Global Warming Nut commits fraud on video

[TheGoodLocust]

Originally Posted by kedabra

The Earth will probably absorb the CO2 (although looking at Mars, and Venus, we have two examples of how thing smight go wrong for us)

Except, in the case of Venus (which has far more CO2 than is even possible for us), that we have plants which turn CO2 into the oxygen we breath and the food we eat.

but the point is that rapidly changing the climate is what has often led to mass extinctions = bad for civilisation.

And how do you know it is bad for our civilisation? The Medieval Warm Period was quite good for agriculture, trade and exploration. Also, I already pointed out that the temperature change is nothing if not extremely slow - why do you keep on ignoring all the points I've made?

Do you know what it was called right before our "current" period of global warming? It was called the Little Ice Age - and its been warming up from that Little Ice Age for the last 150 years.

still not clear, do you mean human CO2 is negligible in affecting climate, or do you mean it is significant, but that it is impossible for us to reduce it?

It is negligible and impossible for us to reduce.

The fact that the biosphere is delicately balanced is exactly why mass extinctions have occured.

No, extinctions have always occurred because the climate is always changing and some species evolve themselves so tightly into niches that they can't adapt and survive.

[i-jinx]

All this Iron Mountain conspiracy theory seems to be making people more reluctant to side with the environmentalists. If we drop all the arguments about just how bad things are, we are still left with the proposition that human civilisation has been a disaster for the rest of the ecosphere. It has caused extinctions that wouldn't have happened otherwise, it has reduced the effectiveness of natural carbon sinks all over the planet.

Even if "they" really are scheming to use the spectre of climate change as a fear/control strategy... So what? We don't have to buy their fearmongering in order to understand that shitting on our own doorstep is stupid and undignified. Is there a consensus on that?

Bertrand Russell and Robert Anton Wilson both suggested that it is good for the population to have news sources which sometimes spew out untruths and spoofs. If you know the daily news "just might" contain a whopper, you are forced to employ critical thinking and actively cross reference what you think you know.

So, Yes Men FTW!

[kedabra]

Originally Posted by TheGoodLocust

And how do you know it [rapid climate change, leading to mass extinctions] is bad for our civilisation?

because having only human flesh on the menu tends to strain civic relations.

It is negligible and impossible for us to reduce.

so you think that its actually impossible for human beings to change their insignificant behaviour , full stop....You don't seem to have much faith in mankinds abilities, negative or positive.

No, extinctions have always occurred because the climate is always changing and some species evolve themselves so tightly into niches that they can't adapt and survive.

No. Mass extinctions tend to wipe out whole swathes of organisms arbitrarily by rapidly altering their environment, during an impact event or period of volcanism, or other rapid environmental change, so that they don't have time to adapt. the pattern of extinctions can be almost random, since it happens so fast.

If you dragged a net through the sea and took out every fish that was above 3cm long , you would not be leaving the fish that were better adapted, you would just be leaving the small fish.

[kedabra]

Originally Posted by i-jinx

Even if "they" really are scheming to use the spectre of climate change as a fear/control strategy... So what? We don't have to buy their fearmongering in order to understand that shitting on our own doorstep is stupid and undignified. Is there a consensus on that?

apparently not

[TheGoodLocust]

Originally Posted by kedabra

because having only human flesh on the menu tends to strain civic relations.

Don't be so melodramatic - if anything global warming will probably increase the food supply.

so you think that its actually impossible for human beings to change their insignificant behaviour , full stop....You don't seem to have much faith in mankinds abilities, negative or positive.

Yes I think it is impossible, and here is why:

We supposedly produce 30 billion tons of CO2 each year.

The IPCC says we are increasing the CO2 levels by 2 ppm every year - which would, if accurate, mean for every 15 billion tons we emit, we produce 1 ppm.

The IPCC also says we will increase the ppm in our atmosphere by 468 ppm over the next hundred years. Since we have calculated that 1 ppm is equivalent to 15 billion tons then we can multiply the two to see how much total CO2 would be emitted over the next 100 years (according to them).

468x15 = 7,020 billion tons over CO2 over the next century or about 7 trillion.

They say this will warm the planet by 7 degrees Fahrenheit, which is likely wrong considering their blitheringly incompetent track record, but lets go with their assumptions.

So for every trillion tons of CO2 they say the planet will warm by 1 degree - now how many tons of CO2 do we need to stop emitting to stop a single degree of warming?

Well, we take 1 trillion tons (1,000 billion) and divide by the original 30 billion tons per year we emit and we get 33 years.

