Our Biggest Security Threat Is Global Warming-Induced Extreme Weather

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There's nothing to argue much against you Paul. You whine once, you whine again. Nothing new here.

For actual scientific discussion, try the lucky approach. Even though his science 'evidence' actually argued against his position, he tried. You, otoh, still need to present substantial evidence to back up your whines.

So do feel free to substantiate why I am an idiot, as you just stated. Note the difference, champ.

I didn't call you an idiot I just said the types of posts you make where you attack the post instead of arguing the point, is ridiculous.

There are many factors that effect climate though, some of which are RARELY discussed or are dismissed thanks to the politics in idea of AGW. There's zero substance in blaming man for 'climate change' yet people do it all the time, and it's over assuming on a lot of factors. Certain factors ignored like during warming trends in the past C02 automatically went up and got trapped inside the earth's ozone layer, didn't need man to do it at all. Factors of the earth's wobble and tilt. The fact that 'man' might actually have contributed to a quicker shift in climate by moving millions of tons of resources from one part of the earth to another ( hey look, I blamed man for part of it). Increase solar activity, flares becoming stronger. The fact that the earth is due for a polarity shift any time now. There are plenty of factors that fit into everything here, yet we want to blame human activity in regards to 'greenhouse gases' as the primary cause? It's ridiculous. Especially when the answer is all "hey, if we just tax people, it will go away." That should be your first clue of BS on ANYTHING right there.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

They are unrelated topics. However, we can certainly discuss eugenics in a public opinion sort of way. At its time, the 'science' you have yet not described in support of this notion (nowhere have I actually read what this scientific 'support' of eugenics is here on this site) was tailored to suit the racism of its day.

i never said they were related...

[Ste 6]

The fact that 'man' might actually have contributed to a quicker shift in climate by moving millions of tons of resources from one part of the earth to another ( hey look, I blamed man for part of it).

A valid point at last. It seems to have taken a long time coming considering you've apparently been talking about the issue for a long time.

No one has said that man is 100% to blame. Most governments and scientific bodies in the world, including the US, take the stance that man has had a part to play. None of those same people believe that there's no other factors involved. However, to say that man has had 0% of an influence is to deny basic physics. (Hint: Look at why a greenhouse helps plants to grow. Same concept.)

Scientists have and continue to take a look into the other factors (contrary to what some have said on here), and there's still things they don't know yet.

To argue that we should shift more effort away from the man-made effects is illogical, since it's only possible to change our own actions, rather than magically make the sun shine less brightly or change any other natural effects. If we put research into the man-made causes on the back burner and instead devoted most of our time on the natural causes, it might be too late to actually do anything about it.

So if anyone says "You are a [insert derogatory term here] if you think that climate change is all man made." you're wasting you're breath. No one does think that.

[Ste 6]

i never said they were related...

Yes you did.

you can claim it has nothing to do with the topic, yet it's an excellent example of how the scientific community led public opinion astray in the past....

It's related and also a straw man logical fallacy.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

A valid point at last. It seems to have taken a long time coming considering you've apparently been talking about the issue for a long time.

No one has said that man is 100% to blame. Most governments and scientific bodies in the world, including the US, take the stance that man has had a part to play. None of those same people believe that there's no other factors involved. However, to say that man has had 0% of an influence is to deny basic physics. (Hint: Look at why a greenhouse helps plants to grow. Same concept.)

Scientists have and continue to take a look into the other factors (contrary to what some have said on here), and there's still things they don't know yet.

To argue that we should shift more effort away from the man-made effects is illogical, since it's only possible to change our own actions, rather than magically make the sun shine less brightly or change any other natural effects. If we put research into the man-made causes on the back burner and instead devoted most of our time on the natural causes, it might be too late to actually do anything about it.

So if anyone says "You are a [insert derogatory term here] if you think that climate change is all man made." you're wasting you're breath. No one does think that.

Politicians do. That's the problem.

Show me a study in which the increased C02 in the atmosphere is broken down by what's allegedly caused by 'man' and what's naturally occuring during a warming and/or cooling cycle. The only studies that ever get talked about point the finger straight at human activity and not on the natural occurances. That's a problem.

[Ste 6]

Politicians do. That's the problem.

And those politicians tend to be from the countries that emit more CO2 than any other. Now I wonder why that is?

Show me a study in which the increased C02 in the atmosphere is broken down by what's allegedly caused by 'man' and what's naturally occuring during a warming and/or cooling cycle.

I don't need to show a study. I just need to say that when we're driving our cars and running our industries, the CO2 released doesn't simply disappear.

