bushwacked Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 (edited) There is a an obvious reason why you guys resort to referencing politically and financially motivated right wing propagandists or focus in on an underwhelming opinion, and not mainstream science, to support your opinion. Edited June 23, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Emissions by what? Plants? Animals? Tectonic processes? Here's a pretty good table showing the CO2 levels and temperatures throughout the Earth's history:  Link  By the earth's standards, current CO2 levels are extremely low.  alright, but we really don't know what civilizations were like that far back?....  we were already in an ice age within the last 2000 years...and the CO2 emissions right now are 10x worse than what they were then...  and I mean CO2 emissions overall...not from one source...  if you date back to 100 million years ago or more...you really don't know if life was like what it is now and we didn't just have to start from scratch all over again....I mean there are numerous possibilities of what life was like during those times.....intelligent life could have even been scarce as well...  there's no way of telling at this point....so I was just talking about within the last couple thousand years.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 There is a an obvious reason why you guys resort to referencing politically and financially motivated right wing propagandists or focus in on an underwhelming opinion, and not mainstream science, to support your opinion. Â Wait! I know the reason! Is it because mainstream climate science is universally agreed that man made CO2 emissions are affecting the climate? Â Yes, that must be it. But wait! I can quote a website that contradicts what the top experts in the field know is true. This guy is a doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 its hot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 There is a an obvious reason why you guys resort to referencing politically and financially motivated right wing propagandists or focus in on an underwhelming opinion, and not mainstream science, to support your opinion. Â There was a time when the overwhelming consensus in the world was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But then facts got in the way of that fallacy. There was also an overwhelming consensus that the Earth was flat. But of course, again, facts showed that to be untrue. Now we come to one great con game of the AGW argument, and despite the best efforts of the pro-AGW believers and the mainstream media accomplices, the facts again are showing how wrong consensus can be. Â It doesn't matter what the source of the facts are, but rather that the facts exist and are irrefutable. That's inconvenient for people like you, who have to resort to smearing the source because you can't rebut the facts. Â Look, if you want to believe the fairytale that Al Gore and his ilk are perpetrating on the American people, that's you perrogative. Just stay out of my pocket with cap-and-trade policies and supporting green issues that have absolutely no economic viability when you do it. Â I've got an open loop geothermal heating/cooling system installed in my house. It is environmentally friendly and it is economically feasible - in fact, the financial return has been outstanding. If you can provide alternatives like this that are economically competitive with traditional systems, I'm all for it. What I will not support is policy that has no economic viability based foisted upon the American people using scare tactics with a foundation of false or misleading science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 alright, but we really don't know what civilizations were like that far back?.... we were already in an ice age within the last 2000 years...and the CO2 emissions right now are 10x worse than what they were then...  and I mean CO2 emissions overall...not from one source...  if you date back to 100 million years ago or more...you really don't know if life was like what it is now and we didn't just have to start from scratch all over again....I mean there are numerous possibilities of what life was like during those times.....intelligent life could have even been scarce as well...  there's no way of telling at this point....so I was just talking about within the last couple thousand years....  What the hell are you talking about? CO2 levels and tempertures were higher 350,000 years ago than they are right now. Exactly what civilizations existed then that were responsible for that? SUV-riding packs of saber toothed cats?  Geez - look at the data, and not just from a snapshot of one thousand years in a history of Earth that covers roughly 4.6M years. Look at the past few hundred thousand years at least if you are unwilling to take a much more representative sample of a few hundred million years - and you see temperatures and CO2 levels rising and falling (the ice ages and the interglacials) that are completely consistent with solar cycles. Those past CO2 levels and temperatures are in a relatively and easily comprehensible cycle. You don't have to be an expert of climate to see and understand patterns.  