Global Warming is fake (Page 2)

oooREDEYEooo
oooREDEYEooo:

"ANOTHER DUMB F@~&"

..."eye am as 'dumb as F*UCK' as the 'dumb as F*UCK' dumb fzwz who seems a dumb f~y$ and as 'dumb as F*UCK' as the dumb f*xy 'dumb as F*UCK' dumb fzw* the dumb f#^w is the dumb f*&%"...

oooDUMB-Fxz&#-ARE-THE-WORST-POLLUTION-EYEooo
9 years ago Report
0
dave3974
dave3974: very articulate red face
9 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: word to mother theresa.

us dumb fecks need guidance from prophet gore lolo
9 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: has anyone read brave new world by aldous huxley?
9 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: I believe the planet is being bombarded with trash, dust and gases not naturally produced by the planet. These are the issues we need to deal with.
9 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: ^agreed. with real science not banker spin pusedo science as dave said more like a dodgy religion
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: What??

Are you two completely dense? Granted, we are producing alot of carbon- but to claim that carbon is "not naturally produced by the planet" is idoitic. Lots of things produce Carbon- the majority of which isn't cars or electric production, but rather, forest fires, and an Oceans worth of decomposing plants. The entire worlds worth of human intervention only accounts for 10% of the worlds Carbon.
9 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: you mean i got too much carbon in me lipton?? maybe i need a scan and taxing...

im just saying.. yes we should be responsible vanguards of mother earth etc.

i just dont get what the 'tax' is for. a global tax wtf??
9 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: Where is your evidence for this Lipton?
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Oh, I'm sorry- It was Carbon DIOXIDE, not just carbon- and it was human impact for this is 3%, not 10%



Apprx at 4:10 in, for about 20 seconds.
9 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: Now you have lost all credibility quoted those nutcases Penn and Teller.
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Whys that? Where are they wrong?
9 years ago Report
0
flashie
flashie: deja vu
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: What evidence is there challenging the notion that the Earth heating up is not simply part of our planets warming and cooling cycle?
9 years ago Report
0
Land Of Confusion
Land Of Confusion: I am sorry but I dont belivle in Global Warming.

There is just no real evidence and and when it is a 110 degrees everyday then I will pay for GW
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: Did you know....

The largest "Carbon Credit" business is owned by none other than Al Gore? And there is absolutely no oversight on these business- no way to be certain that your money is actually going to where you donate it, or how much of it does these business's pocket...
9 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: Land of confusion: Well it hit 115F here yesterday and Esperance(which is a coastal town)recorded its hottest ever recorded temperature of 117F last week.Go figure.

Anyone who wants proof of the impact of humans on the atmosphere need only look at the statistics.

Gas/////////Preindustrial level/////Current level////////Increase since 1750
Carbon dioxide 280 ppm 387ppm 107 ppm
Methane 700 ppb 1745 ppb 1045 ppb
Nitrous oxide 270 ppb 314 ppb 44 ppb
CFC-12 0 0 533 ppt 533 ppt

We all know that there are people like Al Gore and the worlds banks waiting to jump on the bandwagon and profit.As a supporter of free market Capitalism Lipton you should obviously be aware of this.Whilst on the subject you cant have it both ways Lipton.I mean you talk about oversight on businesses.
Very strange from someone out of the Friedman mould.
9 years ago Report
0
yk23
yk23: its already too late anyway
so go ahead
pollute
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>Well it hit 115F here yesterday and Esperance(which is a coastal town)recorded its hottest ever recorded temperature of 117F last week.

Oddly enough, John Coleman, previously mentioned in this topic as the founder of the Weather Network and lifelong Meteorologist, has pointed out an interesting fact- the number of reporting stations that the National Climate Data Center uses has been drastically reduced in recent decades. Prior to the 90's, there were over 6000 points that were reported in- by the end of the 90's, there was less than 1500, and now theres only approx 1000. In fact, these organsations claim to report the tempertures for countries they no longer even have reporting stations in- like Bolivia, whose data is derived from a reporting station upto 12,000 km away. Bolivia's data has not been accurately reported in over 20 years- and yet, these organsations still claim temperture changes from data recieved outside of this country.

Another interesting thing to note is the difference between the temperture reported on the ground versus the temperture found by Satalites- for example, in June, the National Climate Data Center claimed it was the second warmest June in 130 years, but the satalite showed that it was the 14th coldest June in the 31 years they've been keeping records- clearly someone is getting incorrect data.

In California, for example, there are 4 stations that the National Center accepts data from- 1 in San Francisco, and 3 from LA. Now, this is a personal opinion, but I believe California may have a more complex ecosystem than these two cities.....in fact, it seems mountainious areas were the ones most likely to be dropped

There certainly are some doubts to be had about the accuracy of the information we are receiving, esspecially for "hottest days"


>>>Anyone who wants proof of the impact of humans on the atmosphere need only look at the statistics.

