Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


If co2 levels are indeed higher than normal there could be reasons OTHER than fossil fuel burning.

a)sun is getting bigger and/or warmer
b)deforestation
c)volcanic activity

and carbon taxing solves nothing regardless.

All I had to do was watch the china olympics several years ago to see that black smog. Heck everyone was talking about it on the television. its no secret. black smog is not just co2. but heck I guess china can pollute all they want since the bilderbergers think it is a good idea to destroy the west.




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Phage has already run circles around you with that theory of yours, I don't need to... plus he's better at it.

As for the rest...
I can't have a logical debate when being met with such profound illogic.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
...
All I had to do was watch the china olympics several years ago to see that black smog. Heck everyone was talking about it on the television. its no secret. black smog is not just co2. but heck I guess china can pollute all they want since the bilderbergers think it is a good idea to destroy the west.


Actually smog doesn't include CO2, even Wikipedia can't hide this fact.


Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.

Photochemical smog
In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described.
This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.

This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
tropospheric ozone
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
aldehydes (RCHO)


All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.


..........

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Phage has already run circles around you with that theory of yours, I don't need to... plus he's better at it.

As for the rest...
I can't have a logical debate when being met with such profound illogic.


First, Phage hasn't run anything but around himself in circles and time and again I have shown him to be wrong.

Second, making another asinine claim with no evidence to back your argument doesn't make you right...

It seems that you yourself are running around in circles around yourself... That's what happens when you have Phage as an idol alongside the AGW hoaxers.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Respect, yes... idolize no. It's simply an ability to recognize legitimacy, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

What good would it do to post any facts to you?
edit on 22-7-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

You're are lacking some serious logic to be able to make that statement. How do you suppose climatology works to begin with? How did you miss the largest part of it, that climatologists look at climate change in earth's past to compare against our current climate change. Each climate epoch had a catalyst, something that instigated the change.



Indeed. Oddly enough, none of those previous catalysts involved cigar chompin' humans driving gas guzzling SUV's and emitting those pesky emissions. How then can that comparison be drawn at all between what was and what is? The addition of humans into the mythology has changed the equations, and requires some serious fudge factoring to make AGW work. It's the basic apples ARE oranges argument being perpetrated by AGW proponents. They try to calculate how humans are warming the planet by comparing warming and cooling episodes when there were no... humans to warm the planet! Hint: it was generally a LOT warmer before we appeared to rain on the parade.




The goal has never been to eliminate Co2... we can't survive without it, the goal always has been to curb our metric tons of added Co2 per year to something closer to natural.



Please continue, for we are amused. What would you define as a "natural" level of CO2? Could we perhaps use the CO2 levels present on Earth for most of it's history, and especially the part of it's history BEFORE humans were around to emit, as "natural" levels? Could we take the CO2 levels present before humans were around to unbalance them as "natural" CO2 levels, since nature itself produced them?

Here come the most amusing part - do you realize what those natural CO2 levels were? No, I'm NOT going to tell you. You wouldn't believe me anyway. The best way to learn is to research it out for yourself, and not take my word for it.

The hubris of certain "progressive" segments of society to claim that they have the power to wreck an entire planet astounds me. Earth survived for aeons BEFORE humans (even the progressive sort) were around to nursemaid it, and it will continue to survive for aeons after we are all dust and CO2 molecules floating around in the atmosphere, you know... when we are once again a PART of that "natural" CO2 level.

Earth will STILL be!



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
What a read and I am here to tell the 'science' believers that there is no science, but the manipulation of data to a preferred outcome.

Proof of this is as it is no longer a 'scientific' matter that has been hijacked by politics.

Global warming is a political machination by those evil corporations who want to make loads of cash off people drinking dirty water, and breathing dirty air etc.

Global Warming is fear porn sold to manipulate people in to more draconianism a globalist elite agenda, and control of the entire world.

Reminds me of Pinky and the Brain plotting to take over the world.
edit on 22-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 




do you realize what those natural CO2 levels were? No, I'm NOT going to tell you. You wouldn't believe me anyway.


I don't need you to tell me because I already know, I've done a lot of research on the subject. The last time Co2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene 2-6 million years ago. Before Humans existed.



Indeed. Oddly enough, none of those previous catalysts involved cigar chompin' humans driving gas guzzling SUV's and emitting those pesky emissions.


Nope they didn't, they involved the Milankovitch cycle and where the planet was in it, currently our orbital position and tilt should have us in a cooler cycle. Climate change in the past has also been due to changes in solar output, during higher output times it's sparked release of GHG's stored in the surface, also not the case this time. The sun has been in a cooler cycle for the past 35 years.



How then can that comparison be drawn at all between what was and what is?


By studying ice cores, tree rings and sediment cores we are able to tell what GHG levels and temperatures were during different periods or earths climate. Comparing Co2 rise in previous GHG epochs, atmospheric Co2 is increasing at a 75 times faster.



The addition of humans into the mythology has changed the equations, and requires some serious fudge factoring to make AGW work


Care to show us how that fudge factoring is being done?



They try to calculate how humans are warming the planet by comparing warming and cooling episodes when there were no... humans to warm the planet!


That's exactly how we can determine the effect we have had on the climate. By looking to earth's past we can determine what caused climate changes in previous epochs. We know that climate is changing now and has been since the industrial revolution, so by looking to see what factors are the same and seeing that there aren't any so something must be different. We are adding more GHG's to the atmosphere that is what is different.



What would you define as a "natural" level of CO2?


Natural Co2 levels would be what exists within the global carbon cycle and maintains steady carbon levels, neither rising nor falling significantly. When Co2 levels rise or fall it can be from natural causes, the sun etc... but as I've said that's not the case here.



The hubris of certain "progressive" segments of society to claim that they have the power to wreck an entire planet astounds me.


We are more than capable of wrecking the planet, killing it? Not short of nuclear warfare or nuclear disaster. No we are not killing the planet. What we are doing is changing the habitability for current life on earth. Most species cannot adapt or evolve fast enough to keep up with the changes. Humans are a tough call, we're very intelligent it's possible to survive the extreme temperature rise coming in the next 100-150 years. It's science, not an ideology. and just to clarify, I'm not a progressive.



Earth will STILL be!


Sure, just not as we know it.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74

Respect, yes... idolize no. It's simply an ability to recognize legitimacy, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

What good would it do to post any facts to you?
edit on 22-7-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)


Run around, and run around, and run around, and still not showing any real evidence/facts to back your argument...

You obviously have nothing, so accept the fact that you have no idea of what you are talking about, and please, do not even try to post a GCM, or the claim of one of your "respected" scientists who have been caught "LYING"...



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gore



Nuff said................
edit on 22-7-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It seems that she thinks to know what "the perfect levels of atmospheric CO2 should be...
The majority of the AGW camp believe the same thing, hence why AGW is a religion. They can't provide any evidence, hence they will claim they know what "magical CO2 level should exist"...



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 




over-representation of factual presentations


That means lots of presentations Sonny, not misrepresentations. I don't like Al Gore much either, but he didn't invent global warming nor the science of studying it, nor the facts. He's a politician and a business man neither well known for lack of manipulative skills. Manipulating solutions is not the same thing as lying about a problem.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


The problem though is the "science" and scientists had no problem misrepresenting "global warming".



Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.



“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming.


Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).


Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

You cant believe them Kali. There is an Agenda here.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Go back and read what I wrote. Show me where I named a perfect level of Co2. I said natural carbon levels would be what falls within the global carbon cycle which maintains a steady level of co2 neither rising nor falling significantly. Co2 levels were steady for thousands of years before the industrial age, immediately they started rising.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


From the horses mouth
edit on 22-7-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


From that article........


Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.



Unfortunately, Man has caused a lot of Problems to the Earth. To say that we are the sole cause, and to say that we are the ONLY ones that can fix it, is laughable. The day they stop the sun from heating up, or find a way to cap volcano's, or underwater fissures of Methane or Sulfur, is the day Man can say they have started to fix this Planet. Until then we buy our cheap plastics from China, and continue to fuel the Countries that have nothing to lose except our Money. From Computers to iPhones, we are part of the Problem, and there are very Rich folks that believe they can fleece even more money through "Taxes" playing this game of "Global Warming".

Just MHO.......



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 



Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.


HL Mencken 1918

Believe that would explain Global Warming.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Even today, hes spot on.....



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





and there are very Rich folks that believe they can fleece even more money through "Taxes" playing this game of "Global Warming".


Yeah they're known as the fossil fuel cartels and they fleece plenty of tax dollars, don't they? Except the game they play is maintain the status quo even if you have to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars to lie about it.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





Yeah they're known as the fossil fuel cartels and they fleece plenty of tax dollars, don't they? Except the game they play is maintain the status quo even if you have to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars to lie about it.


A political machination rooted in political ideological hatred for corporations kind like the same thing going on with global warming.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join