Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
You said that without greenhouse gases, the Earth would freeze... So, obviously, there must be some greenhouse gases left in the atmosphere. The oceans will absorb 90% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the next thousand years, the remaining 10% will maintain the equilibrium of Earth's climate.

You're contradicting yourself... Again.

I never once contradicted myself. However you have failed to comprehend my words and mistaken me to do so multiple times, and have done so again.

Yes, I did say without greenhouse gases Earth would freeze. So did your source that I quoted, from NOAA:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet.

Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C).

I don't agree that 90% of the greenhouse gases will be absorbed by the ocean in the future, I don't even see scientific data that will prove that. Actually, that was what NOAA claimed, not me. So I don't even understand the point (if there is a point) that you trying to prove.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Mankind has been making greenhouse gases for some 7 million years, just as every living thing on Earth produces greenhouse gases and has done so since life first appeared on this planet 3.5 billion years ago.

..but mankind is producing more greenhouse gases now than it has EVER. Also I am not being a wannabe smart ass and talking about breathing, I am talking about our machines.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
No. The Sun warms the Earth. When the Sun increases its thermal output, the Earth (and all the other planets) warm up as well. There is evidence right now that other planets and moons in our solar system are warming up.

NO? Wow, you are uneducated.

Without greenhouse gases, the Earth would freeze. Because of Earth's greenhouse gases, Earth is warm. So logically speaking, greenhouse gases warm the Earth.

Just like blankets warm humans. They don't create heat, they trap it.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The planet Mars has an almost 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere, yet its warmest climate is about the same temperature as a deep freeze — around 0° Farenheit. Yet there was liquid water and probably Life on Mars a few billion years ago. So, we know Mars was receiving enough solar radiation to liquify water on its surface at one time. So why is a planet with near 100% CO2 atmosphere a sub-zero graveyard?

..because it has a near 100% CO2 atmosphere which is much thinner (less) than Earth's atmosphere.

Earth has many different types of greenhouse gases that trap different wavelengths. Mars doesn't contain enough different types of greenhouse gases to contain enough heat. Also, Mars doesn't even have a big enough atmosphere to capture the heat. And Mars gets 2.5 times less solar energy than Earth.

Think of it like this: Earth has many layers of thick blankets. Mars has maybe 1 blanket that is too small and is in a much colder place.

Mars doesn't need solar radiation to liquefy water, it needs to have a higher pressure atmosphere, and more atmosphere. Fresh water on Mars begins to boil at 10 °C. Here on Earth we can have water anywhere between 0 and 100 °C. So more solar radiation on Mars would just cause more boiling.

The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is less than 1% than on the surface of Earth. Atmosphere that thin on Earth is at an altitude of 100,000 feet or more. The average temperature on Earth at that altitude is comparable to Mars. This is because of the lack off a greenhouse effect.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Interestingly, even Mars is showing slight signs of Global Warming near its poles, as are several of the large moons of Jupiter and Saturn, not to mention far-distant Neptune. Hmm. Is this due to manmade greenhouse gases, as well?

No. It's due to the Sun.

So how does that prove that humans creating tonnes of CO2 wont make Earth warmer? It doesn't. That just means we have to deal with solar changes, and pollution problems.

Just because the Sun may be getting hotter doesn't mean MMGW isn't real. It just means we have a worse problem. You don't need to compare temperature data to understand MMGW, you just have to understand how the greenhouse effect works, and that humans are increasing the greenhouse effect with CO2.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Obviously, not all greenhouse gases are being absorbed, or — as you yourself have attempted to articulate — the global temperature would plummet precipitously.

Wow you are learning something! Good Job.

Now since all the greenhouse gases are NOT being absorbed, that means humans are creating more than the Earth can absorb. That means we have an abundance of CO2 not going anywhere, and that will cause and abundance of the greenhouse effect, and that will cause warmer temperatures.

Good job for helping me prove it to you.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
See, you're chasing your own tail with this condemnation of greenhouse gases, but you won't even consider that as the Sun increases its solar output, CO2 gases are released on planet Earth. The Sun is the cause of the release of greenhouse gases... Warmer Sun, more CO2 gas. Cooler sun, less CO2 gas.

