# Conservatives waking up to climate change



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.

Note that the report does highlight some positives - and also notes that many of the impacts have already occured:

A new report has spelled out our future under climate change - but warns there is still much to learn over what it will mean for extreme events, diseases, pests and other impacts.

The report, published by the Office of the Chief Science Adviser yesterday, also says more work is needed to understand what 2C of change over the next century will mean for different regions.

There would be less rainfall in summer and autumn over the west of the North Island - but rates could increase by 5 per cent in winter and spring.

The picture was again different on the other side of the island; the Gisborne and Hawkes Bay regions stood to lose up to 10 per cent of its winter and spring rainfall.

Extreme weather on the horizon - National - NZ Herald News


----------



## S.J. (Aug 6, 2013)

They have no credibility, they've been caught lying.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

S.j. - 

When was the Office of the Chief Science Adviser caught lying?

Rather than just jam your fingers in your ears, it is perhaps worth reading what conservative science sources have to say and responding accordingly.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 6, 2013)

> Conservatives waking up to climate change



and then going back to sleep.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Conservatives waking up to climate change
> 
> 
> 
> and then going back to sleep.



You could be right. 

Certainly in NZ the government has been slow to react, but at least these days there seems to be a general awareness that they have to do more to protect farming. 

It's slightly ironic that farmers are one of the largest and most right-wing voting blocs in New Zealand, and yet it is they who have had to push government to act on climate change.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > Conservatives waking up to climate change
> ...



In the United States its not a matter of could. 

For American conservatives the facts and science are irrelevant, buried deep beneath layers of fear, greed, and partisan dogma. 

Conservatives are fearful of efforts to address climate change because they incorrectly perceive such efforts as internationalism, the advent of a one world government. 

Conservatives are fearful of efforts to address climate change because they incorrectly perceive such efforts as having an adverse effect on corporate profits, resulting in high unemployment and economic disaster. 

Conservatives are fearful of efforts to address climate change because they incorrectly perceive such efforts as meaning theyll have to make personal sacrifices, such as giving up air conditioning, automobiles, and being forced to live in multi-family dwellings.  

Is this all unfounded idiocy? Of course it is.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Clayton - 

The problem for those who make scientific policies based on politics is that the real world will always intervene.

2012 saw the US suffer catastrophic droughts and the hottest year on record. Farmers are suffering, and many farming groups are well aware of what kind of future they face. Crops like wine/grapes, cotton, cattle, fruit and vegetables are all very vulnerable to drought, floods and increased winds; not only directly but through secondary costs such as increased usage of water for irrigation, increased need for wind breaks, flood control, animal shelters etc etc.

Ultimately, it is likely farmers who will force the GOP to face up to the realities they are dealing with every day.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Aug 6, 2013)

Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

American Communist said:


> Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.



Understanding climate change is very easy -

Basically ALL scientists and ALL scientific organisations agree that human activity impacts the climate. 

Many right-wing politicians (largely in the US) do not agree that human activity impacts the climate.

Which group do you think are more likely to be right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Clayton -
> 
> The problem for those who make scientific policies based on politics is that the real world will always intervene.
> 
> ...



The conservative response to this would be that droughts, floods, and increased winds are all part of the natural cycle, consequently any change in human behavior is unwarranted.   

It is not in the fundamental nature of conservatives to be forward thinking, to contemplate the future and their responsibility to future generations. 

Modern American conservatives retain the essence of the robber baron, where one has an inalienable right to exploit natural resource, accumulate as much wealth as possible, and aggressively consume and pollute with no regard for the consequences.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2013)

American Communist said:


> Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.



Have you actually done any kind of research on what is happening, right here and now? I don't think so, in fact, I bet you have never read a single scientific article concerning how GHGs work, and what the effects we have already seen.

Simply repeating that tired "Conservative" meme will simply getted you tagged as an utter fool as the consequences of a changing climate become more evident every year.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2013)

This is another one of the left's red-herrings.

Just about everyone supports background checks
The Bush Tax-cuts for the rich were actually for everyone......

.......and everyone knows that the climate will change if you wait long enough. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that one out. What is bull shit is "Global Warming".


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2013)

Democrats seem to think their supporters are stupid........and they're correct.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Democrats seem to think their supporters are stupid........and they're correct.



Now Mud, you pretty well define stupid.

Global warming is very simple, you pump GHGs into the atmosphere, and the whole globe warms. One can see this clearly in the geological record. You pump in GHGs rapidly, and the climate changes rapidly, resulting in extinction events. That is clear in the geological record, also. At present, we are changing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere at a rate ten times that of the prior times that caused extinction events. The decades ahead are going to be very interesting.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats seem to think their supporters are stupid........and they're correct.
> ...



Of the GHGs being pumped into the atmosphere man only pumps a fraction of it. About .01%. The oceans and volcanoes pump the rest. 

So STFU asshole.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Mud- 

The topic of this thread is how conservative governments are preparing for climate change. 

The topic of this thread is not the endless theatre of faux-denial.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2013)

Dumb ass. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. The amount of CH4 from 700 ppb to over 1800 ppm. That is significant, considering that 100 ppm of CO2 is the differance between an ice age, and an interglacial period. And that the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere has not been seen for many millions of years.

People like you keep repeating that meme, "contributing a tiny amount to the total", knowing that is is a complete lie.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.
> ...



You have any laboratory experiments showing how GHG's alter the Jet stream?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Mud-
> 
> The topic of this thread is how conservative governments are preparing for climate change.
> 
> The topic of this thread is not the endless theatre of faux-denial.



On that issue, only a very few governments are actually looking at the whole picture of what climate change really means. Most, like us, are waiting until emergencies force action, a plan that will result in many trillions of dollars and who knows how many lives, lost.

It is more than just an issue of clean energy. Look at the swing in weather in our breadbasket from 2011, floods to the point that some of the upstream dams on the Missouri and Mississippi were on the verge of failure. Had that happened, we would have had our first trillion dollar weather event. Then, in 2012, severe drought in exactly the same area. Russia has also had extreme weather events close together in time, as has Australia. But, in all these natons, denial is winning the day. 

So, what I see happening is that it will take a huge event, something that kills tens of thousands of people, and has a enormous effect on the economy of these nations, to wake up any one of them. And then, only that nation will have it's eyes opened. The others will continue to deny, and continue on the same course, until it happens in their backyard. And by that time, the Arctic clathrates and permafrost will have become the primary producers of the GHGs, and we will just be along for the ride.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > American Communist said:
> ...



Yes, a really great big one;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. The amount of CH4 from 700 ppb to over 1800 ppm. That is significant, considering that 100 ppm of CO2 is the differance between an ice age, and an interglacial period. And that the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere has not been seen for many millions of years.
> 
> People like you keep repeating that meme, "contributing a tiny amount to the total", knowing that is is a complete lie.



Wow! So you should have no problem demonstrating this "Climate Change Global Warming" in a lab setting, amiright?

I mean those gases are so so so so powerful!  There should be a demonstrable difference by adding even half those amounts, amiright?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









"Save the planet!"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That's not how real science works, Dear.

Have you eliminated all the variables save a wisp or CO2?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Frank - 

Either respond to the topic, or scroll past. 

Please do not spam every thread in this section with illiterate gibberish.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Either respond to the topic, or scroll past.
> 
> Please do not spam every thread in this section with illiterate gibberish.



You keep telling me you've eliminated all variables save for changes in trace gases and I keep asking why the science lab refuses to validate your incorrect theory

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

AGW Cult: 200ppm of CO2 and 1000ppb of CH4 will warm planet Earth by 2-7 degrees

Normal people: can you show us this in a lab?

AGW Cult: there are too many other variables for this to work in a lab

Normal people: if there are too many variables how can you be certain your theory is correct?

AGW Cult: long stream of invective and insults ending with denier!

Normal people: Are you ok? you seem upset?

AGW Cult: denier upset us! You must accept your fate as a spewer of deadly CO2 and turn control of your life over to us.


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Dumb ass. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. The amount of CH4 from 700 ppb to over 1800 ppm. That is significant, considering that 100 ppm of CO2 is the differance between an ice age, and an interglacial period. And that the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere has not been seen for many millions of years.
> 
> People like you keep repeating that meme, "contributing a tiny amount to the total", knowing that is is a complete lie.



How was that measured?

Has somebody been sampling the atmosphere for increases of CO2 and Methane?

BTW, man has done more than pump GHGs into the air. He's deforested the Brazilian Rainforest and most of the continent of Africa is now nothing but desert. Could that have anything to do with it?  And why are developing countries like Mexico exempt from Green Laws? They do much of the polluting?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 6, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dumb ass. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. The amount of CH4 from 700 ppb to over 1800 ppm. That is significant, considering that 100 ppm of CO2 is the differance between an ice age, and an interglacial period. And that the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere has not been seen for many millions of years.
> ...



From 1957 to present, directly from stations worldwide. Before that, from bubble in ice from glaciers, the Greenland Ice Cap, and the Anarctic Ice Cap.

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past 400 000 years | GRID-Arendal - Publications - Vital Climate Graphics

The deforestation of the Brazilian Rain forest is but one of many foolish actions by man. The desertification of North Africa has little to do with man. As the earth warmed from the last ice age, the Hadley cells expanded northward, even as they are doing now.

Mexico and the third world nations have in the past contributed very little to the rise of the GHGs. However, as you point out, that is changing, and needs to be addressed. As for their doing much of the polluting, although we outlawed PCBs here, we still produce that chemical and sell it to nations like Mexico.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



That's weird. When you run those two charts over each other they show CO2 lagging temperature on the increase and decrease.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Did Saigon just Shut the fuck when asked about the laboratory evidence?


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I'm not talking about N. Africa. 

Have you ever been there?

Much of the countryside has been deforested by nomads cutting down trees for firewood.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

mudwhistle said:


> I'm not talking about N. Africa.
> 
> Have you ever been there?
> 
> Much of the countryside has been deforested by nomads cutting down trees for firewood.



I was there last week, actually. 

And although you are right that deforestation and poor land use have played a role, a far bigger role is being played now by rising temperatures, increased drought frequencies (and rising sea levels).


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.j. -
> 
> When was the Office of the Chief Science Adviser caught lying?
> 
> Rather than just jam your fingers in your ears, it is perhaps worth reading what conservative science sources have to say and responding accordingly.








Oh, saggy,  NIWA's shenanigans are oooooold news!  Must keep up with the times there old boy!  This is a little dated now but it will get you started...



UPDATE 15:49 NZDT - NIWA's news release in response to this story appears to have been delayed, and according to a radio news report a few minutes ago Rodney Hide, leader of the minority Act Party and a minister in the National Government, is now calling on his Cabinet colleague, Climate Change Minister Nick Smith, to "please explain" [normal transmission now resumes] The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain's CRU climate research centre. In New Zealand's case, the figures published on NIWA's [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century: - See more at: TBR.cc: BREAKING: NZ?s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Westwall - 

I do wish you would read material with a view to actually understanding it. The office of the Chief Science Adviser is NOT NIWA. It's task is to keep the conservative government of New Zealand up to speed with objective science - which it obviously sources from institutions it considers impeccable.

Try and apply a little common sense here - if you are the conservative Prime Minister of New Zealand and you had some questions about climate change - you'd get it from people you had every reason to trust, wouldn't you?

btw. Independent enquiry backed NIWA's research methodology, and a new study produced very similar results to that which some right-wing lobbyist had criticised.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not talking about N. Africa.
> ...








Absolute rubbish.  Man IS responsible for the crap going on in Africa, but it ain't  the temperature.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

> Man IS responsible for the crap going on in Africa, but it ain't the temperature.



Actually, it is. 






http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/history-of-variations-of-the-temperature-for-africa-in-relation-to-the-world_2895#


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Meanwhile...from today's NZ Herald...

A major US report held as the world's most authorative annual climate check has shown a range of records were broken last year - and mostly for the wrong reasons.

The 2012 State of the Climate report, released this morning, found that average temperatures across global land and sea surfaces last year ranked among the 10 warmest years on record.

And it showed New Zealand stood on the edge on an area experiencing the fastest rising sea levels on Earth.

Vital Statistics

* 392.66 parts per million - the projected concentration of CO2 in the world's atmosphere in 2012, a level exceeded in some parts of the globe.
* 35.6 billion tonnes - projected global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement production.
* 97 per cent - a worrying new melt extent record observed at the Greenland Ice Sheet last September, meaning nearly all of the vast body was seen to be melting.
* 285 - people killed when Hurricane Sandy struck the US.
* 2.1C deg - mid-range projections for average temperature rises in New Zealand by 2090.

Range of climate records broken - report - National - NZ Herald News


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Man IS responsible for the crap going on in Africa, but it ain't the temperature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me guess, the temperatures from 1900-1990 were extrapolated using proxies and those after 1990 used Mann tree rings


----------



## mudwhistle (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Man IS responsible for the crap going on in Africa, but it ain't the temperature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which came first?

I was there in the 90s. They had stripped most of the land of trees. Of course the temp is going to go up when you have no trees, along with CO2 levels.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 6, 2013)

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the man made climate change theory is a complete fraud and most people don't believe it any longer.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> 
> Note that the report does highlight some positives - and also notes that many of the impacts have already occured:
> 
> ...




This is EXACTLY the type of BullCrap that clouds your thinking and scientific objectivity.. 

Some politically appointed wanker goes off and channels Nostradamus making extraordinary PINPOINT FORECASTS for regions of their little islands --- 100 yrs into the future --- And MORONS call that "climate science".. 

Even your article quotes Climate scientists TRYING to be skeptical about such arrogant nonsense.. 


> The report, published by the Office of the Chief Science Adviser yesterday, also says more work is needed to understand what 2C of change over the next century will mean for different regions.
> 
> *But a climate scientist said it might never be possible to accurately pin-point future climates in specific locations.*
> 
> ...



You have to suspend MOST of reality to believe horseshit like this.. INCLUDING what the science says is possible..


----------



## S.J. (Aug 6, 2013)

Climate change occurs naturally, man has nothing to do with it.  Global warming is a politically driven hoax.  If it were not, the left would be forcing the REAL offenders to comply with their "solutions".  The U.S. has the strictest environmental laws in the world, yet they are targeted as the cause of something that doesn't even exist.  It's all bullshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 6, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Climate change occurs naturally, man has nothing to do with it.  Global warming is a politically driven hoax.  If it were not, the left would be forcing the REAL offenders to comply with their "solutions".  The U.S. has the strictest environmental laws in the world, yet they are targeted as the cause of something that doesn't even exist.  It's all bullshit.



AGW is a scary doomsday Cult, the legions of followers are brainless zealots


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> ...








Saggy is a PROPAGANDIST.  He doesn't give a rats ass about scientific integrity or accuracy.  He only cares about his message and furthering global collectivization.


----------



## westwall (Aug 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Meanwhile...from today's NZ Herald...
> 
> A major US report held as the world's most authorative annual climate check has shown a range of records were broken last year - and mostly for the wrong reasons.
> 
> ...








Oh, looky!  Big numbers to scare the savages!  Sooooo we have the weight of the CO2 at 
35,600,000,000 tons...but the weight of the atmosphere is 
5,700,000,000,000,000 tons.  Hmmmm, that little CO2 number reeeeeeaaallly doesn't look too impressive any more...maybe that's why you didn't include it....


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 6, 2013)

American Communist said:


> Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.



Really?  Is that your opinion or did one of the Koch Brothers pay you to post that?


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 6, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.
> ...




nobody cares about the Koch bro's except the fringe k00ks on the left.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 6, 2013)

Flac- 



> Some politically appointed wanker



Firstly, you forgot to mention - a CONSERVATIVE politially apppointed wanker. Which is the basis of this thread, i.e. that real conservative politicians have come to understand climate change. 

What this means for sceptics, is that there is now virtually no one left in your corner. We have seen oil companies and auto manufacturers abandon climate denial, and now conservative politicians and parties have joined them. 

Secondly, and as explained earlier,  the conservative PM obviously appoints an adviser he feels best equipped to keep him up to speed. If you are suggesting that he delierately chooses someone poor, I suggest you don't understand the process terribly well.

Thirdyl, if you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.

Lastly, I do agree with the scientists quoted - not all changes can be predicted at a local level. NZ is too small, and has too many micro-climates.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> btw. If you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.


Speaking of 100 years, the hottest temperature in the history of our planet was 100 years ago, not recently.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 7, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > American Communist said:
> ...



Sorry Kook, everyone knows that Scalia and Thomas are their buds.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > btw. If you had read the data, you would have seen that many of the changes have already occured and are occuring now - they are not 100 years in the future.
> ...



I just checked that, and was surprised to find it is true - although only because a more recent reading from Libya was disqualified! 

But it is important here to try and really step away from the politics and grasp the facts -

The hottest year on record is 2010.
The hottest year on American records is 2012.
The hottest decade on record is 2000 -2009. 

These are the 10 hottest years on record:

1-2: 2010, 2005
3-8: 2007, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009
9-12: 2012, 2011, 2001, 2004
13: 2008
14: 1997
15: 1995

Note that 13 of the warmest years have occured in the past 15 years. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-12-hottest-years-record-have-com/

It is this kind of data which explains why essentially all scientists and scientific bodies tell us that human activity impacts our climate. It is this kind of data which the few remaining sceptics really need to go away and think about again.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


If there really was global warming it would be 15 out of 15.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. 

No, it would not be 15/15. Weather isn ever going to be so perfect and predictable that it does exactly what any theory or model says it is going to do. Next year might be cold. It might be hotter still. 

Put it this way - if you were hearing about this topic for the first time today, and heard that 13 of the hottest years on record had all occured within the past 15 years, you'd be amazed. And convinced.

It is such a strange feature of this site that so much of the apparent scepiticism to climate science is based purely and simply on politics, and has actually nothing to do with the science itself.


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac-
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Keep talking to yourself 'cause you and yours are the only one's who believes your bullcrap.

The facts are the VAST majority of the people on this planet (obviously not the one you're from) no longer believe your fairy tales.  You all have collectively cried wolf one too many times.


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...







And who exactly are Soros's buds?  Hmmmm?  Funny how you neglect to mention him.  He's a well known scumbag and funds most of your programs, foundations, groups, etc.  I would wager that he gives far more money to his causes than the Kochs give to theirs.


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...








2012 only ranked 9th according to the Master of Temperature Records Hansen.  Might want to check your sources again....


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

westwall said:


> 2012 only ranked 9th according to the Master of Temperature Records Hansen.  Might want to check your sources again....



And you might want to check your reading skills - 2012 is the hottest year on American record, but the 9th warmest on global record. 

Actually, this is a great example of what I've been talking about here, because you clearly find no fault in the science that is presented, but rather than admit that all of the science and evidence points to rising temperatures, you sit snarling in the corner like some spanked child. 

How long can you keep that up, do you think?

Surely at some point even you are going to have to admit that the boat has long since sailed?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> No, it would not be 15/15. Weather isn ever going to be so perfect and predictable that it does exactly what any theory or model says it is going to do. Next year might be cold. It might be hotter still.
> 
> ...


The beauty of your global warming theory is that you can disregard logic when it doesn't fit your agenda, but use logic to make your point, like you just did.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. 

Science does not have "an agenda". 

Essentially all scientists and all scientific organisations confirm that human acivitity impacts the environment. Most oil companies, auto manufacturers and conservative politicians now agree with them. 

If you read the science available, you'll agree with them as well. It really is that simple.

If you don't want to believe scientists, then by all means don't, but you should be adult enough to admit both that not a single scientific body shares you point of view, and that your position is based entirely and totally upon your political views.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> Science does not have "an agenda".
> 
> ...


Stop trying to change the subject.  You didn't address the fact that you disregard logic when logic points to the inconsistencies of your "science".  You cling to logic when it comes to your 13 out of 15 years, but ignore the logic that suggests the hottest day in history would not have been 100 years ago if the earth is consistently getting hotter, not to mention the logic that there would not be a break of a couple of years in rising temperatures if the earth is consistently getting hotter.  Why is it "global warming" when you're making your claim, but it's "weather" when you can't explain a cooling trend?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. 

Logic does not suggest that each year should be hotter than the last. No one has ever suggested that this would be the case. 

Applying your idea of logic only makes sense if you understand what climate change is, and what scientists tell us is happening. You don't know, obviously. 

