AGW is a lie

[Greatcloud]

Lake Nyos.

This was caused by GW not CO2 as far as can be proved.

 

[Avatar]

This was caused by GW not CO2 as far as can be proved.

Huh? It was caused by a landslide that released CO2. The CO2 caused the deaths. Had nothing to do with GW.

 

[Greatcloud]

The co2 was a natural disaster not caused by man. Any heavy concentrations of gas would have done it.

 

[Avatar]

Lack of water to hold the mountain in place was GW. The co2 was a natural disaster not caused by man. Any heavy concentrations of gas would have done it.

Lack of water? You sure? That lake was formed by a volcanic eruption 400 years back. The area is extremely seismically active. A tremor seems a much more likely cause of the landslide. Yes, not caused by man, but not caused by GW either.

Hoofs, Manes - Horses not Zebras.

 

[Greatcloud]

Pure Oxygen can kill too CO2 is just a gas good and bad.

 

[Avatar]

Pure Oxygen can kill too CO2 is just a gas good and bad.

And? I didn't say anything about the concentration of gas. I'm well aware that anything other than the concentration of oxygen we are adapted to can be deleterious or fatal. I said the landslide was most likely caused by seismic activity - not caused by GW. You seem to be addressing a point I didn't make.



Besides doesn't excess water usually cause landslides? Not lack thereof.

 

[Greatcloud]

Originally I wanted to talk about disasters caused by AGW but I said CO2.
What disasters have been caused by AGW ?

 

[Avatar]

Originally I wanted to talk about disasters caused by AGW but I said CO2.
What disasters have been caused by AGW ?

I'm not following your question. You've already said you believe GW to be occurring but not AGW. How would any natural disaster appear different if it were AGW rather than GW? Is it theoretically possible to answer your question without you saying 'that's GW, not AGW'? What would you accept as a satisfactory answer?

 

[Greatcloud]

Ok GW disasters not necessary AGW.

Here is one debunked

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-'thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up'.html

By Fred Langan in Toronto and Tom Leonard
Last Updated: 1:36AM GMT 09 Mar 2007

• In pictures: Polar bears thriving in the Arctic

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.
"Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right," said Mr Taylor.
While fellow scientists have accepted Mr Taylor's findings, critics point out that his study was commissioned by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit.
Critics claim the government has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.
In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year.
Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.
The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.
At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.
"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."
Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.
"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.
"To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."
However, Prof Derocher conceded that some polar bear-related evidence of the damaging effect of global warming was misplaced.
Contrary to concern over a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way, he said.
"Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice," he said.
The state of Alaska yesterday questioned the scientific justification for proposals to add polar bears to the US endangered species list.
Tina Cunnings, a biologist attached to the Alaskan government, questioned whether they needed sea ice to survive, saying they could adapt to hunt on land and find alternative food sources to seals.
Prof Derocher said the theory was "absolutely fanciful".

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

CO2 is not a toxic gas we breathe it out all the time,it has come into the news because some scientist state, but can't prove their theory, GHGT. These people are called Alarmist. Show me one disaster from ^ co2 .

This one small step, so called, could cause worldwide recession if done in a rush.

What's CO[sub]2[/sub] toxicity have to do with anything? It's CO[sub]2[/sub] ability to absorb IR radiation that's the issue.

 

[Baggins]

there is a scientific consensus amongst climatologists that climate change is happening to some degree due to human influence.

That's game over really. When scientists reach a consensus they are generally correct.

If 99 climatologists say humans are affecting climate change and one lone voice is saying we aren't, only a fool would go with the one.

Fortunately for our amusement the world is full of fools are most of them have internet access.

 

[birdan]

Reducing the worlds reliance on dwindling fossil fuels is a good idea even if it does not effect global warming.

Are you saying that we should not even attempt this one small step in not polluting ourselves out of a planet?

QFT.

That's my take on it too. It's a very complex subject that I'm not well versed in. But given that there are so many other reasons to move ASAP from fossil fuels (economy, environment, national security, etc.), I don't see why this is such an issue. AGW is just one of many reasons to be moving away from fossil fuels, and whether or not AGW is 'true' should not be such a factor in the current debate.

 

[juvenissun]

Yeah, lol, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. 1000 years ago things were a bit different. Humans weren't dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Humans weren't dumping into their rivers and oceans like we are now. Humans, read this carefully, weren't driving cars all around the globe.
Speaking of "moving"-
How many people living east of the SA fault have moved? How many people living in "tornado alley" have moved? How many people living in southern florida have moved? How many people living in the shadow of Mt Rainer have moved?
And if you don't get the point of those last four questions, I'll be willing to spell it out for you (with pictures if necessary)

You do not understand my argument. My principle may apply to ALL natural disasters, not only to the global warming.

