User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 1:32:50 AM EDT
[#1]
Al Gore pulled it out of his a**!
...and that information came from the DOD Department of Redundancy Department! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 1:37:34 AM EDT
[#2]
From a libtard that wanted more control over peoples lives and money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:22:13 AM EDT
[#3]
I thought Al Gore invented the interwebs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:01:12 AM EDT
[#4]
Its a new tax base. Make a new problem, have big industry build something. Get kick backs and go on from there. Everyone makes money except the tax payer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:22:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Global warming like taxes, charity scams, computer viruses, drug dealing or fad diets/veganism is a self contained system where the problem and solution (that you have to pay for) come from the same source. You have to pay the source of the threats or bad feelings or malicious software, to make the problem go away.
Taxes: pay us money to make us not arrest/imprison you. What a great bargain! Global warming: here are some sayings and pictures to scare you, now you have to pay money and use substandard products to not be scared UnitedWay or Wounded Warriors: you should feel very bad, and sad, but if you pay us money you are a good person again. Computer Virus: We have installed junk software on your computer and now you have to pay to remove it. Or pay Norton to develop the viruses and antivirus software To the psychopaths ruling the United States are very content to see it be destroyed as long as it happens after their lifetime and they get to scam as much money and power from it in the process. Global Warming is not actually real, it is in the same genre of science with evolution, where asking some obvious instances about questions about for instance the source of carbon emissions being from volcano eruptions or stored in the ocean is an amount greater than human sources it gets answered with personal attacks only like you questioned evolution. Global warming is unfalsifiable, both hot and cold temperatures get used to prove global warming, true science does not teach immorality or host political conferences/paris vacations. The Bible is very clear that governments at the highest levels are controlled by spiritual wickedness, and that delusions will be used in the last days to lead nations to believe lies, to facilitate their own destruction. Global Warming like evolutionism are delusions that are science in name only. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:33:08 AM EDT
[#6]
I think people like Obama took the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" a bit too seriously.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:37:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Global warming came from a theory developed in the 1970’s to teraform Mars they found out it wouldn’t work and abandon it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:29:30 AM EDT
[#8]
Sometimes things that are green on the outside are red on the inside.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:35:27 AM EDT
[#9]
BIG crises require BIG governments and vice versa.
Ayn Rand's looters vs. producers fable is very scalable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:39:01 AM EDT
[#10]
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect.
Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature. This isn't a theory. This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown. The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first. It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:48:43 AM EDT
[#11]
I remember freezing during the 1970's ice age, can't wait for the 90º mid January temperatures along the great lakes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:53:21 AM EDT
[#12]
Margret Thatcher started it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:55:19 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I remember freezing during the 1970's ice age, can't wait for the 90º mid January temperatures along the great lakes Thing was, the 70's had some cold winters, so you can guess which way the media attention was focused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:58:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Part of the liberal metal illness
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:11:45 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect. Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature. This isn't a theory. This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown. The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first. It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous. We're NOT criticizing it that way. We should have prefaced the question with "where do libtards....................blah, blah, blah..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:16:12 AM EDT
[#16]
I thought the theory came about after a couple of scientists were arguing about how a few boulders got on the cliffs of an island in the Bahamas. One tossed out the idea of Global Warming and someone ran with it. At least thats the story I saw on the internet.
ETA found the article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3338274/Flying-boulders-danger-climate-change-Scientists-warn-giant-rocks-catapulted-air-powerful-superstorms-caused-global-warming.html Hearty, who is an expert on geology in the Bahamas, published his ideas about the boulders in 1997.
Hansen, whose warnings about global warming to the US Congress in 1988 made headlines around the world, has used Hearty’s work as a basis for his grim theories about climate change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:17:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Over 60% of the worlds inhabitants still cook and heat over wood,dung and coal. They will be consolidated into huge urban areas with an electrical grid. This will free up the rural land for large scale agribiz, forestry, mineral and energy resource exploitation by the huge multinational corporations.
Climate change solution. Agenda 21. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:19:00 AM EDT
[#18]
maggie thatcher popularized it to force britain to go nuclear and break the coal miner union
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:31:32 AM EDT
[#19]
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:35:33 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know Do what I say or you will anger the earth gods and they will smite us from existence? thats science? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:38:56 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know Uh huh................ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:39:36 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do what I say or you will anger the earth gods and they will smite us from existence? thats science? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know Do what I say or you will anger the earth gods and they will smite us from existence? thats science? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:18:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Shows YOU never served in an artillery unit. 
