That hoary chestnut of the 97% consensus again

Aoxomoxoa said:
The actual amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually from human activity is around 6 gigatonnes, whereas that from natural causes is around 300 gigatonnes. just thought you ought to know.

Again I ask why hasn't there been any warming in sixteen years,? Surely if the science is so settled then that ought to be very easy to answer. Whilst you are about it, maybe you could answer why an organisation as prestigious as CERN is backing research into the impact of muons from deep space on cloud formation? Surely they could have just consulted Evince and saved themselves a shedload of money. How could such obvious fools manage to build the Large Hadron Collider?
Click to expand...
My sources indicate that human admissions are in the 40 gigaton range. Besides the point...it's not just CO2 as you should well now. What about NOX emmisions? What about SOX emmisions? What about methane and other industrial greenhouse gass emmisions, what about particluate emmisions? Etc, etc. Are you telling me that emmisions levels at these volumes wouldn't impact climate?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Mott, regarding desertification see post 41.

Regarding glacial retreat, the answer is that some are and others are increasing, the claim that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035 has been totally debunked.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...1_1_glaciers-global-warming-himalayan-geology

There is some evidence for a slight lowering og oceanic pH but the evidence is tenuous at best.



http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_acidic
Click to expand...

Very few people disagree with the basic fact that the greenhouse gas CO[SUB]2[/SUB] warms the climate, but without some kind of positive feedback mechanism, it doesn't add very much, around 1°C-1.2°C per doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The global warming "crisis" emerges from a belief that small rises in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentrations result in large knock-on effects, or strong positive feedbacks. These remain highly contentious and conjectural, as the forcings and feedbacks are poorly understood. Just how much of an effect does a rise in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] have anyway? That is where the great controversy lies but the alarmists on here are not even aware of the basic science and just how unsettled it really is.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
My sources indicate that human admissions are in the 40 gigaton range. Besides the point...it's not just CO2 as you should well now. What about NOX emmisions? What about SOX emmisions? What about methane and other industrial greenhouse gass emmisions, what about particluate emmisions? Etc, etc. Are you telling me that emmisions levels at these volumes wouldn't impact climate?
Click to expand...

Just now you were telling me that the emission of pollutants was in the billions of tonnes range and I corrected you. Not sure where you are getting that new figure from though? It depends where you look but the estimates seem to vary from 6 gigatonne to 29 gigatonne annually. NO2 concentrations have been going steadily down and I believe are around 10-20 ppb now which is a very low amount.

There is evidence to indicate that SO2 acts as an aerosol and actually aids cloud formation so it might ironically actually be helping to depress global temperatures. Methane is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, at least 120 times more than CO2, fortunately it is shortlived around 10-12 years in the atmosphere. Maybe we should sequester all that extra carbon and turn them into charcoal biscuits for flatulent cows?
 
Last edited:
you can go about this till the day you die.


Its still just cherry picking.


The consensus is NOT yours to give.


The scientific field thinks your a nutter
 
evince said:
has our attempts to reduce it and its effects crashed the economy yet?
Click to expand...

Since you are such a science goddess, by how much should we reduce our use of fossil fuels and by how much will it lower temperature? When can we expect to see this change occur?

Also, is there a contingency plan for if the world gets cooler? Would that then mean we need to increase our use of fossil fuels?
 
evince said:
you can go about this till the day you die.


Its still just cherry picking.


The consensus is NOT yours to give.


The scientific field thinks your a nutter
Click to expand...

consensus is not science. AOX is correct. Just because you really, really, really, really, really want to believe it doesn't make it any more true.

BTW, what fossil fuels have YOU given up? Your computer is made from fossil fuels. Don't you feel guilty about that?
 
dear idiot,

consensus means those highly educated in the field agree that GW is in part mankind caused.

In a great majority.

what some idiot poster thinks on a site like this means next to nothing.

GET IT.

the science is NOT on your side
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Do you seriously think that Think Progress is an unbiased and dispassionate site?
Click to expand...

more so than you are.


Your a right wing hack with nothing


cherry picking is all you can do.


The world doesn't care what YOU think the world cares what the experts think
 
Darla said:
What horseshit. You are being disingenuous. It's not about this thread, this thread is just the latest example. Every day almost all you do is batter Desh, you post to her constantly. Seriously dude, get a hobby.
Click to expand...

LMAO... let go of your rage...

I am not being disingenuous. Desh posts more than most. She also posts the most vile. She thus gets more responses. You on the other hand seem to enjoy whining about how poor little Desh gets picked on. She brings 99% of it on herself with her ignorant and vile behavior.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not really the point. Yes it's obvious that his argument has little scientific merit. The point is, is that his argument is intellectually dishonest.

The evidence for ACG is over whelming and those who deny it are doing so almost exclusively for pro-business or partisan political ideological reasons. Now why they feel compelled to the dishonest attempt at undermining the science is something I don't understand.
Click to expand...

LMAO... no, the evidence is NOT overwhelming Mutt. Which is why fear mongers like you simply chant such nonsense without ever providing your 'evidence'.

Take a look at the link Desh posted. Two thirds of the peer reviewed papers did NOT take a position in favor or against AGW. So tell us Mutt, if over whelming evidence existed... why do so many of the papers not take a position? You are the one being intellectually dishonest.

It is truly comical that you pretend we are the ones taking a position based on partisan beliefs. It is a perfect example of irony.
 
someone has to force the facts down you idiots throats.

Im vile to you because you deserve to be publically humiliated for denying facts
 
When people REFUSE to face facts then they deserve to be humiliated.

The real question is why do you people seek humiliation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top