Global warming: science and pseudo science [modified]
-
One thing that bothers me quite a lot is that politicians ignore a very simple truth. Regardless whether the earth is warming up or not, we let toxic stuff into nature. That stuff will eventually find its way into ourselves. There should be some kind of pressure on corporations to make them spend parts of their profit to research cleaner and safer options. If we don't die drowning in molten polar ice, we'll die in our own filth. :sigh:
-- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
I dont have a problem with what you are saying there! Quite agree, all the pesticides, dioxins, heavy metals etc are really screwing up nature, and will, one day, screw us up more than a few billion tons of CO2. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
screw us up more than a few billion tons of CO2
That remains to be seen I think. Ultimately, we need a what-if-machine. :rolleyes:
-
There's just no happy middle ground for you, ha?
Middle ground is a Marxist concept!
-
fat_boy wrote:
By what process?
6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2 photosynthsis Since you are probably chemistry challenged :) this means six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen. We need to preserve our greens. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
Ah, OK, it was the term 'biosphere', I havent heard of it used to mean just plain old green plants. However, excess CO2 can be absorbed very very quickly resulting in increased plany growth. If anyone doubts me then I have absoloute proof: A friend of mine grew some big bud in his spare room using hydroponics. He used a CO2 bottle to increase the CO" in their 'biosphere' to increase the growth of the plants. Nunc est bibendum
-
fat_boy wrote:
I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but [here is my opinion anyway, using "facts" and arguments that are basically drawn straight from my own head and out of thin air despite the presence of at least one good source in this thread alone, because for some strange reason in our society scientific illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of when making an argument on a scientific matter - and hey, if I'm wrong, someone who knows better can just come along and correct me, right? Saving me from actually actively seeking out information on the subject! Hooray!];
I mean, can you actually see yourself saying something like, "I don't know anything about electricity, but this is why there's no problem with the wiring in your house..." - F
Would you expect me to comment on the accuracy of the computer models given that I have no knowledge of them at all? I am just drawing a conclusion based on known facts; that the earth was a lot warmer when the romans were in britain and when the viking colonies in greenland were viable. And that there was also an iceage that ended 10 thousand years ago. ie, that the earth is capable of large changes on its own. All of which happened without mans intervention. Do you have such a reverence for 'scientists' that you do not dispute everything they say? Do you not have a brain of your own that you use to make up you own mind or do you always do what your 'betters' tell you? You are a bit weak in the head if you do. Nunc est bibendum
-
fat_boy wrote:
olcanos happen every 5 years or so, so it is complete crap to talk about nature being non poluting.
No one has said that.
fat_boy wrote:
It was also a lot warmer before 1500 or so. Viking settlements in Greenland, Romans growing grapes in the north of England, all attest to that.
Of course. Everybody understands that the climate changes naturally over time.
fat_boy wrote:
The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable.
That's baloney. Life has been on the planet for about 1/2 billion years, not a few million.
fat_boy wrote:
And it stabilised. To what we have today. The system balanced itself.
No, it's not stable; it's dynamic. Our global climate system is in a state that sientis refer to as "chaordic" - that is, right on the edge of order and chaos. (This is sometimes refered to as a "metastable" state.) A "stable" system is one in which all the water is either frozen or liquid (for example) - we don't want that.
fat_boy wrote:
I dont know anything about the science, or the computer models, or so on but;
Umm - perhaps you should educate yourself, then, rather than spouting opinions based on ignorance.
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
fat_boy wrote: The world, if we are to believe the scientists, millions of years ago, was a festering, methane and CO2 swamp, with volcanos erruoting and so on. ie, uninhabitable. That's baloney. Life has been on the planet for about 1/2 billion years, not a few million.
Err, I stated 'millions of years ago' ie, plural, many. I didnt state how many, so 500 thousand million is still millions. Idiot.
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
"chaordic"
Yep, you have to be american to use a word like that. Tell me, is this the latest tredny word in weather science?
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Umm - perhaps you should educate yourself, then, rather than spouting opinions based on ignorance
So you either: 1) KNow all about the science and models. 2) Dont know about them either, but dont have enough of a brain to form an opinion based on what you do know. 3) Are just an arse hole. Go on, let us know which one. Nunc est bibendum
-
fat_boy wrote:
A volcano spews out a hell of a lot of CO2, dust, SO2 and god knows what else
A post a couple of days ago pointed out that man-made CO2 emissions are 150 times greater than volcanic emissions. Look it up for yourself. This psuedo-argument that volcanos cause more global warming than humans must be put to bed once and for all. It is not true.
-
Would you expect me to comment on the accuracy of the computer models given that I have no knowledge of them at all? I am just drawing a conclusion based on known facts; that the earth was a lot warmer when the romans were in britain and when the viking colonies in greenland were viable. And that there was also an iceage that ended 10 thousand years ago. ie, that the earth is capable of large changes on its own. All of which happened without mans intervention. Do you have such a reverence for 'scientists' that you do not dispute everything they say? Do you not have a brain of your own that you use to make up you own mind or do you always do what your 'betters' tell you? You are a bit weak in the head if you do. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
Would you expect me to comment on the accuracy of the computer models given that I have no knowledge of them at all?
I would reasonably expect you to inform yourself on basic climate theory and the existing evidence for climate change before expressing an opinion on the subject. Otherwise, you're just playing at science, flaunting ignorance as if it were a badge of honor (like every other pseudoscientist), and your ideas don't deserve the merest regard. - F
-
fat_boy wrote:
Would you expect me to comment on the accuracy of the computer models given that I have no knowledge of them at all?
I would reasonably expect you to inform yourself on basic climate theory and the existing evidence for climate change before expressing an opinion on the subject. Otherwise, you're just playing at science, flaunting ignorance as if it were a badge of honor (like every other pseudoscientist), and your ideas don't deserve the merest regard. - F
Fisticuffs wrote:
basic climate theory
Why, it is only theory. I am confining myself to known facts. 1) The fact is we came out of an ice age 10000 years ago. 2) The fact it was a lot warmer for a long period of time a few hundred years ago. 3) The fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased plant growth. ie, it is absorbed.
Fisticuffs wrote:
you're just playing at science
Thats the thing, I am not. I am not using science, I am using known facts.
Fisticuffs wrote:
your ideas
It is an observation of known facts. No idea or theory involved. Nunc est bibendum
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
basic climate theory
Why, it is only theory. I am confining myself to known facts. 1) The fact is we came out of an ice age 10000 years ago. 2) The fact it was a lot warmer for a long period of time a few hundred years ago. 3) The fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased plant growth. ie, it is absorbed.
Fisticuffs wrote:
you're just playing at science
Thats the thing, I am not. I am not using science, I am using known facts.
Fisticuffs wrote:
your ideas
It is an observation of known facts. No idea or theory involved. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
I am not using science, I am using known facts.
Are you now! We had thermometers around 10,000 years ago, huh? And you've directly counted every plant on earth when CO2 and only CO2 has changed to validate the "fact" that CO2 increases plant growth? News flash: you're selectively assembling these "facts" of yours from a wider base of scientific knowledge - and using them to draw specious conclusions - which is either intellectually dishonest or deliberately ignorant. You would know which one better than me.
fat_boy wrote:
Why, it is only theory.
I love it when people demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt they don't have a clue what they're talking about. - F