# Global Warming Update



## Edgetho (Apr 25, 2014)

Just thought you'd like to know the latest in our impending doom scenario.....  How we're all gonna roast in our own juices and die in a global holocaust of insects, vermin and hell-fire.

Say, doesn't that sound kind of familiar?  It sure does to me.  Wonder where I've heard that before.

Anyway, I suggest you all repent, beg forgiveness, build a statue to ManBearPig and turn over all your worldly goods to (guess who) who will then dole them out to those who need them.  Mainly their cronies and the socialist elites

Especially energy.  Because that's what's behind all this.  The wanton use of energy  by all you proles and untermensch who should just go to work, vote dimocrap and die as soon as you're of no further use to the State.

But do NOT question how a preezy of the united steezy can tell all of us to watch our energy usage then flies Air Force 1 to a golf outing while putting 800 tons of carbon into the atmosphere in the process.

uh-uh.... Don't question that.  No way

Otherwise, have a nice day while you can.

The end is near  

*Mackinac Island prepares for tourists, but ice freezes out spring*






_A freighter slowly makes its way under the Mackinac Bridge and through the ice, 
seen from the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Biscayne Bay that was breaking up lots of ice in the Straits of Mackinac on Tuesday. 
/ Eric Seals/Detroit Free Press_

It&#8217;s not exactly spring on Mackinac Island. After the coldest winter in memory, spring is barely to be found on Mackinac, which usually welcomes its first tourists by May 1.

Not a single ferry is running. The horses are not back. There are 10-foot snowbanks on the island. And one ferry line, Arnold Transit, may not open for business at all.

It&#8217;s the latest spring Chris Shepler, president of Shepler&#8217;s Ferry, can ever remember. Usually, by mid-April, the island is bustling with preparations.

&#8220;I have never seen it like this before, and I am 51,&#8221; he said today.

Tourism is Michigan&#8217;s second-largest industry, and Mackinac Island is its premiere attraction. Without a warmup soon, Michigan tourism dollars will likely take a hit.

Seasonal ferry service usually begins by April 21, but the ice is so thick in Lake Huron that ferry companies need the U.S. Coast Guard to break ice &#8212; and that has not happened as of today. The icebreaker is due to arrive by 8 a.m. Thursday to help clear ice that is up to 3 feet thick in Lake Huron in spots between St. Ignace and the island.

&#8220;We can&#8217;t do anything till the icebreaker comes,&#8221; he said.

More at the Link  Mackinac Island prepares for tourists, but ice freezes out spring | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Repent, all ye sinners


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 25, 2014)

If it's cold, that's also proof of global warming.

How could you not know that?


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 25, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> If it's cold, that's also proof of global warming.
> 
> How could you not know that?



Sorry.  Lost my head for a second


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

And Australia has been seeing record heat. So what's your point? Australia's 2014 Heat Wave Picks Up Where 2013 Left Off | Climate Central

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

I mean, I know you don't. They don't teach those types of things at the Monster Truck Rally.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 25, 2014)

I guess dimocraps believe that social issues and made-up science coupled with agitprop can either win or prevent them from getting devastated in November's elections.

Because they're hitting the scare machine awful hard these days.

Kinda pathetic when that's all you got, huh?

This is what passes for 'thought' in today's dimocrap scum circles.....

*pMSDNC Host Chris Hayes: Ending The Use Of Fossil Fuel Is Like Ending Slavery*


See, the only reason we are using fossil fuels according to Chris Hayes (writing in The Nation, not blathering on pMSDNC) is because the one-percent are making so much money from them, kind of like the rich did in the 19th century from owning salves.

Tim Cavanaugh writing at NRO took the time to read this nonsense so we don't have to and finds one potential problem (which it turns out isn't actually a problem from...a certain perspective) with Hayes' idea, it would kill a lot of people.



> There are many more moderate suggestions than Hayes&#8217;s on the carbon-cap continuum. But his goofy idea makes clear that all of these involve some diminution in human life: less health, less longevity, fewer opportunities to pursue happiness. At some level that translates into fewer people &#8212; a consummation many warmists might devoutly wish, though few would admit that. (As green panics go, overpopulation is long over; global warming is merely on its way out.)



Lefties really don't like people. Certainly not "the wrong kind" and are happy to devise ways to shuffle the undesirables off the planet. From Nazi Germany, to Soviet Russia and Mao's China, whenever the hard-left gets control of state sanctioned violence, the death toll is enormous.

Eliminating carbon based fuel by fiat (as opposed to true technological innovation that makes economic sense) is simply a friendlier way to bring about the inevitable leftists end-game.

Edge:  dimocraps suck


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Hey the word is warm and its cold that means the research and science is wrong - Says the idiot


----------



## Sunni Man (Apr 25, 2014)

Listen up all you haters!!

It's not called Global Warming anymore........the correct term now is Climate Change.

Carry on.........


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

ManMade Climate Disruption aka: The Great Climactic Googly Moogly


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 25, 2014)

Stay tuned, going to be a very interesting summer.


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> And Australia has been seeing record heat. So what's your point? Australia's 2014 Heat Wave Picks Up Where 2013 Left Off | Climate Central
> 
> Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?
> 
> I mean, I know you don't. They don't teach those types of things at the Monster Truck Rally.



"And Australia higher while Michigan lower".. what's YOUR point?
The average global temperature was "supposedly" an indication of  "global warming" right?

So what is the result when Australia's higher temperature and Michigan's lowest temperatures are "averaged"?

Now for a FACT that globalwarmingistas seem to ignore...

*12.5% of the EARTH's land mass was not included in the temperature recording stations.*

"_The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, 
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations&#8230;
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world&#8217;s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration._

[URL="http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/[/URL]

I mean didn't they teach math "averages" that says What is the average of these 3 temperatures?  70, 80,60  = 70.
But when you add AVERAGE temperatures of Australia and Average temperatures of Michigan AND the Average Temperature of Siberia  80+60+50 = 63 degrees.
The point is YOU made a BIG deal about Australia's record heat while downplaying Michigan's record cold.
You can't have it both ways... Using Australia as the sign of "global warming" without averaging Michigan's record cold AND again... you and you fellow 
ignorant globalwarmingistas completely ignored Siberia's temperatures as the above states!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 25, 2014)

AOL Search

This week I ran the temperature numbers for climatological winter (December, January, and February) for Alaska. As most Alaska residents can attest to, this winter was warmer than normal. An extremely warm January was somewhat offset by a cooler December and February. The first map shows the statewide winter temperature values by climate division and the second map shows the winter temperatures in the Fairbanks area.

The climate divisions are a relatively new statewide organizational grouping of similar regions by Bieniek et al. (2012). Of the 13 climate divisions, 12 were above normal for the winter. Only Juneau's region was below normal. For the Fairbanks area, nearly every station was 3°F to 4°F above average for the winter.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Apr 25, 2014)

Still not happening.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 25, 2014)

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html

Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.

Cowtan & Way investigate the claim of a global surface warming 'pause' over the past 16 years by examining the trends from 1997 through 2012. While HadCRUT4 only estimates the surface warming trend at 0.046°C per decade during that time, and NASA puts it at 0.080°C per decade, the new kriging and hybrid data sets estimate the trend during this time at 0.11 and 0.12°C per decade, respectively.

These results indicate that the slowed warming of average global surface temperature is not as significant as previously believed. Surface warming has slowed somewhat, in large part due to more overall global warming being transferred to the oceans over the past decade. However, these sorts of temporary surface warming slowdowns (and speed-ups) occur on a regular basis due to short-term natural influences.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

What were the lab results of temperature increases per each 100PPM increment of CO2?


----------



## KNB (Apr 25, 2014)

Jobs, sustainable energy production, an end to global deforestation, biodegradable plastic, and reversing the Greenhouse Effect are all possible with this:






But keep arguing against it.  Cliven Bundy, the Iraq war, the drug war, outlawing abortion, banning gay marriage, and everything else that the right-wing supports have all been shown to be entirely wrong, so why should the right-wing ever want to be right about the Greenhouse Effect and environmental degradation?


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html
> 
> Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.
> 
> ...



Oldrocks...
What say you about this:
*12.5% of the EARTH's land mass was not included in the temperature recording stations.*

"_The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, 
those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the worlds land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration._

[URL="http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/21/climategatekeeping-siberia/[/URL]


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 25, 2014)

Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Sunni Man said:


> Listen up all you haters!!
> 
> It's not called Global Warming anymore........*the correct term now is Climate Change.*
> 
> Carry on.........



Its only been that way for a 3 decades.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 25, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html
> ...



Perhaps you should read Cowtan and Way's peer reviewed article. And take a look at this as backup evidence for their study;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png


----------



## Sunni Man (Apr 25, 2014)

KNB said:


> Jobs, sustainable energy production, an end to global deforestation, biodegradable plastic, and reversing the Greenhouse Effect are all possible with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...............................................^^^ Put the bong down Dude    ...


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Apr 25, 2014)

Its time to stop having children, become vegans, paint your roofs white, abandon automobiles, and depend on barley power for our energy needs.  That and trillions of tXpayer dollars to help third world nations prepare fpr the worst.
For humanity, before its toooooo late !!!!   Lol


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?



That is a lie and you are a lying scumbag.

Period


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?



Consensus circa 1200 AD

Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that the Earth is a flat plane held up on the back of a giant turtle


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?



I'm not making any threat or conspiracy.
Just a simple fact that temperature recording devices are generally located where it WAS easy to manually get the readings.  (Didn't have IP addressing!).
And so urban areas made up the majority of temperature readings over the last 100 years.
So if you et.al. are using temperature readings from 100 years ago... THAT is still too limited as a the Earth has had periods of warming and cooling.
Why is Greenland so named?  Why is there oil exploration in the Arctic when we know oil comes from decayed plant life that would not survive in
current Arctic temperatures.

Has nothing to do with religiously fervor that globalwarmingistas have.
Plus globalwarmingistas have this tendency to exaggeration..."i.e. many millions of scientists"???? 
Richard Phillips Feynman was an American theoretical physicist i.e. scientist... are you counting people like him as your "millions of scientists"?
Or are there as this attached chart show:
10,257 Climate surveys sent to "NOT MILLIONS"... but 10,257 of WHICH
3,146 returned their surveys of which 
77 were climate scientists of which
42 said "yes"



FAR FAR from the millions of scientists~~~

OH and by the way I use to think you had some credibility... but come on "millions of scientists"..just blew that!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> ...



Which major scientific organization has publicly stated AGW is not real?


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> ...



And those people were geniuses compared to today's dimocrap scum.

You know what's going on here?  I'll tell you....

Academia is bankrupt.  Morally, financially, conceptually and in every other way -- Bankrupt.

There are no 'Einsteins', no Niels Boors, no Enrico Fermis, no Georges LeMatires, no....

No nothing.  All we got is a very confused and very handicapped Stephen Hawking who is oh so very wrong on oh so too many of his theories.

There are no calls for people with Advanced Degree.  Very few Universities hiring Science PhDs to teach Black Studies or a course on "Why My Vagina Itches All The Time".....  Which is what passes for 'education' in most of today's Universities.

There's nothing for people with advanced degrees to do these days.  Maybe sit around and pontificate on why most of humanity is so inferior to them.....  That's about it.

So somebody comes up with an idea that not only provides for HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of PHONY PhDs in a fake science but also promotes the Statism of dimocrap scum.

Dictators and wannabe Dictators who would LOVE the idea of being in charge of the World's Energy are kicking in BILLIONS of dollars because they know, as do I, that whoever controls the world's energy supplies.......

Controls the world.

So these phony scientists with phony PhDs can make a lot of money providing wannabe Dictators with phony statistics to prove their phony theories about how "We're All Gonna Fucking Die!!!" if we don't change our ways and let those smarter than us tell us how to live.

Which, it just so happens (what a coincidence )  that dimocrap scum are ABSOLUTELY convinced that they are the ones anointed by God (or Mother Gaia, whatever ) with the requisite intelligence to lead us and tell us who should get what and how much.

It's just that simple.

the dimocrap party is a criminal cult


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



He'll just call you dumb and hope no one notices his lack of evidence, links or supporting information


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

All those "Science organizations" and not a single one that can show a lab experiment demonstrating the  relationship between temperature and CO2.

weird


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

AGWCult Model

This AGWModel shows the imaginary relationship between increases in CO2 and their subsequent devastating impact on planet Earth

CO2/PPM  ^ Temp

400       2 degrees
600       6 degrees
800        1,400 degree

Can I get an 'Amen!' (aka: peer review)


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> All those "Science organizations" and not a single one that can show a lab experiment demonstrating the  relationship between temperature and CO2.
> 
> weird



Whats weird is you ignoring science and giving more credibility to your ignorance and rumors.  I mean, the science is real yet you favor the unreal, unproven stuff


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > All those "Science organizations" and not a single one that can show a lab experiment demonstrating the  relationship between temperature and CO2.
> ...



No it's ok Frank received his degree in Climatology from Hannity-and-Beck University. He's what they call a self-proclaimed expert.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > All those "Science organizations" and not a single one that can show a lab experiment demonstrating the  relationship between temperature and CO2.
> ...



Mo son works at an iPSC Lab and he can explain his work to me. Maybe you can share some of your "real science" with me? So far, the AGW Science consists of pointing at the Weather Channel and going "ManMade Global Warming!"

Whats the relationship between CO2 and temperature?  What's the temperature relationship starting at 0PPM CO2 and increasing in increments of 100


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Listen up all you haters!!
> ...



It's been that way since they're busted for lying and since data doesn't support their story.

By the way, there is nothing that will stop liberal from their transference.

Check this out... can't make this shit up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I'm just an expert at spotting tells and bullshit


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yeah well its been around for decades and its been reviewed by others for accuracy.  Your ignorance on the subject doesnt pass for proof of anything.

Just because someone doesnt understand how a red light means stop doesnt mean they wont get hit.  You not understanding the relationship between CO2 and temp doesnt mean the science is wrong or fake.  That just means you dont understand.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > All those "Science organizations" and not a single one that can show a lab experiment demonstrating the  relationship between temperature and CO2.
> ...



There you go, lying again.

No, the science is NOT settled.  No way.  No how.

But that you're a lying scumbag?  That IS settled science

Global Warming Hoax: News

Global Warming Hoax: 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming



> In open letter to the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon, 141 Scientists state that the science behind anthropogenic global warming is anything but "settled".





> Yet more embarrassing emails have been released by an unknown hacker or hackers that show the top climate scientists engaging more in political activism than in science. In many of the emails they seem to out right admit that they have a weak argument, but that didn't stop them propaganda.