That means for a single degree, out of seven, we can't use cars, buses, trains, airplanes, spaceships or our major sources of electricity for 33 years.

So yes, I consider efforts to reduce CO2 to not only be stupid, but incredibly futile as well - and I'm just going by the moronic assumptions of your beloved IPCC. And, as I've already shown, the politicians who pretend to believe in this bullshit, aren't taking steps that would actually decrease CO2 output - even this fucktarded cap and trade bill won't do that.

Oh, and the above is basically Lord Monkton's fine explanation.

No. Mass extinctions tend to wipe out whole swathes of organisms arbitrarily by rapidly altering their environment, during an impact event or period of volcanism, or other rapid environmental change, so that they don't have time to adapt. the pattern of extinctions can be almost random, since it happens so fast.

Again, extinctions will always occur and organisms will either adapt or die - if this wasn't the case then humans would never have existed. The environment is not being altered rapidly, you keep on repeating things when I've shown them to be wrong.

I can see why a British judge declared AGW to be a religion...

[kedabra]

Originally Posted by TheGoodLocust

Yes I think it is impossible, and here is why:

We supposedly produce 30 billion tons of CO2 each year.

The IPCC says we are increasing the CO2 levels by 2 ppm every year - which would, if accurate, mean for every 15 billion tons we emit, we produce 1 ppm.

The IPCC also says we will increase the ppm in our atmosphere by 468 ppm over the next hundred years. Since we have calculated that 1 ppm is equivalent to 15 billion tons then we can multiply the two to see how much total CO2 would be emitted over the next 100 years (according to them).

468x15 = 7,020 billion tons over CO2 over the next century or about 7 trillion.

They say this will warm the planet by 7 degrees Fahrenheit, which is likely wrong considering their blitheringly incompetent track record, but lets go with their assumptions.

So for every trillion tons of CO2 they say the planet will warm by 1 degree - now how many tons of CO2 do we need to stop emitting to stop a single degree of warming?

Well, we take 1 trillion tons (1,000 billion) and divide by the original 30 billion tons per year we emit and we get 33 years.

That means for a single degree, out of seven, we can't use cars, buses, trains, airplanes, spaceships or our major sources of electricity for 33 years.

So yes, I consider efforts to reduce CO2 to not only be stupid, but incredibly futile as well - and I'm just going by the moronic assumptions of your beloved IPCC. And, as I've already shown, the politicians who pretend to believe in this bullshit, aren't taking steps that would actually decrease CO2 output - even this fucktarded cap and trade bill won't do that.

Firstly, youre not addressing my point. I was expressing surprise that you seem to believe broadly that mankind is both unable to affect his/her environment, and also unable to change his behaviour. These traits, to me at least, seem to almost define what it is to be human.

Your following argument is completely flawed. You've use two different values for the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 arbitrarily. You use a figure of 2ppm/year, and later 468ppm/century. then you go back to using 2ppm/year at the end.
Your results are meaningless, even accepting your previous dubious assumptions of linearity and static emissions levels.

You claim these are IPCC figures, but obviously at least one of them is not. Its hard to tell without any references for your stats.

Even if your calculation was correct, nobody is suggesting that we stop emitting carbon for X years. that would be impossible, without a complete cessation of consumption and production, which would probably cause our civilisation to collapse, and mass starvation to occur.
The idea is to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, while we create the infrastructure to transition to a post carbon economy.

Again, extinctions will always occur and organisms will either adapt or die - if this wasn't the case then humans would never have existed. The environment is not being altered rapidly, you keep on repeating things when I've shown them to be wrong.

You haven't convinced me even slightly.

Do you really believe that the environment is not changing rapidly right now? If that is true , then why does this recent IUCN report claim that over a third of the species on earth are in danger of extinction? or is this just more hype? or do you actually claim this is somehow normal?

http://www.iucn.org/media/materials/...ontinues-apace

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8338880.stm

More than a third of species assessed in a major international biodiversity study are threatened with extinction, scientists have warned.
Out of the 47,677 species in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 17,291 were deemed to be at serious risk.
These included 21% of all known mammals, 30% of amphibians, 70% of plants and 35% of invertebrates.

Habitat destruction and degradation continues to be the main cause of species’ decline, along with the all too familiar threats of introduced invasive species, unsustainable harvesting, over-hunting, pollution and disease. Climate change is increasingly recognized as a serious threat, which can magnify these dangers.

As an aside, I'd agree that the UK ruling about giving religious status to views on climate change was fucking ludicrous. He should have simply been given unfair dismissal. We got some common ground?

