The Global Warming Fraud

Discussion in 'Science' started by StarManMBA, Jan 2, 2019.

  1. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you're using a different definition than scientists. The "consensus" represents the theory that best matches observations. It is the manifestation of the scientific method.

    Scientific consensus is born out of evidence.

    Religious orthodoxy is born out of faith.

    I think you're confusing concepts here. The laws of physics do not discriminate based on political affiliation or socioeconomic control hierarchies. In other words increases in CO2 will always produce a positive radiative forcing on the planet regardless of whether a totalitarian regime has socioeconomic control or not.

    The consensus theory predicts that the Earth should be warming. Observations confirm this prediction. I don't doubt any of that. Do you have me confused with someone else?

    What would be deceptive about reducing carbon emissions?

    No. On the contrary I along with scientists fully embrace this fact. Therefore I have no choice but to acknowledge that our 4% contributions to the total emissions has resulted in a 30% increase in the total airborne concentration of which humans are 100% responsible. That's how the math works out. And I've gone over this at least a half dozen times with you already. Do we need to rehash this again?

    Nature should obey the laws of physics. We've never observed it not doing so. So in the absence of human CO2 emissions the Earth should be cooling, albeit only slightly, and in accordance with the laws of physics.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  2. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nah, We get it. Consensus is what high school girls work towards. Science doesn't, never has, nor should it. Consensus simply means that you have committed orthodoxy. You work, tirelessly to describe a world where carbon is evil, and yet life (the consensus theory at least) on this planet couldn't exist without it. But for you, it's bad. We get it.

    They you purposefully missed the point. The advocacy of your faith is what ultimately costs those around you their liberty and freedom. It's folks, like you, who insist that they have to save the rest of us from ourselves that then gives you the reason to enforce your tyranny. It has nothing to do with the science. So why continue to purposefully ignore the effects of your own ministry?


    Ok, so the earth should be warming, and yet, you still yammer about how warming then must be stopped. Seems you wish that temperature should then be a knob you control in denial of the actual physical world around you.

    Yes, you fully embrace the catechism. We've seen it before, and frankly your math doesn't end up adequately underpinning the assertion you've made. The inability to differentiate natural CO2 production increases from simply man made are the weak part of your faith.



    So this seems counter to what you previously suggested, no? You started the para saying that the earth should be rebounding, and now, suddenly, you've changed your tune, and are now suggesting that it should't be warming. And in the most interesting admission you've ventured, you're suggesting that "slightly" is now a condition you care about. The internal conflicts of your faith are astounding.
     
    ChemEngineer and Blaster3 like this.
  3. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113

    "You"? You who?
     
  4. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    6,008
    Likes Received:
    5,302
    Trophy Points:
    113
    agw hoaxsters, that's who
     
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, so you're just simply not going to accept established definitions for scientific jargon...got it. So tell me...if "consensus" is offensive to you then what word do you want me to use to describe the theory born from the scientific method that best matches reality?

    And I don't think carbon is evil. What I think is that when it is chemically bonded with O2 in the atmosphere it will produce a positive radiative forcing at the surface.

    My advocacy of AGW is based on scientific evidence and nothing more. My passion on this topic is narrowly focused on making sure people understand the science. What you and our political leaders do with that information is a different topic; probably one worth having. I'm just not that passionate about it.

    The abundance of evidence suggests that a warming planet will be net harmful to humanity. But at the very least shouldn't we do an environmental impact study before allowing the global warming experiment to proceed?

    Sure. We'll rehash this again. This is really simple math requiring nothing more than middle school knowledge.

    Let...

    A = absorption
    E = emission
    a = anthroprogenic
    n = natural
    C = total concentration
    t = time in years

    And...

    ΔC = ((Ea + En) - (Aa + An)) * t

    And usually observational data...

    Aa = 2 ppm/yr
    An = 100 ppm/yr
    Ea = 4 ppm/yr
    En = 100 ppm/yr

    Therefore...

    ΔC:natural over 1 year sans anthroprogenic behavior is (En - An) * t = (100 - 100) * 1 = 0 ppm/yr * 1 yr = 0 ppm

    ΔC:all over 1 year with anthroprogenic behavior is ((En+Ea) - (An+Aa)) * t = ((100+4) - (100+2)) * 1 = 2 ppm/yr * 1 yr = 2 ppm

    C = Ci + (ΔC:all * t) = 280 ppm + (2 ppm/yr * 60 yr) = 400 ppm

    Anthroprogenic emissions represent Ea / (Ea + En) = 4 / (100 + 4) = 3.8%.

