?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 4:48:05 PM PDT
KM says:
I'm not sure what my politics have to do with global warming, but if you can't see the correlation between Al Gore and global warming alarmists, you are actively denying the facts.

Your claim that Svante August Arrhenius first proposed a Global Warming theory in 1896 is foolishness. That may or may not have happened, but it certainly was not the impetus for the massive demands being put on the American Taxpayers at this point. THAT is directly associated with Al Gore, who despite NOT being a scientist, has been the leading proponent for Global Warming for many years now, and up until the moment his film was finally held up to the ridicule it so rightly deserved, the GW alarmists were all to happy to have him.

There's little point in debating Global Warming with someone who is actively denying the facts, or pretending that some guy in 1896 is the reason we're discussing Global Warming in 2012. If you decide to discuss the issues HONESTLY, then it might be worth discussing, but if you intend to just try to lump every person who doubts the "man made" part of global warming into two classes - idiots or religious zealots, then you are not having a discussion, you're merely attempting to bully anyone who disagrees with you.

I am neither an idiot, nor a zealot, and nothing I have said is inaccurate or intentionally misleading, so when you can say the same, feel free to respond. Otherwise, spare me YOUR religious/political leanings.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 4:57:28 PM PDT
Bubba says:
Stefan Mayerschoff says: "Is there a correlation between GW deniers and evolution deniers?"

The common denominator is the Republican party, which also includes Big Oil.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 5:45:01 PM PDT
barbW says:
So, it will cost too much? You'll have to pay a tax? LoL

How much will AGW cost humanity? Have you seen the projections?

"..pretending that some guy in 1896 is the reason we're discussing Global Warming in 2012." You're not polemic!

Posted on Jun 20, 2012 5:51:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2012 9:59:47 AM PDT
Folks,
Welcome to the Creationist Channel
And our No 1 Game Show:
Folks, its "Name That Goof!"

Its easy Folks.
You just say which of our contestants goofed!

Folks let me introduce them

Contestant 1
He's a Peer Reviewed Scientist,
Ahem, with a phd from Berkely, and 35 years of brilliant research.
A Nobel Prize Winner! In Physics!!!!
Folks lets have a hand for Secretary of Energy, Dr Steven Chu Phd BMOC!

And Contestant 2
She's an airhead cutiepie gun-nut hick dingbat,
She studied buiness, broadcast news, general studies, and journalism
at Matanuska-Susitna Junior College, North Idaho Community College, Hawaii Pacific College, and Idaho State. Whew.
Folks its Sarah Palin, B.A.

Okay folks here they go:

Contestant 1, Dr Steven phd
Back in 2007 he said
"Ahem, to assure sufficient energy going forward, the scienctific community has concluded that we must transition immediately to renewables"

Contestant 2, Sarah
Back in 2007 she said
"Take it from Mama Grizly here, we got all the oil and gas we need for a thousand years. You betcha. So drill baby drill. "

Okay Folks
Name That Goof

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 7:30:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2012 7:33:33 PM PDT
Folks,
Welcome to the Creationist Channel
And our No 1 Game Show:
Folks, its "Name That Goof!"

TS: Aw, can I name you AND Sarah Palin?
I suspect your science IQ is similar. I suspect overall you are the smarter of the two. I'll give you that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 20, 2012 7:43:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 20, 2012 7:44:55 PM PDT
Lj3d says:
The goof is thinking you are debating when all your doing is preaching. Least you have some fresh material mixed in with the usual hick putdowns and Creationist slant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 4:38:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2012 4:38:53 AM PDT
KM, in a snit: Your claim that Svante August Arrhenius first proposed a Global Warming theory in 1896 is foolishness.

BPL: Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag. and J. Sci. S. 5, 41, 237-275.

KM: That may or may not have happened, but it certainly was not the impetus for the massive demands being put on the American Taxpayers at this point. THAT is directly associated with Al Gore, who despite NOT being a scientist, has been the leading proponent for Global Warming for many years now, and up until the moment his film was finally held up to the ridicule it so rightly deserved, the GW alarmists were all to happy to have him.

BPL: We still are. BTW, Gore was one of Roger Revelle's students (do you know who Revelle was?), so he's had at least one more course in climatology than you have.

KW: There's little point in debating Global Warming with someone who is actively denying the facts, or pretending that some guy in 1896 is the reason we're discussing Global Warming in 2012. If you decide to discuss the issues HONESTLY

BPL: I am. You're not.

KM: then it might be worth discussing, but if you intend to just try to lump every person who doubts the "man made" part of global warming into two classes - idiots or religious zealots, then you are not having a discussion, you're merely attempting to bully anyone who disagrees with you.

BPL: No, no, I wouldn't use those classes at all. Everyone who denies AGW theory is either A) grossly misinformed (I assume that's you), lying, or deranged.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 4:52:37 AM PDT
Water is good for keeping you hydrated. You should try drinking 10 gallons of it today.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 5:25:15 AM PDT
Bubba says:
And as salt is a required nutrient, those 10 gallons of water should contain salt equivalent to that of seawater. One US gallon of seawater has about 4 to 4½ ounces of salt in it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 5:41:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 21, 2012 5:42:53 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
So, you don't see the relevance of politics to the science of global warming... and yet all of your objections to it are political. Interesting.

Have you reviewed the scientific reports from climatologists and climate-study committees on the subject? or is your expertise limited to complaining about Al Gore and worrying about the "American taxpayer," i.e., the fossil-fuel industry?

There's certainly more to denialism than ignorance and religious zealotry: there's the active disinformation campaign funded by oil and gas companies and their affiliated corporate interests to protect their profit margins by denying the evidence.

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines
Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health
The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 5:41:34 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hidiing from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 21, 2012 7:48:48 AM PDT
What is foolish about stating that Arrheniuis was one of the first scientists to clearly recognize the association between atmospheric CO2 and climate, and the first to quantify it with reasonable accuracy?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2012 7:44:03 PM PDT
KM: then it might be worth discussing, but if you intend to just try to lump every person who doubts the "man made" part of global warming into two classes - idiots or religious zealots, then you are not having a discussion, you're merely attempting to bully anyone who disagrees with you.

BPL: No, no, I wouldn't use those classes at all. Everyone who denies AGW theory is either A) grossly misinformed (I assume that's you), lying, or deranged.

TS: Er, KM. Why would BPL use religious zealot in a negative connotation, since he is religious himself.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  76
Initial post:  Jun 11, 2012
Latest post:  Jun 22, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions