DE: 100 Reasons Why Climate Change is Natural

[skinfan133]

Preventing the CURRENT climate change that is going to cause REAL problems isn't futile (unless you believe the vast majority of the scientists that study the subject are wrong).

once again, you are completely missing what I am saying. It is futile regardless of whether "the majority of scientists" are right or wrong. They could be and may be 100% right: their efforts to reduce CO2 and/or prevent climate change are futile.

edit: I'm intellectually spent for today. I was up all night studying for my International Politics final that I had this morning and have not slept in over 28 hours due to caffeine overload. I'm going to sleep before evening formation. Good night everyone, I'll see yall tomorrow.

and please, keep in mind, our debates are absolutely meaningless

[Predicto]

This is what we do here. People post articles to get responses. People respond and discussion is generated, often times dtraying far from the orginal topic. I tend to learn things most of the time from these discussions even if I disagree with them.

I just noticed that in the global warming threads you do this, not other threads. Hell, posting a rebuttle article doesn't bother me but attacking people for posting articles is kind of rediculous, it serves its point, which is to generate discussion.

Wel, I have always tried to distinguish between driveby postings of one hundred snappy partisan talking points with no support given for any of them, and postings that are genuinely designed to prompt discussion. The term "trolling" was invented for this exact situation.

H4R didn't post this to generate discussion. First of all, he didn't try to discuss it. Second, how do you possibly discuss 100 unsupported and often unrelated talking points? You can't. This was bound to turn into a partisan snipe fest, which is all that H4R ever seems to participate in.

Hell, it was obvious that he knew at the start that this was going to happen. He invited it. "Cue the "right-wing rag" posts."

[Larry]

No you never answer the simple question of wether CO2 is a pollutant.

Because chemicals aren't pollutants. Pollutants are pollutants.

And no matter how many times you demand an answer in a form that can't be answered, it still won't be.

Answer your own question.

And then, state your case.

Not "try to demand that other people jump through your hoops". State your case.

You won't even answer your "question".

CO2 is a pollutant if it is artificially produced, and dumped into the environment. (That's the definition of "pollutant".)

[Madison Redskin]

I think it's pretty interesting that conservatives tend to think that global warming is a natural phenomena or a hoax, and liberals tend to think that global warming is real and is threatening our planet. Why the hell is someone's position on a progressive tax or the Obamacare a good indicator of what scientists they will believe?

[Toe Jam]

I think it's pretty interesting that conservatives tend to think that global warming is a natural phenomena or a hoax, and liberals tend to think that global warming is real and is threatening our planet. Why the hell is someone's position on a progressive tax or the Obamacare a good indicator of what scientists they will believe?

Winner.

[polywog999]

Wel, I have always tried to distinguish between driveby postings of one hundred snappy partisan talking points with no support given for any of them, and postings that are genuinely designed to prompt discussion. The term "trolling" was invented for this exact situation.

H4R didn't post this to generate discussion. First of all, he didn't try to discuss it. Second, how do you possibly discuss 100 unsupported and often unrelated talking points? You can't. This was bound to turn into a partisan snipe fest, which is all that H4R ever seems to participate in.

Hell, it was obvious that he knew at the start that this was going to happen. He invited it. "Cue the "right-wing rag" posts."

I don't have have a strong opinion of global warming. I know this though, when I go camping, I clean up my mess. I don't wait for god to do it! Even though I am mostly conservative leaning, I can't stand to blindly follow an idea. This is why I tangle with other conservatives even more than Liberals!

My point is; we are all stewards of the earth. It should not just be an issue of politics.

[Duncan]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Very interesting part of the article....

"Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year."

[Duncan]

This will be the end result of this hysteria, not some immeasurable and unproven attempts to "save the planet." Watching the high comedy that is Cophenhagen only confirms this.

That is the sad reality and even the climate alarmist admit that none of the proposed solutions will even come close to reducing CO2 to a level they say is necessary to "save the planet".

[Thiebear]

I'll show one reason: If you look the warming ages seem to be at almost exactly the same time before each 100,000 years AND this one wasn't the warmest in the last 400,000 years.

[Thiebear]

Again though:

Each federal building should have its own solar power

Each house should get 50% off on any solar power-- 75% if you give back to the grid right away due to over-doing it.

There is no reason why we can't go clean... and independent, but that has nothing to do with global warming.. we are lucky to be living in this brief window of crops and living north of Virginia.

OHHH OHH I found my favorite chart i was using 3 years ago:

Though it does show my chart above that only goes back 400,000 years paints a short-term picture as things appear to have changed 500,000 years ago.

