That hoary chestnut of the 97% consensus again

Oh btw twice on the internets I stopped insulting for a year.

two years in total.

Guess how the right treated me?


WORSE


pretending your lies and cunt remarks are not vile and my silly names I call you are is hypocracy
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not only that but the clamis he's attributing to me are false. As far as I can tell he's talking nonsense. He's convinced with an absolute religious ferver of the fanatic that he's right.
Click to expand...

LMAO... tell us Mutt, did you or did you not state that AGW has over whelming evidence to support it?

Did you or did you not create straw men rather than address what I stated? Or are you just an idiot?

My position is that there isn't evidence to support chanting consensus. You on the other hand pretend evidence is there. Which is false. Which again is why you refuse to provide said evidence.

His argument is based on the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... pure irony. What ad hom did I use Mutt?

He doesn't like the conclusion of science, which is so obvious any idiot can see the relationship. Emitting a 100 billion tons annualy of air pollutants has impacted climate.
Click to expand...

Seriously... another straw man. I have NEVER, not ONCE stated that pollution doesn't affect the climate. Not once Mutt. So why do you continue pretending otherwise?

Now tell us Mutt... is that the argument the fear mongers have been hyping? No, it is not. The fear mongers have been stating that it is CO2 that is the primary driver and that man is primarily responsible. It is CO2 that they keep harping on, not all pollutants.

So instead he attacks the scientific community, scientist and the science in order to defend a view point that he tries to defend with data that fits his predetermined conclusions of which much of it comes from high questionable sources, that is, those with an economic vested interest who oppose change as it may hurt their industry.
Click to expand...

Poor Mutt, so desperate as to use the exact same bullshit you just tried? I am not attacking the scientific community... I am attacking idiots like you that refuse to look at the actual science behind it. You then once again fall back to your ignorant disingenuous bullshit of attacking the sources... who happen to be actual scientists. You pretend that they are all linked to some grand big oil/coal conspiracy and that they are bought and paid for. Typical of you fear mongers.

So because of that he's unwilling to admit that the causal relationship between air pollution and ACC has been met and established and a wide consensus built around it. He's concerned about splitting hairs on minutae that only supports his argument. It's intellectually dishonest and is therefore a waste of time even discussing it with him.
Click to expand...

1) Again, there is not a wide consensus... two thirds of the papers on the topic have not come to a conclusion one way or the other.
2) You again pretend that the discussion has been about air pollution in general. It has not. So tell us again who is being intellectually dishonest.
 
Thing1 said:
It's a little vague, but I'll play. How much to you want to reduce them by? With population increasing, how much do you think would result in a significant change in atmosphere?

Just for some history on the topic, Kyoto - a fairly ambitious endeavor - didn't slow worldwide emissions one iota, mainly due to China's growth and that of other lesser developed countries. It had a few successes, particularly in Europe - but otherwise failed to stem the tide at all.

So, what would you do? And how would you do it in a way that wouldn't crash the already fragile domestic as well as worldwide economy?
Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't have time to address this earlier. I was too busy laughing at Superfreak's bullshit.

Kyoto doesn't mean shit. We didn't even sign it. Despite that our use of coal to generate electricity has dropped from 50% to 45% and continues to drop rapidly.
Electric cars are slowing becoming mainstream, despite the Bush Administration's cancelling of the increased CAFE standards put in place by the Clintons (which set the electric car industry back a solid 10 years.

Meanwhile windmill construction is flourishing across the country, photovoltiac installations are all the rage, both residential and commercial, there is room for many more hydropower installations in this country, including but not limited to re-utilising existing inactive systems, giant solar-thermal generating plants are being built world-wide, progress is being made in tidal and ocean current power generation, and conservation, the lowest hanging fruit is being pursued aggressively.

Building hydropower, and thermal solar installations would contribute jobs.

Even considering future population growth, the US could be entirely free of fossil fuel dependence by 2030 if the will were there. With attitudes like yours, supposedly of the correct side of the fence, it is not likely. I suggest you educate yourself about alternative energy and then work to spread the good news rather than be a part of the problem.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... tell us Mutt, did you or did you not state that AGW has over whelming evidence to support it?

Did you or did you not create straw men rather than address what I stated? Or are you just an idiot?

My position is that there isn't evidence to support chanting consensus. You on the other hand pretend evidence is there. Which is false. Which again is why you refuse to provide said evidence.



ROFLMAO... pure irony. What ad hom did I use Mutt?



Seriously... another straw man. I have NEVER, not ONCE stated that pollution doesn't affect the climate. Not once Mutt. So why do you continue pretending otherwise?

Now tell us Mutt... is that the argument the fear mongers have been hyping? No, it is not. The fear mongers have been stating that it is CO2 that is the primary driver and that man is primarily responsible. It is CO2 that they keep harping on, not all pollutants.



