Water Vapor is 97% of Greenhouse Gases on Earth; Man's CO2 is 1% !!!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

21st Century Snake Oil

Jeff Scribner on Algorism.
​

...
More importantly, the Earth has been around for a long time:

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 10[SUP]9[/SUP] years ± 1%).[SUP][1][2][3][/SUP] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
​

During this period the earth has gone through some very significant “climate change” dwarfing any that has happened since the advent of anatomically modern man about 200,000 years ago. These “climate changes” include the changing of continents, movement of sea areas, heating far beyond anything ever seen by man and cooling to the point where major portions of the earth were covered with ice. Climate change has accounted for development and extinction of whole species like the dinosaurs, wooly mammoth and countless others. In short, the earth has sustained major upheaval and changes in climate far greater than any observed since records have been kept by man. Yet man was not there to emit any “heat trapping gases” or otherwise influence this climate change. So why do the authors of the Third National Climate Assessment have the temerity to tell us that man is responsible, in any part, for the minor warming observed in the past fifty years? Are you seeing any snake oil here?

Of course, since the warming trend of the past fifty years has apparently stopped for about 17 years, the snake oil salesmen are now claiming that the problem is still climate change and man is contributing to that via emissions of “heat trapping gasses.” The changes will cause melting of the ice caps, higher sea levels causing coast line erosion and flooding in some coastal cities. If we do not act and act soon, all of these calamities will overtake us.

Not necessarily so. Coast lines have been eroding for thousands or millions of years, some cities built close to the sea (and sometimes below sea level like parts of New Orleans) have exhibited flooding on and off for as long as they have existed. Ice near the poles moves around, changes shape, accedes and recedes some times opens navigation passages and sometimes chokes those passages with ice. Man has learned to deal with those things in the past and can deal with them in the future.
Moreover, The National Center for Policy Analysis published a study in March of this year showing that the modest warming of the past 50 years may be helping the economics and standard of living of people around the world. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba796

The snake oil salesmen want us to believe that our carbon dioxide output is contributing to warming (or other climate change) and that this is bad. If we swallow this, then we could subscribe to some of their “cures” like subsidizing alternative energy (does Solyndra come to mind?), killing our coal industry, slowing down the development of our oil industry and generally abandoning activities producing wealth and contributing to GDP in favor of slower growth, more expensive energy, fewer jobs, subsidies for alternative energy projects, additional taxes and/or cap and trade and a generally weaker America.

There may in fact be climate change. However, man did not cause it and probably can do nothing about it. If there is climate change, we must learn to cope with it or benefit from it while we continue to develop our economically viable resources and do other things to increase our GDP. We have to be smart enough to distinguish between the claims of the snake oil salesmen and common sense. Most of all we must not give up any more growth to mitigate a problem that we did not cause and might not even have!



Read more: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/06/jeffrey-l-scribner/21st-century-snake-oil/

 

[PRB]

21st Century Snake Oil

Jeff Scribner on Algorism.
​

...

So it's happening, just not worth taxing?

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

So it's happening, just not worth taxing?

Climate change is happening as it has for the last 4.5 Billion years, to degrees much larger than observed in the last 200 years. And No, it is NOT worth taxting. (Just like it is not worth raping, if you are wondering). Maybe you should consider taxing Sunrises too.

 

[PRB]

Climate change is happening as it has for the last 4.5 Billion years, to degrees much larger than observed in the last 200 years. And No, it is NOT worth taxting. (Just like it is not worth raping, if you are wondering). Maybe you should consider taxing Sunrises too.

Saying "it's happening" alone doesn't help us predict droughts, floods, snow, rain, sea level rises, iceless artic...etc.

So, are you willing to put any of these predictions to test?

I've told you a million times I'm against taxing anything, so we don't disagree on that.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Saying "it's happening" alone doesn't help us predict droughts, floods, snow, rain, sea level rises, iceless artic...etc.

