Reply With Quote
Exactly, Earth was non inhabited, even habitable, by humans, outside the of the last few 100K years, a geological eyeblink.
Exactly, Earth was non inhabited, even habitable, by humans, outside the of the last few 100K years, a geological eyeblink.
Do you actually read things that you respond to?
Oh irony
Oh irony
Do you even know how the greenhouse effect works? The Earth's average temperature has risen since the industrial revolution. Stop denying science and evidence.
It was rising before that. Quit denying the little ice age.
Wow.... you failed science, no doubt.
The only class I ever did poorly in was my 2nd semester of fluid mechanics, but I took it again and got an A.
Simple question, yes or no; the planet earth has both been a lot colder and it's been a lot hotter, than it is right now, several times of varying durations before man ever banged out the first plate of steel to kick off the industrial revolution?
Yes or no?
Yes. Due to the greenhouse effect.... no.
You don't there was any greenhouse effect before human beings existed?
u.b.stupid
Not exactly my point; my point being, if the earth has both cooled and heated without the effects of man's presence -- several times (according to geological records) -- what makes him so damn sure the current trend (whether it be cooling or heating, as that seems to be dependent on Algore's location at the moment) isn't the result of whatever drove global climate before we ever came along?
That's my point. That and the fact AGW proponents are so egocentric they actually believe man can have more affect on climate that that big ball of nuclear-fueled energy bathing us in sunlight 24 hours a day and our varying distances from it from eon to eon.
Actually the greenhouse effect has always existed.
Let me educate you that our atmosphere retains enough heat to keep the planet habitable.
To put it in elementary terms, heat from sun comes in, atmosphere releases some heat and keeps some heat.... similar to your car being hotter than outside during the summer.
If the Earth had no greenhouse effect, then the planet would be like Mercury with temperatures fluctuating from extremely hot to extremely cold due to no atmosphere, leading to no greenhouse effect.
An overactive greenhouse effect is like Venus.... it's always really ing hot.
The greenhouse effect is a name for something that happened long before humans existed on this planet.... since the beginnings of universe, in the moments of planet formation after the big bang. It existed before man evolved from apes, and it will exist after man goes extinct.
Now please..... stop spreading lies to other uneducated people. Thanks.
Um.... there is evidence. There is proof since the industrial revolution.
Why would it just start to increase at the point of human existence when we are a period in the sentence that is this planet's existence?
In other words, nothing we're experiencing now is aberrant to what was experienced before man showed up. Correct?
No. We further push the Earth's atmosphere towards the behavior of Venus with added emissions. Do you deny statistics?
Because the Earth has a habit of heating and cooling and if it had been cooling when man showed up, you'd be blaming us for that as well.
It's called coincidence.
And, riddle me this Batman; what is the Earth's optimal temperature?
I have no reason to believe that man made emissions are not bad for the enviornment. Simply put, you wouldn't lock yourself in your garage with the car running for a reason, so I can safely assume that millions of cars on Earth would have a negative effect on the Earth.
Except none of the AGW Proponents' predictions are coming true and they're having to explain away climate behavior that directly contradicts what they said would happen.
Of what statistics do you speak? Because much has been published about the inferior quality of the data being used by the IPCC and their worshipers to make the claim that AGW exists.
And, even when using faulty statistics, they're having to constantly explain away cir stances that contradict their prognostications...
Not a safe assumption. Most of the emissions from cars are transient and affect local air quality. If you shut off every car in Los Angeles on Monday, the air would be clean on Wednesday.
It dissipates.
And, don't even get me started on CO2. Geeze, making that a toxin is the biggest farce ever.
That's another problem I have with the AGW crowd; they're constantly conflating pollution and climate change.
I'm against pollution and believe measures to reduce toxic emissions are warranted at a local and regional level. I don't think, however, there's anything you can do to appreciably change the globe's climate...just as I don't think there is anything we've done that's led to our global climate condition now.
Do yo know what a catalytic converter is and why it was invented?
Uh oh, looks like the AGW cultists have already rewritten the history of this great invention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyt...nmental_impact
Environmental impact
Catalytic converters have proven to be reliable and effective in reducing noxious tailpipe emissions. However, they may have some adverse environmental impacts in use:
The requirement for a rich-burn engine to run at the stoichiometric point means it uses more fuel than a lean-burn engine running at a mixture of 20:1 or less. This increases the amount of fossil fuel consumed and the carbon-dioxide emissions of the vehicle. However, NOx control on lean-burn engines is problematic.
Although catalytic converters are effective at removing hydrocarbons and other harmful emissions, they do not solve the fundamental problem created by burning a fossil fuel. In addition to water, the main combustion product in exhaust gas leaving the engine — through a catalytic converter or not — is carbon dioxide (CO2).[14] Carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels is one of the greenhouse gases indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be a "most likely" cause of global warming.[15] Additionally, the U.S. EPA has stated catalytic converters are a significant and growing cause of global warming, because of their release of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas over three hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide.[16]
Catalytic converter production requires palladium or platinum; part of the world supply of these precious metals is produced near Norilsk, Russia, where the industry (among others) has caused Norilsk to be added to Time magazine's list of most-polluted places.[17]
How is pointing out that catalytic converters don't remove CO2 rewriting history?
Are you saying at some point catalytic converters removed CO2?
Just compare all your favorite scares of the month by the AGW crowd. When they cannot rely o facts, you know something is wrong with their case.
That's because they create all these fairy tales to tell the commoners, who they have convinced, need their stewardship.
It's all about money and power.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions