Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

Give me your best shot

Discussions on 9/11, moon landing etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#1  Postby Teague » Sep 07, 2011 8:42 am

That's right, I'm calling shenanigans on this idea that GW is natural and not "man made" because the Rothschild have invented it so they can make trillions on carbon tax or whatever it is (not that they saw a business opportunity and went with it I suppose?)

Mars IS NOT going through global warming itself. Lets see who we have

1) A meteorologist (a weather man) saying the ice caps are receeding on mars thus proving we're going through a warming period which is natural.

2) A planetary physicist from Oxford saying (yeah Iknow AfA)that Mars, like a lot of planets have a wobble and at this moment in time, the wobble has turned the ice caps closer to the sun. (And no, he's not on Al Gor's paycheck)

The science is in, GW is man made so fucking deal with it - unless you'd like to prove me wrong which I'd love you to try and do.
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#2  Postby Teague » Sep 07, 2011 9:50 am

:whistle: :yawn2:
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#3  Postby JoeB » Sep 07, 2011 10:30 am

Teague wrote:
unless you'd like to prove me wrong which I'd love you to try and do.


Image

:popcorn:

(I'm on your side here btw, just making a shortcut to the final arguments these sort of discussions end up at) ;)
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." - W. B. Yeats
User avatar
JoeB
RS Donator
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 1400
Age: 28
Male

Country: European Union (NL)
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#4  Postby Teague » Sep 07, 2011 1:04 pm

It's strangley silent. I think they're probably thinking about posting how it was warmer 400 years ago like the mediteraean, though I'd love to here the data on this - or that Iceland ice sheet is getting thicker by 6cm a year!!! (only what they don'ttell you is that it's only getting thicker at elevations exceeding 1500m. Below that level, it is receeding at 2cm a year,

edit:

Image

THIS IMAGE WOULD SUGGEST VERY LITTLE OF iCELAND IS ABOVE 1500M

EDIT 2
I wouldcontend that the increase in ice above 1500m is due to an increase in snowfall caused by an increase in water vapour (as the ice caps melt). At 1500m it's cold enough not to melt - though this is all speculation.
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#5  Postby JoeB » Sep 07, 2011 2:14 pm

One that I've heard was that it was warmer in the medieval period. What they don't say is where exactly.
AFAIK they're correct about it being warmer in Europe, but I have no idea if this was global or not.
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." - W. B. Yeats
User avatar
JoeB
RS Donator
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 1400
Age: 28
Male

Country: European Union (NL)
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#6  Postby Teague » Sep 07, 2011 2:24 pm

There were areas in europe that were cooler too and those have been used to prop up this BS argument but the data they used is a tiny fraction of the big picture that they fail to mention - why though? Why go to such extremes to fabricate ur own data to tell you ur lying?
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#7  Postby Teague » Sep 07, 2011 2:38 pm

!!!!!!!!!FUCK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

310000 scientists sign a petition to say my argument is wrong!

Fuck I've been rumbled!

oh...

wait one cotton picking moment :ask:

So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 "experts" on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!

OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something.

Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."

W. Kline Bolton, M.D., is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."
Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/525 ... rming.html



and go here

In other words, the OISM signatories represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutin ... oject.html


well pheweeee I thought for a moment i mig....

No i didn't :lol:

Fuck whata bunch of disingenouous tools. Still no answer though - I bet they busy comiling their posts and then go, "Dammit, he beat us to our own point and destroyed it - back to the drawing board (again)
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#8  Postby rEvolutionist » Sep 07, 2011 2:49 pm

someone should tell them that an MD isn't a PhD.
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#9  Postby rEvolutionist » Sep 07, 2011 2:51 pm

By the way, it was hotter in 1666 in London. How do you explain that then Mr I know everything about climate??
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#10  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Sep 07, 2011 2:57 pm

wow Teague, haven't you heard of CLIMATEGATE???? It proves GW wrong forever. ;)

Seriously though... If you are looking for some debunking, here is a good start: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 24725.html
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6742
Age: 21
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#11  Postby newolder » Sep 07, 2011 3:01 pm

at least teh science is progressing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63AbaX1dE7I
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 2193
Age: 3
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#12  Postby Mike_L » Sep 07, 2011 3:04 pm

No such thing as global warming. There's only....

