Riiiiiight.... Because the idea that lizards are controlling the government is just looney, but the idea that Algore and the Club of Rome have infiltrated and not control the entire scientific community is perfectly sane and rational. :rofl
Yes; one is verifiable, known, published, the people real, their affiliations public information. I didn't say they 'Controlled' in the sense that you are thinking... but a catastrophic outlook caused by global warming will 'sell' better than to give a more accurate outlook (The earth will warm, then will cool down again for a while, and eventually will come back to another warm period like it's done for millions of years and like it will do for millions of years to come). When an issue is politicized science, there is also 'political pressures' to find a study that will promote the idea. This is NOT conspiracy, this is the system and how business works.
Again, like the FDA... you can't say there is a conspiracy between FDA and big pharma companies that create 'synthetic' drugs. The procedure involved with the safety studies assures that big pharma will not produce 'organic' medicines because the product cannot be patented; and the FDA will not pass drugs without this testing. These companies however will synthesize organic medicines and then get the testing done because then they can sell for a better price than an organic medicine that cannot be 'owned'.
It's not a consipiracy, it's the way business works. The club of rome, only takes advantage of the way business works...
Whereas, David Icke's theories are quite rediculous in that there isn't any real EVIDENCE of this (except maybe through his view of the world).
How exactly does
this explanation "twist logic?"
Nothing, because it actually represents a balanced viewpoint.
Models suggest that rising greenhouse gases, including CO2, explains about 40% of the warming as the ice ages ended.
So admittedly there are other factors to climate change.... Something I've stated repeatedly.
Ten sources that you admitted you didn't even read.
No, that I read just enough to verify its relevance... small difference.
YES. I'll repeat: no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.
What about these guys??
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Personnel
I wasn't deny solar forcing. I just said it didn't account for the current warming. You do understand the difference, yes?
I did find
rather interesting... seeing as we are about at the minimum and then I come across an article like
this.
And when NASA, NOAA, etc. reverse there stance, you can remind us all how you were just like Galileo.
NASA - Top Story - NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE - March 20, 2003 ?
Even though it's not quite a reversal, you can see the correlation for yourself... and admitted that the affect was noted, but the degree of it's effect is uncertain as of yet.
So, even NASA agrees that further study is needed... or was I just imagining that?
Spoken like a true creationist. er, wait... what established scientific theory are you trying to debunk again? All these skeptic arguments look the same to me.
No, you forget that it's the creationists that say the 'debate is over'... 'God (IPCC for argument) said it, I believe it, end of discussion' is a 'creationist' argument.
Good attempt.
You're right. As luck would have it,
we have evidence to back up that statement.
LMAO at your 'consensus' page... There is even argument on this 'consenus' on this page... 4 pages worth.
I didn't think you'd actually read it, merely relying on ridiculous conspiracy theory sites.
So now when I hear a quote I must have read the book from which it came to count?? Rather than taking sections from the book quoted at length to avoid being 'taken out of context' and left to the reader to figure the implications.
Let me guess; you believe that the 'Council on Foreign Relations' is a conspiracy theory too?? That the Federal reserve is run by the same families that have run it from the start, that must be a conspiracy too? Look, just because you're uncomfortable accepting certain ideas doesn't mean that it is conspiracy... especially when talking about verifiable organizations?
I've been over this:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Envir...enic-global-warming-101-a.html#post1057766593
Pay attention.[/QUOTE]
It's apparent you don't know. The rest of us aren't so confused.
Well, it's easy to avoid confusion when you refuse to acknowledge that politicization of science isn't going to produce 'unbiased' results.
That CO2 doesn't FULLY explain global warming historically... yes, the lag time is important. That CO2 has grown due to human production doesn't mean that CO2 will then 'drive' the environment... with the reduction in solar activity the past 2 years, it's no wonder that they've had snow in
kenya.... when by the logic of AGW the earth should still be warming...
Oh wait, the sun doesn't have an important affect on climate...
Really? You've actually read all the links I posted in this thread?:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/37809-anthropogenic-global-warming-101-a.html
Paying particular attention to the videos in the second post?
Except for the various links from which I wouldn't have been able to source for various reasons : blogs, lack of peer review, etc...