Again why are you saying I wont consider something after I have said directly to you that the Sun warms the oceans and it releases CO2?

You AGAIN show me a lack of reading comprehension. That is like 10 times in a row now, and I don't even see why I even consider talking to you further, if you don't know how to read.

The Sun can only do so much. Humans are creating more and more CO2 every single day. CO2 doesn't just disappear, it get trapped in places, and moved around. We are creating an abundance of CO2...

I already told you. The Earth can only absorb a small portion of humans CO2. That leaves the rest up in the air, and we are making more and more....

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
That doesn't work for your argument, however, because you need someone to blame and belittle.

— Doc Velocity

You don't have a clue.

You are blaming it all on the Sun, when there is evidence that shows the Sun is not the only factor to deal with. CO2 is the other factor, and humans contribute to it....

It's simple logic... it's to bad you are so illogical.

I mean, being a genius in a certain field of study doesn't mean that one is a well-rounded genius, versed in the knowledge of the ages. I dare say that Stephen Hawkings' knowledge is rather limited — I bet he knows nothing about surfing, for instance. Betcha he can't fix a coffee maker. And I'm pretty damned certain he's not a genius in the field of medicine, or he'd be working on solving his own case.

Point is, calling down Stephen Hawkings in defense of manmade global warming is not too far off from calling down the RainMan.



— Doc Velocity





[edit on 12/5/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


In reply to Hastobemoretolife, I said:

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Heck maybe they even hate Stephen Hawking, because he warns about MMGW.

Then you say:

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
And if Hawkings endorses manmade climate change, that's the main reason not to respect him.

Wow, I am so right, and you prove me right. It's funny how pathetic that is.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Point is, calling down Stephen Hawkings in defense of manmade global warming is not too far off from calling down the RainMan.

I didn't use him as a defense. I was proving a point that some people hate other people because of their beliefs, you just proved it too.

You fail. You are a failure.

Originally posted by ALLis0NEYou are blaming it all on the Sun, when there is evidence that shows the Sun is not the only factor to deal with... It's simple logic... it's to bad you are so illogical.

Yes, to bad [sic]...

Too bad I'm so illogical... Yet, I have done what Stephen Hawkings and all of your MMGW kooks have failed to do...

I have learned how to produce an energetic reaction

FAR GREATER than the energy I input!

My meager posts have prompted you to exert FAR MORE ENERGY in replying to them. HA HA!

Just look at the size of your carbon footprint compared to mine in this thread.

Longer posts = more energy exerted = more CO2 expelled.

I win.

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 12/5/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by mason2012


You couldn't even enslave a translator, let alone a spell checker.

Your words are powerless.

hi ALLis0NE u will be poor taxing paying slaves and you will be below class c pass on your ID,S CARDS u will not 3 miles of your home and will be waching all steps

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Ok troll,

You didn't create any over unity. You didn't create the extra energy, I did. That means it came from another source.

You don't even know basic science, no wonder you are so confused and lost.

Since you have been proven wrong, and humiliated over and over, and you have suddenly reduced the amount of information in your posts, and you are now making illogical random bullshart posts with no meaning, and off topic, I guess it is safe to say you are giving up. I win.

So you are happy that more CO2 was made... cool... you win the douche of the year award. Hope you are happy poisoning your childrens children, and your families offspring.

[edit on 5-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

this a cup telling are being waching not a hunmen an no one be safe or hede andcant going walking around if we be waching you moves all the time and you be a slaves N.W.O AND ILLUMINATI

reply to post by mason2012



How could someone be poor if rich doesn't even exist?

What, you think you are rich because you have a bunch of shiny metal, and a bunch of slivers of wood called money, and some solidified oil in the form of a card containing digital representations of the above?

Wow you are so powerful, you gathered atoms. You have a bunch of atoms, you are so rich.

You can have the pale blue dot. I am the universe, I am immortal.