The longer we live on the earth, the more population she would have. And any single natural disaster would kill MORE people. So, if the sealevel rose 1000 years ago and covered all the coastal plains, that was not a big deal. Today, just see what happened during the hurricane Kutrina. Given another 100 years peaceful time, the same Kurtina would double the damage.

Global warming is unstoppable. The sooner and the faster it happens, the better to human race.

 

[Psudopod]

Global warming is unstoppable. The sooner and the faster it happens, the better to human race.

I know the planet is overpopulated, but this seems a very heartless outlook. Espcially as I bet you're not one of the ones who is going to be majorly affected by rising sea levels.

 

[Morcova]

The co2 was a natural disaster not caused by man. Any heavy concentrations of gas would have done it.

And the goal posts just got moved.

 

[Tomk80]

You do not understand my argument. My principle may apply to ALL natural disasters, not only to the global warming.

The longer we live on the earth, the more population she would have. And any single natural disaster would kill MORE people. So, if the sealevel rose 1000 years ago and covered all the coastal plains, that was not a big deal. Today, just see what happened during the hurricane Kutrina. Given another 100 years peaceful time, the same Kurtina would double the damage.

This is not universally true. Population trends show that in wealthy, developed countries, the population is stabalizing, if not decreasing. France, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries all show a decreasing population that is only balanced by the influx of immigrants. Having an average of 2 children per family does indeed help to stabalize the population.

Global warming is unstoppable. The sooner and the faster it happens, the better to human race.

This is not necessarily true. Yes, global warming could have a natural trend, occurring at this point. However, it also could be the case that global warming would not be happening without human greenhouse emissions. Research on solar activity actually suggests that without human emissions, global temperature trends would show an decrease instead of an increase. Next to this, the endpoint of global temperatures with and without human emissions could be different, higher with human emissions. Now the latter is especially uncertain, but there is reason enough to justify action. Especially if we stop for a moment to view the problem in isolation, and start looking at it in conjunction with other problems such as global resource depletion and detrimental health effects of human emissions.

 

[juvenissun]

This is not universally true. Population trends show that in wealthy, developed countries, the population is stabalizing, if not decreasing. France, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries all show a decreasing population that is only balanced by the influx of immigrants. Having an average of 2 children per family does indeed help to stabalize the population.

I think I should quit the argument here. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue of global warming. It is not anything new in geology. Whether human induced or not, when the earth is warming up, nothing can stop it.

The point is: People developed A LOT along coastal region where a global warming would have some obvious early effects. To me, they are simply waiting for disasters to strike. I have little sympathy to them and I think the government should take the responsibility. Obviously, the government could do nothing and the coastal area would continue to thrive until the judgement day. It is not about all about how many people live there. It is about what they do there. If New York City, or Washington D.C. fell into water, I am not sure how would the world respond.

 

[[serious]]

So we should throw out all the evidence of the carbon/global warming link because a single factor we've been looking for since 2007 hasn't been found? And this data point is necessary because an opinion piece by a certain David Evans who has a bit of a history of padding his resume. Someone who has published no peer reviewed papers about global warming but claims expertise based on doing a bit with carbon accounting. Whoopdeedo.

He's shown no evidence for this "hot spot" being necessary for the greenhouse effect and from what I can find he's the only one claiming it's necessary.

Now, if only I could find something that actually predicts what would happen in the stratosphere if CO2 was to blame for GW.... Something that addresses each claim he makes and provides actual data... something by someone actually working in the field... something that I can find with just a little google skill...

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php

 

[Psudopod]

It is not about all about how many people live there. It is about what they do there. If New York City, or Washington D.C. fell into water, I am not sure how would the world respond.

So if it's New York or Washington, that's a disaster, but it it's thousands of thirdworld fishermen, it's their own fault for living where their livelyhood dictates.

 

[Tomk80]

I think I should quit the argument here. I don't have a strong opinion on the issue of global warming. It is not anything new in geology. Whether human induced or not, when the earth is warming up, nothing can stop it.

Perhaps. One thing is really certain, we don't know until we try.

The point is: People developed A LOT along coastal region where a global warming would have some obvious early effects. To me, they are simply waiting for disasters to strike. I have little sympathy to them and I think the government should take the responsibility. Obviously, the government could do nothing and the coastal area would continue to thrive until the judgement day. It is not about all about how many people live there. It is about what they do there. If New York City, or Washington D.C. fell into water, I am not sure how would the world respond.

Well yeah, people are going to live where livelihood is. Coastal areas are amongst those places. Personally, I don't see how you can blame them. Especially those in underdeveloped countries. Personally I think we have a duty towards those people, but I know opinions on that differ (not implying you don't care, but knowing others don't).