What you have to remember is that we know for an absolute and certain fact that average temperatures are rising. We have known that for years now. It is a fact disputed by no one.



> the logic that there would not be a break of a couple of years in rising temperatures if the earth is consistently getting hotter.



Why should temperatures rise in a straight and even line? Because you think that would make sense?

That simply is not how climate or weather work.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> Logic does not suggest that each year should be hotter than the last. No one has ever suggested that this would be the case.
> 
> ...


I noticed that your logic is very "flexible".


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. - 

The reason you are finding this difficult to understand is because you expect climate to conform to your own predictions and expectations - and not those of scientists.

No scientists has EVER claimed that every year would be hotter than the last. What scientists have claimed is that the trend is upwards - and given that the 13 hottest years on record all occur within the past 15 years, then the trend very obviously is upwards. 

It really is worth going away and giving this some thought without getting too bent out of shape about what you personally think should be happening to the climate.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J. -
> 
> The reason you are finding this difficult to understand is because you expect climate to conform to your own predictions and expectations - and not those of scientists.
> 
> ...


And when the trend starts going down, you will disregard the logic that the trend is down.  You'll have another bullshit explanation that requires no proof, to shrug it off.  But chances are any evidence that indicates a cooling trend will most likely be hidden by the GW "scientists".  They've done it before, and you ignore that fact as well.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J. -
> 
> The reason you are finding this difficult to understand is because you expect climate to conform to your own predictions and expectations - and not those of scientists.


I don't find it difficult to understand, it's weather, and weather changes.  But when it fits into your claims, you call it logic.  When it doesn't, you call it weather.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.j. 

But the trend is not going down. Quite the opposite - there is more evidence of climate change every week. As this thread shows, the information available becomes more and more precise, and more and more based on what people can see and measure outside their windows. 

You can cling to those vague 'what ifs?' all you want, but I don't see a great deal of comfort in dodging facts.

And yes, you do find this difficult to understand. At the point you realise that the 13 hottest years on record all occuring in the past 15 years is clear and obvious evidence a warming trend, you'll be making progress.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon,

Let's say next year is cooler than this year.  How many years will it have to be cooler before it qualifies as a cooling trend in your world?  Or will you find a way to disregard it?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. 

Firstly, it will not be cool next year. We can be fairly damn sure of that. It may be cooler than 2012, but I think we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that the era of truly cold years is well and truly behind us. 

But for the sake of argument, let's say next year is quite cold. I'd listen to what scientists have to say, give it some thought myself, and go from there. Certainly I see no reason to disregard anything, and I am baffled every day on this board that people like yourself can just sidestep the last 20 years of science as if it had never happened. 

I just don't understand at all why people have so much ego involved in this. I'm not a scientist. If it turns out the world is not getting warmer, that would be fine with me. Certainly I don't see what any of this has to do with peoples political views. 

People should base their scientific positions on what leading scientists say - not on what people like Al Gore or George Bush or any other politician think. I don't understand that way of thinking at all.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> Firstly, it will not be cool next year. We can be fairly damn sure of that. It may be cooler than 2012, but I think we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that the era of truly cold years is well and truly behind us.
> 
> ...


Except that those "leading scientists" were caught lying to us.  You may be dumb enough to fall for it a second time but don't expect everyone else to be.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J - 

Come on, dude, try and retain some contact with reality. 

There are thousands and thousands of research studies on climate change, conducted by 40 different countries and literally hundreds of different universities and agencies. 

Perhaps 1% of those studies (and that is being generous) have been found to contain any kind of significant flaw or error. 

You can just go from excuse to excuse to excuse as long as you like - but you must realise yourself its a fairly desperate tactic, and has nothing to do with science.

btw. "Everyone else" is up to speed on climate change. Every major scientific agency, oil companies, auto manufacturers, universities, governments and political parties. This thread is about CONSERVATIVE politicians working with climate change. So when you talk about "everyone else" you need to also remember that tou represent a view point that has no standing and no support in the real world at all.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J -
> 
> Come on, dude, try and retain some contact with reality.
> 
> ...


I'm tired of arguing with you.  Your arguments are disingenuous, you ignore what you don't like.  You can continue to push this politically motivate hoax, but I'm not gonna spend valuable time picking apart your false claims and manipulated data.  I'll just leave you with these links, not that you'll accept anything in them, but somebody else who is interested in 
the truth might want to check them out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...used-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. 

In other words, you know full well that science and facts are not on your side, and you know there is absolutely no reason at all for you to ignore the past 20 years of science. 

But ignore it you will.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> In other words, you know full well that science and facts are not on your side, and you know there is absolutely no reason at all for you to ignore the past 20 years of science.
> 
> But ignore it you will.


And you'll continue to ignore the 3,000+ emails between politically and financially motivate scientists proving they were hiding evidence contrary to their claims.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

SJ - 

Congraulations.

You have found an excellent reason to ignore the 1% of climate changes that has been found to cut corners and uses poor methodology. 

Now you need to find some credible reason to ignore the 99% of climate change that has never been challenged, criticsed or accused of anything.

Do you really not see how childish and blinkered your thinking is here?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SJ -
> 
> Congraulations.
> 
> You have found an excellent reason to ignore the 1% of climate changes that has been found to cut corners and uses poor methodology.


Stop acting like their deliberate conspiracy to hide the truth was "cutting corners" or using "poor methodology".  Like the cover up was an unintentional or something.  You're just flat out disingenuous, dude.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

SJ - 

No, I just understand that if a fake doctor is uncovered in Finland, I don't boycott hospitals as a result. 

It's case of using a little common sense. 99% of doctors are trustworthy, capable people, and 99% of climate scientists, physicists and biologists are too. 

Whereas your entire reason for ignoring 20 years of impeccable scientific research is based on a scandal involving three people that happened 10 years ago.


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

Classic Saigon thread... he posts a PR piece from a media source and then dictates what is and is not allowed in his thread... What a crybaby..

And yes this is off-topic punk.. But then again the constant whining to posters to post within your paramters is off-topic as well...


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon, 2011 was not 10 years ago.  And here are another 5,000 emails found 2 years later, meaning the deception never stopped.



> Ive been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
> 
> 
> Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get  and has to be well hidden, Jones writes in another newly released email. Ive discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

S.J. - 

Your point here is to try to convince me that you are far more stupid than you really are. That is what I  see.

Let's say that there are 1,000 papers which confirm evidence of climate change.

And let's say 10 contain serious errors.

Your suggestion is that we dump the entire 1,000 in the bin. 

Mine is that we take the 990 good papers seriously. 

The question is - why are you working SO hard to avoid what you know is that 990 papers?


----------



## 007 (Aug 7, 2013)

You are soooo right...

Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age | Science & Tech | News | Daily Express


----------



## Saigon (Aug 7, 2013)

Ok, maybe we can get back to this planet. 

It's interesting to consider in how many countries conservative parties are up to speed on climate change science, versus the Luddites in the GOP. 

In New Zealand, UK, France, Germany and right across Scandinavia, Conservatives have presented science-based policies. 

The GOP is holding out, and conservatives in Australia seem to be with them. Are they the last?

Here is what one REPUBLICAN blog says about climate change - its interesting to compare this with the positions of posters here - 

A detour into the undisputed facts about climate change illustrates why this strategy makes sense. *Nobody seriously involved in the policy debate over climate change&#8212;not even those the left unfairly labels as &#8220;deniers&#8221;&#8212;actually denies that humans influence global climate. There&#8217;s also no dispute that the Earth is warmer than it was before the Industrial Revolution or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can trap heat energy.*

Likewise, there&#8217;s little doubt that the worst plausible projections of sea level rise and temperature change resulting from this warming trend would present major problems in almost every corner of the globe. While more carbon in the atmosphere could have some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold, it&#8217;s also likely to pose a variety of severe problems ranging from droughts and floods to the destruction of commercial fishing. Nearly any accounting of these costs indicates they will exceed the benefits.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-change-gop_738063.html

These guys need to talk to a few of our posters here!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 7, 2013)

Conservatives couldn't give a rats ass..........


They're winning........big


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 7, 2013)




----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the man made climate change theory is a complete fraud and most people don't believe it any longer.



Damn, what the hell have you been reading? Physicists are the people that study the interaction of the incoming solar energy and the earth and it's atmosphere. Here are their findings over the course of two centuries, from the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on this planet;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now if you want to just flap yap, like the rest of the bozos on this board, be my guest. And show yourself to be a willfully ignorant fool. Otherwise, don't just post a sentence like that without scientific links that support your point of view. Preferably from a peer reviewed journal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2013)

007 said:


> You are soooo right...
> 
> Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age | Science & Tech | News | Daily Express



* Idiots like you will believe just about anything.*

2013 extreme weather events - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perturbed European late spring and early summer[edit source]

After a cold March and early April in Finland and Scandinavia a late, but very strong and widespread spring caused fast snow melting and bad floods around Finland. Floods occurred mainly in the Province of Northern Ostrobothnia, where floods hit hardest in Pyhäjoki.[43]

In May the weather became exceptionally warm. Thermal summer began about half-month earlier than usually in a whole country, and after mid-month Finland got totally nine heat-days (highest temperature over 25°C) at May 2013, and usually there is recorded three heat-days. The heat of May 2013 broke also records around Finland's Lapland, which got the warmest temperatures of month. The highest temperature, 30,5°C, was recorded at May 31, 2013 in Utsjoki.[44] June got also exceptionally warm weather, especially because there was recorded totally seventeen heat-days at the whole month, and usually there is recorded eight heat-days. The highest temperature, 32,4°C, was recorded at June 26, 2013 in Liperi.[45] The hot weather brought exceptional huge monthly number of thunderstorms and flashes.[45] There was recorded totally 78,000 flashes, and It was the biggest flash record from June in Finland after June 1995.[45] The day record, 28,500 lightnings recorded at June 27, and It was the biggest daily number of flashes in Finland from 2000s and 2010s.[45] May and June 2013 were both at top five of the warmest May and June at Finland's history. While Germany and areas of Central Europe had their wettest ever May, followed by the severe flooding during the 2013 European floods.

Southwest USA heatwave[edit source]

In late June 2013, an intense heat wave struck Southwestern United States. Various places in Southern California reached up to 122 °F (50 °C).[46] On June 30, Death Valley, California hit 129.2 °F (54.0 °C) which is the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth during the month of June. It was five degrees shy of the highest temperature recorded in Death Valley, which was 134 °F (57 °C), recorded in July 1913.[47]

European heatwave[edit source]

After six days in early July with temperatures over 40ºC (104ºF), Portugal officially entered a heat wave. Temperatures reached as high as 45ºC in some places in Alentejo and Ribatejo. Rising temperatures led to heat health warnings being issued for Southern England and the Midlands in the UK's first prolonged heatwave since 2006 on 17 July.[48] The UK recorded its hottest day since July 2006, with 33.5C (92.3F) recorded at Heathrow and Northolt in west London on 22 July.[49] Epidemiological statisticians at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine using models developed in 2011 estimated the heatwave in England and Wales would have led to the premature deaths of 650 people.[50] London Fire Brigade reported that it had attended on average 29 grass fires a day between 1-21 July, seven times the number of call outs for grass fires than the same period in 2012.[51] In Hungary the July heatwave set new daily records for the 27th, 28th and 29th being the hottest day of the year with 40°C only 2 degrees from the absolute record. A day earlier the 2013 Formula One Hungarian Grand Prix was the 2nd hottest in recent Grand Prix history just behind the 2005 Bahrain Grand Prix. Track temperature reached 56°C and air temperature was 38°C.

China heatwave[edit source]

In July a heat wave struck China with alerts covering nine provinces, including Anhui, Jiangsu, Hunan, Hubei, Shanghai and Chongqing. Shanghai has seen 24 days with temperatures at or above 35&#730;C in July. Temperatures in Shanghai reached 40.6 degrees Celsius, the highest ever temperature recorded in 140 years of weather recording in the city.[52]

*As predicted, wider and wilder weather swings, with an overall warming. Exactly what we are seeing.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the man made climate change theory is a complete fraud and most people don't believe it any longer.
> ...









"Who needs science when we have a tree ring on our side?"


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J. -
> 
> Your point here is to try to convince me that you are far more stupid than you really are. That is what I  see.
> 
> ...


Let's say you're being accused of murder, and the prosecution presents a stack of evidence that indicates you are the killer, including DNA samples and eye witnesses.  Then, just as the jury is getting ready to deliberate, it's discovered that the prosecution has ANOTHER stack of evidence that shows the DNA evidence was tainted and that you were nowhere near the scene of the crime.  Do we ignore the exculpatory evidence that the prosecution hid, or do we execute you anyway?


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 7, 2013)

Record cold in the US as 1, 122 cold records are broken.

1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week | Climate Depot


----------



## S.J. (Aug 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Record cold in the US as 1, 122 cold records are broken.
> 
> 1,122 Record Cold Temps in the U.S. in one week | Climate Depot


Let's just ignore that inconvenient fact, shall we?  Oh, and please delete this email.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Flac-
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The thread is a joke.. Your conclusions are a joke.. You are not even funny.. 

I AM SUGGESTING that "... he deliberately chooses someone poor, (for the job).. That's evidenced by even YOU running away from any "science" in this OP.. A wanker is a wanker... 

Don't care HOW or WHO or WHY he was appointed.. The conclusions are a travesty of science. And you posted this to make the conclusion that I am completely ISOLATED in my belief that BAD SCIENCE is rampant within your cult.. You demonstrate that right here.. 

It's all the validation I need today, tomorrow or in 2100...  As I am CERTAIN -- you will use this thread as an excuse to drag your failed hysteria about Climate Change all over the map..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.j.
> 
> But the trend is not going down. Quite the opposite - there is more evidence of climate change every week. As this thread shows, the information available becomes more and more precise, and more and more based on what people can see and measure outside their windows.
> 
> ...



This is really looking like one of those episodes of mass public hysteria.. Like the 12 screaming H.S. girls that all start having seizures with no known medical reason.. 

"... more evidence of climate change every week"..   PLEASE cite ANY credible sources that are claiming one of this week's "weather events" as evidence of Global Warming..

The Dow Jones has hit 6 of it's all time highs in the past month.. What do you think it will be by the end of the year?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > You are soooo right...
> ...



Cold springs -- early summers.. You really are some kind of primitive charlatan aren't you?
I suggest you recruit a virgin to throw into a volcano.. THAT will provide better weather for the tribe..


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > You are soooo right...
> ...



oldsocks,your cherry-picking has become a problem...

From the same site, BEFORE what you cited....



> China[edit source | editbeta]
> In China the average January temperature became the coldest in 28 years.[38] In northeast China the average temperature in January 2013 decreased to 4.5 °F (&#8722;15.3 °C), the coldest in 43 years, while in northern China it dropped to a 42-year low of 18.7 °F (&#8722;7.4 °C).[38] About a thousand ships were stuck in ice in Laizhou Bay, while 10,500 square miles of ice reportedly covered the surface of the Bohai Sea.[38] About 180,000 cattle deaths were reported in northern China by January 10. On May 2, 2013, a minimum temperature of 16.6 degrees Celsius was recorded at the Hong Kong Observatory, making it the coldest May temperature since 1917. It was also the third coldest minimum temperature in May since recorded.



LOL, so the first 5-6 months of the yearwas extremely cold in china... How inconvenient.. And as I said it was before the heat wave section you cited....

Dude,you really need to get a grip..



> United States[edit source | editbeta]
> See also: February 2013 nor'easter
> The cold wave in the United States was influenced by a low-pressure area called a "Clipper" which brought an Arctic cold front that caused rapidly falling temperatures and strong northwest winds with gusts of 35&#8211;50 miles per hour (56&#8211;80 km/h).[12]
> In Salt Lake City January, 2013 with the average temperature of 19.4 °F (&#8722;7.0 °C) became the coldest month on record since 1949 and the sixth coldest January since 1874.[13]
> ...



COld in the US too...



> Europe[edit source | editbeta]
> During March a cold easterly flow across northern Europe from Russia brought intense snowfalls across the continent as it met moisture filled air masses from Ukraine to Ireland.



colder in Europe too...

Why it would seem the first half of the year was colder in all those places you cited previously.... In fact looking at it in perspective, one has to ask what are these records anyway? or even how it all plays in the grand scheme of climate...

but hey you have a baking earth to sell... LOL, cherry picker..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 7, 2013)

4 former EPA chiefs for Republican presidents ask for action on global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/o...e-for-climate-action.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&

Just another indication of what a extremist bunch the current batch of denialists is. According to them, even the Reagan administration was a bunch of dirty socialists. Denialism is now only a political cult, one that cares nothing about any actual science.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

mamooth said:


> 4 former EPA chiefs for Republican presidents ask for action on global warming.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/o...e-for-climate-action.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&
> 
> Just another indication of what a extremist bunch the current batch of denialists is. According to them, even the Reagan administration was a bunch of dirty socialists. Denialism is now only a political cult, one that cares nothing about any actual science.



I think that the current denialist cult are hard cores unable in any way to learn. The admission of being wrong is not possible in their world.  We have a few in the world apparently still claiming a flat earth 1600 years after the first proof of spherical,  so there is never the possibility of complete agreement. 

Fortunately,  it doesn't matter any more.  Doers have the main stage now and deniers are irrelevant.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 7, 2013)

Yeah... 4 EPA officials.. 

Rucklehaus is over 80 yrs old and was a lawyer by trade. I doubt that he supplied anything but a signature.. So WHO could have pushed this?? 



> Christine Todd Whitman writes op-ed advancing her client's interest --- NYT runs it | WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> For starters, Christie Todd Whitman is co-chair of a nuclear-industry lobby group called &#8220;CASEnergy.&#8221; Nuclear companies would profit from regulation of greenhouse gases. This doesn&#8217;t disqualify Whitman&#8217;s argument, and it doesn&#8217;t actually argue against the regulation of GHGs. It does indicate that maybe Whitman should have disclosed this.
> 
> ...



This isn't a capitulation on the part of "key Republicans".. It's a made for media PR campaign to promote causes that these former administrators are now engaged in...

Don't you ardent leftists usually check for CORPORATE COLLUSION before you accept a propaganda move such as this???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > 4 former EPA chiefs for Republican presidents ask for action on global warming.
> ...



Help a guy out willya

Someone asked me to show them an experiment that shows a temperature increase from adding 200ppm of CO2 and I can't find anything, where did you go for the proof of the Global Warming hypothesis


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Did you know that co2 is a greenhouse gas and do you know what that means?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Did you know that co2 is a greenhouse gas and do you know what that means?



Means you can't find an experiment?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Like all science, the most reliable experiment would be to wait and see. 

But, also like most science, waiting to see would probably be the most costly approach because by the time we saw, we would have no choices left. We'd be stuck with what we saw. 

So, like most science we look for ways to model the system mathematically so that we can have insight to the problem, so that we can manage it, to a less costly consequence. 

Here's how such an scientific approach has worked in the field of AGW.

There is the big picture and there are the details. All have to be satisfied. 

The biggest picture is any body in space. If the radiant energy coming out is less than the radiant energy going in, warming will occur. 

On our planet, mankind uses the atmosphere as a dumping ground, including for greenhouse gases. They unequivocally restrict outgoing radiation. That unequivocally produces global warming until the energy of the radiation is sufficiently increased to overcome their restriction.

The next level of detail is in energy budgets. There is simply no way for you to produce a more accurate global energy budget than the IPCC. You might try to guess objections to theirs, but your guessing will always be less informed than theirs. Nothing personal, we are all in that same boat. 

Part of energy budgeting is the accounting for positive feedbacks. Effects caused by GHG global warming that add to its warming. Things like melting snow and ice reducing earth's albedo and melting permafrost adding it's sequestered GHGs to fossil fuel's. Again, sorry, we are already out of our class of science and must rely on the IPCC's superior resources to do the heavy lifting. 

Now, to the details. Each sq meter of earth, each cubic meter of ocean and atmosphere, all have their own story to tell. And it changes every minute. If they're average, and not blocked from incoming solar radiation, they have more energy falling on them than their temperature allows them to radiate away. An unstable condition. Which must be resolved. 

The resolution is weather. Before stability is finally restored, that excess energy will be transferred innumerable times between media that will each in turn be warmed by it until they pass it on to other media.

Over time though, the unstable media must resolve. The detailed understanding of that though will have to wait until we are capable of multi year weather forecasts. That's for future generations to work on. That's out of everyone's reach for now. 

