Posted on 02/17/2011 12:38:22 PM PST by neverdem
and it is also fitting that the moron doesn’t recognize which side he is on and that it is not the right one...
heavy sigh.... (increasing carbon footprint with that one)
teeman
OK, I’ll concede that man is causing global warming by emitting carbon dioxide
when they can explain to me how reducing a “greenhouse” gas that makes up 0.117%,
that’s ZERO POINT ONE ONE SEVEN PERCENT
of the greenhouse effect
will have any effect on climate.
HACKS!
“deniers”?
Pa-th-etic, when will the Global Warming Believers realize that is not grape kool aid that is in the center of their meeting?
If we are the deniers, then why do they resort to fixing the data? At least we are honest in our science.
“This is true today: Modern science has conclusively demonstrated that human activities are dangerously overheating the planet.”
Outrageous lie.
That was when the church was the government....
“There is no point trying to change the climate cranks minds. For economic as well as ideological reasons, they will no more acknowledge the truth of man-made global warming than the 17th-century Vatican would concede that the Bible was not literally true.
The rest of us, however, can change how we relate to the cranks.”
What is hilarous about this dimwit is that overwhelming evidence to the contrary of his ‘facts’ go in one ear and out the other for the exact same reason he states that the cranks don’t believe. I myself can’t wait indeed to see how history laughs at these beliefs of man made global warming. He’s a ‘concensus’ guy, when there is no consensus and scientists that have one bit of intellectual honesty know that it isn’t a done and finished scientific fact. It is a theory, being tested. He’s one of those ‘scientist’ type thinkers that said string theory and quantum mechanics was impossible in the 1950’s because it went against the already established scentific ‘fact’ of reality at the time. Dullard to the core.
Speaking of which, will Sharia Law recognize global warming?
Or will it behead people who put their environmental religion before Allah?
The Galileo/Vatican contraversy is grotesquely simplified in the popular recitation. Galileo was not a competent astronomer by Renaissance standards. He did not understand either Ptolemaic nor Copernican methods, which weakened his arguments immeasurably. Basically, Galileo had a contentious personality and a way of making enemies (and admirers). One of his admirers was Pope Urban , but when Galileo went out of his way to insult Urban in Dialogues the Pope declined to intervene and save him from his enemies.
He may have unwittingly stumbled on the real truth, with a minor correction:
Despite having no more scientific credibility than the Flat Earth Society, the climate cranks environmentalist wackos have held our nations climate energy policy hostage for decades.
Fixed. Obviously, our author is one of said wackos.
So, 4% of 0.037% is.... 0.0148% of the atmosphere. That is what we are talking about here, at most. But wait: eliminating all of that amount would mean wiping out the human species, which is certainly not the intent of climate change proponents, right? Well, most of them, anyway. Instead, what they propose is the implementation of radical and expensive government controls in an effort to reduce the human CO2 contribution by... (wait for it)... 1%.
Thus, trillions of dollars and massive new global government regulations are proposed to reduce CO2 emissions by fifteen ten-thousandths of one percent - well within the normal season variance of CO2 concentrations on Earth. It is the biggest scam - and power grab - ever proposed in world history.
And now, we have this:
"Modern science has conclusively demonstrated that human activities are dangerously overheating the planet..."
Not even James Hansen, the "Hockey Stick" Man himself, would be willing to make such an outrageously false statement. Other idiots however, apparently have no such reservation.
Here is REAL SCIENCE!!!!
http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2010/03/simple-chemistry-and-real-greenhouse.html
Any “global warming” nuts wanna have a crack at debunking this?
Wash your eyes out with this rebuttal:
Mark Hertsgaard displays an embarrassing lack of self-awareness with that statement. But then perhaps leftists such as Hertsgaard have lost the ability to feel embarrassment, when the alternative is paying attention to facts that call leftist dogma into question.
First he decries the supposed intransigence of the authorities (as represented by the RCC) that refused to listen to the arguments of Galileo ("the denier"), while lionizing Galileo's efforts. Then in the next breath he uses a "reference to authority" argument to prop up his assertions of impending man-made climate-change doom and to damn all of those pesky deniers (Galileo excluded, of course). He's playing a game of "good denier, bad denier" without even realizing what he's doing. Talk about cluelessness...
Hint to Hertsgaard: "Major scientific organizations" are political animals that follow the money, the orthodoxy, and the crowd - they are not actually organizations that follow the scientific method to arrive at their pronouncements. The leadership of such societies have often taken sides on issues without adequately polling their membership. For example, do some research about the controversy within the APS (American Physical Society) wherein actual scientists took strong issue with the official position of the APS leadership that climate science was settled science.
It would be a good idea for bandwagon jumpers such as Hertsgaard to do some reflection on the meaning of the oft-repeated caution that "science advances one funeral at a time"...
Here’s where I got the 0.117% number.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
We’re talking about slightly different things, but the gist is the same - man’s CO2 contribution is MINIMAL.
That site is referring not to the actual greenhouse gas content in the atmosphere, but the gas’ contribution to the greenhouse EFFECT.
Lefties - you're gonna have to come up with another magic bullet to impose communism on us. We're not buying this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.