So that's it for the election.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Global warming fraud exposed

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That graph is misleading.

[Splorf22]

Actually that graph is pretty reasonable. If you look up the 10k graph from ice core data you will find it impossible to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

If you think about it a bit, while global warming itself is science, anthropogenic global warming is basically a religion, because it is also unfalsifiable.

[Hasbinlulz]

I find that it's misleading in two ways.

Firstly, the lay person (the audience of this board) is not going to understand that it represents variations from the normal up/down cycle rather than the up/down cycle itself or even base temperature. And how you would have to read that to make any sense is to compare it to the base up/down temp cycle.

Secondly, it appears to show that the last 300 years of "up up up" end within "normal levels," but in fact, the last bit represents a huge spike up with no down cycles to balance it out that conveniently ends when the spike hits the upper limit of the "normal levels." Project a few decades onto that graph and it becomes a different story altogether.

[Hasbinlulz]

It's really simple to design a valid graph to impart information that is not part of the graph nor valid.

[Lucky]

No it proves we were 'warming' far before carbon based fuels were even dreamed of and therefore there is no correlation between co2 levels and the alarmism by the hippie fucks.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actually that graph is pretty reasonable. If you look up the 10k graph from ice core data you will find it impossible to believe in anthropogenic global warming.

If you think about it a bit, while global warming itself is science, anthropogenic global warming is basically a religion, because it is also unfalsifiable.

I've had it explained to me in a way that would lead me to different conclusions, but I don't really understand the data very well. Could you explain this? It appears you know what you're talking about but I'm not just going to accept your word on it. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinlulz]

Actually it "proves" nothing since nobody can ever "prove" anything besides a mathematical equation.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lucky]

I can prove earth has 004/100 of 1% (390ppm) of co2 in the atmosphere, and venus has 96%, and is only 8x hotter while being 6/10 the distance from the sun. QUITE AN EXPONENTIAL LEAP TO CLAIM CO2 IS A MAJOR ISSUE

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can prove earth has 004/100 of 1% (390ppm) of co2 in the atmosphere, and venus has 96%, and is only 8x hotter while being 6/10 the distance from the sun. QUITE AN EXPONENTIAL LEAP TO CLAIM CO2 IS A MAJOR ISSUE

i lol'd irl

[Splorf22]

Well seeing as how we are already hitting all the controversial topics we might as well hit global warming.

Most people know the general theory of global warming: carbon dioxide (the result of burning gasoline) and methane (from cow poo) and such are 'green house gases'. They are transparent to visual light (emitted by the sun) but not infrared light (emitted by the earth). This is basically a good thing; without the atmosphere the earth would be -40 or something.

What most people do not know is that that carbon dioxide has a very small effect on temperature. Its like 1C tops or something; I don't know the numbers off of the top of my head. The theory is this: that 1C will warm the planet, causing more water to evaporate from the oceans. Water is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (I guess it isn't as politically convenient to demonize water though). And it is this 'forcing' that creates the 5-10C increases you read about. There are tons of computer models which generate very different answers depending on their initial parameters.

Now, what we know for a fact is that the planet has become somewhat warmer over the past 150 years. What we don't know is why. The earth and its weather are a very complicated system, not to mention changes in solar activity. Unfortunately we cannot use science here (= do controlled experiment, create 100 earths with 50 that have strict green house gas laws and 50 that do not and measure the differences). We only have one planet.

My personal belief is that most of the environmental moment is really about people who hate the fact that corporations can bribe our government to do anything and therefore want to try and fuck them in return, somehow, anyhow. This is moronic at best, but I understand the frustration (this is also why I always laugh at Democrats. The government is *always* on the side of the rich. The more you try and enlarge the government to redistribute wealth, the more the rich win.)

Anyway Hasbin, go look up the data of the earth's temperature for the past 10000 years from the Greenland ice cores. It has gone through huge variations with no influence from man at all. I'm not saying that global warming theory is wrong, only that there are a lot of people with a lot to gain if it is right and the evidence is not (and cannot) ever be there.