Todd Hart #conspiracy

Todd Hart #conspiracy apps.facebook.com

isnt it al gore pushing this global carbon tax . i cant believe anyone with a 9th grade education would believe such bullshit , co2 is NOT poison all plant life need it , all animals exhale it , and to think that we humans can affect the ozone layer and only occupy 21% of the planet is pretty far afetched , this guy is a scam artist waiting to get rich ,.. and now all his scientists are busted , for falsifing all their data search climate gate

36 comments

old comment by Anon

Why is it that anyone who has even the slightest doubt about catastrophic climate change is denounced as a lunatic?

A number of the scientists have been found falsifying data, and others have been seen to drastically overstate the 'threat'!

Al Gore is indeed getting rich off pushing the climate change thing, he's making money from books and (IIRC) at least one film about the issue, books and films that don't seem to bother with any sort of independently verifiable scientific data, just conjecture and scaremongering.

Oh, and for the original commenter, people don't commit suicide by inhaling CO2, you're thinking of CO, which is more commonly known as carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide.

old comment by Antichrist

@ Anon

1. Well anyone over the age of 20 who has got out of their basement knows that the climate is changing. Maybe it's not as noticable if you live in the city, but considering that right now it's 11C/59F outside in an area that used to get heavy snows and -20 temperatures is a bit of a hint.

2. No they have not. A hacker stole a bunch of emails and the right wing took a few sentences out of context. Haven't you noticed that they always flog the same two sentences?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

3. Yep Al Gore's getting rich. Personally I can't stand the man. So I should keep all my 300W lightbulbs burning day & night and keep the hummer idling year round just to piss him off?

4. the first poster was making a joke. We actually need around 5% CO2 in our air. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

old comment by Anon

@ Antichrist: Agreed, it's changing a little, but where is the evidence for the catastrophic changes? Where I am it's been snowing heavily for two weeks in an area that usually gets no more than a light dusting every year, so no warming effect present here!
I'm not saying that there's no effect from increased C02 levels, because there is, I'm saying that anything more than a small shift either way will be regulated by the Earth's natural processes, a point that hasn't been addressed by those pushing the global warming idea, they just assert that "oh noes we's all gonna cook and stuff, PANIC PANIC PANIC!!!!!!"

Once the supporters of the AGW theory start to actually present evidence that their claims of global catastrophe are in any way valid then I'll take it seriously, but until then pointing out a relationship between two factors and panicking like crazy/exaggerating like a child does not equal reputable science.

old comment by Power Skunk

On the one hand, I agree with this guy; I think it's a bit arrogant to say that 200-odd years of heavy industrialization is making a significant impact on a planet that's 4.6 billion years old.
4.6 billion years. Wrap your head around that length of time. Go ahead and take a moment. In that time, this planet has seen dominant species rise and fall, ice ages, supervolcanoes, asteroid and comet impacts, magnetic pole reversals and shifts, solar flares, tectonic drift, mass extinctions, and any number of other natural disasters.
And, while I'm not denying global warming as a whole, I do doubt anthropogenic global warming. Earth experience ice ages, yes? So it only stands to reason that there are periodic hot ages as well. And we're either going into one or smack in the middle of it.
On the other hand, Todd Hart is talking out of his ass with this stuff.

old comment by Mister J

@Power Skunk

The argument was never "global warming would destroy the planet". Indeed, the fossil record is full of massive catastrophes that far dwarf our current situations. The Earth has almost lost it's biodiversity more times than one can be bothered to count for a variety of reasons. As you said quite rightly, the Earth has been here for billions of years, and will probably last billions more.

However, mankind has only been here for a fraction of that time, and it has been shown constantly that we don't exactly adapt to sudden climate changes very well. Factor in the fact that we also have a civilisation that is very dependent on constant production and economic growth in order to sustain itself and OUR situation suddenly becomes quite precarious.

So yeah, the Earth will still be here. We, however, may not be for much longer, and that's a damn sight more important!

As for your other comment about ice ages and interglacials, those factors have never caused warming at a rate we've observed before, whilst virtually every other natural forcing (e.g. solar intensity, orbital fluctuations, etc) are too low right now to account for the temperature increase we're seeing.

For more info, you can look up these arguments in a lot more detail over at realclimate.org, skepticalscience.com, or the IPCC's report for policy-makers.

old comment by Anon

@ Rallymodeller: Yes, I know, I was being facetious with that point, as somebody else had claimed that their local area is hotter and that it constituted evidence for AGW, I don't think it does, any more than that my area was colder.

Somebody asked earlier what I'd consider as valid evidence, so I thought I'd answer them:
1) Proof that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will set off a positive feedback loop causing ever-rising temperatures, rather than being regulated by other natural processes (increased cloud cover blocking incoming sunlight, etc) in a negative feedback loop, like every other physical phenomenon!
2) Proof that the current climate changes are not simply a result of the Earth's long-term weather cycle (ice-core evidence currently suggests that it is)

Neither of those pieces of evidence have been forthcoming, and I doubt that they will be forthcoming, but the global-warming industry will carry on, I'm sure, plenty of people are making plenty of cash out of it.

Oh and not everyone who doubts AGW is a raving lunatic republican, I'm from England for a start, was rooting for Obama, and would vote left-wing at our upcoming election if it weren't for the fact that Labour have fucked everything, although I love this site, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a fundamentalist is an ugly, intolerant thing.
I'm aware nobody in this thread said any such thing, but I've seen others accused of being right-wing fundies purely for disagreeing with AGW.

old comment by Haseen

1) Proof that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will set off a positive feedback loop causing ever-rising temperatures, rather than being regulated by other natural processes (increased cloud cover blocking incoming sunlight, etc) in a negative feedback loop, like every other physical phenomenon!

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Heating from CO2 increases evaporation, so there's more water vapor in the air, setting up that positive feedback loop. The presence of water vapor doubles the greenhouse effect from what CO2 would do alone. Models show that, and actual records (you know, people actually getting off their asses and measuring these things) support it.

2) Proof that the current climate changes are not simply a result of the Earth's long-term weather cycle (ice-core evidence currently suggests that it is)

Oh, the abrupt spike in temperatures that correspond to our increase in CO2? That happened much faster than any natural changes we have records of? Denying it is pretty much like claiming the black eye you got after being punched was "just the effects of aging."

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

Toxicity has nothing to do with climate change, dipshit. We can affect the atmosphere because we're capable of pumping various gases out into it. One human certainly couldn't affect it, but with 6 billion of us it's actually feasible. And for the record, I'm not 100% convinced of climate change being man-made, yet even I accept that this scenario is possible.

Also, C02 can be dangerous to oxygen-breathing lifeforms if it reaches high enough levels. In normal concentrations, the atmosphere is about 0.4% C02. At a 1% concentration in the air, you start to feel slightly woozy, at 5% you become noticeably ill and at 8% you can be incapacitated, and even die if exposed for long enough.

Todd Hart #conspiracy apps.facebook.com

36 comments

Confused?