I don't think anyone is denying that these chemicals have appeared more frequently- what we are debating is the effect they have. Also, while these chemicals have increased, we are still talking about trace ammounts some of them you have listed, if everyone would notice, as parts per trillion.

Also, your chart is deceptively misleading- Carbon dioxide and Methane are shown to be the most dominant. But, if one actually looks further as to the composition of the gas's in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide accounts for 0.0387%- Nitrous oxide is at 0.00003%- Methane is at 0.000179%. But Nitrogen is a whopping 78.084% of the air. Oxygen is 20.946%, and Argon is at 0.9340%.

You wish us to believe a 0.0107% increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere can create such dramtic changes?

>>>As a supporter of free market Capitalism Lipton you should obviously be aware of this.

If people wish to buy their silly carbon credits and pretend that they will change the world simply by throwing money at it, feeling guilty, and saying sorry, by all means let them.

My tiff is when people make the presumption that they should make me feel guilty- punish me for using Carbon without guilt through taxes, and indignite social pressures.
9 years ago Report
0
Outbackjack
Outbackjack: Well you ca harp on all you like about recording stations being so called inaccurate.I find it hilarious that quote one in a third world country.

Recording stations are on the rise in remote areas here.Also I know the stats were right as as in these areas and experienced it.

What point are you making about Nitrogen?
Are you trying to link it to Nitrous oxide.?
The chart is not misleading and doesnt point to some kind of league table.It merely shows greenhouse gases.
9 years ago Report
0
john1576
john1576: Jack you are right again when you say polution affects the atmosphear. I remember a photograph of a Swedish Lady showing her normally blonde hair to a photographer. Acid in her tap water had changed her hair colour. The polution came from Germany as Acid rain. (Wonder if this started the fashion for green hair?).
9 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: Around 4 billion years ago, our planet was molten rock. It took billions of years to cool off and create life. Over 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions and millions of years. Humans have only been around for the past 25 thousand years or so. If humans screw the planet and self destruct...the planet will survive and in 100,000 years, when the worst polutants (radiation) are no longer a danger, the planet will be once again beautiful. You see, 100,000 years is nothing compared to the billions of years the planet was molten or the millions of years the dinosaurs roamed. Will the human race survive as long as the dinosaurs? Who knows. In about 4 billion more years, the planet will not exist and then nothing that has happened on our planet will even matter. Our life span is only 100 years. So do what you can 'now' to not polute...be happy...love...enjoy your family.
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: >>>Well you ca harp on all you like about recording stations being so called inaccurate.

Its not that they're inaccurate- but clearly the information we had leading up to the 90's was more accurate than the information we have today.

>>>I find it hilarious that quote one in a third world country.

Why? I find it alarming that an organsation would claim to know the temperture of a country they have no recording station in. Isn't that a reasonable critism to make?

>>>Recording stations are on the rise in remote areas here

So? Austrillia is warming. Thats great. Re-read the topic title- we're talking global.

And, again, isn't your country notrious for its deserts? Wouldn't increasing the number of recording stations in deserts, while reducing the number of recording stations in mountainious areas create flawed stats?

>>>Also I know the stats were right as as in these areas and experienced it.

I'm not challenging the temperture- I'm challenging whether or not it was the hottest day recorded.

>>>What point are you making about Nitrogen?

That the gas's that you presented were very trace ammounts compared to Nitrogen. You claimed gases like Carbon Dioxide has gone up by 0.01% in 150 years, and made it seem like it was a significant ammount. I presented the other major gases in our atmosphere as a comparison, to show the folly of such a suggestion. Thats all.

>>>Are you trying to link it to Nitrous oxide.?

No.

>>>It merely shows greenhouse gases.

I feel without presenting how much of our air these gas's account for that it is misleading. I merely presented a context to better understand how much these gas's account for.

*******----

>>>The polution came from Germany as Acid rain.

Most defiantely- but acid rain has nothing to do with global warming or CO2. It has to do with sulfur and nitrogen being released into the atmosphere.

*******----


>>>when the worst polutants (radiation)

Uhhh....again, the people in this thread are showing their ignorance in spades- radiation is natural. Its like Iron- we extract it from the Earth, but its not as if we created radiation. We've utilized it.

>>>the planet will be once again beautiful.

So you're a misanthropist then, eh?
9 years ago Report
0
davidk14
davidk14: Lipton....Sorry to have not expanded on my thought about "polutant" radiation ie: nuclear power plants, medical radiation, lost nuclear submarines, lost nuclear warheads, etc. I'm looking at the big picture and not the short term concepts you are commenting about. Being a decent human being with polite and respectful conversation would certainly be a positive for all.
9 years ago Report
0
LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: But my point is radioactive material would exist in a world without humans. Earthquakes, plate shifting, and Volcanoes could all release these materials.
9 years ago Report
0