Man-caused global warming: greatest scam in history

[Howard]

Not true. The Medieval Warm Period was only a thousand years ago, and was much warmer than today. What caused that? Industrial pollution?

Today CO2 in the Earth Atmosphere in only 400 PPM. It's ridiculous to think that such a tiny amount of CO2 is causing the Earth to get hotter.

Pay attention please 

WE're not talking about mere temperature per era. That's a concrete form of thinking, sorry.
My proof showed a clear relationship between man made CO2 and temp increase at the poles in the past 120 years.
It's called a relationship between two variables.

I know this is get big, but c'mon.
I feel like I posted something about lifting heavy vs muscle growth and the replies are about posing was better before 2000. WTF?
In other words, the replies have NOTHING to do with the variables examined in this issue.

[markofan]

No he didn't.

Here's the actual proof:

You can obtain the seasonal temperatures back 10,000 years from taking ice core samples at the poles.
The % of dissolved oxygen isotopes correlate with the atmospheric temperatures.
There is a pretty consistent seasonal swing for 99% ( 9900 years) of temp and normal climatic variation.
Please note, that the levels of dissolved CO2 stayed steady during this 9900 period.
This is significant, because we don't see a significant rise in CO2 until the industrial age at just over 100 years ago.

BUT, over the last 120 years, the amount of CO2 gas has greatly increased.
Since CO2 ( carbon dioxide) amounts are only  fraction of a %, any change is significant.
Simply plot a graph with CO2 levels vs polar temp and it's obvious.
The linear regression line fits damn near perfectly with the data.

This is objective proof of a causal relationship within the physical sciences.

Howard, please cite the source of your data.  It has been established beyond any doubt that much of the data put forth by the IPCC, NASA and NOAA has been fudged, altered, "adjusted".  Which data sets are you looking at?  The original unaltered data or the phony altered data?

[Necrosis]

Venus is hotter than Mercury, because Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere to trap the Sun's heat.

The tiny amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere isn't causing the surface temperature of the Earth to increase.

"causing rapid shifts on a geological time scale" Where? You keep ignoring the much hotter Medieval Warm Period, just a thousand years ago.

Wait you argued that proximity was the deciding factor, now it's atmosphere, you are getting closer to the truth, keep going and you may be caught up on actual facts and global warming.

Tiny amounts relative to what? it's like saying a bullet 1mm from the center of your face isn't a big change, it depends, does it miss your face or hit? your small amount argument would bury physics as well, quantum gravity is so small we just barely detected it from a massive supernova, because values are small does not mean the impact is small.

There is no doubt we are causing rapid shifts, the absolute temp is not the issue, it's the speed in which it's changing. Ecosystems can't alter fast enough to keep up, we are accelerating the warming at a speed unseen, if you believe in accurate records (you are referencing the medieval warm period, so it appears you do) than this is unprecedented. The earth has also been much colder, but again it's the rate of change.

The more ice that melts the larger the degree of desalination, put more fresh water in a salt water fish tank, see how well the fish do.

What is the point in denying this fact? it's corroborated by all of science, all countries.

Does it have to be obvious to your naked eye for it to be real? would you wait until a tumor is the size of your head and deny what the MRI says?

[Necrosis]

WOW! That went right over your head!

Sure it did

Why is venus hotter than mercury again? oh ya the atmosphere, that's pretty much the deathblow you just indicated the problem on earth (we are changing the atmosphere) without even realizing it because you have your mind made up, unfortunately when facts are not on your side you have to flip flop a lot.

[Ronnie Rep]

I'm Republican, and an Atheist. I believe in science, not the pseudo-science of Climate Change.

It's not a pseudo- science. It's science based on study, observation etc.

[Erik C]

It's not a pseudo- science. It's science based on study, observation etc.

No. It's pseudo-science because it is politically motivated twisting of science. Look up Lysenkoism, for socialist scientific method.

[Howard]

Howard, please cite the source of your data.  It has been established beyond any doubt that much of the data put forth by the IPCC, NASA and NOAA has been fudged, altered, "adjusted".  Which data sets are you looking at?  The original unaltered data or the phony altered data?

My data is a summary of the PROVEN and credible information taken over a few decades.

Coach and some others( like you) are correct, that to cause more panic and gain more funding some figures were exaggerated .

The basic , simple conclusion is this :

1. Humans began producing a lot of CO2 emissions starting with the industrial age , circa 1880- 90's.
2. There is a proven cause-effect relationship between increased CO2 levels and increased polar temps.
3. This will have a real effect on sea levels and overall global climate.