So, are you willing to put any of these predictions to test?

I've told you a million times I'm against taxing anything, so we don't disagree on that.

I am not interested in predictions. The point of the thread is to demonstrate that antropogenic-CO2-driven global warming and the taxation scheme based on it is a blatant FRAUD.

If you would like to discuss a different topic start a new thread, but quit trolling here.

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

PRB, Foundation_Of_Liberty, you two knock it off back there, or I'll stop this fucking car and nobody's gonna get any ice cream!!!

Kidding.

 

[PRB]

I am not interested in predictions.

Like I thought, you seem so confident that AGW is wrong, but you're not willing to put your own claims to the test.

The point of the thread is to demonstrate that antropogenic-CO2-driven global warming and the taxation scheme based on it is a blatant FRAUD.

No it's not.

If you would like to discuss a different topic start a new thread, but quit trolling here.

You're the one who went from water vapor to taxation.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Like I thought, you seem so confident that AGW is wrong, but you're not willing to put your own claims to the test.

The claims were put to the test by nature itself. CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, way before the industrial revolution, with temperatures much lower than now. In fact the whole glob used to be frozen practically from pole to pole, and has thawed out and warmed up, way before human produce CO2 had anything to do with it. So the claims that global warming is due to human produced CO2 is proven dramatically wrong by nature itself. So my claims have been put to the test and found correct. Your claims, on the other hand, where put to the test, including the predictions of IIPCC, as well as Pentagon predictions 10 years ago, and were proven dramatically wrong. Test complete. Case closed. You have been proven wrong, but you are either too stupid to see it, or it is simply your job to lie here. Either way you have been soundly defeated in the eyes of anyone who has basic integrity and rudimentary understanding of high-school physics. Let the people judge for themselves who has proven his case better.

 

[PRB]

The claims were put to the test by nature itself. CO2 levels used to be over 10 times what they are now, way before the industrial revolution, with temperatures much lower than now.

There was ONE TIME this was true, and not all other factors were equal.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

You can't say that, and then tell me CO2 is actually a greenhouse gas and water is more abundant a greenhouse gas. Make up your mind and get your argument straight.

In fact the whole glob used to be frozen practically from pole to pole, and has thawed out and warmed up, way before human produce CO2 had anything to do with it.

Nobody said CO2 is the only cause of warming. Nobody said CO2 can only cause warming.

So the claims that global warming is due to human produced CO2 is proven dramatically wrong by nature itself.

Only if you cherry pick your data. So no, not "dramatically wrong".

So my claims have been put to the test and found correct. Your claims, on the other hand, where put to the test, including the predictions of IIPCC, as well as Pentagon predictions 10 years ago, and were proven dramatically wrong.

Then you should have zero problem giving predictions, but you admitted you can't and won't.

Test complete. Case closed.

Not until you make a prediction different than "alarmists" and are vindicated. Make one now, or point to any in the past 10 years where a "skeptic" made a prediction and was vindicated. Case isn't closed and your case isn't made until you pass this.

You have been proven wrong, but you are either too stupid to see it, or it is simply your job to lie here. Either way you have been soundly defeated in the eyes of anyone who has basic integrity and rudimentary understanding of high-school physics. Let the people judge for themselves who has proven his case better.

Except I didn't lie. Calling me a liar doesn't prove that I am. That's all you're capable of doing.

1. cherry pick
2. call somebody a liar
3. deny you can be wrong
4. fail to make predictions
5. when all else fails, cry "no taxes" as if I disagreed.

