• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

So obama believes in the myth of global warming...

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Feel free to believe in the snake oil of global warming.

Feel free to ignore every reputable scientific and climatological organisation on earth and believe right wing bloggers instead.

I still can't understand what the far right have against science, I think they just have a problem accepting reality in general, but I can't think why global warming gets a bee in their bonnet, science isn't left wing or right wing it is apolitical.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,392
✟170,432.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Last edited:
Upvote 0

joebudda

Newbie
Mar 10, 2004
9,137
319
53
Off The Grid
✟33,419.00
Faith
Atheist
And claiming there is a scientific consensus is just politics and a lie.

global_temp2.jpg


As we can see from ice core data we are in part of a normal cycle. The lie of man-made global warming only looks at the last 100 years or so, but in order to get an actual picture of what is going on we need to look at all the available data. And when we do that it becomes clear that it is quite normal and part of a cycle therefore not the cause of man.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357201,00.html
Since that is the case, the 31,000 scientist signatories assembled by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine would seem to trump the 600 or so in the alleged IPCC consensus. Sadly, the White House has taken such a beating over the years on climate that facts no longer matter.

As further evidence of its shell-shocked state of fact avoidance, just last week the Bush administration announced that it was listing the polar bear as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act — even though there are many more polar bears today than 40 years ago and predictions of the bear’s demise are entirely based on politically inspired speculation.


http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026
A recent study in the journal Nature by scientists from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, postulates that global temperatures are unlikely to rise again until around 2015-2020, after a decade-long leveling-off since the 1998 recorded high. In other words, it is possible that by 2020, the world will not have warmed for over 20 years.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_128269.asp
Here's a little fact that you will never see reported in the press, 31,072 scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence of greenhouse gasses causing global warming. And the media tells me that the argument is over and that everyone is in agreement. I think the media is in agreement, and I think some people that are in power are in agreement, but I would venture a guess that there aren't 31,000 scientists that agree that man is causing global warming. I hate when facts get the way.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Timothy Ball - Ph.D said:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22621
Scientists Speak Out Against Alarmist Warming Theory said:
One hundred scientists voiced strong opposition on December 13 to United Nations' efforts to create an illusion of scientific consensus regarding global warming. In an open letter to the UN, the scientists noted attempts to ration carbon dioxide emissions to mitigate alleged global warming would be "ultimately futile."

The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists, noted, "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."


Dr. Jim O'Brien, State Climatologist of Florida and Emeritus Professor at Florida State University, explains why he is a Global Warming Skeptic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNe2YGbBVj0&eurl=http://www.globalwarming.org/node/2070


And do yourselves a favor and look at the actual evidence and stop believing everything the TV and Al Gore tells you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOi1Pnm4m0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iVAuqGebUI&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySAGYKsCJyI&watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9HcashWNFs&watch_response
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
And claiming there is a scientific consensus is just politics and a lie.

global_temp2.jpg


As we can see from ice core data we are in part of a normal cycle. The lie of man-made global warming only looks at the last 100 years or so, but in order to get an actual picture of what is going on we need to look at all the available data. And when we do that it becomes clear that it is quite normal and part of a cycle therefore not the cause of man.
I looked around the seed site, where you retrieved the above graph (from NOAA originally?), and found another graph of interest. Now, I don't know much about climate change but if you look to the right of the graph, it's something worth noting.

14j9nap.jpg


"Over the past 425,000 years, cool periods have coincided with times when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was lower. When there is less CO2 in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is reduced and the world cools.
The blue and red line indicates the variation in average global temperature compared with the 1961–1990 average. The green line shows the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Pay close attention to the right-hand edge of the graph.)
This graph shows four eras when the world was cooler than it is today. These are separated by brief warm periods, like the one we are now in. "
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm
 
Upvote 0

joebudda

Newbie
Mar 10, 2004
9,137
319
53
Off The Grid
✟33,419.00
Faith
Atheist
I looked around the seed site, where you retrieved the above graph (from NOAA originally?), and found another graph of interest. Now, I don't know much about climate change but if you look to the right of the graph, it's something worth noting.

14j9nap.jpg


"Over the past 425,000 years, cool periods have coincided with times when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was lower. When there is less CO2 in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is reduced and the world cools.
The blue and red line indicates the variation in average global temperature compared with the 1961–1990 average. The green line shows the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Pay close attention to the right-hand edge of the graph.)
This graph shows four eras when the world was cooler than it is today. These are separated by brief warm periods, like the one we are now in. "
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_co2.htm

Anthother thing to notice is the CO2 levels tend to "follow" temperature change. Therefore CO2 levels have never "caused" global warming.

Because if CO2 did actually cause global warming we "should" be much warmer then ever before, but that isn't the case at all.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
Joe, we have gone over the exact figures and points before, why post the again? Of course CO2 follow temperature for previous warmings! No is claiming that the warmings 100k years ago were caused by human CO2 emissions. These warmings were caused by the Milankovitch cycle, which changes the amount of incident solar radiation. CO2 responds to this as the solubility on the ocens decreases and enhances the warming (a positive feedback), thus it follows temperature by about 800-1000 years (which corresponds to the overturning time of the oceans).

