GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - Saudi Arabia believe in man-made climate change ?

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Saudi Arabia believe in man-made climate change ? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1160292)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20380487)

Oh and Canada could not care less about reducing its carbon.

Just the way it should be. :thumbsup

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue (Post 20380474)

I have never once said I know more than any scientist. But I am willing to consider the work of some scientists who may know as much as, or more than, other scientists.

There is no proof of any of my "claims" - just as you cannot offer any proof of any of your claims while you also argue here on this message board. There is scientific evidence that contradicts and/or calls into question other scientific evidence. Therefore I remain unconvinced that the science is settled as you so eagerly believe without question. That is a political position not a scientific one.

You and Mark Prince are the only ones here trying to put things into absolute and unassailable terms.

.

There is plenty of proof, you just don't accept it.

This is a basic explanation of how humans have caused more greenhouse gas which in turn has speed up global warming..

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Quote:

Originally Posted by 420 (Post 20379700)

Overpopulation is the root of the problem. There's no need to debate about it though. Earth will take care of it herself through her natural cycles.

the fact there is overpopulation is strong evidence there isn't a problem... We are thriving despite our imperfections as humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20380486)

USA leads the globe on reducing carbon. Its as simple as that. Spin it any way you need to make it a slight on USA but the simple fact is very clear.

USA also leads producing carbon (top positions). It has high emission amounts; respect for improving the situation, but it is not yet A grade student.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer (Post 20379667)

Climate change is not "man made". The climate is always changing... and was changing well before the existence of man. Further, the climate has been warming for 1000s of years.

Man might contribute the current warming.

People telling that stuff either haven't got the concept, or are keeping other people stupid as hell.

That is equal to telling that cars have usually four tyres and steering wheel. No shit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123 (Post 20380536)

USA also leads producing carbon (top positions). It has high emission amounts; respect for improving the situation, but it is not yet A grade student.

I stand by my original comment, the USA leads the world on reducing carbon production. Make a judgement call on wtfever grade that translates to but we're at the head of the class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20380450)

Please.. You keep talking about how you know more than all those silly scientist whom work on this stuff for a living.. Yet here you are arguing on a message board and can't even offer up any proof of your claims.

It's crockett science

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20380550)

I stand by my original comment, the USA leads the world on reducing carbon production. Make a judgement call on wtfever grade that translates to but we're at the head of the class.

USA, USA, USA!! (picture me waving post stamp sized US flag) :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aka123 (Post 20380556)

USA, USA, USA!! (picture me waving post stamp sized US flag) :)

OK, what are you wearing while waving USA flag?

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20380499)

Evidence does not equal proof. Theories do not equal proof. Computer models do not equal proof. John Cook is not the be-all and end-all of discussion on this topic.

You post a link to a point on a blog (run by a discredited evangelical christian) so I will post a link to a direct counterpoint from another blog:

The Reference Frame: John Cook: Skeptical Science

Quote:

There's no empirical evidence: Cook offers what he considers the key empirical evidence: CO2 is measured to rise; satellites show that it blocks some IR rays; oceans are apparently collecting heat. This gives a "line" of evidence, he thinks. Well, there's no doubt that we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But whether it matters depends on a "line" of hypotheses and several of them are only supported by a very poor evidence. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link: it's a point that Cook and others completely misunderstand. He apparently thinks that the more convoluted chain of arguments he constructs, the more likely it will become - and one vague evidence for each link is enough. However, the truth is the opposite one: the longer the chain of the relationships whose importance should be high is, the less reliable the chain becomes, and the more evidence we need for every individual link. The empirical evidence that CO2 is actually blocking the escaping IR radiation is extremely poor and the estimates of the heat accumulated by the ocean - and similar quantities - is often being changed by 100% or so. We don't really know the sign with any degree of confidence that would be worth talking about. To summarize the situation, there's no empirical evidence that CO2 actually affects the climate, and we only have theoretical reasons to think that it should have *some* effect - but we also know dozens of other things that should have an effect.

[...]

CO2 effect is weak: this is clearly the same point as 31 about climate sensitivity, and others. It doesn't even seem that John Cook realizes it's the same thing. Again, he claims that this CO2 effect is directly measured by energy flows. Lindzen and Choi recently showed that the energy flows, on the contrary, prove that the large positive feedbacks attributed to H2O etc. can't exist. But whatever the primary driver is, it hasn't been empirically determined what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo (Post 20380560)

OK, what are you wearing while waving USA flag?

Post stamp sized bikinis resembling US flag of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 20380450)

You're attempting to debate a guy (EonBlue) who doesn't believe any amount of CO2 is bad and the more CO2 the better. He has actually said that man and the planet would thrive if there were 100x more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis (Post 20380702)

This from a guy who probably doesn't even have a high school education.

Anyways, don't misquote me. I never actually said any of those things.

Sure there are amounts of CO2 that are bad. Too little CO2 can be just as devastating as too much. The question is how much is too little and how much is too much? Plant life shuts down at 150 ppm of CO2. Meanwhile we know that life has thrived on earth with CO2 as high as 8000 ppm or more. Seems we are much more dangerously close to the too little than the too much.

Greenhouses routinely pump CO2 in to levels of 1000 - 2000 ppm to get their plants to grow more vigourously. Clearly more CO2 is better for plant life.

And the whole 100x more CO2 thing was a typo and I admitted it at the time. I meant to say 10x. Period.

Now go educate yourself a little bit and stop trying so hard to get in the global warming alarmist "bro" club by attacking me instead of make any of your own reasoned arguments. Any rational and sane person should be able to see by now that the threat from increased CO2 has been vastly overblown and that CO2 is as vital to life on earth as O2.

.

Punxsutawney Phil predicts six more weeks of winter... so where is your man-made climate change now :1orglaugh

Quote:

Originally Posted by gebu (Post 20380943)

Punxsutawney Phil predicts six more weeks of winter... so where is your man-made climate change now :S

Man is keeping it cold so you have to buy more heating for your home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue (Post 20380927)

You only claimed it to be a typo after I provided links to show how crazy you are, in the same argument you also claimed that CO2 is not a poisonous gas in any amount. Yea, another typo. :1orglaugh