Image

GLOBULAR WARMING !

:grin:
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 8844
Age: 46
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#13  Postby Teague » Sep 07, 2011 3:31 pm

I'm having difficulty finding relevant info on this, can anyone help out or have I been rumbled?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 445-1207r/

“Global Warming” had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel “State of Fear,” brilliantly juxtaposes the world’s current political embrace of “global warming” with the popular embrace of the “science” of eugenics a century ago. For nearly 50 years, from the late 1800s through the first half of the 20th century, there grew a common political acceptance by the world’s thinkers, political leaders and media elite that the “science” of eugenics was settled science. There were a few lonely voices trying to be heard in the wilderness in opposition to this bogus science, but they were ridiculed or ignored.

Believers in eugenics argued that we could improve the human race by controlling reproduction. The most respected scientists from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other bastions of intellectual rigor retreated to a complex on Long Island named Cold Spring Harbor. Their support came from the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman fortune working with the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, State and other agencies.

The “science” was not lacking important public supporters. Theodore Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and Woodrow Wilson were enthusiastic believers. The theory won approval of Supreme Court justices, leaders in higher education and Nobel Prize winners. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was one of the most vocal adherents. She established the first “birth control” clinic in 1916.

They believed that “the best” human beings were not having as many children as inferior ones — the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, Blacks, degenerates, the unfit and the “feeble minded.” Sanger said “fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.” H.G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Roosevelt said, “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.

Twenty-nine states passed laws allowing sterilization. Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were sterilized — some legally. The Germans were the most progressive. They had help. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists, one of whom was Josef Mengele.

Ultimately the “mental defectives” in Germany were brought to newly built houses where they were interviewed. They were then shown to a back room where they were gassed. Eventually the German program was expanded into a vast network that killed 10 million undesirables. After World War II many of the public adherents to the pseudoscience of eugenics went silent. Colleges removed the textbooks and stopped teaching it.

But not everyone went away. As recently as July 24, 2003 Tony Platt testified before the California Senate Judiciary Committee on S.R. 20 relative to eugenics. He agreed that the state should apologize for its actions.

One must ask, “How in the world did university researchers come to conclusions that defended this outrageous affront to society?” A look back at the research concluded that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This is not unusual. It is very easy to believe that the settled science regarding climate change is just as suspicious, and indeed may be another example of pseudo-science capturing the imagination of politicians, actors and the media elite who have a desperate need to embrace some “science” which may force us to change the way we live our lives. H. L. Mencken once wrote, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.” We see pictures of huge blocks of ice crashing into the sea from the Antarctic Peninsula, which comprises about 2 percent of the continent. The fact that the remaining 98 percent of Antarctica is growing by 26.8 gigatons of ice per year is ignored.

We are told today that human activity is causing a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide levels that is responsible for “global warming.” While a congressional delegation was visiting the Antarctic expedition in January of 2003 we were shown the results of the Vostok ice-sheet cores where temperatures and CO2 levels were measured as far as 400,000 years ago. At that time, the level of CO2 was 280 parts per million parts of atmosphere (ppm), about what it was 20 years ago. The levels of CO2 and temperature rode up and down in consonance over 400,00 years. “Who,” I asked, “was burning the fossil fuels 400,000 years ago?” I was treated as though I was rude.

It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called “carbon sinking.” The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Then this, “the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned.” If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don’t they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives.

In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world’s production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored.

When it comes to methane, another greenhouse gas, termites are responsible for 11 percent of the world’s production from natural sources. Seventy-six percent comes from wetlands, which provide habitat conducive to bacteria, which produce 145 million metric tons of methane per year during the decomposition of organic material. It is curious that the very alarmists on climate change are alarmists on saving and increasing wetlands.