[TheGoodLocust]

Originally Posted by kedabra

Firstly, youre not addressing my point. I was expressing surprise that you seem to believe broadly that mankind is both unable to affect his/her environment, and also unable to change his behaviour. These traits, to me at least, seem to almost define what it is to be human.

That is a straw man; mankind can indeed affect the environment, but I don't believe our CO2 emissions have significantly altered the temp of the Earth and I also don't believe we are capable of reducing our CO2 emissions enough to change the predictions of the highly flawed IPCC models.

These are not contradictory statements as much you may wish them to be.

Your following argument is completely flawed. You've use two different values for the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 arbitrarily. You use a figure of 2ppm/year, and later 468ppm/century. then you go back to using 2ppm/year at the end.

Obviously you didn't understand the math - I was merely using the ppm as a stepping stone to demonstrate how much CO2 we'd have to cut.

Your results are meaningless, even accepting your previous dubious assumptions of linearity and static emissions levels.

There was no assumption of linearity or static emissions - I was simply showing that we'd have to flat out stop ALL our current CO2 emissions for 33 years before, according to IPCC numbers, we'd even stop a single degree, out of 7, of their predicted warmth.

The idea is to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, while we create the infrastructure to transition to a post carbon economy.

Which I think is impossible, esp. since, as I've already shown, nutbag environmentalists who peddle this crap are unwilling to use the only viable technology that could make us "post-carbon" - nuclear energy.

Also, when two of the biggest producers of CO2, China and India, won't get on board, and developing countries aren't required to reduce CO2 then you'd have to be mad to think, even if we suddenly stopped all CO2 production, that we could have any effect.

You haven't convinced me even slightly.

I never expected to - I'm just putting information out there for those who are willing to listen to the facts and opinions of others rather than repeat Al Gore's mantra that "the debate is over."

Do you really believe that the environment is not changing rapidly right now?

No I do not - it has warmed less than a degree centigrade over a hundred years - all while the Sun has been increasing in activity and the magnetosphere has been reducing in strength.

Are you arguing with the facts in the preceding sentence?

If not, then this is obviously not an emergency - the IPCC has been drastically wrong in all of their predictions and I'm supposed to buy their out-of-their-ass 7 degree warming voodoo prediction?

No.

If that is true , then why does this recent IUCN report claim that over a third of the species on earth are in danger of extinction?

Because politicians like to announce disaster - they get people to go along with their agenda by making people afraid. All you have to do is look at Obama's stimulus fear-mongering and nearly every other politician before him.
or is this just more hype? or do you actually claim this is somehow normal?

And honestly, bringing up a UN organization as an authority on anything is rather silly - these are the people who voted to make blasphemy illegal.

Oh, and I can easily prove the IUCN report incorrect in one simple link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20109284/

Between 5 and 100 million species exist on Earth - we've identified 2 million, and, according to your links, they looked at less than 48k species, which would be a very small fraction of the species on Earth. Of course, then you have to wonder WHICH species they decided to evaluate and what lame-brained criteria they used to determine if something is "threatened."

As an aside, I'd agree that the UK ruling about giving religious status to views on climate change was fucking ludicrous. He should have simply been given unfair dismissal. We got some common ground?

I think most people can agree that the UK will be the first nation in history to committ seppuku via political correctness.

[kedabra]

I understand the math perfectly, your calculations are complete bollocks.

As i patiently explained, you have used two completely different values for the ppm increase in CO2,. one is 2ppm/year = 200ppm/century, and one is 448ppm/century. youve (needlessly) multiplied by one of these values and then divided by the other, giving a flawed result

You claim both these are IPCC figures, which is obviously untrue, and casts doubt on alot of your other "facts"

The result you are looking for is simply 100 years divided by seven if youre working from a 7 degree rise per century, that is a degree rise every 14.3 years,
You don't even need the ppm/century to work that out, although I'd consider the result fairly meaningless given the rest of your assumptions.

read your calculations again.

And honestly, bringing up a UN organization as an authority on anything is rather silly - these are the people who voted to make blasphemy illegal.

The IUCN is not part of the UN, though they have permanent observer status there.
There are over 11 000 volunteer scientists working for them. it is the oldest environmental organization in the world.

http://www.iucn.org/about/

What is IUCN?
IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. It supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world and brings governments, non-government organizations, United Nations agencies, companies and local communities together to develop and implement policy, laws and best practice.
IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network - a democratic membership union with more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries.
IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 professional staff in 60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. The Union’s headquarters are located in Gland, near Geneva, in Switzerland.

but, according to you, they are self interested liars, the animals and plants they say are endangered, are actually just hard to see or something.

the IPCC has been drastically wrong in all of their predictions and I'm supposed to buy their out-of-their-ass 7 degree warming voodoo prediction?

