Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

[mule_eer]

I see no Scientific proof of man made climate change so we're even.

Hint: You won't find scientific evidence in a lawyer's analysis of a scientific theory. The oil companies pay tons of engineers and scientists, yet people claim that the real money is in pursuing climate change. Here's the issue. We are belching CO2 into the atmosphere, raising the atmospheric levels to record levels at record speeds. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - it holds heat in the atmosphere. It's a fairly simple premise. It makes a fair amount of sense.

 

[atlkvb]

Hint: You won't find scientific evidence in a lawyer's analysis of a scientific theory. The oil companies pay tons of engineers and scientists, yet people claim that the real money is in pursuing climate change. Here's the issue. We are belching CO2 into the atmosphere, raising the atmospheric levels to record levels at record speeds. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - it holds heat in the atmosphere. It's a fairly simple premise. It makes a fair amount of sense.

Trees emit more CO2 than humans Mule. No one suggests getting rid of trees.

 

[atlkvb]

Cat obviously wants to believe it’s a hoax, that’s why he pulls articles from The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property.

I already linked an article that addresses his linked right wing thinktank accusations.

Good for you boom. Your Left wing links are equally tainted towards your particular point of view. Science isn't debatable when proven with hard facts and data. The hard Scientific data does NOT prove man made climate change.

 

[mule_eer]

Trees emit more CO2 than humans Mule. No one suggests getting rid of trees.

There were more trees in the world 100 years ago than there are today, yet the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are significantly higher than 100 years ago. Are you saying that the remaining trees are breathing heavier? Heavier than any trees have ever breathed 800,000 years?

 

[Boomboom521]

I see no Scientific proof of man made climate change so we're even.

Do you want me to post the proof? Fine:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/...t+#1.pdf/c612fc7e-babb-463c-b5e3-124ac76680c5

 

[atlkvb]

There were more trees in the world 100 years ago than there are today, yet the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are significantly higher than 100 years ago. Are you saying that the remaining trees are breathing heavier? Heavier than any trees have ever breathed 800,000 years?

No, I'm saying if CO2 is so hazardous to us, why aren't we eliminating trees which still belch more of it into the atmosphere than our planes, trains, and automobiles?

If that many more trees were putting that much more of it into the air so many eons ago, why are we and earth still here?

 

[Boomboom521]

Good for you boom. Your Left wing links are equally tainted towards your particular point of view. Science isn't debatable when proven with hard facts and data. The hard Scientific data does NOT prove man made climate change.

Everyone outside of your fvcking rightwing bubble of money & business & religious is “leftwing” now.

NASA
Every college in the US not of Christian affiliation.
The U.N.
Every scientist not paid by big oil.

 

[atlkvb]

Do you want me to post the proof? Fine:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/glacier_balance.html

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1295957/Info+sheet+#1.pdf/c612fc7e-babb-463c-b5e3-124ac76680c5

Even YOU can't read that! Good grief who do I look like to you...YOU?

 

[Boomboom521]

No, I'm saying if CO2 is so hazardous to us, why aren't we eliminating trees which still belch more of it into the atmosphere than our planes, trains, and automobiles?

If that many more trees were putting that much more of it into the air so many eons ago, why are we and earth still here?

This is just such a precious post

 

[atlkvb]

Everyone outside of your fvcking rightwing bubble of money & business & religious is “leftwing” now.

NASA
Every college in the US not of Christian affiliation.
The U.N.
Every scientist not paid by big oil.

Look I realize you are defending your "Religion" but your "God" is non existent!

 

[Boomboom521]

Even YOU can't read that! Good grief who do I look like to you...YOU?

The only graph that isn’t labeled is sea temperatures. And the two links are written in English

 

[atlkvb]

This is just such a precious post

I liked it actually, I wrote it!

 

[Boomboom521]

I refuse to argue with someone that believes trees emit CO2 — and thinks he has even a basic understanding of science. Go back to 6th grade Earth Science

 

[atlkvb]

The only graph that isn’t labeled is sea temperatures. And the two links are written in English

Good. I look up at the sky, and don't see any humans arranging clouds or directing the wind that blows. The Sun comes up and goes down quite majestically I might add without our permission or control over it.

Those things effect our "climate" much more than my 3.5 litre V6 gasoline engine or my home air conditioner.

 

[countryroads89]

Trees emit more CO2 than humans Mule.

 

[countryroads89]

I refuse to argue with someone that believes trees emit CO2 — and thinks he has even a basic understanding of science. Go back to 6th grade Earth Science

I know. Unbelievable.

 

[atlkvb]

I refuse to argue with someone that believes trees emit CO2 — and thinks he has even a basic understanding of science. Go back to 6th grade Earth Science

Well I refuse to debate with someone who believes in Unicorns so we're even!

 

[mule_eer]

No, I'm saying if CO2 is so hazardous to us, why aren't we eliminating trees which still belch more of it into the atmosphere than our planes, trains, and automobiles?

If that many more trees were putting that much more of it into the air so many eons ago, why are we and earth still here?

When presented with evidence that counters your premise (trees emit more CO2 than our planes, trains and automobiles), it's usually a good idea to verify that your premise has as much merit as you think. See, that's how a scientist would go about it.

 

[atlkvb]

When presented with evidence that counters your premise (trees emit more CO2 than our planes, trains and automobiles), it's usually a good idea to verify that your premise has as much merit as you think. See, that's how a scientist would go about it.

I feel fairly confident there are more trees than people Mule...and I'm 100% certain all those trees produce more CO2 than humans.

If I'm wrong I can admit that, but human produced CO2 in any amount is not enough to change our climate now or ever. I also remain 100% confident of that.

 

[countryroads89]

and I'm 100% certain all those trees produce more CO2 than humans.

Hey right wingers, you might want to come rescue your friend. Holy shit!

 

[atlkvb]

There were more trees in the world 100 years ago than there are today, yet the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are significantly higher than 100 years ago. Are you saying that the remaining trees are breathing heavier? Heavier than any trees have ever breathed 800,000 years?

How did we measure CO2 levels hundreds of years ago? Where was that data recorded?

 

[atlkvb]

Hey right wingers, you might want to come rescue your friend. Holy shit!

I don't need any help. Can you explain what else a living human fetus is if it isnt human and alive? I noticed you skipped out on that question the other day?

Need some help?

 

[countryroads89]

How did we measure CO2 levels hundreds of years ago? Where was that data recorded?

Geez. And you were trying to argue climate change.

I'll let Mule take this one. He has much more patience than me.

 

[Boomboom521]

How did we measure CO2 levels hundreds of years ago? Where was that data recorded?

Just a massive lack of basic science knowledge, yet all the passion in the world to deny man made climate change.

Spoon fed rightwing propaganda and it’s effect

 

[Boomboom521]

I don't need any help. Can you explain what else a living human fetus is if it isnt human and alive? I noticed you skipped out on that question the other day?

Need some help?

Nice juke

 

[countryroads89]

Just a massive lack of basic science knowledge, yet all the passion in the world to deny man made climate change.

Spoon fed rightwing propaganda and it’s effect

Text book.

 

[atlkvb]

Text book.

Can you tell me what has more effect on our climate? Earth's rotation around the Sun or Diesel powered engines?

We can turn off all the Diesel engines and maybe save the planet. What the Hell do we do to stop Earth's rotation around the Sun?

 

[atlkvb]

Nice juke

Still dodging that one I see.

 

[Boomboom521]

Can you tell me what has more effect on our climate? Earth's rotation around the Sun or Diesel powered engines?

We can turn off all the Diesel engines and maybe save the planet. What the Hell do we do to stop Earth's rotation around the Sun?

Me (in a whisper): “you realize your circle jerk buddies all left because you said some really crazy stuff right?”

 

[Boomboom521]

Still dodging that one I see.

This is a thread on climate change, don’t force all threads back to your Christian extremism please

 

[atlkvb]

Just a massive lack of basic science knowledge, yet all the passion in the world to deny man made climate change.

