Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is Law

This is a theory in which I do not believe in, right now. I don't have all the facts. I hear there is a 98% consensus of scientists who believe thatanthropogenic global warming is true. I haven't saw this list yet, but would like to. These regulations are for no serious purpose. It doesn't make people progress. The EPA will get bigger just to enforce these regulations. Those are jobs I guess. That's where we are headed in the US. Everyone is going to have a government job. And their responsibility is to watch other Americans. Big government, more taxes, less freedom.

http://www.lohud.com/viewart/20120628/NEWS05/120628001/Federal-court-upholds-EPA-s-global-warming-rules?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|News|s

I compare this fake enemy to the mock WWIII Peter Schiff says we should have if WWII really did get us out of the Great Depression by spending all of our money on the war. These EPA regulations aren't as big as a world war, but it's a start. The regulations force businesses to combat this fake global threat and more government jobs to make sure the businesses don't break the law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyW-o-Pr92M

Speaking of climate change I haven't seen KC around. Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Speaking of climate change I haven't seen KC around. HoolaHoopMan

It's okay to spend money and resources on something that doesn't exist? Lets have this fake alien invasion in a world wide scale. Al Qaeda attacks us because we are free. So we got to defend against them. They seem to be anywhere the US military goes. They're in the states already or there would be no need for the mock security called the TSA.LOXO7

Wait, it doesn't exist?

Since when does 'consensus of scientists' mean something clearly doesn't exist? Do you have any evidence to backup this claim?

----

In the shortest amount of words possible, in science: Law = the empirical observation, hypothesis = attempt to describe something, Theory = refined hypothesis that cannot be realistically invalidated. It(theory) doens't mean 'idea' in science.

Just because you don't feel like believing in something, doesn't make it false. You can pray away gravity all you want, swear it doesn't exist, but the second you find a cliff and jump off you'll start falling and be subject to it anyway.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]It's okay to spend money and resources on something that doesn't exist? Lets have this fake alien invasion in a world wide scale. Al Qaeda attacks us because we are free. So we got to defend against them. They seem to be anywhere the US military goes. They're in the states already or there would be no need for the mock security called the TSA.Inconsistancy

Wait, it doesn't exist?

Since when does 'consensus of scientists' mean something clearly doesn't exist? Do you have any evidence to backup this claim?

----

In the shortest amount of words possible, in science: Law = the empirical observation, hypothesis = attempt to describe something, Theory = refined hypothesis that cannot be realistically invalidated. It(theory) doens't mean 'idea' in science.

Just because you don't feel like believing in something, doesn't make it false. You can pray away gravity all you want, swear it doesn't exist, but the second you find a cliff and jump off you'll start falling and be subject to it anyway.

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]It's okay to spend money and resources on something that doesn't exist? Lets have this fake alien invasion in a world wide scale. Al Qaeda attacks us because we are free. So we got to defend against them. They seem to be anywhere the US military goes. They're in the states already or there would be no need for the mock security called the TSA.LOXO7

Wait, it doesn't exist?

Since when does 'consensus of scientists' mean something clearly doesn't exist? Do you have any evidence to backup this claim?

----

In the shortest amount of words possible, in science: Law = the empirical observation, hypothesis = attempt to describe something, Theory = refined hypothesis that cannot be realistically invalidated. It(theory) doens't mean 'idea' in science.

Just because you don't feel like believing in something, doesn't make it false. You can pray away gravity all you want, swear it doesn't exist, but the second you find a cliff and jump off you'll start falling and be subject to it anyway.

Yeah I saw that the other day, but I didn't think it warranted a topic given the large consensus among scientists that Global Warming is actually happening.

In some random unrelated news the town I live in topped a 76 yearhigh today at 106 degrees Fahrenheit and it will be even hotter tomorrow. Also on a somewhat related note (but not to global warming I assure you) the crops here aren't doing so well this year on account of the lack of precipitation.

Yeah I saw that the other day, but I didn't think it warranted a topic given the large consensus among scientists that Global Warming is actually happening.

In some random unrelated news the town I live in topped a 76 yearhigh today at 106 degrees Fahrenheit and it will be even hotter tomorrow. Also on a somewhat related note (but not to global warming I assure you) the crops here aren't doing so well this year on account of the lack of precipitation.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="lx_theo"] Don't worry about it, it'll go right over your head.lx_theo

lollx_theo

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

Yeah I saw that the other day, but I didn't think it warranted a topic given the large consensus among scientists that Global Warming is actually happening.

