British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

@Krumple,

Nowhere does the data point to the warming all being natural Krumple. It isn't 'assumed'. It is calculated based on science. If you don't like the science then show how it is wrong.

Show us that CO2 isn't a green house gas.
Show us the sun gives off more energy then our scientific instruments show.
Show us a reason why the CO2 concentrations have gone up and man isn't the cause of that increase.

While your theory is interesting Krumple it doesn't explain known facts.
Fact 1 - CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
Fact 2 - CO2 increases in an air mixture cause it absorb more IR.

Those 2 facts are simple and have been shown repeatedly. You can't just ignore those facts because you don't want the warming to be caused by humans.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

The problem is you are ignoring the motivation behind IPCC.

The motivation of the IPCC has nothing to do with the science.
Unless you can show the science is wrong, questioning the motives of those doing the science is nothing but sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly.

0 Replies

re Krumple:

For two decades before he put the company together, Gore said climate change was happening. He also said that there were ways, if people were smart, that bringing about the change required to meet it could be profitable, that thinking it was only going to destroy the world's economy, was false. He was right. He finally started making the money and helping the change. Very free enterprise of him. He wzas right all along.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Nowhere does the data point to the warming all being natural Krumple. It isn't 'assumed'. It is calculated based on science. If you don't like the science then show how it is wrong.

Show us that CO2 isn't a green house gas.
Show us the sun gives off more energy then our scientific instruments show.
Show us a reason why the CO2 concentrations have gone up and man isn't the cause of that increase.

While your theory is interesting Krumple it doesn't explain known facts.
Fact 1 - CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
Fact 2 - CO2 increases in an air mixture cause it absorb more IR.

Those 2 facts are simple and have been shown repeatedly. You can't just ignore those facts because you don't want the warming to be caused by humans.

Did you even read what I wrote?

I never said it was the sun.
I never said it was not CO2.

Why are you strawmaning something I never said?

I don't need to show anything. Yet you ignore the one aspect I did state. There is data that shows the earth was averagely warmer in the past then it is now. Not only that but there have been times when the earths climate changed drastically in short periods of time. There is no explanation to why this data exists, there are theories but nothing definitive. Yet people assume that humans are the definitive cause behind today's warming trends. I say that is jumping to conclusions.

Yes COs does contribute to climate change. I won't and have not denied that. But the amount of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere is no where near the amounts that volcanoes do. Sure volcanoes don't put out massive amounts yearly but they do over decades or centuries that make up for it annually.

Here is another thing. I remember during the 80s there was a **** load of talk about "acid rain". There were articles and shows and news reports about "how bad it is going to be". They would talk about the rain burning paint off cars and that people would have to wear special clothing to go outside. This was an attempt to cause fear in people so the government could impose restrictions, in other words they were trying to create a new tax.

They imposed restrictions on companies raising their overhead because they now were forced to pay environmental tax to the government to prevent "acid rain". It is all bs. It was so successful for them making revenue that they wanted to create a new tax and this global warming caused by humans is the new trend to create a new tax.

It hurts companies, who get forced to pay, and they can't afford this new tax so they turn around and charge their customers more or lower the quality of their product, or they get rid of jobs by cutting back employee numbers so they can afford to stay in business. This hurts the economy by over regulating corporations. The government knows this so they don't want to impose it on businesses so they will make the people feel guilty instead and get the revenue from them instead of through corporations.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Now we start to see your lack of science:

Quote:

Yes COs does contribute to climate change. I won't and have not denied that. But the amount of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere is no where near the amounts that volcanoes do.

Where is your evidence of volcanoes putting out more CO2 than human in the last 100 years? The USGS disagrees completely with you.

Your acid rain argument is nothing but an emotional rant. New standards were put in place that prevented acid rain. You can't prove what would have happened without those standards. You don't even try to show anything.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Now we start to see your lack of science:

Quote:

Yes COs does contribute to climate change. I won't and have not denied that. But the amount of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere is no where near the amounts that volcanoes do.

Where is your evidence of volcanoes putting out more CO2 than human in the last 100 years? The USGS disagrees completely with you.

It does not matter what I show you because you will just claim it is bogus data anyways because you are already convinced that humans are the cause and promote the idea that they are. I would not have said it if it were not something I read. I don't make **** up.

parados wrote:

Your acid rain argument is nothing but an emotional rant. New standards were put in place that prevented acid rain. You can't prove what would have happened without those standards. You don't even try to show anything.

There is nothing to show because the whole thing was a scare tactic. I don't know if you were around at that time but it was the talk of the day just like global warming is the talk now. It is the same bs wrapped in a different package and people are buying it all over again.

