The Climate Change Hoax

Global Warming is a religion. (take note of capitals)

 

I don't understand. Quite short in thought. Could you elaborate?
Cheers
Daniel

 

You assert that it's impossible for CO2 to accumulate from 'incidental sources.' Then you label anthropogenic emissions as incidental, and say that therefore by definition it's impossible for them to be the source of the accumulation. That is a logical fallacy, and very close to a circular argument.

You're begging the question, in the pure Aristotelian sense.

Instead, maybe you should reexamine your premise that anything you describe as incidental can't contribute to accumulation. It's possible that either incidental sources can and do contribute, or that you've miscategorized what is and isn't incidental.

 

re⋅li⋅gion [ri-lij-uhn] –noun
1. a set of beliefs...usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
3. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

1. Devotional, ritual - you will ski Nordic style and never consider getting on a snowmachine. You will drive smaller, uglier, more dangerous cars. You will look with disdain upon SUVs and gas-powered recreation, in general. You will call fur "murder" but wear leather shoes because they are better than anything else. You will spend more of someone else's money on solar panels than can ever be recovered by reduced grid usage. You will vote for hope and change and have the bumper sticker to prove it.
2. AlGore = good, Sarah Palin = bad
3.Did I mention blind-*** faith? Pro-AGW posters have in the body of their belief the word "consensus" even tho the only scientific consensus goes the other way.

 

Agw

AlBore is the high priest of AGW.

 

The Goricle.

 

Make that Goracle

 

yes, goracle

 

Just aside... Is anyone ready to pay the bill if your belief happens to be false

 

There's nothing particularly noteworthy about anthropogenic CO2 emissions WRT basic quantity; anthropogenic emissions are nowhere near the largest source of 'incidental' terrestrial CO2 emissions; that title belong to terrestrial biotic sources (basically rot) which is 1-2 orders of magnitude larger than anthropogenic CO2. And all the incidental sources taken together are not the chief drivers for atmospheric CO2 concentration anyway, as the oceanic solubility 'pump' is orders of magnitude larger than the total of 'incidental' sources.

But there is one thing unique about anthropogenic emissions, being that they are mostly sourced from 'fossil' fuels, which is that their isotopic signature is quite different from recent terrestrial and pelagic sources. As you may or may not know, the isotopic signature for ancient, 'fossil' sourced carbon, and consequently the CO2 therefrom, is markedly different from that of 'recent' CO2. This makes it very easy to test the assertions about the origin of the recent rise in CO2, and the resulting "expected fraction" of the present atmosphere which is fossil sourced as a consequence. The IPCC asserted in 1991 (by following their assertion of "All or nearly all" anthropogenic attribution to it's logical outcome) that ~21% of the CO2 in the present atmosphere is sourced from fossil fuels. (That figure should be increased to ~23% by now since CO2 levels have risen from ~360 to ~385ppm in the 18 years since the statement first appeared in print)

This is a wholly testable assertion, and it has been tested and re-tested over and over with consistent results. Are you willing to accept the test results (I think you already know where is is going to go, now don't you ) if those results don't corroborate the stock AGW position? If the tests show these assertions must be wrong, will you finally concede that their just might be something substantive to this skepticism of the whole AGW narrative?


This is a bit like a EULA; if you hit the 'Accept' button, I'll give you the test results with studies and the details. Most of the guys watching this right now know that I have already posted this at least six times to the other thread; one more time won't hurt

If you won't agree to accept the results of these tests (which might force you to re-examine the entire narrative) then I won't bother and we can just agree to disagree, with the caveat that you were the one who backed down from posting some real proof of both your own understanding and proof that the AGW hypothesis can withstand rigorous testing.

Jimbo

 

No one is claiming that anthropomorphic contributions of CO2 are somehow unique and immune to the laws of nature. Nor are they claiming they're the major source, much less that they're the only source.

What they're saying is that they're the straw breaking the camel's back. They're saying that the human contribution has tipped the balance.

I'm curious, though: do you honest-to-God believe that you can refute years of research and data, and thousands of scientists, with a paragraph or two? If it were that easy, climate change would never have had legs.

And I already know you're claiming some pretty shaky assertions as fact to back up your viewpoint, such as your insistence that the Medieval Warm Period is proven to have been global in nature. That directly contradicts the sources I quoted earlier, which indicate that as more data comes in, it's looking less and less likely.

There's also your last argument: anthropomorphic sources are incidental sources of CO2 in the atmosphere; therefore they don't contribute to accumulation. What's an incidental source? One that you say doesn't contribute to accumulation. In other words, anthropomorphic sources don't contribute to accumulation--because they're sources which don't contribute to accumulation. Okaaayyyy.....

Reality check: any source contributes to accumulation. Period.

But post away, if you have something you want me to read. At least you're mostly making an honest attempt to change my mind, instead of simply calling me names or going off on tangents about California homos and soylent green. I respect your efforts and your patience, whether I agree with you or not.

