Global Warming/Climate Change hoax

Status
Not open for further replies.
The argument has been the rising level of CO2 and the global temperature. Graphs show that they don't match.

I just don’t see the relevance of the counter argument. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, easily verified in your own backyard if you care to do the experiments. Humans are causing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, the data proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. Natural sinks are not keeping pace with human caused carbon emissions, the data proves that too.

What is there to argue about? If you were driving a car toward a cliff, would you apply the brakes before you had calculated the exact instant you would go over the edge?
 
If that is the case, then you should have no problem coming up with peer reviewed studies in respectable scientific papers that CO2 is not a driving factor in climate change.
The measurements of two speaker cables are shown, one is new and the other is used for a while, a.k.a. burn-in, and the measurements don't support the claim that they sound different. Your reply is like asking for peer reviewed studies in respectable scientific papers that they indeed don't sound different. :rolleyes:
 
I just don’t see the relevance of the counter argument. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, easily verified in your own backyard if you care to do the experiments. Humans are causing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise, the data proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. Natural sinks are not keeping pace with human caused carbon emissions, the data proves that too.

What is there to argue about? If you were driving a car toward a cliff, would you apply the brakes before you had calculated the exact instant you would go over the edge?
Did you look at CO2 graph and temperature record graph I was referring to?
 
The measurements of two speaker cables are shown, one is new and the other is used for a while, a.k.a. burn-in, and the measurements don't support the claim that they sound different. Your reply is like asking for peer reviewed studies in respectable scientific papers that they indeed don't sound different. :rolleyes:

Speaker cables are not killing anyone.

Let's say there's a 10% chance that global warming and the effects are real. Wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry?? The deniers are playing Russian roulette except everbodys head is at the end of the gun.
 
Speaker cables are not killing anyone.
I was showing the absurdity / ignorance of Bill Coltrane's reply by referring to simpler (& more forum related) example. However, speaker cables can kill someone's audio budget depending on how gullible that person is.
Starting price = $59,999
ACC_206_Articulation_Control_Console-768x558.jpg
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2017
Speaker cables are not killing anyone.


Don't be so sure about that.
They can be used as an effective means of choking someone.
Also.
Fumes released after a burn-in could give someone cancer.


I know that someone somewhere right now is thinking of using speaker cable to strangle someone. Comforting in a way as it deals with the problem of global warming one skeptic at a time.
 
Don't be so sure about that.
They can be used as an effective means of choking someone.
Also.
Fumes released after a burn-in could give someone cancer.


I know that someone somewhere right now is thinking of using speaker cable to strangle someone. Comforting in a way as it deals with the problem of global warming one skeptic at a time.

I bet it's been done in some movie. Some kind of appropriate or ironic musical piece blaring over the hifi as someone is strangled with speaker cord. I'm sure Tarantino will find it and steal it for a future movie.
 
Global warming caused by putting 35 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere each year, on the other hand, is just not believable to some of these same people!
It will be believable if the claim is backed up by evidence. If the claim of burnt-in (used) speaker cable sounding audibly different from new speaker cable is backed up by evidence, be it double blind test or measurements, it would be believable.
 
That is some very fine selective blinders. I'd argue the evidence is comfortably equal in strength in both cases (burn in doing nothing and anthropogenic global warming).

Of course, when your sources include The Blaze, there's no logic that's going to get us there. Enlightened my rear end.
 
It is all down to where you put the thremometers.
Do the global warming pundits actually put in a grid array over the entire north pole? I doubt it and doubt they are even issued with a ship with a hard enough hull to get to most places in the north pole.
I would except the findings if they told me where the thermometers were placed with GPS locations.
There is a big risk that they were placed where the ice has melted due to local effects because those areas are cheaper to get to.
 
It will be believable if the claim is backed up by evidence. If the claim of burnt-in (used) speaker cable sounding audibly different from new speaker cable is backed up by evidence, be it double blind test or measurements, it would be believable.

Evidence abounds. Struggling to understand the point of this line of argument… I refuse to believe in X because there is no evidence to support it therefore my belief in Y is validated despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Does my assertion that unicorns exist carry more weight If I don’t believe Santa Claus was a real person?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.