Your argument about Gore making the company after the data hits, is nonsensical. A person making a snake oil business doesn't start the business first and then poison the well. They first poison the well and then provide the cure. The "carbon credits" company does NOTHING to solve climate issues. They just turn around and use their revenue profits to fund more advertisements to get more people on board so they can solidify the project to force a new tax on to the people. That is the motivation. If it wasn't headed by a politician I might be more inclined to accept it as being legitimate.

1 Reply

@parados,

Here is another thing that people ignore.

CO2 is heavier than O2. What does that mean?

Oxygen is lighter than carbon dioxide. This means that the carbon dixoide doesn't float up into the atmosphere, it actually stays down near the ground because it is heavier than oxygen. This is why trees don't grow over a certain elevation because the amount of oxygen is higher than that of carbon dioxide so they can't survive.

People assume that the carbon dioxide floats up into the sky and blocks in the suns ultraviolet light. It only does that but at insignificant amounts because it is too low to the surface. Above a certain altitude this doesn't happen.

The reason it is more extreme on venus as many "global warmest" like to use as an example is because venus is mostly made up of carbon dioxide. It is vastly not proportionate to the earth. They use it because people don't understand that CO2 is heavier than O2. They expect people to be ignorant and continue to spread this false idea to make money on their ignorance.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

It does not matter what I show you because you will just claim it is bogus data anyways because you are already convinced that humans are the cause and promote the idea that they are. I would not have said it if it were not something I read. I don't make **** up.

So.. you don't have any scientific evidence and instead attack my integrity.
Not unexpected on your part since their clearly is no science that supports your statement.
For anyone that IS interested volcanoes put out less than 1% of what humans do. Here it is in simple language:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

As for "scare tactics". Hmm.. Doesn't that mean your statement about volcanoes putting out CO2 was simply a scare tactic?

I have made no comment about Gore. Perhaps you should address that to someone who did.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Oxygen is lighter than carbon dioxide. This means that the carbon dixoide doesn't float up into the atmosphere, it actually stays down near the ground because it is heavier than oxygen. This is why trees don't grow over a certain elevation because the amount of oxygen is higher than that of carbon dioxide so they can't survive.

OMG.. You completely ignore the science of how air mixes.
No one assumes anything about CO2 floating to the top and blocking ultraviolet light.

CO2 absorbs INFRARED radiation. Perhaps we should start with simple science concepts Krumple before you make any more of a fool of yourself.

http://www.uvbnarrowband.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/uv-spectrum.jpg

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

This is why trees don't grow over a certain elevation because the amount of oxygen is higher than that of carbon dioxide so they can't survive.

Actually, the amount of CO2 goes down because the air gets thinner.

Based on your theory, climbers of Mt Everest would be in an oxygen rich environment. They are not.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Based on your theory, climbers of Mt Everest would be in an oxygen rich environment. They are not.

No, absolutely retarded. No where did I say the rest of the atmosphere is full of oxygen. And yes I am aware that there is mixing, however there is still the fact that CO2 is heavier and will even with wind, settle below average amounts of oxygen. Is there C02 in areas above where oxygen is? Of course but the majority of it is not. This is standard equilibrium. A majority of oxygen will be higher than the majority of c02 because it is heavier.

There are articles that even state how recent research suggests that climate change 50k years ago caused massive extinction event. Humans were more than likely living on earth 50 thousand years ago, but they sure as hell weren't driving SUVs and getting power from coal plants. This one fact points out something significant, that we are jumping to conclusion to suggest that recent climate change is caused by humans.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

This one fact points out something significant, that we are jumping to conclusion to suggest that recent climate change is caused by humans.

This is an important distinction that Farmerman and I have been pointing out on A2K for years.

Everyone should already know that the climate is changing and that it's getting warmer. Nobody should even be discussing that fact. The only thing people should be discussing is "the relative degree to which humans are contributing to an already warming climate".

It is very hard to find any data that even attempts to address the question of relative effects within the natural warming trend.

I wish the scientific establishment would get its act together and focus on the question of relative contribution instead of repeatedly confirming the obvious (that it's getting warmer).

And politicians aren't making this whole issue any easier by linking it in with economic initiatives, but at least I don't expect as much from them.

1 Reply

I agree with Roswell, and have said as much for years. But i had no interest in jumping into this brawl yet again.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Krumple wrote:
This one fact points out something significant, that we are jumping to conclusion to suggest that recent climate change is caused by humans.
This is an important distinction that Farmerman and I have been pointing out on A2K for years.

Everyone should already know that the climate is changing and that it's getting warmer. Nobody should even be discussing that fact. The only thing people should be discussing is "the relative degree to which humans are contributing to an already warming climate".