 

Troy, it's quite simple and it needs no scientific refutation.
The people doing the research and publishing the results about CO2 being so baaaad are paid to do so and their fundings depend on them supporting the official version. Lets call them the officialist. The "CO2 is baaad" started as a paid con and is still just that, a paid con.

The dissenters publish their findings at their own peril and have lost jobs and funding for doing so.
No dissenter has got religion and gone to the officialist camp.

Let me ask you a question. If the dissenting camp had been found to fudge the figures and to get paid to produce a con story to discredit the other side, what do you think would have happened? Do you think they could get away for so long keep on hammering the ********? Do you think that they would have had theri bla bla fiesta ? Not a chance, the university would have stripped them of their titles and the respective governmet thrown them in gaol for fraud.

One day, may be one day.

Mean time hang on to your seats because th earth will start counter rotating any time and the sea is rising 6 meters. I'll get to be waterfront right in Western Sydney. Yepeee!!
PS
Say the sun starts up in the west and sets in the east, that would be a pain for architects, they will ahev to change the window orientation of all the buildings. Wow, it is going to be a money spinner, I think I'll join Al Gore and his mates, there is clearly more money to be made if I support the ******** than if I support comon sense. I could start a new movement among the Architects. I'll call it "post reverse Architecture" and it will imply to build backwards in order to prevent our children needing to do all the cahnges. We make the changes for them. Aren't I nice?

 

Has anyone seen The Great Global Warming Swindle ?

It may help this discussion ...

 

Propaganda films tend to..

 

That was me. Not all CAs are homos, and it is obvious you've done some reading out there in the desert - I'll give you that. But, wasn't it you who purported to have been studied in logic?

"...do you honest-to-God believe that you can refute years of research and data, and thousands of scientists, with a paragraph or two? If it were that easy, climate change would never have had legs."


...I see no evidence thereof.

Reality check: any source contributes to accumulation. Period."


This statement is where the religion comes in...you are stating something on faith - not science.

Listen, I am not a scientist either, having had just enough science related classes to fulfill requirements for a disparate field. But I did listen in class enough to understand the scientific method. The Goracle wasn't there.

I entend not to get well versed in the mechanics of global warming. Why? The very best scientists should not know what exactly is happening because there is no control group - we do not have an "Earth B" to compare to. Very, very smart people may base their opinions upon feelings or guesses or "if it happens the results would be too tragic to contemplate" but the point is, nobody knows enough to say, unequivicably, that the deep ocean current WILL stop in the Atlantic if too much ice melts and Global warming will actually cause an ice age because of it. It is a wild-*** guess because we have never seen it happen. A guy from the University of Manitoba has been "studying arctic ice for twenty-five years" according to a recent posted video but he just made his first trip! I've got news - I've been studying arctic ice for the last twenty-five years because I've walked on it, gotten stuck in it, lost fishing gear to it and almost been killed by it. I havn't seen enough to discern a pattern but even if I did - where's the control group? Where's "Earth B"? I'm in Alaska, if you didn't know and we find fossil cedar trees to rival Lebanon, we have A LOT of liquid dead dinasaurs. We have more coal than possibly the rest of the world. It was warm here before. Things grow better when it is warm - have you noticed? Why do you suppose? Well, sunlight is part of the reason but there's an experiement you can do which follows the scientific experient model by being duplicable and verifiable; Two greenhouses, one with whatever you perceive to be the optimum air mixture, one with increased levels of CO2. I don't know what will happen but my hypothesis is that the one with increased CO2 will grow bigger, healthier plants.

This is a scientific experiement someone surredly has already done and it has an independant variable, the CO2 percentage, a dependant variable, the growth rate, and a control group, greenhouse "B". ALL experiments should have a control group. The outcome must be verifiable (quantifiable) by independant sources and subject to review/ duplication.

Anyway, by the IPPC's own graph, the CO2 levels follow the temperature - not vice versa.

Everything thrown out there is a guess and nothing more, the models favor what William and Jimbo have said much more than what the IPCC has said and frankly, grass in the Sahara/tuna in Alaska sounds kind of nice. I WANT the place to warm up but the science is pointing the other way from what I read and even that is a guess.

Look at it another way. What would be worse; 1. A planet with more rain, more life-giving warmth, more plants, more animals or 2. An ice sheet over Europe and North America? Personally, I am much more fearful of Global Cooling. Where would we grow the rice and wheat that presently feeds the world if ice covered Russia, Canada, the Mid-West US? Where would we live - would we all squeeze into CA? Would Mexico build a fence?
I didn't do a very complete post here because this topic has been beat like a rented mule but suffice it to say the East Anglia Emails PROVE these ******** are willing to promote bad (non-) science and the high stakes are the risk of ruining the economy - NOT ruining the environment through merely EXISTING. Screw these people - lets grow our economy and do some good with the proceeds!