That's the state of science now. 

However, as usual, the state of politics is less settled. 

However, people who make a living solving problems have enough science to see the opportunity in all of this. The opportunity to help civilization as well as the opportunity to make money. They left the starting gate some time ago and more do everyday. The only political issue left is whether to celebrate the opportunity or hope that science is wrong. 

That brings us back to denialists of all stripe hoping science is wrong because of fear of the presently predicted future. That group has always been with us. They see trauma instead of opportunity. They fear truth and want stasis. 

Politics is about picking sides. Science is about unconvering truth. The two don't mix although there are mostly economics forces that try to mix them for profit. 

So we have science. Certain about the big picture. Unable to build multi year weather models. We have data that support the reliability of the models that can be built. We have a global organization of qualified experts to do the science. 

Then we have the politics. Never certain. Always chaotic. Full of charlatans.

Then we have doers, engineers, investors, problem solvers. They are out of the gate and more join everyday. They don't wait for risk free certainty. They look for opportunity. 

So, things are unfolding as they should.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that co2 is a greenhouse gas and do you know what that means?
> ...



No, it means that I don't know if you have the basic science to understand the answer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Would it have been easier just to post a link to an experiment?

If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab.

If the lab is unkind to your theory, maybe there's a problem with your theory?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah... 4 EPA officials..
> 
> Rucklehaus is over 80 yrs old and was a lawyer by trade. I doubt that he supplied anything but a signature.. So WHO could have pushed this??
> 
> ...



"This isn't a capitulation on the part of "key Republicans""

Republicans have shown no signs of the ethics or intelligence required to learn and adjust to the truth. None.

It doesn't matter though. We know that now and have democracy to just move them out of the way. 

Business people, some of which are undoubtably republican, are moving their political brethren aside and pursuing the opportunity that retooling our entire energy infrastructure entails. 

Nobody cares about the obsolete political hacks and science quacks still waiting for perfect risk free certainty.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



There are many experiments and much science and tons of data here:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Frankly, you will not understand any of it. 

Sorry.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I fell out of my chair when I read this.

"If it works as you say, then it should be easy to replicate in a lab."

The universe in a test tube.

Just add AGW to the extensive list of things that are beyond your capability.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



IPCC, that's the "redistribute wealth via Climate policy" group, right?

Why would you make me do your work for you? If the experiment is in there, why don't you dig it out?


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

Frank, the experiment isn't there don't bother.. He doesn't know what such an experiment would be, and by now he has been busted faking it so often,he fears doing another stupid thing..

He won't provide you with an experiment, even if he could, all he will do is try and divert with a lie about a link, hoping noone checks it.. It does this a lot..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you get back in your chair walk me through your theory...

A 200 ppm increase in CO2 is increasing the temperature, is that the theory

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The IPCC is a science group helping in the search for the least expensive global energy future. Republicans are a political group trying to impose the most expensive global energy future on the world through ignorance.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.

After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.

Now the law states that, "Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einstein's equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy."

"Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured."

The bottom line of all these statements is the same from the perspective of systems earth. Energy from the sun, once it enters the earth system, warms whatever media it encounters until the temperature of all systems, over time, is high enough to energize the incoming heat to break through whatever barriers that exist, and radiate off into space. Then equilibrium is restored. No exceptions. It's just how thermodynamics works. 

This plus the nature of greenhouse gasses plus the fact that burning fossil fuels causes the release of GHGs into earth's atmosphere make AGW scientifically inevitable and inarguable. There is no other possibility. 

But, that's not the problem. 

The problem is the change in weather caused by AGW, from the climate that we built civilization around. 

So, the more we burn fossil fuels, the greater AGW will inevitably be, the greater will be the changes to the weather we have adapted to, and the greater will be the cost of adapting to the new climate. The greater the cost of adapting to the new climate, the more compelling is the urgency to limit AGW by converting our energy infrastructure to sustainable ASAP.

It's all economics. Minimizing the total cost.

We are, of course, spending billions each year already on changing our energy infrastructure to sustainable. But the current evidence shows that what we are spending is not the least expensive path. A significantly higher rate will save us total cost.

So the decision. Spend more of our resources now to save future generations what might well be for them unaffordable. 

Step up to the plate. 

Will we be responsible enough at this critical time? 

Conservatives say no. Let's put our heads in the sand and pretend ignorance. 

Liberals say yes. It's not only responsible but ripe with economic opportunity. 

What do you say?


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Before Einstein, scientists stated the energy could not be created nor destroyed.
> 
> After Einstein, that was ammended by the addition of, "by ordinary means", neglecting of course that on a universal scale there is nothing more ordinary than nuclear fusion.
> 
> ...



LOL, you  really shouldn't plagarize socko... What's worse adding your own incorrect assumptions into the material only makes it worse... I hope the author you stole from is understanding...

You got it from this site, most of it verbatim. Except where you took artistic license like the "by ordinary means" and other tidbits of ignorance...

SAVE YOUR ENERGY | UNIVERSE NEWS



> Any object that has mass when stationary (thus called rest mass), equivalently has rest energy as can be calculated using Albert Einsteins equation E = mc2. Rest energy, being a form of energy, can be changed to or from other forms of energy. As with any energy transformation, the total amount of energy does not increase or decrease in such a process. From this perspective, the amount of matter in the universe contributes to its total energy.
> Similarly, all energy manifests as an equivalent amount of mass. For example, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to an object increases its mass by 1 microgram. If you had a sensitive enough mass balance or scale, this mass increase could be measured.



look familiar? it should you copied it without attribution.. I know it's no coincidence, it's nearly verbatim, and the thing only turns upin one place...

Nice work socko. Can't do your own work so you steal others.. Pathetic...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 7, 2013)

Slackjaw, do you know what "   " means?


----------



## westwall (Aug 7, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Slackjaw, do you know what "   " means?



Sure I do,but adding "" to something isn't an attribution. There is no link to a source, not even a mention of it's source. You couldn't even give the dude that actually wrote it any credit?

You know what ya did socko, you stole someone else's work and tried to pass it off as your own.. You posted it twice now, and not once did you give the writer any credit or mention..

As if you needed less credibility..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 8, 2013)

Here's the question.  Will Rush's army of Internet trolls slow down the progress on sustainable energy? 

Here's the answer.  

Not in the least. 

Why. 

There are many people educationally inadequate to understand any number of scientific pursuits.  

Mankind has never waited for them.  Neither will we.


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's the question.  Will Rush's army of Internet trolls slow down the progress on sustainable energy?
> 
> Here's the answer.
> 
> ...



I got a better question... Will ifitzpmz continue to plagarize, lie, and post like a crackhead?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> Frank, the experiment isn't there don't bother.. He doesn't know what such an experiment would be, and by now he has been busted faking it so often,he fears doing another stupid thing..
> 
> He won't provide you with an experiment, even if he could, all he will do is try and divert with a lie about a link, hoping noone checks it.. It does this a lot..



The type of GWarming experimental demos that teachers are doing are COMPLETELY bogus.. They should be ashamed of themselves if they knew any better. You cannot recreate the GreenHouse in a Mason jar or a 20gal aquarium.. 

But what you're asking for is really puzzling.. Because you want to simplify the atmospheric insulation of the Earth in one "experiment".. 

If you two guys want that experiment soooo badly --- you should at least tell us what it would look like and how you would design it... 

What would you use to model the Earth's surface? What energy source would you use? How would you contain it without influencing incident radiation or heating effects??

You could avoid most of this dirty work by going and buying a book on Atmos. Physics.. Would be a better investment..


----------



## gslack (Aug 8, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, the experiment isn't there don't bother.. He doesn't know what such an experiment would be, and by now he has been busted faking it so often,he fears doing another stupid thing..
> ...



You're preaching to the choir on that one.. It's shameful..

I have seen many of them posted here, and all of them have been an embarassment..

An engineer I have worked with for prbably 10 years off and on, told me once, that if they could prove the effect works as claimed by AGW theory proponnents in an experiment, they would spare no expense to do so.. Hell every big name physicist would be paid and signed up, and just like the A bomb, they would get er done...

Yet no big funding for such a task exists, no university studies, no think-tanks on it, nothing... All that is funded or done is to assume the theory is sound and base everything on that assumption.. Want to get funding to show climate change can cause acne? Sure here's a check.. Want funding to prove the theory works? They say why bother? We know it's true already..

That's what originally turned me from a true beleiver in it, to a complete polar opposite... When you ask the most important question about the 5,000 lb elephant that isn't in the room, they say sure it is, just look at it...


----------



## S.J. (Aug 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


The debate is over.  Just accept what we tell you, and don't ask questions.  Just do as you're told - hand over your wallet.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 8, 2013)

gslack said:


> An engineer I have worked with for prbably 10 years off and on, told me once, that if they could prove the effect works as claimed by AGW theory proponnents in an experiment, they would spare no expense to do so.. Hell every big name physicist would be paid and signed up, and just like the A bomb, they would get er done...



So that engineer is a moron.

And if any person doesn't understand why that engineer is a moron, that person is also a moron. It's a symptom of Dunning-Kruger, in that morons are incapable of recognizing stupidity not just in themselves, but also in their fellow morons.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 8, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Here's the question.  Will Rush's army of Internet trolls slow down the progress on sustainable energy?
> 
> Here's the answer.
> 
> ...



Outside the US - you are right. 

Inside the US -I think the Luddites have already cost the country tens of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in lost exports.

It is no concidence that the world leaders in new technologies like Solar Thermal, Tidal and Breeder Reactors are NOT in the US.

S.J. 

While you worry about what climate change will cost - you may want to consider this point.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> While you worry about what climate change will cost - you may want to consider this point.


I don't worry about it.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. 

Exactly. Of course you don't care. 

Countries like Germany, South Korea, Japan and the UK have created tens of thousands of jobs in renewable energies and earned billions of dollars in exports - and you don't care.

This is why the US is no longer a leading country. People don't care.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> Exactly. Of course you don't care.
> 
> ...


Speak for yourself, Saigon, and stop talking out your ass.  If you want to bow to the alter of AGW, fine, but don't drag me into your gullible world of capitulation.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J - 

You capitulated at the moment you decided to rely on shockjocks and politicans for your scientific information, rather than relying on scientists. 

Don't think for a moment that your clinging to supersition does not cost you and your country an astronomical amount of money in lost jobs, lost export earnings and the eventual cost of having to pay for infrastructure other countries have already dealt with.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J -
> 
> You capitulated at the moment you decided to rely on shockjocks and politicans for your scientific information, rather than relying on scientists.
> 
> Don't think for a moment that your clinging to supersition does not cost you and your country an astronomical amount of money in lost jobs, lost export earnings and the eventual cost of having to pay for infrastructure other countries have already dealt with.


I rely on common sense and independent thinking, something you're not familiar with.


----------



## gslack (Aug 9, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > An engineer I have worked with for prbably 10 years off and on, told me once, that if they could prove the effect works as claimed by AGW theory proponnents in an experiment, they would spare no expense to do so.. Hell every big name physicist would be paid and signed up, and just like the A bomb, they would get er done...
> ...



Let's see he has 35 years in designing, building, and re-fitting various types of high-end hardware, with A PHD, and a masters.. And then we have you.. A sock-puppeteer,liar, proven fraud, and general crybaby who thinks everyone not on his side is listening to rush limbaugh...

ROFL, no contest..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, the experiment isn't there don't bother.. He doesn't know what such an experiment would be, and by now he has been busted faking it so often,he fears doing another stupid thing..
> ...



Odd that we can create a mini black hole in a lab, but a 200PPM change in atmospheric gas is beyond our capabilities


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Correction. Beyond your capabilities.  Both black holes and AGW.  Thats what we keep telling you.  

Show me wrong.  Tell us of any science that proves that GHGs don't absorb long wave radiation.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

This is the theory that I like.

A molecule of CO2 in a mixture of other gasses. It encounters and absorbs a photon of longwave from earth. Electron clouds move to higher energy states. It feels the instability of being the warmest molecules in the 'hood so searches for something cooler to radiate to in order to return to its "comfort zone". But wait! It just had its shot of energy, so all molecules around it are lower energy. But, in it's primative brain it senses that beyond the 'hood, trillions of AUs away, are warmer zones and cooler zones. So it must direct its re-radiation to only the direction of cooler. 

I would love to hear from deniers the exact mechanism of molecules directing radiation past their neighbors to cool zones in the almost infinite distance.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

mamooth said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > An engineer I have worked with for prbably 10 years off and on, told me once, that if they could prove the effect works as claimed by AGW theory proponnents in an experiment, they would spare no expense to do so.. Hell every big name physicist would be paid and signed up, and just like the A bomb, they would get er done...
> ...









Yes, whenever you morons can't answer a simple question, or produce a measurable experiment you trot out DK to cover your collective incompetent asses.

Answer the questions or shut the hell up and go away.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...








That's not how science works silly person.  As Aristotle so aptly stated long before you were born  *"HE WHO ASSERTS MUST ALSO PROVE!"*

Oh yeah, it's a fundamental axiom of science.  Something you anti-science deniers avoid like the plague.


----------



## gslack (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



LOL, on blackholes you are not only wrongin general,but completely ignorant of the science which you claim to be so expert on..

a list from google...

black hole made in lab - Google Search

Nice huh? Yeah seems it's kind been done a few times now... MORON..

And your views on AGW are just as ignorant.. Damn dude,you get dumber as we go..

BTW, I noticed your bait and switch.. the theory isn't whether or not GH gases react to long wave IR socko, we already know they do. It's whether or not they can produce additional warming of their warmer heat source, the earth's surface.. Nice try though..Not really..LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> Exactly. Of course you don't care.
> 
> ...



  

You're a riot man.. You really are.. THe news out of Germany is just short of public revolt over skyrocketing utility costs and bad strategic decisions on the part of "Govt energy policy".. They are a couple DMarks short of all - out public revolt over "renewables".. 

Get a grip.. And stop making me laugh...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



That's a good point chief.. 

It's easy to prove that CO2 will absorb and re-radiate thermal energy. Don't even NEED to do that part.. The experiment would have to be realistic enough to extrapolate MEASUREMENTS of the back radiation and cooling vents in the atmos.. to be of any use. 

I'll give you a reason.. To figure out HOW MUCH the net thermal flow from the surface to the heavens is DECREASED by your 200ppm --- you'd have to model both the BBody output of the Earth and the heat sinking ability of space.. 

PERHAPS -- Lawrence Livermore could pull that off -- but NOT in a milk jug or aquarium..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > S.J -
> ...



The nice thing about knowing science is that it allows independent thinking based on facts. Common sense is what people who don't have knowledge claim in order to excuse their lack of investment in education.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The IPCC has pulled it off. 

What can be proven in a milk jug or aquarium is the absorption behavior of GHGs.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



We can measure sub-atomic particles, I'm fairly certain we can measure the net thermal decrease, however minuscule, at the top of the 200PPM fishtank.  Besides, that's what the AGWCult should be doing


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Fucking Liar

Post it

Show us where they got a temperature increase from 200ppm of CO2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



They're still confirming Relativity, but you want us to believe that your "Science"is "Settled"

You really have no clue how science is done do you


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


I may not be a scientist but I'm educated enough to not trust someone who has been caught lying to advance an agenda that they benefit from.  If their knowledge was so sound, and provable, they would not need to hide any of their findings, would they?  Or maybe you don't have enough common sense to understand that simple concept.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



What do you assert and what is the proof that you offer?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



All been done. How do you thinks that earth's energy budget has been computed?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



If you were a scientist you could evaluate the science rather than assume the bogieman.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.


Ah, the ol' "You're just not smart enough to understand" argument.  Reminds me of the evolution debate when you ask them a question they can't answer.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


And if you had any common sense you would know when you're being played.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Not only how it is done but how it has been done and what the conclusions are relative to AGW. The nice thing about knowledge is that it frees you from the bogieman. In the absence of knowledge things like thunder is God bowling are easy to sell.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



And if you had any science education you would know when you're being played for profit.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Profits, you mean as in Al Gore?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.
> ...



People, in the absence of knowledge, can only guess at answers.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



No, I means profits as in Rush, Rupert, Grover Norquist, big oil, the national republican party, the Koch bros.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Look at that giant hunk of Detroit iron that you use for an avatar. Do you realize the profit that big oil has made, and taxpayers have paid, once they convinced you that that's what makes you a man?


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 9, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Mud-
> 
> The topic of this thread is how conservative governments are preparing for climate change.
> 
> The topic of this thread is not the endless theatre of faux-denial.



We can also prepare for an alien invasion.......but that would be a waste of time, energy and money as well.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 9, 2013)

pmz said:


> s.j. said:
> 
> 
> > pmz said:
> ...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Mud-
> ...



We've always done well with evidence based decision making. Ever since republicans abandoned that, their fortunes have sunk like rocks. And America's too when they've been in charge.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Liberals are impervious to reality.


----------



## westwall (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...







You are correct, the debate is indeed over.  The facts completely rule out man as a cause of the last little global temp uptick.  The next decade of descending temperatures will reinforce that conclusion.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Except you are buying a load of goods based on a political agenda.  Scientists disagree on the results.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



To make that judgement you'd have to know reality.  Perhaps there is some reality that you know.  There is much evidence that that would not be in the field of science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Mann's Nature Trick

Hide the decline

Redistribute wealth via climate policy


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Which process in the creation of AGW do you have evidence,  data,  or theory that denies?


----------



## gslack (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



LOL,you don'tknow science socko.. You know BS... You're just not very good at it...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Scientists understand the science and support it. 

Politicians don't understand the science and wish that it was not true.  That's your side.  What politicians do understand is how to recruit people who are ill equipped to defend themselves to support what they don't understand. You are merely proof of that.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Your knowledge consists of repeating left wing conspiracy theories and buying into hoaxes.  The thing about people on message boards who claim to be experts on things is that no one can verify it.  Therefore, your claims of scientific knowledge and understanding don't really mean shit.  And your parroting of the liberal "Big Oil", "Koch Bros" evil capitalist crap reveals the true level of your intelligence.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Not nearly as much profit as they've made from Al Gore's private jet and Michelle Obama's fuel bill from all her vacations.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I see that you've summarized all the facts about AGW that Rush taught you.  Keep it up and you'll be promoted to double ditto head.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


That's it?  I was expecting more from an intellectual.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



I think that the Obamas are trying hard not to embarrass the Bushes who hold the record for fewest days worked. Apparently George preferred ranching to Presidenting. He was better at it too. 

As I understand it,  every time he left DC there was a measurable decline in governmental screw ups so his staff encouraged the ranching and discouraged the Presidenting.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



If I remember (i have the troll on ignore after several attempts to cross his bridge) -- this guy has quotes from a former clown --- now Senator Al Franken in his footer.. His choice of intellectual icons is a lot worse than being entertained by Limbaugh.. 

What was that character Franken used to do? 

"I'm smart enough and I'm good enough and doggone it --- people like me" I think that inspires PMZ to be so prolific. "Good enough" is good enough for the people of Minnesota right? Just as an aside, old Al used to be a member of one of the 1st message boards I joined. Not to hard to debate a future Senator.. I'll tell ya that...


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Your arguments are getting progressively weaker with each post, and further from the subject.  Keep talking, I'm enjoying watching you self-destruct.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You apparently have declined substantially since then.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



We'll,  it turns out that very little is required to counter your arguments.  Honestly?  Nothing.  You simply have nothing to counter.  Your point is that you are entitled to be right because Rush told you so.  Hmmmm.  Entitled. That word never did much for me. I like earned so much better.  But,  that's old school. It's so much easier to follow the cult leaders who tell you that what you want to be true,  is. Education is tough and takes time.  Entitlement takes only one word from Rush.  Clearly the easiest path to irrelevant.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Yeah imagine how AWESOME i used to be...


----------



## S.J. (Aug 9, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You seem preoccupied with Rush.  Is that the only argument you have?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 10, 2013)

It's the only answer required as to how we went from a nation of doers to an army of ignorant cynics committed to stop progress in any form. 

Somebody organized the know nothings.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's the only answer required as to how we went from a nation of doers to an army of ignorant cynics committed to stop progress in any form.
> 
> Somebody organized the know nothings.



Welcome to the DNC comrade.  There will be extra bread for you today for being a compliant citizen.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 12, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's the only answer required as to how we went from a nation of doers to an army of ignorant cynics committed to stop progress in any form.
> ...



