Global Warming Myth

[gtownspur]

I watched a small portion before his ty presentation got on my nerves. Besides he states he's only going after one theory so whatever.

THe theory being that CO2 is what causes most of the global warming, which is the main theory of man made global warming.

He dissects the IPCC report in which it fails to mention that H20 (Water vapor) itself is the most heat trapping gas and that CO2 is only a trace gas which makes up less than 1 percent of the gases found in our atmosphere.


He also shows holes in the argument of how the chart most often used to show proof that CO2 emmissions have risen immensely has two very different test methods of tracing C02 amounts, not to mention that any CO2 levels taken before 1950 were taken from Antartica, and the later from volcanic rich hawaii. This chart is shown on Al gore's movie and is not a scientific report.


The video also points out that there was a warming period in the middle ages that outdid what we have today. and that the various global warming arguments love to dismiss this argument.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not pundit for what Al Gore says, but I'm not jumping on this guys bandwagon either. He does a piss poor job of addressing the real issues and instead focuses on things he thinks he can disprove. Nevermind other evidence he's not considering into his arguments.

The IPCC's reports are crap and I've said as much here. They ignore . But this guy does as much disservice to the issue as anyone else involved. Nevermind that the ocean is completely dying due to that trace element C02 which is completely human caused, lets instead focus on what may be bad science. Good job guy.

What did you mention earlier in this thread? Red Herring was it?

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, the issue with water vapor has been addressed. It took me all of 2 minutes of searching to find a detailed explanation and dude addresses it as if its some weird mystery? Give me a break.

I may sit down and watch the damn thing even though its 2 hours long just to tear holes through his ridiculous arguments.

[MannyIsGod]

@ this guy going back and basically saying "they were wrong before so they must be wrong now" Thats classic.

[gtownspur]

I'm not pundit for what Al Gore says, but I'm not jumping on this guys bandwagon either. He does a piss poor job of addressing the real issues and instead focuses on things he thinks he can disprove. Nevermind other evidence he's not considering into his arguments.

The IPCC's reports are crap and I've said as much here. They ignore . But this guy does as much disservice to the issue as anyone else involved. Nevermind that the ocean is completely dying due to that trace element C02 which is completely human caused, lets instead focus on what may be bad science. Good job guy.

What did you mention earlier in this thread? Red Herring was it?

except that man is only responsible for 4 percent of CO2 emmissions. so i don't see the issue here.

[gtownspur]

@ this guy going back and basically saying "they were wrong before so they must be wrong now" Thats classic.

Horrible paraphrase.

[MannyIsGod]

On the Ozone hole:

Although production of ozone-destroying gases has been curtailed under international agreements, concentrations of the gases in the stratosphere are only now reaching their peak. Due to their long persistence in the atmosphere, it will be many decades before the ozone hole is no longer an annual occurrence," said Dr. Michael J. Kurylo, manager of the Upper Atmosphere Research Program, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Damn, this guy really does his research.

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm

[MannyIsGod]

Horrible paraphrase.

O Rly? What were his attempts to talk about what was said incorrectly by a few scientists in the 70s other than an attempt to remove credibility from the current scientific consensus?

He has an agenda, and he's trying to present evidence to prove that agenda. He's the exact same as the IPCC.

[gtownspur]

BTW, the issue with water vapor has been addressed. It took me all of 2 minutes of searching to find a detailed explanation and dude addresses it as if its some weird mystery? Give me a break.

I may sit down and watch the damn thing even though its 2 hours long just to tear holes through his ridiculous arguments.

Ok,

I did say he was an avg guy, and btw this same guy said from the beginning that he wasn't a scientist, and the material he was using is not his own.

Yes, i don't think the presentation is perfect, but it does a fine job of discrediting al gore's movie and other alarmist arguments.


and towards the end, he does say that there are good evidence of global warming, so he's not saying it doesn't exist.

