31Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNot all of the taxes go towards preventing global warming. Some of it goes to education and mental health services which are obviously under resourced given the state of your postings here.Originally Posted by Libertarian Contrarian
Not all of the taxes go towards preventing global warming. Some of it goes to education and mental health services which are obviously under resourced given the state of your postings here.
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
that's like asking "is there any good info on the loch ness monster"
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Honestly, when I read this I cringed with embarrassment. Another blogger who has refuted global warming! Why not go and try this stuff out on your wingnut libertarian websites? They'll probably tell you you're a great fellah.
Unfortunately, you have not even got the basics right. No doubt you got your numbers from a strawman you met in a pub. Citations? Didn't think so.
The key number is a rise of ~3C in temperature for a doubling of CO2. In 1970 CO2 level in the atmosphere was 340ppm. Now it is 390ppm. Just taking a crude linear proportion (390-340)*3/(340) = 0.44C, must closer to the actual warming.
As I have tried to point out to you, current warming predictions are NOT based on the geologic record so your last sentence is another crock of sh*te.
By all means, play around with the numbers - it helps understanding. But refuting a major scientific consensus with a half-hour in Excel? Come on.
Cassandra Syndrome habitually claims "Temperatures should have risen [X] by year [Y]" where X and Y are basically random numbers. He's never able to show the prediction actually exists, at most that it's (where "it" is whatever he's claiming today) somehow inferred from the hockey stick graph (which is of course a historical reconstruction, not a prediction of any sort).
Do you believe that this is a linear relationship?
Cut the patronising bullsh*t tourist, the graphs shows perfect correlation between a range of 100 ppm for CO2 and 10 degrees C for temperature. Since 1950, apparently we have had another 100 ppm range of CO2, yet temperature has only increased 0.5C. Why does that not correlate? Its a simple question.
"No one rules if no one obeys" - Tao
Classic Cassandra Syndrome! Eyeballing a graph, inferring whatever you like from it and then claiming that's what the graph is meant to show and that's a prediction.
I mean you should have no problems finding predictions of a 10 degree increase based on 100ppm of C02 in the literature if that's what the graph means right? Or even you could quote the actual paper the graph is from and show they were saying that?
I'm guessing you won't.
Irrelavant post as you are a tourist who knows nothing about statistics and cannot comprehend the point I am making that given 400,000 years of "data" we have a hypothesis of a correlation of 100 ppm change in CO2 emissions and 10 degress celcius temperature. The last 50 years of another increase in 100 ppm acts as a form of null hypothesis to this.
Its perfectly simple 100 range of CO2 ppm = 10 C range in Global temperature.
Another 100 range = 0.5 Degrees.
2 different samples, 2 completely different results. Why?
Can we trust the latest sample of data on CO2 emissions?
Can we trust the sample of data from the Antartica for the 400,000 years?
Does correlation exist between CO2 emissions and global temperature?
Looking at the data one could surmise that the natural rise and fall in global temperatures CAUSES CO2 emissions to fluctuate. Therefore one could deduce that manmade increases of CO2 have nothing to do with causing global warming and climate change.
"No one rules if no one obeys" - Tao
Other than you eyeballing a graph and then saying it, who has proposed this hypothesis?
I think you've been watching too much Murphy Brown
Actual morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. Religious morality is doing what you're told, regardless of if it's right.
Reply With Quote