Global Warming Hoax: Video "The Cloud Mystery", The Case For Cosmic Rays



> Henrik Svensmark and several other leading climate scientists make an excellent case for cosmic rays and the solar magnetic field as the cause of global warming.



Global Warming Hoax: Video - Killing Children and Coworkers All in the Name of Climate Change



> Warning, this video contains graphic images of children and adults blowing up with the sounds of shotgun blasts. There is blood splattered on other children and body parts blown off. The video is disturbing, youve been warned.
> 
> This mini-movie, No Pressure, was shot on 35mm with several big names involved. It was produced by the 1010global organization, their goal is to cut Carbon emissions by 10% in 2010. Obviously a lot money went in to making.



Global Warming Hoax: Antarctic Sea Ice for November 2009 Higher Than 1979

C





> ontrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. Ice totals for November 2009 are significantly higher than 1979 when measurements began. The main stream media concentrates on a couple of small areas of the Antarctic in order to scare you in to believing that Antarctica is melting, when in fact its gaining ice.



Global Warming Losing Support In US, Climate Change Considered A Hoax


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I have a problem with most globalwarmingistas in that they tend to "exaggerate".. for example Oldrocks said ""i.e. many millions of scientists" agree GW is real.
Yet I've not found MILLIONS of scientists much less "millions" agreeing about GW.
I did find this:

0,257 Climate surveys sent to "NOT MILLIONS"... but 10,257 of WHICH
3,146 returned their surveys of which 
77 were climate scientists of which
42 said "yes"


About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus? | Watts Up With That?


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 25, 2014)

People this stupid should have to be licensed

IKEA Developing a 'Lower-Carbon' Swedish Meatball | CNS News

"IKEA is a responsible company, and we believe that we can play an important role in the move towards a more sustainable society," the company announced on April 22, Earth Day. 

"We will continue to sell the regular meatballs that our customers enjoy every day at IKEA. However we will also provide lower carbon alternatives; a chicken meatball and a vegetarian meatball are under development and will complement our meatball offer in 2015."


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



What's to understand?  AGW is just the latest round for the flat-Earthers.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 25, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



That's what they do.. lie.  the whole leftwing ideology is a lie.. so don't be surprised when liars lie about their lies.


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Our tax dollars says global warming is for real!

Climate Change: Consensus

Looking at this chart I have one major question...
If the trend which is what NASA is showing is a climb upwards...
what happened from 1890 to 1940 when the Temperature Anomaly went from as a decline of -0.5 in 1890 to 0 anomaly in 1940>


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



You sure are. You somehow figured out that EVERY major international scientific body is lying about AGW. 

Solid detective work there.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I missed the part where you show me the lab experiments and the relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Care to try again?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Not to mention, to accurately prove what they are saying, they need to demonstrate what is the norm.. and they can't.. which renders it all meaningless nonsense.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 25, 2014)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Flat Earthers were the ones denying the science of the day. But then I'm not an alarmist, rather a realist.  I don't think mankind is not going to be able to change it's fossil fuel consumption, so we're better plan on mitigating the effects of the changing climate rather trying to stop it.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Ame®icano;8993068 said:
			
		

> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



No its been that way for 3 decades

Google It For Me!

There!  Now you dont even have to google it.  Started in 1975 despite what the talking points have told you


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-since-1997-more-than-twice-as-fast.html
> 
> Both of their new surface temperature data sets show significantly more warming over the past 16 years than HadCRUT4. This is mainly due to HadCRUT4 missing accelerated Arctic warming, especially since 1997.
> 
> ...




Some important information when considering the source of your documentation.



> Skeptical Science
> 
> This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.
> 
> My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour". I watched An Inconvenient Truth for research which I found thought provoking although I didn't know what to make of all the science.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



None of that changes the science tho.  Are we even talking about the science or what another poster said and silly pics of idiots who know nothing?


----------



## KNB (Apr 25, 2014)

Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, I'm not a scientist but I'll let the scientist tell you 

Google It For Me!

There you go.  Now you dont even have to google it either.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 25, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



And how is that any different than embracing debunked science?   And look, I'm not saying man hasn't had an impact.. far from it.  I'm just saying I'm 50 and pretty much my whole life I've been listening to the alarmists tell me that if I don't _live the way they tell me to live._.. we're doomed in xxx years.

And here we sit.


----------



## Erand7899 (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?



I have not seen any scientific society claim that manmade global climate change is a fact, and absolutely no one knows whether a warmer earth is a clear and present danger, or a boon to mankind.  Perhaps you just fail to understand what the terms "may" or even "most likely" mean. 

There is little doubt that the world is getting warmer, and has been getting warmer since the apex of the last ice age.  There is also little doubt that the earth will continue to get warmer, until it begins to get colder again.  This cycle has occurred thousands of times, and like winter and summer, will continue to occur whether or not man is still here.

Since scientists have little understanding of what causes this cycle, the idea that they understand the fluctuations within the cycle, and what man contributes to these fluctuations, is insanity.  We have theories on what caused the mini-ice age, but we don't have facts.  Nor, do we have any idea of what caused the warming period that preceded the mini-ice age.  

Both of these fluctuations were natural, and far exceeded any current "warming" trend.  It is "most likely" that we are experiencing just another natural fluctuation in the cycle.  You have way too much trust in the wisdom of climate scientists.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

KNB said:


> Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?











WTF was that?


----------



## Mustang (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Hey the word is warm and its cold that means the research and science is wrong - Says the idiot



Next we're going to hear the story of the man who lived all his life on a tropical island and summarily dismissed all talk of snow and ice by travelers as being little more than wild stories and superstition.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Number 1 answer

"Science & Mathematics > Weather
Next

What is the relationship between Carbon dioxide and temperature?

Best Answer

Arun dilipan Anbazhagan answered 3 years ago
this is very simple, the relationship between them is that when there is more carbon di oxide then the temperature gets raised this is because carbon di oxide traps the heat from the sun too efficiently than other gases .
Source:
google
Rate Comment"

Uh huh. That was awesome


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?
> ...



That means he ran out of gas and has moved to another bullshit narrative like conservatives hate women, want dirty water & air, etc.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > KNB said:
> ...



All also true.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So now that you have an answer that isnt good enough?

The best part about it is I gave you a link where you dont even have to google it and it has more than one link you can learn from.  Enjoy!


----------



## Redfish (Apr 25, 2014)

KNB said:


> Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?



When will you left wing fools learn the difference between man made pollution and man made climate change.

YES, man is polluting the planet

NO, man's pollution is not changing the climate

The climate of our planet is controlled by the sun, the earth's tilt on its axis (slight wobbles), and natural cycles that have been occuring for millions of years.  

Man has nothing to do with it.   never has, never will----unless we engage in a nuclear war with thousands of nuclear bombs.   That would end man's time on the planet, but the planet would survive and in another milion years some other forms of life would show up.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





and its also true the ALL liberals suck the cocks of homeless drug addicts with aids.


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

Relax, Obama told us in his inaugural speech that THAT very day would be the day the oceans would stop rising and that world would heal.

He would never lie about a thing like that.


----------



## Erand7899 (Apr 25, 2014)

KNB said:


> Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?



No, KNB, there is no valid reason for clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, or burning toxic sludge for transportation.  Does that make you feel better?

I personally don't know of anyone who favors polluting our air, our water, or our earth.  Obviously, they do exist, but I doubt there is many of them out there.  However, this earth has to feed, clothe, house, transport, warm, and entertain billions of people, all of whom desire to live and thrive here.

That means that we will never have pristine water or air, and we must cut wood, till the soil, mine for minerals, and drill for oil and gas.  Consequently, we need to find the proper formula that provides for life to exist, and still maintain reasonably clean water and air.  We need to use all of our resources responsibly and with adequate regard to the environment.  That is called conservation.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> 
> So, what you are positing is that there is a massive conspiracy among many millions of scientists from every nation and political system in the world to create the image of a threat that does not exist. Do you even begin to realize how absolutely insane that sounds?



There is a lot of money to be found through government spending on experimenting with green projects and research.... did we forget Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar, NextEra Energy - each with their own set of financial problems (to use the term "problems" lightly)? Al Gore seems to be benefiting quite well from all his appearances and promotion surrounding An Inconvenient Truth, or are we only supposed to get upset when it's the CEO that's using their position in making a substantial profit? I'm also quite sure these scientists also receive financial support from their respective governments as ours use their "documented research" to promote this administration's position on Climate Change. Unless, of course, you have some documentation that shows all their financing is made through private donors with no political leanings? Which raises my last point, if you think that ideological politics plays absolutely no part in this research, then they would be open to opposing researched opinions instead of making ridicule efforts in silencing them. Clearly money talks, behind the power of political ideological persuasion.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

Redfish said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Yeah, so...your point?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?



Probably a lot better than you understand the difference between propaganda and science.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 25, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> ...



We don't need science when we have God.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University state in policy statements that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.
> ...



None of that changes the science tho


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?
> ...



Great point. Why don't you share what "science" studies you have read that lead you to believe that AGW is not real.


----------



## Mustang (Apr 25, 2014)

Redfish said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > Even if rising CO2 isn't the direct cause of rising average global temperatures, is that any reason to keep clearcutting rainforests, dumping plastic garbage into the oceans, and burning toxic sludge for transportation?
> ...



The certitude of fools can be scary when the people who are wrong yet feel so certain about what they believe can affect the outcome of decisions.

Here are some facts for you. 

A. The greenhouse effect is a real and easily proven phenomenon. 

B. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, our planet's climate would not be warm enough to support human life. 

C. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere occurs both as a result of naturally occurring processes which have nothing to do with humans AND as a result of human activity. Some of that human activity involves digging up carbon from inside the earth that's long been locked up in what are commonly known as sinks. This carbon, in the form of coal, oil, natural gas (methane) have been "out of circulation" for millions of years. The human need for energy reintroduces that formerly locked up carbon into the carbon cycle.

Prior to the industrial age, human activity wasn't that significant (burning wood, or peat wasn't much of a factor). That was especially true when the human population was relatively small. 

The industrial revolution changed everything. The cheap energy allowed people to grow more crops, thereby supporting a larger population which, in turn, continued to grow while people also developed manufacturing on a much larger scale due to automation. The creation of machines which were used to build even bigger machines, and fuel-based transportation (like cars and trucks), and appliances which ran on electricity (which also consumed fossil fuels) accelerated the process further.

Here's the thing: The greenhouse effect doesn't care what the source of CO2 or methane is. The interaction of sunlight with greenhouse gases and the decrease of heat escaping from the planet is a process that will happen regardless of whether the gases result from a forest fire, or plate tectonics, or human activity.

The point is this. Once humans started reintroducing CO2 into the atmosphere, the trend only increased as the population grew and mechanization and industrialization increased all over the world. At the same time that humans were metaphorically burning the candle at one end (increasing CO2), we were also engaging in deforestation on the other end. It wouldn't be a big deal if we were removing CO2 at an equivalent rate to the reintroduction of CO2, but we are NOT doing that. The science behind the process of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is clear, and it's NOT in dispute in much the same way that erosion is not in dispute. And any trend line analysis can show both how fast that number is increasing and whether it's a continuous rate (a straight line) or an increasing rate (a curve). Alas, we are unfortunately on a curve while also doing little, if anything, to address the problem.

An increasing amount of CO2 translates to more heat which will cause a number effects. Some will seem beneficial...at first. Most will not be beneficial because the temperature is rising faster than plants and animals can adapt to the changes. However, one of the scariest aspects of this trend is that we don't know how it will all play out since most predictions have turned out to be too conservative and we also don't know how it will manifest itself. For example, at first scientists thought that the ice caps would melt on the margins alone, but there appears to be a Swiss cheese effect where melted warmer water falls below the surface, thereby warming the interior of the ice while also melting the ice from underneath and not just on the surface.

You and other deniers need to educate yourself. But I'm sorry to say that I don't expect that to happen. Hopefully, decision makers in gov't and industry will see the light before it's too late. I say that because the trend advances in such a way that CO2 already in the atmosphere will continue to affect the climate for at least one hundred years after its introduction. Additionally, an atmospheric rise in temperature ultimately will end up in the ocean. Once a tipping point is reached, it likely won't make much difference what humans do at that point because the warming and the effects of the warming will continue their forward momentum much like a traveling car will continue to move forward once the brakes have been applied.


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > KNB said:
> ...



Uh....sure....and NO dissenter could POSSIBLY be correct because you have the only truth.
We get it.


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 25, 2014)

Redfish said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Nothing like displaying true colors.


----------



## Mustang (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I don't get the impression you do.

Erosion is a scientific fact. It exists independently of whether I or anyone else likes it, or agrees with it, or believes it. It can be more or less pronounced depending on atmospheric conditions. For example, pollution can make it worse and speed it up. That's become abundantly clear in recent decades as ancient Greek and Roman structures started to decay faster because of the acidic effects of pollution combined with water and wind.

But what I'm saying is not meant to be about pollution. It's about science. The greenhouse effect is REAL. Introducing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere 24 hours a day, every day, decade after decade, will ultimately have an effect on global climate whether I like it or not. Not believing it won't change the fact that's how increased CO2 interacts with sunlight, thereby preventing heat from escaping the atmosphere.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

See the pattern:  Ask for evidence, then ignore it once its provided.  Wait a week and start a thread asking for evidence, then ignore it once its provided....Wait a week...


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Believing it does not make it true, claiming the science is "settled" does not make it true.

Were I to post a study showing my view to be true you'd simply discount it out of hand.

Just because you like that 7 out of ten "scientists" agree with you does not make it true.

Consensus is NOT (not that I agree there is a consensus) science.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



So you have nothing but a list of what things are NOT?

Ok, so you dont believe in scientific consensus as being proof of anything but you believe that BELIEVING is enough proof for you?  Because you dont have any evidence to back you up, no polls, research anything but you believe it?

Based on what?  Faith?


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Is it your contention that the studies disagreeing with your findings are _not_
"peer reviewed"?

Is it your contention that ALL of the evidence provided to show you that it isn't happening are wrong?

Is it your contention that emails from the East Anglia folks showing that they knowingly fudged the data not true?


----------



## Mustang (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I didn't say that science proved that humans are causing climate change.

I said that the greenhouse effect is a proven fact. It is.

Some people may be willing to embrace the notion that human activity (and the greenhouses gases we put into the atmosphere) is not significant enough to make a difference in the climate. But it's STILL a fact that the greenhouse effect is real. 