* To be fair, it's NOT doomsday by 2100 like some declare.

[markofan]

Lysenkoism

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#62580a9a41e4

[markofan]

My data is a summary of the PROVEN and credible information taken over a few decades.

Coach and some others( like you) are correct, that to cause more panic and gain more funding some figures were exaggerated .

The basic , simple conclusion is this :

1. Humans began producing a lot of CO2 emissions starting with the industrial age , circa 1880- 90's.
2. There is a proven cause-effect relationship between increased CO2 levels and increased polar temps.
3. This will have a real effect on sea levels and overall global climate.

* To be fair, it's NOT doomsday by 2100 like some declare.

You still have not cited your sources.

[Erik C]

The Medieval Warm Period saw the Glaciers in Greenland, Scandinavia, and Europe melt rapidly, along with Arctic ice. There were no reported floods, nor rise in sea level. The Medieval Warm Period was hotter than it is now, or even will be a hundred years from, based on Climate Changer's predictions.

Yet, a few hundred years later, there was what is called the Little Ice Age. The glaciers and Arctic ice, grew back rapidly. The Vikings who had settled Greenland, and it was very much a green land back then, were pushed into the sea, by the rapidly advancing glaciers.

This is very recent history. The Earth's climate can and has continually changed throughout its existence. It will continue to do so.

Saying that the tiny increase in CO2 levels during the last 120 years, is caused by the industrial revolution, only works if you ignore the existence of other variables that could've caused it, as has happened in the past.

Picking and Choosing what "evidence" will be considered, for what is considered as causative, is exactly why Climate Change is pseudo-science.

[Coach is Back!]

Coach, wtf? I know it's not a literal doomsday , but c'mon this will have a drastic effect on our overall climate, weather and economics, etc.
You replies don't even address the scientific proof I've laid out step by step. I can't make it more simple or obvious.

Every time you post some reply, I do read it. BUT, you never address or debate the implications of my data ?

It's like I post the wt lifted and reps of a lifter before and then after a "cycle"
You reply with some unrelated points , like he didn't lift in California? WTF?

Howard, lets use a little commonsense. Al Gore was the alarmist that said we were in fact the world was going to end in years based on "science". You think I and republicans in general dismiss science, again, there is science to back up both sides of this. Now lets get back to some commonsense. Lets face it, we're not going anywhere not is this lifetime or possibly the next five lifetimes, do I believe it will happen? If you take what is going on from a biblical sense, then yes, we're seeing but even then, I doubt anything will happen NOW. As far as the global warming....we're not in any danger and it's naive to think we are.

[Necrosis]

Howard, lets use a little commonsense. Al Gore was the alarmist that said we were in fact the world was going to end in years based on "science". You think I and republicans in general dismiss science, again, there is science to back up both sides of this. Now lets get back to some commonsense. Lets face it, we're not going anywhere not is this lifetime or possibly the next five lifetimes, do I believe it will happen? If you take what is going on from a biblical sense, then yes, we're seeing but even then, I doubt anything will happen NOW. As far as the global warming....we're not in any danger and it's naive to think we are.

LMAO biblical sense lololololol.

It's always end times, meanwhile science is driving vehicles on Mars with pinpoint precision, discovering water, planning to colonize Mars etc but the bible is right. How simple minded can one be? You can't use common sense in science, ever hear of quantum mechanics? it's how your cell phone works, meanwhile it's counter logical, it doesn't make "sense". You seem to think everything is politics.

[Sizwe]

Does your aspergers prevent you from being able to think 'outside the box'?

[Coach is Back!]

LMAO biblical sense lololololol.

It's always end times, meanwhile science is driving vehicles on Mars with pinpoint precision, discovering water, planning to colonize Mars etc but the bible is right. How simple minded can one be? You can't use common sense in science, ever hear of quantum mechanics? it's how your cell phone works, meanwhile it's counter logical, it doesn't make "sense". You seem to think everything is politics.

Thanks for proving my point that I wrote yesterday.

[Necrosis]

The Medieval Warm Period saw the Glaciers in Greenland, Scandinavia, and Europe melt rapidly, along with Arctic ice. There were no reported floods, nor rise in sea level. The Medieval Warm Period was hotter than it is now, or even will be a hundred years from, based on Climate Changer's predictions.

