If you deny man-made global warming...

[Tubbsalot]

you do realize that global warming has existed before humans, and is an entirely natural phenomenon, yes? actual scientists agree.

the only way to totally kill your carbon footprint is to stop exhaling. because you produce CO2 with every breath you exhale.

Christ almighty, this is what I mean.

1. "natural means good!!!"
2. Link to the Daily fucking Mail
3. "why don't you just STOP BREATHING lol because that makes carbon dioxide!!!"

[Revolutopia]

Of coarse it is possible to pay off an entire filed to tell us the globe is warming. It is not only possible, but also very easy! Also there are 7 billion people on the Earth, of coarse some of them will be scientist who are stupid and gluble. And others...well, I'd fudge figures too if I had a gun pointed to my head...

Yes, as we all know Greenpeace and other Environmental groups are just exploding with money that they are able to bribe the vast majority of scientists so they will lie about their life's work. While, the poor oil,coal, car, etc companies are struggling so hard to find honest scientists to set the record straight.

[The Aryan Nations]

im pretty sure that i can come up with mountains of data that says global warming is natural. such as, say, the Cretaceous period.

ah, excellent. now, oh wise paleoclimatologist, tell us the mechanism by which there was a cretaceous hot house. and then, would you please explain the mechanism for the current warming? you do know these things, right?

yes- carbon. mainly from Volcanos.

and... wait for it..

Fauna breathing.

And the doom and gloom merchants, who point to the threat to the polar bear from the melting North Pole, are wrong.

as written here

Even if our climate is changing, it is not all bad, because past cold periods have killed twice as many people as warm periods. Mr Avery said: "Not all of these researchers who doubt man-made climate change would describe themselves as global warming sceptics but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.

Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people.

[Free Soviets]

the only way to totally kill your carbon footprint is to stop exhaling. because you produce CO2 with every breath you exhale.

{sigh}
and what happens to that CO2 next? and how is it formed in the first place?
there seems to have been a rather constant amount of life running around for quite a while now. doesn't your hypothesis here - that breathing results in increased CO2 levels - mean that we should see a more or less constant upwards trend of atmospheric carbon? is that in fact what we see? if not, why not?

[Tubbsalot]

and... wait for it..

Fauna breathing.

no no no no nononononon oh my fucking god

[Aquophia]

I hate to get involved in another thread like this, but ill answer the question.

The problem with global warming (or is climate change the pc term now?) is that it has become way too much of a political agenda rather than an unbiased scientific study. There are several government organizations whose funding depends on global warming being future catastrophe, so they will say anything to avoid losing thier funding (and thier careers). Mix in overzealous politicans like Al Gore, who make billions on preaching the word and you have trouble.

That is what happens when you mix science with politics unfortunately. You end up with a bunch of exaggerations from both sides and it is hard to tell what is really true and what is not. Sure the earth is warming, and one day it will cool and then warm again as it has been doing since it's origination. These things we cant stop and it's foolish and arrogant to think we can. We want to "save the planet", but we havnet even learned to save ourselves yet...

[Kalaspia-Shimarata]

Every summer in Sydney, we get temperatures 30^oC+ 80-95% of the summer and some days are 40^o+. Last winter was the coldest winter on record, this summer we have had about 3 days above 30 and everytime the temperature is 40^o, we get the Labor Party coming out telling us it is because of global warming, and last summer was the hottest summer in 40 years where they tell us it is the hottest summer in 40 years, the globe is warming, even though it means that the summer was just as hot or if not hotter 40 years ago and they expect us to belive the globe is warming. People are not ignorant enough to belive the government's stupid lies any more

[The Aryan Nations]

you do realize that global warming has existed before humans, and is an entirely natural phenomenon, yes? actual scientists agree.

the only way to totally kill your carbon footprint is to stop exhaling. because you produce CO2 with every breath you exhale.

Christ almighty, this is what I mean.

1. "natural means good!!!"
2. Link to the Daily fucking Mail
3. "why don't you just STOP BREATHING lol because that makes carbon dioxide!!!"

1. Natural means its not my fucking problem. and cold periods killed more than twice the number of species than warm.
2. which is reporting on a scientific study carried out by experts.
3. do you deny the fact? cellular respiration produces CO2. the entire point of the statement is to make you realize how ridiculous your ideas are.

[The Grand World Order]

I won't say that people don't have any effect at all on the climate. However, the -vast majority- of it is a natural thing.

Additionally, with green activities popping up everywhere and becoming hugely successful, how come we're still getting an increase in global temperature? By the logic of, "It's all carbon emissions!", we should have been seeing the same temperatures in the '79.

If you look at carbon emissions charts and global temperature charts, you'll see a very, very slight positive correlation. Keep in mind that correlation =/= proof of something, as I first learned when doing college-level data analysis for the first time.

[The Aryan Nations]

the only way to totally kill your carbon footprint is to stop exhaling. because you produce CO2 with every breath you exhale.