DemoCCCPrat Party Welcomes you!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

The question is why would anyone organize the know nothings? The answer is that they are so easily fooled that the profits are enormous.  Billions. And it can be done by those with zero education and very limited cognitive skills.  If there wasn't demand for entertainers and politicians,  the cult leaders would be unemployable.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The question is why would anyone organize the know nothings? The answer is that they are so easily fooled that the profits are enormous.  Billions. And it can be done by those with zero education and very limited cognitive skills.  If there wasn't demand for entertainers and politicians,  the cult leaders would be unemployable.







Chump change.  The criminals pushing this fraud are after TRILLIONS you imbecile!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > The question is why would anyone organize the know nothings? The answer is that they are so easily fooled that the profits are enormous.  Billions. And it can be done by those with zero education and very limited cognitive skills.  If there wasn't demand for entertainers and politicians,  the cult leaders would be unemployable.
> ...



No question that the necessary retooling of the world's energy infrastructure is full of opportunity. 

For engineers, capitalists and doers.

Scientists however have always struggled for funding in all fields. It's a necessary part of their job. 

But science has nothing to do with you. 

You are all about being a loyal minion to politicians and political entertainers. And you provide them the source of their billions. 

You signed up for the gift, you thought, of being right. But you bought a pig in a poke and got royally screwed. 

It happens.

Get over it.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







  Opportunity!  What a laugh!  Opportunity only for those who pay the politicians to pass the legislation to make the "opportunity" a necessity.

Retooling the infrastructure of the world would make a very, very small group very, very rich and more to the point all powerful.  Makes Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR seem like a party in comparison.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Who it makes rich is of no consequence any more than who were made rich by oil and autos and trains and the Internet is.  

What matters is that it is the least expensive alternative available to mankind.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

> The criminals pushing this fraud are after TRILLIONS you imbecile!



Why would Conservatives do that?

Has this question ever been addressed?


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > The criminals pushing this fraud are after TRILLIONS you imbecile!
> 
> 
> 
> ...







It's not conservatives silly person.  It is elitists who are the ones buying and selling politicians all the time, as the socialists so like to point out.  In this case they are correct.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







Actually, yes it does.  When you use government to MAKE the fossil fuels much more expensive due to legislation....that is not legit.  If the planet were to follow your model of infrastructure replacement how many do you think will die and how many do you think will be driven from middle class to poverty...all because of a few people wanting to control the economy of the world?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

Westwall -

Right. So the wealthy elite "buy and sell" Conservative politicians, who then order fake research from Conservative scientists, and they all pretend climate change is real.

And oil kills only 4,500 birds a year, except when 3.5 million die in Canada. 

You don't believe this, Westwall. It makes you look silly, and you don't believe it.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It doesn't matter because there's no choice.  It's driven both by the consequences,  precipitation redistribution and rising sea level into our cities,  and the declining supplies vs rising demand for fossil fuels.  We can no longer afford them and it will take many decades to get off of them. 

We have to move on.


----------



## westwall (Aug 12, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








None of which have been shown to be true.  None.  You guys flap your gums and tell us the sky is falling and it never does.  For over 30 years and innumerable "tipping points" your little meme has failed.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 12, 2013)

Classic Westwall!!



> None of which have been shown to be true. None. You guys flap your gums and tell us the sky is falling and it never does



So the Arctic Ice is not in freefall, melting much faster than predicted.

So 97% of glaciers are not melting?

Sea levels are not rising.

2012 was not the hottest year in US history. 

All of the 15 hottest years on record do not occur within the past 18 years. 

Really, man, isn't about time you gave up this game and posted something you actually believe?


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Clayton -
> 
> The problem for those who make scientific policies based on politics is that the real world will always intervene.
> 
> ...



2012 wasn't the hottest year on record, and everything else you claimed was equally wrong.  the incidence of drought is not increasing.

"The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!"


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> American Communist said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change is a scam designed to get you to accept higher taxes and less freedom of choice.
> ...



Wrong.  Not all scientists agree.  Scientific organizations are gangs of toadies who owe their careers to government.  Of course the support any policy favored by the government.



Saigon said:


> Many right-wing politicians (largely in the US) do not agree that human activity impacts the climate.
> 
> Which group do you think are more likely to be right?



Definitely it wouldn't be the group that babbles incessantly about "consensus."  Anyone who believes "consensus" is part of science is an ignoramus who should be ignored.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 13, 2013)

> 2012 wasn't the hottest year on record,



Actually, yes, it was the hottest year in US history,which is what I stated. Should we be surprised that you did not know that?

Temperatures across the continental United States soared in 2012 to an all-time high, making last year the warmest year on record for the country by a wide margin, scientists say. 

2012: Hottest Year on Record for Continental U.S.

Everything else I posted can be checked and confirmed in about five minutes. We both know you won't.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Classic Westwall!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...








In order......Absolutely not.  The Arctic is at it's highest level of sea ice in several years and is already setting records for number of days below zero for the year. EPIC FAIL.

Don't know.  The "studies" that that claim was made from has been shown to have very little actual science in it.

Sea levels are maybe rising, but once again if they are it is such a small level that it is basically un-measurable.

No, 2012 was NOT the hottest year on record in the US.  Hansen (you know the guy who actually tells us how hot it is) states that 2012 was NINTH hottest, and that figure is questionable based on his history of raw data falsification.  EPIC FAIL

According to ALL AGW SUPPORTING GROUPS the global temperature has remained static for the last 15 to 17 years.  EPIC FAIL

Really man, isn't it about time you actually did some more current research instead of regurgitating this ancient crap?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 13, 2013)

> Scientific organizations are gangs of toadies who owe their careers to government.



So if they owe their careers to CONSERVATVE governments....?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 13, 2013)

Another day, another lie. 



> The Arctic is at it's highest level of sea ice in several years and is already setting records for number of days below zero for the year. EPIC FAIL.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > 2012 wasn't the hottest year on record,
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Actually, no IT'S NOT.  Hansen, he who is responsible for all temperature data releases says you are full of shit as usual....



An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.



http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Another day, another lie.
> 
> 
> 
> > The Arctic is at it's highest level of sea ice in several years and is already setting records for number of days below zero for the year. EPIC FAIL.








Why not post this one asshole.  I said several years and voila, here is a graph that shows EXACTLY that.  EPIC FAIL CONFIRMED ASSHAT.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 13, 2013)

Westwall -

Please try and stick to facts, and please try and post honestly. 

This site as an excellent resource on the Arctic, and a little more reliable than whatever you are using. 

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Making things up doesn't prove anything.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Please try and stick to facts, and please try and post honestly.
> 
> ...








Piss off you sanctimonious asshole.  You've been caught lying so many times your credibility is zero.  Finished your remedial Finnish geography class yet?  I thought not....


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

Clearly the deniers have had to back off from using pseudo science to defend what they wish was true and resort to ad hominum attacks. 

They are reluctantly learning to never bring politics to a science fight.


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Please try and stick to facts, and please try and post honestly.
> 
> ...



Quit dictating asshole..


----------



## gslack (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly the deniers have had to back off from using pseudo science to defend what they wish was true and resort to ad hominum attacks.
> 
> They are reluctantly learning to never bring politics to a science fight.



No we just cowar in the wake of your massive ZERO rep....

SO what's up with your rep socko? Got caught didn't you...


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Clearly the deniers have had to back off from using pseudo science to defend what they wish was true and resort to ad hominum attacks.
> 
> They are reluctantly learning to never bring politics to a science fight.









  So says the "science is settled" drone!  What a maroon!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly the deniers have had to back off from using pseudo science to defend what they wish was true and resort to ad hominum attacks.
> ...








Multiple times it seems....


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

I consider it an honor to be dissed by the voluntarily ignorant.


----------



## Katzndogz (Aug 13, 2013)

It looks like even liberals are getting tired of supporting the hoax of climate change.  obama's OFA didn't get a single person to show up.

OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally | Washington Free Beacon


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> I consider it an honor to be dissed by the voluntarily ignorant.







Yes, you clowns do pat yourselves on the back an inordinate amount of the time...


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> It looks like even liberals are getting tired of supporting the hoax of climate change.  obama's OFA didn't get a single person to show up.
> 
> OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally | Washington Free Beacon








I LOVE this tweet from the event!

ZERO PEOPLE at the OFA rally at the Georgetown Waterfront this morning. OMG CLIMATE CHANGE IS SUPER IMPORTANT... unless it rains.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 13, 2013)

Hey West.....how 'bout this for laughs???

Climate Change Rally in Georgetown this past weekend. Guess how many people showed up?



*0*


OFA Gets Zero Attendance for Climate Change Rally | Washington Free Beacon



Like Ive been saying for a long, long time on here......nobody gives a rats ass about climate change except the internet hobbyists!!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 13, 2013)

The deniers support the politics of denial because they would rather put off the cost impact of our energy actions completely to future generations in spite of the enormous extra cost of doing that. In other words, as long as they don't have to suffer the consequences of our actions, they are of no concern to them. 

Most of the public does not understand the science but assume that science and government and business will do the right thing. Which is exactly what has and is happening. 

Then there are those who understand the science and feel responsibility to begin the expensive but cheaper than any alternative process of doing what limits the consequences of past choices and accepts the responsibility of lessening the burdon on future generations. 

Finally there are the engineers and business people and politicians who don't accept the cost as much as see the opportunity in all of this. Yes, many will suffer the cost consequences but businesses and countries will reap great profits from all of tis too. 

Lots of different prospectives. True of all progress. Winners and losers, whiners and doers.


----------



## westwall (Aug 13, 2013)

PMZ said:


> The deniers support the politics of denial because they would rather put off the cost impact of our energy actions completely to future generations in spite of the enormous extra cost of doing that. In other words, as long as they don't have to suffer the consequences of our actions, they are of no concern to them.
> 
> Most of the public does not understand the science but assume that science and government and business will do the right thing. Which is exactly what has and is happening.
> 
> ...








Yes, you "doers" are responsible for more environmental damage over the last 15 years than Big Oil is for over 100.

The world begs you "doers" to stop....just stop, before you REALLY fuck something up that can't be fixed by the people who really DO care.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 14, 2013)

Doers should stop solving mankind's problems because you are incapable of understanding them????? 

If humanity worked like that we'd still be in the caves.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 14, 2013)

> Yes, you "doers" are responsible for more environmental damage over the last 15 years than Big Oil is for over 100.



It's always good to see Westwall presenting a lot of facts, numbers and accurate details in his posts.


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Doers should stop solving mankind's problems because you are incapable of understanding them?????
> 
> If humanity worked like that we'd still be in the caves.



liberals aren't the "doers" they are the cry until others do party... And YOU haven't DONE shit... Rockefeller a "doer"..  Ifitzpmzmesock a rambling forum sock....


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Yes, you "doers" are responsible for more environmental damage over the last 15 years than Big Oil is for over 100.
> 
> 
> 
> It's always good to see Westwall presenting a lot of facts, numbers and accurate details in his posts.



It's always good to see you trolling all the while accusing others of that very thing...

BTW your incessant neg-repping is childish...Grow up junior..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 14, 2013)

Nobody should mistake the reactionary crowd here denying AGW as anything new. It is a continuation of the traditional cultural divide between those who create the future and those who fear it because it is uncertain, risky and different from now. 

Yes it is. However all of those things can be and are managed by what separates us from other species, our intellect. And we know that hoping that the future won't require preparation on our part is only wishful thinking. The future will arrive no matter what we do. We will be partially prepared for it and partially surprised by it but we will react as it unfolds and make up on the fly for whatever we weren't smart enough to anticipate, plan for, and act on. 

The history of humanity. 

So, the raucous clammering of the fear mongers has always been the background music for progress. Now is no different. It must be ignored. It is of no value. 

Mankind's comfort level might have to be adjusted due to correction of the century old dream of cheap energy based on the delusion that dumping energy waste into the atmosphere has no consequences. Just as happened in 2007 when we found out that our dream of easy money in the housing market was the ultimate Ponzi Scheme by banks. 

But, life will go on and humanity will chalk up another challenge met and resolved. 

Until the whole play starts again pitting the dreamers and doers against the skeptics and cynics.


----------



## gslack (Aug 14, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Nobody should mistake the reactionary crowd here denying AGW as anything new. It is a continuation of the traditional cultural divide between those who create the future and those who fear it because it is uncertain, risky and different from now.
> 
> Yes it is. However all of those things can be and are managed by what separates us from other species, our intellect. And we know that hoping that the future won't require preparation on our part is only wishful thinking. The future will arrive no matter what we do. We will be partially prepared for it and partially surprised by it but we will react as it unfolds and make up on the fly for whatever we weren't smart enough to anticipate, plan for, and act on.
> 
> ...



What's up with your rep socko/plagiarist....


----------



## PMZ (Aug 15, 2013)

It has more to do with you than me.  It's apparently the last dance of the losers.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It has more to do with you than me.  It's apparently the last dance of the losers.



Me? I didn't do a thing to your rep socko... But hey I know it's the way you "do-nothings" handle your own screw ups, blame somebody else... I'm sure it wasn't your fault... Plagiarizing, socking, doesn't matter, you were made to do it because of society...

ROFL


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> No we just cowar in the wake of your massive ZERO rep....
> 
> SO what's up with your rep socko? Got caught didn't you...



Dear Mr Slack,

if you're going to play with people's "reps", you'd be smarter not to harp on them.  I'm quite certain that everyone whose names you've besmirched ("Oh HOW will I ever show my face again down at the club?!?!?") is aware that you are responsible for it.  I'm also quite certain that no one gives a rat's ass about it.  As has already been opined, if nothing, it's a bit of an honor.  

--Abraham

ps: it's spelled "cower"


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 16, 2013)

68 degrees this morning and an inch of rain last night......in Oklahoma.....in August.  

*I.Love.This.Climate.Change.Shit!*


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It has more to do with you than me.  It's apparently the last dance of the losers.



Actually, no.  You aren't Obama where you get to blame everyone else for your failures.  The rep system is representative of your value towards the quality of the board.  The folks with red splats and 0 rep are basically douches and trolls.  True story! 

Consider rep as truth in advertising.  When you see red splats, it's best to just keep moving on to the next post.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It has more to do with you than me.  It's apparently the last dance of the losers.
> ...



Why would anyone consider any rep from you significant of anything,  good or bad?  You are irrelevant in every way.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > No we just cowar in the wake of your massive ZERO rep....
> ...



Nice try at a diversion, really.... LOL, what can I, a single solitary poster with no mod or admin powers do to anybodies rep? All I can do is neg-rep and frankly as you can see mine would be unable to send somebody into the red...

Now you and I know for it to happen instaneously it's not usually from a neg from another poster..

SO grow up BS artist


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Tissue.....bitch?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Ahhh, the mark of a true conservative.


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And you show your real age junior... Do another pee wee herman for us junior.. ROFL..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Another true conservative. More for me, less for everyone else. Misanthropy all around. 

And you wonder why you are irrelevant.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 16, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Are you actually poster GSlack?  He seems to care a great deal about reps and managed to single-handedly turn every liberal poster's rep incarnadine.  Is that you?


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Hush junior, the adults are talking..


----------



## gslack (Aug 16, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



LOL, KWC is actually me?

ROFL, first KWC is nothing like me.. First he or she is much nicer than I am.. Remember I'm the prick who makes you cry.. Secomd, I don't need a sock to make you cry and post about me junior, which we see all too often...

You recently spent nearly a whole page of space posting small posts about me, or to me when I didn't respond fast enough...

Time to get real junior... You are currently well on past 24 hours straight on here, and this is not the first time we have seen you do this. Proving, you don't have a job, and you have serious issues... And now we know you have a very creepy fixation on me...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 16, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



The troll seems to believe that there are people here who care what he thinks about anything.  Ever.  

I suppose when your life is as empty as his must be,  knowing nothing,  believing in nothing,  you get desperate for attention at least,  relevance at most.  Unfortunately,  not to be.


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



LOL, I know enough to slap you with your own ignorance on a daily basis socko...

And as far as what I believe in, what the hell do you know about me? You stalking me junior? Well I don't want anybody thinking I'm an empty shell LOL...

I believe in truth... You know, like when you get on a website and NOT claim you're an expert because you wan't to have an easier time of it.... 

I believe your right to be a dumbass, as much my own.. BUT that doesn't mean I won't call you on it. it just means you can be a dumbass...

I believe in the right to free speech... Again, I will call you on it when your speech is ignorant...

I beleive in a lot of things socko, need I continue?

Good, now lets get to the crux of the matter here... You just implied I believe in nothing, the greater implication being you DO.. And what can we assume you believe in? Well not truth that's obvious... SOCKO...That leaves AGW as the obvious one... So it's a belief for you then... That's good of you to admit...

LOL, thanks socko, you just clarified it's a belief with you...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 17, 2013)

Saying nothing in lots of words is the skill of trolls everywhere.  Recognizing that saying nothing in many words still says nothing though,  is completely beyond them. 

That's why their contribution to the progress of the human race is,  and must always be,  zero.  

Thinkers and doers drag them through life as dead weight.


----------



## gslack (Aug 17, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Saying nothing in lots of words is the skill of trolls everywhere.  Recognizing that saying nothing in many words still says nothing though,  is completely beyond them.
> 
> That's why their contribution to the progress of the human race is,  and must always be,  zero.
> 
> Thinkers and doers drag them through life as dead weight.



And talking in a circle is your domain junior...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 17, 2013)

Climate change lulls and lolz


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

It's interesting that Republicans claim to be advocates of personal responsibility but are represented here by some world class parasites who contribute nothing to the solutions to AGW but live off the whining about those solutions. They need to be carried into the future by responsible people after having actively campaigned against responsibility. 

But what responsible people do is always more than their share making up for the parasites always doing less. 

The world's oldest story.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's interesting that Republicans claim to be advocates of personal responsibility but are represented here by some world class parasites who contribute nothing to the solutions to AGW but live off the whining about those solutions. They need to be carried into the future by responsible people after having actively campaigned against responsibility.
> 
> But what responsible people do is always more than their share making up for the parasites always doing less.
> 
> The world's oldest story.







So says the collectivist dickheads who want to take everyone else's money away so they can't afford to do anything but service your needs....

Piss off lout!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

If by servicing our needs you mean finding the least expensive path from here to a sustainable future I agree wholeheartedly that's what we need. 

If instead you mean push off the cost of our lives to future generations,  that's the kind of parasitic irresponsibility that I'm talking about. 

Humanity doesn't need jerkwad cultists like you Dittoheads.


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 18, 2013)

gslack said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



It seems entirely possible.



gslack said:


> ROFL, first KWC is nothing like me..



That seems to be irrelevant.  The people of whom you said I was a clone or a sock puppet are nothing like me.



gslack said:


> First he or she is much nicer than I am..



I disagree.



gslack said:


> Remember I'm the prick who makes you cry..



You've never made me cry.  You've made me cringe a few times, but most of the time you just make me chuckle and laugh.



gslack said:


> Secomd, I don't need a sock to make you cry and post about me junior, which we see all too often...



I normally have you on my ignore list so you don't see me complaining about you too often.  But I do see others complain about you.  And, from the little I've seen, their complaints are fully justified.



gslack said:


> You recently spent nearly a whole page of space posting small posts about me, or to me when I didn't respond fast enough...



I'm not sure I remember that.  But don't worry about it.  That must have been when I thought you were capable of maintaining an interesting conversation... when I thought you mattered.



gslack said:


> Time to get real junior...



Oh, pardon me... Pops.



gslack said:


> You are currently well on past 24 hours straight on here, and this is not the first time we have seen you do this. Proving, you don't have a job



I don't ? ! ? ! ?  That's terrible.  Or is it?  Maybe I'm independently wealthy.  Perhaps I've an inherited fortune and just wile the day away doing whatever I want.  Or perhaps I'm too young to work yet.  Maybe I'm in high school, or even younger.  Or maybe I'm actually a convicted mass murderer messaging you from the prison rec room, trying to arrange for a safe house for when I bust outta here.  Or maybe you don't have a clue.



gslack said:


> and you have serious issues...



You mean, worse than the not having a job issue?  What sort of issues could they be?  Do I owe the IRS back taxes?  Am I developing a hairy back?  Does my nose run and my feet smell?  Or maybe it's just that mass murderer thing again.  What a pain that keeps cropping up...



gslack said:


> And now we know you have a very creepy fixation on me...



