US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers
- Thread starter squarepush3r
- Start date
- Status
Doer
Well-Known Member
Of course, the climate changes and that is hardly the issue, is it.
From ancient times, people suspected that the climate of a region could change over the course of centuries. For example, Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotle, told how the draining of marshes had made a particular locality more susceptible to freezing, and he speculated that lands became warmer when the clearing of forests exposed them to sunlight. Renaissance and later scholars saw that deforestation, irrigation, and grazing had altered the lands around the Mediterranean since ancient times; they thought it plausible that these human interventions had affected the local weather.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
From ancient times, people suspected that the climate of a region could change over the course of centuries. For example, Theophrastus, a pupil of Aristotle, told how the draining of marshes had made a particular locality more susceptible to freezing, and he speculated that lands became warmer when the clearing of forests exposed them to sunlight. Renaissance and later scholars saw that deforestation, irrigation, and grazing had altered the lands around the Mediterranean since ancient times; they thought it plausible that these human interventions had affected the local weather.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Do you not understand that the two terms are not interchangeable yet?
Global warming is the surface of the earth and ocean warming. Climate change is the resulting changes to the climate, e.g. weather and weather patterns.
You do know that global warming isn't 'weather' right?
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Cutting a forest down and having a field or small area that gets colder as a result is much different than raising the global temperature by 2-3 degrees by rampant CO2 emissions.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Sure. If you knew the cause and effect. They didn't understand the cause and effect of climate. And you don't have a cause and effect established either. So, the consensus fails on facts and later new evidence, make more consensus to study.
More often than not consensus fails, since the role of science is to knock down the consensus. Yes, it is to disprove the consensus.
So, Rain follow farming and a host of other consensus, failed. Many have failed in my lifetime.
Leave out " Rampant" until you show the significance and amount of the man-made carbon in the atmosphere. Is it really that much?
Leave out "raising" since that assumes we did something...man made carbon did this.... but that is unknown.
We may say a few degrees warmer in some places , maybe..the rest is just unknown jaw bone about why.
It is simple logic fallacy.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
You deniers are all the same.
How's this for cause and effect;
Where on that graph did the Industrial revolution take place? Where did the widespread usage of vehicles start on that graph? Where did the widespread burning of fossil fuels start on that graph?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
So co2 went from about 0.00028% to about 0.00038%. If your chart is correct. Big deal. By the way, I have a co2 meter. Current co2 reading is 290ppm, not 385ppm as your chart shows. If you're so concerned about co2 emissions, stop breathing. You know, I got to wonder about the mental stability of a man who uses an avatar purportedly of some one he hates.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
If you look at the lowest part of the chart compared to the highest part it has more than doubled, that's more than a 100% increase.
Wow, so your sample size of one retard in a shed doesn't exactly meet the world average..... shocking.
We had a normal routine happening, up, down, up, down, and then man started using fossil fuels at an exponential rate and the cycle stopped and skyrocketed.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
More than 100% increase is skyrocketing. Especially considering it's happening in the fastest manner ever recorded.
Pop quiz.... when was the Industrial Revolution?
Take a look, it's in a book!
[video=youtube;WfGhfI_NwcA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGhfI_NwcA[/video]
Answer; 1760-1850. The same time we started switching from wood, to coal.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
So we should go back to riding horses and heating our homes with wood? In less than a year, there won't be a tree still standing in N. America, half the population will be dead from starvation and violence, and the other half will soon follow. All while the rest of the world jockeys to see who gets to invade us first. I think I'd prefer a return to the climate that brought about the Renaissance.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i would not suggest a fireplace in your home.
just saying.
safety first. for the children. and the wives.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not only that, but FDR only served two terms and all the polling that correctly showed that obama was likely to be reelected were manufactured by the liberal media as part of a conspiracy.
also, the heartland institute. and thermometers are liars. as are gauges that measure the rising ocean level.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
What in the fuck are you babbling about?
Straw man argument much? There's a correlation between elevated CO2 levels and humans starting to burn fossil fuels. Nice logically devoid argument though.
If the only thing you have to contribute is facile arguments from absurdity, you might as well just stop now.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Went over your head I guess. I guess your shit income is a reflection of your worth.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Still babbling I see! Can't construct a meaningful sentence so you'll try to shit talk about my wealth, that you have even less of an idea about than global warming and the big bang theory.
Please, tell me again how scientific theories haven't 'become' laws yet.....
View attachment 3038533
- Status