co2 me hole

Elite_Etnisa

namelessguy wrote: »

Did the really need such a convoluted reason to market "new cars". It seems to me that there have been new cars sold since the first car was produced.

If you use just a small bit of your brain you will understand my sentence and also you wouldnt be that stupid to understand whats meant by "new cars"

Obviously mister i wanted to say hybrid cars but some people are too stupid to understand.

And if co2 emmision from cars was such a big problem there would be cars running on water . But why not ? Oil Petrol Business , theres already cars running on water but no , as long as theres petrol , diesel , oil they wont be for anyones use.

Elite_Etnisa

King Mob wrote: »

Ummm...
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

Im not in the mood of reading but please stop ...

Diagram shows

since 1880 to 2000 it has only increased by 0.8 ? Really are you kidding me ?

I dont give a damn because its nothing , its not going to affect me , my kids, my kids kids and sooo on till human being dies ;(

sligopark

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think you understand what the journals are.

I think I might and folk perhaps blindly missed their hype and their sponsors

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain how it is a religion?

Anthropogenic climate change, much in common with religion and present day science lacks conclusive evidence and agreement amongst those discussing it.

Like religion and science, anthropogenic climate change is a belief system.

As I said I am a sceptic and that extends to science and anthropogenic climate change.

namelessguy

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

If you put just a small bit of your brain you will understand my sentence and also you wouldnt be that stupid to understand whats meant by "new cars"

Obviously mister i wanted to say hybrid cars but some people are too stupid to understand.

And if co2 emmision from cars was such a big problem there would be cars running on water . But why not ? Oil Petrol Business , theres already cars running on water but no , as long as theres petrol , diesel , oil they wont be for anyones use.

People are too stupid to understand the term hybrid car so instead you went with the much more ambiguous "new car"? If you wanted to say it why didn't you? It's not as if conventional fossil fuel burning cars are going to stop working tomorrow and we all need to rush out to buy hybrids or electric cars.

Can you provide a link to cars which run on water?

Are personal insults really the best you can do?

Elite_Etnisa

namelessguy wrote: »

Can you provide a link to cars which run on water?

Are personal insults really the best you can do?

http://www.mobilemag.com/2006/05/31/prototype-car-runs-100-miles-on-four-ounces-of-water-as-fuel/

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm

I didnt mean to insult you but not understanding my structure of a sentence or trying to be smart is not the best start of a discussion.

Yes i know no one is forced but they are still out there for people which but those cars. A production of a hybrid car makes more harm to our surroundings than an average use of a petrol car.

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

I think I might and folk perhaps blindly missed their hype and their sponsors

I've lost you. What are you on about?

sligopark wrote: »

Anthropogenic climate change, much in common with religion and present day science lacks conclusive evidence and agreement amongst those discussing it.

Like religion and science, anthropogenic climate change is a belief system.

But Anthropogenic climate change does actually have conclusive evidence and it does have agreement with the vast vast majority of climate scientists.

By your incorrect definition, belief in conspiracy theories is also a religion.

sligopark wrote: »

As I said I am a sceptic and that extends to science and anthropogenic climate change.

So then what evidence would convince you that Anthropogenic climate change was real?

King Mob

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

Im not in the mood of reading but please stop

Well why read when your mind is already made up, right?

sligopark

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

A production of a hybrid car makes more harm to our surroundings than an average use of a petrol car.

whilst I don't disbelieve you - can you give a quick explanation or reference please - I have heard this before stated casually but never fully explained.

Elite_Etnisa

sligopark wrote: »

whilst I don't disbelieve you - can you give a quick explanation or reference please - I have heard this before stated casually but never fully explained.

Google doesnt do any harm ,its been proven few times i have even watched a programme on discovery how they make those engines . I can not give you a refference now but if you are interested look for it.

2 x UP

No thats not the case , i will read it later no worries , mi mind is always open and my opinnion can change .

sligopark

King Mob wrote: »

I've lost you. What are you on about?

of course - it was confusing.

King Mob wrote: »

But Anthropogenic climate change does actually have conclusive evidence and it does have agreement with the vast vast majority of climate scientists.

No it does not and no it does not.

King Mob wrote: »

By your incorrect definition, belief in conspiracy theories is also a religion.

I said religion was in itself, like belief in anthropogenic climate change, a belief system.

King Mob wrote: »

So then what evidence would convince you that Anthropogenic climate change was real?

