Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 04/04/2009 8:38:28 PM PDT by neverdem
“genetically engineered carbon-eating trees might fix it.”
Did I really read that????
“I am 100% certain the link between CO2 and warming is complete BS.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Why do you always have to be right? Why can’t you be never wrong?
We depleted our free tomorrows long ago. Anyone who thinks this is still a free country falls under the category of none so blind as he who will not see.
So true, and nothing new, worship of the earth “god” has been around as long as history.
schu
Incontrovertible? As in "The debate is over!"?
One has systematically been given only two choices: Left or Right, "liberal" or "conservative."
Now we're given the choice of Candidate X(liberal) and Candidate Y("better than Candidate X").
;-)
There IS no debate that increased CO2 increases the amount of energy retained by the earth. That is simple physics, and has been known for decades. The debate, as I pointed out earlier, is about "how much" is the effect of that CO2 relative to other factors, many (if not most) of which are not treated in the AGW's math models, and some of which are simply not yet known AT ALL (yet).
The AGW types simply ignore contrary data. As an example, we know that at times the CO2 level of our planet has been as high as 1500 ppm (compared to the current 300 or thereabouts), and yet the planet was in the midst of an ice age at the time. Why??? We simply don't know.
Can we take Al Bore’s Nobel prize back?
But what you said was:
It is incontrovertibly true that the human addition to the CO2 level in the atmosphere increases warming.
The debate, as I pointed out earlier, is about "how much" is the effect of that CO2 relative to other factors, many (if not most) of which are not treated in the AGW's math models, and some of which are simply not yet known AT ALL (yet).
Which I take to mean that the "human addition to the CO2" level may have absolutely zero effect as to warming of the atmosphere. Hence, my challenge to your "incontrovertible" assertion.
What I said is absolutely correct. The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere by human activity MUST contribute to the overall warming of the atmosphere by some amount. This is a fact of physics, and not debatable. But whether that human addition is significant enough to make a difference in overall climate is very much open to question.
NO scientist will EVER say that the effect of the human contribution of CO2 to the warming of the planet is zero. What is of debate is whether that addition is significant to the overall climate.
And this is precisely what the global-warming propaganda depends on. Remember, all propaganda contains a core of truth, otherwise, it would be easy for people to verify. "Climate change" science is so complex and esoteric that people can be easily misled by propaganda.
1.) FDR ended the Great Depression.
2.) Sacco and Vanzetti were railroaded by a nativist judicial system.
3.) Liberals are smarter than conservatives.
4.) The Constitution is a living document. The moment judges think that way, it’s a dead letter.
5.) Monorities can’t be racists.
6.) Sending every nitwit to college will make this place a better country.
6a.) A college education makes you more productive.
6b.) College teachs you to think.
6c.) College educated people are more civil than the military.
7.) That colleges exist for any reason than to furnish employment for people who can’t make a living with their hands, or their brains. I give you Ward Churchill as exhibit A.
8.) That Europeens are better educated and more civilized than their transatlantic cousins.
9.) That Democrats and Ronald Reagan both worked to win the Cold War.
10.) That the Russians were never a serious threat.
11.) Islam is a religion of peace.
The problem is that the only thing preventing any countries from building bombs is money and infrastructure. The knowledge to build nuclear weapons is out there. An advanced high school physics kid could build a bomb if he had the money and materials. The world lost it’s innocence at Alamagordo, it is naive to believe we will forever limit the spread of such weapons, we can only delay their spread if we had leaders with balls. It’s like a version of gun control, you can pass all the laws you want, but the only people who will disarm are those that want to, those who want guns will get them anyway and will be the only ones that are armed.
Sort of like peeing in the lake raises the water level?
Exactly. You know the level HAS to increase, but the increase isn't signficant.
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.