So, the REAL question is what level of increased CO2 introduced to the atmosphere is necessary to affect the climate. If that's ever established, it won't make a difference what the source of the CO2 is. Whether it's natural, or caused by humans, it will have the same effect because the atmosphere does not distinguish between the two; it reacts the same way, regardless of the source.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Yes

Maybe, is it peer reviewed for accuracy?

No but that, or Al Gore, Solyndra, Green Tech etc...None of that changes the science and the science says that Global warming is real.

Your turn.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?  Faith?


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



There are many studies showing that Water Vapor is the culprit, not co2.


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I am on an IPAD right now, I have no idea how to post things on it.

There is NO reason to "peer review" for anything OTHER than accuracy.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 25, 2014)

Oregon has an answer for reducing use of fossil fuels.  Burn bodies instead.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I'll ask again and maybe its your Ipad preventing you from answering.  IDK.

What are you turning to as evidence that Global Warming isnt real?


----------



## Mustang (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Not valid studies. Do you know why? I think it's for three reasons, although at this point, I can only remember two of them. But the main reason is because water vapor only exists for a short time. Above or below a certain temperature, it ceases to be a factor. That's why we have rain and or snow. In other words, it doesn't build up over time. There is a saturation point beyond which it can't increase. CO2 can exist regardless of the temperature near the surface of the planet, and it doesn't fall out of the atmosphere.


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



What part of "I am on an IPAD right now and I do not know how to post things on it" don't you understand?

I can't post them right now, does that help?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> There are many studies showing that Water Vapor is the culprit, not co2.



There's more water vapor now than before? Is this what you're saying?


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



When I get home tonight I'll post some studies.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Can you type the source on the Ipad?  Does your Ipad have a keyboard?


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



LOL, I'll post some studies when I get home, what makes you think your "insistence" means anything to me?

No, I suck as a typist and I am not typing anything that long.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Sure, you'll post it later I wont hold my breath tho


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It doesn't change the fact that the issue of climate change comes with its own scientific controversy, it's hardly scientific fact that's unequivocal.

Report: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Man-Made Global Warming Alarm | Climate Depot
Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warming |*National Association of Scholars



> CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING &#8212; Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report
> 
> CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING ? Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report | Climate Depot


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You don't know how to cut and paste a link on an Ipad, yet you "KNOW" that man made global warming is made up. 

Is that what you're saying?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



Hahah, if anyone wants a good laugh. Click the links above to see the "rebuttals". The 1350+ "peer reviewed rebuttals" are a reference to posts from a single poster on a message board.

And the "40% of scientists doubt global warming" is of course a statement made by one guy and his guess as to how many people he thinks have doubts. 

No study, no data. Surprising? Of course not.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



So?  Thats the best part about a theory they are constantly being checked and rechecked for accuracy.  This "study" hasnt been peer reviewed for accuracy so why or what makes you believe this study over any other?

You guys keep ignoring the "peer review" portion of it.  I can put out a study saying I'm Awesome (which I am) but if no one checks it to verify will you believe it just because its a "study"?  No...Well whats the diff?

Also that link is a link to Brietbart lol....just sayin


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



LOL, you folks are pretty dense aren't you?

No, I have no idea how to cut and paste on an IPAD.

Here is what will happen when I post studies tonight.

You guys will simply scream "NUH-UH" and claim MY scientists are not "reputable", this ain't my first rodeo.

The next this thing you'll do is say "follow the money", never mind that ALL of the "scientists" doing your "approved" studies live off of the Gov tit.

It will turn into a "my studies are better than your studies" circus and I'll just laugh at you (I already am) because that's the way ALL of these discussions go.

There is NO definitive "proof" either way and therefore NO definitive reason to change the economy of the entire World because YOU are afraid your children may roast if it gets too hot, or drown because Obama didn't keep his promise about stopping the rising seas.


It really is just that simple spanky.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I can't wait to see your studies then. I'm sure they will be definitive, unbiased and peer reviewed.


----------



## Mustang (Apr 25, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



I can't say as I think much of the NAS as a scientific organization when I see that Dennis Prager and his "Prager U" is listed on their front page when I access it.


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



The "peer review" thing is your sides canard, now how do you know his posted studies aren't peer reviewed? One of the posts is titled "Peer Reviewed Studies?


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



As stated above it really won't matter who did the studies, you'll just say nope.

Like I said , that is the way it ALWAYS is with people like you.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I actually wanted to know if they are peer reviewed for accuracy.  Are they?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 25, 2014)

Antares said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



You obviously didn't even bother reading your own links. If you had you would have seen his "peer reviewed studies" were posts on a message board.


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



What indicators have been in use for over 100 years that has formed the BASE of all global warming?
Temperature reading stations all around the world.

Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming
thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News

"Distorted data"???  weather stations located near sweltering...etc... distort the data.

There are over 11,000 weather stations around the world measuring land, air and sea temperatures, as well as satellites, ships and aircraft that also take measurements.
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_observation_networks_systems.php

So the basis of "global warming" theory has been weather stations around the world.
So again explain to a novice like me :

when NOAA closes 600 stations because they've distorted temperatures..

and 

when "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 
12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the worlds land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So explain to me if 12.5% of the land mass' temperatures WERE NOT included, why wouldn't the temperatures be skewed higher?


----------



## blackhawk (Apr 25, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Just thought you'd like to know the latest in our impending doom scenario.....  How we're all gonna roast in our own juices and die in a global holocaust of insects, vermin and hell-fire.
> 
> Say, doesn't that sound kind of familiar?  It sure does to me.  Wonder where I've heard that before.
> 
> ...



The correct term is now climate change since the claim of global warming fell on its ass.


----------



## Antares (Apr 25, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Oh stop, they don't like when you gore their ox.


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

NOT ONE of the globalwarmingistas has refuted my question as to how come 12.5% of the earth's land mass that WAS NOT included for over 50 years in temperature recording data wouldn't skew the data higher?

Or why did 600 NOAA stations near temperature distorting sources were removed.
Or why there should be ANY trust in data that excludes 12.5% of the earth's land mass.

Where are you globalwarming evangelists explaining that simple question?

I am constantly amazed NOT at the idiots like the globalwarmingistas.. because they are idiots but at common sense people who
don't ask these idiots .. how come 12.5% of the landmass wasn't included and why are most temperature recording stations located near heat sources?
These same globalwarmingistas are also great Obamacare phony number of 46 million uninsured believers.
And again I excuse their idiocy but common sense folks regarding the phony 46 million still repeat that number ... do these 
common sense people not know 10 million of the 46 million are NOT citizens?  14 million simply need register BEFORE ACA with medicaid!
And why are 18 million that don't need (under 34) can afford (make over $50k) but don't want insurance!
That means there were ONLY 4 million that truly need insurance!


----------



## Mustang (Apr 25, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> NOT ONE of the globalwarmingistas has refuted my question as to how come 12.5% of the earth's land mass that WAS NOT included for over 50 years in temperature recording data wouldn't skew the data higher?
> 
> Or why did 600 NOAA stations near temperature distorting sources were removed.
> Or why there should be ANY trust in data that excludes 12.5% of the earth's land mass.
> ...



It's not a zero-sum game.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 25, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> NOT ONE of the globalwarmingistas has refuted my question as to how come 12.5% of the earth's land mass that WAS NOT included for over 50 years in temperature recording data wouldn't skew the data higher?
> 
> Or why did 600 NOAA stations near temperature distorting sources were removed.
> Or why there should be ANY trust in data that excludes 12.5% of the earth's land mass.
> ...



Well I think one this is that you said all of that and backed it up with bupkiss.


----------



## 1776 (Apr 25, 2014)

It's getting warmer in spring/summer, must be global warming...


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 25, 2014)

Mustang said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > NOT ONE of the globalwarmingistas has refuted my question as to how come 12.5% of the earth's land mass that WAS NOT included for over 50 years in temperature recording data wouldn't skew the data higher?
> ...



I don't know if you understand the concept of "zero-sum game" which is "in game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain of utility is exactly balanced by the losses of the utility of the other participant"..
What in my comments had anything to do with one participant gain at the loss of another participant?
My comments had NOTHING to do with "zero-sum game" and you just put that comment for show... but what that comment did was "show"
your ignorance of the concept especially using in context of my comments!
NOT one globalwarmingista can with any degree of confidence tell me that when you say the earth is warming up ..i.e. global warming..
that is true WHEN 12.5% of the land masses had little if any contribution to the averages!
And when NOAA removes 600 stations because they distorted???  
And I'm showing you the reality of there never having been 46 million uninsured yet people like you and other globalwarmingnistas keep 
ignoring the realities for some cliched, meme, worn out gospel according to Gore and Obama!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> The correct term is now climate change since the claim of global warming fell on its ass.



Global warming begins with the word "global". It means the planet is getting warmer, it doesn't necessarily mean that one individual place will be warmer. 

Where I was the winter was really warm with only one week of cold. But again, this is an individual place. 











You can see that it isn't a straight line, it goes up and down and up and down. 

Another interesting fact is that on the 100,000 year cycle which exists on the planet, we see a massive rise in temperatures and then a drop






We are in the drop period. It should be getting a lot colder. It isn't. Though it's fair to say some places are getting a little cold. Kind of like a fridge. It gets massively hot in the summers in the south, like Australia, so you can expect that the other side of the world is the back of the fridge and getting damn cold.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 26, 2014)

Antares said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Where did you go? I thought you were coming back to share those studies.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 26, 2014)

.

As with every other issue, since the moment this debate became political there is absolutely no way to trust any advocate, any opinion, any data, or any "chart".

And that's the problem with partisan political rhetoric.  All bullshit, no solutions, only people getting in the way.

.


----------



## zeke (Apr 26, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




He's still searching for the answer and the truth. LMAO. At that fake peer reviewed site. Where the guy "guesses" that 40% of scientists are GW skeptics.

Nah, if you had your ass handed to you like you handed his ass to him, would you come back for more of the same?


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 26, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8G2sb4ty4Y]President George W. Bush on Climate Change in 2008 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > The correct term is now climate change since the claim of global warming fell on its ass.
> ...





Did you happen to notice the Y scale on your charts?   its in tenths of a degree.   TENTHS OF A DEGREE.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> As with every other issue, since the moment this debate became political there is absolutely no way to trust any advocate, any opinion, any data, or any "chart".
> 
> ...



correct,  people with a financial or politcal agenda.   the truth is secondary to such people.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 26, 2014)

Much more at the link.  You gotta be a special kind dumb fuck to be a dimocrap.

Real Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" ? Richard Feynman | Page 3

*Great Lakes Ice Cover 3000% Of Normal  More Than Double The Previous Record*
Posted on April 25, 2014






*Hiding The Incline In Arctic Sea Ice*
Posted on April 25, 2014 

Experts somehow forgot to mention that Arctic sea ice has been increasing.






*2005 : Climate Experts Wanted To Evacuate The Coasts*
Posted on April 25, 2014 



> _October 4, 2005
> Some Experts Say Its Time to Evacuate the Coast (for Good)
> 
> By CORNELIA DEAN
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/science/04coast.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

Since the 2005 hysterics from the experts, the US has experienced the quietest period on record for hurricanes.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Did you happen to notice the Y scale on your charts?   its in tenths of a degree.   TENTHS OF A DEGREE.



And...... what's your point?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> Since the 2005 hysterics from the experts, the US has experienced the quietest period on record for hurricanes.



Anyone who looks at global warming in terms of the last 10 years is going to find whatever they hell they want to find.

The warming/cooling cycle lasts for 100,000 years, and you're talking 10 years. Give me strength.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Did you happen to notice the Y scale on your charts?   its in tenths of a degree.   TENTHS OF A DEGREE.
> ...



That you are so ignorant that you believe that anyone can measure the average temperature of the entire planet to the tenth of a degree


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Since the 2005 hysterics from the experts, the US has experienced the quietest period on record for hurricanes.
> ...



Right,  now explain to us how that actions of humans changed the climate 100,000 years ago.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So your point is that you can't measure the global temperature?


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> > Since the 2005 hysterics from the experts, the US has experienced the quietest period on record for hurricanes.
> ...



When did the last Ice Age end?

Can you answer that without googling it?  FUCK no, you can't.

Think we might be heating up right on cue after an Ice Age?

One other thing....  Know why there were so many HUGE animals, dinosaurs, etc during certain periods of the Earth's cycle?

Of course you don't.

It was because of the Oxygen rich atmosphere.  Those huge insects and animals couldn't live in today's atmoshere.

Know what else?  You don't remember but there was a time when people were scared shitless about the encroaching deserts.

Not any more.  The amount of CO2 in the air is causing plant life to absolutely BOOM.

There are very few famines anymore because of it.  Plant life is growing like crazy because of the plentiful amounts of CO2 in the air.  Harvests are setting records every year.

The Earth changes.  All the time.  

What's causing it?  Sometimes the Earth may tilt a little bit on its axis (yes it does), sometimes the Gulf Stream or another major ocean current moves a little bit one way or another.  Sometimes the Oceans release more of this or that into the atmosphere.  Which, BTW, we have NO clue what's really going on at the ocean floor.  None.  Two Thirds of the World is covered by water and we have little to no idea what's going on under it but you fucking geniuses want to declare an end to the discussion.

Fuck you.  Fuck you.

If the tiniest insect on Earth farts, it affects the Earth's ecology somewhat.  So there's no doubt that Man's activity is affecting Earth's atmosphere and climate.  No doubt.

But when we ask retards like you the very simple question of "How Much?"  You're speechless.

Tell you what else.....  One of the reasons I despise dimocrap scum.....

Ever notice... There's no debate in North Korea either.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Right,  now explain to us how that actions of humans changed the climate 100,000 years ago.



Right now go back and read what I wrote. 

Climate change is natural. There is a 100,000 year cycle, temperatures rise and then they drop. Perfectly natural. 

We should, in theory, but in the drop zone right now, it should be getting colder and a lot colder.

Problem is we're not getting colder, we're getting a little warmer. There's more CO2 and other such gases which make the greenhouse effect. Or are you denying the greenhouse effect? Generally this is accepted. We know it's happening. 

What we also know is when we mess with the planet, it has bad consequences. 

Mao ZeDong decided to kill the birds, they were eating the crops. What they then found out was the birds were also eating the insects that then ate the crops more than the birds. 

What we're doing with pollution is going to cause problems we won't be able to reverse so easily.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Not when lying scum-sucking dimocraps keep tampering with readings

*NOAA Blowing Away All Records For Data Tampering In 2014*
Posted on April 26, 2014 

NOAA is adjusting Illinois temperatures upwards by three degrees in 2014. That makes a total of six degrees data tampering since 1895.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Edgetho said:
> ...



