Author Topic: Global warming is a big scam (Read 1364 times)

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2007, 02:00:34 PM »

I have had a sort of children's book called 1000 Facts About the Earth for several years, and in the book it mentions one fact about a certain time period a century or two ago when the temperatures were colder than normal. There was another fact mentioned about a time period earlier than that when the temperatures were hotter than normal. Now there is this global warming issue. The earth seems to simply have a pattern of adjusting its climate.

Vandaler · « **Reply #2 on:** October 26, 2007, 02:24:03 PM »

Hi bsdman,

A few hard questions for you...
But before, please note that in addition to Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Nitrous Oxide (NO2) and Methane also contribute to the green house effect.

Quote from: bsdman

However, I do have to say this. There are two methods of measuring the CO2 levels. Chemical (the Old school method), and the Infared method. Since the 1950's, the infared CO2 measurements have consistently increased (a steady slop upwards), while the chemical measurements, which stopped sometime in 1950's, seemed to be more inconsistent in their data (ie sometimes up, sometimes down)

So this situation begs the question: which is the more accurate method - CO2 or infared? I would love to see chemical method data over the last 50 years in order to compare the two methods, but I have seen no data anywhere.

Why is the question begged ? Are you suggesting that an equally viable or superior method of measurement may have been left behind in the 50's ? If the new method is not accurate, why are the measurements increasing at a stable rate as you noted earlier ? An inaccurate method would provide erratic results would it not ?

Quote from: bsdman

I tend to think that the earth is far more robust than we give it credit for, and our CO2 output does not affect the environment nearly as much as we think.

What do you base this inclination on ?

Vandaler · « **Reply #3 on:** October 27, 2007, 08:54:31 AM »

Let's us forget an instant about the chemical method and concentrate on whether the current method is accurate. And let's of course leave aside the non-interesting question whether one is accurate and the other even more accurate.

Consider these 4 possibilities involving these two factors: Are the CO2 levels increasing stably (A) and, are the current measuring method accurate. (B)

A = False
B = False

This is virtually impossible, it would mean that somehow, the fluctuating CO2 in reality, line-up to the erratic measurements to create a straight line increase. This is statistically impossible.
__________

A = True
B = False

Impossible, an inaccurate tool would not be measuring a stable increase like it does now.
__________

A = False
B = True

Impossible, an accurate tool would show that the CO2 levels aren't increasing stably. This is at odds with the image shown above.
__________

A = True
B = True

The only possibility that make sense. The current tools measure accurately.

It follows from this that if another method, which ever it is, does not confirm that levels are steadily increasing, that this method is in fact inaccurate for it's impossible to trump the fact that current method is measuring accurately.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2007, 06:27:12 PM »

It's all a joke. It was warmer in the 30's than now, and much warmer in the entire 13th century. In the 70's they complained of another Ice Age.

People are fickle to the time they live in.

Vandaler · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2007, 07:03:10 PM »

Even if all 4 of your statements are true (I'll lazily take your word for it), it does not follow that global warming is a joke.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2007, 07:42:04 PM »

So... where is this going?

Vandaler · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2007, 07:54:44 PM »

Quote from: gilbertgea

So... where is this going?

There are plenty of good sources for more information on the subject.
I merely keep the subject honest as much I can.

hollingsworth · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2007, 08:52:48 AM »

Quote

Vandaler:I merely keep the subject honest as much I can.

Yes, V., I recognized long ago, along with probably all the other bloggers on this site, that you are the sentinel standing at the gates of truth, a shining exemplar of probity, good sense, sound reason, and indisputable judgment. :wink:

Vandaler · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2007, 09:21:18 AM »

Hi Hollingsworth,

Well, I practically begged for my judgment to be disputed but it never happened. It was severely judged yes, but not disputed.

Someone else is filling those very same shoes nowadays.