Whether you're talking to 9/11 truthers, global warming skeptics, creationists, anti-vaxxers or Holocaust revisionists, one question always kills the discussion : "Are you willing to make a prediction and hold yourself to the same scrutiny you do to your opponent". The answer is ALWAYS NO. They have a million excuses why they shouldn't have to follow the same rules of "Make a prediction, admit wrong, let somebody laugh at you"

Point to me where and when in the past 10 if not 20 years, a climate "skeptic" made a more accurate prediction than an "alarmist". You won't find it, what you'll always find is "Haha, you didn't make a perfect prediction, therefore you're totally wrong, I don't know what'll happen next, I wasn't ballsy enough to make another prediction, but I know you're wrong, that's all that matters, climate keeps changing, and it'll change ,I don't know when and how,but I just know it won't be what you say it is"

 

[Ranger29860]

So just read through that wall of text and tried my hardest to find just one scientific paper that was sourced in all that and I cant find it. If I missed it please point it out, if not why would you post all that with no sources and then try to stand on it like it is fact? BTW most of the links don't even work.

*edit*
found one, time to get reading

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Whether you're talking to 9/11 truthers, global warming skeptics, creationists, anti-vaxxers or Holocaust revisionists, one question always kills the discussion : "Are you willing to make a prediction and hold yourself to the same scrutiny you do to your opponent". The answer is ALWAYS NO. They have a million excuses why they shouldn't have to follow the same rules of "Make a prediction, admit wrong, let somebody laugh at you"

Point to me where and when in the past 10 if not 20 years, a climate "skeptic" made a more accurate prediction than an "alarmist". You won't find it, what you'll always find is "Haha, you didn't make a perfect prediction, therefore you're totally wrong, I don't know what'll happen next, I wasn't ballsy enough to make another prediction, but I know you're wrong, that's all that matters, climate keeps changing, and it'll change ,I don't know when and how,but I just know it won't be what you say it is"

You missing the point again.

The point is that there is ZERO evidence that HUMAN produced CO2 is the driving factor in global warming. The point is also that this FRAUD is used to push for world wide taxation scheme.

The UNPROVEN, actually DISPROVED theory is being used NOW to tax. Your job as a troll is to pretend you are opposed to the taxation but promote the lie on which the taxation is based. That is obvious.

But the point is that IT IS WRONG to rob people especially based on a flawed and fraudulent theory. THAT is the point of the thread. THAT is the point you failed to disprove. THAT is what I wish to talk about because it is of key importance. You made it clear you do not wish to talk about that.

If you wish to talk about something else, start a new thread and go troll there.

 

[PRB]

But the point is that IT IS WRONG to rob people especially based on a flawed and fraudulent theory. THAT is the point of the thread. THAT is the point you failed to disprove.

No, I completely agree with it. It's wrong to rob people period.

THAT is what I wish to talk about because it is of key importance. You made it clear you do not wish to talk about that.

If you wish to talk about something else, start a new thread and go troll there.

I already said I agree taxation is wrong. I don't know how much more clear I can make it.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

dlt

 

[PRB]

The point is that there is ZERO evidence that HUMAN produced CO2 is the driving factor in global warming. The point is also that this FRAUD is used to push for world wide taxation scheme.

Wrong, there's plenty of evidence

1. Global warming is established
2. Greenhouse effect is established
3. CO2 between man made vs natural/volcano can be distinguished
4. "Alarmists" make the most accurate predictions so far (until you can show better, everybody here has admitted they can't, they all just say "climate has always changed")
5. The primary voices against global warming being caused by humans are ALWAYS based on fear of taxation (not science)
6. You can be against taxation without being a denier of scientific claims (I sure am)
7. Calling every person who accepts the scientific consensus a taxation advocate only shows your own ignorance of the subject and reveals your own political agenda.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Wrong, there's plenty of evidence 1. Global warming is established 2. Greenhouse effect is established 3. CO2 between man made vs natural/volcano can be distinguished 4. "Alarmists" make the most accurate predictions so far (until you can show better, everybody here has admitted they can't, they all just say "climate has always changed") 5. The primary voices against global warming being caused by humans are ALWAYS based on fear of taxation (not science) 6. You can be against taxation without being a denier of scientific claims (I sure am) 7. Calling every person who accepts the scientific consensus a taxation advocate only shows your own ignorance of the subject and reveals your own political agenda.