 Yes... yes I do.  I can't stop... well... you know.  You're so  bald and smooth and round.  When I look at you I can't stop thinking about... about... well... you know... a penis.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

This has been a long time coming but worth the wait.  There is nothing served by tolerating trolls on a site dedicated to science and the people who dedicate their lives to using science to further the progress of mankind. 

Those of us who support the IPCC and the science that they ipitomise need to be less tolerant of the political cretins who try to sell irresponsibility and ignorance as anything but the least investment in life.


----------



## gslack (Aug 18, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I'm sorry but pedantic quoting of every line causes me to doze off from boredom... What did you say?

You can't stop thinking about me? Yes I implied that... Remember you responded to it?

As far as your hair and nose, I don't really care... See, I'm not here to make you feel good about being....Well you...Talk to your mom if you need confirmation...

Damn you're creepy..


----------



## gslack (Aug 18, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This has been a long time coming but worth the wait.  There is nothing served by tolerating trolls on a site dedicated to science and the people who dedicate their lives to using science to further the progress of mankind.
> 
> Those of us who support the IPCC and the science that they ipitomise need to be less tolerant of the political cretins who try to sell irresponsibility and ignorance as anything but the least investment in life.



LOL, this site is neither dedicated to science or the people who dedicate their lives to it... It's a political web forum, with a section for debating climate and environmental concerns numbnuts... You seem to think that requires you to be a fake scientist to debate here, we know socko... But it just isn't so...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 18, 2013)

So,  in your opinion,  AGW is a political issue,  not related to science,  and that's why you're relevant here. 

I don't think so.  

The science is compelling enough to overwhelm politics.  Basically the political resolution is unaffordable. 

Not that you're capable of understanding that.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 19, 2013)

MMGW is a farce perpetrated by power hungry politicians to control people through fear that they can't control otherwise.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 19, 2013)

S.J. said:


> MMGW is a farce perpetrated by power hungry politicians to control people through fear that they can't control otherwise.



CONSERVATIVE politicians, apparently. 

Rather than just spew the same old ridiculous cliches on every thread - why not present some facts? Evidence? Actually try and build a coherent case?

Why do you think anyone would simply believe it because you say so?


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> So,  in your opinion,  AGW is a political issue,  not related to science,  and that's why you're relevant here.
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> ...



No socko, I explained what this site is. You seemed to think it was a site dedicated to science... it's not.. It even says it's purpose on the main page... Notice the name of this particular board section? It's Environment... Not pseudo-science, not warmer science, not even tweaking wierdos pulling 30+ hours at a time science... Matter of fact it doesn't even say science in the section title...

As far as my relevance goes, it's not your call who is relevent here.. last I checked, it didn't say PMZ message board anywhere either...

Please, you're the forum joke tweaker boy.. Those who aren't laughung at you are using you for cannon fodder....ROFL.


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > MMGW is a farce perpetrated by power hungry politicians to control people through fear that they can't control otherwise.
> ...



Finnish fraud, since when is the IPCC a conservative political body?

LOL, OH NO!!! You're going to neg rep me again... BOO HOOO!!!


----------



## S.J. (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > MMGW is a farce perpetrated by power hungry politicians to control people through fear that they can't control otherwise.
> ...


Get back to me when you get some proof, some data that hasn't been manipulated.  Something other than Al Gore talking points.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 19, 2013)

S.J.

There are - obviously - IMMENSE amounts of proof. 

I'd be more than happy to post, say, three studies produced in conservatively governed countries, and produced by agencies with fairly consevative reputations. Each on a slightly different aspect of climate change. Let's say one on glaciers, one of the Arctic, and one on the link between CO2 & temperature.

Are you willing to commit to reading and thinking about them with an open mind?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> This has been a long time coming but worth the wait.  There is nothing served by tolerating trolls on a site dedicated to science and the people who dedicate their lives to using science to further the progress of mankind.
> 
> Those of us who support the IPCC and the science that they ipitomise need to be less tolerant of the political cretins who try to sell irresponsibility and ignorance as anything but the least investment in life.



^ From the "I feel that 3*4 should = 11" school of science

IPCC is a fraud, they're to science what Bernie Madoff was to investing


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> There are - obviously - IMMENSE amounts of proof.
> 
> ...



AGWCult: 200ppm of CO2 is causing warming, melting the ice caps, killing the snail darter, and causing Cat 5 hurricanes

Normal people: Can you show us this in a lab?

AGWCult: You fool!  Of course, we can't! The weather is far too complicated, with too many variable to replicate in a lab

Normal people: Then how can you say you've isolated all the variables save for the 200PPM added to the atmosphere the last 150 years?

AGWCult: We have consensus, the science is settled

Normal People: That's not science and you have a real scary look in your eyes like some crazy person


----------



## Saigon (Aug 19, 2013)

Frank -

Please stop spamming interesting threads with your brainless garbage.

I know you are here purely and simply to stop any rational discussion, and so does everyone else.

Have a little respect for your fellow posters, and allow people to discuss the topics they choose to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon stop being a clueless dictator attempting to shut down rational discussing except for parroting back the non-science from your AGWCult


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

Can you show us in a lab how a 200ppm increase in CO2 increases the temperature?


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 19, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Really?  Gslack turned every liberal poster's rep red single-handedly.  Pretty neat trick for someone with 240 rep points.  Dumbass.....but then you are a liberal, so it goes without saying doesn't it?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Liberals have science on their side.  Conservatives only cheap politics. All you guys are stuck with only what you have.  Ignorance and cheap tricks.  At both the national level and this forum.  Desperate is as desperate does.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can you show us in a lab how a 200ppm increase in CO2 increases the temperature?



Yes.  With the math models that have been created by the IPCC.  

You,  however,  can't, because you have no education and scientific resources.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 19, 2013)

> Gslack turned every liberal poster's rep red single-handedly. Pretty neat trick for someone with 240 rep points



It's also a fairly clear abuse of the system - particularly coming from a poster who has never once debated an actual topic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Liberals have "Consensus", which is not how science is done

In Al Gore's peer reviewed Global Warming Bible "Earth in the Balance", he said that water vapor was responsible for the warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show us in a lab how a 200ppm increase in CO2 increases the temperature?
> ...



"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC is admitting AGW has nothing to do with the climate


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show us in a lab how a 200ppm increase in CO2 increases the temperature?
> ...



Bernie Madoff had computer models showing how his investors were making 10% annually.

See how that works?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 19, 2013)

Ok, maybe we can get back on topic now...

Here are some points from the UK Conservative govt that conservatives here might find interesting:

&#8226; We have published ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions, setting an example to our competitors in Europe. However, we will not put British industry at risk, so we will revisit the targets we have set if other countries fail to match our ambition.

&#8226; At the Durban climate conference in December 2011, we were instrumental in delivering a ground breaking global agreement on climate change. More than 120 countries formed a 'coalition of high ambition' in support of a roadmap to a legally-binding deal, to be in place by 2015.

&#8226; By 2015, we will have invested £3 billion of public money in the Green Investment Bank, unleashing a further £15 billion of private investment.

&#8226; We will work towards a global deal on climate change to be agreed no later than 2015.

&#8226; The Carbon Price Floor will take effect from April 2013, incentivising low-carbon energy.

The Conservative Party | Policy | Where we stand | Climate Change and Energy

Frank- 



> In Al Gore's peer reviewed Global Warming Bible "Earth in the Balance", he said that water vapor was responsible for the warming



Al Gore is NOT a scientist. His book was NOT peer-reviewed.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So you're saying that math is not to be trusted?  Better lock yourself indoors because most everything else begins life with a finite element math model.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Apparently you are of the mind that those who primarily caused,  and benefitted from,  AGW should pass the buck on to the poor nations of the world.  TRUE conservatism.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ok, maybe we can get back on topic now...
> 
> Here are some points from the UK Conservative govt that conservatives here might find interesting:
> 
> ...



Right,  but more so than Rush and his army of not so bright Dittoheads.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> S.J.
> 
> There are - obviously - IMMENSE amounts of proof.
> 
> ...


If it was "IMMENSE' amounts of proof, there would be no need systematically to hide contrary evidence.


----------



## westwall (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










AGW is a fraud.  If it weren't you could present a measurable metric for real scientists to test.  That IS how science works you know.  You should look up the SCIENTIFIC METHOD some day and you will see that one aspect of REAL science is REPEATABILITY...by ANYONE.

Climatologists are the only "scientists" who refuse to hand over their work so others can test it.  I wonder why


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> 
> Note that the report does highlight some positives - and also notes that many of the impacts have already occured:
> 
> ...



The true bottom line is that if they are starting to change their minds, then they are not actually conservatives.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I can't imagine what planet you're reporting from. 

Go to the Scienceofdoom.com website for one of many.  Or the IPCC Web site. But you have to actually study them.


----------



## idb (Aug 19, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> ...



Yep, quite right.
True conservatives will never change their minds.


----------



## westwall (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...











Oh, but I have dear silly person.  There is not one single experiment that you can do that supports the idea that a 200 or 300 ppm increase in CO2 will do anything.  Not one.  If there is then by all means show it to us....

And by experiment I mean just that.  No computer models are allowed.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

idb said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Learning not being their strong suit.


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2013)

kwc57 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



LOL, yep I got mad skills.. ROFL


----------



## gslack (Aug 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Please stop spamming interesting threads with your brainless garbage.
> 
> ...



SAIGON -- Please stop being such a whiny, crybaby, punk...You don't run things..


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 19, 2013)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 19, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



I get it, English is not your primary language


----------



## whitehall (Aug 19, 2013)

Notice how the radicals dropped the words "man-made" from the phrase? The East Coast is enjoying the coolest August on record but in the convoluted extortionist mind cool is hot and hot is hot. They have the argument surrounded. The freaking weather bureau can't even tell the path of a storm 24 hours ahead yet they preach about the religion of global warming. You gotta have faith.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Notice how the radicals dropped the words "man-made" from the phrase? The East Coast is enjoying the coolest August on record but in the convoluted extortionist mind cool is hot and hot is hot. They have the argument surrounded. The freaking weather bureau can't even tell the path of a storm 24 hours ahead yet they preach about the religion of global warming. You gotta have faith.



What did Rush tell you that the 'A'  in AGW stands for?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 19, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



And thinking is hard for you.  Thats why you need others to do it for you.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 19, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I get it, English is not your primary language



Did you seriously just post that??!!!

Damn, this board needs an irony font!!!


----------



## gslack (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I get it, English is not your primary language
> ...



I think we should have a special font for socks, fakes, liars, and crybabies... Yours could simply be all pink, whatever the font.. That way the newer people could see that if they keep reading, soon you will resort to crying like a punk.. Maybe put a pacifier in place of the Question mark, or make your fonts show a Diaper pin for a exclamation point...

But sadly no such luck.. I have to make do with this....


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



There is no "buck" to pass, nitwit.  Global warming hasn't cost any country a dime.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > In Al Gore's peer reviewed Global Warming Bible "Earth in the Balance", he said that water vapor was responsible for the warming
> ...



Wrong again, pinhead.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The IPCC is the last place you'll find "real science."  They're a political organization.  They don't do science.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 20, 2013)

idb said:


> Yep, quite right.
> True conservatives will never change their minds.



Liberals are always changing their minds because they are always being proven dead wrong.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> 
> Note that the report does highlight some positives - and also notes that many of the impacts have already occured:
> 
> ...



 Has anybody pointed out that the extremely anti-american "conservative" party in New Zealand would be considered communists here in America?


----------



## idb (Aug 20, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> ...


They're hardly anti- American, quite the opposite in fact, they are embarrassingly fawning at times. 
You're right that they would be considered Liberal in America. 
The fight between the two main parties is over the Centre - Centre-Left and Centre-Right but the Centre would be on the Left in the US.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> Has anybody pointed out that the extremely anti-american "conservative" party in New Zealand would be considered communists here in America?



No, they haven't - because that would be factually wrong and completely illogical.

The National Party of NZ are pro-US and deeply conservatve. They were actually the international poster boy for free-market economics as recently as the 1990's.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody pointed out that the extremely anti-american "conservative" party in New Zealand would be considered communists here in America?
> ...


Free market economics???  How horrible!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > JohnL.Burke said:
> ...



NZ's experience of them was, yes. 

Do some reading on Ruth Richardson or Jenny Shipley and you'll learn what I mean.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 20, 2013)

Whats New Zealand say about String Theory

I never heard of science being done on the "because New Zealand says so" method

This AGW stuff is really cutting edge


----------



## gslack (Aug 20, 2013)

Finnish fraud knows all... Except finnish geography... And how to quote people honestly... And how NOT to be a crybaby in a web forum... Oh and how to act with adults... And just about anything at all about science or the scientific method.. And we can add New Zealand politics as well.... But everything else... Well, maybe not everything else.. Or anything else actually...

Ya know what,forget I said anything...


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

Gslack - 

Please refer to the statement made by a moderator on the "16% of Americans..." thread. 

Then come back and adjust your statement here. 

I won't report this, as its possible you missed that comment.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Actually they are the science behind AGW.  You're thinking of Rush radio and Fox News.  They don't do science.  Or politics for that matter. They are a religious cult for ignorant people paid for by businesses buying votes.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

gslack said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Great TRUE conservative imitation.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



It's strange that you trust computer models with your life in cars and planes but not to predict weather.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > S.J.
> ...



Actually it's the IMMENSE proof of AGW that makes political conspiracy theory the only tool for conservatives to sell their particular brand of irresponsibility.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


>











bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Check out how much more Americans are paying for extreme weather recovery now.  NYC alone just committed a billion dollars in means to keep rising sea water out of the city.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, quite right.
> ...



That's called learning.  You'll never experience it.  Dunning-Kruger.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 20, 2013)

*Conservatives waking up to climate change*

I woke up to rain.

Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> *Conservatives waking up to climate change*
> 
> I woke up to rain.
> 
> Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.



You're right. The last time that all of the CO2 that we put in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels was there it was completely natural and created a climate inhospitable to life.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> *Conservatives waking up to climate change*
> 
> I woke up to rain.
> 
> Look, idiot! No one disputes that the climate is changing. It has changed even more drastically many times before before humans were burning fossil fuels.



So does the climate change because it feels like it, or because something happens to MAKE it change?

If the latter - why would you assume the cause would always be the same?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > *Conservatives waking up to climate change*
> ...



Conservatives assume that their cult leaders are alway right because they say they are,  and believing is so much easier than learning.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody pointed out that the extremely anti-american "conservative" party in New Zealand would be considered communists here in America?
> ...



 Define pro-US. Define deeply conservative. There are a lot of words being used that I suspect have different definitions to different people. Then when we add the extra obstacle of using our own definitions of words to explain what another country means when they use words like "conservative" then we end up in a rhetorical swamp. Then, on top of that, we use these "designer words" fitted with our own definitions in an attempt to support our own bias when it comes to a pseudo science cause celebre like global warming. On top of that, the pseudo science can only be "fixed" by conveniently implementing far left wing programs that only pretend to help the fake problem by hurting our real economy. Oh... ON TOP OF THAT EVEN, I now have to hear (according to you) that being pro free-market is deeply conservative even though most democrats in this country are for a free market. Even Obama calls himself a "fierce" free market advocate. On top of everything else, I have to mow my lawn. I hate mowing that stupid lawn!


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

John - 

I agree about the "rhetorical swamp" but this is a very straighforward case. In the late 1980's NZ (under the National Party) set about a massive program or asset sales and privatisaion, based upon a "user pays" model. There was even talk of privatising things like libraries. It was fairly extreme stuff.

The Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson, even toured here in Finland celebrating NZ's wonderful economic miracle. 

It was miraculous in reducing NZ's debt - but only for about 5 years, when the money from the asset sales was all gone, and NZ was left without things like a national airline. Six of the seven NZ trading banks were sold offshore (though some of those were private-private sales, to be fair). 

By pro-US I mean that the Shipley administration reversed the anti-US policies of the left-wing Lange adminsitration, which had banned US ships from NZ harbours. NZ then rejoined the ANZUS alliance.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > *Conservatives waking up to climate change*
> ...



Moronic post is..... well, moronic.

Explain this:


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > *Conservatives waking up to climate change*
> ...


Why would you assume the cause would be different? The above graph shows wild and abrupt fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 happened well before man started burning even wood, much less fossil fuels.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> John -
> 
> I agree about the "rhetorical swamp" but this is a very straighforward case. In the late 1980's NZ (under the National Party) set about a massive program or asset sales and privatisaion, based upon a "user pays" model. There was even talk of privatising things like libraries. It was fairly extreme stuff.
> 
> ...









Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




The Carbon in our fossil fuel was in the atmosphere at the beginning of the Carboniferous Period.  The climate was hostile to life.  

At the end of that period that carbon was sequestered underground.  The climate was friendly to life.  

You say coincidence.  Science, GHG theory,  data says it was to be expected.  You're free to believe what you want and so are we.  We're going with the evidence.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one.  If you're interested,  study science.  Not politics.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 20, 2013)

I am a *supporter* of Global Climate Change.  If the Earth wants the climate to change, who the fuck are we to argue?  And what the fuck could we DO about it, anyway?

We can't make a warming climate cool down.

We can't make a moderate climate get hotter OR colder.

We can't make a cooling climate heat up.

WE don't have _any_ ability to appreciably influence climatic change.

It is ego-maniacal to believe we have any such ability.

This explains why the lolberals lap that horseshit right the fuck up.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

In order to communicate,  we need to use the common definitions of the language and not our own.  To describe current American conservatism,  look up 'reactionary'.  There are well to the left of there,  conservatives.  To the left of there,  centrists,  and to the left of middle,  liberals.  The reason is that if the media cult called itself what it really is,  reactionary,  nobody would pledge allegiance.  By recruiting reactionaries however,  and branding it conservatives,  people who don't know better fall like a ton of bricks.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> In order to communicate,  we need to use the common definitions of the language and not our own.  To describe current American conservatism,  look up 'reactionary'.  There are well to the left of there,  conservatives.  To the left of there,  centrists,  and to the left of middle,  liberals.  The reason is that if the media cult called itself what it really is,  reactionary,  nobody would pledge allegiance.  By recruiting reactionaries however,  and branding it conservatives,  people who don't know better fall like a ton of bricks.



^ PMS is a graduate of the FakeySmarmy school of false labeling.

He graduated Magna Cum Gargle.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one.  If you're interested,  study science.  Not politics.



They have attempted to explain "GHG" fluctuations with the same level of credibility as they have predicted sea level rises. 
Again, if we approach science with a predetermined bias, we have only politics, and not real science.

How many emails do you have to read about fudging data and excluding contradictory studies do you have to read before you become skeptical of the gods of your religion.

All you have left is faith, but rather than having faith in a higher power, you place faith in a bumbling politician who has a larger "carbon footprint" than several small countries.


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one.  If you're interested,  study science.  Not politics.











No it hasn't.  They've waved their hands a lot and changed the name a few times now and have backpedalled every time their claims have been actually checked but no, they haven't
explained anything.  Other than they don't know what the hell they're talking about of course.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 20, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Science has explained the GHG fluctuations throughout history including the current one.  If you're interested,  study science.  Not politics.
> ...



Your opinion of the accomplishments of science has no value to anyone.  Sciences view of your accomplishments is the standard by which your scientific acumen is judged by the world. 

Show us why any other view should make sense.  In what way are you qualified to judge science?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Because scientists are able to identify causes of various warming periods, and have ideintified different causes for different warming periods - massive global volcanic acitivity, being one, for instance. 

So yes - of course fluctuations happened before man - that does not mean man cannot also be a cause of fluctuations. It just means we aren't the only factor.

This really isn't difficult or controversial science if you read about it.


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...







Really?  What caused the Minoan Warming Period?  What caused the  Roman Warming Period?  What caused the Medieval Warming Period?  What caused the cooling periods in between?


----------



## Saigon (Aug 20, 2013)

Westwall - 

People who dispute evidence of recent global warming sometimes point to two episodes in the past 1,000 years called the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period &#8212; times when northern hemisphere temperatures were higher or lower than average for decades or even centuries &#8212; as examples of internal variability, a kind of natural randomness in the climate system that can&#8217;t be explained by any specific forcing. If true, perhaps internal variability could explain the current rapid global warming, skeptics argue. In other words, maybe our current warming is just an unlucky roll of the dice, a blip rather than a long term trend. 

