Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

100 Reasons why climate change is not man-made

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Re: 100 Reasons why climate change is not man-made

Postby Proterra » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:06 pm

The fun starts already at #2;

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.


Geological history: 4.572.000.000 years.
Human history (since industrial revolution): 200 years.

100:22860000=0.00000437

This tells us that per year humans release around 50 times the amount of carbon into the atmosphere then what would naturally occur dus to mantle outgassing...
User Avatar
Proterra

 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:19 am
Location: Nowy Targ, Poland
Thanked: 95 times in 64 posts

Postby Castlereagh » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:10 pm

erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
Of course San Franciscans want electricity and water. I hardly think everyone that lives in the city is an environmentalist. Go ask the same question in the Sierra foothills. Whats your point?

Where does your electricity come from? your water?


That's the point. They want us to sacrifice by paying higher taxes, using less electricity, driving shittier cars, etc, so why doesn't Pelosi set an example for the rest of us?


sorry, I thought you were lecturing us about environmentalists cramming AGW down our throats. I didn't realize this was just a tirade against politicians and cap and trade.


neo-environmentalists and AGW => politicians and cap and trade
User Avatar
Castlereagh

 
Posts: 701
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:46 pm
Location: Holladay, Utah
Thanked: 115 times in 70 posts

Postby peladoboton » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:11 pm

MikeTX wrote:
erykmynn wrote:and 4000 posts? that's just miketx's way of prevent global warming by letting all his "hot air" out here!


there's a lot of it too. i just had mexican.


you eat mexicans?
User Avatar
peladoboton

 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: SLC, Utah, United States
Thanked: 926 times in 587 posts

Postby Guyzo » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:18 pm

Shit .... when I was in College, it was predicted that the world would be covered in Glaciers right now, by scientist to, lots of them. I even bought crampons in preparation.

Whatever goes down in Cooopahagen...... it's our ass that is going to hurt. :cry:
User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Location: Moorpark, California, United States
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

Postby The Chief » Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:23 pm

Guyzo wrote:Shit .Whatever goes down in Cooopahagen...... it's our ass that is going to hurt. :cry:


More like what's in the Pocket that hang off your asses!
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby Nanuls » Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:45 pm

patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever




No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.
whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.


I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.


No I won't be rebuking those points because:

a. many are old fallacies and have been discussed over and over,
b. others are simply irrelevant e.g. all that stuff about wind energy for example,
c. others are just conjecture.

The only points I might give credence to are the ones relating to the CRU, but I have discussed my view there before so won't do it again here. Basically I am awaiting the results of the inquiry.

So your a paleo-environmentalist - snap. Surprised you think some of the points relating to paleo-climate there are in anyway relevant. Anyway, I'm interested, as a paleo-environmentalist, don't you see the problem with these particular statements? -

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

34) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

78 ) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.
User Avatar
Nanuls

 
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:20 pm
Location: Llanbedr Pont Steffan, Ceredigion, Wales
Thanked: 6 times in 4 posts

Postby timfoltz » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:08 pm

Every point regarding past climate changes is really irrelevant. If humans were not here regardless of who is at fault, climate change would not matter. Its the fact that we are here in excess a that causes the problem. Plants and animals are much more adaptable than we humans. They dont need their beachfront homes and tv's in every room with satellite television. For them sea level changes, they move inland and adapt. The same cant be said for us humans. 90% of all plant and animal species that have existed on earth are actually extinct. Most go extinct due to climate changes, however we are the first species with the cognitive ability to actually attempt to do something to preserve ourselves. Just a thought...
User Avatar
timfoltz

 
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:23 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby Ejnar Fjerdingstad » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:34 pm

erykmynn wrote:
fowweezer wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:
fowweezer wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:In spite of some repetitions this was a very good list and some of its points are absolutely devastating to AGW. The fact that AGW supporters concentrate on minor repetitions and irrelevancies demonstrate that they don't have any real arguments for AGW, indeed there are none.