With the same logic you can blame cow flatulence for global warming. Isn't methane greenhouse gas? Yes. Therefore, by your non-logic, cow flatulence is important, primary, and determining driver of global warming. Do you recognize your own argument here? Will you then say that cow flatulence is the determining and driving factor in global warming? I hope not, because it is clearly absurd. And I am using exactly the points you made in 1 through 7. What is the flaw in your arguments then? SCALE.

Cow flatulence is negligibly small compared to the forces involved. It is like a spit in a hurricane. THE SAME factor of SCALE is at play with human produced CO2. Why? Because it accounts for less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere with water vapor occupying 97%. It also does not take into the account the role of the SUN, duh, which is by far the primary driver. Bottom line, even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the atmosphere, it would make no significant change to global climate as is proven by millions of years of record where MASSIVE weather changes took place without ANY human produced CO2, and with natural CO2 being over 10 times today's levels with global FREEZING taking place. So this disproves the erroneous theory that HUMAN produced CO2 has ANY significant role in global warming.

And yes, publicly you oppose taxation, but you support the FRAUD that is used to “justify” it. So you are a perfect example of fake “controlled opposition” which pretends to oppose a measure but covertly helps to promote it.

 

[PRB]

With the same logic you can blame cow flatulence for global warming. Isn't methane greenhouse gas? Yes. Therefore, by your non-logic, cow flatulence is important, primary, and determining driver of global warming.

No, you can't. Not unless you can quantify it, then at the very least, track correlation on increase. Let me know when that's done.

Do you recognize your own argument here? Will you then say that cow flatulence is the determining and driving factor in global warming?

I'm not stupid enough to make that claim without quantitative evidence to begin with, so you can save that strawman for yourself.

I hope not, because it is clearly absurd. And I am using exactly the points you made in 1 through 7. What is the flaw in your arguments then? SCALE.

You're an idiot, or else you'd be able to follow.

1. Global warming is established (fact)
2. Greenhouse effect is established (fact)
3. CH4 man made or industrial age increase can be distinguished from "naturally occuring" (I am not aware of this)
4. "Alarmists" make the most accurate predictions so far (which alarmist, or "methane caused global warming" advocate has made such predictions and vindicated?)
5. The primary voices against global warming being caused by humans are ALWAYS based on fear of taxation (won't matter until we first establish who's claiming methane or cow flatulence is a primary cause)
6. You can be against taxation without being a denier of scientific claims (I sure am)
7. Calling every person who accepts the scientific consensus a taxation advocate only shows your own ignorance of the subject and reveals your own political agenda.

So no, it's just not the same. The data isn't the same at all.

Cow flatulence is negligibly small compared to the forces involved. It is like a spit in a hurricane.

That may be, but more important is whether there's an actually traceable increase since the industrial age or anything remotely correlated with global warming (let me know when you find it)

THE SAME factor of SCALE is at play with human produced CO2. Why? Because it accounts for less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere with water vapor occupying 97%.

You keep repeating this argument as if your whole argument depends on this point (I bet it does)

1. How is percentage measured?
2. Why do you assume percentage is the primary factor, as if all greenhouse gases have the same heat retention ability?
3. Why do you continue to ignore that water has phase changes which dramatically alter its greenhouse effect and weather modification ability?
4. Has water vapor increased with industrialization? Or can we draw an actual correlation graph with it?
5. Which "water is the primary driver" advocate has made better predictions?
6. What IS the primary driver? the sun? I dare you to make ONE prediction based on whichever you blame

It also does not take into the account the role of the SUN, duh, which is by far the primary driver.

except it isn't. How about you actually make a prediction based on the sun, if you're so sure the sun is the primary driver?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Go ahead, I dare you.