Er.....

You know, I've lived in various countries, and there has been major desertification problems in some of these countries, and in other countries. For example China: 

Desertification and Land Degradation in China

"China has some of the most serious desertification in the world. More than 27 per cent, or 2.5 million square kilometres of the country comprises desert. Just 7 per cent of land in China feeds the Chinese population, which equates to approximately a quarter of the world's population. China's phenomenal economic growth over the last ten years has extracted a serious environmental toll. According to the China State Forestry Administration, the desert areas are still expanding by between 2460 and 10,400km2 per year. Up to 400 million people are at risk of desertification in China  the affected area could cover as much as 3.317 million km2  34.6 per cent of the total land area. Much of it is happening on the edge of the settled area, which suggests that human activities are largely to blame."

Drought and Desertification in Spain

"The Sahara is about to leap across the Mediterranean. According to the Spanish government one third of the country is in immediate danger of turning into desert. 'Costing the Earth' investigates the causes and weighs up the competing solutions. "

I really don't need google to tell me this sort of stuff, I've seen it happen with my own eyes. 

As for your claim about oxygen rich dinosaurs, my knowledge tells me that they had massive levels of CO2. 

Okay, now let's go prove this.






Well here's a 400,000 year chart, to show that CO2 has generally gone up and down, just as warming and cooling have gone up and down. generally hand in hand. 

Carbon Dioxide Levels in the Jurassic Period | eHow

"This number [today's level of CO2] is historically low compared to the Jurassic Period."






As you can see from this chart, the earth has become LESS CO2 orientated. 

But the one thing you're right about is that the dinosaurs probably wouldn't have been able to live in our climate and with our levels of CO2. 
The other point is, will WE be able to live with the levels if CO2 we're going to end up with?

I doubt it. So we're basically committing suicide. And for what? For money we won't be able to use. 



Edgetho said:


> Fuck you. Fuck you.



Great argument, your IQ level must be going through the roof right now. 

Basically, you're putting a few stats together and trying to claim a massive picture, but you're not making a decent claim that is based on logic. You're just throwing stuff at me and hoping something sticks. 

Come off it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Are we talking GLOBAL WARMING or are we talking Illinois warming? 

Hmm......

As I said, you're throwing stuff and hoping it sticks. It doesn't.


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 26, 2014)

idiot

You quibble like a little bitch.

If you change ENOUGH of those little readings, guess what?

You're a quibbling bitch and not worth my time.

You can declare victory if you wish.  As in your real life however, you'll be the only one that believes it


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> idiot



Nice argument. 



Edgetho said:


> You quibble like a little bitch.



Wondeful argument



Edgetho said:


> If you change ENOUGH of those little readings, guess what?
> 
> You're a quibbling bitch and not worth my time.
> 
> You can declare victory if you wish.  As in your real life however, you'll be the only one that believes it



Listen, if you want to debate this, we will debate. If you want to insult, to just throw rubbish at people, and if you can't take criticism of the data you're presenting, then what do you have? 
You have nothing more than people fighting. I don't come on here to fight, I come on here to debate. 

So what will it be? You want to hang out with the monkeys and stick your finger in your bum or you want to use your brain? 

As for "declare victory", it's a debate, you don't win, you present your argument, you might change someone's opinion, or they might change your opinion, or they might just ignore you and swear at you.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 26, 2014)

Edgetho said:


> I guess dimocraps believe that social issues and made-up science coupled with agitprop can either win or prevent them from getting devastated in November's elections.
> 
> Because they're hitting the scare machine awful hard these days.
> 
> ...



Lets not get too emboldened. I'm confident these helminthes are facing a political upheaval, but I fear complacency. There could be some key offices left to them if turn out isn't maximized.


----------



## Mustang (Apr 26, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



You mention 12.5% of the land mass as if the temperatures in other places could somehow balance out the record if the temperatures in those places were less than normal. That's what I meant by it not being a zero sum game. The point is that the PLANET is getting warmer. That means that, generally speaking, the ENTIRE planet is warming. That includes land masses, the oceans (which drive the weather of the planet), and all latitudes, longitudes, and altitudes. There may very well be individual places on certain days that may be colder or cooler due to changing weather patterns. There may even be areas that experience a temporary decrease in temperature due to changing weather patterns. A good example of that might be England which is generally warmer than its latitude would indicate because of the Gulf Stream. But if the greater amount of cold fresh water that's being dumped into the North Atlantic due to the melting Greenland ice manages to interrupt that pattern at some point, Europe could experience cooler or even colder weather than historically. But that won't change the fact that the oceans are generally warming even if cold water is being emptied into it around the poles.


----------



## Antares (Apr 26, 2014)

*HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM*

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

We'll let you chew on this one for awhile.


*Stephen E. Schwartz*

*Senior Scientist

Stephen Schwartz is a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and principal investigator in the Department of Energy Atmospheric System Research Program. His research centers on the influences of energy related emissions on climate, with a focus on the role of atmospheric aerosols.

In his research at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Schwartz developed methods to describe the rate of reactions in clouds that lead to production of acid rain. Schwartz's research exerted a major influence on the drafting of the acid deposition section of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Subsequently his work focused on atmospheric aerosols, which influence a variety of atmospheric processes, from precipitation to climate change. More recently Schwartz has been examining climate change using whole-Earth energy balance models.*

Clearly a hack working for a Laboratory working in conjunction with the Dept of energy....


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Right,  now explain to us how that actions of humans changed the climate 100,000 years ago.
> ...



CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere.   thats less than half of one percent.   CO2 is not destroying the earth.   Plants love it, they need it to survive.  Its a naturally occuring gas.  

A slight rise is not going to cause the oceans to boil,  relax.   Pollution is bad,  pollution is NOT causing climate change to the entire planet.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Do you think it can be accurately measured to a tenth of a degree?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

Antares said:


> *HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM*
> 
> http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf
> 
> ...





have a chew on this:

Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller


----------



## Antares (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM*
> ...



Pssst, that study....by a prominent Dept of Energy Scientist debunks anthropogenic climate change.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere.   thats less than half of one percent.   CO2 is not destroying the earth.   Plants love it, they need it to survive.  Its a naturally occuring gas.
> 
> A slight rise is not going to cause the oceans to boil,  relax.   Pollution is bad,  pollution is NOT causing climate change to the entire planet.



Do you know the difference between, say, CO2 and Water vapour or methane?

Methane is actually a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It's 72 times stronger over a 20 year period, however CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer. Over a 500 year period it is only 25% stronger. But there's far more CO2 than methane in the atmosphere. 

Water vapor makes up most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but there isn't much in the way of change in water vapor. So there isn't a change.

The change is the amount of CO2, Methane and other gases that we're pumping into the air. 

Yes, CO2 isn't necessarily bad. As I've shown, in the past CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. But, the change there is a problem for 2 reasons. 
The first is we can't survive if CO2 levels go higher. 
Second, we don't know the effects of what we are doing will have on the planet in the future. 

Pollution is bad. Check out China's cancer rates. They suffer 1/4 of all known cancer, and yet they have 1/7 of the population. Why? Their cities are pollution hellholes. 

You say only a slight rise. 






This is what is happening. The 100,000 year cycle that has been going on for at least 400,000 years has seen a very steady rise and fall in CO2 levels. The planet is becoming far more stable the older it gets. But CO2 levels have increased from a max of 300ppmv to over 400 and rising. That's an increase of 1/4 over and above what we believe to the be natural limit at this point. 
What happens with this? 

Like I've said before, we should be experiencing a dramatic cooling of the earth, quite naturally, we're not. We're seeing an increase in temperatures. 

But the more CO2 we pump out, (china is still trying to get more resources) the bigger problems we could potentially see.






What happens when India and China hit the red colors? We're doomed.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> have a chew on this:
> 
> Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller



The Daily Caller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[1][2] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative[3][4] political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010. In late 2012, it was reported that the site had quadrupled its page view and total audience and had become profitable without ever buying an advertisement for itself.



Also, the ice is up 50% from 2012. Oh my God, shock horror. 

This short term use of statistics in a localised area is simply not going to cut anything. It doesn't mean anything to me. 

Look at the charts. No chart shows up, up, up, up. It shows up and down and up and down with an increase of things or a decrease of things over a sustained area. 

People who read this trash and get taken in by people who clearly have one goal, and that's to deny man made global warming to increase profits. 

Have you been bought?


----------



## Mustang (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You have a difficult time incorporating new information, don't you?

I understand that CO2 is about .04% of the Earth's atmosphere. The relatively small amount combined with the huge effect it has doesn't minimize its importance; it attests to its power since the planet would be a ball of ice without greenhouse gases to warm it sufficiently in order to support both plant and animal life. Consequently, even a modest increase in the number (say 1%) is serious business because it would represent a 25% increase (from .04% to .05%). 

It also happens to be a fact that humans have been interfering with the so-called natural carbon cycle over the last 100 plus years by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere 24/7 from carbon-based fossil fuels that we've dug out of the ground from carbon sinks that have held them for millions of years in order to satisfy a massive increase in the world population that's been spreading technology and industry to ever further reaches of the planet. Hell, the industrialization of China in the last 30 years alone has put God knows how many more millions of cars on the road. When you combine that factoid with the fact that China has been building power plants that are continuously churning out CO2 to serve a population that is 4 times the population of this country, the trend is clear. Since this is all happening while most Americans are sleeping, you can get a sense that humans are burning the candle at more than just two ends because the planet is like a giant factory with different time zones acting as shift workers who keep the CO2 churning out of chimney's and tail pipes every minute of every day. Deforestation only serves to aggravate the problem by removing temporary sinks that previously pulled CO2 out of the air.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...





OK,just for drill, lets assume that you are frigid are correct and that man is destroying the planet by living on it.   What would you have mankind do?   What specifically do you on the left want the people on earth to do?  how do you plan to force them to do it? and what impact will it have on the world's economic system?   How do you propose to provide fuel for to house, clothe, and feed the people of earth?   

Its fine to cry wolf, but unless you have a plan to kill the wolf, we will just have to live with him.

But, having said that,  I think you are full of shit.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 26, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > have a chew on this:
> ...





and HOLY SHIT, the temp is up 1/2 of a degree in the last 100 years.   Holy shit---------we are all going to boil in seawater by August


----------



## Mustang (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



For one thing, everyone has to change the way they view the problem. We should understand that new sources of renewable energy can help to create new industries and not just worry about putting oil companies out of business. Hell, they've got enough money now that they could divest and get in on the ground floor of new energy businesses. 

Refining the whole nuclear power industry and making those power plants smaller and safer would help. That means that liberals have got to stop having such a knee jerk reaction to nuclear power.

Secondly, countries, industry, and even average citizens have to get serious about reducing pollution and waste. That includes developing ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and preventing it from getting up there in the first place. That means scrubbers on power plants and pumping liquid CO2 back into the ground. 

Additionally, the whole concept of using something and then throwing it out just to buy a new one should be abandoned. Products should be built to last instead of being built to toss away.

City planning should be improved to reduce the need for driving.

Public transportation should be improved.

The amount of packaging for products should be reduced.

Recycling should be made mandatory for all products where the energy cost for recycling is less than the energy cost is for making something new. But even recycled products can and should be reused in different ways. Some industries already do a pretty good job at that when you consider that pretty much all of plant and animal products and byproducts are used in one thing or another. If it can be done so successfully with organic matter, it can also be done with inorganic products and by products.

New forests should be planted. Gardens should be encouraged. 

Energy efficient products should be introduced.

There are hundreds of things that could and should be done. All it really takes is some relatively easy creative thinking that's taken seriously instead of summarily dismissed. For example, a few decades ago, the US used to tow old ships out to the deeper parts of the ocean to sink them. At some point, marine biologists were able to convince gov'ts to sink ships in relatively shallow water nearer to land in order to create an artificial environment for sea life which helped improve the fishing industry. It was a damn good idea, but nobody had ever thought of it that way before.

But it's absolutely essential that people and gov'ts must cooperate. If people and gov'ts spent their time and energy working at the problem instead of arguing about everything from A to Z about it, we actually could make progress.

As far as the economy goes, a little hit on GDP in the short term is the equivalent of pacing yourself in a race. It's preferable to run a little slower so you can run longer instead of running fast and then running out of steam and not being able to go the distance. So, even if economic growth is not what it might otherwise be, that's better shoving the world economy in the hole like a man who revs his engine at a high RPM until he ruins it and it won't run anymore at all.

Think of it like crop rotation. Farmers used to grow the same crop year after year until the soil couldn't grow much of anything anymore because the nutrients were depleted. It was only after farmers learned to rotate crops or let some fields lie fallow for a year or two that farmers were able to maximize their yields in the years that they planted. People and gov'ts have got to start to think longer term instead of just racing from quarter to quarter as if the most important thing in the world were quarterly profit and loss statements.


----------



## Mustang (Apr 26, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



One half of one degree in one hundred years would translate to ten degrees in 2000 years. That's the same amount of time from the days when Jesus was waling around Galilee to now. And 2000 years is not even close to being equivalent to geologic time.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



What makes you think the average temperature would keep going up forever in a linear fashion?   Wouldn't some equilibrium be reached at some point?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 26, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> As with every other issue, since the moment this debate became political there is absolutely no way to trust any advocate, any opinion, any data, or any "chart".
> 
> ...



No thats just a convenient excuse to dismiss any information you dont like.  Either you trust scientists and their methods or you dont.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 26, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




I'll leave such binary thought to partisan ideologues like you.

You're much better at it.

.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 26, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 He never came back   I guess something else is wrong with his Ipad


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 26, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



I notice your non denial response.  Good.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 26, 2014)

I don't necessary trust computer simulations in in the hands of "scientists" that know which results will mean that they will continue to be payed.  Garbage in - Garbage Out.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 26, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> I don't necessary trust computer simulations in in the hands of "scientists" that know which results will mean that they will continue to be payed.  Garbage in - Garbage Out.



Thats not how science works bud.  You're working backwards assuming that if scientists find x then govt will pay them for x.  No matter what its about.  So that would mean that scientists when they first decided to study climate change had to know that someone would pay them FIRST and therefore they had to produce results that would get them paid.

  But thats backwards.  They found the info and govt determined it was important.  

Also, who is paying scientists?  Thats never revealed you guys just assume that since scientists make money then it has to be from someone who wants a certain result.  Except you never have anything on who is paying.    Kinda easy to make assumptions when you're light on the facts


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 26, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > I don't necessary trust computer simulations in in the hands of "scientists" that know which results will mean that they will continue to be payed.  Garbage in - Garbage Out.
> ...