Spoon fed rightwing propaganda and it’s effect

If we humans were indeed powerful enough to "change" the climate, why wouldn't we make sure we can "change" it to our liking without Government control over everybody's income?

It's not an income problem, it's a scientific problem correct? So what's with all of the Socialist income redistribution to solve an essentiallly scientific anomoly?

 

[mule_eer]

I feel fairly confident there are more trees than people Mule...and I'm 100% certain all those trees produce more CO2 than humans.

If I'm wrong I can admit that, but human produced CO2 in any amount is not enough to change our climate now or ever. I also remain 100% confident of that.

What you can't explain is why that theory doesn't hold up when the tree to human ratio was much higher than it is today. If your premise was correct, 100 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, the trees would have been keeping atmospheric CO2 levels much higher than they are today.

 

[atlkvb]

This is a thread on climate change, don’t force all threads back to your Christian extremism please

Anti Christian secular Humanism both defines and animates all of your "climate change" hysteria. Almighty God controls the climate, not Humans.

If this is a thread on "climate change" why is his control over it not even considered?

 

[atlkvb]

What you can't explain is why that theory doesn't hold up when the tree to human ratio was much higher than it is today. If your premise was correct, 100 years ago, or a 1000 years ago, the trees would have been keeping atmospheric CO2 levels much higher than they are today.

Maybe, but who took Tree produced CO2 measurements back then so we can compare them to today?

 

[countryroads89]

Maybe, but who took Tree produced CO2 measurements back then so we can compare them to today?

LMAO!

 

[atlkvb]

Me (in a whisper): “you realize your circle jerk buddies all left because you said some really crazy stuff right?”

I'm unconcerned about what my "circle jerk buddies" do. I asked YOU to tell me how we control earth's rotation around the Sun which has primary impact over what our climate both consists of and how it behaves.

What's your answer? Never mind my "circle jerk" gallery.

 

[Boomboom521]

Anti Christian secular Humanism both defines and animates all of your "climate change" hysteria. Almighty God controls the climate, not Humans.

If this is a thread on "climate change" why is his control over it not even considered?

You can learn basic science and still keep your faith I’m sure.

 

[mule_eer]

Maybe, but who took Tree produced CO2 measurements back then so we can compare them to today?

The levels are determined by sampling bubbles of air trapped in ice sheet cores in the arctic and antarctic. That's the method used to get us back to 800,000 years ago.

 

[Boomboom521]

The levels are determined by sampling bubbles of air trapped in ice sheet cores in the arctic and antarctic. That's the method used to get us back to 800,000 years ago.

Mule, you are a very patient, intelligent, and thoughtful poster. Run for office! We need more people like you. What do you do for a living?

 

[atlkvb]

The levels are determined by sampling bubbles of air trapped in ice sheet cores in the arctic and antarctic. That's the method used to get us back to 800,000 years ago.

Fair enough.

I've asked a serious question in this thread trying to understand the extent if any humans have "changing" the climate.

My scientific understanding (limited as it may be) revolves around measurable evidence Earth's rotation on its axis around the Sun determines our seasons and how the climate changes. If that's scientifically provable and measureable (which I'm sure you agree it is) then to what extent do we humans have control over that?

Moreover, how much more does our activity on earth alter those patterns and what is it we do to change those forces which impact our climate and cause "change" more so than any of our other human endeavors?

Seems to me if we're attempting to change or control how the climate changes, that's the scientific activity we ought to be training our efforts on to ameliorate because that has primary and more immediate impact on what our climate looks like and behaves does it not?

It does! So what control do we have over that?

None of you will answer me on this central question of "man made" climate change and it's a big reason why I'm skeptical of all the other hysteria.

That, and the fact all of the so called "solutions" involve nothing more than greater Government controls over free enterprise and Capitalism. Capitalism doesn't cause "climate change". Not as much as the Sun and Earth's rotation around it! So why is Capitalism always attacked as one of the primary solutions to man controlling how much we change the climate? Why aren't we trying to change how the Earth rotates on its axis around the Sun?

Explain.