The global warming myth he's trying to debunk is that of that man is the main arbiter and perpetrator and that very bad consequences are ahead if we don't implement their regulations.

[gtownspur]

O Rly? What were his attempts to talk about what was said incorrectly by a few scientists in the 70s other than an attempt to remove credibility from the current scientific consensus?

He has an agenda, and he's trying to present evidence to prove that agenda. He's the exact same as the IPCC.

I guess you or I don't have an agenda either. Look, everyone has an agenda.

But he was giving those examples of bad science in the 70's as reason why we should not take these climatologist word for word like faith and believe in their conclusions. THat's all.

It's called establishing examples to make your argument.

He doesn't leave it at that, so just watch and you'll see the bigger pic. ALthough i'm not saying you'll by it word for word.

[gtownspur]

On the Ozone hole:



Damn, this guy really does his research.

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm

he addresses that later, when he mentions that although we ommited CFC usage, the Ozone is still getting bigger.

[MannyIsGod]

The point was that he addresses it incorrectly. There is a reason that the ozone layer is growing even though we stopped usage and that is because a delay in the reduction of CFC's which are just now reaching their peak. The hole is a delayed reaction and will eventually start to decline.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, I don't have an agenda when reciving scientific information. I don't seek information to prove my point of view, I form a point of view after viewing the information.

[MannyIsGod]

@ Silicone breast implants being brought up while debunking Global Warming

[MannyIsGod]

This guy is a ing joke!

[turambar85]

Ok,

I did say he was an avg guy, and btw this same guy said from the beginning that he wasn't a scientist, and the material he was using is not his own.

Yes, i don't think the presentation is perfect, but it does a fine job of discrediting al gore's movie and other alarmist arguments.


and towards the end, he does say that there are good evidence of global warming, so he's not saying it doesn't exist.

The global warming myth he's trying to debunk is that of that man is the main arbiter and perpetrator and that very bad consequences are ahead if we don't implement their regulations.

Ok....so all we have accomplished through the numerous spurstalk argument on the subject is to decide that we can't decide.

Some scientists say yes, it is happening, and we can stop it from continuing. Some scientists say that it is, and we cannot do anything to stop it. And finally, some say that it is not, and we cannot. There is no way to know at this point in time.

However, we know one thing for sure, that if option A is true, then we have control over our destiny...if B or C is true, then we are along for the ride...

Sooo....

Let us play a hand of "Pascal's Wager"

A= global warming happening, and can stop.
B= global warming happening, and we cannot stop.
C= global warming is bull , so no worries.

Now, If A, we can either try to fix the situation, or leave it be. If we try to fix the situation and succeed, we have saved the Earth from, at the least, catastrophic results. If we try and fail, we have maybe shaved a few years off of our time, or, at worst, expended energy needlessly.

If B, we can either try to stop it, or ride the ride. If we try to change our situation, then we spend time, energy, and a little bit of money and obtain nothing. If we do nothing, we live as we would, and die when the world ends.

If C, we can try, or not. If we try, same as B....we lose time, money, and energy, but think that we are accomplishing something, so the loss is not as great as it sounds. If we do nothing, nothing happens and we live on as we would have.

In conclusion, the only situation which has a positive gain is if we try to help, and it works. This is an unlimited reward, as the extension of Earth's existence and its billions of inhabitants is the greatest trial that mankind will face, and to lose would have been destruction on the scale of millions of holocausts. That means that this is the only scenario that a rational mind would prefer if the results are not known.

The only situations in which we lose through choosing are if we do nothing and the world ends, or if we do something and don't help. If we do nothing and the world ends, we lose everything. This is, by far, the worst possibility. If we do something, an change nothing, then we lose a tiny bit of production for a few years or decades, yet over time the ship rights itself, and the economic changes become the norm. We lose a a small percentage of profit, which, over time, is almost indicipherable.

The only choice that truly matters is if global warming is real...all others pros and cons are miniscule and laughable in comparison. Thus, if it is real, we choose between nearly infinite gain, and nearly infinite loss.

