Taxonomy of Global Warming Denial

[JacksBratt]

Oh gee, first you insert the word "all" into my sentence, now you insert the word "only". Please quit inserting words into my writings and then arguing against the words you insert. Please respond to what I write without inserting words that drastically change the meaning.

I see you failed to read past your ego here and see where I stated "If not, well, I did. So, my apologies for my error." when I was talking about misreading your post.

You see nothing in my post other than it contradicts your agenda. You see nothing when I state that there are other qualified people who hold a different view than yourself. I post a peer reviewed paper and you dismiss it as well.

When I apologize to someone for an error I made and they criticize my explanation as to why... I tend to believe that this person is not even trying to be congenial or civil.

I am sorry that other people in this world disagree with you. As an adult, you will have to learn to deal with it. Learning life's lessons and maturing to accept that everyone is different will be tough at times. You may have to overlook your arrogance and pride...

So, news flash, Not every scientist agrees with CAGW and the list is growing.... something you will have to learn to accept.

 

[JacksBratt]

Your beliefs do not trump the evidence.

I can look at all the data, for both arguments, look at the information that I have learned from my schooling, apply this with common sense and decide for myself what I what to accept and reject as reality.

My beliefs are my RIGHT. Your beliefs are yours. You have your evidence and others have theirs. It is of no consequence, however, because the proof will be in what actually happens in the next decade or two. All the speculation in the world will not affect the actual events.

Being angry with me or calling me names and insulting me is not going to change my mind. There is too much going on right now, which is contrary to the CAGW panic agenda, for me to accept the hoax of global warming.

I'm sorry, but in the end even the best scripted government panic agenda's unravel. The holes in your so called "evidence" which you hold so tightly to, are coming unglued..... Don't worry, it was a good run and you fooled a lot of sheep.

In the end, these same sheep will forget that they were duped, again, and follow along like the blind group they are, to the next propagated hoax of the governments and puppet masters of this earth.

 

[doubtingmerle]

So, news flash, Not every scientist agrees with CAGW and the list is growing.... something you will have to learn to accept.

News flash: Not every scientist agrees that smoking is linked to cancer.

News flash: Not every scientist agrees that space aliens never landed in Roswell, New Mexico.

News flash: Not every scientist agrees that the Quran is a book of human origins.

Some scientists believe odd things. I accept that.

If a scientist believes an odd thing, I will ask him for his evidence. Is that OK with you?

 

[USincognito]

I can look at all the data, for both arguments, look at the information that I have learned from my schooling, apply this with common sense and decide for myself what I what to accept and reject as reality.

My beliefs are my RIGHT. Your beliefs are yours. You have your evidence and others have theirs. It is of no consequence, however, because the proof will be in what actually happens in the next decade or two. All the speculation in the world will not affect the actual events.

Being angry with me or calling me names and insulting me is not going to change my mind. There is too much going on right now, which is contrary to the CAGW panic agenda, for me to accept the hoax of global warming.

I'm sorry, but in the end even the best scripted government panic agenda's unravel. The holes in your so called "evidence" which you hold so tightly to, are coming unglued..... Don't worry, it was a good run and you fooled a lot of sheep.

In the end, these same sheep will forget that they were duped, again, and follow along like the blind group they are, to the next propagated hoax of the governments and puppet masters of this earth.

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I post a peer reviewed paper and you dismiss it as well.

No you did not. You posted an article that misrepresented a peer-reviewed paper. Twice you were given a link to the actual peer-reviewed paper, which actually said the opposite of what you claimed it said.

 

[JacksBratt]

News flash: Not every scientist agrees that smoking is linked to cancer.

News flash: Not every scientist agrees that space aliens never landed in Roswell, New Mexico.

News flash: Not every scientist agrees that the Quran is a book of human origins.

Some scientists believe odd things. I accept that.

If a scientist believes an odd thing, I will ask him for his evidence. Is that OK with you?

Again, you miss 99% of my post and focus on one little item...

Have a nice day.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Again, you miss 99% of my post and focus on one little item...

Have a nice day.

Most of your post was repeats or irrelevant. I am not going to keep responding to the same thing over and over again. If you said anything new that I have not responded to, please let me know what you want me to respond to. But please don't ask me to continuously respond to the same defeated arguments over and over again.

 

[GQ Chris]

Stop Anthropogenic Global Whining!

