Why I Stopped Believing in Man-made Global Warming and Became a Climate Skeptic

Thing1 said:
People are too ideological about energy.

Liberals HAVE to abandon the whole "we have to act to stop global warming!" thing. We can't stop global warming, even IF we're causing it. There is literally nothing we can do.

Conservatives HAVE to be more open to alternatives in order to formulate a more comprehensive energy plan, and reduce our dependence on foreign sources.

Our energy policy should be all of it: domestic drilling, clean coal & natural gas, even shale. It should be wind & solar & hydro & the rest. I don't see why people have to dig in, and ONLY favor domestic drilling, or ONLY favor alternatives.
Click to expand...

Wrong again; smug, arrogant, smarmy leftists are too ideological and think that anyone that doesn't goose step march to their tune is a rube and ignorant. They actually, and stupidly, believe that solar and wind are futuristic concepts. :rofl2:
 
signalmankenneth said:
Only a stuffed shirt, wouldn't like cartoons?!! Remember a picture is worth a thousand words?!!
In case you don't know the meaning of a stuffed shirt is: a conservative, pompous ass person.
Click to expand...

No one beats you when it comes to a massive pile of stupid. But when it comes to stuffed shirts, nothing can match the smarmy, arrogant, low IQ brown shirted tactics of the left......NOTHING. Dunce.
 
Truth Detector said:
Wrong again; smug, arrogant, smarmy leftists are too ideological and think that anyone that doesn't goose step march to their tune is a rube and ignorant. They actually, and stupidly, believe that solar and wind are futuristic concepts. :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Thing1 said:
So, where exactly was I wrong?
Click to expand...

READ what I posted and it would be clear to you. Or you can keep pretending to be a low IQ twit on steroids. :rofl2:

Do you actually stupidly believe that Conservatives have no alternatives? Now THAT is asinine.
 
Thing1 said:
Ah, well. I tried.

Just like there is no discussing anything w/ desh...
Click to expand...

You seldom try to do anything other than whine, bitch and stomp your little feet ThingTard. Spare me the Desh canard; it is more of the typical liberal buffoonery to trivialize anyone you disagree with. Good lord, nothing says "desh" like your whiney blather.
 
Truth Detector said:
You seldom try to do anything other than whine, bitch and stomp your little feet ThingTard. Spare me the Desh canard; it is more of the typical liberal buffoonery to trivialize anyone you disagree with. Good lord, nothing says "desh" like your whiney blather.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you don't like hearing the "desh" thing, but that's exactly who you are on this board. Totally closed off to reasonable discussion. Dug completely in on your hackish positions.

I'm sure it's not something you want to hear.
 
Milagro said:
The main gist of the article is that it is well known from the Arrhenius equation that a doubling of CO2 concentration will result in a temperature rise of around 1.2C. So from the start of the Industrial Age, when it was around 280ppm, to about the year 2070, when it is projected to be 560ppm, there will be a rise of that amount. This is all well known and universally accepted for the most part. However telling people that the global temps will rise very gently and without many adverse effects is not going to scare the horses. So alarmists have to program in positive feedbacks to get the temps. of 3-4C or even more. There isn't the slightest amount of empirical evidence to justify that as it only exists in climate models.

The excellent point the article makes is that the climate forcing effect of CO2 attentuates with increasing concentration, hence to achieve another 1.2C increase requires another doubling from 560ppm to 1120ppm which will never happen. This you are never ever told by alarmists because they want to scare the shit out of people. Of course there is also a very good chance that CO2 won't reach even 560ppm, as well before 2070, the increasing use of nuclear and gas power stations etc. will slow down emissions drastically.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you admit fossil fuel use is a contributing factor.
Thank you.
 
signalmankenneth said:
Only a stuffed shirt, wouldn't like cartoons?!! Remember a picture is worth a thousand words?!!
In case you don't know the meaning of a stuffed shirt is: a conservative, pompous ass person.
Stuffed+Shirt.jpg
Click to expand...
Yes I love cartoons if they are relevant, however sciencific discovery is not determined by who is the funniest cartoonist.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Truth Detector said:
READ what I posted and it would be clear to you. Or you can keep pretending to be a low IQ twit on steroids. :rofl2:

Do you actually stupidly believe that Conservatives have no alternatives? Now THAT is asinine.
Click to expand...
I thanked you but with the provision that you calm the fuck down.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Rune said:
So you admit fossil fuel use is a contributing factor.
Thank you.
Click to expand...
That's the trouble with you, I have said the same effing thing over and over. So it is only now that you finally get the message. I am a luke warmist and pretty much have been saying the same thing for several years now. The forcing effect of CO2 is well known and has been for over 100 years since the time of Arrhenius. Yes fossil fuels produce CO2, but natural gas produces far less than coal without carbon capture. As I've already said the doubling of CO2 from the start of the Industrial Age will result in an increase of around 1.2c. Indeed 0.8c has already occurred so if nothing were done in the meantime then we can expect another 0.4c by 2070.

I might also add that there is a mitigation effect in process as well as much of the excess CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans and vegetation. This can already been seen as resulting in a significant greening of deserts and improved crop yields.

The equation used by the IPCC to determine radiative forcing = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig). This predicts that you will get a 1.2c rise for every doubling of CO2 concentration due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
That's the trouble with you, I have said the same effing thing over and over. So it is only now that you finally get the message. I am a luke warmist and pretty much have been saying the same thing for several years now. The forcing effect of CO2 is well known and has been for over 100 years since the time of Arrhenius. Yes fossil fuels produce CO2, but natural gas produces far less than coal without carbon capture. As I've already said the doubling of CO2 from the start of the Industrial Age will result in an increase of around 1.2c. Indeed 0.8c has already occurred so if nothing were done in the meantime then we can expect another 0.4c by 2070.

I might also add that there is a mitigation effect in process as well as much of the excess CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans and vegetation. This can already been seen as resulting in a significant greening of deserts and improved crop yields.

The equation used by the IPCC to determine radiative forcing = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig). This predicts that you will get a 1.2c rise for every doubling of CO2 concentration due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, leading to ocean acification.
Coral reefs are dying world wide.
 
Thing1 said:
Sorry if you don't like hearing the "desh" thing, but that's exactly who you are on this board. Totally closed off to reasonable discussion. Dug completely in on your hackish positions.

I'm sure it's not something you want to hear.
Click to expand...

I could care less what you call me you whiney twit. :rofl2:
 
Last edited:
Buckly J. Ewer said:
Pro-pollution and pro-rape...
You have no morality...
You are fucking disgusting...
Poor Borbo...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't object if a burly Muslim fucked you up the arse, although I doubt it would be rape as you'd probably enjoy it. There are usually five pillars of Islam but that man mountain would introduce you to the sixth pillar!!

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
I wouldn't object if a burly Muslim fucked you up the arse, although I doubt it would be rape as you'd probably enjoy it. There are usually five pillars of Islam but that man mountain would introduce you to the sixth pillar!!

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So again, you heartily support rape, even propose it.
Noted ...again. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top