GO OUT LOOK FOR A WHITE VAN OR SUV THERE DOING DATA ON NOW SEE

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You didn't create the extra energy, I did. That means it came from another source.

You don't even know basic science, no wonder you are so confused and lost.

Okay, Mr. Wizard, I didn't say I "created extra energy" because, you know why? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. How's that for basic science, you buffoon...

I said produced more energy than I input. Which I did. With my meager tapping upon these keys, I have driven up your body temperature, causing your respiration to increase, expelling more CO2 into the atmosphere. Your furious and desperate and extraordinarily lengthy responses required more energy to compose and post, relative to my comparatively meek and more energy-efficient posts.

LOL


— Doc Velocity

Climate Change in Kuwait Bay: Higher Temperatures Having Profound Effects

ScienceDaily (Nov. 30, 2009) — Since 1985, seawater temperature in Kuwait Bay, northern Persian Gulf, has increased on average 0.6°C per decade. This is about three times faster than the global average rate reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Differences are due to regional and local effects. Increased temperatures are having profound effects on key habitats and on power generation the Persian Gulf.

www.sciencedaily.com...
Just one of a jillion articles out there.
I don't really think some emails can save us at this point......
www.chrisjordan.com...
Star and flag

Of course they're debunked, anyone with any sense knew it was nothing as soon as they read over the so called "smoking gun". But that doesn't matter, the emails could contain photos of a rhinoceros and global warming deniers would hold them up as the Achilles heel of climate change

Global warming denial isn't based on science, it's deeply rooted in American politics, and for some people, religion; two of the hardest things to sway.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Okay, Mr. Wizard, I didn't say I "created extra energy" because, you know why? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. How's that for basic science, you buffoon...


I said produced more energy than I input. Which I did.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. To bring forth; yield: a plant that produces pink flowers.
2. To create by physical or mental effort.

Produce and create are basically the same thing. At least, when I said the word create it is.

You failed again, and once again showed that you don't know basic English.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
With my meager tapping upon these keys, I have driven up your body temperature, causing your respiration to increase, expelling more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Ive been relaxed and playing online poker since I started. The only thing you created was a laugh.... I was laughing at your pathetic attempt at discrediting proven science. Now I'm laughing at your dumb posts.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Your furious and desperate and extraordinarily lengthy responses required more energy to compose and post, relative to my comparatively meek and more energy-efficient posts.
LOL
— Doc Velocity

I type more than 120 words per minute. So.. it was effortless for me. Although you are correct that more energy has been used, you are incorrect about the efficiency of your useless babble.

On one hand you claim to have produced this energy, and on the other hand you are bragging that you used less energy than me (that is debatable). So what exactly are you getting at? Nothing. You are just showing signs of schizophrenia, and cognitive slippage, which are both mental disorders.

Actually, you have no point and are going off topic, and being the worst troll on ATS I have ever seen. You have not once shown any evidence that MMGW is not happening. Nor have you shown any evidence that you know how read.

So, stfu now.


[edit on 5-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]

Evangelical Scientists Speak Out on Global Warming Hoax

Evangelical Scientists Speak Out on MMGW Hoax

“WASHINGTON – A group of evangelicals, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, called the mainstream view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change a “hoax” at an event Thursday just days ahead of a key U.N.-sponsored climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The evangelical scholars argued that science, contrary to what many leading scientists claim, does not support the claim that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is having a negative effect on the earth. Rather, no one currently really understands clearly how the earth is responding to the increase in the greenhouse gas, they say.

“There seems to be a misunderstanding about science,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Ala., at The Heritage Foundation-hosted event.

Spencer said there are two parts to science: measurements and interpretation of the measurements.

“I think people think that science is as simple as making measurements,” Spencer said. “[But] believe it or not most scientists – probably all the scientists I know that work in climate change – do have religious views about the earth and how fragile it is and that colors their research and how they interpret data.”

There you go. Tit-for-tat, you can take the data and generate whatever finding you want. POINT IS, the data is too nebulous and can be interpreted any way someone wants.


— Doc Velocity





[edit on 12/5/2009 by Doc Velocity]