You are the gambler, you decide your fate. Let us see how well you play your hand.

[gtownspur]

@ Silicone breast implants being brought up while debunking Global Warming

Really, he said that sillicone breast implants safe use is the reason why global warming doesn't exist?

Ok,....

[turambar85]

And, btw, if you are ignorant of "Pascal's Wager" it is referring to belief in God, and this argument runs precisely parallel to the other one. If God exists, then either choice has infinite consequences. If God does not exist, then you expend a little energy and effort, though with some internal reward, attempting to believe, and your loss, while possibly there, is almost insignificant, especially when compared to your win/loss if "he" does exist.

As with global warming, we cannot prove God's existence. However, if admittance to Heaven simply meant admitting God's existence, no matter how you convinced yourself to believe it is so, then anybody with any sense would at least claim to believe, and nobody would work against belief in God.

[MannyIsGod]

Really, he said that sillicone breast implants safe use is the reason why global warming doesn't exist?

Ok,....

Quote me again and tell me if what I said was false? Where breast implants not brought up in an argument against global warming?

Lets go fishing for :

[gtownspur]

Ok,


Lets make this the about Flying Saucers.


A= UFO's exist, we must wear protective tin foil hats to protect oneself from being manipulated by aliens

B= UFO's maybe exist, lets wear tin foil hats for good measure.

C= You're a bunch of loonies.

So to this let's conclude that to be logical, we need to all wear tinfoil hats in case UFO"s may exist.

[MannyIsGod]

I apparently suck at UBB code.

Anyhow, I'm now to the wator vapor portion.

First, he gives the arbitrary figure of 95% of global warming is caused by water vapor. So much for taking more than one measurement (he says that a few minutes prior) because there are differing values ranging from 60% to 98%. I guess in this case its better for him to use the one measurement that is highest. Good job.

Secondly, it doesn't matter either way. To understand why, read either:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01...-dominant.html

Guess he didn't want to take that into consideration. Oops.

[gtownspur]

Quote me again and tell me if what I said was false? Where breast implants not brought up in an argument against global warming?

Lets go fishing for :

[img]http://vnuuk.typepad.com/photos/unca...ed_herring.jpg[/img]

wrong, breast implants were brought up to weaken the whole "science consensus" argument.

he didn't link it to disproving GW directly like your post implied.

[turambar85]

Ok,


Lets make this the about detainees.


A= UFO's exist, we must wear protective tin foil hats to protect oneself from being manipulated by aliens

B= UFO's maybe exist, lets wear tin foil hats for good measure.

C= You're a bunch of loonies.

So to this let's conclude that to be logical, we need to all wear tinfoil hats in case UFO"s may exist.

C=

LOL, not bad on short notice.

However, wearing, or not wearing, tin-foil hats has a much smaller effect on the person, and on the community as well. If I forget to wear mine, then I lose some, or all, control over myself, but do not know this is the case because I have lost control over my mind. This sucks, sure, but is hardly an infinite loss. Now, if I don't wear my hat, this has no effect on the community unless the aliens make my kill others, but then I will be put to death, or put in jail, and the aliens lose their little helper.

Also, there is at least some scientific data supporting global warming. No scientists say that tin-foil hats prevent alien intervention. Thus, there is no true reason to believe in this happening, the results are much lesser, and so is the reward as you look like a nut and lose friends...and your livelihood, in the process.


Try again G.

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, don't go off the handle now. HE brought up breast implants, not me. I was pointing out how ridiculous it was for breast implants to even be mentioned with global warming. If the science is against global warming, there is absolutely no need to say a single word about breast implants in your presentation.

Correct?

[MannyIsGod]

wrong, breast implants were brought up to weaken the whole "science consensus" argument.

he didn't link it to disproving GW directly like your post implied.

Reread what my post said. There were no implications what so ever. I laughed at him bringing up breast implants while debunking global warming.