On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:41:54 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com
sayd the following:


2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

Don't question anything, just lay down and believe whatever they say
as fact.

Let's all be Jews in Hitler's Germany.


Yeah the Nazi's wont dare send us all to concentration camps to be gassed,

"Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:480c6fb2$0$18474$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.
This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and
in
fact all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to
damage
our atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of
history?
**Have you been living under a rock? Or are you really THAT stupid?
CO2
levels are rising faster than at any time in history. The last time
CO2
levels were higher than they are now (more than 400,000 years ago)
there was
a mass extinction.
That of course, is the consideration here -- the last extinction event

Wanna speculate as to what will happen WHEN CO2 levels
rise further? Do you know what mass extinction means?

Sheesh!

Trevor Wilson

"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:ictq04tkbqalkm60alcei87rfa4nj18tb3@4ax.com...



On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:58:14 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com
wrote:

"Government Shill #2" <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9dp04980rl09siha8qnfnp969umgg49m4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:41:54 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com
wrote:

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage
our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

You're (not your) stupid.

Because... there is *so* much more of it being produced now than at any
time
since the beginning of history. Until about 150 odd years ago there were
no
cars, trucks, buses, coal fired power plants, ships used the wind not
oil
or
coal... The list goes on.

How can you compare the previous history of the world with the past 150
years?

Amazing.

But if we produce CO2 how can CO2 be bad for the atmosphere? CO2 is just
carbon dioxide, harmless. Otherwise wouldnt it be bad for us if we produce
it?

Huh? Holy shit! Did you miss the bit where CO2, in large quantities, traps
heat
like a blanket, or greenhouse glass? Hence the name greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html

More
http://www.google.com.au/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=greenhouse+gas...

Arent there people saying the Earth is getting cooler?

Do you really believe a carbon tax which will hurt 3rd world countries even
more and wont even be paid to our government is the way to go?

Also you do realize Polar Bears can swim and that ice always melts, right?

Polar Bears? WTF?

You know the one's Al Gore shows in his movie to make us go "aww the poor
Polar Bears"

"Government Shill #2" <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9dp04980rl09siha8qnfnp969umgg49m4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:41:54 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com
wrote:


2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.


This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact
all living things send out CO2? So how then is CO2 supposed to damage our
atmosphere if CO2 has been sent to it since the beginning of history?

You're (not your) stupid.

Because... there is *so* much more of it being produced now than at any
time
since the beginning of history. Until about 150 odd years ago there were
no
cars, trucks, buses, coal fired power plants, ships used the wind not oil
or
coal... The list goes on.

How can you compare the previous history of the world with the past 150
years?

Amazing.

But if we produce CO2 how can CO2 be bad for the atmosphere? CO2 is just
carbon dioxide, harmless. Otherwise wouldnt it be bad for us if we produce
it?

Also you do realize Polar Bears can swim and that ice always melts, right?

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:58:14 +1000, "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com
wrote:
Huh? Holy shit! Did you miss the bit where CO2, in large quantities,
traps heat
like a blanket, or greenhouse glass? Hence the name greenhouse gas.

2. The science is settled -- CO2 causes global warming.

This is my favorite one. Call me stupid but don't humans, plants and in
fact
all living things send out CO2?

Because it's been in balance. That CO2 you emit was in the atmosphere
until recently. What's in fossil fuels has been locked away for
millions of years. Did you ever learn about equilibrium in science?

But if we produce CO2 how can CO2 be bad for the atmosphere? CO2 is just
carbon dioxide, harmless. Otherwise wouldnt it be bad for us if we produce
it?

I don't speculate any more. Speculation can result in Bush carried out 911
or something. I prefer to rely on facts and the facts are 400,000 years
ago
there was no oil companies or whatnot. How did the CO2 levels get so high
without pollution? Could it be possible the CO2 levels are high because of
similar reasons?

"Robert Blass" <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote in message
I like to use the phrase global warming religion for man made global
warming
religious theorists.
You can use any phrase you like, but in this case you'd be debauching

What I want to know is how people like you could become so butt
fucking dumb in America.

It must be a complete failure of our educational system.

And only a fraction of a degree warming over 150 years!
CO2 does not appear to be very effective at warming.

You guys cause panic over something that is natural.

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:09:22 -0700, "V-for-Vendicar"
Justice@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> sayd the following:

The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

That's pretty fucking sad then.

On Apr 22, 4:54 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:



On Apr 22, 8:11 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 22, 1:17 pm, "Seon Ferguson" <seo...@gmail.com> wrote:> "Robert Blass" <bl...@messenger.xcx> wrote in message

snip

.

I like to use the phrase global warming religion for man made global warming
religious theorists.

You can use any phrase you like, but in this case you'd be debauching
the language. Religious belief makes no testable claims, whereas in
the case of AGW, one can see how the group of hypotheses might be
disproved. These haven't been disproved however, and indeed, such
reliable and pertinent data that do exist strongly recommend them
as the best explanation for the pattern of climate-relevant events we
have seen over the last century.

If you so much as question there view your denounced as
a heretic.

People feel strongly on this matter, perhaps because the welfare of
humans in the here and now is in jeopardy and because those denying
the theory are in effect, attempting to excuse those who are parties
to the human activities that are creating the said jeopardy in
circumstances where good science supports the theory and the reckless
pursuit of a narrow sectional interest seeks to frustrate the
associated policy. Much the same pattern arose in past years in
relation to smoking, aerosols like SO2, asbestos, vehicle emissions,
Ozone. Science said one thing and industry another, warning that
civilisation as we knew it would collapse if actions were taken to
limit damage. In the end, action was taken and civilisation survived
and was better for it, and indeed, even some of those complaining were
better for it. It's tiresome to have to revisit this pattern.

That shouldn't prompt people to start becoming abusive, but it's
probably inevitable that they will. This is not, after all, a
discussion over who will win the grand final or who is the hottest
person on TV but a matter bearing upon the wellbeing of nearly 7
billion people.

I thought science was supposed to be skeptical and to allow
criticism

Skepticism isn't mindless naysaying, and certainly not industry-driven
naysaying. Skepticism is a process in which hypotheses are subjected
to examination, to see if they fit reliable pertinent data or lead to
conclusions that would be paradoxical. Have you never wondered why
none of those in this discussion called 'skeptics' are worrying that
the climate models might be too optimistic -- that the sea level or
CO2 or temperature rises or deglaciation projected by the IPCC might
be an underestimate, or the action proposed not as robust as needed?
There is some scope for thinking so, and yet, surprise surprise, the
skeptics all come on the other side of the argument. That says
something about their 'skepticism'.

Carefully-phrased, well-explained, realistic posting. That'll earn you
very many minus points on this ng.-

*Tant pis*, as they say up your way.