It becomes clear from the literature — not to mention documentary films — produced by the alarmists, that if human beings do not change the way we live the planet is doomed. This is not the first charge against human behavior. Many of you will remember the “scientific” studies 30 years ago about the destruction of the ozone layer, particularly at the poles, that would reduce the atmosphere’s ability to stop infrared rays from the sun. We would see increasing incidence of skin cancer and increasing temperatures. It was theorized that this was caused by the increased production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that were used — as Freon — in refrigeration units. CONTINUES...
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#14  Postby rEvolutionist » Sep 08, 2011 1:15 am

Teague wrote:I'm having difficulty finding relevant info on this, can anyone help out or have I been rumbled?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 445-1207r/

“Global Warming” had a precursor in capturing the hearts and minds of the world. Michael Crichton, in his novel “State of Fear,” brilliantly juxtaposes the world’s current political embrace of “global warming” with the popular embrace of the “science” of eugenics a century ago.


That should be Dr Michael Crichton, the eminent climatologist...
God is a carrot.
Carrots exist.
Therefore God exists (and is a carrot).
User avatar
rEvolutionist
Banned User
 
Posts: 13678
Male

Country: dystopia
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#15  Postby eric8476 » Sep 08, 2011 1:46 am

i think the mistakes of some scientists should not debunk the whole issue. what about piltdown man? archeology is still going on strong about looking for a missing link. it is possible that the oil reserves of the planet will run out before major climate issues from greenhouse gases or polutants.

in the article comparing how scientist accepted eugenics then and how climate changes are accepted now is not fair. science is progressing with it's evaluations but it is not the same follies that the eugenic evaluations demonstrated. the parallels are not similar.
eric8476
 
Name: Eric Smith
Posts: 101
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#16  Postby Ihavenofingerprints » Sep 08, 2011 2:04 am

Teague wrote:I'm having difficulty finding relevant info on this, can anyone help out or have I been rumbled?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 445-1207r/


He is just picking and choosing data that suits his position. It is easy to do. And he keeps bringing up the old "the co2 levels in the past were higher" canard, which can be explained in 5 seconds with a google search.

People love to think by listing the same old canards in an article, they have debunked a whole field of science. Do we find this sort of argument in the scientific literature? No, that is because the cherry picking argument would fail miserably in any review process.
User avatar
Ihavenofingerprints
 
Posts: 6742
Age: 21
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#17  Postby Teague » Sep 09, 2011 2:31 pm

The solar system is not warming up. a few moons and a planet does not equal the solar system. If it was warming up, wouldn't every planet be warming up also, including our moon. Strangely, that is happening - can anyone tell me why?
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#18  Postby Weaver » Sep 09, 2011 2:40 pm

JoeB wrote:One that I've heard was that it was warmer in the medieval period. What they don't say is where exactly.
AFAIK they're correct about it being warmer in Europe, but I have no idea if this was global or not.

The so-called Medieval Warm Period was a localized weather pattern in Europe - it was not a global warm period at all.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 16976
Age: 46
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#19  Postby Teague » Sep 09, 2011 2:46 pm

Weaver wrote:
JoeB wrote:One that I've heard was that it was warmer in the medieval period. What they don't say is where exactly.
AFAIK they're correct about it being warmer in Europe, but I have no idea if this was global or not.

The so-called Medieval Warm Period was a localized weather pattern in Europe - it was not a global warm period at all.


Yes this is correct though it was some parts of north america and iceland too. However, GLOBAL temperatures, the only thing we're concerned with here, did not increase.
User avatar
Teague
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 3014

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calling out your Bullshit on Global Warming

#20  Postby Oldskeptic » Sep 15, 2011 3:03 am

Teague wrote:I'm having difficulty finding relevant info on this, can anyone help out or have I been rumbled?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 445-1207r/


90% of the world's scientists that are qualified in this field have come to the conclusion that current global warming is caused by human activity over the last 250+ years, but John Linder Rep Georgia knows better. And he can prove it by citing eugenics. The dumb fuck doesn't seem to understand that the eugenics he is talking about was a social movement, and that not one supporter of eugenics that he named was a scientist.

Something else that he doesn't seem to understand is that eugenics is science and it works, selective breeding of domestic animals is eugenics in action. The problem with the movement that Galton started is that politicians ect... without scientific expertise took it over and used it in an unscientific way.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 4362
Age: 57
Male

Print view this post

Next

Return to Conspiracy Theories

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest