View Single Post
Old 02-25-2009, 07:08 PM   #33 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 808 Times in 592 Posts
Originally Posted by Binger View Post
There are mathmatical formulas way beyond my comprehension that are used to calculate exactly what an object will do when you exert a force on it. It started out as a theory and became fact through experimenting.

The only proof I have seen for global warming is some made up charts from al gore.
Then you can't have looked very hard. There are similar formulas used to calculate what X amount of CO2 does in the atmosphere. They were first figured out (with pencil & paper) by a guy named Svend Arrhenius (not sure if that's the correct spelling) back around the year 1900 - long before Al Gore came along. CO2 has been measured at the Mauna Loa observatory since the '50s, about the time Gore was still in diapers. See here for more: The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Yet when someone trying to prove global warming does an experiment it often ends up proving the opposite.
But your experimental example does nothing of the sort. Ever try to boil a pot of water? When you set it on the stove, does it boil right away, or does it take time to heat up? Same with global warming: the ocean is the last place you'd expect to see evidence.

In addition to which, looking for evidence of warming is like figuring out about gravity from examining the squashed corpse at the foot of the cliff - the point being that if you'd bothered to understand and use the physics, you could have predicted the results, stayed well back from the edge, and avoided the squashing.

This is a website for a petetion of over 31,000 scientists who disagree with global warming.
Including such distinguished names as Drs. M. Mouse and D. Duck :-) Really, that thing has been around for years, and has repeatedly been shown for what it is: a fake. Why are you so ready to believe obvious frauds, without doing any sort of checking?

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy...
The reality is that your energy use and so on are rationed now, by your ability to pay your power bill and so on at the end of the month. Using energy more efficiently means that in fact you would be less rationed, since you could e.g. have light for a lot less cost, or drive further on a dollar. And if the energy you use comes from wind, solar, nuclear, or geothermal instead of coal & oil, how does that threaten your freedom or quality of life? Seems to me that if they're affected at all, they'd be improved.

Can't you see this and all the rest for what they are, nothing more than pure scare tactics? Fear those black helicopters, folks, and keep sending your money to Exxon, Peabody, and the Saudis.
  Reply With Quote