Youve just used that figure (or at least tried to) in one of your own arguments!
You say you mistrust governements and politicians , and that their data is politicized bullshit, but then you've used figures (apparently) from NASA , and the IPCC to try and back up your own points!

Oh, and I can easily prove the IUCN report incorrect in one simple link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20109284/

Your smug pronounciations are weak as water. For a start, science cannot prove anything at all, that is a fallacy, the sort of thing that politicians say.

Secondly, your article is saying that we know only a small proportion of the total species on earth. I wouldnt dispute that at all. Were trashing something we don't even understand, were not even aware of most of it.

EDIT: thirdly, the research above is funded by the NSF, a US government created and funded organization with a budget of 6.6 billion dollars. If you don't trust publicly funded bodies, why are you quoting them?

However, the point is, that unknown species will be subject to exactly the same pressure from habitat destruction , pollution and environmental degradation as the ones we know. So if we survey the plant species we know and find that 70 percent are under threat, then a similar proportion of the unknown species in that habitat will also be endangered.

If the coral reefs dissapear, which seems likely (I witnessed the degradation of the Carribean reefs myself earlier this year), then all the species dependent on that reef will vanish, not just the ones that we have a name for.

[TheGoodLocust]

Originally Posted by kedabra

I understand the math perfectly, your calculations are complete bollocks.

Obviously you do not understand them - I guess I'll have to explain again.

As i patiently explained, you have used two completely different values for the ppm increase in CO2,. one is 2ppm/year = 200ppm/century

You see, you are guilty of thinking that is going to be linear, but accused me of it - the 2 ppm a year is the CURRENT rate of increase the IPCC attributes to us. Obviously we are likely to increase our CO2 output as we need more power and transportation.

, and one is 448ppm/century. youve (needlessly) multiplied by one of these values and then divided by the other, giving a flawed result

I can only assume the 468 figure was calculated by predicting the growth of our CO2 output - this is not difficult to understand.

Anyway, the multiplication and division was simply to show how many tons of CO2 (according to the IPCC) would be needed to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and this was done in order to show how much CO2 we'd need to cut to have any effect (assuming these numbers are correct).

You claim both these are IPCC figures, which is obviously untrue, and casts doubt on alot of your other "facts"

I told you I got them from Lord Christopher Monckton, I assumed from the IPCC, but if not then it was either from peer-reviewed research or some other government body. You are welcome to doubt my facts, but since you've yet to present a single one, or seriously challenge any of my numerous statements about global warming, I think my case is far stronger.

The result you are looking for is simply 100 years divided by seven if youre working from a 7 degree rise per century, that is a degree rise every 14.3 years,

Assumptions of linearity - do you always accuse others of the things that you are guilty of?

The IUCN is not part of the UN, though they have permanent observer status there.

Yes, they are part of the UN, obviously, they were established by the efforts of UNESCO (UN), are a collaboration of governments with some "non-profits," and are, as you mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...mbly_observers

They are clearly part of the UN.

You say you mistrust governements and politicians , and that their data is politicized bullshit, but then you've used figures (apparently) from NASA , and the IPCC to try and back up your own points!

Yes, I've used hard facts from NASA, not UN reports that were compiled by politicians - not scientists.

Your smug pronounciations are weak as water. For a start, science cannot prove anything at all, that is a fallacy, the sort of thing that politicians say.

That's funny - that sounds like the whole of the global warming alarmists argument - are you accusing me of that which you are guilty of again?

However, the point is, that unknown species will be subject to exactly the same pressure from habitat destruction , pollution and environmental degradation as the ones we know. So if we survey the plant species we know and find that 70 percent are under threat, then a similar proportion of the unknown species in that habitat will also be endangered.

Which would be a valid argument IF, and only IF, we fairly evaluated all known species and determined why they were endangered. As it is you not only have to deal with selection bias, but you are assuming those that are threatened are due to global warming, which is a rather silly assumption considering the many other environmental problems that are actually real and not figments of someone's imagination.

If the coral reefs dissapear, which seems likely (I witnessed the degradation of the Carribean reefs myself earlier this year), then all the species dependent on that reef will vanish, not just the ones that we have a name for.

And there are many REAL reasons why the coral reefs could be threatened - again, you assume global warming when there are other better explanations.

[TheGoodLocust]

Let me see if I can make this entire thing simple for you - I say global warming is due to this:



And you say global warming is due to this:



Notice how that whole "Sun thing" has been increasing in strength over the entire period of "global warming?"