real science has no part in global warming - Page 3

7960 · 02-12-2007, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So the reason to deny global warming is because they're experts with PH'Ds who's had umpteen million years of experience in their fields and know more than the average Joe who knows only basic kindergarten and high school earth science?

So the real reason is because they know more than you (general) and you hate authority.

How scientific and credible.

Way to completely miss the point of that article.

Diamond Cross · 02-12-2007, 12:33 AM

The article makes a bunch of stupid points like that that have absolutely nothing to do with debunking the theory of global warming.

They're socialists? Oh so what? That has nothing to do with global warming.

That is a pis poor article on why global warming should not be believed and is highly emotional and prejudiced.

Therefore it has no credibility.

Donkey® · 02-12-2007, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Because CO2 is as 'dirty' as O2 or N2. It's not really a pollutant. Except in the case of the possibly fake global warming issue.

The CO2 WE put into the environment IS a pollutant though. It's not natural so what is it? That's right...a pollutant.

Donkey® · 02-12-2007, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Co2 isnt pollution though.

If we are PUTTING something into the environment...it is a pollutant.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The CO2 WE put into the environment IS a pollutant though. It's not natural so what is it? That's right...a pollutant.

And if we pumped O2 or H2O into the air, would you call those pollutants as well?

Donkey® · 02-12-2007, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And if we pumped O2 or H2O into the air, would you call those pollutants as well?

Yes. Mercury is a natural substance found everywhere but it's called a pollutant because we put it in excess to the naturally accumulating amount. Nature has a natural level of all these things. If we ADD to it...we're polluting.

Scrum · 02-12-2007, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And if we pumped O2 or H2O into the air, would you call those pollutants as well?

If we were talking about pumping enough to throw off the balance? Yes.

Let's go to our friend dictionary.com

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Yes. Mercury is a natural substance found everywhere but it's called a pollutant because we put it in excess to the naturally accumulating amount. Nature has a natural level of all these things. If we ADD to it...we're polluting.

Yes, there is substantial evidence showing mercury to be poisonous.

I have yet to see substantial evidence that says the amounts of CO2 in the air are directly causing the global warming.

Donkey® · 02-12-2007, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes, there is substantial evidence showing mercury to be poisonous.

I have yet to see substantial evidence that says the amounts of CO2 in the air are directly causing the global warming.

Let's compare apples to at least some other fruit. If you don't think CO2 causes global warming then why are you concerned about what it's level is? And there is also substantial evidence that C02 can kill you. Just FYI.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Let's compare apples to at least some other fruit. If you don't think CO2 causes global warming then why are you concerned about what it's level is?

I'm not.

That's why I don't care about this whole global warming thing as much. Other pollutants, however, I don't mind cleaning up. Let's start with plastic bottles thrown on the side of the highway.

Donkey® · 02-12-2007, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm not.

That's why I don't care about this whole global warming thing as much. Other pollutants, however, I don't mind cleaning up. Let's start with plastic bottles thrown on the side of the highway.

Why pick and choose? I am not going to die from that plastic bottle. CO2 can kill me though.

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Why pick and choose? I am not going to die from that plastic bottle.

But other things can.

CO2 can kill me though.

Can it really? We're talking about atmostpheric CO2, right?

Donkey® · 02-12-2007, 12:49 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

But other things can.

Can it really? We're talking about atmostpheric CO2, right?

We're talking about CO2. I don't care where it might be. CO2 can kill me. If the CO2 level gets to a certain point...that's bad...you know this right? So why would I not care if humans are adding to that level?

ballz2wallz · 02-12-2007, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

We're talking about CO2. I don't care where it might be. CO2 can kill me. If the CO2 level gets to a certain point...that's bad...you know this right? So why would I not care if humans are adding to that level?

Ok now I know you've lost this argument. H2O can kill a person too. Big fucking deal.

Donkey® · 02-12-2007, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Ok now I know you've lost this argument. H2O can kill a person too. Big fucking deal.

And if we were pumping H20 into places we shouldn't be then you'd have an argument.

thatguyoverthere · 02-12-2007, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Al Gore is one that comes to mind.

And a lot of fucking good it did him, didn't it?

He sure cynically rode that issue to popularity and success, didn't he?

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ. Please, don't be so shallow.

Will you ignore my questions again as long as you can get in a one-line "zinger?"

Again, what if Al and other environmentalists are simply concerned about the environment in which we live? Why do you rush to ascribe political motives to environmentalism? Is it impossible for you to believe that he and other environmentalists simply care about our environment for the simple reason that we have to live on the fucking planet too and breathe the air and drink the water? Apparently so. The environmentalists are just a bunch of capitalist hating socialists to you and nothing else I suppose.

What I want to know is why you seem to have a mind set that it is simply impossible for another human being to want to live in a clean environment; they all must be capitalist haters whose only motive is to take down capitalism, right?

Well, you're wrong.

tbone · 02-12-2007, 09:46 AM

I love when people post opinion articles to combat a scientific study that meets all criteria to be recognized, not only by the scientific community so it can be published in a journal, but also the criteria of most 1st world nations, including the US. Good job!!

I am not trying to say man definitively caused global warming, but all evidence supports that we contribute to it. All the opinion articles and spin in the world won't make that go away.

BTW, the person above who calls global warming into question because it's getting colder in one place on earth is hilarious! Global warming IS happening, it's fact, and pretty much accepted by every single climatolgist in the world. It's the average temperature of earth getting warmer, not whether Jersey is colder than it was 20 years ago, lol. The thing that's not conclusive it's what is causing it.

David Octavius · 02-12-2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So am I to take it that you do not have a link to published research in a peer reviewed scientific journal who disputes global warming by a climatologist without ties to oil or energy companies?

The links I've followed on that wikipedia entry so far have been less than impressive... more interviews, quotes, etc.. less published research. Some of them, like Veizer have been thoroughly debunked already because of questionable methodology.. others, like Seitz still don't even accept that we were damaging the Ozone with CFC's.. Singer is in the same boat as Seitz, except he doesn't believe second hand smoke has any connection to lung cancer, and that ultraviolet light isn't linked with skin cancer..

A lot of them seem to have connections to conservative think tanks in DC (ie: Marshall institute), so I'll add another caveat to the "No ties to energy companies" -- Not affiliated with conservative or liberal political organizations either.

I'm asking you for some information that you've actually looked at and believe to be accurate meeting the conditions, not something you found thanks to two seconds and "the Google" ..anyone can google and find a list, I want something you actually have read and believe and base your opinion on.

If you don't think it's real, or think that the science behind it is bunk, surely you've actually done some research into the subject to find credible evidence by credible, independent scientists which are contrary to the beliefs of the majority and can find what you've read again?

Good analysis, you seem to have a habit of posting good well reasoned opinions, I think it speaks volumes that no one has tried to refute or even just answer your post

7960 · 02-12-2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Good analysis, you seem to have a habit of posting good well reasoned opinions, I think it speaks volumes that no one has tried to refute or even just answer your post

Or we're all entrenched in our positions and we've had this discussion 11tybillion times already and nobody is changing anyone's mind so there's no use trying to refute or even just answer his post.