500k - 800k years ago was always colder, must have been before the cotton gin.

[hokie4redskins]

Wel, I have always tried to distinguish between driveby postings of one hundred snappy partisan talking points with no support given for any of them, and postings that are genuinely designed to prompt discussion. The term "trolling" was invented for this exact situation.

H4R didn't post this to generate discussion. First of all, he didn't try to discuss it. Second, how do you possibly discuss 100 unsupported and often unrelated talking points? You can't. This was bound to turn into a partisan snipe fest, which is all that H4R ever seems to participate in.

Hell, it was obvious that he knew at the start that this was going to happen. He invited it. "Cue the "right-wing rag" posts."

Dude, get over it.

I DID post this to generate discussion. It's on page 6 already. Your only contribution to this thread has been to blast me for having the temerity to post a portion of an article with a link. :laugh:

[Burgundy Burner]

Wel, I have always tried to distinguish between driveby postings of one hundred snappy partisan talking points with no support given for any of them, and postings that are genuinely designed to prompt discussion. The term "trolling" was invented for this exact situation.

H4R didn't post this to generate discussion. First of all, he didn't try to discuss it. Second, how do you possibly discuss 100 unsupported and often unrelated talking points? You can't. This was bound to turn into a partisan snipe fest, which is all that H4R ever seems to participate in.

Hell, it was obvious that he knew at the start that this was going to happen. He invited it. "Cue the "right-wing rag" posts."

No, it's more like when someone who is conservative and posts in this forum, you tend to bring out the "right wing rag" crap and nothing else. I cited two earlier cases and you never responded to them. So, here is another one - you chose to be the first response in this thread...

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=309530

That site has nothing to do with right wing agendas. You immediately went on a wild tangent only because it didn't agree with your extreme leftist positions. In fact, that site has been far tougher on right wing agendas over the years and was truly a Bush-hating site for eight years. But you reacted for two reasons only - I posted it (and yes, I'm a conservative) and it didn't fit with your politics.

It's getting old. Debate the topic(s). Leave the theatrics and whining to others. You're better than that.

[Burgundy Burner]

Dude, get over it.

I DID post this to generate discussion. It's on page 6 already. Your only contribution to this thread has been to blast me for having the temerity to post a portion of an article with a link. :laugh:

It reminds me of the boy who cried wolf all the time. Yell "right wing" crap all the time and hope it sticks. Se my previous post.

[hokie4redskins]

That site has nothing to do with right wing agendas. You immediately went on a wild tangent only because it didn't agree with your extreme leftist positions. It's getting old. Debate the topic(s). Leave the theatrics and whining to others. You're better than that.

QFT, 'cept maybe the last sentence.

[Corcaigh]

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation.

And I'm calling bull**** on this claim. Every high school physics student learns of the Wilson cloud chamber where subatomic particles are tracked by their creation of cloud trails.

Climatologists are fully aware of how cosmic particles create clouds. But my understanding is that the effect isn't significant enough to produce the results we see.

[Predicto]

No, it's more like when someone who is conservative and posts in this forum, you tend to bring out the "right wing rag" crap and nothing else. I cited two earlier cases and you never responded to them. So, here is another one - you chose to be the first response in this thread...

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=309530

That site has nothing to do with right wing agendas. You immediately went on a wild tangent only because it didn't agree with your extreme leftist positions. In fact, that site has been far tougher on right wing agendas over the years and was truly a Bush-hating site for eight years. But you reacted for two reasons only - I posted it (and yes, I'm a conservative) and it didn't fit with your politics.

It's getting old. Debate the topic(s). Leave the theatrics and whining to others. You're better than that.

What the?

You are just upset because I definitively proved that the story you cited was full of :pooh: Everyone should read that short thread and try to claim that I "went on a wild tangent" and "brought out the right wing rag crap and nothing else." I didn't react because of the politics - I reacted because the claims were stupid and easily refuted.

That thread is only a couple of pages long. I debated that topic on the merits, and I showed how false it was. You tried to defend the story, but eventually just gave up. Because the story was baloney. Why did you post it if you didn't want anyone to examine whether it was true or not?

I don't consider you a troll like H4R, but you seem to be following me around now and sniping and frankly, I'm not sure why. Yes, I'm a liberal guy, yes, I do notice bad conservative arguments more than bad liberal ones, but come on. Where are all the Predicto threads where I start by posting a cut and paste from Daily Kos? They don't exist. Where are the threads where I discuss specific issues on the merits in great detail. There are thousands of them.