In some random unrelated news the town I live in topped a 76 yearhigh today at 106 degrees Fahrenheit and it will be even hotter tomorrow. Also on a somewhat related note (but not to global warming I assure you) the crops here aren't doing so well this year on account of the lack of precipitation.

LOXO7

Mhm.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]

Yeah I saw that the other day, but I didn't think it warranted a topic given the large consensus among scientists that Global Warming is actually happening.

In some random unrelated news the town I live in topped a 76 yearhigh today at 106 degrees Fahrenheit and it will be even hotter tomorrow. Also on a somewhat related note (but not to global warming I assure you) the crops here aren't doing so well this year on account of the lack of precipitation.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] You're crazy.LOXO7

lollx_theo

Speaking of climate change I haven't seen KC around. Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Speaking of climate change I haven't seen KC around. Serraph105

He's probably failing

Thread title doesn't make sense, nor does the original post. If you want a list of scientists, you'll have to contact the publishers of all the scientific journals that have included papers that suuport the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

Or you could spend countless hours in the library of a large university finding those papers. Either way, I'm sure it's easier for you just to say that since there isn't a streamlined list for you, it doesn't actually exist and there isn't a consensus at all.

Ignorance must be bliss.

Speaking of climate change I haven't seen KC around. Ace6301

Speaking of climate change I haven't seen KC around. Ace6301

Thread title doesn't make sense, nor does the original post. If you want a list of scientists, you'll have to contact the publishers of all the scientific journals that have included papers that suuport the idea of anthropogenic global warming.

Or you could spend countless hours in the library of a large university finding those papers. Either way, I'm sure it's easier for you just to say that since there isn't a streamlined list for you, it doesn't actually exist and there isn't a consensus at all.

Ignorance must be bliss.

jimkabrhel

I mention a list because I did find one, but the stupid person that I am didn't bookmark the page. But I do remember this name, Paul Ralph Ehrlich. He was on this list. He believes that the human world population is too large and in order to survive we must stop our own growth.

I just found this page, which falsely states that Ehrlich was a presidential adviser on the environment. Although Ehrilich co-authored a book with the new senior adviser of science and technology to President Obama, John Holdren, titled The Population Bomb. Holdren, a senior adviser to the president of the United States thinks overpopulation is an issue. Yikes!

Anyways the United Nations page is about the US not acting as a leader in human controlled climate change. But I can't just trust this UN article because the EPA has the ear of federal judges. If the world accepts we are responsible for the warming of the Earth and follows climate changing protocol two things will happen. One nothing, because humans don't have an affect on climate change, and two another measure must be taken. This extra step is population control.

My ignorance to you.

[QUOTE="lx_theo"] lolLOXO7

It's pretty simple, actually.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Humans drive cars, fly planes, and still burn fossil fuels, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Of course, most of the CO2 made naturally by organisms (ex. breathing) gets abosrbed by plants and alage, producing oxygen. However, in the last 100 years or so, we've tipped the balance in CO2's favor with our fossil fuels. Too much CO2 getting released. Not enough of it getting abosrbed back into the Earth.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="lx_theo"] lolSuper-Mario-Fan

It's pretty simple, actually.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Humans drive cars, fly planes, and still burn fossil fuels, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Of course, most of the CO2 made naturally by organisms (ex. breathing) gets abosrbed by plants and alage, producing oxygen. However, in the last 100 years or so, we've tipped the balance in CO2's favor with our fossil fuels. Too much CO2 getting released. Not enough of it getting abosrbed back into the Earth.

I would just prefer that these regs go through congress rather a regulatory agency with too much power.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Please enlighten me with your knowledge.LOXO7

It's pretty simple, actually.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Humans drive cars, fly planes, and still burn fossil fuels, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Of course, most of the CO2 made naturally by organisms (ex. breathing) gets abosrbed by plants and alage, producing oxygen. However, in the last 100 years or so, we've tipped the balance in CO2's favor with our fossil fuels. Too much CO2 getting released. Not enough of it getting abosrbed back into the Earth.

Right, but you forget to factor in the sun, which provides energy for the CO2. And when you have more of it, you get more heat produced. Scienctists have sampled ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, and have found a stable pattern of 200 ppm CO2 from 10,000 years ago until the 19th century (the industrial revolution). After that, the rates steadily climbed. Today, that figure is nearly doubled at 400 ppm. Coincidence? I think not.

