Lets talk about another Climate Change Hoax Exposed in Australia...
- Thread starter Hiphoplives4eva
- Start date
"Appears to be" is not a fact. Its a theory.
Ok, so could you actually watch the vid you posted ? And you can start at 9:34, it will be easier.
But if you don't want, here what the dude says at 10:21 :
And for the ice sheet growth.
Here's a article that explains the issue really well : http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html
And if you don't want to read it, here's a chart from the article :
This shows that the ice sheet comes and goes at times but declines overall.
Climate change hoax or not it's surprising alot of people are using it as an excuse to not make the world a much better place with better energy solutions beyond fossil fuels.
ill
Superstar
@Liu Kang
The reality of the situation is the IPCC is a fear mongering organization that inaccurately paints a portrait of "global warming".
The parts I enjoy most are their revised estimates downward in the 2000's yet countries like China have exponentially increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540
The reality of the situation is the IPCC is a fear mongering organization that inaccurately paints a portrait of "global warming".
The parts I enjoy most are their revised estimates downward in the 2000's yet countries like China have exponentially increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540
ill
Superstar
I am all for making the world a better place. I'm very happy that electric vehicles are becoming mainstream and solar power and renewable resources are being utilized instead of fossil fuels. What I'm not for, is Al Gore and company monetizing "carbon". The powers that be are using it to regulate emerging nations (China and India come to mind) so they can't compete with the western nations. They are fear mongering their view points.
ill
Superstar
This is the last 2000 years. You can clearly see the Earth heats and cools. I don't believe cars and fossil fuel plants were around in the Medieval Warm Period yet it was hotter then than it is now.
How about the last 425K years for a better time frame reference. You can see we are in the 'Warmer' part of the cycle and as the cycle goes, cooling will come next.
Where did I talk about IPCC ?@Liu Kang
The reality of the situation is the IPCC is a fear mongering organization that inaccurately paints a portrait of "global warming".
The parts I enjoy most are their revised estimates downward in the 2000's yet countries like China have exponentially increased emissions of greenhouse gases.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203646004577213244084429540
I was just pointing that you were wrong about man-impact on the rise of temperatures and just debunked the two examples you gave. IPCC might inaccurate about global warming but the chart you linked DOES show a rise in temperatures doesn't it ?
ill
Superstar
As I've said in numerous posts, I don't disagree that we have global warming in the past decade. I'm all for furthering efficiencies in this world to reduce our footprint and make this world a better place for the future. What I am disagreeing with is the human impact on the change. IMO the fear mongering that Al and co are doing are to further their economic benefits. While a by product of it may be a better world, he is disingenuous and spinning "facts" to portray a brutal image of it being all humans fault. I think its a natural cycle and his interests just happened to align at a time when warming was the trend.
So because some rises were natural, that means that ALL rises should be ?
This is the last 2000 years. You can clearly see the Earth heats and cools. I don't believe cars and fossil fuel plants were around in the Medieval Warm Period yet it was hotter then than it is now.
So because, the rise during the Vikings era wasn't due to fossil energies, the one we experiencing now can't be because of us ?
Is this your logic ?
Come on man, this chart is from the blog of a unknown engineer who doesn't even work in climatology. His blog states that his posts are "random thoughts about hydrogen, engineering, business and life by Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum" : http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/the-gift-of-chaos/
How about the last 425K years for a better time frame reference. You can see we are in the 'Warmer' part of the cycle and as the cycle goes, cooling will come next.
Plus, he posted the Daily Mail "ice sheet growth" (that was debunked by SkepticalScience) you posted earlier in this thread on his blog : http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/
ill
Superstar
No, my logic shows that regardless of what humans were doing at that point in time the natural cycle of heating and cooling was still going on and the time frame we are in now is a "warming" one regardless of what humans have done in the past 100-200 years.
http://green.autoblog.com/2013/09/17/scotland-plans-to-go-electric-ban-gas-burners-by-2050/
guess scotland is far more liberal than the rest of the world.
Yea, its good for the environment, and business.
ill
Superstar
- Nature Magazine
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...artland-institute-editorials-debates/2983941/
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-global-temperatures-increasing/
^ The anti skeptical science website
We will agree to disagree because we disagree on definitions. What is a "fact" to you ?
Human impact on climate change is a consensus in the science world.
It's backed by plenty of studies and yes it's only arrays of presumptions but how can it be otherwise ? How would you want it displayed ? Just tell me because I don't know how could this info be "factual" to you. What do you need ?
What science says is that since the Industrial Revolution, the temperatures have risen faster than ever and this is that's why it's not natural considering the change is too fast to be done without a third-party impact. Yes, it may ALSO be because a heating/cooling cycle, but this heating process is definitely faster than it is supposed to be and that's where the human impact is
First of all, your chart doesn't state how the data was retrieved. I google-image'd that chart and can only find references with that image in climate skeptics websites. I cannot find the very source of that chart to know on what it was based. I don't refute its legitimacy but I don't know who did it, so can you provide me the source ?
And your logic shows that temperatures rise and fall, that's all. At that scale it cannot prove anything else.
As stated earlier in the video you posted YOURSELF the "proof" (because we will disagree that it is one) about human activity is not in the cycle (because said cycles DO exist) but in the speed of the rise which is faster than ever recorded.
But you know it's 1:22am where I live so I'm stopping the argument here and we will agree to disagree, unfortunately.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 42,423
- Reputation
- 3,805
- Daps
- 152,087
- Reppin
- black love, unity, and music
I'll restate it since you have a propensity to meet direct questions with sarcasm and arrogance.
1. You admit the climate is changing.
1.A. Why do you reject the notion that humans are to cause for it, despite evidence supporting this hypothesis
1.B. Why do you reject the spread of data, variability of sources, and range of interest in the topic?
2. You say (while supporting Monckton) that climate change is a conspiracy by banking interests to indirectly charge people for carbon usage
2.A. Lets say you're against this process? Simply, why are you against this?
2.B. what solutions do you have in place, if any, to address climate change?
Its funny how you came in here attempting to direct the thread with fukking questions, when you COMPLETELY ignored the OP. So until you reread the OP and comment on that fukk up, i'm not answering shyt. You aint running shyt friend.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 42,423
- Reputation
- 3,805
- Daps
- 152,087
- Reppin
- black love, unity, and music