Climate scientists now understand that the Medieval Warm Period was caused by an increase in solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity, which both promote warming. Other evidence suggests ocean circulation patterns shifted to bring warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. As we&#8217;ll see in the next section, those kinds of natural changes have not been detected in the past few decades. Charles Jackson noted that when computer models take into account paleoclimatologists&#8217; reconstructions of solar irradiance and volcanoes for the past 1,000 years, the models reproduce the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period. Those events turn out to not be random noise after all.

Medieval Warm Period not so random « Know


----------



## gslack (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Gslack -
> 
> Please refer to the statement made by a moderator on the "16% of Americans..." thread.
> 
> ...



Nope sorry, it doesn't help me... You are a proxy monkey..

And please report away crybaby.. No adjustment needed. I still think you're A bs artist...


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


NO!!!!!!! Scientists are able to postulate causes of various warming periods. Just like they are able to postulate that New York City will be under water by 2020.

Their guesses are based on computer models designed with very limited knowledge of how climate works.

The models themselves are similar to a push poll with parameters designed to obtain a desired result.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

Erine - 

Actually, models have almost nothing to do with this. 

Try reading the text linked above with an open mind, and I imagine it will all make more sense.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



If you really want answers to those questions there are some requirements.  Education,  curiosity, research,  time,  and effort.  If you can't scrape up enough of those qualities,  ignorance on those topics is the only alternative.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



I agree that if you mean limited in the sense of not complete,  there is much yet to be learned.  

I see no evidence from you however that would suggest any credibility in knowing where those limits are.  You are stating what you wish was true.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Erine -
> 
> Actually, models have almost nothing to do with this.
> 
> Try reading the text linked above with an open mind, and I imagine it will all make more sense.



I've read all the bullshit and found it to be just that.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

Ernie - 

If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed. 

I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


As are you. All of the dire predictions have failed to happen, you have seen rafts of emails proving that data has been manipulated, you've even changed the name of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", but still blindly accept the premise that man is having a major effect on the earth's climate. And you have the *balls* to question MY credibility?
Do you have to walk backwards and drag them suckers behind you?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie -
> 
> If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, *and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.
> *
> I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.



So any data that doesn't fit the AGW religion is controversial or disputed, but any that has been proven to be manipulated is accepted on blind faith. OK I got it now.

I guess you're not an atheist after all.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



The difference between you and I is that I have thousands of scientists advising me through the IPCC.  They have access to enormous resources to gather data and assemble models of the real world.  On your side there is you and a handful of cranks with zero credibility and no resources,  whose only output is to attempt to sow some doubt on the works of others. This is not a fair fight.  You are unarmed.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

> And you have the balls to question MY credibility?



Yes. 

In an era when every one of the 60 major scientific organisations confirms AGW, any sensible person is going to figure they are probably on to something. At least, any sane person is going to listen to what they have to say. 

So yes, I do question why anyone would run in the opposite direction from science because they don't like the term 'climate change'. It makes no sense at all.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie -
> ...



No, you don't get it at all - and it is very unlikely you ever will get it. 

Understanding this topic means looking at it with an open mind, and without political blinkers of any kind or colour.

If you can do that, you will get the point. If not  - then you won't.


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 21, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Did you read the leaked IPCC emails? Who has zero credibility?


----------



## Ernie S. (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Exactly! Show where any dire prediction has come even close. Explain fudged data and efforts to discredit conflicting studies.  Just what was the "nature trick"? 
I have great concern for the environment as a life long hunter and sportsman, not as a politician, and certainly, as a "scientist" whos grants and salary are dependent on supporting an agenda.
I approached AGW with an open mind. Motives and modus operandi of people who were telling me my SUV would flood Manhattan and South Beach influenced my position a lot more than arbitrary computer models and simplistic theories.

Sorry. Gore Mann and Jones are all discredited and everything they have come in contact with is suspect.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Did you read the leaked IPCC emails? Who has zero credibility?



The people who lied about the emails, of course. You know, the denialists.

Seriously, I've read the emails. I saw how the denialists lied their asses off about them. You won't be able to snow me with BS fabrications, so you'll have to use real evidence.


----------



## Saigon (Aug 21, 2013)

> Show where any dire prediction has come even close.



Ummm...both Artic ice melt and the collapse of glaciers have been far worse than any of the scientists predicted in the 1990s. 

It really is worth taking a bit of time to read up on those....I think you'll be surprised to find at how drastic the damage is, and how conservative the predictions were in comparison with the reality.

Here's an example:

White House warned on imminent Arctic ice death spiral

National security officials worried by rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice overlook threat of permanent global food shortages.

n early April, Duarte warned that the Arctic summer sea ice was melting at a rate faster than predicted by conventional climate models, and could be ice free as early as 2015 - rather than toward the end of the century, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected in 2007. He said:

    "The Arctic situation is snowballing: dangerous changes in the Arctic derived from accumulated anthropogenic green house gases lead to more activities conducive to further greenhouse gas emissions. This situation has the momentum of a runaway train."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral


----------



## mamooth (Aug 21, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> Exactly! Show where any dire prediction has come even close.



The models have been spot-on correct. Decades of correct predictions is why AGW science has such credibility. In contrast, your side is too chickenshit to even make a prediction. 



> Explain fudged data and efforts to discredit conflicting studies.  Just what was the "nature trick"?



There is no fudged data. If that's what your political cult has brainwashed you into believing, you may be beyond our help. To break free of the brainwashing, you'll need to make the effort to step outside of your cult bubble and get data from honest, independent sources, instead relying solely on dishonest political hacks.



> Motives and modus operandi of people who were telling me my SUV would flood Manhattan and South Beach influenced my position a lot more than arbitrary computer models and simplistic theories.



But nobody never said that. You're deliberately exaggerating to the point of wild dishonesty, which makes us wonder what the point of talking to you is. I mean, if you're just going to make crap up, what's the point? Yes, you've conclusively refuted the cartoon liberals of your imagination. You just fail at addressing the real world.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 21, 2013)

I believe that fundamental to the doubt strategy of media conservatives is merely shifting the environmental costs in real dollars from we who have benefitted from them to future generations. 

Science is in the way of that so it is their enemy. 

Not very profound.


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie -
> 
> If you HAD read about previous warming periods, you would now both that models aren't the issue here, and that the science is particularly controversial or disputed.
> 
> I'm constantly amazed that posters here are reduced to bitterly arguing points that any genuinely sceptical scientist would accept without a moment's hesitation.






A laughable assertion from a laughable, ignorant propagandist.  Anyone who has studied the paleoclimate record knows that what is happening today is neither unusual nor "unprecedented" as you all claim incessantly.

Your only source material for _ANY_ of your claims are from computer models that a study from Harvard stated were "less then useful".

You can make any stupid BS assertion you want herr Goebbels, but in the long run they are still just propaganda...


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > And you have the balls to question MY credibility?
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Yes, they all confirm it.  Every prediction they have ever made has been proven false, every claim of impending doom going back 30 years has been shown to be false, they can present no repeatable laboratory experiment that supports the "theory" that a 200 ppm rise in CO2 will do _ANYTHING_, they hide their raw data, they corrupted the peer review system, they continually are forced to make new statements for their failed predictions and now, tired of having to explain their failures, they have resorted to no longer making any measurable predictions.

The one thing that HAS stayed consistent is their constant call for global poverty (themselves excluded of course), global control, and of course a global genocide to reduce the human population to a more "sustainable" level.

They have never hidden their desire to implement totalitarian control....not once...


----------



## westwall (Aug 21, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly! Show where any dire prediction has come even close.
> ...







Bullshit.  Show us ONE prediction that has come about.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 21, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



Now that's VERY funny.. Really man -- you crack me up with your lack of self-awareness.

Can't think of phonier, dogmatic,  politically motivated automaton than you.
At least you KNOW subconsciously, that your situation is hopeless and you will "never get it"..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 22, 2013)

It's clear that one side arguing politics against the other side arguing science will never reach resolution.  Especially given the lack of even elementary science education among the political Dittoheads.  

Not a problem.  Solutions aren't waiting for this circus to end.  

It does cause pause though in thinking about the political climate in the world though and the state of education.  

When so many can be led so far astray by just a couple of political entertainers,  every government and country is in jeopardy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2013)

There was extensive testing done on mice to show a link between cigarettes and cancer why can't we zap some mice with 200ppm of CO2?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> It's clear that one side arguing politics against the other side arguing science will never reach resolution.


Well so far you haven't argued science OR politics, all you've done is attack everyone who dares question your assertions which you've not even come close to proving.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > It's clear that one side arguing politics against the other side arguing science will never reach resolution.
> ...



Actually what I do is question people who attack science in order to defend their dysfunctional politics. 

So far none,  zero,  nada have offered any,  and I mean any,  data,  theories,  or other evidence that explains any part of the cause and effect chain that leads to AGW,  as different than what science has proven.  

This is not a close ball game.  It's 100 to nothing in the closing seconds.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> There was extensive testing done on mice to show a link between cigarettes and cancer why can't we zap some mice with 200ppm of CO2?



This is the definite statement of denial science.


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2013)

Still waiting mammy....


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

westwall said:


> Still waiting mammy....



You're waiting?  We've given you the whole story.  You've given us nothing but,  well,  nothing.  100 to zero.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


And what have YOU offered?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > There was extensive testing done on mice to show a link between cigarettes and cancer why can't we zap some mice with 200ppm of CO2?
> ...



Why can't we test the effect of CO2 on temperature in a lab?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



We can't put the earth in a testube. What we can,  and have, done,  is to model and simulate every cause and effect step in the chain separately.  Deniers though have done none of that.  There are no theories or data,  or ideas even,  that support what they wish was true.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



The entire story.  Theories,  real word data,  experimental data,  modeling.  The opinion of the IPCC, up to the dynamics of the earth systems transition from energy balance,  through energy imbalance, back to balance again at an increased temperature,  fully represents the scientific consensus of the world. Understanding the dynamics fully will be years coming.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 23, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


The opinion of the IPCC?  You mean THIS IPCC?

Latest IPCC Scandal: Exaggerated Sea Level Claims | Heartlander Magazine


----------



## Abraham3 (Aug 23, 2013)

Heartlander Magazine?!?!


HAAAAAHAAHAAA Ha ha ha haaaaaa


----------



## PMZ (Aug 23, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Heartlander Magazine? Really? The Koch brothers out to destroy the country for personal profit.  

You are unable to distinguish between propaganda and science.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Heartlander Magazine?!?!
> 
> 
> HAAAAAHAAHAAA Ha ha ha haaaaaa


Yeah, attack the source.  Are you saying the IPCC didn't exaggerate claims or hide evidence that did not support their claims?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 23, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Heartlander Magazine?!?!
> 
> 
> HAAAAAHAAHAAA Ha ha ha haaaaaa



President of the United States?!?!

HAAAAAHAAHAAA Ha ha ha haaaaaa

See how easy that is????? At least when it comes to credibility on Climate Change..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










S.J. said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Heartlander Magazine?!?!
> ...



When the source is that uncredible it needs to be rejected by everyone,all of the time.  Dittoheads come from those who can't distinguish credible sources from propaganda. 

The IPCC story has unfolded as the science has progressed. At one time there was a chance that you could have turned out correct but we're way beyond that now.  Now your only means to defend what's turned out to be wrong is through political cheap tricks.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


You didn't answer my question.  Instead, you continued your attack on the source.  It wouldn't matter WHAT source I provide, you have no defense of the IPCC's lies, so you will ignore the facts of Climategate.  You guys are frauds.

James Delingpole: Climategate 2.0 - WSJ.com


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The IPCC hasn't lied.  Your uncredible propaganda sources have spun different private conversations to create the illusion that what profits them could be true.  There is no evidence that AGW does not exist.  There is simply no way that the current conditions could be explained any other way. 

When there's no evidence,  conspiracy theory is the only way to sell lies.  And some people are really easy to fool.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


Yeah, the WSJ, one of the most credible and reputable news sources in the world is making the whole thing up, right?  You have no defense and you have no credibility.  If the information in the WSJ was false, they would be sued by the IPCC.  Why haven't they been?


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...










Yes.  It has been shown that you clowns have no clue what you're talking about and, more to the point, neither do the fraudsters...  Case in point.  Here is the latest NASA Arctic ice report...

Please note where they claim the trend is inexorably downward but then admit that the sea ice extent is 1.5 MILLION sq. km ABOVE last year.  That is called propaganda, that is where they are telling you one thing...which you mindless drones infallibly accept, but the reality is far, far different...


See how that works?

Nope.  I didn't think you would...


Arctic Sea Ice Update: Unlikely To Break Records, But Continuing Downward Trend 

Aug. 23, 2013

"The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year&#8217;s summer low will break a new record. Still, this year&#8217;s melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

&#8220;Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years,&#8221; said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA&#8217;s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. &#8220;The long-term trend is strongly downward.&#8221;

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (5.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered 3.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean."



Arctic Sea Ice Update: Unlikely To Break Records, But Continuing Downward Trend | NASA


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



The WSJ is a financial enterprise owned by Rupert Murdock,  owner of Fox News. It's political purpose is to report that whatever Fox News says is true.  Fox New's purpose is to recruit those easy to lead to support the Republican Party.  All for profit. Suckers like you lap the whole package up because they lie to you telling you that you're smart and patriotic while,  in fact,  their goal is to recreate the business plutocracy as envisioned by the founders but rejected by we,  the people. 

The IPCC is a global team of scientists dedicated to finding and publishing the truth as it can be ascertained by science. 

They are enigmatic to Republican profits. 

Business serves we,  the people,  not vice versa.  They thought that buying minds through entertainment media would allow them to buy the country.  They and you have been sent politically packing and the country returned to the responsible. 

You might as well get used to it because it's irreversible.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 24, 2013)

I just love talking to zombies.  lol


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







No they're not.  They are merely another arm of the UN who's goal is to steal money from the First world nations and give it to tin pot Third World dictators....

Get a clue fool....
*
Eric Holder Promotes UN Redistribution Of Wealth To Fight Terrorism*


Eric Holder Promotes UN Redistribution of Wealth to ?Fight Terrorism?



(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL):" First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy*. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu»: Klimaschutz hat mit Umweltschutz kaum mehr etwas zu tun, sagt der Ökonom Ottmar Edenhofer. Der nächste Weltklimagipfel in Cancún sei eigentlich ein Wirtschaftsgipfel, bei dem es um die Verteilung der Ress


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



''First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community.''

We have enjoyed the benefits of the free energy bequeathed to all people by the Carboniferous Period.  You want those who haven't benefited to pay the bills due for our dumping of our waste in everyone's atmosphere.  So that you can afford to buy a bigger gas waster than your neighbors.  

I'm sure that I speak for a majority of the people in the world in rejecting that theivery.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> I just love talking to zombies.  lol



Once you quoted Delingpole, you revealed yourself as such. You know, a brainless political zombie, incapable of independent thought, just endlessly groaning out political mantras.

Seriously, Delingpole? The man who is possibly the world's whiniest little pissant? That's who you rely on for info now? Denialism is in worse shape than anyone imagined. Even Loopy Lord Monckton is more sensible than Delingpole.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 24, 2013)

mamooth said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > I just love talking to zombies.  lol
> ...



Irony from the "we don't need science, we have consensus" crowd


----------



## S.J. (Aug 24, 2013)

mamooth said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > I just love talking to zombies.  lol
> ...


Blah, blah, blah, same old bullshit, no substance.  The denialists are the ones like you, who deny the fraud perpetrated by the IPCC, which has been proven.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 24, 2013)

To demonstrate a link between cancer and smoking, countless lab mice were exposed to countless cigarettes; to demonstrate the link between CO2 and warming... ahh fuck it


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...




Nice of you to demonstrate what a post void of substance looks like.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I gave you substance but you won't address it.  IPCC scandal.  Prove me wrong.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...








Nice to see you admit it.  Well done...first comes the realization you have a problem, then you can begin to work on a cure.  The cure of course is to no longer support third world tyrants and remove them from power so that the people can finally generate enough wealth to join the first world club on their own.  Then less resources are used and everyone prospers.

Just what you DON'T want to happen.  Nope you want there to be a slave class and the ruling elite which you think you are a part of.  Here's a clue....you're not.  You're just yet another in a very long line of useful idiots who can be counted on to round up the "un desirables" and place them in the camps.

Then, when you are no longer useful you too get to go to the camps like the rest of the capo's....

I notice you avoided my other post...I wonder why?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 24, 2013)

S.J., when did you learn to adore Delingpole? Maybe on one of his Alex Jones appearances?

Perhaps it was this post, where he implied that anyone accepting AGW theory should be shot.

'Climate Change': there just aren't enough bullets ? Telegraph Blogs

---
Always remember this: the Warmist faith so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition's energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children's schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council&#8230;.

Truly there just aren't enough bullets!
---

Do you agree with your hero Delingpole that all those groups should be killed?

Frank, don't you be shy either. Do you also agree with the great and wise Delingpole that anyone accepting AGW theory should be shot?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 24, 2013)

mamooth said:


> S.J., when did you learn to adore Delingpole? Maybe on one of his Alex Jones appearances?
> 
> Perhaps it was this post, where he implied that anyone accepting AGW theory should be shot.
> 
> ...


Still shooting off your mouth and providing nothing of substance.  Attack, attack, attack, that's all you can do.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Nice recital of the Dittohead Cult Mission.  Eliminate the middle class of the world and create a super third world banana republic of the super wealthy.  

With Rush as royalty.  

The trouble that you have is that after the Bush debacle everybody caught on except a handful of you cultists.  It will be so long before you win another significant national election,  none of us will see it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2013)

mamooth said:


> 4 former EPA chiefs for Republican presidents ask for action on global warming.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/o...e-for-climate-action.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2&
> 
> Just another indication of what a extremist bunch the current batch of denialists is. According to them, even the Reagan administration was a bunch of dirty socialists. Denialism is now only a political cult, one that cares nothing about any actual science.



*A market-based approach, like a carbon tax, would be the best path to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but that is unachievable in the current political gridlock in Washington.*

LOL! Obama should endorse a big fat carbon tax, it's the best path, these 4 Republicans agree.

If liberals were really scared about CO2, they'd jump on the nuke bandwagon.
But as bad as CO2 is, to them, nuclear power is worse.
Any solution that includes higher taxes and crappy "green" energy shows that they aren't serious.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

mamooth said:


> S.J., when did you learn to adore Delingpole? Maybe on one of his Alex Jones appearances?
> 
> Perhaps it was this post, where he implied that anyone accepting AGW theory should be shot.
> 
> ...







Yes, that was certainly an unacceptable sentence.  Of course it wasn't nearly as direct as your folks...  Below are just a couple...add to that the call to confine sceptics to mental institutions, to toss them in gulags etc. and it has been your side that has universally made the call to kill or otherwise "deal with the problem of sceptics" as a normal course of operation.

He would be so proud of you....







"In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers..."- Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Daily Kos Editor Says Skeptics Should Commit Suicide
July 28, 2010 

Daily Kos Editor Says Skeptics Should Commit Suicide | Green Hell Blog


"What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who dont want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand its a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events  how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldnt we start punishing them now?"-

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.co...t-what-point-do-we-jail-or-ex.php?ref=reccafe


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...







That certainly seems to be your goal.  Remember when Gore said that the Africans should not be allowed to industrialize or otherwise improve their lot?  Nahhh, I didn't think you would.  You're not very well read...


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> 
> Note that the report does highlight some positives - and also notes that many of the impacts have already occured:
> 
> ...


 Your article was punctuated with numerous and repetitive disclaimers, i.e.:



> However, typical cold snaps, frost and snow conditions will continue.
> Rainfall is forecast to be normal or above normal in the east and north of the North Island as well as the west of the South Island, while normal or below normal rainfall is likely for the west of the North Island and the north of the South Island.


 
Ergo, whatever comes, the author is correct!!!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > 4 former EPA chiefs for Republican presidents ask for action on global warming.
> ...



The truth is that the last thing that the world needs is advice from you about sustainable energy.  We're doing quite well,  thank you very much,  without you. 

You have removed yourself from any serious energy technology discussion and that's best for all concerned.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


So being pushed to live within your means on the environment is a claim you'd prefer not to think about? 

When the best alternative advocated - which is nuclear power - is out of the question because ... anything affordable is questionable because ... conservatives are for it?  