You don't have clue one as to how fast and how far rumors in artillery units travel! Ask any cannon cocker here. They'll tell ya! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:44:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect. Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature. This isn't a theory. This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown. The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first. It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous. "Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof. You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean: "We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!" THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:45:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Margret Thatcher started it Yep. Azimov was a big early proponent of the "ozone depletion" hoax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:47:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know "Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:00:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Yeah - these guys are really cutting back .....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:03:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know "Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. It didn't start that way. It did start out as honest science as they looked at increasing CO2 and what it could result in. That's where,in its first iteration the term "greenhouse effect" came from. Now , since then it has morphed into the nonsense, pseudoscience, and political football it is now. ETA: In its origination it wasn't scientists asking, " how can we sell this and profit by claiming the world as we know it will cease." There was a legitimate concern. But like the above, it morphed into a huge power grab, and obviously lots of.money which corrupted the science. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:23:19 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It didn't start that way. It did start out as honest science as they looked at increasing CO2 and what it could result in. That's where,in its first iteration the term "greenhouse effect" came from. Now , since then it has morphed into the nonsense, pseudoscience, and political football it is now. ETA: In its origination it wasn't scientists asking, " how can we sell this and profit by claiming the world as we know it will cease." There was a legitimate concern. But like the above, it morphed into a huge power grab, and obviously lots of.money which corrupted the science. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know "Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. It didn't start that way. It did start out as honest science as they looked at increasing CO2 and what it could result in. That's where,in its first iteration the term "greenhouse effect" came from. Now , since then it has morphed into the nonsense, pseudoscience, and political football it is now. ETA: In its origination it wasn't scientists asking, " how can we sell this and profit by claiming the world as we know it will cease." There was a legitimate concern. But like the above, it morphed into a huge power grab, and obviously lots of.money which corrupted the science. Actual scientists should know, or rapidly discern, two things: 1. Optimal CO2 levels for plant life are FOUR TIMES what we now have - we are currently CO2-starved, and it impacts crop yields and life in general. 2. All the CO2 in the fossil fuels was pulled OUT OF the air, from when levels were almost 10 times what they are now, and life thrived. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 5:56:08 PM EDT
[#30]
You know it's all BS when the liberal push the term 'global warming' to the mass and it fails !!! Now they want to use the term 'climate change' to see if it gets any traction. 
Yosemite Valley used to be a giant glacier. It took so many thousand years to get to its present form. Are the liberals and Al Gore telling me the caveman fucked it up since the beginning of time?!?!?! I do believe it does affect somewhat but not to the point they describe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 6:10:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Theory I heard today is obama has to push global warming cause he will profit along with his friends when the world's first carbon credit exchange is set up in Chicago. Why play the game when you can create a new game that trades fake carbon footprint credits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:32:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof. You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean: "We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!" THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect. Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature. This isn't a theory. This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown. The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first. It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous. "Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof. You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean: "We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!" THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit. I don't understand why you habitually "attack" anything that isn't straight up conspiracy theories about global warming. Why would you freak out about me stating the facts about the ORIGIN of the theory, as is what this thread is supposedly talking about? I intentionally said nothing about its validity to try to avoid that tangent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:34:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know "Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. As I said earlier, the idea that large enough changes to the atmosphere can change the amount of the greenhouse effect is solid science. This is incontrovertible. The theory of global warming states that the changes in the atmosphere that we have seen account for changes in climate that we have seen. This, of course,is far less straight forward that the previous statement. What is even less straight forward than that is predicting what changes these effects will have on different regions, or at what rate they will occur. Just watch the inconvenient truth to get examples about failed predictions by AGW models. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:35:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know it's all BS when the liberal push the term 'global warming' to the mass and it fails !!! Now they want to use the term 'climate change' to see if it gets any traction. Yosemite Valley used to be a giant glacier. It took so many thousand years to get to its present form. Are the liberals and Al Gore telling me the caveman fucked it up since the beginning of time?!?!?! I do believe it does affect somewhat but not to the point they describe. Sorry for your lack of understanding on the topic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:39:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Irrelevant red herrings to what I actually posted, and no. I'm not being dishonest. I stated nothing but facts in my post. I don't understand why you habitually "attack" anything that isn't straight up conspiracy theories about global warming. Why would you freak out about me stating the facts about the ORIGIN of the theory, as is what this thread is supposedly talking about? I intentionally said nothing about its validity to try to avoid that tangent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect. Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature. This isn't a theory. This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown. The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first. It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous. "Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof. You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean: "We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!" THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit. I don't understand why you habitually "attack" anything that isn't straight up conspiracy theories about global warming. Why would you freak out about me stating the facts about the ORIGIN of the theory, as is what this thread is supposedly talking about? I intentionally said nothing about its validity to try to avoid that tangent. "Greenhouse effect", which you reference, is a settled scientific principle. "Global warming", which is what this thread is about, is a political, economic, and popular culture phenomenon with only a tangential connection to the greenhouse effect. In its current form, and in the context of the popular culture, the origin of "Global Warming" is Margaret Thatcher, who used it for political reasons. THAT is the "origin of the theory" - not what you posted. I'm sure we both want to avoid misleading anyone by conflating actual science with the hokum of "global warming" - right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:40:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah - these guys are really cutting back ..... http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/LTHsYhVaCB6__jVvHFzWpg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9NjM4O2lsPXBsYW5lO3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3PTk2MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-HKG-Hkg10235137-1-1-0.jpg lol even this suppose Al was right and man is 100% responsible. until the rest of the world is up to or above our standards we dont need to do anything more. we could reduce the US's emissions to 10% of today. China will still out pollute us a million times over, and they wont go broke doing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:41:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Scientists aren't always right and sometimes they are downright evil....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:42:33 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:43:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Greenhouse effect", which you reference, is a settled scientific principle. "Global warming", which is what this thread is about, is a political, economic, and popular culture phenomenon with only a tangential connection to the greenhouse effect. In its current form, and in the context of the popular culture, the origin of "Global Warming" is Margaret Thatcher, who used it for political reasons. THAT is the "origin of the theory" - not what you posted. I'm sure we both want to avoid misleading anyone by conflating actual science with the hokum of "global warming" - right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect. Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature. This isn't a theory. This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown. The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first. It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous. "Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof. You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean: "We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!" THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit. I don't understand why you habitually "attack" anything that isn't straight up conspiracy theories about global warming. Why would you freak out about me stating the facts about the ORIGIN of the theory, as is what this thread is supposedly talking about? I intentionally said nothing about its validity to try to avoid that tangent. "Greenhouse effect", which you reference, is a settled scientific principle. "Global warming", which is what this thread is about, is a political, economic, and popular culture phenomenon with only a tangential connection to the greenhouse effect. In its current form, and in the context of the popular culture, the origin of "Global Warming" is Margaret Thatcher, who used it for political reasons. THAT is the "origin of the theory" - not what you posted. I'm sure we both want to avoid misleading anyone by conflating actual science with the hokum of "global warming" - right? If you read carefully, and I hope its clear, you'll see that I'm talking about the fact that the scientific theory of global warming originated from the scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect. Thus, this theory originated in scientific literature, not from a politician, nor from an enlisted man in the US army. What politicians may or may not have done with the concept since that time is totally irrelevant, the theory itself, as in the actual scientific theory, came from science, not politics. This is true even if you wish to claim that politics popularized the theory or have been and currently are pushing it along. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:43:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct, what you describe isn't science, it is religion. I think we should leave it to the major churches, mosques and temples to do what you describe (as they have thousands of years of experience), and go for actual science with regards to climate. As I said earlier, the idea that large enough changes to the atmosphere can change the amount of the greenhouse effect is solid science. This is incontrovertible. The theory of global warming states that the changes in the atmosphere that we have seen account for changes in climate that we have seen. This, of course,is far less straight forward that the previous statement. What is even less straight forward than that is predicting what changes these effects will have on different regions, or at what rate they will occur. Just watch the inconvenient truth to get examples about failed predictions by AGW models. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know "Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. As I said earlier, the idea that large enough changes to the atmosphere can change the amount of the greenhouse effect is solid science. This is incontrovertible. The theory of global warming states that the changes in the atmosphere that we have seen account for changes in climate that we have seen. This, of course,is far less straight forward that the previous statement. What is even less straight forward than that is predicting what changes these effects will have on different regions, or at what rate they will occur. Just watch the inconvenient truth to get examples about failed predictions by AGW models. Predictions have been based on models, when are data and knowledge of climate isn't sufficient to model the climate with any reasonable fidelity. Those models include massive positive forcing to increases in CO2 levels which have no basis in known science or observed results. If I had a combat simulation like JANUS or JCATS, and pistol fire was taking out tanks, it would not mean that the Army should replace all its tanks with more pistols. It would mean it is a shitty model. Garbage in - garbage out. Thanks to the watermelons, that's all that got in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:48:39 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Margret Thatcher started it this, she was also a gun grabber, I don't know why so many around here eat her snatch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 7:51:31 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