 

[GQ Chris]

When liberals start taking their huge carbon footprints seriously and practice what they preach, then I may start acting concerned about so called anthropogenic global warming, until then there is no problem. I mean guys like barry obummer and leonardo dicaprio.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am sorry that other people in this world disagree with you. As an adult, you will have to learn to deal with it. Learning life's lessons and maturing to accept that everyone is different will be tough at times. You may have to overlook your arrogance and pride...

I think I am quite good at dealing with people that differ with me. That is one reason I am on this thread.The survey was a request for those who differed with the scientific consensus on global warming to express where they differed. I see that nobody chose to be specific on where they differed. That is a problem. People want to be opposed to belief in global warming, but they don't want to be specific on where they disagree. The arguments often bounce back and forth between opposing arguments, as though people have already decided they are against it, but don't know exactly why.

Can you tell me why you are so opposed to the concept of CAGW? My guess is that your side of politics and religion is against the concept of CAGW, so since these politicians and religionists are against it, therefore you are against it too. Did I guess correctly? If not, why is it that you bounce back and forth from argument to argument in what appears to be a desperate attempt to find an argument that will work?

 

[doubtingmerle]

When liberals start taking their huge carbon footprints seriously and practice what they preach, then I may start acting concerned about so called anthropogenic global warming, until then there is no problem.

And when there are no longer any hypocrites left in the church, then and only then should one consider Christianity? As long as there are hypocrites, one should stay away from church? Is that what you are saying?

One would think that we should be looking at the scientific evidence. Since the scientific evidence indicates CAGW is a serious problem, how can hypocrisy override all the evidence?

 

[USincognito]

When liberals start taking their huge carbon footprints seriously and practice what they preach, then I may start acting concerned about so called anthropogenic global warming, until then there is no problem. I mean guys like barry obummer and leonardo dicaprio.

I love when people post stuff like this an (ostensibly) expect others to take them seriously.

 

[JacksBratt]

And when there are no longer any hypocrites left in the church, then and only then should one consider Christianity? As long as there are hypocrites, one should stay away from church? Is that what you are saying?

One would think that we should be looking at the scientific evidence. Since the scientific evidence indicates CAGW is a serious problem, how can hypocrisy override all the evidence?

If there were no sinners we would need no church.

In any group of people you will find... liars, gossips, hypocrites, thieves, cheats, egomaniacs, depressed, flakes, shy, obnoxious..... the list goes on.

If I found a church without these in it..........I would run. When you find the church you are looking for, the one with all the perfect people... you will be in a dreamland.

Good luck in your search for your church.

 

[JacksBratt]

Can you tell me why you are so opposed to the concept of CAGW?

I am against it because it is impossible for the lowly CO2 gas, at 0.040% of the atmosphere to control, affect, govern, change or alter the temperature of this vast globe with the immense volume of water and the only heat source being the sun.

The biggest factor increasing the amount of CO2 is the harvesting of the rain forest, the lungs of this globe and we hear absolutely nothing of trying to regrow it.

The agenda of the puppet masters is to take my money. They tried the energy crisis, the ozone hole, and others. Now it is CAGW. It's a game to take from the sheep.

Combine this with the fact that I was born in the 60's and have seen the spin on everything that has created this mess of a world we see today. I trust no government, scientific group or hive mind, media or news company.

Actually, let me rephrase that. I totally trust these entities to immerse me in the information that they want me to believe. However, the truth and the data that these groups put forth is worlds apart.


An increase from 0.038% to 0.042%... really? Try again. The fasaud is coming to an end. Only to be replace by an new one..... Let me guess........aliens are going to suck all our water away for fuel. Or take our children....

It's all balderdash.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I am against it because it is impossible for the lowly CO2 gas, at 0.040% of the atmosphere to control, affect, govern, change or alter the temperature of this vast globe with the immense volume of water and the only heat source being the sun.

0.00005% lead in your blood is considered lead poisoning and can have severe negative effects on your body.

Concentration is irrelevant to the effect a substance can have on a system.

The biggest factor increasing the amount of CO2 is the harvesting of the rain forest, the lungs of this globe and we hear absolutely nothing of trying to regrow it.

People are talking about it. Its a big problem as well because deforestation contributes to global warming.

The agenda of the puppet masters is to take my money.

What does the scientific argument established in the 1950s and 1960s have to do with a politician today?

You can criticize the political solutions based on political grounds but you can't criticize the science on political grounds.