I understand something about government grants for continued research.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 26, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



That happens only after someone has something that govt is interested in not before.  Your timeline is backwards


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 26, 2014)

I am going to give it until 2020. If we don't have a clear sign of surface warming...Well, I am going to join the skeptics and laugh.


----------



## BobPlumb (Apr 26, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Yes.  Today... If they want more money for their computer models for further research, they better damn well find that global warming is a continuing problem.  You think the goverment (Al Gore's cronies) are interested in finding that global warming is not as big of a problem as first predicted?  Since the science is settled any such findings will be discredited and discontinued (no more grant money for you, you global warming denier).


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> and HOLY SHIT, the temp is up 1/2 of a degree in the last 100 years.   Holy shit---------we are all going to boil in seawater by August



Now put this on top of my claim that temperatures should be dropping, and dropping quite a bit.

A few degrees of a temperature increase could see a lot of people under water. 

What impact do you think this will have when China and India are pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere that temperatures increase by 5 degrees or more?

I'm not sure you quite understand the possible implications. We, as humans, can't control what we put in place. Desertification, rising sea levels and many other problems are happening already. Our time on earth, as human beings, is coming to an end, and it's an end we are making.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> OK,just for drill, lets assume that you are frigid are correct and that man is destroying the planet by living on it.   What would you have mankind do?   What specifically do you on the left want the people on earth to do?  how do you plan to force them to do it? and what impact will it have on the world's economic system?   How do you propose to provide fuel for to house, clothe, and feed the people of earth?
> 
> Its fine to cry wolf, but unless you have a plan to kill the wolf, we will just have to live with him.
> 
> But, having said that,  I think you are full of shit.



Do you know what sustainable living is? 

We have enough resources to keep ourselves happy for the rest of eternity. We have the sun, we have waves, we have animal waste, we have wind, etc. 

Oh, but people will talk about the cost. So we go for polluting the earth and killing it because it's cheaper. Oh great.

How many houses do you see with solar panels? How many people live off what is close to them? 

Renewable energy is one way. But also living off what is closer to hand, rather than transporting things around the world when it's not necessary is another. 

You think we're "full of shit", but then it's easy to just think that without having to care about the world, isn't it?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 27, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



Every major international scientific body are "Al Gores cronies"?

Is that your position?


----------



## zeke (Apr 27, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Including NASA. You know that the scientists that work for NASA do get paid by the government. If that ain't "proof" that they are on the take with global warming, well I don't know what other "proof" that you would need.

And if I am not mistaken, I believe that Al Gore ONCE talked to someone who worked at NASA. How much more "proof" you want?

I can make up a ton of it.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > OK,just for drill, lets assume that you are frigid are correct and that man is destroying the planet by living on it.   What would you have mankind do?   What specifically do you on the left want the people on earth to do?  how do you plan to force them to do it? and what impact will it have on the world's economic system?   How do you propose to provide fuel for to house, clothe, and feed the people of earth?
> ...



Yes, I am well aware of all that,  I am also well aware that it cannot work on a large scale.  how do you propose to use sustainable living in New York City or Hong Kong?

Solar panels are great, but you do realize that they only work when the sun is shining on them,  right?   Solar panels don't do shit in the winter in Canada when its 10 below zero and dark 18 hours a day.   Do you think Canadians should be cutting down trees and burning wood all winter rather than using coal and oil?   Do you think burning wood is pollution free?

Finally,  John Lennon's song "Imagine"  was just a song.  The real world does not work that way, but enjoy your delusions while you can.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> BobPlumb said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



It would be if that was true, but its not.   the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 27, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



Your timeline is off.  FIRST it had to be determined that it is a problem in order for someone to find it important enough to fund it.  If they find it is a problem today then guess what?  Thats because it was a problem in the first place from the first study.

You dismiss actual facts, proof and scientific research and instead choose to believe conjecture and assumptions.

Thats fine, the problem is when you believe your conjecture, assumptions and personal attacks has more credibility than the facts.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Yes, I am well aware of all that,  I am also well aware that it cannot work on a large scale.  how do you propose to use sustainable living in New York City or Hong Kong?
> 
> Solar panels are great, but you do realize that they only work when the sun is shining on them,  right?   Solar panels don't do shit in the winter in Canada when its 10 below zero and dark 18 hours a day.   Do you think Canadians should be cutting down trees and burning wood all winter rather than using coal and oil?   Do you think burning wood is pollution free?
> 
> Finally,  John Lennon's song "Imagine"  was just a song.  The real world does not work that way, but enjoy your delusions while you can.



Well, actually my first policy would be one of a reduction in the population. It will happen one way or another. It could be like the Chinese 1 child policy, or it could be through war, I guess we choose but very few countries seem willing to implement this sort of thing. 

A large city would need to be producing a certain amount of its own electricity, solar panels would probably be the main one as they can be put on roofs and whatnot. 
However New York is close to the sea. There are areas around NY that could be used for other types of renewable energy.

Certainly the US is moving towards this at a slow pace, but the reliance on oil and coal etc is going to have to change in the future anyway. 

As for places which don't have so much sun, there are other ways, a combination of different types of energy is the way forwards. And in Canada, well, it's cold and they might need to burn a certain amount of fuel, but then again not that many people live up there compared to the US, or China. Most people in the world live in climates that are actually quite warm. China and India make up 1/3 of the world's population. Okay, China has some cold bits, but they're using Xinjiang in the far west as a major source or renewable energy.

I'm not sure why you're saying the real world doesn't work that way. Is this a case of you don't think it can work, or you just don't like it because oil companies spend a lot of money telling you how much you need oil? 

US renewable. 







Green jobs international





This is for solar thermal energy





The US increase is the worst on this list. 

Chinese investment abroad





Things are possible. What needs to happen is that people need to realise that this has to be the case. It's like an alcoholic who keeps going back to the bar saying they can't sleep if they don't drink, they can't think if they don't drink, they can't be happy if they don't drink. However it's killing them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> It would be if that was true, but its not.   the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.
> 
> You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.



50/50 huh?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > It would be if that was true, but its not.   the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.
> ...



A chart made by someone with an agenda means nothing.   But as I said, enjoy your delusions


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I am well aware of all that,  I am also well aware that it cannot work on a large scale.  how do you propose to use sustainable living in New York City or Hong Kong?
> ...





Lets see now, if your charts and conclusions are correct, we need to kill all the chinese and indians.   Should we nuke them?  no, too much fall out.   Poison their water? stop shipping food to them?   how about the booming populations in indonesia and south america, how do we eliminate them?  

The answer is they will eliminate themselves when their land cannot support them any longer.   

The problem we have as americans is that we think we can control nature, other countries, other humans, the oceans, and how fast the ice melts.  

Man is not the enemy of mother earth.   Conservation is important,  do you understand that conservative is a deriviative of conservation?   conservatives have it in perspective, liberals are all chicken littles crying that the sky is falling.


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 27, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > OK,just for drill, lets assume that you are frigid are correct and that man is destroying the planet by living on it.   What would you have mankind do?   What specifically do you on the left want the people on earth to do?  how do you plan to force them to do it? and what impact will it have on the world's economic system?   How do you propose to provide fuel for to house, clothe, and feed the people of earth?
> ...



CHICKEN LITTLE!!!

There are now over 13,000 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 2.2 million average American homes.

There were 140,000 new solar installations in the U.S. during 2013, bringing the total to over 445,000 PV systems operating today.

The utility market led the charge again with 2,847 MW of PV and 410 MW of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) installed in 2013.
Solar Industry Data | SEIA

In the United States there are  69,865,957 single family dwellings.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/units.html
Given the above rate of adding 140,000 new installs that would reduce a lot of the CO2 right?
Too bad because we are finding out that this excess CO2 is beneficial!
SEAWATER DESALINATION AS A BENEFICIAL FACTOR OF   CO2 SEQUESTRATION 
Because of the costs of transportation, geological sequestration will be most  applicable for one set of power plants, deep ocean sequestration may be most applicable for some  others. In both cases, the sequestration processes can provide some economic benefits. 
Ocean  CO2 disposal can produce desalinated, treated water as a byproduct.
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/1034/5514.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## 1776 (Apr 27, 2014)

One of the founders of Greenpeace has come out and said the global warming nuts are scumbags that are lying about their data to push their socialist and anti-progress agendas.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Lets see now, if your charts and conclusions are correct, we need to kill all the chinese and indians.   Should we nuke them?  no, too much fall out.   Poison their water? stop shipping food to them?   how about the booming populations in indonesia and south america, how do we eliminate them?
> 
> The answer is they will eliminate themselves when their land cannot support them any longer.
> 
> ...



Actually no. We need to kill all Americans and Europeans. They're the ones who use the most. But, yes in the future there will be big problems when China is churning out the same amount of pollution per person as the US. 

When you say they will eliminate themselves, you may not be looking at this right. Who is going to kill who? It'd probably end up in a massive war. Perhaps it's already started. Russia and China v. the US and the West. 

Great. And each kill each other and perhaps 3 billion people die, and then, maybe the world will have some peace. 

Conservative means conserving how things were. That doesn't mean that they want to go forward and conserve the environment.


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



DELUSIONAL???  YOU poke fun of a"chart made by someone"???

Come on let's have some logical rational debate rather then playground name calling!

How about answering this simple question?
when "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the worlds land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So explain to me if 12.5% of the land mass' temperatures WERE NOT included, why wouldn't the temperatures be skewed higher?
Also explain to me WHY NOAA did this:
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News
*
"Distorted data"??? * weather stations located near sweltering...etc... distort the data.

There are over 11,000 weather stations around the world measuring land, air and sea temperatures, as well as satellites, ships and aircraft that also take measurements.
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_observation_networks_systems.php

Explain to me if we can't even measure accurately because we have reading stations using skewed data... how then can we believe your output?
Check this chart again..

10,257 Climate surveys sent to "NOT MILLIONS"... but 10,257 of WHICH
3,146 returned their surveys of which 
77 were climate scientists of which
42 said "yes"

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus? | Watts Up With That?
F


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Did you look at the chart? It's different groups asking similar questions and getting similar answers. 

You say it's 50/50 and don't back it up. I say it's not and do back it up. And you claim I'm the one who is delusional.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



why are you attacking me?  we are on the same side.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...





here ya go, dingleberry.   from wiki

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> here ya go, dingleberry.   from wiki
> 
> List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So, you're sourcing my picture. Okay, and why?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > here ya go, dingleberry.   from wiki
> ...



Because you lied about "scientific community agreement".   There is not agreement, the fact is that no one knows and no one will know for another 500 or 1000 years.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No. I think you've confused me with someone else. 

You made the claim 50/50.



Redfish said:


> It would be if that was true, but its not.   the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.
> 
> You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.



I said it wasn't 50/50 by any stretch of the imagination, hence the chart. 

Why would I say everyone is in agreement?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 27, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You posted the fricken chart, you fricken weirdo.   The chart claims that the vast majority of scientists agree that man is changing the climate of planet earth.   Its a fuckin lie.   I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.  

I know you want to believe it and get the entire world to dance around the may pole singing 'we are the world' but its not going to happen,  its bullshit

pollution is bad,  but pollution is not changing the climate.   AGW is a hoax and algore is a fraud.  

But who gives a shit,  believe whatever you want.


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 27, 2014)

.

MY chart is better than YOUR chart.


----------



## 1776 (Apr 27, 2014)

The incomes of global warming liars in various liberal think tanks and universities relies on keeping the lies alive....that is why they manipulated the data and why they build models to spit out what they want to see. 

It would be like a madman on campus claiming the sky is really red and that his models prove it, just keep sending him more research money so that he can fix it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > BobPlumb said:
> ...



LOL, 50/50 he says. Name one international scientific organization that says AGW is not real. Just *one *organization.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



You just provided proof that included his chart that proves it's nowhere near 50/50 as you've said. You're not too bright, are you?


----------



## healthmyths (Apr 27, 2014)

Redfish said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I am so sorry.  Mea Culpa!  &#1571;&#1606;&#1575; &#1570;&#1587;&#1601;  Je mi líto,  Doleo, &#1071; &#1089;&#1086;&#1078;&#1072;&#1083;&#1077;&#1102;,
There in arabic,Czech,Latin, Russian.. Any other languages you want from Google Translate?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> You posted the fricken chart, you fricken weirdo.   The chart claims that the vast majority of scientists agree that man is changing the climate of planet earth.   Its a fuckin lie.   I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.
> 
> I know you want to believe it and get the entire world to dance around the may pole singing 'we are the world' but its not going to happen,  its bullshit
> 
> ...



Yes, the chart shows that the vast majority agree that it is "largely caused by humans", not totally, but largely caused by. 
You said there was agreement,  "scientific community agreement", which I have taken for 100% agreement. This is not true. 

You sourced the SAME page I got the chart from. 
The chart shows there are SOME scientists who don't agree, and they would make up the around 5% of scientists who don't seem to agree, according to the chart.

But you've made some claims.

1) That 50% more or less of scientists don't agree it's mainly man made. 
2) That pollution doesn't cause global warming.

Prove it. 

All I see is claims. It's easy to make claims. It's not easy to back them up.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

1776 said:


> The incomes of global warming liars in various liberal think tanks and universities relies on keeping the lies alive....that is why they manipulated the data and why they build models to spit out what they want to see.
> 
> It would be like a madman on campus claiming the sky is really red and that his models prove it, just keep sending him more research money so that he can fix it.



Can you prove this?

Also, surely those who deny global warming is man made must also get paid, right?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 28, 2014)

The AGW scam and the Hack-in-Chief's ensuing energy policy has cost every American household thousands of dollars annually since he's been in office. So anyone who attempts to defend the hack or AGW is a hypocrite of the first order -- _unless_ -- they are willing to admit they like wasting everyone's money, including their own.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.



Khabibullo Abdusamatov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthyalmost throughout the last centurygrowth in its intensity."
> 
> This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.



So, not only does he go against man made global warming, which if he has a good case okay, he even has a case for showing that solar activity and temperatures go hand in hand












What this shows is that in the late 1600s sunspot activity was low and there was a mini ice age. The correlation of the stats isn't amazing, for example the ice age started before 1600 when sunspot activity was above 30, in 1800 when sunspot activity was at the same level, temperatures were quite high.
However BE concentration was low at this time but was not particularly low in 1600 when the mini-ice age started. 