The only studies that ever get talked about point the finger straight at human activity and not on the natural occurances. That's a problem.

On here that is certainly not the case. The opposite seems to be true. Edited August 5, 2011 by Ste

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Yes you did.

It's related and also a straw man logical fallacy.

no, i didn't say they were related. it was used as history lesson

[Ste 6]

no, i didn't say they were related. it was used as history lesson

Stop back tracking, man. You're as bad as a politician.

[mawilson 2,133]

eugenics had the support of the scientific community too, you may recall.

Eugenics works, but sadly is unenforceable - can't prevent idiots from reproducing.

[luckytxn 2,264]

no, i didn't say they were related. it was used as history lesson

You never did but should know better with the lack of intelligence displayed by some to go back and forth.

Edited August 5, 2011 by luckytxn

[Zero Sum 305]

You can totally dismantled the Global Warming denialist's argument with using just pure logic, it's that absurd.

It is. Sadly, people that found their denialism without reason cannot be reasoned with pure logic.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't need to show a study. I just need to say that when we're driving our cars and running our industries, the CO2 released doesn't simply disappear.

Not only that, it lingers in our atmosphere for a very long time...

University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how long CO₂ from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in his new book The Long Thaw, "The lifetime of fossil fuel CO₂ in the atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this"³.

"The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO₂ to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge," Archer writes. "Longer than time capsules, longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far."

The effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere drop off so slowly that unless we kick our "fossil fuel addiction", to use George W. Bush's phrase, we could force Earth out of its regular pattern of freezes and thaws that has lasted for more than a million years. "If the entire coal reserves were used," Archer writes, "then glaciation could be delayed for half a million years."

http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

[Zero Sum 305]

I didn't call you an idiot I just said the types of posts you make where you attack the post instead of arguing the point, is ridiculous.

There are many factors that effect climate though, some of which are RARELY discussed or are dismissed thanks to the politics in idea of AGW. There's zero substance in blaming man for 'climate change' yet people do it all the time, and it's over assuming on a lot of factors. Certain factors ignored like during warming trends in the past C02 automatically went up and got trapped inside the earth's ozone layer, didn't need man to do it at all. Factors of the earth's wobble and tilt. The fact that 'man' might actually have contributed to a quicker shift in climate by moving millions of tons of resources from one part of the earth to another ( hey look, I blamed man for part of it). Increase solar activity, flares becoming stronger. The fact that the earth is due for a polarity shift any time now. There are plenty of factors that fit into everything here, yet we want to blame human activity in regards to 'greenhouse gases' as the primary cause? It's ridiculous. Especially when the answer is all "hey, if we just tax people, it will go away." That should be your first clue of BS on ANYTHING right there.

Paul... try again.

You state many factors affect the climate, yet are removed from being input into the models. This implies you have a sound understanding of the models themselves. Walk us through these models and what factors are input, and which are excluded. One by one. I suspect you have formed an opinion based on pseudoscientific blogs that can't distinguish between the periodical climate shifts known to every single climate scientist (and other scientists that have bothered to read) and from the augmented effect of human technology on the climate that denialists preconceive themselves to deny at all cost.

[Zero Sum 305]

A valid point at last. It seems to have taken a long time coming considering you've apparently been talking about the issue for a long time.

No one has said that man is 100% to blame. Most governments and scientific bodies in the world, including the US, take the stance that man has had a part to play. None of those same people believe that there's no other factors involved. However, to say that man has had 0% of an influence is to deny basic physics. (Hint: Look at why a greenhouse helps plants to grow. Same concept.)

Scientists have and continue to take a look into the other factors (contrary to what some have said on here), and there's still things they don't know yet.

To argue that we should shift more effort away from the man-made effects is illogical, since it's only possible to change our own actions, rather than magically make the sun shine less brightly or change any other natural effects. If we put research into the man-made causes on the back burner and instead devoted most of our time on the natural causes, it might be too late to actually do anything about it.

So if anyone says "You are a [insert derogatory term here] if you think that climate change is all man made." you're wasting you're breath. No one does think that.

Exactly.

[Zero Sum 305]

Politicians do. That's the problem.

Show me a study in which the increased C02 in the atmosphere is broken down by what's allegedly caused by 'man' and what's naturally occuring during a warming and/or cooling cycle. The only studies that ever get talked about point the finger straight at human activity and not on the natural occurances. That's a problem.

The breakdowns have been studied for a while. I'm surprised your denialism would take you to ignore basic facts.

Here's a reviewfrom a 'lay' source that you may read if you wish... but if you do I implore you try to do so carefully so you don't misread it.