Is Man Made Global Warming A Hoax Now?

woo!

Score one for sensibility.

 

Good riddance

And give a big fuck you to the rest of the UN while they're at it!

 

I got neg-repped for this

comment given: "science & sensibility"



:smilielol5:

 

Republicans: Who the fuck needs science, what has it ever done for us.

 

Warmists are a joke, it isn't science when you ignore all contradictory evidence and just focus solely one one hypothetical theory. Especially when you chant around and scream "The debate is over! The debate is over!"

I bet some of you fuckers are keeping your fingers crossed in hopes of a climate apocalypse where the ice caps melt and Maldives and Florida sink under just so you can save face and say "ha-ha ha-ha ha-ha I told you so I told you so neener neener neeeeeeeeener!"

 

Maybe the contradicting evidence is ignored because the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming in support of global warming. I can find you evidence that the holocaust never really happened on the scale it did, or that the Titanic was an insurance fraud, but these people who spout that asinine bullshit are also ignored because the other evidence points to an obvious truth that a lot of people just wish to ignore. Obviously the world's entire scientific body is just part of some huge conspiracy.

 

How misleading! You make it sound like the U. S. will not give any more money. The U. S. House of Representatives has passed this, but it will not go any further, I'm quite sure, since there is soooo much idiocy in the bill.

 

To this matter of the problem: climate change, per say; there would truly be something worthy of consideration in the manner of Reagan's; we still need more research; that was then when stuff like acid rain and river water, smog, pollution was at considerable difficulties in the economic growth. Would environmental activism hinder the ECONOMY? Would it now? It actually might do the economy a favor: if, mind you, IF the politics could achieve a bipartisan content of questioning the local people: are they ready to support business growth that way. A conservative approach would be common sense of penalizing polluters and progress for the changes of price management.

Criminals aside the liberal approach is consumer development and finances which save money for progress directly in the cause of encouraged large business's, microsoft, and even, Ford. Why shouldn't Ford,the monopolous giant have production for other things than Cars. Takes money only in the long run if it takes research to change consumers' minds.

The House of Representatives does not believe in the scientific awareness of it's people. At this point the politics (bi-partisan) would do a good turn if the economy were restrained from the opportunism at the middle east.

 

This is no different scientifically from the ozone layer research a few decades back, but because there's so much of stake for big oil and coal and the governments in league with them we are never going to get enough research for them to agree to do something - if companies had a bigger stake in CFCs you can be sure we wouldn't have an ozone layer by now.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that there is climate change going on.
There is not nearly as much evidence as to how much of that is caused by industrial emissions.

 

Like what?

-The sun's inconsistent radiation of heat and sun spots.
-The earth's inconsistent distance from the sun (it travels in an ellipse, not a circle)
-Mars' melting ice caps while no creature is burning emissions on that planet.
-Some glaciers are growing around the world while others are shrinking (most likely due to local deforestation)
-Urban heat islands (where as cities grow, the microclimate of that area also increases as the solid metal of infrastructure and the sedimentary rock of the streets and concrete release a greater heat output. For example: the town of Bend, Oregon grew from 20,000 to 80,000 in 20 years and the temperature average also increased in that town, whereas other nearby towns which didn't experience similar growth didn't have greater temperature increases.
-The fact that oceans, volcanoes, and decaying organic matter, put off more carbon emissions than automobiles around the world on a daily basis.

 

:2thumbsup: So much at stake and then nationalism becomes the preferential substance of these large trans-nationals. Obviously Profit is the waste for the oil and car company when the degradation of nature is confronted. With nationalism it is the situation for communicating properties' fact for balanced budgets. The degradation now is good to follow. So why not do research in somewhere like Egypt, Mozambique, and India?

 

See it's things like this statement that show how asinine the argument is. Hey, let's just compare the Earth's natural eco system that's been in place for over 800 million years in a balance it's evolved to work around and accommodate, to the same acitivty of humans taking the Earth's material, extracting it from the Earth, setting it on fire, and releasing hundreds of millions of tons of carbon into the air, each year, over the past 190 years.

Obviously things likes this combined with the thousands of other activities releasing tons of carbon into the air have absolutely no effect

 

But that isn't the only volcano, either. There are quite a few. And comparing one piece of the puzzle to a piece of the picture isn't going to help. If we are going to compare natural versus unnatural emissions, we should cover all sources.

AFAIC accuracy counts.

 

What about this then?


All volcanos emit 0.6% of man-made emissions

 

Thats stupid- why just comparing it to volcanoes?
Why not other natural sources of CO2?

The primary natural processes that release CO2 into the atmosphere (sources) and that remove CO2 from the atmosphere (sinks) are:

• Animal and plant respiration, by which oxygen and nutrients are converted into CO2 and energy, and plant photosynthesis by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored as carbon in plant biomass;
• Ocean-atmosphere exchange, in which the oceans absorb and release CO2 at the sea surface

Whats so special about volcanoes?

 

There is a net decrease in both those sources. Volcanos are special because they are natural emitters - trees and oceans aren't, unless the system is overloaded and can't absorb anymore.

 

Anyway the minuscule amount of 0,038% of CO2 in the atmosphere doesnt make the climate warmer, its just a big hoax.
Most of the conspiracy theories I know of are true from the moon landing hoax up to a satanic new world order but the man made climate change is just a big hoax.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-sXHl3l-rM"]YouTube - Urban Heat Islands on The Weather Channel

 

Increased flood risk linked to global warming
Likelihood of extreme rainfall may have been doubled by rising greenhouse-gas levels.

Two studies in the Feb 17 issue of Nature conclude that climate warming is already causing extreme weather events that affect the lives of millions. The research directly links rising greenhouse-gas levels with the growing intensity of rain and snow in the Northern Hemisphere, and the increased risk of flooding in the United Kingdom.

“This has immense importance not just as a further justification for emissions reduction, but also for adaptation planning,” says Michael Oppenheimer,
a climate-policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey, who was not involved in the studies.

1. Min, S.-K. et al. Nature 470, 378–381 (2011
2. Pall, P. et al. Nature 470, 382–385 (2011).