APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Considering that this is the APP forum, were not supposed to make ad hominen. This is just so incredibly hard to do with you. This is like the evolution debate, another topic is which I'm assuming you're as ignorant of as this one. The evidence of climactic change is just so "Nose on your face" obvious that no really intelligent person really debates it except flat earthers and young earth creationist and others of your ilk. To put is simply, why should we waste our time with your willful ignorance?
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/25/melting-icecap-nasa-timelapse/2
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/10/25/melting-icecap-nasa-timelapse/2
News for you...
evidence of changes are not evidnece that humans caused them (via changes in CO2 concentration and the resulting forcing).
It just makes me luagh. The CO2 forcing theory for climate control is totally falling apart or stories like this would never see the airwaves.
CO2 concentration does not control climate change. It's an effect of climate change. humans have added to the concentration and will continue to add tot he concentration, but it's not going to affect the climate as much as CO2 based models predict.
Why?
because those models have assumptions built into them that are proving to be wrong.
You can't use a model with assumptions built into it to prove the very same assumptions are correct. Well, you can do it, but it's meaningless to anyone with a modicum of intellect.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You mean "assumptsions', like the fact that a decreased amount of sea ice means less heat reflects back into space, which further reduces sea ice? Totally absurd to take anything other than straight climate change from CO2 into account and pretend everything stays exactly the same, to anyone with intellect. LOL
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
These threads where tinfoil just posts a link and says LOL should be deleted. If he does not want to form an opinion of his own he should go to a different forum.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Here's a little exchange I had with Lord Moncton, the former scientific advisor to the Queen. Very enlightening, since he has yet to counter my final statements/questions.
Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: Taichiliberal
To: monckton@mail.com
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST
Dear Lord Monckton,
A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.
Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".
In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.
Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:
1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.
You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.
2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.
But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074147.htm
3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.
4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.
How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919175542.htm
5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.
If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/deepsea/archives/press/releases/
Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B
----- Original Message -----
From: Taichiliberal
To: monckton@mail.com
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST
Dear Lord Monckton,
A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.
Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".
In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.
Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:
1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.
You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.
2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.
But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/02/030214074147.htm
3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2. In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.
4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.
How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919175542.htm
5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?
Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.
If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/deepsea/archives/press/releases/
LOL your second set of quotes in red make me laugh! As if the trees are cut down and simply left to rot. Trees that are used for products and homes SEQUESTER CO2 AND KEEP IT FROM BEING RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
Either way, CO2 is not as important as you are lead to believe. that's the crux of the arguments. CO2 concentration can only provide so much additional forcing. It's near the point of saturation already. it could double and still not be a significant problem.
Either way, CO2 is not as important as you are lead to believe. that's the crux of the arguments. CO2 concentration can only provide so much additional forcing. It's near the point of saturation already. it could double and still not be a significant problem.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Either you're not too bright or you need a refresher course in reading comprehension, because I CONSISTENTLY REFER TO CO2 as produced by industrial by products and how it relates to the very eco-system which handles CO2. If you increase the machines that produce CO2, but eliminate more and more of the eco-system that handles CO2 via industrialization, urbanization, and deforestation (not to mention pollution), how can the results NOT be detrimental to the environment?
Go back, read carefully and comprehensively everything...hopefully you'll at least understand what I'm saying.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
An amazing declaration based on sheer willful ignorance. In effect, you do what Monckton does...and I addressed that schizoid take here:
You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.[/I]
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
goodness, Taich.....if Monkton's response is that given in the bold black I have to say, 1) I am astounded he bothered to respond to you the first time and 2) astounded you don't realize he ruined you......
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I took you off of IA here in hopes that you're up to a rational discussion. Here goes:
Monckton responded because he hoped his standard response would settle the issue. What my follow up does is point out the glaring disconnect in his response. In other words, you cannot say CO2 is negligible when you are eliminating the very natural process in the world that makes sure CO2 is negligible. Add to this the increasing artificial production of CO2, and you have a problem. You can't just ignore something because it doesn't fit your equation or belief, which is what Monckton does. His subsequent volume speaks volumes. YOU can assume anything you want, but neither you or apparantly Monckton can do more than just ignore a fact of nature and reality. I really would like an answer to my follow-up responses other than repetition of a point that ignores certain facts.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I took you off of IA here in hopes that you're up to a rational discussion. Here goes:
Monckton responded because he hoped his standard response would settle the issue. What my follow up does is point out the glaring disconnect in his response. In other words, you cannot say CO2 is negligible when you are eliminating the very natural process in the world that makes sure CO2 is negligible. Add to this the increasing artificial production of CO2, and you have a problem. You can't just ignore something because it doesn't fit your equation or belief, which is what Monckton does. His subsequent volume speaks volumes. YOU can assume anything you want, but neither you or apparantly Monckton can do more than just ignore a fact of nature and reality. I really would like an answer to my follow-up responses other than repetition of a point that ignores certain facts.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
no, your follow up shows you didn't understand his response, which was quite sufficient to show the fault of your earlier question....he was NOT saying that CO2 emissions from emissions was beneficial, he said that the added CO2 emissions were not a statistical detriment.....you simply blew that off and repeated your previous statement.....between him and you, I am more inclined to believe he knows the truth of it and you do not.....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
His response points to plant emissions...he states a moot point. I didn't "blow off" anything...I am pointing out a fact of nature and life. Forests recycle CO2 to oxygen. You remove them in great numbers, you have a lessening in oxygen production. Add to this the increase in industrial produced CO2 and pollutants, and you provide a detrimental situation to the environment. That is a matter of history, a matter of fact. That Monckton chooses a rather myopic viewpoint won't make what I say any less true. Again, go live in an urban enviroment with a lot surrounding industry, concrete, high rise building and very little natural flora and fauna...you'll get the message. That Monckton refuses to acknowledge the correlations between natural and man made emissions and how the balance has been tipped, is what I prove out.
I could produce a lot of grade A, bonafide scientist who have corrected Monckton six ways to Sunday..but instead I just put forth a simple matter of fact that Monckton and folk like you seem most earnest to ignore. Repeating your belief won't alter the simple fact I put forth.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You do realize your support for something is negative credibility, don't you?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Don't sweat it Tinny, no ones ever accused you of having a modicum of intellect. Ya know I've heard the same bull shit right wing arguments about Acid rain, NOX, SOX emmisions, particulates and their impact on climactic change and air quality, you've been wrong on all those issues and as the data becomes more and more overwhelming about CO/CO2 emmisions and other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxides it's abundantly evident that your not only wrong about that but that your so ideologically driven you'll ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. Where do you set the bar? At what point would you find data convincing that the industrial consumption of fossil fuels is impacting climate? When your leader Rush tells you?
I've seen the peer reviewed data. It's extraordinarily compelling but yet here you are with your flat earther point of view. I'm not going to bother with siting you the peer reviewed literature because I'm sure you'll come back with data from such famous climate experts as Rush, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Be that as it may, his assertion is wrong. The causal links correalating to andropromorphic climactic change being detrimental is voluminous and statistically defensible. You may be correct in that Taichi didn't make the most informed argument but that does not make Moncton correct. In fact, Moncton's arguments are nonsensical in light of the available evidence.