What convinced you? Did you investigate journal bias on the subject and bias against the presentation of evidence of climate change being non anthropogenic? And further the economics behind its favour?

sligopark

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

I can not give you a refference now but if you are interested look for it.

thank you

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

of course - it was confusing.

So your point was...

sligopark wrote: »

No it does not and no it does not.

Well that's simply untrue.
Practically very single scientific body supports the idea of Anthropogenic Climate change.
A recent paper analysing the consensus found that:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

More details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

And as for the convincing evidence: it's in the papers being published by climate researchers.
But please by all means, ignore all that if you'd like.

sligopark wrote: »

I said religion was in itself like belief in anthropogenic climate change, a belief system.

The if that's you're only critiera for "being like a religion" then conspiracy theories fit that exactly.

sligopark wrote: »

What convinced you?

Ultimately the dishonesty and shenanigans of the people denying it. It was indistinguishable from the tactic used by all the other pseudo scientists.

sligopark wrote: »

Did you investigate journal bias on the subject and bias against the presentation of evidence of climate change being non anthropogenic?

Yes. And it's the silly cries of bias to cover the lack of science for the deniers.
There are a few serious researchers who aren't convinced of Anthropogenic climate change and publish papers unhindered.

sligopark wrote: »

And further the economics behind its favour?

Well no, because that has no barings on the science.
You realise there's quite a large financial incentive to causing doubt about ACC right?

but notice how none of this actually answers the question I asked you.

Elite_Etnisa

sligopark wrote: »

thank you

Anyhow, I suggest reading:
Prius Versus Hummer: A Nickel for Your Thoughts:
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200711/…
Battery Toxicity: http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxici…
Hummer versus Prius: "Dust to Dust" Report Misleads the Media and Public with Bad Science:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_…
Prius Versus HUMMER: Exploding the Myth:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_New…
Giving Directions: No, the Hummer Actually Isn't More Energy Efficient Than A Prius, Let's Put This "Debate" To Rest:
http://www.betterworldclub.com/articles/…
Heard the One About the Hummer?:
http://www.toyota.com/html/dyncon/2007/s…

Now im out of here good time reading.

sligopark

King Mob wrote: »

Well that's simply untrue.

really

King Mob wrote: »

A recent paper analysing the consensus found that:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

and you are willing to ignore the widely publicised issue of bias

King Mob wrote: »

But please by all means, ignore all that if you'd like.

I will take your lead on that.

King Mob wrote: »

The if that's you're only critiera for "being like a religion" then conspiracy theories fit that exactly.

if you continue to say so

King Mob wrote: »

Ultimately the dishonesty and shenanigans of the people denying it. It was indistinguishable from the tactic used by all the other pseudo scientists.

pseudo scientists? Do you mean those challenging the 'norm'? Those like Einstein etc who were decried as cranks?

King Mob wrote: »

And it's the silly cries of bias to cover the lack of science for the deniers.

Deniers? OH classic Godwin reliance for those without an argument.

King Mob wrote: »

but notice how none of this actually answers the question I asked you.

Given your lack of argument and reduction of the argument to Godwin and 'Denial' forgive me thinking you are an omnipresent troll.

Anyhow given as my sceptic position and your clinging to your beliefs this will soon become a situation of 'my c--k is bigger than your c--k' which on an internet forum is unproveable.

I will leave you to troll out other posters on here and force all other sceptics on here to proclaim aloud 'conspiracy theory is a religion,' and destroy this thread rightly discussing the theory that CO2 anthropogenic climate change is in fact a lie.

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

really

and you are willing to ignore the widely publicised issue of bias

So then please show some of this evidence?
And what about the statements from all scientific bodies?

sligopark wrote: »

I will take your lead on that.

Well I'm not actually ignoring anything.

sligopark wrote: »

if you continue to say so

But I'm using the exact same logic you are using to label science and ACC as religions.
Belief in conspiracy theories is a belief system, therefore by your statements a religion.

Now I don't actually hold this as true, I'm just using it as an example of the flaw in your claim.

sligopark wrote: »

pseudo scientists? Do you mean those challenging the 'norm'? Those like Einstein etc who were decried as cranks?

No I mean people who posit non-scientific ideas as if they are scientific ideas.
Einstein was able to show using actual science and math that his theory was correct. Pseudo scientists cannot do this, instead using imagined conspiracies to explain this lack of evidence.

sligopark wrote: »

Deniers? OH classic Godwin reliance for those without an argument.