But the question here is, does the sun affect global temperatures? Of course it does. Does the sun cause global warming and cooling? Of course it does. 
However, you need to bear in mind there is s difference between global warming and cooling, which is a natural process, and man made global warming which isn't natural. To decide only on of these is the cause of anything is ridiculous.
As I've suggested we had natural global warming over the 100,000 year cycle, and now we should be seeing natural global cooling. We're not. We're seeing global warming still. It's difficult to say exactly when something like this should happen. It's only been going on for 400,000 years or so. 

Timothy Ball - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Ball has also claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, to be the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[25] claims he also made in a letter to the then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[26] However, on April 23, 2006, Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, wrote a letter to the Herald in which he stated that at the time Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed.[27] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.[28]
> 
> In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[29] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[26] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[28] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.


So this guy is just a liar. 

Robert M. Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Robert Merlin "Bob" Carter is a climate change skeptic who came to prominence in 2006 by arguing that global warming trends had ceased in 1998.[1] Not formally qualified in climate science, he has been a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist[2][3], but currently holds no academic post.





> In 2006, he argued against climate change being "man-made" by asserting that the global average temperature did not increase between 1998 and 2005, while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.



Like I've said before, there is natural warming and cooling, and there is man made influence. To deny man made influence just because temperatures didn't rise is quite ridiculous.



> In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[30] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments.[30] Carter has denied that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought.[31]


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> The AGW scam and the Hack-in-Chief's ensuing energy policy has cost every American household thousands of dollars annually since he's been in office. So anyone who attempts to defend the hack or AGW is a hypocrite of the first order -- _unless_ -- they are willing to admit they like wasting everyone's money, including their own.



I love it when the right come on here and talk about waste of money.

You know your healthcare scam costs you BILLIONS?

For a start, healthcare spends 30% on administration, compared to Canada's 15%. 

Then about 20-30% goes on corruption. 

So, of the 50% that is paid for through health insurance, almost all of it goes on either corruption or unnecessary administration (ie, administering the health insurance).

Ever wondered why the US spends twice as much as anyone else? Now you know. 

But who complains about the rising costs of fuel AND the high cost of healthcare? 

Probably not you, do you feel happy with the corruption in healthcare?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

continued:


Redfish said:


> I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Clark_(geologist)



> In the 2007 UK television documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle", he states that changes in global temperature correlate with solar activity, saying "Solar activity of the last hundred years, over the last several hundred years correlates very nicely on a decadal basis, with sea ice and Arctic temperatures."



Well I've discussed this previously. 

Chris de Freitas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In 2013 De Freitas said the devastating heatwave and wildfires that ravaged New South Wales in January were not linked to climate change, and said the Earth hasn't warmed at all in a decade.[3]



And this one previously too. 

David Douglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A 2005 study by Douglass and fellow University of Rochester physicist Robert S. Knox argued that global climate models underestimated the climate response to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The study also contended that global temperature returned to normal much faster after the eruption than the models had predicted.[1][2]
> 
> A 2007 paper by Douglass and coworkers questioned the reliability of 22 of the most commonly used global climate models analyzed by Benjamin D. Santer and used by the IPCC to predict accelerated warming in the troposphere.[3] [4] The study had originally been submitted to Geophysical Research Letters the previous year, but was rejected in September 2006 on Santer's recommendation.[5] Santer and 17 co-authors later rebutted Douglass' paper.



So this one is more about the way models work. And he may be right, he may not be right. His paper was rebutted however. He isn't necessarily against the view that climate change isn't man made.

Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Dr. Easterbrook holds that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes.





> "If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."[1]



He actually supports my view that global temperatures should be dropping. They should cool, but they're not cooling at all. He said this in 2006. Well, 8 years later and temperatures are not cool. 



> While IPCC was predicting global warming, Easterbrook (2001) predicted three decades of cooling due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting from its warm to cool phase.[5] He correlated PDO with climatic changes over the last 500 years.[6]
> 
> "The IPCC has predicted a global temperature increase of 0.6°C (1°F) by 2011 and 1.2°C (2°F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3 yrs) and cooling of about 0.30.5°C by 2040."



And he said this should start around 2007. 

William M. Gray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."



Written in 2006. 

So, another scientist who said that global temperatures SHOULD be getting cooler. But they're not. 

William Happer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In February 2009 Happer testified before the U.S. Congress, "I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind", for among other reasons because of its beneficial effects on plant growth.[9]





> He also claimed that global warming has stopped in the last 10 years.



So another person who is taking views of temperatures not rising massively as a sign that man made global warming isn't happening, which i find ridiculous.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

And there are some who claim man made global warming will have few negative effects.

Craig D. Idso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Idso is a lead author of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),[8][9] a project sponsored by the Heartland Institute.[10] An unauthorized release of documents indicate Idso received $11,600 per month in 2012 from the Heartland Institute.[11]



The Heartland Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which states that it advocates free market policies.





> In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[12][13][14] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of human-caused climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[



So the guy works for a company which generally promotes money over health. Clearly tobacco doesn't cause cancer, and clearly there is no need for healthcare reforms (who doesn't love corruption and over spending?). 

Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades.





> He stated in 2000:[9]
> 
> cientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years]









Well they've risen 0.1 -ish since then. And that's including the reality that temperatures should have dropped. 



> On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.



Damn, this seems to be good business. Get on the side of the people with money and interest in making sure global warming is not seen as man made, and hey presto, a ton of money in your account.


----------



## Freewill (Apr 28, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> And Australia has been seeing record heat. So what's your point? Australia's 2014 Heat Wave Picks Up Where 2013 Left Off | Climate Central
> 
> Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?
> 
> I mean, I know you don't. They don't teach those types of things at the Monster Truck Rally.



Isn't a heat wave weather?  Isn't Australia's climate normally hot and dry?  What is changing?


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Ame®icano;8993068 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, have you red the article?

Even then, in 1975 they were not sure what term to use to distort the data. From the article you're referring to:



> In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."



How convenient, eh?

Before 70's, there was cooling period, therefore term climate change was used. Then temperature started rising, suddenly term global warming became convenient again. Then we entered in cooling cycle again, guess what term is popular again. 

Of course, climate change is happening since Earth begun and I don't know anyone that denies that. What I am against is self serving politicians and scientists that are cashing on it. Please explain, where would carbon tax go and how that tax will affect the heating or cooling trends?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9006782 said:
			
		

> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;8993068 said:
> ...



Just stop saying its a new thing because as you read there...its been around for 4 decades.

Boom!


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Ame®icano;9006782 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The term itself has been around since beginning of the last century.

Only used when there is no data that support "global warming". 

Apparently, since we're in cooling period, liberals can't use "global warming" term.

I am asking again, how proposed taxes on carbon will be used, to cool the planet or to warm it up?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9007154 said:
			
		

> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;9006782 said:
> ...



Look just stop saying Climate Change is a new term because its not.  

To answer your question: I dont know, but that doesnt change the science of Global Warming.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9007154 said:
			
		

> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;9006782 said:
> ...



Don't worry, this summer after a few wild fires make huge headlines GW will be brought back, until September and ice storms cause massive damage in what's left of Detroit. Then it will be "climate change"  again. I wonder if there were bed wetter Neanderthals that demanded their fellow cave dwellers put out their fires due to the glaciers slowly moving in on them. Maybe that's why they disappeared. Moonbat Neanderthals convinced everyone the witch doctor's "science" was settled, and that they needed to make sacrifice to "protect mother earth".


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Ame®icano;9007154 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a bullshit term. We already had a "term" for it. It was called "Seasons" and it had nothing to do with Santa, or any of the religious holidays you hate.

It is a "new term" in the sense that you bed wetters adopted it and promoted it to shift attention from the fact that "global warming" was bullshit. The "science" you're so convinced is "settled", is little more than "political science" where you study polls and popular opinion manipulation.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Pete7469 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;9007154 said:
> ...



   Yes thats what Climate Change is...Its the Seasons  

*wipes tear from eye*


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes. 

Or maybe I'm just farting too much....?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > You posted the fricken chart, you fricken weirdo.   The chart claims that the vast majority of scientists agree that man is changing the climate of planet earth.   Its a fuckin lie.   I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.
> ...



The data that has been presented, some of it by you, proves what I have said.  

But even if man is causing climate change (which he isn't) there is nothing we can do about it short of executing about 3 billion people.  

But you were asked earlier how putting a carbon tax on individuals and industries will stop man made climate change.    It won't.   What it will do is cause an inflationary rise in prices, recessions and depressions, poorer quality of life, death to a lot of poor people, and possibly a world war.  

in short, you whole rhetoric on this topic is based on ignorance.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just farting too much....?



cow farts----------we must ban cow farts.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> *The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes. *
> 
> Or maybe I'm just farting too much....?



According to science right?  Isnt that ironic.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Apr 28, 2014)

I wonder, if we said Yep, the climate is changing because of our actions, but there's nothing we can do about it, would the climate change deniers suddenly change their tune say, Yep, it's gettin' hot around these parts that's for sure.  That Climate Change could be trouble after all...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> The data that has been presented, some of it by you, proves what I have said.
> 
> But even if man is causing climate change (which he isn't) there is nothing we can do about it short of executing about 3 billion people.
> 
> ...



I'm going to focus on certain parts. 



> But even if man is causing climate change (which he isn't)



What do you mean by this? Do you mean man has no impact on the climate whatsoever? Do you mean that man has less than 50% impact on climate change? 

Climate change happens naturally. Also climate change can happen by other factors, like pollution. I believe that what is happening now is not natural. We should be seeing colder temperatures and we're not. Why? 



> there is nothing we can do about it short of executing about 3 billion people.



Well, it doesn't necessarily have to be executing people. It has to be the realisation that populations need to be cut back, people need to have less kids. Also, there are plenty of other things that can happen. We can live more in tune with the world around us. 



> But you were asked earlier how putting a carbon tax on individuals and industries will stop man made climate change.    It won't.   What it will do is cause an inflationary rise in prices, recessions and depressions, poorer quality of life, death to a lot of poor people, and possibly a world war.



Hmm. Not sure if carbon tax will cause all of these things. However all of these things are a major possibility. 
Price rises can lead to people using less. Big cars in the US, small cars in Europe, why? Tax on oil is much higher, people can't afford to use so much. However a lot of pollution is caused by business, who might also need to make a profit. 
Recessions and depressions happen anyway, they're natural.
World War, which is looking more likely every year, is going to happen if there aren't enough resources. There won't be enough because we'll have used them all up by some time in the future. 

This is good reason for using renewable energy, so that we're prepared for the inevitable. 


As for based on ignorance. Come off it. You're claiming stuff. That's all you're doing. You've not backed much up. The only thing you've sourced is a wiki page with the list of a FEW scientists who deny completely or partially that man made global warming exists. Some are based on facts and figures, others seem to be scientists who have nothing to do with climate change who get given a check from some right wing foundation and then spout off that climate change isn't happening because "temperatures haven't risen in 10 years", as if pointing out one fact is suddenly science.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Simple explanation into the "man has no effect on the earth" argument.

Man drops every nuke that exists at the same time.  Massive explosions and destruction.  Earth will be fine.

Everyone knows thats stupid to believe that....So man has to have some effect on the earth.  Period


----------



## Erand7899 (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > *The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes. *
> ...



Wow!  You mean like winter and summer, ice ages alternate between the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere?  I think you need a real science book.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > *The Earth shifts on its axis approximately every 10,000 years. As a result of this gradual shift climate changes. *
> ...



According to reality. Science is an EVOLVING and ever CHANGING creation of man.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Simple explanation into the "man has no effect on the earth" argument.
> 
> Man drops every nuke that exists at the same time.  Massive explosions and destruction.  Earth will be fine.
> 
> Everyone knows thats stupid to believe that....So man has to have some effect on the earth.  Period


You can't hurt the planet, it's a rock that's been through literal Hell, but you can make it so nothing can live on it.  Been there, going back now.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



You've seen the earth shift?  You're over 10,000 years old?

Or did you get that from scientists who do science while trying to convince everyone else that science is bullshit and using it to strengthen your argument.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I take it you still believe the earth is flat and everything revolves around us huh?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis, theory & fact


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Science says no, Science also says the earth is rotating on an axis and Science says that Global Warming is happening.

You believe 2 of those 3 and cant explain why


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis, theory & fact


Very few Americans do.  It's an ignorant nation.


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Which is it? Global warming or climate change. Make up your mind.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9007648 said:
			
		

> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Both terms have been around since the beginning so you choose.  Its only been around 40 years and I know time flies but...


----------



## KNB (Apr 28, 2014)

Since when has the American Taliban ever believed science?  These are the same people who want Bible studies in public school to give "fair and balanced" education to kids as they simultaneously learn about evolution in science class.  This planet is our only home and it is being poisoned on a global scale.  The greed of the international super-rich and their desire for "greater net worth" and productivity has led to a rapid degradation of the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

You can't convince the American Taliban that they are wrong.  These people hide behind human shields and threaten violence against America to get what they want, and what they want is always based on wrong information because they shun science and learning.

Right-wing Tea party traitors need to stop arguing against science.  FOX says that science is okay.  Learn science.
COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I believe what is PROVEN. If and when global warming BECAUSE OF MAN is proven I will change my mind. Until then I will remain skeptical as any rational person would.

A few years ago they said we were depleating our ozone and causing holes in it. Now those same holes are disappearing and we as humans have made no changes to cause that repair. It's all speculation at this point. Were it not for the stupid political agenda that has attached itself to this issue we wouldn't even be discussing it.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

KNB said:


> Since when has the American Taliban ever believed science?  These are the same people who want Bible studies in public school to give "fair and balanced" education to kids as they simultaneously learn about evolution in science class.  This planet is our only home and it is being poisoned on a global scale.  The greed of the international super-rich and their desire for "greater net worth" and productivity has led to a rapid degradation of the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> You can't convince the American Taliban that they are wrong.  These people hide behind human shields and threaten violence against America to get what they want, and what they want is always based on wrong information because they shun science and learning.
> 
> ...



You could paint an entire barn in one stroke with that brush.......dick


----------



## KNB (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> KNB said:
> 
> 
> > Since when has the American Taliban ever believed science?  These are the same people who want Bible studies in public school to give "fair and balanced" education to kids as they simultaneously learn about evolution in science class.  This planet is our only home and it is being poisoned on a global scale.  The greed of the international super-rich and their desire for "greater net worth" and productivity has led to a rapid degradation of the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> ...


Stop arguing against science, stop pushing for religion in schools, stop hiding behind human shields to protect criminals and threatening America with violence, and then maybe the rest of America won't think that you're the American equivalent of the Taliban.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

KNB said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > KNB said:
> ...



