Reply With Quote
What if it's just natural and a part of Earth's circle of life(cue Lion King music)?
Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name
Interesting take from the guy called a "professional contrarian" in the Climate of Doubt thread. It's from February this year. A worth while read.
For you warmista's, you may appreciate this from the author:
Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.
Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn't been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.
What if it's just natural and a part of Earth's circle of life(cue Lion King music)?
I believe for the most part it is. I will not deny that our activities have helped warm the earth, I just disagree to the amount claimed by the alarmists. It just doesn't add up.
I'm pretty sure in the past you have argued that we have not warmed the earth, the earth has not warmed, higher co2 levels are good for trees, any warming that may have occured is caused by the sun, black soot, etc. I've always thought of you being in the complete denier camp not the skeptic camp.
what happened to deniers who said the earth was cooling?
You got it. Co2 doesn't drive warming, warming drives CO2 is another big one for our resident idiot.
I don't think I have ever said we have not warmed the earth with CO2. I have pointed to references that some scientists believe CO2 cooled rather than warmed the earth. I probably had some "what if" questions with that.
If I have, indicated CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, I would sure like to see it.
Same with the earth not warming. I never said any such thing, and I know that one for fact. I have questioned the numbers and methodology, but never the fact that over time, the earth is warming.
As for more CO2 being good for plants, that is established fact. Businesses that grow plants in greenhouses purposely maintain a higher CO2 content inside for the plants.
WC: The KKK gives us racists a bad name.
alarmists? It doesn´t add up?
but Invading Iraq to find those non-existent WMDs wasn't alarmist whatsoever. The gross lack of understanding what adds up and what doesn't leaves you unable to judge such things. Consider it a handicap, it´s part of the circle of life.
The only person giving skeptics a bad name 'round these parts is the OP tbh.
Why not just use common sense? Recycle, throw away your trash, and don't waste electricity, water, and gas.
Really?
Who do you consider a good AGW skeptic?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
