NASA: Al Gore, It's The Sun Stupid!

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tresor:

Ants are insects.

Yes, they are. And there are many more insects than just ants. Therefore, in your failed logic, humans must have a smaller impact than insects.

Ignoring the fact that insects have been having roughly the same annual impact on the environment for millions of years.

While humans have dramatically increased their impact on the environment, straining the planet's ability to support them.

 

[Tresor]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

Tres, your account of how greenland was named seems to be inaccurate

Hi Mom0/pH0x,

I also wrote that they drove billions of cars and grew apples there. They might very well grew lemons or play basketball or watch TV or do nothing but exhaust CO2. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that 1000 years ago Greenland was hotter than today. Some people here believe that a volume of humans (31 yards x 31 yards x 31 yards) at that time living on Earth could cause climate change


You can bomb the whole planet with TNT of 100 x that volume everyday for the next million years and this will cause no change to the climate. You do not need to be a genius to grasp this.

Yet still some think different

 

[killthesunshine]

i've often said (to myself) that if I were the original developer of the 'automobile' upon seeing the 'smoke' crapping out the other end from the my 'wonderful invention'...

i'd say to myself ..this can't be good

i'd a killed the project right there

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tresor:

Hi Mom0/pH0x,

I also wrote that they drove billions of cars and grew apples there. They might very well grew lemons or play basketball or watch TV or do nothing but exhaust CO2. It doesn't matter.

Ummm yeah, it does matter. You don't have basic facts right. You said there was no ice in Greenland 1000 years ago which was clearly wrong. You claimed that Greenland was hot 1000 years ago -- which I haved shown to be wrong (see below, the difference in temperature was about one degree). You thought that European measured Medieval Warming Period temperatures were global temperatures, which they weren't.

Argument wise, you're a blind guy waving his cane around a china shop.

What matters is that 1000 years ago Greenland was hotter than today.

Yes, by about one degree, according to ice cores:

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Some people here believe that a volume of humans (31 yards x 31 yards x 31 yards) at that time living on Earth could cause climate change

You measure the impact of humans by volume and not by weight or by length because those would be silly. Clearly it's impossible for John Hinckley Jr. to have attempted to shoot Reagan, since Hinckley was only about 67 litres by volume.

You can bomb the whole planet with TNT of 100 x that volume everyday for the next million years and this will cause no change to the climate. You do not need to be a genius to grasp this.

One single eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1 degree. The eruption of Tambora lowered global temperatures by about 3 degrees. Both were due to particulate emissions. You must be a genius because to everybody else, bombing the shit out of the planet would have a major impact on climate.

In fact (and yes, it gets worse for you!) the pentagon even studied nuclear winter due to particulate emissions into the atmosphere and found that it would happen.

So your statement that the planet could be bombed with that much "TNT" without massive climate change is provably wrong.

 

[Tresor]

Quote from bigdavediode:

In fact (and yes, it gets worse for you!) the pentagon even studied nuclear winter due to particulate emissions into the atmosphere and found that it would happen.

So your statement that the planet could be bombed with that much "TNT" without massive climate change is provably wrong.

Please stop humiliatiing yourself. TNT is NOT nuclear.

I already asked you to stop posting when your understanding was that ants are not insects.

 

[Tresor]

Quote from bigdavediode:

You measure the impact of humans by volume and not by weight

I arrived at volume from wieght. Stop humiliating yourself.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tresor:

Please stop humiliatiing yourself. TNT is NOT nuclear.

LOL! I'm afraid you're just not getting this. It's not the nuclear part, it's the particulate emissions that would bugger up the climate. TNT, nuclear both kick up particulates.

I already asked you to stop posting when your understanding was that ants are not insects.

I wrote that there are more insects in general than ants. Would you like me to link to the post that you misunderstood?

I arrived at volume from wieght. Stop humiliating yourself.

I'm sorry, but your statement doesn't even come close to making sense. Weight has nothing whatsoever to do with climatic impact. Nor does volume.



Your statement that bombing the planet would have no climatic effects is contradicted by the Department of Defense and a variety of scientific papers which have studied nuclear winter.

Your statements about the climate in Greenland is contradicted by ice cores.

Your statements about fitting 300 million people in your "cube" are wrong by a factor of about eight (you miscalculated by a factor of two on each side).

Your statements about how Greenland was named is contradicted by historical accounts.

Your statements about polar ice floating were proven wrong by satellite photos.

Your statements that the temperature can't increase is contradicted by, well, the average global temperature which is increasing.

Your statements that rainfall would just occur at the antarctic is contradicted by the fact that the antarctic is a desert.

Your statements that "there's no way the sea level will rise" is contradicted by the sea levels currently rising.

At this point, the real question is: how many points can you get wrong in a row? Are you trying to set some kind of record?

 

[Tresor]

Quote from bigdavediode:

I wrote that there are more insects in general than ants. Would you like me to link to the post that you misunderstood?

You didn't wrote that there were more insects in general. You used in specific context, which prove your lack of elementary knowledge. What you wrote was:

It's worth noting that there are also more insects than ants. Quadrillions of insects.

It's like saying there are also more mammals than humans. Obviously this means that the person who says this doesn't know that humans are mammals.

Regards

 

[Tresor]

Quote from bigdavediode:

You thought that European measured Medieval Warming Period temperatures were global temperatures, which they weren't.

You not only put words in my mouth, you also put thoughts in my head. Yet you still refuse to answer a very basic question: did humans cause climate change 1000 years ago?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Tresor:

You didn't wrote that there were more insects in general. You used in specific context, which prove your lack of elementary knowledge. What you wrote was:

It's worth noting that there are also more insects than ants. Quadrillions of insects.

Yes, that's correct.

It's like saying there are also more mammals than humans. Obviously this means that the person who says this doesn't know that humans are mammals.

Mammals includes humans. Mammals are a class and humans are a species. Classes include species -- referring to classes does not exclude the contained species.

You not only put words in my mouth, you also put thoughts in my head. Yet you still refuse to answer a very basic question: did humans cause climate change 1000 years ago?

You've asked three variants of this question, but let's say, for the purpose of argument, that globally they did not. Let's agree to say that humans had zero effect on climate globally.

This is entertaining in that, even though I have warned you that you're heading for a fallacy of composition, you're going to head there anyway like a moth to a flame.