]Sort of. If you read carefully, and I hope its clear, you'll see that I'm talking about the fact that the scientific theory of global warming originated from the scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect. Thus, this theory originated in scientific literature, not from a politician, nor from an enlisted man in the US army. What politicians may or may not have done with the concept since that time is totally irrelevant, the theory itself, as in the actual scientific theory, came from science, not politics. This is true even if you wish to claim that politics popularized the theory. "Greenhouse effect =/= "global warming", other than the acknowledged fact that our globe is warmer than it would be without our atmosphere. Increase in temps seems to occure BEFORE rise in CO2 levels , at least according to the ice cores. This measn one of two things - Either the ice cores are a lousy proxy for temps and CO2 levels, or we have found the first CAUSE that occurs after the effect it produces. Like it or not, AGW theory entered the popular conscience and the political discourse not for scientific reasons, but for the political ones I cited. As the Climate-gate emails and numerous instances of flat out fraud or junk science committed in support of AGW attest, it remains very much a political animal - a tool of the Neo-Luddites. Rather than the large positive forcing built into the models cited, the Beers-Lambert Law and the attendant extinction coefficient demonstrates that there is NOT a linear relationship between CO2 and thermal forcing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:33:52 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:41:09 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect. Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature. This isn't a theory. This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown. The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first. It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous. Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous. Yup. I learned this in 1973 in 9th grade Earth Science class. I made a crude solar panel to heat water. 43 yrs later I'm still freezing my balls off in lovely Ct winters. And solar is barely getting a hold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 8:58:13 PM EDT
[#45]
This thread reminded me of this old cartoon
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 9:40:38 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Greenhouse effect =/= "global warming", other than the acknowledged fact that our globe is warmer than it would be without our atmosphere. Like it or not, AGW theory entered the popular conscience and the political discourse not for scientific reasons, but for the political ones I cited. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ]Sort of. If you read carefully, and I hope its clear, you'll see that I'm talking about the fact that the scientific theory of global warming originated from the scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect. Thus, this theory originated in scientific literature, not from a politician, nor from an enlisted man in the US army. What politicians may or may not have done with the concept since that time is totally irrelevant, the theory itself, as in the actual scientific theory, came from science, not politics. This is true even if you wish to claim that politics popularized the theory. "Greenhouse effect =/= "global warming", other than the acknowledged fact that our globe is warmer than it would be without our atmosphere. Like it or not, AGW theory entered the popular conscience and the political discourse not for scientific reasons, but for the political ones I cited. Can you then see, how people might develop a hypothesis that if the composition of the atmosphere slightly changed, then the greenhouse effect would slightly change, thus slightly affecting temperature? And like it or not, it entered scientific discourse because of valid scientific reasoning, not because of politics, or conspiracies, or people making shit up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 11:42:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which is what I stated. Not exactly. Its just a fact that the science of the greenhouse effect means that if the composition of the atmosphere were vastly different, the greenhouse effect would be vastly different. Do you agree? I agree, depending upon what you mean by "vastly". CO2 is and remains a trace gas, whose effect on temperature, even now, is swamped by that of water and methane. Can you then see, how people might develop a hypothesis that if the composition of the atmosphere slightly changed, then the greenhouse effect would slightly change, thus slightly affecting temperature? Yes. Do you claim that mankind has caused enough of a change to be reliably calculated given the data quality and accuracy, as well as the unknown natural variations? [/span] And like it or not, it entered scientific discourse because of valid scientific reasoning, not because of politics, or conspiracies, or people making shit up. Perhaps. It entered popular discourse and began to influence legislation due to politics. You have yet to address the extinction coefficient of Beer's Law, which rather nips this faulty premise in the bud, science-wise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 11:45:13 PM EDT
[#48]
$$$
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 11:56:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Predictions have been based on models, when are data and knowledge of climate isn't sufficient to model the climate with any reasonable fidelity. Those models include massive positive forcing to increases in CO2 levels which have no basis in known science or observed results. If I had a combat simulation like JANUS or JCATS, and pistol fire was taking out tanks, it would not mean that the Army should replace all its tanks with more pistols. It would mean it is a shitty model. Garbage in - garbage out. Thanks to the watermelons, that's all that got in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yup... To hell with science... Don't need it... My fictional book tells me all I need to know "Global Warming" isn't science. Far from it. In science, you don't get to cherry pick or fake your results, and lie about the future consequences to get support, much less suppress dissenting opinions. As I said earlier, the idea that large enough changes to the atmosphere can change the amount of the greenhouse effect is solid science. This is incontrovertible. The theory of global warming states that the changes in the atmosphere that we have seen account for changes in climate that we have seen. This, of course,is far less straight forward that the previous statement. What is even less straight forward than that is predicting what changes these effects will have on different regions, or at what rate they will occur. Just watch the inconvenient truth to get examples about failed predictions by AGW models. Predictions have been based on models, when are data and knowledge of climate isn't sufficient to model the climate with any reasonable fidelity. Those models include massive positive forcing to increases in CO2 levels which have no basis in known science or observed results. If I had a combat simulation like JANUS or JCATS, and pistol fire was taking out tanks, it would not mean that the Army should replace all its tanks with more pistols. It would mean it is a shitty model. Garbage in - garbage out. Thanks to the watermelons, that's all that got in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2015 12:06:08 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think people like Obama took the remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" a bit too seriously. I think people like Obama's pediatricians didn't take their head injuries seriously enough. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