I think I've determined where this argument is stemming from
1. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
2. Infrared radiation is reflected upwards from the surface of the Earth.
3. CO2 is produced by the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, wood, ethanol, and biodiesel.
4. We burn a lot of these carbon-rich fuels by oxidizing them.
5. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are measurably increasing.
6. Oxygen concentrations in the atmosphere are measurably decreasing.
7. Globally, average temperatures are observed to be increasing.
8. Therefore, based on #1-7, the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is causing the increase in temperature.
BUT it's all based on the assumption of a stable 'input' of heat... which the sun is not... remember even NASA now says there's an effect (although not the extent of it).
So, as the sun's effect goes through another minimum, then there will be a reduction in energy getting to the earth, to be trapped by the greenhouse gases. Now, Let's say this cycle has a few years before it hits a 'high' again, in that time cooler temperatures will mean the oceans will absorb more co2 (which will still be artificially higher).
Oh wait, the sun's affecting our global temperature... that's a conspiracy theory.
Interesting. The politicization of AGW shows to me that there's quite a bit of money at stake for the industries involved; not that AGW is a bunk theory.
Right, there's alot of money at stake, because it's not too often you get a chance to condition people to be taxed on EVERYTHING in the name of carbon, including exhalation.
Look, if water vapor were a forcing, the endless cycle of evaporation and warming (71% of the Earth's surface is water) would have rendered this planet a barren rock eons ago.
No, water isn't a 'forcing agent' I didn't mean to imply that... I was stating that water vapour is a greenhouse gas that is more abundant than co2. The forcing agent is the sun... without the sun there would be no energy to heat the atmosphere.
It's not a red herring if it's real. Good try, though.
It IS a red herring if it's real, but is being used to keep you away from looking at other MORE IMPORTANT environmental issues.
Don't care. I'm not talking about solutions.
I guess you'd rather wait for government to tell you that 'to protect the environment' you'll have to pay a 'carbon tax' based on : vehicle, furnace, hot water heat + the amount of co2 you realease by exhalation.
Exactly. And that's why skeptics are so interesting in keeping the discussion in the "debate" phase. Just like when the dangers of tobacco were coming out.
The skeptics also argue that a 'warm earth' is preferable to a 'cool climate' for agriculture, etc... but that there is massive deforestation going on there are fewer trees to absorb more CO2... by blaming the civilian driving around too much is an oversimplification that leads to stupid ideas that solve nothing, like carbon taxes or 'cap and trade' ideas that solve NOTHING.
The difference between this issue and the issue of tobacco was that the tobacco companies had direct vested interest; it was putting at risk a highly addictive product whose users fought tooth and nail to keep using
I wasn't deny solar forcing. I just said it didn't account for the current warming. You do understand the difference, yes?
The sun is the ONLY FORCING agent; if not for the sun there is no 'greenhouse effect'.
CO2 is nutritious? Put a bag over your head and breathe deep (don't do this alone). Lemme know how you feel after.
Are you serious?? Do I really need to explain the 'carbon cycle' to someone that is clearly educated like yourself??
I'll do it anyway O2 -> carbon based animal exhales = CO2 -> trees exhale = O2. So, yes it's a nutrient.
So... where exactly is your disconnect with AGW? Are you not convinced of the radiative properties of CO2; that it's a greenhouse gas? Are you not convinced that CO2 levels have been increasing?
The disconnect is the simplification for political purposes, the AGENDA attached to global warming. When there are more urgent issues to be dealt with affecting the environment and ecosystem of the planet.
Yes! I knew you were a 9/11 Twoofer, too! :mrgreen:
No, I actually believe that 19 hijackers from a cave in afghanistan hijacked 4 planes, and circumvented NORAD for long enough to hit 3 out of 4 targets, and that the jetfuel melted the structure enough to cause total collapse into it's own footprints, and also that day small fires and 'unusual magnetic forces' in column number 47 of WTC7 caused that building to collapse completely into its own foot-print.
NIST is based on sound science, and they made sure to fire any scientist that started asking questions that 'defied science' by suggestion
that explosives seem to have been in the buildings...