Now compare this to the current warming, where CO2 LEADS warming. Something is different.

If the naysyers here have any interest in the actual science of cliamte change, why is it that they only post links to political sites?

(Also, as you know, because I have told you before, your website is an oil industry front).

Anthother thing to notice is the CO2 levels tend to "follow" temperature change. Therefore CO2 levels have never "caused" global warming.

Because if CO2 did actually cause global warming we "should" be much warmer then ever before, but that isn't the case at all.
 
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest

Hmm, now onto this petition which is linked in the fox story. It looks like I meet the qualifications required to sign this petition, and since I know diddly about climate change I have to question the merit of the petition. I'll give it a go though and report back to see if my name is included on the list.

Upon further reading, there's a bit of scrutiny IRT this petition already due to fraud. If anything is a political ploy, this petition is its poster. That's not to say that I have an opinion on climate change one way or another.

eta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
Anthother thing to notice is the CO2 levels tend to "follow" temperature change. Therefore CO2 levels have never "caused" global warming.
Well, I don't know if CO2 'causes' warming but based on the graphs CO2 tends to follow suit with climate. It looks like we're dealing with a different animal at present as the graph shows that CO2 levels have never been this high, unless I'm missing something. We're going to have to wait and see what happens.

Because if CO2 did actually cause global warming we "should" be much warmer then ever before, but that isn't the case at all.
The CO2 spike is a recent ocurrence. I'm not sure what the response would like on a time scale or how feedback mechanisms would come into play.
 
Upvote 0

joebudda

Newbie
Mar 10, 2004
9,137
319
53
Off The Grid
✟33,419.00
Faith
Atheist
Joe, we have gone over the exact figures and points before, why post the again? Of course CO2 follow temperature for previous warmings! No is claiming that the warmings 100k years ago were caused by human CO2 emissions. These warmings were caused by the Milankovitch cycle, which changes the amount of incident solar radiation. CO2 responds to this as the solubility on the ocens decreases and enhances the warming (a positive feedback), thus it follows temperature by about 800-1000 years (which corresponds to the overturning time of the oceans).

Yes the ocean is a type of "CO2 sponge". Warm oceans hold less Co2 then cold oceans. Which shows that Co2 has always followed warming and never caused the warming.

Now compare this to the current warming, where CO2 LEADS warming. Something is different.
Lets look at the last 10,000 years or so, shall we? The period is called the Holocene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


We are not warming, we are cooling. Don't fool yourself.

If the naysyers here have any interest in the actual science of cliamte change, why is it that they only post links to political sites?

(Also, as you know, because I have told you before, your website is an oil industry front).
Deny the evidence all you desire. I could care less.
I don't buy it, there is nothing that convinces me it is true at all.

All I ask is allow me my beliefs, which I am more then willing to change if there was any convincing evidence at all, and don't punish me for your unconvincing beliefs. Like with some kind of carbon tax.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
How does the temperature being higher than it has for the past 10,000 years indicate that we are cooling?

Yes the ocean is a type of "CO2 sponge". Warm oceans hold less Co2 then cold oceans. Which shows that Co2 has always followed warming and never caused the warming.


Lets look at the last 10,000 years or so, shall we? The period is called the Holocene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


We are not warming, we are cooling. Don't fool yourself.


Deny the evidence all you desire. I could care less.
I don't buy it, there is nothing that convinces me it is true at all.

All I ask is allow me my beliefs, which I am more then willing to change if there was any convincing evidence at all, and don't punish me for your unconvincing beliefs. Like with some kind of carbon tax.
 
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
Disclaimer- forgive me if I don't make sense with my questions.
Yes the ocean is a type of "CO2 sponge". Warm oceans hold less Co2 then cold oceans. Which shows that Co2 has always followed warming and never caused the warming.
Ok, what kind of effects will such high levels of CO2 have on the atmosphere? I certainly don't know. You seem to have a clue though I'm missing it. If greenhouse gases play a role in keeping the planet warm it's intuitive to think that a substantial increase is gases unchecked would contribute to warming. Many say this isn't the case but I don't understand why.

Lets look at the last 10,000 years or so, shall we? The period is called the Holocene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


We are not warming, we are cooling. Don't fool yourself.
According to the wiki link, " In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns)." I'm not sure what you're getting at here if you wouldn't mind explaining it.

eta: and I don't understand the graph either. What do the dark blue, blue, red, yellow and black lines represent?
 
Upvote 0

joebudda

Newbie
Mar 10, 2004
9,137
319
53
Off The Grid
✟33,419.00
Faith
Atheist
How does the temperature being higher than it has for the past 10,000 years indicate that we are cooling?