It is very hard to find any data that even attempts to address the question of relative effects within the natural warming trend.

I wish the scientific establishment would get its act together and focus on the question of relative contribution instead of repeatedly confirming the obvious (that it's getting warmer).

And politicians aren't making this whole issue any easier by linking it in with economic initiatives, but at least I don't expect as much from them.

You seem to have a much more balanced outlook, or so it seems so far. I personally think it is too soon to say that humans are the culprit behind this warming trend, which I don't deny is happening.

I agree with you, we need to determine by how much and since there is no one other than politicians pushing the conclusion that it IS humans and the solution is enacting restrictions via economic incentives. It paints a huge red flag that we are not getting all the information or the information we are getting is skewed to sell us a problem that doesn't in fact exist.

I don't deny that humans pollute and have contributed to rise in CO2 and other green house gasses. I object to the idea that this is the sole cause to current climate change. I think it is a coincidence and unscientific to assume so.

Do we need to clean up our act (pun intended) sure but the solution isn't achieved through taxation. That only lines the pockets of government corporation owners. It does nothing to clean up the environment or help reduce the pollution.

My argument stems from the recent plastic bag argument. The government was railing hard that plastic bag manufacturing leads to massive environmental impacts. So the solution to the problem is to impose a plastic bag tax. That seems odd to me. Normally when something is posed as problematic the government usually calls for bans yet for plastic bags they call for a tax?

This to me means they really don't actually care about the environmental impact of plastic bags but instead know human nature that imposing a tax will not make people not use plastic bags, they will anyways but the government profits on the new taxation. If plastic bags are so bad, they should ban them out right and force people to use cloth reusable or some other alternative. They don't want to do that because there is no money to be made on banning plastic bags.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Here is the thing that many people neglect. No where does the data say that humans are the cause behind the global temperature change. It is ASSUMED to be humans.

I won't deny the data that shows we are in a warming trend, however; I object to the conclusion that humans are the cause to this warming trend.

Actually, the warming of the past century or so stopped in the late 1990s and the planet has been cooling since and is probably headed into a second little ice age (LIA2) as we speak. But you're right in thinking the human race has nothing to do with any of that. The ONLY factor involved is solar activity, period.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Show us that CO2 isn't a green house gas.

The ONLY thing which behaves like a quasi greenhouse gas (real greenhouses have to have glass roofs...) on this planet is water vapor. The real question is, when are you Gaea-worshiping fools gonna try to ban water.

It's common knowledge that clouds trap heat and that cloudy periods in the winter are usually noticeably warmer than clear periods around them.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

No, absolutely retarded. No where did I say the rest of the atmosphere is full of oxygen.

You implied it when you said that the amount of CO2 was less . I would love to see your scientific literature for your statement about how the tree line is cause by concentration level of CO2 and not by atmosphere density itself. I won't hold by breath waiting for such literature.

Your argument that humans didn't drive SUVs 50k years ago is a logical fallacy. Because people didn't take baths 50,000 years ago does that mean they didn't get wet? Because it is caused by one thing does NOT prevent any other causes.

No conclusion was "jumped to". It was calculated using known scientific methods and knowledge. I will ask again and I am sure you still won't answer it. If you have SPECIFIC science that refutes the science that shows man made global warming then present it. Throwing out red herrings doesn't refute anything. It only leads me to believe you are the one that is jumping to conclusions instead of looking at the science.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

For two decades before he put the company together, Gore said climate change was happening.

Plans to steal a billion dollars and/or become a billionaire via the machinations of a carbon exchange which enslaves the US economy, require careful preparation.

The most basic reality wrt bullies, assholes, villains, blackguards and the like such as Algor is that their bullshit usually stops when the picture starts to involve some sort of a personal price tag for it. Here's hoping that at least some of the bastards involved in this global warming scam end up doing hard time over it.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

. I object to the idea that this is the sole cause to current climate change.

I wonder why you feel you need to object to something that isn't stated in the scientific literature. NO ONE in science has claimed man is the sole cause of climate change.

2 Replies

@parados,

However, MJ has made that claim in his reply to Krumple:

MontereyJack wrote:

It has been known for more than a century now, though. that greenhouse gases exist in the atmospher and that they trap infraredradiation and cause temperature to rise, and it is known furthermore that human activity has caused the rise in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. There is a prettyt straightforward connection there.

Quote:

Those were natural causes in effect. CO2 is now somewhat above 380 ppm, and the temp is rising, and we're the ones overriding natural causes this time around. We weren't there and able to effect the natural state in previous cycles.

Krumple is justified in his response, because MJ is claiming that man is responsible for the current round of climate change. He's working without a net, and he has no business making this claim.

1 Reply

British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know