Combine this with the fact that I was born in the 60's and have seen the spin on everything that has created this mess of a world we see today.

Blame corporate media.

I trust no government, scientific group or hive mind, media or news company.

What do you trust? Where do you get your information?

An increase from 0.038% to 0.042%... really? Try again.

That's an increase of 10%.

Would you like a 10% salary increase or is it just too insignificant?

It's all balderdash.

Balderdash exists. But you need some system for discerning the balderdash from the true stuff. It's not all balderdash.

Where do you get your information? How do you deem a source to be trustworthy?

 

[Hieronymus]

0.00005% lead in your blood is considered lead poisoning and can have severe negative effects on your body.

But CO2 is not a poison.
We exhale it ourselves too.

Concentration is irrelevant to the effect a substance can have on a system.

Of course it is relevant.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am against it because it is impossible for the lowly CO2 gas, at 0.040% of the atmosphere to control, affect, govern, change or alter the temperature of this vast globe with the immense volume of water and the only heat source being the sun.

Wait. 0.04%. Why do you trust that number? I trust it because multiple peer reviewed papers confirm it. But you have ridiculed peer review, and have never given us a means of determining which scientific claims we can trust. And somehow you trust this claim. It looks like you might be trusting those claims that support your view and not trusting those which don't. But perhaps you can let us know why you trust this claim.

Why is it unreasonable to expect 0.04% CO2 to force a change in earth's climate by the equivalent of 2 watts per meter squared on the entire surface? As I explained to you, the sun heats the earth at an average 1366 watts per meter squared. That is more than enough to evaporate the oceans, but fortunately for us, it is balanced almost exactly by the same amount of heat radiating out of earth into space. As I explained to you, the increase of CO2 since industrialization has decreased the heat emissions from the earth by about 2 watts per square meter, or about 0.15%. Why exactly is it unreasonable to expect that the additional blanket of CO2 adding 130 ppm cannot decrease the heat radiance of the earth by 0.15%? That seems reasonable to me. And peer reviewed studies confirm it.

Scientists overwhelming accept that this CO2 has an effect on the cooling rate of about 0.15%. Why do you believe they are right when they tell you CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, but wrong when they tell you about the change in cooling rate of about 0.15% due to CO2 added since industrialization?

Combine this with the fact that I was born in the 60's and have seen the spin on everything that has created this mess of a world we see today. I trust no government, scientific group or hive mind, media or news company.

Actually, let me rephrase that. I totally trust these entities to immerse me in the information that they want me to believe. However, the truth and the data that these groups put forth is worlds apart.

And yet you trust the peer-reviewed science that says CO2 is 0.04% (about 400 ppm). Why?

An increase from 0.038% to 0.042%... really? Try again. The fasaud is coming to an end.

I think you have a typo and a roundoff error here. The actual figures are 0.028% which increased to 0.041%. That is a significant increase in CO2.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

But CO2 is not a poison.

In the correct quantities it is.

Lead is healthy and used in many applications. Its not a poison either. Nothing is a poison in and of itself. Its only how much of the particular substance you have that makes it a poison.

Of course it is relevant.

I mean that the absolute concentration is irrelevant. You can't say 0.0040% of something is good or bad. It depends on what the "something" is.

It doesn't matter that 0.0040% is a small number.

Its a non sequitur.

 

[Hieronymus]

In the correct quantities it is.

Lead is healthy and used in many applications. Its not a poison either. Nothing is a poison in and of itself. Its only how much of the particular substance you have that makes it a poison.

There's lead poisoning, no CO2 poisoning.
With CO2 it's called suffocation, when there's not enough oxygen in stead.
There are CO2 fire extinguishers, for example.

 

[PeterDona]

I did not see my option represented there.
For me, CO2 is a religion at the moment.
There is not a proven link between rise in CO2 levels and e.g. rising water levels.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/bad-policy/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/

For a start, check out the list of other greenhouse gases that are much worse than CO2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

I think why people focus on CO2 is only, because it then becomes something that the average person in the world can relate to. I do not think that CO2 is the criminal concerning the global warming.

I recently aired my view on CO2 at a social dinner, and that was a horrible mistake. The host had told me that he worked in "Environment and energy", which I did not make anything out of. After my comments, he revealed that the whole basis of his job was to look for less polluting energy solutions, in terms of CO2. What a blunder I made there