Blablablablabladnctalkingpointstupidityblablabla


----------



## Erand7899 (Apr 28, 2014)

KNB said:


> Since when has the American Taliban ever believed science?  These are the same people who want Bible studies in public school to give "fair and balanced" education to kids as they simultaneously learn about evolution in science class.  This planet is our only home and it is being poisoned on a global scale.  The greed of the international super-rich and their desire for "greater net worth" and productivity has led to a rapid degradation of the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> You can't convince the American Taliban that they are wrong.  These people hide behind human shields and threaten violence against America to get what they want, and what they want is always based on wrong information because they shun science and learning.
> 
> ...



You loves you some science, don't you, KNB?  And, you just hate those sons-of-bitches who don't buy into your science, don't you, KNB?  How dare they disagree with scientists?  Who the hell do they think they are?  Scientists are smart.  Those bastards aren't smart.  

Science is a discipline, KNB.  It is not a religion.  It is not a sin to think for yourself, or disagree with scientists.  In addition, science is the establishment of fact and solid theory.  It is not determined by majority vote, or even a super majority vote.  Neither fact, nor solid theory contains qualifiers like "may" or "very likely".  That is opinion, not science.

Are you aware that it is impossible to know exactly where you are, and how fast you are moving, at the same time?  Science is strange, isn't it?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

Bill Nye The Science guy (the guy from the kiddie tv show) said it's real so you know, who can argue with such brilliance? 

Once upon a time nearly every scientist believed the earth to be flat and the other celestial objects revolved around it. The dicenters? Executed for blasphemy.  

Times don't change much do they? Substitute public humiliation for executions and NOTHING has changed.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Apr 28, 2014)

Ahhhhhhhhhhh........."Science" 

You must mean the scientific geniuses that claim that there is no genetic differences in IQ between races and gender ?

That AIDS was a heterosexual disease ?

That banning DDT saved lives ?

That breast implants caused auto-immune diseases ?

That embrionic stem cells had cured one thing ?

That cerebral palsey was caused by noncesarian deliveries ?

That global cooling was an imminent threat ?

That the population explosion was an imminent threat ?

That climate change is the newest imminent threat ?

Margaret Sangers Eugenics ?

You mean all that SCIENCE ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Apr 28, 2014)

LogikAndReazon said:


> Ahhhhhhhhhhh........."Science"
> 
> You must mean the scientific geniuses that claim that there is no genetic differences in IQ between races and gender ?
> 
> ...



And the, Throw the baby out with the bathwater contingent has spoken.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 28, 2014)

KNB said:


> Since when has the American Taliban ever believed science?  These are the same people who want Bible studies in public school to give "fair and balanced" education to kids as they simultaneously learn about evolution in science class.  This planet is our only home and it is being poisoned on a global scale.  The greed of the international super-rich and their desire for "greater net worth" and productivity has led to a rapid degradation of the environment since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> You can't convince the American Taliban that they are wrong.  These people hide behind human shields and threaten violence against America to get what they want, and what they want is always based on wrong information because they shun science and learning.
> 
> ...



Let's drop the Taliban crap and TALK ABOUT the "science".. CO2 has an effect on the surface warning. Basic Atmospheric Physics calculates this to be about 1.2degC per DOUBLING of CO2. So the the pre-indust. levels of 280ppm have YET to doubled. We are currently flirting with just 400ppm. Which means it will be 2040 or later before we even come near this doubling. 

And current ACTUAL DATA confirms this level of heating or something slightly less. To be a believer in Global Warming and the weak science associated with all the doom and gloom, you've got to believe that the Earth's climate is so fragile that this *1.2degC will MAGICALLY MULTIPLY into 4 or even 8 degC for each doubling of CO2*. Essentially saying that the Earth will commit planetcide if ANY radiative forcing causes the temperature to rise just a couple degrees. This is bunk and hokum.. Because the Earth's climate has seen MUCH MORE instances of temp change and never turned into a dead planet like Venus. 

Take it from a Taliban member.. The science is getting slightly better since the accuracy of the IPCC models has been smashed by this 15 year PAUSE in warming. The admissions that the climate is MORE COMPLEX than the models is all for the good of the science. NOT SO GOOD for the GW faithful.. In fact, MANY prestigious institutes are now modifying their terrifying predictions and ADMITTING that there is MASSIVE heat storage and LONG delays that were not accounted for in the models. See Max Planck Inst.  for example of late.

Take your Taliban crap and shove it where the sun don't warm the planet...


----------



## zeke (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



That's not exactly correct. We humans, at the urging of the hated EPA, changed the type of coolants and refrigerants from FREON to HCFC's. It was felt that the FREON, when released into the atmosphere contributed greatly to the hole that was forming.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



You havent seen earths axis or its tilting every 10,000 years so...

Wait, so you believe that there are holes in the ozone or that they have been repaired too.  Amazing how much you base your arguement on science while trying to convince everyone to ignore it.

Did you see the holes in the Ozone yourself or believe scientists again?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I guess he means by doing nothing he really meant did something


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Bill Nye The Science guy (the guy from the kiddie tv show) said it's real so you know, who can argue with such brilliance?



Not you obviously.   



> Once upon a time nearly every scientist believed the earth to be flat and the other celestial objects revolved around it. The dicenters? Executed for blasphemy.



Oh dear!  



> Times don't change much do they? Substitute public humiliation for executions and NOTHING has changed.



No times dont change and you are communicating to everyone from beyond the grave or acting like a drama queen.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



It was one of many hypothesis but to believe that the holes closed up because AMERICA dropped ONE chemical while the rest of the industrialized world chuggs along is kinda farfetched don't ya think?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

zeke said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



and you can PROVE that those changes closed the ozone holes?   Can't wait to see it.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...





but but but chemicals are evil and we hate them, an stuff


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



but....you just said we did nothing and now you know all about it?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Simple explanation into the "man has no effect on the earth" argument.
> 
> Man drops every nuke that exists at the same time.  Massive explosions and destruction.  Earth will be fine.
> 
> Everyone knows thats stupid to believe that....So man has to have some effect on the earth.  Period



What do you mean "Earth will be fine"? Sure, the Earth would recover. But human life on Earth would be gone. 

So, do you want to die?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Simple explanation into the "man has no effect on the earth" argument.
> ...



No, I agree with you.  I'm just pointing out how stupid it is to say man has no effect on the earth or its climate.

Dropping every nuke in the world would have an "impact".  Kinda blows apart that whole argument


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Simple explanation into the "man has no effect on the earth" argument.
> ...



Sure, 1000 nukes going off at the same time would eliminate human life on earth,  and all of the fallout would ------------------- yee haa,  change the climate for a few thousand years-----------so yes, man could change the climate of our planet-----------you win.  

BUT, burning oil, coal, and natural gas to improve the lives of humans is not, could not, will not, change the climate enough for anyone to notice,  2/10 of a degree every 200 years----------its nothing, its within the measurement error of the measurement instruments----------its theory.

But, if you want to live under a rock and eat leaves--------go right ahead---save the world.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Admitting you're wrong is the first step


----------



## Trinnity (Apr 28, 2014)

Global warming/climate change isn't science, it's a political agenda. The purpose is to control business, people, money, and property. It's just another tactic globalist/Marxists are using to rob you of everything you have. We are not fooled..............


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



are you ready to take that step?   come on, you can do it


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > zeke said:
> ...



There is no link between the banning of freon and the holes closing beyond timeline. Please give me the cause & effect if you propose otherwise.

Also, dinosaurs died off and mammals rose up. Did the mammals kill off the dinosaurs?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

Trinnity said:


> Global warming/climate change isn't science, it's a political agenda. The purpose is to control business, people, money, and property. It's just another tactic globalist/Marxists are using to rob you of everything you have. We are not fooled..............



what's sad is that so many are fooled,  the libs on this message board verify that.


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Don't you klnow anything?  dinosaur farts caused the seas to boil and kill off the dinosaurs, then mammals appeared and began nursing their babies and thats why all men like boobs.   

sorry, but I had to beat the libs to it


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



How do you know there is no link?  2 posts ago you said we didnt do anything to address the holes in the Ozone   You got some catching up to do.

C'mon bro...Plus how do you know there were holes in the Ozone?  Are you relying on science again?  How?  You keep saying science is wrong?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Yes, we did something,  there is no proof that it worked.  But what it did do is make airconditioners more expensive to buy and service and less efficient because of the new chemicals.   

BTW, the chinese are still using freon and releasing it.   Should we nuke them?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Theres no proof what worked?


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Yeah, remember when hair spray was banned because of ozone holes?

Somehow they forgot to ban asthma inhalers...


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



you claimed that banning freon closed the ozone holes.   Can you prove it worked?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9008304 said:
			
		

> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...




Ah, yes, the evil hairspray in aerosol cans.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



I dunno can you prove there were holes there in the first place?  You seem to believe there were relying on science and scientists.

How do you believe that while telling everyone science isnt true? 

How can you and Gramps believe science while saying you dont believe science?


----------



## Redfish (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I never said that I believed there were ozone holes, that man caused them, or that man fixed them.   Real science includes both the hypothesis and the proof,  all you have is an unproven theory and some bullshit that it can be fixed by throwing money at it.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Because you can physically see the holes idiot. And we haven't done anything to fix them. Unless you believe the use of freon in SEALED units caused it. Give some verifiable proof dummy


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



So you dont believe it then?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



you can see ozone holes?  Is that like how you "saw" the earth tilting on its "axis" every 10,000 years?  Or are you jumping on the "science is real" side again?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Photographs are science? If I take a picture of a donkeys ass and claim it's you is that science?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Sure, 1000 nukes going off at the same time would eliminate human life on earth,  and all of the fallout would ------------------- yee haa,  change the climate for a few thousand years-----------so yes, man could change the climate of our planet-----------you win.
> 
> BUT, burning oil, coal, and natural gas to improve the lives of humans is not, could not, will not, change the climate enough for anyone to notice,  2/10 of a degree every 200 years----------its nothing, its within the measurement error of the measurement instruments----------its theory.
> 
> But, if you want to live under a rock and eat leaves--------go right ahead---save the world.



You say it won't change the climate enough for anyone to notice. I disagree.

CO2 and temperature rise go hand in hand. 







Here's a limited record of CO2 and temperatures, CO2 and temperatures are pretty similar, except in the last hundred years or less.
Which comes first, CO2 rising or temperatures rising? Is it the CO2 that causes the rise, or is it the temperature rise that causes more CO2? 
Why do they go hand in hand?

What happens when they don't? 

The answer is we don't know. What we do know is that when humans ever mess with nature in a big way, it goes wrong. 

You're talking 2/10th a degree every 200 years. I'm talking more than that. 

Like I've said, and like some scientists who deny man made global warming and others have said, we should be getting colder. All predictions based on the 100,000 year cycle suggest that at some point from the 1990s to the 2000s we should have been getting colder, and quite a bit colder. 
We're not, so the temperature rises you're talking about should also take into account the supposed drop we should be experiencing. It's not about about slowly we're getting warmer, it should be how far away we are from the natural temperature.

And whether it's theory or not, it doesn't matter. It's actually gambling. 
You're betting that nothing will happen. You're betting that CO2 emissions, a known greenhouse gas, plus other gases like methane which are even stronger, will go into the atmosphere, as as a greenhouse gas, increase temperatures slightly and woohoo, suddenly Canada becomes the sunshine state. 

What you have to remember is this. CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere a long time. 

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

according to wikipedia we've seen an increase of 40% of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750. In theory we should be seeing a reduction in the last few years. We're not. 

Methane has seen a 167% increase. 

The more we pump out, and the reality that they spend a long time in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect means we could be a majorly warm greenhouse. Before these gases had time to escape and weren't always replaced, hence we went up and down. Now we're just going up. DO you think anything can cope with just going up?

A funny thing is, the Ozone layer. It was discovered in 1913, by 1978 people realised we were doing harm to it. Yet the EU didn't bother. The US, Canada and Norway put things in place. A few years later and the finding of the ozone layer being depleted caused more people to take notice. 
Since then the depletion of the ozone layer has lowered. Why? We did something about it.

Now, scientists who claimed there was a problem with the ozone, are probably very similar to those saying that man is having an adverse effect on the climate.

But you seem to be a gambling man. I'm not.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Thats not proof.  A Photo?  Who photographed it Sears or scientists you are telling everyone is wrong? 

You have a photo of earths axis too?  And the tilt every 10,000 years or nah?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

Redfish said:


> I never said that I believed there were ozone holes, that man caused them, or that man fixed them.   Real science includes both the hypothesis and the proof,  all you have is an unproven theory and some bullshit that it can be fixed by throwing money at it.



I remember Jaime Oliver's TV program. He went to a school somewhere in the US to change how kids eat. He was told they got everything they needed. A pizza, for example, has veg, it has protein, it has carbohydrates, so it is considered good food for kids, by some people. 
The system is clearly broken. 

They told him if he could prove that his way worked, he could introduce it. But he couldn't prove it worked until it was introduced. Great.

Now, with man made climate change, people will only sit up and listen when it's too late, when the damage has already been done. This is the problem.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Actually yes we do have photography of the axis changing, of sorts. It's on Egyption & other ancient ruins in the form of how the stars in the sky were aligned thousands of years ago as compared to now. Does that make the ancients that scribbled on walls, what they saw with their own eyes scientists?

Just give up fool. You are out of your league


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Just stop. You're only embarrassing yourself now.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

That just proves the stars move not the existence of an axis.

Its funny watching you explain and believe some science...even wall scribble and can't explain why other science should be dismissed.  Its almost as if you are going on. ..nothing other than wanting to believe wall drawings and not wanting to believe science but only sometimes...can't explain that either


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> That just proves the stars move not the existence of an axis.
> 
> Its funny watching you explain and believe some science...even wall scribble and can't explain why other science should be dismissed.  Its almost as if you are going on. ..nothing other than wanting to believe wall drawings and not wanting to believe science but only sometimes...can't explain that either



Stars don't move across the sky idiot. The earth does and that is represented in what we see and how it's position changes over time. Galaxys are drifting away from us but from our vantage point the only thing that gives it away is the color they produce. The stars remain fixed in their positions and our wobble makes them appear to be moving. 

Again, you are lost.....in space


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Another uneducated fool on the subject enters the room.

Cannon fodder


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read this instead of your stupid Democrat Talking Point Weekly subscription


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 28, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, 1000 nukes going off at the same time would eliminate human life on earth,  and all of the fallout would ------------------- yee haa,  change the climate for a few thousand years-----------so yes, man could change the climate of our planet-----------you win.
> ...