Seems the only denialists are in your corner of this match. And you shouldn't be cutting off your nose to spite your face, really, by not hearing the rational and true side of the debate presented by environment-loving conservatives like Mr. Patriot, Mr. Westwall, Mr. Flacaltenn, Mr. SJ, Mr. Ernie S, and others.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 24, 2013)

Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.

I have absolutely no faith in the governments of this planet taking any action that might remedy the situation. Scientist have not been able to tell us that we can take action which would stop the climate change.   What seems to make sense is that the nations should work together to prepare for the disasters that are forthcoming, yet nothing is being done. Some of us labor under the false assumption that the nations of this planet will wake up to the danger.  That is simply not going to happen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



You can't use the term "sustainable energy" and "serious energy technology discussion" in the same post.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You seem to have completely fallen for the idiocy that doing nothing is the least expensive alternative.  In other words pay for the damages of AGW caused extreme weather,  and pay for relocating agriculture to where the rain moved,  and pay for protecting our cities from rising sea levels,  then do nothing as fossil fuels run out. 

Must of us are sick of paying for conservative do nothing.  Thats why it will be many moons before we'll trust our government to people who don't want government. 

We tried your advice,  it failed us spectacularly,  we've moved on.  End of story.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.
> 
> I have absolutely no faith in the governments of this planet taking any action that might remedy the situation. Scientist have not been able to tell us that we can take action which would stop the climate change.   What seems to make sense is that the nations should work together to prepare for the disasters that are forthcoming, yet nothing is being done. Some of us labor under the false assumption that the nations of this planet will wake up to the danger.  That is simply not going to happen.



Governments like ours,  democracies,  will do what we,  the people demand from them. As long as there is a significant percentage of the electorate bent on electing people to destroy government,  this current stalemate resulting in doing nothing,  will continue.  Not caused by 'them',  but us.  Our choice.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting to see science data quietly commissioned by the conservative government in New Zealand offering immense detail as to how climate change has impacted New Zealand's vital farming sector...I think this is interesting because it details how localised some climate impacts will be, something that often seems to confuse right-wingers here, who seem to think the entire world should experience the same impacts.
> ...









Yep, they are worse than the charlatans when it comes to making vague predictions and statements!


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








So claims the idjit who sucks off goats


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.
> 
> I have absolutely no faith in the governments of this planet taking any action that might remedy the situation. Scientist have not been able to tell us that we can take action which would stop the climate change.   What seems to make sense is that the nations should work together to prepare for the disasters that are forthcoming, yet nothing is being done. Some of us labor under the false assumption that the nations of this planet will wake up to the danger.  That is simply not going to happen.








The forest fires are due to mismanagement.   The Arctic sea ice is 1.5 MILLION sq. km GREATER than last year.  Heat indexes rise thanks to the Urban Heat Island effect.  Rural weather stations are showing a temperature decrease.  Storm intensity is actually DECREASING.  We have seen fewer and fewer tornado's and of lower intensity than were seen in the 1940's.

You need to read some real science and not the propaganda you are focusing on....


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 24, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.
> 
> I have absolutely no faith in the governments of this planet taking any action that might remedy the situation. Scientist have not been able to tell us that we can take action which would stop the climate change. What seems to make sense is that the nations should work together to prepare for the disasters that are forthcoming, yet nothing is being done. Some of us labor under the false assumption that the nations of this planet will wake up to the danger. That is simply not going to happen.


 Well, up in Yellowstone Park a number of years ago, the environmentalist Park Service refused to allow a forest fire to be controlled. As a consequence, over one million acres of irreplaceable forests were burned down. The kill of small fauna was heart-wrenching, because their population was protected there where they prospered, and few remained. The towering forests were gone, and the spring melt took years of the best soil to eventually muddy the Columbia River/Pacific and tributaries to the Gulf of Mexico/Atlantic. It was not a pretty sight for years. The environmentalists could only agree on one thing--something would come back. But the solemn beauty of the forest before was gone. I saw it in summer and in winter before and after. I missed the majesty of the awesome home for millions of birds and tiny creatures. Their loss was legion, and it will take hundreds of years to get back what was, except some things will never come back. If they had just spared a hundred thousand acres, that would have helped.

Not one person I knew while living in the Equality State where most of the burn occurred was happy about it and were plum angry.

Mankind is part of nature and could have done quite a bit to prevent the massive loss of trees that one million acres wears, and it was a shame to see nature so naked afterward. There are no guarantees in a modern world that has so many people in it people see blank land as a place to put another landfill for human wastes that will not recover due to anaerobic failures. Garbage that is buried 50 feet below will still be garbage in a hundred years, because *snap* stuff is preserved where there is no air! 

/soapbox


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 24, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.
> ...



One of the things that environmentalists have learned over the years is that forest fires are an integral part of ecology.  They've been going on since the beginning of time and forests depend on them to control overgrowth.  In fact some trees cannot reproduce without the aid of fire. 

Forest fires are however inconvenient to mankind who insists that mother nature be subservient to our needs.  Mother nature sees it opposite to that. 

So we dump our fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere and as weather patterns inexorably change,  we say that it's merely mother nature being bitchy. 

She is just going to have to adapt to us.  

Right.  We're learning an important lesson here.  At least some of us are. Others are unable to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Because you're an idiot.


----------



## westwall (Aug 24, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...








Yes, we've known about it for decades.  Unfortunately the fuel that would normally be burnt in the hundreds of small fires that used to occur, isn't, and instead builds up on the forest floor.  

Then when there is a fire it is catastrophic and becomes an inferno instead which incinerates everything in its path.

The alternative to that is of course going in and clearing out the dead wood but the enviro Nazis won't allow that to happen so you end up with the massive destruction.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 24, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.
> ...


I don't understand the National Park Service reasoning on allowing fires to burn.  Do they really know whether a fire was caused by man or a natural event at the time of the the fire.  I doubt it.


----------



## idb (Aug 24, 2013)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.
> ...





> The Arctic sea ice is 1.5 MILLION sq. km GREATER than last year.


Sorry Westwall, I can't find evidence for that anywhere.
If you've already provided a link I apologise but can you do so again?


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...






No problem...here you go...



"The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this years summer low will break a new record. Still, this years melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years, said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. The long-term trend is strongly downward.

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (5.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered 3.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean."


Arctic Sea Ice Update: Unlikely To Break Records, But Continuing Downward Trend | NASA


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 25, 2013)

Flopper said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


 Recollections aren't perfect, Mr. Flopper, but the fire I am referring to was known to occupy and burnt less than acre for several weeks. But as seasons change in the Equality State, winds quickly remove pockets of still air and evaporate humidity at the same time. Even though there is less oxygen at high altitudes, seasonal winds bring an unfortunate mix of atmospheric conditions which make little coals flicker and rage in the batting of an eye. So the danger was there, and when the winds rose up, it was all over but the tears shed by locals and those living on nearby reservations set aside for Western Indian Nations of Shoshone and Arapaho tribes who were shunted into badlands nearby that at least have clear streams running through them and a modicum of game, which is more than tribes further south received. The decision was made to let the fires strip mine Yellowstone. Somehow, small pockets of greenery were left where the fire raged through tree tops, but they were few and far between, and most of the conifers with green patches left on them died in a couple of years. Sad day for the state. Tourist areas were saved to protect some of the herds of elk, moose, and rocky mountain sheep. I can't remember when the buffalo herd was brought in. The first time I saw it was a few years later. I just didn't want to see the park denuded of its tall conifers, so avoided it in the summers. There are lovely stands of tall conifers on the road between Saratoga WY and Walden CO, which are 250 miles south of the park, more or less.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Each year we see forest fire devastation growing, the melting of glaciers increasing at alarming rates, heat indexes rising, and the intensity of storms increasing.
> ...



And, once again, you are totally full of shit. At present, the arctic ice is at either the sixth or seventh lowest in the satellite record. And the Northeast Passage is open. 

Muller proved that the Urban Heat Island effect is just another lie you denialists delight in.

What the insurance companies are seeing;

https://www.genevaassociation.org/media/620506/08072013_insurancenews_ocean-warming.pdf

8 July 2013
A paradigm shift in risk assessment methods is needed in the face of increasingly extreme weather events, according to the Geneva Association.
New evidence shows the worlds oceans have warmed significantly, the think tanks latest report says.
Given that energy from the ocean is the key driver of extreme events, ocean warming has effectively caused a shift towards a new normal for a number of insurance-relevant hazards.
This shift is quasi-irreversible, the association says. Even if greenhouse gas emissions stop tomorrow, ocean temperatures will continue to rise.
In the non-stationary environment caused by ocean warming, traditional approaches, which are solely based on analysing historical data, increasingly fail to estimate todays hazard probabilities, lead author Falk Niehorster said.
A paradigm shift from historic to predictive risk assessment methods is necessary.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...











PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...











Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You do an outstanding job representing the Dittohead Cult.  Not the slightest sign of thinking on your part.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...











westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Another spot on representation of Dittohead intellect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Quick! Let's spend $80 trillion on "Green Energy", or else the climate will change!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Cheaper than the alternative of returning to the days of no energy. 

There are sustainable sources of energy and there are temporary sources.

If you add the cost of adapting civilization to a new climate,  there is no source more expensive than fossil fuels which are a very temporary source.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Cheaper than the alternative of returning to the days of no energy*. 

We have hundreds of years of coal, no chance of that happening.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Boy,  here's some good old conservative visionary thinking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



You're the one who fears no energy.
Great example of  green idiocy.

Hundreds of years worth of nuclear fuel wasted in our used fuel rods.
Recycle it now. For clean energy that works. Instead of windmills that kill birds and waste $$.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Anyone who doesn't fear the financial impact of insufficient energy knows nothing about the world economy. Anybody who hides from the financial impact of AGW knows nothing of science. 

There is an upcoming nuclear technology that uses the U235 in spent fuel rods without creating weapons grade fissionable material.  TWR.  It is being,  and should be,  actively pursued.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*Anyone who doesn't fear the financial impact of insufficient energy knows nothing about the world economy. *

That's about 90% of greens.

*Anybody who hides from the financial impact of AGW knows nothing of science. *

When you can break out, precisely, the financial impact of AGW in 2012, let me know.

*TWR.  It is being,  and should be,  actively pursued.*

Excellent! You finally got one right.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Where would you be without Rush?


----------



## Meister (Aug 25, 2013)

Flopper said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


At the time when the Yellowstone fire first started there was a major thunderstorm rolling through that area, it WAS deemed a natural fire, and up to that time they let natural fires to burn....well after that fire they changed their ways.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The entire country would be infinitely better off,  including you.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


But then you'd have nobody to default to when you can't win a debate.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Don't know any ''greens''. What I do know are people who understand the concept of sustainable energy,  and those,  like you,  who don't. 

If you make financial decisions based only on precision,  two things can be said about you.  You're conservative and poor.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So based on a cost that you can't quantify, you want us to waste 10s of trillions.
That makes you a green.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Debating with Dittoheads is not possible because debating always carries the risk of learning. They are dead set against learning.  What I do is show others what jerks Dittoheads are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



When you lose a debate, you're only showing your ignorance. That's all.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


What you DON'T do is make the case for MMGW.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand.  We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate.  We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts.  That's what we have.

You have whining.  

Not even close.  100 to zero with seconds on the clock.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



That case was made long ago by IPCC.  Your case was made even longer ago by Rush Limbaugh. 

The limitation here is not the IPCC's case,  it's your science knowledge. We can't help you with that as you're a committed member of the Dittohead Cult.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*We have to move away from fossil fuels no matter what we do due to supply and demand.*

Prove it.

*We've seen the beginning of monstrous costs for recovering from extreme weather and adapting to a new climate.  *

Costs which you cannot quantify.

*We've hired the best science available to model the future impacts. *

LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Typical Dittohead response.  We owe you proof.  When we have it all and you have none. 

Nobody owes you a thing Dittohead.  Your ability to understand the science is completely irrelevant to every issue.  Your problem solely. 

Mankind is moving forward and you're wishing for backward.  

I don't see any sympathy for your choice.


----------



## Meister (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Really is sad to see you make your case with the name calling.  It really shows you don't have much. 
A person really can't be blaming Rush for this.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Well, up in Yellowstone Park a number of years ago, the environmentalist Park Service refused to allow a forest fire to be controlled.



Up until now, it's been official crank conservative party line that liberals caused forest fires by _not_ letting fires burn, and thus letting fuel build up.

Has the cult changed its position, or have you gone renegade?


----------



## Meister (Aug 25, 2013)

mamooth said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Well, up in Yellowstone Park a number of years ago, the environmentalist Park Service refused to allow a forest fire to be controlled.
> ...



She's using a fact for her premise, M.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Below are just a couple...add to that the call to confine sceptics to mental institutions, to toss them in gulags etc.



Wow!  A blog commenter and unknown professor. You really are desperate.

Meanwhile, you personally have supported the denialist campaign to get Dr. Mann tossed into a gulag for political offenses. Have you reconsidered that position, or are you still an proud climate Stalinist?

It's not just you. I've never encountered any denialist who has dared go against DerParteiRepublikkan and criticize the attempts by their political leaders to get AGW scientists jailed. They all want Dr. Mann and all climate scientists in jail, solely because the science contradicts their politics. In that fashion, almost all denialists are the intellectual heirs of Stalin.

Now, if any of them want to claim they're not an intellectual Stalinist, they need to start by condemning Cuccinelli for trying to put Dr. Mann in the gulag. But since TheParty absolutely forbids criticizing a leader of TheParty, that puts denialists in a pickle. Westwall is happy to criticize some unknown Brit, but don't ask him to condemn an American Republican who is running for governor now, because that's not going to happen.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You haven't been keeping up, PMZ. Recent estimates of the Bakken Formation are up from 4 billion barrels to 18 billion barrels of light, sweet crude. That plus what's in Alaska will keep us going without any oil from anywhere else for about 200 years. That also does not include the largest deposits already being taken in East Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and another large one in western Montana.

How can you call that seconds on the clock. And if we can keep Obama from giving away more gulf of Mexico oil and Alaska's oil-rich waters from former Communist countries, we'll have another couple of hundred years. Again, that doesn't include our largest deposits. We're the oil-richest nation on the planet, bar none, including Canada, which also has found record amounts beneath their end of the Rocky Mountains. We've barely touched the oil wealth under the state of Colorado. It's safe to say we have a thousand years worth of recoverable oil in the United States, if we work hard to bring it to the surface and use it wisely.

Our real challenge is to stretch it out to 3 thousand years by making it take up more efficiently through technology.

It will also give us sufficient time to find less expensive methods than killing all the fish and birds on the planet with tidal turbines that have already decimated ocean fish and mammals in parts of Europe, not to mention migratory birds being wiped out by wind-generation by those humongous windmills that are beginning to dominate European harbors, but don't necessarily deliver power at peak times on earth.

We have a long way to go and plenty of fuel if we are wise about its usage.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


The facts were covered up by the IPCC, and you haven't proven a damn thing.  You simply parrot what they say, not understanding any of it, which is why you can't debate any facts, just name call.  You're as much of a fraud as they are.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

Meister said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Rush invented the title of Dittohead to reflect how he viewed his audience.  To me,  I can't imagine a bigger insult.  To the cult however repeating what Rush tells them to is high honor indeed. 

If you are a Dittohead,  and don't like the title,  speak to Rush,  not me. Oh that's right.  When he's on the air nobody else talks.  

He's the one behind the conservative whining that life is not fair because the world is demanding that we pay for what we did and benefitted from.  

As far as I'm concerned,  let them whine while responsible people look for solutions. 

We don't need them to agree to anything.  We don't need their approval or even understanding or acceptance of a thing.  

To paraphrase one of their heroes.  Marie Antoinette,  let them eat their words.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 25, 2013)

mamooth said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Well, up in Yellowstone Park a number of years ago, the environmentalist Park Service refused to allow a forest fire to be controlled.
> ...


I lived there for 40 years, mamooth. I know what the Casper Star Tribune said, and I know people who didn't care for the decisions made to let it burn. The Park Service makes decisions, and that one decided on the advice of environmental thinking of that decade to let it burn and not stop it on purpose. This is not the same world it was 200 years ago. Europeans got rid of anything in their way--Passenger pigeons, buffalo, etc. They did it for their reasons of intolerance for bird guano that enriched soils and buffalo that was the main food source of native Americans, whom they sought to weaken in order to have less resistance to the expropriation of land for European settlers.

These things changed the green wealth of the soils, and burning is no longer something that is guaranteed to be restorative.

And the government was in charge back then and contracted people to kill pigeons and buffalo. A rotting corpse does not produce 5 tons a year of fertilizer, and decimation of hundreds of thousands of these creatures took away that restorative ability of the land to regenerate after fires.

There's nothing I can do about what the government programs did in the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*We owe you proof. When we have it all and you have none. *

You've shown zero proof for the huge cost of AGW. Try again?

*Mankind is moving forward and you're wishing for backward. *

Expensive and unreliable energy, the liberal idea of moving forward.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 25, 2013)

Has anyone else noticed how similar Saigon and PMZ sound?  I'm just sayin'.


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...








  Hey dude, I'm just quoting NASA.  If you have a problem with the figures take it up with them....  Of course they are scientists and you quoted an INSURANCE COMPANY with a vested interest in your fraud...but hey who are we to question you and your motives!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Guess who wins by keeping us hooked on oil until the last drop is profited from? 

Guess who loses after that? 

Guess who pays for the consequences of AGW? 

Guess who profits from fueled energy rather than sustainable energy. 

Guess who pays for what you believe? 

You are one of the suckers born every minute.  I'm not going to pay for your gullibility.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 25, 2013)

"The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:

Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?

Physicist: The system will arrive at a steady state temperature which radiates heat to space that equals the total of the energy inputs. Complexity of the system being unknown, and the body spinning in space versus the radiated energy source, there will be cyclic variations in temperature, but the long term average will not change.

Climatologist: Well what if I change the composition of the system?

Physicist: See above.

Climatologist: Perhaps you don't understand my question. The system has an unknown quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere that absorbs energy in the same spectrum as the system is radiating. There are also quantities of carbon and oxygen that are combining to create more CO2 which absorbs more energy. Would this not raise the temperature of the system?

Physicist: There would be a temporary fluctuation in temperature caused by changes in how energy flows through the system, but for the long term average... See above."

LOL.

That Big Yellow Thing in the Sky > my SUV

The Physicist and the Climatologist; FOLLOW THE MONEY!, by David M. Hoffer


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...









PMZ and all the cultists remind me of the Celtic myth of the "Champions Portion" where Leary and Conall are constantly bested by Cuchulain in every test.  No matter how many times he bests them they just ignore it, or claim he had an unfair advantage, etc. etc. etc.

Just as they got their comeuppance so too will the cultists....


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Yet you want US to pay WAY more for your gullibility.....  So you're basically an asshole little child wailing for his mommy to buy him a new toy...got it..  Don't want to deal with it....or with little children like you...


----------



## whitehall (Aug 25, 2013)

An Op-Ed from the freaking New Zealand Herald News? Lefties must be desperate.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Don't know much about Celtic myths.  Just science.  It tells us that it's time to move on.  Rush tells us it's time to do nothing. He's been wrong about most everything and science has been right about most everything.  Not a hard decision for me.  

Those of you who rode the Rush horse for so long that you can't give it up,  keep riding into the past.  We simply don't need you for anything. 

Catch up when you can.


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...








You don't know anything about anything.  The level of your ignorance is astounding.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 Projecting doesn't make it so.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This is as informative as most Rush based posts.  Of course it says nothing but that's all that they have.  Nothing.  They don't like today's world.  Fine.  Ignore them.  Tomorrow will come anyway.  Give them the past.  It's over. The future is a liberal concept.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 25, 2013)

Here ya go, PMZ.  This is REALLY what it's all about, isn't it?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Here ya go, PMZ.  This is REALLY what it's all about, isn't it?



It absutely is what it's all about.  Are you kidding me?  Rush dragged you and your friends into the weeds a couple of decades ago and you've  never found your way out.  Suckers all.


----------



## westwall (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...









Oooooooh, do you do the 3rd grade playground circuit too?  Here's a hint for you argue based on fact.  Use any source that is accurate otherwise expect to get bitchslapped over and over again.  You and the rest of the clone army are the most scientifically crippled group I have ever seen.  