{sigh}
and what happens to that CO2 next? and how is it formed in the first place?
there seems to have been a rather constant amount of life running around for quite a while now. doesn't your hypothesis here - that breathing results in increased CO2 levels - mean that we should see a more or less constant upwards trend of atmospheric carbon? is that in fact what we see? if not, why not?

someone seems to not understand that photosynthesis counterbalances cellular respiration...

photosynthesis- 6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Cellular Respiration- C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + ~38 ATP

wait.. whats that? THE SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 IS PRODUCED AS IS USED? SHOCKER.

[Trotskylvania]

No one mentioned Al Gore until you brought him up bucko. Gore's oafishness has no bearing on the discussion, as he's a celebrity, not a scientist. The real scientists who study weather and climate have amassed mountains of data that point to one conclusion: climate change is happening and we're driving it. The only thing left is a discussion of how to proceed to mitigate the damage.

im pretty sure that i can come up with mountains of data that says global warming is natural. such as, say, the Cretaceous period.

Right now, tho, it is anthropogenic.

The dynamics of world climate systems are well understood. One of the most important factors, behind insolation, is the proportion of elements in the atmosphere that trap infrared radiation. CO2 is one of the most common of these, and most importantly, it has a distinct cycle. Carbon is sequestered by geological processes, while some is released as a result of volcanic activity.

We call this sequestered carbon "fossil fuels". When we burn coal, oil, methane, etc., we release carbon into the atmosphere that had been out of the carbon cycle for often millions of years. The increased proportion of carbon dioxide results in the planet retaining a greater amount of heat energy. Q.E.D., global warming.

[Revolutopia]

Additionally, with green activities popping up everywhere and becoming hugely successful, how come we're still getting an increase in global temperature? By the logic of, "It's all carbon emissions!", we should have been seeing the same temperatures in the '79.

Because, we are still polluting a large scale, but now we also have China and India in the game of giving off thousands or pollutants.

[New Heathera]

I'll like to re-state my point that people don't believe in global warming because they don't WANT to believe in bad news that's going to take effort to change. Especially corporations that will be hurt by environmental changes. The CEOs will rather keep their pockets flowing with cash and think about "right now" than spend more money to save the Earth years from now.

you do realize that global warming has existed before humans, and is an entirely natural phenomenon, yes? actual scientists agree.

the only way to totally kill your carbon footprint is to stop exhaling. because you produce CO2 with every breath you exhale.

And even more scientists agree that humanity is causing global warming.

[Tubbsalot]

1. Natural means its not my fucking problem. and cold periods killed more than twice the number of species than warm.

Also natural: murder. Not your problem: being murdered.

Logic: flawless.

2. which is reporting on a scientific study carried out by experts.

It's the Daily christfucking Mail. They could report the sky was blue and that would be a compelling reason to doublecheck whether it was actually red. They misunderstand, exaggerate, and outright lie as a matter of course. They're as bad as Fox News, if not worse.

Find me a link to the peer-reviewed scientific study, thanks, because any other link is about as useful as your own baseless assertions.

3. do you deny the fact? cellular respiration produces CO2. the entire point of the statement is to make you realize how ridiculous your ideas are.

You don't have the first clue what you're on about. Carbon in the biological cycle is essentially irrelevant to global warming.

[Avenio]

1. its an example.

An excruciatingly poor one.

0/10 See me after class.

2. global warming is natural. the fact that the earth has cycles that it repeats is better proven by the fact of the age of the period cited.

Yeah. It took millions of years for the kind of changes necessary for conditions during the Cretaceous to come about. We're modifying the climate at a much, much, much faster rate. As in, come out of the icebox planet in a few centuries fast.

also natural. the weak will die, the strong survive.

Ah, yes. Ignorant ITG arguments really help your case.

yes- carbon. mainly from Volcanos.

Funny thing about that. You know the volcano in Iceland that erupted last year? The one with the unpronounceable name? You know how it cancelled flights all across Europe, right? The volcano emitted less CO2 per day than just the cancelled air traffic alone.

[Imperial Parhe]

Several trillions of dollars of harm, if we're looking for complete carbon neutrality. The possible cost of the modern economy.

Not that mind you the consequences of not acting aren't higher, sustainability should be our aim though, not stopping global warming, at this point, even if we could stop it, the actions required of us are far beyond our actual capabilities, with the science available today. Miracles may happen, so long as the science is focused that way, but actual requirements are so drastic very few could realistically implement them.

So money (even in the triliions) suddenly becomes more important than the entire population (human and animal) of Earth?

If you bothered to read his post and the one he responded to, you would know he never said that.
He just said that there were some harms, but never said they would outweigh the benefits, if global warming is man made.

[The Aryan Nations]

An excruciatingly poor one.

0/10 See me after class.

>implying that the highest levels of carbon ever in the atmosphere also had the highest levels of life ever on earth is a bad example.

Yeah. It took millions of years for the kind of changes necessary for conditions during the Cretaceous to come about. We're modifying the climate at a much, much, much faster rate. As in, come out of the icebox planet in a few centuries fast.

global warming is going to cause an ice age? that is the stupidest thing i have ever read.

Ah, yes. Ignorant ITG arguments really help your case.

hmm. interesting. you liberals generally accept evolution.

Funny thing about that. You know the volcano in Iceland that erupted last year? The one with the unpronounceable name? You know how it cancelled flights all across Europe, right? The volcano emitted less CO2 per day than just the cancelled air traffic alone.

irrelevant. a Catalyst is not a cause.

[Free Soviets]

ah, excellent. now, oh wise paleoclimatologist, tell us the mechanism by which there was a cretaceous hot house. and then, would you please explain the mechanism for the current warming? you do know these things, right?

yes- carbon. mainly from Volcanos.

for the cretaceous, sorta. but volcanoes have close to zero effect on the current carbon budget. try again.

and... wait for it..

Fauna breathing.

source that shit, as i don't believe you know what you are talking about

[The Aryan Nations]

Also natural: murder. Not your problem: being murdered.

Logic: flawless.

violence is natural. i accept that many dumb people die, and i enjoy that they do us the favor of removing themselves from the gene pool.

It's the Daily christfucking Mail. They could report the sky was blue and that would be a compelling reason to doublecheck whether it was actually red. They misunderstand, exaggerate, and outright lie as a matter of course. They're as bad as Fox News, if not worse.

Find me a link to the peer-reviewed scientific study, thanks, because any other link is about as useful as your own baseless assertions.

k

You don't have the first clue what you're on about. Carbon in the biological cycle is essentially irrelevant to global warming.

so there is a difference between 1 atom of CO2 and another? i think we're done here.

[Costa Fiero]

As someone who is in the "it is happening but I feel that the man made claim is dubious" camp, I don't like it how some people tend to think that their way/view is the only one that matters and they have no time for others, reiterating the same boring stuff every single time and then trying to claim some moral superiority.

What I also don't like is that most environmentalists go on about the problems without the solutions. Nuclear power for instance is a carbon-free energy source that is long lasting and reliable (unlike wind and solar power). But this is unacceptable in the environmentalist camp as a viable power source. You only have to look at what's happening in Germany to understand the problem.

[Helcasia]

2. global warming is natural. the fact that the earth has cycles that it repeats is better proven by the fact of the age of the period cited.

Yes, climate change is natural...but the planet should be cooling down, not heating up.
Between each Ice Age there is an interval of ~10,000 years. The last Ice Age was 10,000 years ago.

[Free Soviets]

{sigh}
and what happens to that CO2 next? and how is it formed in the first place?
there seems to have been a rather constant amount of life running around for quite a while now. doesn't your hypothesis here - that breathing results in increased CO2 levels - mean that we should see a more or less constant upwards trend of atmospheric carbon? is that in fact what we see? if not, why not?

someone seems to not understand that photosynthesis counterbalances cellular respiration...

photosynthesis- 6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Cellular Respiration- C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + ~38 ATP

wait.. whats that? THE SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 IS PRODUCED AS IS USED? SHOCKER.

so what you are saying is that breathing doesn't cause an increase in atmospheric carbon. and therefore anything you said about it was just irrelevant bullshit specifically intended to waste everyone's time. glad we cleared that up.

now about that actually occurring increase in atmospheric carbon from digging up fossil carbon and burning it, and the extremely well known effects thereof...

[The Aryan Nations]

for the cretaceous, sorta. but volcanoes have close to zero effect on the current carbon budget. try again.

unimportant. i was discussing the Cretaceous. the entire point was that the earth has gone through this before.

source that shit, as i don't believe you know what you are talking about

photosynthesis- 6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Cellular Respiration- C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + ~38 ATP

whats that? they produce the same amount of CO2 as the other Removes?

unfortunately, plants do not produce at the same rate as we do.

2. global warming is natural. the fact that the earth has cycles that it repeats is better proven by the fact of the age of the period cited.

Yes, climate change is natural...but the planet should be cooling down, not heating up.
Between each Ice Age there is an interval of ~10,000 years. The last Ice Age was 10,000 years ago.

its 10-20,000, i read.

[The Aryan Nations]

someone seems to not understand that photosynthesis counterbalances cellular respiration...

photosynthesis- 6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Cellular Respiration- C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + ~38 ATP

wait.. whats that? THE SAME AMOUNT OF CO2 IS PRODUCED AS IS USED? SHOCKER.

so what you are saying is that breathing doesn't cause an increase in atmospheric carbon. and therefore anything you said about it was just irrelevant bullshit specifically intended to waste everyone's time. glad we cleared that up.

now about that actually occurring increase in atmospheric carbon from digging up fossil carbon and burning it, and the extremely well known effects thereof...

the rates of the process are totally different. which you would know with a basic high school education.

[The Black Forrest]

As someone who is in the "it is happening but I feel that the man made claim is dubious" camp, I don't like it how some people tend to think that their way/view is the only one that matters and they have no time for others, reiterating the same boring stuff every single time and then trying to claim some moral superiority.

What I also don't like is that most environmentalists go on about the problems without the solutions. Nuclear power for instance is a carbon-free energy source that is long lasting and reliable (unlike wind and solar power). But this is unacceptable in the environmentalist camp as a viable power source. You only have to look at what's happening in Germany to understand the problem.

So?......it's not a problem unless there is a solution?

Germany also does the nuclear thing different. The US tends to bury spent rods. I believe the Germans are recycling......