SxyxS said:
1)vaclav claus is a scientist-the fact that he is politician does not mean that he can't be a scientist.Al gore has a fucking bachelor of arts. btw claus is not writing much about science in his book,but how politics work and why they (and the UN)need this carbon tax to generate money.And Al Gore himself 2)i wish you was only5% as sceptic to the climate change as you are to my arguments-than you'd understood my explanation with the layer of black paint and co2. if you add some co2 to" co2 free air " you will see some warming effect.But this is just working until a certain point.As this point is reached there will be no more warming. it works like a color:you can paint something white into grey=it will get warmer.(you can add some co2,it will get warmer) you can paint it in darker grey it'll get even warmer(add some more co2=get warmer) paint it black= it will get warmer(add more co2= warmer) but as soon as you have painted it black once you've reached the maximum point of warming,as black is absorbing the maximum of sunrays and converting them into heat.The same with climate gas-the climate gas in our air has already passed the point where it can absorb the maximum of sunlight and turn it into heat(infrared rays) i hope you now know what i mean.
what i'm really dissapointed is that you don't understand my explanation with the balloons. I know that balloons are a simple model,but i never wanted to use it as modell. I use the balloons to show you that co2 does not work as they tell you. if 0.01% could really heat climate up to 5 degrees,than co2 must be a hell of a molecule.0.01% is 1/10000.this is so fucking low-just like pissing into a pool and claiming that the temprature of the pool will rise 4 degrees.You know that this is impossible,but pissing into a pool is more realistic because by pissing in a pool you are adding heat from outside into the pool,with co2 you don't. if you are just a little bit sceptical you will have to ask yourself:Why the hell can 1/10000 co2 heat up our planet 5 degrees when 100% co2 inside a balloon have almost no effect.(1/10000co2=5degrees,100%co2=0degrees+ this is impossible.+answer-co2 is harmless.If co2 can do with sunrays what they tell us,than co2 would be the most precious stuff for the energyindustry.But noone is using it.Why?it does not work.
Imagine you walk into a room. Inside this room there is a big elephant(99.9%).Next to the elephant there is a huge pile of shit.At the top of the shit there is,just like always,a fly(0.01%). now Al Gore enters the room,and he is trying to tell you that the fly is responsible for the big shit.Would you believe him?never ever. But who is the elephant(99.9%) and who is the fly(0.01%) The elephant is the sun.ca 99.9% from our(earth) heat is from the sun.the rest is from burning fuel(which is stored sun energy as plants and animals) and from the earth core. the big shit is:global warming the fly at the top of the shit is co2.(0.01%) Al Gores lie is,that he is pretending that a tiny amount of co2(0.01%) is responsible for the global warming and(that's really shameless:he(and the IPCC) is excluding the sun as the main factor for global warming.How can you ignore 99.9% of the system?-this is not science but a scam. have you never asked yourself why the sun was never considered as main reason for global warming?Very simple psychlogy:They can tax co2,as you breathe co2,as you produce co2-but they can never tax the sun.noone would pay tax for the sun,but you will for co2 as you feel guilty and responsible.
btw-meanwhile Al Gore has earned several hundred millions of dollars with his carbon story.He is so altruistic-isn't he. |
Hmmm his wiki page doesn't mention him being a scientist, let alone a climate scientist. He's primarily a politician; he cofounded the Civic Democratic Party (considered to be the "largest conservative political party in the Czech Republic"). Just learning that throws up all kinds of red flags. For better or for worse conservatives generally are against taxes and regulations. One could come to the conclusion that there are political reasons influencing his opinions on climate change. Al Gore is also a politician. Your the one that brought him into the discussion. All politicians should be ignored when having a scientific debate. Anyways, this shouldn't become a politcal discussion so I'll stop there.
Skepticism is a fundamental part of science. Firstly, a someone proposes a hypothesis based on evidence from scientific method. This hypothesis is scrutinized by others in the scientific community. They run the same or similar tests to see if the result can be replicated. If it is repeatedly confirmed then a theory can be established.
Do you have a research paper or scientific article I could read?
I am wondering where you got those numbers from? And who said that CO2 was the only thing that caused a rise in temperature? Other gases (we've generated) like H20 and CH4 contribute to the greenhouse effect. The temperature is affected by many other things including the sun, volcanoes, and loss of sea ice. CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 35% since humans became industrialized and is just one of the many contributors of climate change.
We shouldn't be questioning whether climate change is real or not, because it is and its naturally occuring. It has existed before us and it will continue to exist after us. The question we should be asking is how much are humans impacting it? The scientific concesus is "that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,".
I'm interested in your thoughts on a couple of other things after reading second to last paragraph. Do you believe we ever landed on the moon? Was 911 a coverup by the US gov't? That paragraph makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist imo.
I wanted to end by saying I'm not one of those doomdayers who say climate change will kill us all. Not at all, its just something we should accept, prepare for and adapt to.