Given your lack of argument and reduction of the argument to Godwin and 'Denial' forgive me thinking you are an omnipresent troll.

Well considering I never made a reference to anything that could count as Godwining, your assessment is kinda silly.

sligopark wrote: »

Anyhow given as my sceptic position and your clinging to your beliefs this will soon become a situation of 'my c--k is bigger than your c--k' which on an internet forum is unproveable.

I will leave you to troll out other posters on here and force all other sceptics on here to proclaim aloud 'conspiracy theory is a religion,' and destroy this thread rightly discussing the theory that CO2 anthropogenic climate change is in fact a lie.

And for all this bluster you failed to answer a very simple question, that as a skeptic you would have no issue answering.

Yitzhak Rabin

Sligopark has been banned for accusing another user of being a troll.

bonkey

Elite_Etnisa wrote: »

since 1880 to 2000 it has only increased by 0.8 ? Really are you kidding me ?

I dont give a damn because its nothing , its not going to affect me , my kids, my kids kids and sooo on till human being dies ;(

While I realise that the poster above has already expressed no interest in continuing the discussion, I'd like to point out the following for anyone else who is interested...

On the surface of things, 0.8 degrees seems insignificantly small. What harm could an average global shift of 0.8 degrees possibly do.

Well, in 1816, a smaller (0.4 to 0.7) shift led to what was known as The Year Without a Summer.

In the opposite direction, consider Ireland in 2010. Coldest year in a long time. Coldest December on record. The annual average at the main measurement stations less then 0.8 degrees below the 1961 - 1990 average.

Now...before someone starts pointing to that and saying that it proves things aren't getting warmer, lets first consider that its one year, and secondly lets consider that Ireland's surface area is approximately .015% of the earth's surface area. Europe as a whole clocks in around 2%.

Initial records show 2010 as being one of the warmer years, globally. Provisionally, its tied with 2005 at the top of the table. If you can't reconcile that with a cold Ireland, consider the heat eave that effected most of the northern hemisphere while missing western europe.

Of couse, the northern hemisphere isn't the globe either...but at least anyone making that connection won't be arguing about the weather in Ireland being significant.

good logs...

yekahs wrote: »

Sligopark has been banned for accusing another user of being a troll.

hay mod you dont think thats a bit petty to ban some one.

sligopark

good logs... wrote: »

hay mod you dont think thats a bit petty to ban some one.

No I called someone a troll and so undermined their argument past addressing it Good Logs despite being prevoked - I should not have resorted to name calling - whilst I might not have read the charter it is there.

King Mob - as a sceptic I question science - I am not a believer in the present day belief system of science - it has robbed us of time - one has only to look at the failure of the genome project to tell us anything of what drives the genes as promised as one exmaple - vitalism and the philosophical question of what we are have been pushed aside as have arguments to tax the human gaseous excrement as bogus - anthrogenic climate change is not real it is a push to further tax (enslave) lower class citizens upon this planet.

King Mob why not become a REAL sceptic and ask questions of science rather than as a scientific bishop proclaim yourself whole and not to be questioned. Nit picking does not become you nor your arguement.

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

King Mob - as a sceptic I question science - I am not a believer in the belief system of science - it has robbed us of time - one has only to look at the failure of the genome project to tell us anything of what drives the genes as promised as one exmaple - vitalism and the philosophical question of what we are have been pushed aside as have arguments to tax the human gaseous excrement as bogus.

King Mob why not become a REAL sceptic and ask questions of science rather than as a scientific bishop proclaim yourself whole and not to be questioned.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about as none of that has any baring in the reality the rest of us live in I'm afraid.

And I do ask questions of science, by reading the opinions of those like yourself who object to it.
You haven't offered anything convincing or substantive.

So again: As a "real skeptic" what evidence would you accept that would convince you of anthropogenic climate change?

sligopark

King Mob wrote: »

So again: As a "real skeptic" what evidence would you accept that would convince you of anthropogenic climate change?

sweet geesus I feel a yawn coming on - king mob its not like its hard to find nor is it like I am arguing some obscure point - given that it is a wide open point on the net I refuse to post up in return to a silly request so it might be brought into a personal ping pong between us where words and postions are played - go on do some reading please - goodnight

King Mob

sligopark wrote: »

sweet geesus I feel a yawn coming on - king mob its not like its hard to find nor is it like I am arguing some obscure point - given that it is a wide open point on the net I refuse to post up in return to a silly request so it might be brought into a personal ping pong between us where words and postions are played - go on do some reading please - goodnight

So asking what evidence would convince you is a silly question? Why?