Don't circle the conservative wagons with the likes of H4R. Some guys are here to discuss things, and some guys are here just to troll.

[Corcaigh]

Why the hell is someone's position on a progressive tax or the Obamacare a good indicator of what scientists they will believe?

That's not true.

Many on the right and in big business accept the consensus view of climate scientists that climate change is real and that man is a significant contributor.

[Larry]

1) Apologies for not getting back sooner. I was almost through typing this when Mom decided it was time to eat.

notice your choice of terms. you couldn't have simply said fossil fuels or oil, or petroleum, could you? You assume I am in favor of the status quo in terms of energy, especially in oil, you therefore feel it is necessary to use a term that makes such a stance (one which I do not hold) appear to be stupid by the connotation of "[a form of energy based] on burning dead things."

Actually, I used the phrase "burning dead things" because I thought it covered a lot of energy forms, and was simpler than saying "releasing stored chemical energy which had been stored in chemical compounds, by the process of permitting them to re-combine with atmospheric oxygen." (And I didn't want to say, say "oil", and have people come back with "but what about coal? And wood? And Natural Gas?)

please quote where I said this. I never said it was too expensive, in fact I never commented on the matter of reducing airborne pollution. well here's my opportunity to go on the record: reducing airborne pollution is a wonderful thing. In fact, I believe I even said something along the lines of ' who isn't for breathing clean air?' so let me ask you: why do you insist on creating straw-men in order to make yourself appear intellectually superior? Oh but wait, I'm not finished...

you are insinuating sir that this is my solution. I clearly stated that I personally offer no solution. I simply said:

-preventing climate change is futile

-how are we going to respond to that?

there are multiple ways of dealing with the issue that do not include your highly exaggerated example.

preposterous. that is my only response to this sentence. transference of our infrastructure from coal and oil to nuclear power is not only preferable, it is also profitable and not overly expensive.

do me a favor Larry. in all seriousness. drop the act, or simply do not respond to my posts. thanks

I'd really like to state that I am not trying to pick a fight with you. (I'm well aware that exaggerating your position might have had that effect. That's why I pointed it out.)

And I'll observe that, for somebody who claims not to have a solution, you sure do seen convinced that everybody else's solution("Let's try not to make things worse") is the wrong one.

But all of that said, I do think I'm grasping your position. And I seem to be seriously ticking you off. Please consider this an apology, and I'll drop it if you want.

[Larry]

I'll show one reason: If you look the warming ages seem to be at almost exactly the same time before each 100,000 years AND this one wasn't the warmest in the last 400,000 years.

Interesting information.

(I wish that this site contained code so that oversize images were scaled to fir the browser window, as opposed to stretching the user's post).

I do observe that the previous "blips" all appeared to be very brief things. Whereas the current one seems to have shot upwards and stayed there. (I'm not going to try to take a pair of calipers to my monitor to try to figure out if that plateau is 100 years, or what.)

[Hunter44]

I'll show one reason: If you look the warming ages seem to be at almost exactly the same time before each 100,000 years AND this one wasn't the warmest in the last 400,000 years.

Impossible, everyone knows that the earth is only 6000 years old...:doh:

[Burgundy Burner]

What the?

You are just upset because I definitively proved that the story you cited was full of :pooh: Everyone should read that short thread and try to claim that I "went on a wild tangent" and "brought out the right wing rag crap and nothing else." I didn't react because of the politics - I reacted because the claims were stupid and easily refuted.

That thread is only a couple of pages long. I debated that topic on the merits, and I showed how false it was. You tried to defend the story, but eventually just gave up. Because the story was baloney. Why did you post it if you didn't want anyone to examine whether it was true or not?

I don't consider you a troll like H4R, but you seem to be following me around now and sniping and frankly, I'm not sure why. Yes, I'm a liberal guy, yes, I do notice bad conservative arguments more than bad liberal ones, but come on. Where are all the Predicto threads where I start by posting a cut and paste from Daily Kos? They don't exist. Where are the threads where I discuss specific issues on the merits in great detail. There are thousands of them.

Don't circle the conservative wagons with the likes of H4R. Some guys are here to discuss things, and some guys are here just to troll.

Ok, I'm conservative and you're liberal - nothing wrong with having convictions in our belief systems.

Once again, that site is not right wing - a couple of years ago, most people would've seen it as a very left leaning site. It was not Bush-friendly at all. You may disagree with it, but that 65% may become a reality - perhaps not. After all, we did see a 70% variable tax rate during the Carter years. Just saying.

Today, when you jumped all over S4H, it was in the same mode of attack that was used against my post. You call it trolling, but if we see these points being proved correct in the next generation or two, then he (S4H) will certainly have bragging rights. In fact, I fully expect those points to be proven during that time frame.

Remember when Secretary Clinton brought up the "vast right wing agenda"? It's the same thing here. But guess what - that person who was way out on the fringe was proven right and usually scoops many in the msm today. Who will be tomorrow's Matt Drudge? Yes, this is where the story was linked and it has received plenty of attention on the internet today because of his site.

It's your right to simply dismiss some of us as "right wing rag pushers". But who will have the last laugh in a few years? Matt Drudge was dismissed as such, but the White House affair proved to be true. The rest is history.

My guess? The climate change stuff started off as global cooling. I laughed at it in the 1970s and was in the minority at that time. I went to one of our science teachers at the 10th reunion and let it be known who was right and who was wrong. Then it became global warming. Now it is "climate change" wink, wink, hehe. It's all bunk, but let's see what happens. Fair enough?

[Predicto]

Ok, I'm conservative and you're liberal - nothing wrong with having convictions in our belief systems.

Once again, that site is not right wing - a couple of years ago, most people would've seen it as a very left leaning site. It was not Bush-friendly at all. You may disagree with it, but that 65% may become a reality - perhaps not. After all, we did see a 70% variable tax rate during the Carter years. Just saying.

That is true. The top variable tax rate was much higher in the past. My problem with that story was not with its predictions. Its impossible to prove a prediction wrong in advance. The problems I had were that the story was not honest about how much taxes we currently pay. It was flast out false, and yes, I jumped all over it.

Today, when you jumped all over S4H, it was in the same mode of attack that was used against my post.

I admit, I jumped harder because of H4R's trollish posting history.

My guess? The climate change stuff started off as global cooling. I laughed at it in the 1970s and was in the minority at that time. I went to one of our science teachers at the 10th reunion and let it be known who was right and who was wrong. Then it became global warming. Now it is "climate change" wink, wink, hehe. It's all bunk, but let's see what happens. Fair enough?

Fair enough.

I do really suggest that you watch the videos in this thread. They put the whole thing in perspective, without being very political.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=311835

[Burgundy Burner]

I do really suggest that you watch the videos in this thread. They put the whole thing in perspective, without being very political.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=311835

I have that on my to do list for later this evening. The NCIS shows are first though - my only TV primetime viewing.

[ZoEd]

Even if climate change is natural, our rate of pollution and deforrestation isn't. Call it what you want, but we're destroying the planet and we need to fix our ways before there ain't nothing left to destroy. Arguing back and forth on whether or not climate change or global warming is real neglects the true point of what this all boils down to: our current ways are leading to this planet being uninhabitable.

I agree 100%. However, I don't agree with attacking something that in "theory", according to mathematic calculations may exist. My problem with the whole global warming BS is how it's all linked to politicians like Gore who just happens to be making a mint off of the "theory".

How bout we attack things that aren't theoretical like recycling, using renewable building products and legalizing ****ing hemp for Gods sake. Wouldn't need to cut down another tree for paper or make clothing with a bunch of chemicals in it. Tangible stuff people, stuff that doesn't cost trillions of dollars to pull off.

I just feel like we're going off a knee jerk reaction and putting the cart before the horse. Just my opinion, I'm just a stupid hillbilly from WV, what do I know?

[Hunter44]

I agree 100%. However, I don't agree with attacking something that in "theory", according to mathematic calculations may exist. My problem with the whole global warming BS is how it's all linked to politicians like Gore who just happens to be making a mint off of the "theory".

How about all those on the right making a mint out of ignoring it? How about all the corporations who are buying Republicans to make sure that this issue stays murky and that the status quo continues?? :doh: The ice caps ARE melting, that's no theory, you can see the pictures for yourself. All that fresh water entering into the worlds oceans is no "theory". Lots of theories flying around over "what" if anything is causing it but make no mistake, things are changing.

How bout we attack things that aren't theoretical like recycling, using renewable building products and legalizing ****ing hemp for Gods sake. Wouldn't need to cut down another tree for paper or make clothing with a bunch of chemicals in it. Tangible stuff people, stuff that doesn't cost trillions of dollars to pull off.

Totally agree.

I just feel like we're going off a knee jerk reaction and putting the cart before the horse. Just my opinion, I'm just a stupid hillbilly from WV, what do I know?

Knee jerk reactions are all we know, it's how we got into an illegal war after all...