Does man put pollutants into the atmosphere? Absolutely, I will never argue with that. Are some of those pollutants what are referred to as greenhouse gases? Again, undeniably yes. But are the levels of contributions by man-made sources utterly insignificant when compared to natural sources? Again - undeniably so. To think man is so utterly important in determining what happens in the life cycle of this planet is uncomprehensible conceit - or worse, a con game staged as a basis for power and financial gain at the expense of others that ignores or obfuscates clear facts, scientific data, and obvious evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) There was a time when the overwhelming consensus in the world was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. But then facts got in the way of that fallacy. There was also an overwhelming consensus that the Earth was flat. Â Kind of a desperately stupid comparison. These opinions were largely based on ethnocentric religious beliefs, more specifically Roman Catholic Dogma, and debunked during the Scientific Revolution which began in the middle ages. Again, you're belief that man isn't effecting the climate is only supported by propaganda or an underwhelming minority scientific opinion; as much as you guys don't want to acknowledge that, it is 100% undeniable. Edited June 23, 2009 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Desperately stupid reach. These opinons were largely based on ethnocentric religious beliefs, more specifically Roman Catholic Dogma, and debunked during the Scientific Revolution which began in the middle ages. Again, you're belief that man isn't effecting the climate is only supported by propaganda or an underwhelming minority scientific opinion; as much as you guys don't want to acknowledge that, it is 100% undeniable. Â Well good, then. You won't mind rebutting the statements of fact that I've provided so far with facts of your own instead of your grandstanding and blustering... Â I'll concede that if one looks at an extraordinarily small - and quite frankly, cherry-picked - sample that one could draw the conclusions that the industrial revolution is responsible for rises in CO2 levels and temperatures. How do you reconcile this with the fact that when the sample is expanded over several hundred thousands of years and we see the cycle that the earth is currently in repeated regularly and is consistent with solar cycles and shows no significant impact from human activity? Â Also, how do you manage to assign such high resonsibility for climate changes to AGW when in fact, man's attributible contribution to greenhouse gases in the world are approximately 0.117% due to CO2 contributions and 0.28% due to total greenhouse gas contributions. Â Let's start with you rebuttal to these facts, and perhaps we can go forth from there. Edited June 23, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 What the hell are you talking about? CO2 levels and tempertures were higher 350,000 years ago than they are right now. Exactly what civilizations existed then that were responsible for that? SUV-riding packs of saber toothed cats? Geez - look at the data, and not just from a snapshot of one thousand years in a history of Earth that covers roughly 4.6M years. Look at the past few hundred thousand years at least if you are unwilling to take a much more representative sample of a few hundred million years - and you see temperatures and CO2 levels rising and falling (the ice ages and the interglacials) that are completely consistent with solar cycles. Those past CO2 levels and temperatures are in a relatively and easily comprehensible cycle. You don't have to be an expert of climate to see and understand patterns.  Does man put pollutants into the atmosphere? Absolutely, I will never argue with that. Are some of those pollutants what are referred to as greenhouse gases? Again, undeniably yes. But are the levels of contributions by man-made sources utterly insignificant when compared to natural sources? Again - undeniably so. To think man is so utterly important in determining what happens in the life cycle of this planet is uncomprehensible conceit - or worse, a con game staged as a basis for power and financial gain at the expense of others that ignores or obfuscates clear facts, scientific data, and obvious evidence.  wow.....my point was is that we have no idea what happened prior to even just a few thousand years ago...  if the entire civilization on this planet were to be wiped out by...anything catastrophic...it would take about 100 years before there would be little trace of there ever being life on this planet prior to whatever catastrophe occurred....  to say something like "SUV-riding packs of saber toothed cats?" is the 1st ignorant thing you've said about this topic....we can't guess-timate anything about a civilization that we have little to no knowledge about....other than what you were taught in books or on the History channel which is proven to be misinformed countless times....  my whole point wasn't that Global warming is caused mostly by us.....if you re-read what I said previously, I said that I wasn't big on the theory and it is definitely a natural occurrence...  plus the fact that the Government has admitted to manipulating weather since Vietnam....maybe this is the backlash from "man" fudging with something that he has no business tampering with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 wow.....my point was is that we have no idea what happened prior to even just a few thousand years ago... Â What are you talking about? There is absolutely evidence as to what the climate was for extended periods in the past. How can you make any credible argument when your basis for understanding is so flawed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 What are you talking about? There is absolutely evidence as to what the climate was for extended periods in the past. How can you make any credible argument when your basis for understanding is so flawed? Â OHH MAN....umm.... Â didn't I say that in another post?....I'm talking about what life was like back then....you can't assume that we were as barbaric as were are told because it's all an assumption... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Is it because mainstream climate science is universally agreed that man made CO2 emissions are affecting the climate?  That is a bold faced lie.  .it would take about 100 years before there would be little trace of there ever being life on this planet prior to whatever catastrophe occurred.... ..we can't guess-timate anything about a civilization that we have little to no knowledge about..  What the...? Were you drunk posting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 OHH MAN....umm.... didn't I say that in another post?....I'm talking about what life was like back then....you can't assume that we were as barbaric as were are told because it's all an assumption...  What? Okay, so what does barbarism have to do with climate change? Or are you saying that evidence of past ages is based upon speculation rather than conclusions based upon facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 That is a bold faced lie.   What the...? Were you drunk posting?  oh....HI H8!  I'd like to join you in your 8am drinking sessions....but I'm just not a raging alcoholic....you party way too hard for me.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 What? Okay, so what does barbarism have to do with climate change? Or are you saying that evidence of past ages is based upon speculation rather than conclusions based upon facts? Â that comment was an answer to your SUV...whatever you said comment....it had nothing to do with climate change.... Â you don't know what previous civilizations were doing....between riding sabertooth tigers or whatever...or even if cars were around then... Â so that chart you posted earlier has no weight in what is going on now because you seriously have no idea what life was like at that time... Â we can only go off what we know...and that is the previous 3,000 years or so.... Â using comparisons to 350,000+ years ago is a waste of breath because...once again...we seriously have no clue at all what life was like back then and what might have occurred to bring those changes on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) we can only go off what we know...and that is the previous 3,000 years or so.... Â Okay, so let's suppose that your statement here is true - which I disagree with completely and can't for the life of me understand how you come to this conclusion, and frankly am extremely tempted to ask you how long you think the Earth has been in existence - for the sake of argument. Â The temperatures during the Medieval period from just before 1000 AD to approximately 1350 AD were about as warm as it is now (at it's peak it was warmer then than it is now). Â How do you account for that without the presence of substantial capability by man to create man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Â Let's address this time period first before we even think about the Holocene Maximum from 7500 BC to 4000 years ago where temperatures were relatively significantly higher than right now. And that precludes the evidence of periodic ice ages which apparently you believe there is no substantial evidence but is a matter of pure guesswork... Edited June 23, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Okay, so let's suppose that your statement here is true - which I disagree with completely and can't for the life of me understand how you come to this conclusion, and frankly am extremely tempted to ask you how long you think the Earth has been in existence - for the sake of argument. The temperatures during the Medieval period from just before 1000 AD to approximately 1350 AD were about as warm as it is now (at it's peak it was warmer then than it is now).  How do you account for that without the presence of substantial capability by man to create man-made greenhouse gas emissions?  Let's address this time period first before we even think about the Holocene Maximum from 7500 BC to 4000 years ago where temperatures were relatively significantly higher than right now. And that precludes the evidence of periodic ice ages which apparently you believe there is no substantial evidence but is a matter of pure guesswork...  I think I'll go back to what I said before about having no clue what life was like anywhere beyond 3,000 years ago or so....and to add to that, I have no friggin clue how long earth has sustained life....  my whole point being....we can only go off what we know....  and we don't know which periods man was here...or wasn't here...this all depends if you follow the Bible I guess because a lot of Bible thumpers believe that life on this planet started with us and nothing before that....  and I'd like to add that there are things that could throw everything off...like a Pole shift or an asteroid striking Earth.....there are so many variables to consider that would throw off the eco system completely and could also explain why there are all kinds of dips and spikes on that chart you posted earlier...  not to mention the possibility of how advanced man was in prior generations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009  http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefil...limatechart.pdf  why do you think the red line is always to the left of the black line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 23, 2009 Author Share Posted June 23, 2009 alright, but we really don't know what civilizations were like that far back?.... we were already in an ice age within the last 2000 years...and the CO2 emissions right now are 10x worse than what they were then...  and I mean CO2 emissions overall...not from one source...  