Again this is a very simple and fair question, easily answered by a "real skeptic". But instead of giving a brief one sentence answer you start waffling about absolute nonsense.
It's my guess that you simply can't answer the question, as you feel that no evidence would convince you to change your mind on the matter.
This of course would mean you aren't a skeptic at all, and in fact a believer like you're accusing others of.

You do take your own advice and question all the claims against climate change that you as you say you question the evidence for, right?
What convinced you that anthropogenic climate change is impossible?

alphabeat

there is no human caused climate change ,
only a fool would believe the BS hype about it .

no human cause what so ever

fact .

King Mob

alphabeat wrote: »

there is no human caused climate change ,
only a fool would believe the BS hype about it .

no human cause what so ever

fact .

So if it's such a solid fact, can you please explain how you know as much?

Monty Burnz

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in fairness there were a LOT of Nuclear tests in the 50's they released Massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere, we dont know what that has done to the Atmosphere.

CO2 is a natural output from most Animal lifeforms on the planet, Plants need it to survive, yet all of a sudden over the last decades it has become this big bogeyman responsible for everything bad thats happening, I think shennanigans.

I disagree that they released massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere. It's probably easy enough to work out how much energy was released f you know the approximate total amount of TNT equivalent of the tests.

I'd be surprised if the total amount exceeded the amount that Dublin uses in a year.

Monty Burnz

Mahatma coat wrote: »

it makes sense that the radiation would acumulate at the Poles, thats where the Ozone depleters collected.

BTW, who here remembers the O-zone Hole??

Why does that make sense? And what do you mean when you say that the 'radiation' would accumulate there? And how would it get there from underground?

tony 2 tone

sligopark wrote: »

Deniers? OH classic Godwin reliance for those without an argument.

Given your lack of argument and reduction of the argument to Godwin and 'Denial' forgive me thinking you are an omnipresent troll.

Am I missing some thing here, how does calling some one a "denier" invoke Godwins?

gbee

alphabeat wrote: »

there is no human caused climate change ,
only a fool would believe the BS hype about it . no human cause what so ever
fact .

There is no human caused climate change. FACT.

It's amazing the infantile responses this statement attracts, and to make matters worse, if you are going to actually answer and prove the statement, you'll get google pages thrown back at you and you only get asked the same questions again and again and again.

Suffice to say that this is another control mechanism and on your Tax returns one should be asked if they believe in man made climate change and THEY should pay DOUBLE.

Win, win.

Monty Burnz

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Interesting Point Bonkey, Yes I agree that we shouldnt trust what the Media of the Govt spoonfeed us, but I still Question the Science of ANTHROPORMOPHIC (sp) Climate change, Yes we are havin an effect but NO its not to the level that is beig claimed

Can you please explain how you reached this conclusion, contrary to the overwhelming majority those who have spent their lives studying the field?

Cheers.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

where am I scaremongering??????????

I'm appealing to the rational scientific and analytical mind in all of us to look at not just the Crap being presented to us but the actual HISTORY recorded of our planet, it has been colder and Hotter within recorded history, that leads me to the presumption that this is a Natural cycle [/B]

In all probability those who have spent their lives studying the history of the earth's climate are aware that it used to be different, but if you think that they do not then you should immediately contact them with this information, as I agree that it is very important to factor it in.

Monty Burnz

gbee wrote: »

There is no human caused climate change. FACT.

Prove it?

gbee wrote: »

It's amazing the infantile responses this statement attracts, and to make matters worse, if you are going to actually answer and prove the statement, you'll get google pages thrown back at you and you only get asked the same questions again and again and again.

It's difficult for you to prove because 98% of experts in the field disagree with you. That should perhaps make you question why you announce your belief as 'fact' when 98% of the people who study this stuff their whole lives say 'we are pretty sure that human activity is causing a lot of this'.

gbee wrote: »

Suffice to say that this is another control mechanism and on your Tax returns one should be asked if they believe in man made climate change and THEY should pay DOUBLE.

Win, win.

Sounds fair enough. And that tax can be used to build a haven for the families of those who pay it, exclusively for their use if things get really ugly in the next century...;)