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]I would just prefer that these regs go through congress rather a regulatory agency with too much power.LOXO7

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"]I would just prefer that these regs go through congress rather a regulatory agency with too much power.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Please enlighten me with your knowledge.LOXO7

It's pretty simple, actually.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Humans drive cars, fly planes, and still burn fossil fuels, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Of course, most of the CO2 made naturally by organisms (ex. breathing) gets abosrbed by plants and alage, producing oxygen. However, in the last 100 years or so, we've tipped the balance in CO2's favor with our fossil fuels. Too much CO2 getting released. Not enough of it getting abosrbed back into the Earth.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]

It's pretty simple, actually.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Humans drive cars, fly planes, and still burn fossil fuels, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Of course, most of the CO2 made naturally by organisms (ex. breathing) gets abosrbed by plants and alage, producing oxygen. However, in the last 100 years or so, we've tipped the balance in CO2's favor with our fossil fuels. Too much CO2 getting released. Not enough of it getting abosrbed back into the Earth.

Super-Mario-Fan

Right, but you forget to factor in the sun, which provides energy for the CO2. And when you have more of it, you get more heat produced. Scienctists have sampled ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, and have found a stable pattern of 200 ppm CO2 from 10,000 years ago until the 19th century (the industrial revolution). After that, the rates steadily climbed. Today, that figure is nearly doubled at 400 ppm. Coincidence? I think not.

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] CO2 absorbs energy because of the carbon atom. The atom bounces between the two oxygen atom. That makes friction and heat is produced until it looses it's energy and then does it again when it gets more. But so what?LOXO7

Right, but you forget to factor in the sun, which provides energy for the CO2. And when you have more of it, you get more heat produced. Scienctists have sampled ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, and have found a stable pattern of 200 ppm CO2 from 10,000 years ago until the 19th century (the industrial revolution). After that, the rates steadily climbed. Today, that figure is nearly doubled at 400 ppm. Coincidence? I think not.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]

Right, but you forget to factor in the sun, which provides energy for the CO2. And when you have more of it, you get more heat produced. Scienctists have sampled ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, and have found a stable pattern of 200 ppm CO2 from 10,000 years ago until the 19th century (the industrial revolution). After that, the rates steadily climbed. Today, that figure is nearly doubled at 400 ppm. Coincidence? I think not.

Super-Mario-Fan

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Speaking of climate change I haven't seen KC around. LJS9502_basic

You are way better of checking the validity of those who deny the existence of global warming. I noticed that they tend to have a horrible background portraying a one sided view, I assume due to private funding. I remember that one of the leading 'deniers' of global warming used to claim that second hand smoking doesn't exist.

You are way better of checking the validity of those who deny the existence of global warming. I noticed that they tend to have a horrible background portraying a one sided view, I assume due to private funding. I remember that one of the leading 'deniers' of global warming used to claim that second hand smoking doesn't exist.

rastotm

This is a theory in which I do not believe in, right now.

I'm trying to figure out why we should believe your thoughts on global warming when you say this^

I don't have all the facts.

and immediately follow it up with this^

LOXO7

if you could clear that up for me it would be appreciated.

Global warming is purely a result of Canada and its tar sands.

You are way better of checking the validity of those who deny the existence of global warming. I noticed that they tend to have a horrible background portraying a one sided view, I assume due to private funding. I remember that one of the leading 'deniers' of global warming used to claim that second hand smoking doesn't exist.

rastotm

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

You are way better of checking the validity of those who deny the existence of global warming. I noticed that they tend to have a horrible background portraying a one sided view, I assume due to private funding. I remember that one of the leading 'deniers' of global warming used to claim that second hand smoking doesn't exist.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

This is a theory in which I do not believe in, right now.

I'm trying to figure out why we should believe your thoughts on global warming when you say this^

I don't have all the facts.

and immediately follow it up with this^

Serraph105

if you could clear that up for me it would be appreciated.

[QUOTE="Super-Mario-Fan"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Please enlighten me with your knowledge.LOXO7

It's pretty simple, actually.

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat. Humans drive cars, fly planes, and still burn fossil fuels, which in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Of course, most of the CO2 made naturally by organisms (ex. breathing) gets abosrbed by plants and alage, producing oxygen. However, in the last 100 years or so, we've tipped the balance in CO2's favor with our fossil fuels. Too much CO2 getting released. Not enough of it getting abosrbed back into the Earth.

Please show me what chemistry textbook you got this from. It certainly isn't in the textbook that I use to teach my chemistry courses. Friction does not come into play when you talk about the absorption of IR radiation by covalent bonds.

Greenhouse gases do not absorb UV radiation that the Earth is bombarded with from the sun. After the UV radiation strikes the Earth, it loses enough energy to rebound as IR which is absorbed by CO2 and H2O vapor, two of the largest contributors to the greenhouse effect. When those molecule release that energy, it goes back to the Earth, not into space.