- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:01 am to goatmilker
quote:
Its kind of a important question to have answered don't you think?
Ok, so apparently humans release 29 gigatons of carbon into a natural cycle of 750 gigatons. Thats 3.8% The idea, as I understand it, is that while 3.8% seems small its significant enough to affect what might be a very delicate balancing act as it pertains to affects on an environment conducive to human life.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:01 am to Hawkeye95
quote:Nope. The potential taxation > oil company profits. It's not even close.
Yes, and not doing anything about climate change is where the big money sits right now. Any sort of carbon scheme is going to affect big oil, and they do not want profits impacted.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 10:02 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:01 am to AUbused
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:02 am to Morgan56
Cows actually aren't as big an emitter of methane as termites. Let's get the feds to crack down on termites.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:02 am to AUbused
quote:
Ok, so apparently humans release 29 gigatons of carbon into a natural cycle of 750 gigatons. Thats 3.8%
FALSE.
What if I told you current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are significantly (statistically) below previous levels?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:03 am to Morgan56
Electric cars are worse on the environment.. than GAS
Humans really know how to help the environment... again..
Humans really know how to help the environment... again..
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:05 am to AUbused
quote:Name ten independent historical data temperature datasets...
Trends gathered from a very broad range of sources and from multiple angles.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:06 am to AUbused
quote:
Consensus
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:06 am to AUbused
Thats no answer. Why won't you answer?
What % of global warming is the contribution of man according to these 97%?
If its 0.001 that would seem low and not a problem.
If its 50% that would seem to be a severe problem.
So whats the answer to this very important question?
What % of global warming is the contribution of man according to these 97%?
If its 0.001 that would seem low and not a problem.
If its 50% that would seem to be a severe problem.
So whats the answer to this very important question?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:07 am to AUbused
quote:
Maybe you should have looked it up:
quote:You should look into the who he consensus is made up of (see other post)
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:09 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
You've presented a survey of biased evangelists with a lot is self interest.
Yes...you're right. The worlds foremost scientific experts "evangelists".
Its ok though. If I had just been owned as fricking hard as you with the "appeal to authority" post I'd be grasping at straws too. Its ok, you dont have to try to save face...the rest of the mouth-breathers here eagerly await your next post chocked full of fancy latin debate lingo. It appeals to their need to feel smart. Use Reductio ad Absurdum next!!!! They fricking love that one!
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:10 am to AUbused
50,000 years ago, the gulf of Mexico's shoreline was 10 miles farther out than at present, and 60' lower.
Cypress forest discovered off Alabama coast.
Seas have been rising since well before the Industrial Revolution, unless you think that this massive rise in the GOM sea levels began in the late 1700s.
Cypress forest discovered off Alabama coast.
Seas have been rising since well before the Industrial Revolution, unless you think that this massive rise in the GOM sea levels began in the late 1700s.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:11 am to AUbused
Still waiting while you post about nothings.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:11 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Name ten independent historical data temperature datasets...
That was kinda part of my post. That the datasets don't all deal with temperature directly.....but with trends that correlate with the temperature changes. Carbon levels in ice, tree's, ocean blah blah blah. Nothing you guys can't just chalk up to "evangelist" scientists.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:11 am to AUbused
quote:
Think about it seriously for a moment.....if 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are, in fact, at least partially responsible for climate change
This is a consensus because of the word "partially". Do know what partially means? Do you understand the range of outcomes partially brings to the table?
Do you even butterfly effect?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:13 am to AUbused
quote:
Its ok though. If I had just been owned as fricking hard as you with the "appeal to authority" post I'd be grasping at straws too. Its ok, you dont have to try to save face...the rest of the mouth-breathers here eagerly await your next post chocked full of fancy latin debate lingo. It appeals to their need to feel smart. Use Reductio ad Absurdum next!!!! They fricking love that one!
Yes... almost as much as they love some twaddle-brained pseudo smart guy preaching to us about climate change being ALL the fault of humans and how we must act NOW to stop it, and then doing nothing more that taking up a smart-alec, pandering holier-than-thou attitude when challenged. Because we REALLY love that.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:14 am to CptBengal
quote:
FALSE.
What if I told you current atmospheric CO2 concentrations are significantly (statistically) below previous levels?
I would tell you that my post didn't address carbon concentration at all and that you should probably re-read it. My post addressed the current natural carbon cycle and its relation to human output.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:16 am to AUbused
So, these scientists have models that they they created based on their hypotheses 20 years ago. What percentage of those models have been spot on? If the models aren't spot on, then your going on FAITH that their hypotheses are correct.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 10:17 am to goatmilker
100% of man-made global warming is man-made.
If you are asking how much temperature change is attributable to that 3.8% I couldn't tell you. But Im really no expert. They point of this thread was that you guys don't believe 97% of experts....so 100% of experts isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.
If you are asking how much temperature change is attributable to that 3.8% I couldn't tell you. But Im really no expert. They point of this thread was that you guys don't believe 97% of experts....so 100% of experts isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.
Page 5 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News