Poor Mutt, so desperate as to use the exact same bullshit you just tried? I am not attacking the scientific community... I am attacking idiots like you that refuse to look at the actual science behind it. You then once again fall back to your ignorant disingenuous bullshit of attacking the sources... who happen to be actual scientists. You pretend that they are all linked to some grand big oil/coal conspiracy and that they are bought and paid for. Typical of you fear mongers.



1) Again, there is not a wide consensus... two thirds of the papers on the topic have not come to a conclusion one way or the other.
2) You again pretend that the discussion has been about air pollution in general. It has not. So tell us again who is being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...


Book II, just as boring as Book I. Yawn.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
To an extent it may be...
Click to expand...

LMAO... so you finally admit they have been fear mongering? good first step.

but Warming is just one aspect of climate change. What about increased desertication? What about sea level rising? What about Shrinking ice sheets? What about declining Arctic sea ice? What about glacial retreat? What about the increased frequency of extreme weather events? What about ocean acidification? How do you explain this evidence climate change?
Click to expand...

1) Yes, funny how warming is no longer the focus and they want to shift to other things. Probably has little to do with temps the last 16 years.
2) Some glaciers are retreating others are not
3) Another myth is that there are increasing 'extreme' weather events. There are not.
4) What shrinking ice sheets Mutt? Are you referring to Greenland?
5) Sea level rises? How much have the seas risen in the past 30 years Mott?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, you're the one with the religious fanaticism on "global warming". You're lack on understanding of both how science works and the nature of this issue are both appalling.
Click to expand...

Truly comical. Because it is you that continues to ignore the science and make stupid proclamations that there is over whelming evidence to support your theory. You then turn around and spout off the following:

As I said earlier......over 100 billion tons of air pollution, that's a trillion tons per decade, are emmitted annually. Nearly 40% of that is Carbon Dioxide emmisions alone. Please explain to me, who could those emmision levels not impact climate?
Click to expand...

You again create a straw man. The AGW crowd has been pushing the line of 'CO2 is causing temps to rise' (despite the fact that rising CO2 over the past 16 years has not increased temps) and that man is primarily responsible (which again there is not sufficient data on to show this, yet you pretend there is)
 
Rune said:
Sorry, didn't have time to address this earlier. I was too busy laughing at Superfreak's bullshit.

Kyoto doesn't mean shit. We didn't even sign it. Despite that our use of coal to generate electricity has dropped from 50% to 45% and continues to drop rapidly.
Electric cars are slowing becoming mainstream, despite the Bush Administration's cancelling of the increased CAFE standards put in place by the Clintons (which set the electric car industry back a solid 10 years.

Meanwhile windmill construction is flourishing across the country, photovoltiac installations are all the rage, both residential and commercial, there is room for many more hydropower installations in this country, including but not limited to re-utilising existing inactive systems, giant solar-thermal generating plants are being built world-wide, progress is being made in tidal and ocean current power generation, and conservation, the lowest hanging fruit is being pursued aggressively.

Building hydropower, and thermal solar installations would contribute jobs.

Even considering future population growth, the US could be entirely free of fossil fuel dependence by 2030 if the will were there. With attitudes like yours, supposedly of the correct side of the fence, it is not likely. I suggest you educate yourself about alternative energy and then work to spread the good news rather than be a part of the problem.
Click to expand...

You're not going to find a bigger advocate for alternatives than me. But I draw the line at mandates; we have an economy to think about. Yes, alternatives will create jobs - but mandates will cost them, as well.

Regardless, let's say that the U.S. can reduce to zero by 2030. How much will China increase by then? How about India?

I'm for alternatives, but I can't argue for them as a means to "change the climate back" with a straight face, and neither should you. The entire world could go cold turkey today, and it would still be a century + before it would have any appreciable affect on anything.
 
evince said:
Quit asking to be humiliated and accept FACTS
Click to expand...

OK Miss Science. I will ask again

By what percent must we reduce fossil fuels?

How much of a cooling effect can we expect? You don't have to be precise. Just give me a range.

Surely science has answers to this with their computer models right?

What fossil fuels have you given up? Or is it like all your liberal ideas, fine for everyone else just not for you?
 
Superfreak said:
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-earth-mantle-contributes-greenland-ice.html

something else for you to add to your reading list mutt.
Click to expand...

To really scare the bejasus out of people they have to invent positive feedback mechanisms because without them the warming effect using the equation below is not very much. This is where the real controversy lays, positive feedback mechanisms are rare in nature so there is scope to be really inventive and fanciful.

74945338ec357d4a68e5f5356f8f19a0.png


C is the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration in parts per million by volume and C[SUB]0[/SUB] is the reference concentration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top