Stephen Hawking on human extinction

Funny this thread pops up today. I spent the weekend piling up loose brush, tumbleweeds and tree trimmings into a giant heap. Gonna light off an epic bonfire this evening in honor of the AGW fucktards on ET.

Probably be visible from space. :D
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

Funny this thread pops up today. I spent the weekend piling up loose brush, tumbleweeds and tree trimmings into a giant heap. Gonna light off an epic bonfire this evening in honor of the AGW fucktards on ET.

Probably be visible from space. :D
More...
Actually, I think a big fire would contribute to global cooling so... thank you. :D
 
Quote from Ricter:

Actually, I think a big fire would contribute to global cooling so... thank you. :D
More...

Fire or Ice we're all going to Hell one way or another. :D
 
No it's not a theory. It's a fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's a fact that it has a physical property that can be measured in the lab. The data is conclusive. The property is that it lets short wave radiation(sunlight) through but resists transmission of long wave radiation (heat) back out into space. Just like glass in a greenhouse.

But again, the idea that laymen, including me, can assume to be qualified to judge the issue is the height of hubris. We could argue all day. It means nothing. That's why we have experts, and 98% of the expert climatologists agree in the reality of AGW.




Quote from jem:

ok lets say there is some science to the idea that science can distinguish between man made vs natural...

- we know the earth off gasses CO2.
- we know the earth releases CO2 from the oceans.
- we know warming precedes CO2.
- it is therefore likely as we warm... more CO2 is released.
- man is also creating more CO2.

---
Can we prove CO2 causes warming? how?

- If not... does it really matter if some of the CO2 accumulating is man made
- Do we know that the earth is not off gassing extra CO2.... given where we are in the cycle?
- Do we know that accumulating CO2 might not cause the cycles to moderate - modulate?

In other words... maybe by accumulating more CO2 faster... the earth will not have to get as warm has it did in the past?

---

The one conclusion you should have for us --- Is that CO2 causes warming... yet the data is completely inconclusive on that issue.

The next conclusion you would need data for is that man made CO2 is doing damage in excess of the damage which is done by natural CO2 release in response to warming.

Could your speculation be correct... it could be.
Does the data show it... no.
Do we wish to preserve the environment yes.
Did I do something about it... I was did, I was once a plaintiff's environmental lawyer.

Unfortunately much of the conservation movement has been hijacked by politicians and money suckers.
More...
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

No it's not a theory. It's a fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's a fact that it has a physical property that can be measured in the lab. The data is conclusive. The property is that it lets short wave radiation(sunlight) through but resists transmission of long wave radiation (heat) back out into space. Just like glass in a greenhouse.

But again, the idea that laymen, including me, can assume to be qualified to judge the issue is the height of hubris. We could argue all day. It means nothing. That's why we have experts, and 98% of the expert climatologists agree in the reality of AGW.
More...

That just isn't true despite your insistence. It has been shown that the scientists colluded (email evidence, plenty of it) to achieve an predetermined outcome that they desired. That isn't science and it has been debunked completely.

Sorry. You'll have to find some other cult to worship. You certainly aren't convincing anyone here. Try Huffington/AOL.

AGW is pure bunk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top