No it demonstrates that shooting for nice, round numbers is stupid. 100 is not better than 80 when you have to pad the list to get there. It makes the list look ridiculous and the reporting look biased. I'd be more convinced if they had done a proper job of it.


You can just pick the 50 most devastating arguments, if you want, and try to answer them!


I'm not going to answer them, because I'm not an expert. Maybe they can't be answered. I don't know. If not, well, I guess AGW is a big fraud.

But be honest.....you'd think it was stupid if some liberal rag made a list of "1000 reasons climate change is man-made" and just threw a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks, right?


I think climate change is like god. Everyone's mental picture is wrong, no matter what.

And I think we've all seen the "see what shit sticks" type of articles. Like how animals are depressed or something. In fact you've pretty much summed up the whole yes-agw and no-agw debate, because it's just a lot of shit slinging.

I'd prefer to discuss climate mechanics. But people give fuckall about the boring, sciencey part.


-----------------

you know what would have been a much better article?

100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever


Just sayin'


You are suggesting that one should not even discuss what the proponents want to use trillions of dollars for???!
User Avatar
Ejnar Fjerdingstad

 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:34 am
Location: Frederiksværk, Northern Zealand, Denmark
Thanked: 595 times in 389 posts

Postby Ejnar Fjerdingstad » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:41 pm

erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever




No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.
whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.


I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.
I hate to break it to you, but those people aren't environmentalists.


Oh yes, they are. In Denmark the nature conservancy association used to throw a fit if the state wanted to build a single high-voltage line. Now they are in favour of putting hundreds of windmills in preserved wetlands!
User Avatar
Ejnar Fjerdingstad

 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:34 am
Location: Frederiksværk, Northern Zealand, Denmark
Thanked: 595 times in 389 posts

Postby Ejnar Fjerdingstad » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:44 pm

truchas wrote:Forecast for Copenhagen.

Heavy snow. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Source


Which used to be not very usual in December, actually a white Christmas was rare!
User Avatar
Ejnar Fjerdingstad

 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:34 am
Location: Frederiksværk, Northern Zealand, Denmark
Thanked: 595 times in 389 posts

Postby timfoltz » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:56 pm

truchas wrote:
timfoltz wrote:Every point regarding past climate changes is really irrelevant. If humans were not here regardless of who is at fault, climate change would not matter. Its the fact that we are here in excess a that causes the problem. Plants and animals are much more adaptable than we humans. They dont need their beachfront homes and tv's in every room with satellite television. For them sea level changes, they move inland and adapt. The same cant be said for us humans. 90% of all plant and animal species that have existed on earth are actually extinct. Most go extinct due to climate changes, however we are the first species with the cognitive ability to actually attempt to do something to preserve ourselves. Just a thought...


Do you have a television?


lol yes I have one (singular). My point was not that people having televisions and beachfront homes is causing climate change. My point was that it is those commodities which cause any global climate change man-made or otherwise to be much more influential than previous climate changes. I was not attempting to see who has deprived themselves of modern conveniences/luxuries for the benefit of the planet.
User Avatar
timfoltz

 
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:23 pm
Location: Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby erykmynn » Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:02 pm

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever




No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.
whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.


I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.
I hate to break it to you, but those people aren't environmentalists.


Oh yes, they are. In Denmark the nature conservancy association used to throw a fit if the state wanted to build a single high-voltage line. Now they are in favour of putting hundreds of windmills in preserved wetlands!
Maybe they figure they'll be off-shore after sea level rise? :roll: Those aren't the people I was talking about anyways. IMO saying you're an environmentalist doesn't make you an environmentalist. If you're doing a bad job of being an environmentalist, then you're not an environmentalist.

A lot of environmentalists are realizing that AGW is de-personalizing, and taking emphasis away from more tangible issues. I know you like Nuclear, and the enviros did play a big role in the changed perception of that power source. But without 3 mile island and chernobyl, would they have had nearly as much shit in their diapers?
User Avatar
erykmynn

 
Posts: 4156
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:52 pm
Location: Oakland, California, United States
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

PreviousNext

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.