The Great Global Warming Swindle

Quote from Ricter:

What about mercury, is it "arrogant" to think we can create global scale problems for human health with such a tiny element?
More...

Clearly man can create localized environmental problems with dangerous chemicals and pollutants. That's why there are all of the superfund sites that need to be cleaned up.

It's a big step to attempt to claim that man introduced so much mercury across the planet that the entire earth is effectively destroyed and unlivable for man-kind. Similarly it is absurd to claim that the small amount of CO2 released by man's industrial processes in comparison to all the CO2 released naturally by the planet - has any significant impact on the warming or cooling of the earth.
 
Quote from Ricter:

"Localized"? Lol.
More...
Take a trip over to see Chernobyl if you don't understand what "localized environmental problem" means. It might even save you some money on your electric bill since you may not need to turn on lights at night afterwards. You might glow bright enough to light up your house yourself. :D
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

No no, God has all under his control. It's arrogant to think that man can have any effect on this world.

It's pure hubris to think that by raising a dominant greenhouse gas by 35 % that the temps might go up too. Who does man think he is?
More...
It must suck to have people laugh at your silly doomsday alarmist tripe everyday.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

Clearly man can create localized environmental problems with dangerous chemicals and pollutants. That's why there are all of the superfund sites that need to be cleaned up.

It's a big step to attempt to claim that man introduced so much mercury across the planet that the entire earth is effectively destroyed and unlivable for man-kind. Similarly it is absurd to claim that the small amount of CO2 released by man's industrial processes in comparison to all the CO2 released naturally by the planet - has any significant impact on the warming or cooling of the earth.
More...

You seem to missing a key fact. It is NOT a small amount. We, by the burning of fossil fuels have raised the levels of one earths dominant greenhouse gas by 35%. 35% is NOT a small amount.

How do we know the 35% is from man? The isotope types of carbon from fossil fuels is different than the carbon that typically moves through the biospheric carbon cycle. It is these isotope types that are found in this extra CO2. Also we know how much FF we burn. We put around 8 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every year from burning coal oil and gas. In addition, it is seen that concurrent with the industrial revolution and especially in the last fifty years when fossil fuel use boomed, the atmospheric levels of CO2 has skyrocketed.

I would like to ask the deniers. How should temps NOT increase given these facts? THAT is the difficult and illogical argument.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

You seem to missing a key fact. It is NOT a small amount. We, by the burning of fossil fuels have raised the levels of one earths dominant greenhouse gas by 35%. 35% is NOT a small amount.
More...

The burning of fossil fuels has not raised the levels of the earth's domiant greenhouse gas by 35%. Any increase of CO2 is entirely driven by natural processes and well within the standard deviation from the mean of long term CO2 levels on earth. Attempting to pin a 35% increase of CO2 on man is alarmist tripe.
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

It must suck to have people laugh at your silly doomsday alarmist tripe everyday.
More...

No, I hang out with intelligent people most of the time. And 70% of the US now believe in AGW. I find it interesting and intellectually challenging to deal with the remaining deniers.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

No, I hang out with intelligent people most of the time. And 70% of the US now believe in AGW. I find it interesting and intellectually challenging to deal with the remaining deniers.
More...

Answer one question for us FC - Were you alive in the 1970s and old enough to watch & understand the media in the U.S. at the time?



This was the time when global cooling was in the news regularly and over 70% of the US believed the world was going to end in an ice age within 50 years.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

The burning of fossil fuels has not raised the levels of the earth's domiant greenhouse gas by 35%. Any increase of CO2 is entirely driven by natural processes and well within the standard deviation from the mean of long term CO2 levels on earth. Attempting to pin a 35% increase of CO2 on man is alarmist tripe.
More...

Yes it has. I gave you the reasons we know this. It's really pretty simple science and logic. You may ignore the facts and call them wrong because they conflict with your dogma, but the facts remain. The 35% rise in CO2 is due to man. Yes, as a percentage of the earth's total CO2 man's contribution is small, but it is responsible for nearly all of the extra CO2 (above pre-industrial levels) circulating in the atmosphere now.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Yes it has. I gave you the reasons we know this. It's really pretty simple science and logic. You may ignore the facts and call them wrong because they conflict with your dogma, but the facts remain. The 35% rise in CO2 is due to man. Yes, as a percentage of the earth's total CO2 man's contribution is small, but it is responsible for nearly all of the extra CO2 (above pre-industrial levels) circulating in the atmosphere now.
More...

Are you going to answer the question - Were you alive in the 1970s and old enough to watch & understand the media in the U.S. at the time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top