I don't know what data you are looking at. Today is on the left end of that chart the right is coming out of the last "glacial period". The planet has been on a cooling trend ever sense.
Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
 
Upvote 0

RacismIsBad

Senior Member
Mar 17, 2007
1,883
211
✟3,260.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hmm, now onto this petition which is linked in the fox story. It looks like I meet the qualifications required to sign this petition, and since I know diddly about climate change I have to question the merit of the petition. I'll give it a go though and report back to see if my name is included on the list.

Upon further reading, there's a bit of scrutiny IRT this petition already due to fraud. If anything is a political ploy, this petition is its poster. That's not to say that I have an opinion on climate change one way or another.

eta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
The petition is complete bunk, it takes anyone who holds a PhD and attempts to fool people into thinking that a PhD automatically makes you an expert. I'm working on my PhD right now, but I do biomedical imaging. Ask me about MRI and CT, I know what I'm talking about, but ask me about climate science, and I am no expert. This petition has people that have PhDs in psychology, they know nothing about the science behind climate change. The petition is complete bunk and relies on the ignorance of people who know nothing about science.

And claiming there is a scientific consensus is just politics and a lie.
Actually the lie is claiming there is no scientific consensus, the deniers are the ones attempting to turn this into politics.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
Of course you are allowed to have your beliefs. However I would question as to whether your beliefs are driven by the evidence, or they are driven by your politics. It is undeniable that almost all climate change skeptics are of conservative/libertarian bent, whereas the mainstream scientific views span both perspectives. If it were a true scientific debate you would expect skeptics on both sides of the isle, which is not the case.

This is painfully evident when you look at the sources that skeptics cite (almost always conservative blogs or political think tanks) compared to the mainstream scientists who are more apt to use actual scientific sources.

Yes the ocean is a type of "CO2 sponge". Warm oceans hold less Co2 then cold oceans. Which shows that Co2 has always followed warming and never caused the warming.


Lets look at the last 10,000 years or so, shall we? The period is called the Holocene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png


We are not warming, we are cooling. Don't fool yourself.


Deny the evidence all you desire. I could care less.
I don't buy it, there is nothing that convinces me it is true at all.

All I ask is allow me my beliefs, which I am more then willing to change if there was any convincing evidence at all, and don't punish me for your unconvincing beliefs. Like with some kind of carbon tax.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
Notice that 2004 is marked on the left, and is higher than any other period on the plot. The trend for the past 5000 years or so has been cooling, then when you hit the industrial period, all of a sudden the temperatures rise at an unprecedented rate:
2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


How does this possibly show that we are cooling?

I don't know what data you are looking at. Today is on the left end of that chart the right is coming out of the last "glacial period". The planet has been on a cooling trend ever sense.
Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
 
Upvote 0

joebudda

Newbie
Mar 10, 2004
9,137
319
53
Off The Grid
✟33,419.00
Faith
Atheist
Disclaimer- forgive me if I don't make sense with my questions.

Ok, what kind of effects will such high levels of CO2 have on the atmosphere? I certainly don't know. You seem to have a clue though I'm missing it. If greenhouse gases play a role in keeping the planet warm it's intuitive to think that a substantial increase is gases unchecked would contribute to warming. Many say this isn't the case but I don't understand why.

There is no reason to believe Co2 has any effect at all as far as I can tell.
It is just the air that plants breathe. Maybe we should stop cutting down all the forests? That is the engine that turns that Co2 into oxygen for animals to breathe again.

This whole issue is purely political, there is no scientific consensus.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
Joe, this is just ridiculous. EVERY climate science organization in the world endorses anthropogenic climate change. There are thousands of scientifc journal

Secondly if CO2 had no effect on temperature we would all be dead. The Earths black body equilibrium temperature is about 250K or -13C, without the greenhouse effect, thats what the temperature would be. Luckily we have some CO2 to keep us warm, the question is how much.

There is no reason to believe Co2 has any effect at all as far as I can tell.
It is just the air that plants breath. Maybe we should stop cutting down all the forests? That is the engine that turns that Co2 into oxygen for animals to breath again.

This whole issue is purely political, there is no scientific consensus.
 
Upvote 0
B

Braunwyn

Guest
The petition is complete bunk, it takes anyone who holds a PhD and attempts to fool people into thinking that a PhD automatically makes you an expert. I'm working on my PhD right now, but I do biomedical imaging. Ask me about MRI and CT, I know what I'm talking about, but ask me about climate science, and I am no expert. This petition has people that have PhDs in psychology, they know nothing about the science behind climate change. The petition is complete bunk and relies on the ignorance of people who know nothing about science.
Actually, only a BS is required to sign the petition lol. And look at this qualifer:

"4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed."

:D What, like the elements? geeze louise.

Yea. Sure, I can talk about pKa, and LOG P/D IRT to molecular reactions until the cows come home but that doesn't qualify me to have an opinion, let alone a relevant opinion, on climate change.

Actually the lie is claiming there is no scientific consensus, the deniers are the ones attempting to turn this into politics.
Agreed.
 
Upvote 0