    Anthroprogenic concentration represents (ΔC:all * t) / C = 120 / 400 = 30%.

    Anthroprogenic responsibility for the change in concentration is (ΔC:all - ΔC:natural) / ΔC:all = (2 - 0) / 2 = 100%

    In reality Ea and Aa are not constant but have ramped up from 0 ppm/yr and 0 ppm/yr to 4 ppm/yr and 2 ppm/yr respectively.

    Note that emissions are in units of ppm/yr and concentration is in units of ppm and that ppm/yr is NOT the same thing as ppm. When you make statements or insinuate that humans are only responsible for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere are you conflating emissions and concentration. That's your mistake.

    If there is something you don't understand about this then please ask questions.

    The scientific consensus (or whatever word you want to use for the best theory) says this:

    With all factors considered: The Earth "should" be warming rapidly.

    With all factors except anthroprogenically modulated ones: The Earth "should" be slightly cooling.

    If there is something you don't understand about this please ask questions.
     
  6. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay den. I'm down wid dat. Dem hoaxsters is bad people I tell ya. Bad people.
     
  7. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. One conspiracy theorist with a degree, and the right goes crazy. The right has all the wrong ideas. They are the bench mark for delusion, hypocrisy and disinformation.
     
  8. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unlike you Trump-haters, who know everything and tell everyone you know everything, every hour of every day. You know SO MUCH that Hillary lost despite outspending Trump 2 to 1, despite having the FBI and State Department in her pocket, despite cheating on the debate, despite having all the media shilling for her, despite spending millions to discredit Donald Trump with her fake Russian dossier. Keep it up Mister Antifa.

    If you simply google global warming fraud or climate change fraud, you will find a bit more than "one conspiracy theorist." Even Secretary of State John Kerry told the convocation in Paris that if Europe and the U.S. combined ceased burning all fossil fuels, it "would not make any difference."

    So suck it up, cupcake. Go green all the way. It's utterly futile.
    ha ha ha ha ha
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2019
    Zorro likes this.
  9. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sometimes you just have to know when to fold them and just call these conspiracists for what and who they are.
    Wow, you’re not smarter because you won an election. Third world countries do that all the time with crime and corruption. That’s where the right excels.
    upload_2019-11-8_7-55-3.jpeg
     
  10. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As far as climate change is concerned, just think about this. The Republican Party is the only political entity in the entire world that disagrees, because they have been bought out. Everyone one of the energy corporations who buy their loyalty, don’t even beleive that AGW is a hoax. That’s hysterical if it wasn’t so sad. You guys claim to be so smart yet you can’t get one university, Govt or formal research facility in the entire world to agree.
    It’s one thing to be bloviating hypocrites, it’s another to be the absolute only 33% in the world, secluded in a bubble in the US, while lead by the criminal Trump.
    Don’t forget...
    upload_2019-11-8_8-0-9.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
  11. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Evidently... Winter is coming.. this week. Meteorologists are expecting that thousands of all time cold lows and cold highs will be established. Setting up for a heck of a winter...
     
  12. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe non believers should get out more.
     
  13. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Left rakes in a LOT of graft on "climate" spending.

    THIS IS MY SHOCKED FACE: “11,000 scientists” climate emergency petition includes a bunch of fake names.
     
    ChemEngineer and drluggit like this.
  14. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you should....
     
  15. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Global Warming Fraud is militantly and angrily promoted by Eco-Hypocrites worldwide.
    I will start the list of Eco-Hypocrites' practices.

    1. Driving millions of miles to protest fossil fuels and the "evil" companies that produce them.

    2. Flying millions of miles to attend Eco-Hypocrite conferences all around the world, often in private jets, while lecturing to the Little People that THEY should cut back and suck it up. Here is a partial list of their Eco-Hypocrite conventions:

    http://www.conferencealerts.com/environment.htm

    3. Sierra Magazine publishes "ecotours" (sic) monthly, profiting from selling gas-guzzling flights, cruises and hikes around the world that can only be reached by burning nasty, evil fossil fuel that they all pretend to hate.

    4. National Geographic Magazine, same thing.
    It goes so far as to charge $95,000 per person for Around the World by Private Jet.

    5. Smithsonian Magazine, same thing.

    6. Greta Thunberg is autistic, or developmentally challenged, so naturally her parents fly her to New York so this poorly educated sixteen-year-old can express her hysterical emotions on world leaders. Eco-Hypocrites now use and abuse children whenever possible.

    Please begin your additions by numbering from 7 on.
     

Share This Page