Bottom line, even if ALL human produced CO2 was removed from the atmosphere, it would make no significant change to global climate as is proven by millions of years of record where MASSIVE weather changes took place without ANY human produced CO2, and with natural CO2 being over 10 times today's levels with global FREEZING taking place.'

Except it's not been proven, you have at best ONE case where it was true, and it's been explained by other factors. Ignoring the whole pattern and focusing on ONE excpetion is dishonest cherry picking at its best.

So this disproves the erroneous theory that HUMAN produced CO2 has ANY significant role in global warming.

Not even close. Again, I'll ask again, FIND ME ONE SCIENTIST WHO CLAIMS THE SUN IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ASK HIM TO MAKE A PREDICTION HE'S WILLING TO PUT TO A TEST. I, unlike you, don't back down to challenges, I don't repeat the same lie as if nobdoy responded.

And yes, publicly you oppose taxation, but you support the FRAUD that is used to “justify” it.

I said a million times nothing justifies taxation.

So you are a perfect example of fake “controlled opposition” which pretends to oppose a measure but covertly helps to promote it.

only if you're stupid enough to think you can't oppose policy and taxation while agreeing with facts.

 

[PRB]

Why can't we just agree taxation is wrong? I'm totally with you on stopping any and all taxation, but you'd rather argue with me on whether global warming is caused by man, as if it matters. As if you'd support it if you were ever convinced it was true.

Your tactic is akin to a person who tries to claim he has no income to avoid income taxes, as if he'd gladly pay it if it was proven to him he has income. If you keep arguing that taxation is wrong ONLY because global warming isn't what it's said to be, you'll come back next time the government wants to tax something trying to argue again something else is false (but you won't have it so easy next time, because next time, they'll tax something you don't dispute, what then? invent a dispute?)

So what IF the government started taxing the sun? Would you then say the sun ISN'T the primary driver of climate change? Or can you finally admit it doesn't matter, you're just opposed to taxation?

Guess who's backing a solar power tax? http://www.alternet.org/environment/now-solar-capacity-soaring-koch-brothers-demand-tax-sun

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Foundation of Liberty, you're wasting your time. The person you're debating with once said that global warming research is a determinant of whether or not he would live near a river.

 

[PRB]

Foundation of Liberty, you're wasting your time. The person you're debating with once said that global warming research is a determinant of whether or not he would live near a river.

you're the one who donated to hurricane victims. and you admitted you didn't bother asking if any of them were dipshits who ignored warnings, apparently you can know not to live near a river without global warming research, but you can't do the same for oceans?

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Why can't we just agree taxation is wrong? I'm totally with you on stopping any and all taxation, but you'd rather argue with me on whether global warming is caused by man, as if it matters. As if you'd support it if you were ever convinced it was true.

Your tactic is akin to a person who tries to claim he has no income to avoid income taxes, as if he'd gladly pay it if it was proven to him he has income. If you keep arguing that taxation is wrong ONLY because global warming isn't what it's said to be, you'll come back next time the government wants to tax something trying to argue again something else is false (but you won't have it so easy next time, because next time, they'll tax something you don't dispute, what then? invent a dispute?)

So what IF the government started taxing the sun? Would you then say the sun ISN'T the primary driver of climate change? Or can you finally admit it doesn't matter, you're just opposed to taxation?

Guess who's backing a solar power tax? http://www.alternet.org/environment/now-solar-capacity-soaring-koch-brothers-demand-tax-sun

You can only rightly tax the things you own and nothing else.

Hypothetically, if someone was polluting environment to the point of materially damaging someone else's property, then equal force could be used to offset such aggression. In the case of public taxation schemes, be it carbon or the Sun, a) no such damage is provable, hence no force is justified, and b) why is the tax for such "damage" is to be paid to banksters instead of damaged parties? Thus such taxation schemes are illogical, immoral and evil on many levels. I oppose them on this basis.

The proof that human produced CO2 is insignificant in terms of global warming is simply an icing on the cake which supports point (a).

Thanks for your question.