Insults won't drive us away, in fact they amuse me and make me enjoy the destruction of your points even more and more to the point every time you open your trap like this you lose....  In just this thread alone I have received 5 PM's from people who now accept the POV of science and scientists.... they no longer adhere to the political BS of the IPCC....

I thank you for providing such simple arguments to destroy.  I couldn't have asked for a better target...


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

westwall said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



If you find the truth insulting,  well,  take it to heart.  That means that you're on the wrong path. Wake up.  Smell the coffee.  

Staying where you are when the evidence is so compelling to move on is stupid.  

Don't be stupid.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

If you think that the stupidest man on the face of the earth is more likely to be right than the largest assembly of  competent scientists ever assembled is,  you are just too nuts to deal with.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 25, 2013)

We are not in a time in history when updated 16th century technology can replace fossil fuel. The radical left seems reluctant to address claims that windmills are killing endangered migratory birds and that toxic heavy metals used in battery technology might be really bad for the environment in the long run. The bottom line is that the concept of global warming seems to be the last ditch effort by the radical left to ruin the last great super power on the globe.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 
*Guess who wins by keeping us hooked on oil until the last drop is profited from?* 

Why, the American people win.

*Guess who loses after that? *

You are demanding that mere mortals decide the fate of mankind's energy pursuits over a thousand years away from the present?

Here's a question you did not ask: what happens when green companies make bad decisions based on regurgitating errors of the past two decades as viable in the business world? And here's a partial answer:

*Solyndra: Pay Some Investors Before Taxpayers In Solar Flame Out - Forbes*

*Guess who pays for the consequences of AGW?* 

The AGW hoax was discredited by scientists who emailed many other scientists to obfuscate data so they could procure foundation money for their work by making global warming seem a threat to the world. The issue is still being debated with no clear winner or loser unless one acknowledges the falsification of data is a red flag against the truth.

Exaggeration to the point of lying makes conventional and honest businesspeople and the best investors very, very uneasy. Demanding that the American people fork over a billion here and a billion there, and a few more billion here, there, and everywhere with absolutely zero accounting or consequences is a bad idea.

*Guess who profits from fueled energy rather than sustainable energy.*

Energy from fuel is sustainable and affordable. It's a popular investment that provides high-paying jobs and good returns to those who invest in it.

Energy sources already known to be unreliable are far, far from sustainable, and some of them are downright hazardous to health of species which rely on sonar and other specialized survival mechanisms for moving through water or air.

*Guess who pays for what you believe?*

Me, myself, and I.

*You are one of the suckers born every minute.*

Hardly. You're the unreferenced attacker.

*I'm not going to pay for your gullibility.*

I'm not going to pay for yours.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 25, 2013)

whitehall said:


> We are not in a time in history when updated 16th century technology can replace fossil fuel. The radical left seems reluctant to address claims that windmills are killing endangered migratory birds and that toxic heavy metals used in battery technology might be really bad for the environment in the long run. The bottom line is that the concept of global warming seems to be the last ditch effort by the radical left to ruin the last great super power on the globe.



I find nothing informed in your entire post.  The question is sustainable rather than temporary energy sources.  The question is energy sources with no consequences versus those with unaffordable consequences.  The answer is fueless sources.  

Tell us why temporary sources with expensive consequences are better.


----------



## Meister (Aug 25, 2013)

PMZ said:


> If you think that the stupidest man on the face of the earth is more likely to be right than the* largest assembly of  competent scientists ever assembled* is,  you are just too nuts to deal with.


The scientists are jumping the AGW ship.  
The APCC cherry picked the papers they wanted to use in the study, the rest of the papers to the contrary were never used.  true story


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "The fatal flaw in the climate models seems to come from one repeated assumption. The assumption is that positive feedbacks from greenhouse effects can exceed negative feedbacks. While this situation might actually exist over a given time period (and reflect temperature increases during that time period as a result) the average over the long term must net to zero. If it doesn't, then everything we have learned about physics over the last 1000 years is wrong, and perpetual motion is possible. If a climatologist and a physicist were to discuss the matter, the conversation might be as follows:
> 
> Climatologist: I have a system of undetermined complexity and undetermined composition, floating and spinning in space. It has a few internal but steady state and minor energy sources. An external energy source radiates 1365 watts per meter squared at it on a constant basis. What will happen?
> 
> ...



I don't know who created the words that you ascribed to a physicist,  but believe me,  he wasn't one.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



Your position,  of course,  assumes that scientists are liars,  and politicians never do.  

And also business people work to optimize the big picture,  not just their business.  

And that people who don't know science can guess at it with better reliability than the scientific process yields. 

But,  despite those massive flaws in your logic,  you believe that you and Rush are right.  

You are a scammers dream.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

One of the realities that deniers have to rigorously ignore is the fact that we were smart enough to harvest the least expensive to extract and process,  highest quality,  lowest environmental impact fossil fuels first,  leaving the dregs to future generations.  Of course big oil treats all reserves as equal.  And they are to them.  The profit per BTU is the same,  the cost increases are just passed on to consumers who aren't smart enough to see a different future. 

And all of the Dittoheads said amen.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> One of the realities that deniers have to rigorously ignore is the fact that we were smart enough to harvest the least expensive to extract and process,  highest quality,  lowest environmental impact fossil fuels first,  leaving the dregs to future generations.  Of course big oil treats all reserves as equal.  And they are to them.  The profit per BTU is the same,  the cost increases are just passed on to consumers who aren't smart enough to see a different future.
> 
> And all of the Dittoheads said amen.



*One of the realities that deniers have to rigorously ignore is the fact that we were smart enough to harvest the least expensive to extract and process, highest quality, lowest environmental impact fossil fuels first, leaving the dregs to future generations.*

Where has anyone denied that? Link?

When you get a chance, show us how much the A portion of GW cost us last year.
To the nearest billion.

I want to make sure we're getting our moneys worth for the $80 trillion you feel we should spend.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > One of the realities that deniers have to rigorously ignore is the fact that we were smart enough to harvest the least expensive to extract and process,  highest quality,  lowest environmental impact fossil fuels first,  leaving the dregs to future generations.  Of course big oil treats all reserves as equal.  And they are to them.  The profit per BTU is the same,  the cost increases are just passed on to consumers who aren't smart enough to see a different future.
> ...



I take it that you'd rather send that money,  and a lot more,  on really expensive fossil fuel,  and expanded capacity to meet demand.  And on relocating people and farms to where the water went and dikes to keep the oceans out of our port cities. 

That's what's called conservative financial planning.  Do nothing until the problem becomes overwhelming.  Then elect and blame liberals. 

That's the same play you ran in 2000. Do you really think memories are that short?


----------



## S.J. (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ, what do you drive?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*I take it that you'd rather send that money, and a lot more, on really expensive fossil fuel*

I know, natural gas gets more expensive every day.







Damn, all the way up to less than 1/3rd the price 5 years ago.

*And on relocating people and farms to where the water went and dikes to keep the oceans out of our port cities. *

I hope the rising oceans (wasn't Obama gonna stop the rising water?) don't flood the unicorn ranches.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ, what do you drive?



His Mom's car, when she's not using it.........


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

S.J. said:


> PMZ, what do you drive?



The highest performance car on the road. 

A Prius. 

I can see by your avatar what kind you drive.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What has the price of gasoline done over that time?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Flucuated. It'd be cheaper if we got rid of boutique summer blends.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But but but then all the air would be poisoned, all the water would become acid and all the oceans (acid though they might be) would rise to the tip top of the highest mountains.

Remember, every particle of CO2 in the atmosphere of our little planet is killing a baby or a unicorn somewhere.

EVERY molecule.  Every fucking one.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Most people hide their ignorance.  You flaunt it.  How bizarre is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't hide yours.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Here ya go, PMZ.  This is REALLY what it's all about, isn't it?
> ...



He had help from The Dick.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



False and false.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 Rush who is right? 

Are you a scammer?


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > IlarMeilyr said:
> ...



I'll be the first to admit when I don't know something.  I don't know more than I know. I also don't let others tell me wrongly what I do know.  

You ought to try that someday. Of course you'd have to resign from the cult and nobody does that.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



The proof that you offer is less than compelling.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



You want me to prove that Cheney did not give them an exemption?

Damn, you're dumber than you look.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



We'll,  so far you haven't offered any proof for anything that you've claimed.  Your mantra has been that everybody needs proof but you.  A losers pipedream if there ever was one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



All you need to do to prove me wrong is find the exemption that Cheney gave to Halliburton.

You won't.


----------



## S.J. (Aug 26, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDz9A679cXY]The Hoax of Global Warming : Documentary on the Lies of Global Warming (Full Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Nobody's falling for the everyone owes you proof but you're exempt BS. 

You're the perfect Dittohead.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Nobody owes me proof for that idiotic claim.

Which is good, because the proof does not exist.

The VP gave a company an exemption from the Clean Water Act?
The ignorance of the way our government works is astonishing, of course the claim comes from a liberal, so the ignorance is understandable.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Now we're back to you telling us that you are entitled to the truth that you want.  Exactly what Rush's cult told you.  Why?  Because he thinks that he's entitled to the truth that he wants. 

What a load of crap.  

Next time try it the old fashion way.  Earn it. 

Parasite.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No proof? LOL!


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There is no proof of anything that you claim.  We both know that.  And there's one great reason for that. What you want is merely what you want.  

The rest of use choose to live in the real world. 

Let's face it.  You're just not that smart.  And way too lazy to learn.  The best you can hope for is someone to lead you but you chose to follow a horse's ass instead of science. 

Hang it up and wait.  Maybe another savior will come along. Like Glenn Beck for instance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



*There is no proof of anything that you claim.*

There is no proof Cheney gave anyone an exemption from anything.
But that's just like a liberal, make a ridiculous claim and refuse to provide proof.

That's okay, I'll continue to point and laugh.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 26, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I didn't make any claim jerkwad.  You did.  

Read much?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 26, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



No, Luddly did, idiot.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...king-up-to-climate-change-32.html#post7743357


----------



## PMZ (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And you did. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=7743399


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



And until someone shows where Cheney did that, I'm right.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Your claim is that Chaney didn't do that.  You offer zero evidence,  so it's merely what you wish was true.  So that's what you are right about. 


Until someone offers evidence the only right position is that it's unknown whether he did or didn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



How can I prove Cheney did nothing?
The person who claimed he did must show proof. He can't. I'm right.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The fact that you can't prove something doesn't make it true.  It makes it unknown. Simple logic.  Irrefutable logic. If you can't figure that out,  no wonder you have zero credibility here.  Or anywhere.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So if you can't prove you're not a child molester, we can justifiably believe that you are?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 27, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> I lived there for 40 years, mamooth. I know what the Casper Star Tribune said, and I know people who didn't care for the decisions made to let it burn. The Park Service makes decisions, and that one decided on the advice of environmental thinking of that decade to let it burn and not stop it on purpose.



All the massive firefighting you demanded saved a few historic structures, and that's it. Otherwise, it was pointless, and didn't affect the fire path a bit. Those of a more practical nature don't support spending millions and risking lives on feelgood firefighting.



> These things changed the green wealth of the soils, and burning is no longer something that is guaranteed to be restorative.



Yellowstone fires of 1988 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The recovery from the fires began almost immediately, with plants such as fireweed appearing in a matter of days after a fire had passed. While surrounding national forests did some replanting and even dispersed grass seed by airplane, the regeneration in Yellowstone was generally so complete that no replanting was even attempted.[25] Though some small plants did not immediately reassume their pre-fire habitats, most did, and the vast majority of plants regrew from existing sprouts which survived the heat from the fires. There was a profusion of wildflowers in burned areas, especially between two and five years after the fires.[26]
---



> And the government was in charge back then and contracted people to kill pigeons and buffalo. A rotting corpse does not produce 5 tons a year of fertilizer, and decimation of hundreds of thousands of these creatures took away that restorative ability of the land to regenerate after fires.



---
Contrary to media reports and speculation at the time, the fires killed very few park animals surveys indicated that only about 345 elk (of an estimated 40,00050,000), 36 mule deer, 12 moose, 6 black bears, and 9 bison had perished
---

Yes, Yellowstone is still suffering from the poop-deficit caused by that staggering loss.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



Obama ate kittens and condor eggs for breakfast.
He's going to eat fried human babies for lunch.
And you can't prove I'm wrong.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 27, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And you can't prove that you're right.  So based on the available evidence it is unknown. 

But,  we have evidence of your intellectual limitations.  Not certainty yet,  but the odds are certainly against you. 

Is this your first forray into the world of thinking?  A small step for most humans,  a giant step for Dittoheads.


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...



So, then we can justifiably believe that you're a child molester?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...




Your idiocy is exhausting.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 10958) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types.

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 27, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And dogs, don't forget, dog molester.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 27, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


You shouldn't project on others your own characteristics.


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 YOU can't find the proof so he's the Dittohead?   Puh-leeze!


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

mamooth said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > I lived there for 40 years, mamooth. I know what the Casper Star Tribune said, and I know people who didn't care for the decisions made to let it burn. The Park Service makes decisions, and that one decided on the advice of environmental thinking of that decade to let it burn and not stop it on purpose.
> ...


 Sorry, there's a lot less coolness with your feet being cooled by a few fireweeds in the heat of summer than the awesome cool caresses of shade provided by behemoth lodgepole pines and the 7 other major species lost in the fires of Yellowstone in 1983.

You will hear nothing but glowing reports from those whose livelihoods are guaranteed when they report part of the flora that made it through those fires and not a word about species that didn't and will take hundreds of years to blow in from unaffected areas to the heart of the area. And you won't hear of pidgeon-holed reports of the avian population that may never recover at all. Not a word. Why would anyone lose their job for reporting bad news of the fire? Answer: they wouldn't!

I think the assessment of the majority of Americans living in the area was a good one. It did not reflect well on the decision to allow the fires to burn. Trees up to 15,000 years old or older were decimated by stupidity. Even the bible is explicit when mankind is explicitly advised by its elders to be good stewards of the earth. Not to be results in losses unknown. 
The reason underestimations of a tree's age is because dendrochronologists are held to counting only what shows up as a ring in the case of rings. The truth is that half the tree's life or even much more may show up in the center 1" of its heartwood, if the heartwood is still there. It can take a thousand years for a seedling of some species of conifers (and other trees) to grow a half inch in diameter, and you can't count that kind of size, particularly if the tree remains in a nongrowth of cells phase for a hundred years. A tree that is only inches high may well be older than a man's lifespan who lives to be 125. So counting rings may be considered futile unless the tree's sprouting and rings are counted by the same adult for 30 years in good growth years in which rings are manifest and the tree from sprouting to a 15 inch diameter show consistent half-inch growth rings. lol! The story of a thousand-year pine

Scientists tend to avoid foundation funding negatives and dwell on foundation funding positives. They're only human. The good ones are above that. Everybody hates bad news, so the honest are often left holding the bag in which the holier-than-thou liberals dump their barbs against. Obama is living proof that a lot of people will love lies and blame the person the liar holds to account without so much as a piffle of proof.

Sounds like here to me.


----------



## PMZ (Aug 28, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Are you not aware that what Rush issues Dittoheads daily is always without proof? That's what they Ditto.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 28, 2013)

How goes it?

Not too bad, been busy testing some new ED product. How about yourself?

Ah, man I'm doing nothing. Working with Michael Mann on some AGW tests

Seriously?

Yeah, but it sucks gnat balls

How so?

Well, when I first got in there, they put me in a big tank and pumped in 200PPM of CO2, so I thrashed around and put my hands up to my throat like I was struggling to breath. Then they realize I was just fucking around with them so they ended the test. 

That's hysterical!

Yeah, they were going to throw me in a snake cage as punishment but i threatened to go to Wikileaks, that ended all the AGW testing


----------



## freedombecki (Aug 28, 2013)

PMZ said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > PMZ said:
> ...


 I hadn't heard the term Dittoheads for 5 years. I remember it because I've been called that, and I only listened to one Rush Limbaugh program about 12 years ago, and honestly can't remember much of it since I don't ever listen to radio anymore. He sure gets a rise out of a lot of liberals, but I'm not sure the people here who are into science and mathematics listen unless Limbaugh is also. These guys assess bottom lines of statistical reports most of us would yawn in frustration over and line the trash with. They wouldn't think of doing anything but filing it as useful information to people who like themselves, it means truth at the bottom line, mathematically. If you dismiss them, you are dismissing the entire field of logic, and pathetic will be your outcome if you do that.

Some big shots don't want to hear about reality and wonder why they end up in court over squandering other people's money down into nothing. They should have been more interested in "useless mathematical information and charts" instead of being dismissive.

That's likely why we have a $17 trillion debt, up from a $1.3 trillion debt in Obama's first couple of months in office.

Instead of having a fiscal budget for the last 6 years, we've had a systematic overprinting of bills by the Obama administration, the irresistible passage of bills that put the administration in charge of certain spending, such as Obamacare, which is frankly, unconstitutional since the Constitution specifies spending and borrowing to be the duty of the Legislative branches of Congresses, originally focused to be a combination of the people and the state's power, and now, seems to be frittering away by nobody agreeing to pass laws consistent with the insistence of the Constitution to put the people's Congress in charge of all spending. The best thing that has happened to the nation since Obama took over has been the resistance of Congressman, Dr. John Boehner, taking Obama to the shed over his malfeasance of law, spending, financial attention to his benefactors, and abuse of Congress' authority in all matters of spending.

Where would we be if it weren't for the Republicans trying to hold the line over this nincompoop who is now playing daredevil with another leader in the Middle East by inflicting the woe of war without contacting Congress, who are also the ones the Constitution designates as the ones who declare the war.

Obama is a Constitutional jerk, and the entire "Affordable" Care Act was so named to merely obfuscate the expense it would incur as a tax on the Middle Class, who has so far acted as though bamboozled except for about 54% who know it's a bamboozle, and an exceedingly bad one as the Democrats continually postpone inflicting its costs on the tax deductions until they're out of power, so they can continue and even stoke up their little falsetto charges of the blame game in which they blame Republicans for anything they consider bad, including all the bullshit they pass as law, and very bad law since it is highly conflictive with the Constitution of the United States which some of them have out-and-out declared invalid.

This legislating of debt by the Administration is heinous, yet Obama puts on an "I'm proud of me" line that seems so good yet is only the top of the carpet under which he has swept a mountain of lies under. Lies that obfuscate the reality of the cost of what he is doing to the future of this country.

I can only hope Democrats will wake up and smell the coffee. It's long past the burnt stage and will leave our grandchildren wringing their hands over the endless payment of interest with little available to pay principal on to nations who do not love us except for when we tolerate the shortest end of the stick on reciprocity of trade.

If the Democrats don't pay attention, they will make slaves of taxpayers, and in order to do that, people who object will be put to death and penalties will be inflicted on noncooperation from those who are basically enslaved and will certainly need to be watched closely once their freedoms are removed and automaton behavior is the only acceptable behavior to the oligarchy of terror and punishment that will soon perish the first true bloody strongman who comes about to lead a nation of peons.

All of us need to resist the something-for-nothing bullshit propaganda Obama maintains is the only way to "equalize" the masses. A fool is never equal to a man of wisdom. A man of wisdom becomes that way from understanding math and science, not abusing science by obfuscating a thousand years of temperature readings in order to foist a money-making scheme against a gullible world.

The last person who promised a large group of people something for nothing went after an ethnic group in order to procure oil  from the spokesman from Jerusalem and its former Mufti, Haj Amin al Hussein, who promised them Islamic Jihad soldiers and oil from the Middle East, as their representative. And he did furnish these, having procured the famous promise from Hitler that after the European Jews were exterminated, he would send the SS to the Middle East to continue the eradication of Jews there.

Something for nothing doesn't come cheaply when you burden one group of people egregiously to benefit another group. The shell game just doesn't work out. Freedom does. Our Constitution saw us through years of both sacrifice and prosperity.

The lesson in history is there. It points us away from genocide and toward a world of free people.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 28, 2013)

If PMZ really really believed in his AGW theory and predictions. He wouldn't be so worried about Rush Limbaugh.. The guy lives about 2 feet above Sea Level.. 

Only a matter of time til you get your reward and the sea rises to swallow him and his cigars.. 






PMZ must not trust the predictions..


----------



## PMZ (Aug 29, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> PMZ said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...



You ditto right wing extreme delusion and tell us that you're not a Dittohead?


----------