Yet, a few hundred years later, there was what is called the Little Ice Age. The glaciers and Arctic ice, grew back rapidly. The Vikings who had settled Greenland, and it was very much a green land back then, were pushed into the sea, by the rapidly advancing glaciers.

This is very recent history. The Earth's climate can and has continually changed throughout its existence. It will continue to do so.

Saying that the tiny increase in CO2 levels during the last 120 years, is caused by the industrial revolution, only works if you ignore the existence of other variables that could've caused it, as has happened in the past.

Picking and Choosing what "evidence" will be considered, for what is considered as causative, is exactly why Climate Change is pseudo-science.

This is the point you are missing, we know the other variables, we have accounted for them, the only thing that explains the trend is CO2, what is so hard to understand?

You obviously haven't done any actual reading and get your information from the "news".

[Necrosis]

Does your aspergers prevent you from being able to think 'outside the box'?

Lol I have no aspergers, LMAO.. you believe the shit I post on here? outside of the nutrition board?

But you remember my posts which is too funny to me, another victim.

[Necrosis]

Thanks for proving my point that I wrote yesterday.

What point? that you brought religion into science and expect not to be mocked?

That's why you are mocked, if someone came to your gym claiming that tonic water built more muscle than steroids you would laugh at them, this is equally as laughable but you simply aren't equipped think critically.

If you gave a valid argument you wouldn't be mocked, but the bible has talking snakes, jewish zombies etc.. meanwhile you use your computer and cellphone and ridicule science.

[markofan]

[markofan]

This article presents an excellent explanation of the personality type that believes in global, errrrr,  I mean man made climate change.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/logbooks-of-1901-expedition-confirm-there-is-no-global-warming/

[Sizwe]

Lol I have no aspergers, LMAO.. you believe the shit I post on here? outside of the nutrition board?
But you remember my posts which is too funny to me, another victim.

So one should ignore and disregard what you say to avoid being one of your 'victims'? mmkay..

[Necrosis]

So one should ignore and disregard what you say to avoid being one of your 'victims'? mmkay..

Yes. If you have under 200 posts and are quoting specific shit I said to someone you have been hurt in someway by me. What other conclusion is there?

You remember shit I said and need to hop on a gimmick account to try and insult me LMAO. Probably Erik C since he has taken a beating recently. This is trolling, I am in your head, I own real estate right next to your medulla oblongata.

You should use some critical thinking skills is all.

[Sizwe]

Yes.

Thanks for your candid answer.

If you have under 200 posts and are quoting specific shit I said to someone you have been hurt in someway by me. What other conclusion is there?

That I simply read and remembered your post.

You remember shit I said and need to hop on a gimmick account to try and insult me LMAO.

My intention wasn't to insult, I was under the impression you have aspergers and would take the question at face value.

[Coach is Back!]

What point? that you brought religion into science and expect not to be mocked?

That's why you are mocked, if someone came to your gym claiming that tonic water built more muscle than steroids you would laugh at them, this is equally as laughable but you simply aren't equipped think critically.

If you gave a valid argument you wouldn't be mocked, but the bible has talking snakes, jewish zombies etc.. meanwhile you use your computer and cellphone and ridicule science.

No, I didn't bring "religion" into it. What I described was not "religion". But just for the record, are you saying that apologetics isn't science based?

[Erik C]

This is the point you are missing, we know the other variables, we have accounted for them, the only thing that explains the trend is CO2, what is so hard to understand?
You obviously haven't done any actual reading and get your information from the "news".

Did they look at Krakatoa eruption of 1883, and Mt. Pinatuba eruption in 1991? Each of those events, put more gases in to the atmosphere, than the whole industrial revolution put together.

[Necrosis]

Thanks for your candid answer.
That I simply read and remembered your post.
My intention wasn't to insult, I was under the impression you have aspergers and would take the question at face value.

Fair enough, I do not.


I remember the conversation with you specifically as well.

Did they look at Krakatoa eruption of 1883, and Mt. Pinatuba eruption in 1991? Each of those events, put more gases in to the atmosphere, than the whole industrial revolution put together.

I have seen you repeat this before, those eruptions did not emit nearly as much greenhouse gases, this is a myth and it's not close. You have said this to me specifically before, yet you persist.

Like it;s not even close

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

a few hundred million tonnes of CO2 from volcanoes vs multiple billions from cars, not to mention plants. In fact the ash may cause cooling as it reflects heat in the upper atmosphere, there is a whole branch of science dedicated to volcanic study.

It's a significant source but we dwarf all the volcanoes on earth put together.