if you date back to 100 million years ago or more...you really don't know if life was like what it is now and we didn't just have to start from scratch all over again....I mean there are numerous possibilities of what life was like during those times.....intelligent life could have even been scarce as well...  there's no way of telling at this point....so I was just talking about within the last couple thousand years....  umm, a hundred million years ago was dinosaurs and schit. not "civilizations", as human beings weren't on the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 umm, a hundred million years ago was dinosaurs and schit. not "civilizations", as human beings weren't on the scene. Â I must have slept through that period....I missed what happened... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 I think I'll go back to what I said before about having no clue what life was like anywhere beyond 3,000 years ago or so....and to add to that, I have no friggin clue how long earth has sustained life.... my whole point being....we can only go off what we know....  and we don't know which periods man was here...or wasn't here...this all depends if you follow the Bible I guess because a lot of Bible thumpers believe that life on this planet started with us and nothing before that....  and I'd like to add that there are things that could throw everything off...like a Pole shift or an asteroid striking Earth.....there are so many variables to consider that would throw off the eco system completely and could also explain why there are all kinds of dips and spikes on that chart you posted earlier...  not to mention the possibility of how advanced man was in prior generations...  Okay, since you admit to pretty not knowing much of anything on this subject, how can you make this statement:  the CO2 emissions that are occurring now are exponentially higher than they have ever been....dating back to the earliest point that the ice caps allow us to uncover.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 Okay, since you admit to pretty not knowing much of anything on this subject, how can you make this statement: Â because that's what I read awhile ago....maybe that dated back to the previous 3,000 years?... Â also...I didn't say I didn't know anything about the subject...you keep trying to twist things as if I didn't explain myself clearly the 1st time... Â I said....(and make sure you read this twice, so I won't have to type it twice like everything else I've said on this topic)....that WE don't know what this planet was like beyond 3,000 years ago.... Â I actually respected what you had to say about the topic at first until your ignorance shined through and burned the seat all up...good going....but you're bringing up periods of time that we know......WE.....KNOW....nothing about.... Â you're not interested in having a serious conversation about it....you just want to take the ...argument wherever you can to try and win it.... Â so here you go...."you win"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 meh. Â That Bronco Billy sure types a lot. Â I'm still sticking with that whole "consensus of climate scientists who believe that human contributions to CO2 in the atmosphere are affecting the climate" though, even if he does post a lot on a football message board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 why do you think the red line is always to the left of the black line? Â Obviously global temperature and trangression and regression of the seas control atmospheric CO2 levels. Â The red line is hardly always left of the black line. Whether left or right - up or down, you're basing skepticism on seconds, over years worth of data. I'm not sure what the dating instrumentation error of the methods they used, but it's almost certainly within the 500 +/- years you've alluded to on the graph. I 'm fairly sure you realize this. Â Atmospheric CO2 is currently an anomaly. It's spiked at an incredibly high level never seen over nearly 0.5 million years. This is what a compilation of a tremendous amount of independently collected data shows. The data is compelling. It virtually proves temperature and C02 (and to a lesser extent, sea levels) generally appear to have a 1:1 relationship over a period of of 400K years. Â Second - Any scientist worth his salt, know that oceans are big heat sinks and temperature controllers. Oceans are going to warm for years (it's been accepted that they will probably do so for 100-200 years) before atmospheric temperatures follow suit. Â Lastly - I posted the graph to contradict BB's asinine insinuation that atmospheric CO2 are at low to normal levels and the experts on the issue "only evaluate 100 years of data." But alas it was a waste. It's apparent I have slightly more motivation and time to discuss evolution with tornator. And I'm confused to what Avernus was getting at, but I'm not sure whose apparent comprehension of what happened over time and how it relates to present time is...uh... more lacking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted June 24, 2009 Share Posted June 24, 2009 It's apparent I have slightly more motivation and time to discuss evolution with tornator. Â let's get it on beeyotch. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.