Sorry you brought up the Ice Core records. Close inspection will show that OFTEN the Temperature LED the changes in CO2 concentrations. Could be real -- could be an artifact of the lousy time resolution inherent in the Ice Core records. But it's generally acknowledged that when you MELT A LOT OF GLACIER COVERED ground -- the CO2 level will follow the temperature rise. 

That --- and the BEST explanation for what really DROVE AND INITIATED this series of Ice Ages is Milankovitch Cycles. Natural variations in the dynamics of Earth's orbit.. 

NEXT !!!!!!

NOTE: COLORS are reversed in this version of the plot..


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 28, 2014)

You can see in your original plot at 125 MYr ago -- the CO2 level is at a RELATIVE MAX whilst the temperatures are PLUMETTING down...


----------



## Edgetho (Apr 28, 2014)

Don't confuse them with actual, real science.  What's wrong with you?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Sorry you brought up the Ice Core records. Close inspection will show that OFTEN the Temperature LED the changes in CO2 concentrations. Could be real -- could be an artifact of the lousy time resolution inherent in the Ice Core records. But it's generally acknowledged that when you MELT A LOT OF GLACIER COVERED ground -- the CO2 level will follow the temperature rise.
> 
> That --- and the BEST explanation for what really DROVE AND INITIATED this series of Ice Ages is Milankovitch Cycles. Natural variations in the dynamics of Earth's orbit..
> 
> ...



The point I'm making isn't one of CO2 levels rising therefore temperatures rise anyway. So....

The point I'm making is that they often go hand in hand. Also, that there is an unknown out there, with the rising CO2 levels going to directions not seen before, what is the impact going to be? 
We know they're a greenhouse gas and we know what greenhouse gases do. 
So, we know the greenhouse effect is going to get worse.

Now, the point here is, rising temperatures and rising CO2 go hand in hand. At some point things stop, and turn around. CO2 levels drop and temperature levels drop. But we're not going to see a drop in CO2 levels now that we're pumping CO2 into the air on a massive scale.

So what will happen? 

The answer is we don't know. There are educated guessed, there are just pure denials that anything is going to happen, and there is make belief. 

However, you put things together, and what do you think is actually going to happen? Nothing? Destruction of humanity? You decide.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

The Earths climate shifts were far more dramatic than anything man has ever seen and most of it was before we even existed. 

Climate change IS REAL. It is also  a NATURALLY occuring phenomenon.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

Democrats can't even fix the fucking welfare problem and they "think" they're on some kind of save the world crusade with this bullshit.  

It's hysterical


----------



## Mustang (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> The Earths climate shifts were far more dramatic than anything man has ever seen and most of it was before we even existed.
> 
> Climate change IS REAL. It is also  a NATURALLY occuring phenomenon.



Is it a natural phenomenon to dig carbon out of the ground where it's been for millions of years away from the natural carbon cycle and then reintroduce it to the atmosphere after burning it?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > The Earths climate shifts were far more dramatic than anything man has ever seen and most of it was before we even existed.
> ...



Is it a natural cycle to fill landfills with your household garbage? 

Do you drive a horse & buggy?

Flintstone mobile?

Moped?




Just stuff it


----------



## mamooth (Apr 28, 2014)

Check it out. Some of the crazies are actually denying ozone depletion too. Why? Because TheParty ordered them to, and few of the cultists have the brains or courage to contradict TheParty.

As another example, I also know, without asking, that the same cultists will also swear DDT was nearly harmless, and that restricting it killed millions. It's laughably stupid junk science and historical revisionism on their part, but TheParty has spoken, hence they'll obey. There's a whole long list of superstitious nonsense that the faithful here must chant as mantras, else they get kicked out of the cult.


----------



## Mustang (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Is that a no?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



NOTHING humans do is natural to the earth you moron. So what's your point?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out. Some of the crazies are actually denying ozone depletion too. Why? Because TheParty ordered them to, and few of the cultists have the brains or courage to contradict TheParty.
> 
> As another example, I also know, without asking, that the same cultists will also swear DDT was nearly harmless, and that restricting it killed millions. It's laughably stupid junk science and historical revisionism on their part, but TheParty has spoken, hence they'll obey. There's a whole long list of superstitious nonsense that the faithful here must chant as mantras, else they get kicked out of the cult.



The ozone has been rebuilding itself. Has nothing to do with politics.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > That just proves the stars move not the existence of an axis.
> ...



According to what?  Science?  But you already said you dont believe it.



> The earth does and that is represented in what we see and how it's position changes over time. Galaxys are drifting away from us but from our vantage point the only thing that gives it away is the color they produce. The stars remain fixed in their positions and our wobble makes them appear to be moving.
> 
> Again, you are lost.....in space



Wow that sounds like science!  So again, why do you believe some science (for no reason) and dont believe other science (for no reason)?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Because your "science" has a political agenda. 

This science does not:Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Check it out. Some of the crazies are actually denying ozone depletion too. Why? Because TheParty ordered them to, and few of the cultists have the brains or courage to contradict TheParty.
> ...



According to science   Ironic aint it


----------



## mamooth (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> The ozone has been rebuilding itself. Has nothing to do with politics.



It does, however, have to do with banning most CFCs and other ozone-munchers.

For god's sake, learn a little science. The smoking gun there was found decades ago. That is, CFC breakdown products -- of which there are no natural sources -- found in precisely the same areas as the new ozone depletion.

And the ozone isn't rebuilding itself. Yet. It's basically just started turning around from the minimum now, because we haven't completely stopped emitting ozone destroyers, and because the stuff already in the atmosphere takes decades to be removed.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

Everyone notice what an uninformed coward ClosedCaption is? He won't discuss anything in detail but instead obsesses over the definition of science. I gave him a link that backs up my statements without it having any political or other type of implications or motives.

Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Wait but the first line says "Milankovitch theory"?  You told me that theories dont count because they are unprovable yet here you are saying this theory is real?

Its a shame when the only reason you believe something is because you want to and cant explain it.  Its even worse when its on display for the last 3 pages of you going between quoting science, saying science is bias, opting for cave drawings as proof, then quoting science again.

Truely awesome


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I never said science was biased idiot. I said YOUR science has a motive, a political one at that. I also said if proof was provided I would go from a skeptic to a believer. But all you've offered are semantics and childish nonsense over the fucking word science.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Everyone notice what an uninformed coward ClosedCaption is? He won't discuss anything in detail but instead obsesses over the definition of science. I gave him a link that backs up my statements without it having any political or other type of implications or motives.
> 
> Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Its a theory.  You said you dont believe theories.  Why is one theory ok and another not ok?  

Stomping your feet and saying "because!" doesnt count.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone notice what an uninformed coward ClosedCaption is? He won't discuss anything in detail but instead obsesses over the definition of science. I gave him a link that backs up my statements without it having any political or other type of implications or motives.
> ...



The link provides data to back up the theory.  Not my fault you're too stupid to understand it.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Climate change IS REAL. It is also  a NATURALLY occuring phenomenon.



"Species have gone extinct in the past. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon. Therefore, humans can't cause any species to go extinct, and it must all be natural instead."

That's your logic. It's quite amusing. You really shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your cute but dumb stories. Away to the kiddie table with you, at least until you stop failing so hard at basic logic.

That is, in general, one way to tell scientists from deniers. Scientists have practiced logic and problem setup for years, so they're good at it. Deniers, OTOH, have actively avoided exposing themselves to logic (as it tends to burn them like sunlight burning a vampire), hence they've never learned how to think logically.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Yeah but what you say and what you can prove are two different things.  You can say you're the king of the world but the proof is what you provided so far.

Nothing.

But go on and tell everyone how theories are unproven while telling everyone your theory is right.  Its fun watching you contradict and almost debate yourself.

So Gramps, Can you tell Gramps why theories are fake?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



 If it was true it wouldnt be a theory now would it.  Thats your arguement against Global Warming theory.  What?  Now that doesnt count anymore?    Why not?  Because you're peeing yourself about it?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Negged. All you've done is debated at a grammar school level. I've provide you FACTS about history as well as scientific theory that is backed up by FACTS that don't contradict themselves. 

What have you offered to promote what you believe? Not a god damn thing.

As usual you bring nothing of substance to the table so we're done.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change IS REAL. It is also  a NATURALLY occuring phenomenon.
> ...



While you suck on the neg I just gave you read this:
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Yeah Egypt drawings and theories are proof now.  All that was missing to make it true is Gramps blessing.

Malankovitch theory True

Global Warming Theory Not True

The difference: Gramps says it is.  He cant explain why one theory is "unproven" but another theory is proven (which wouldnt make it a theory buut a fact)

He cant explain why he believes some science and dismisses others.

He cant explain why Egyptian drawings mean Earth has an axis.

He cant explain how he figures the earth moved and it wasnt the stars that moved without science.

But what he can explain is he is right and explaining or making sense comes second, Feet stamping and insistence that its true is all the weak minded idiot needs.

Seriously, Cave drawings!  He's serious!


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



I love it when you debate yourself.



Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis, theory & fact



Apparently you dont care anymore about the difference or your old self disagrees with your new self.


----------



## Mustang (Apr 28, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



The point is that humans are interfering in the natural processes that have driven climate change in the past. In so doing, humans have added, and continue to add, trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 28, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry you brought up the Ice Core records. Close inspection will show that OFTEN the Temperature LED the changes in CO2 concentrations. Could be real -- could be an artifact of the lousy time resolution inherent in the Ice Core records. But it's generally acknowledged that when you MELT A LOT OF GLACIER COVERED ground -- the CO2 level will follow the temperature rise.
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/9007900-post222.html

What I said in the post above is the most likely thing to happen.  The warming for a Doubling of CO2 , is not likely to exceed 1.2degC.    All the rest of the GW hysteria and hype is a side show with political objectives...  The massive feedbacks from the GW Magic Multipliers are not even close to settled.  They are poor guesses to how a complex climate system like the Earth survives for Millions of years without destroying itself.


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 28, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And because of it's complexity, climate system cannot be based on just correlation of temperature and CO2 emission. Pro GW scientists are screaming that increase of CO2 also increase the temperature. That was also a main theme of the Al Gore's movie, or should I say power point presentation. First of all, global warming science is not proven, it's settled science. Second, correlation does not prove the causation. That theory, and its still just theory is debunked.
I am not scientist, but just like many of you, I follow what's going on. I red that increase of CO2 doesn't cause temperature increase, but the other way around. If GW scientists are nor political hacks and looking for real proof, they would not settle for most convenient explanation that suits the agenda, but would look for the answers how increased CO2 causes global warming. Since there is no real explanation nor real science behind it, of course they gonna fix the data and provide settled answers. Bottom line, THAT song that they play over and over is, and will continue to pay their bills.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 28, 2014)

Gramps just had his ass handed to him....repeatedly. 

The best part is, it was handed to him by gramps.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9010599 said:
			
		

> I read that increase of CO2 doesn't cause temperature increase, but the other way around.



Both are true. If you don't understand why, you need to look at the science more.

By science, I don't mean the kook right wing websites that have been feeding you bullshit in the name of politics. Looks at some real science from independent people, instead of the political hacks you've clearly been relying on.



> If GW scientists are nor political hacks and looking for real proof, they would not settle for most convenient explanation that suits the agenda, but would look for the answers how increased CO2 causes global warming.



And since they've done that, you have no cause to complain. If you think there's no science behind it, you've been wildly misinformed by paid professional liars, and are grossly ignorant of the actual science.

The motivation to lie for money is on the denier side. Any honest scientist could instantly double his salary by joining the paid shills of the denier side, yet they don't. The reputable scientists deliberately choose to take a lower salary so they can keep doing honest research. That's the degree of integrity they have. AGW scientists could take money to lie, and they don't. That gives the AGW scientists credibility which the denier side lacks.


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Both are true. If you don't understand why, you need to look at the science more.
> 
> By science, I don't mean the kook right wing websites that have been feeding you bullshit in the name of politics. Looks at some real science from independent people, instead of the political hacks you've clearly been relying on.



Sooo, you're saying that only real science is one that is supported by the leftists. Everything else is bull shit. Interesting. 

You're also saying I need to look at the science more. I'm pretty sure I know about it at least as much as you, I just don't advertize it. Here is the website, up to you if you gonna read it or not, with over 1300 peer reviewed papers on global warming.

POPULAR TECHNOLOGY


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> And since they've done that, you have no cause to complain. If you think there's no science behind it, you've been wildly misinformed by paid professional liars, and are grossly ignorant of the actual science.
> 
> The motivation to lie for money is on the denier side. Any honest scientist could instantly double his salary by joining the paid shills of the denier side, yet they don't. The reputable scientists deliberately choose to take a lower salary so they can keep doing honest research. That's the degree of integrity they have. AGW scientists could take money to lie, and they don't. That gives the AGW scientists credibility which the denier side lacks.



No, they haven't done it. They were providing fake data, I'm sure you already heard about IPCC leaked emails etc... Someone said earlier, "most likely" and "probably" doesn't count as fact neither. There are no facts from GW scientists, just theories and so called models based on theories. Theories and models are not facts. 

Sun is hot. That's a fact. Sun is hot because of nuclear fusion where hydrogen atoms are joining together into helium. That's a fact. Water freezes at  32 degrees Fahrenheit. That's a fact. It doesn't really matter when those facts are established, what matters is that those facts are not disprooven since its establishments. 

Global warming "facts" are so strong that need to be revised, altered, settled... all that is pretty shaky for science.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9010599 said:
			
		

> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



In fact, in any complex system with feedbacks, and storage and parallel delays, there should never even BE an expectation that the output (temperature) has to have shape that correlates well with any individual causal input ( like CO2 or solar insolation) .  With an integral lurking in the system equation, I can create a ramp with step function for instance.  Its only very recently, because of the surface temperature pause, that the geniuses involved have been forced to admit that the oceans area MAJOR heat storage function, with largely unknown characteristics.  Same with delays in reaching new temperature equilibriums.  Delays of multiple decades would be intuitive, but were hardly ever mentioned until the past couple of years.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 28, 2014)

Ame®icano;9010731 said:
			
		

> Sooo, you're saying that only real science is one that is supported by the leftists. Everything else is bull shit. Interesting.



No, I never said that. If you can't address what I actually say, just come out and say so. Don't beat around the bush.



> You're also saying I need to look at the science more. I'm pretty sure I know about it at least as much as you, I just don't advertize it.



I wasn't certain before, but now I'm quite certain you're almost completely ignorant of any actual science, and are only capable of parroting.



> Here is the website, up to you if you gonna read it or not, with over 1300 peer reviewed papers on global warming.
> 
> POPULAR TECHNOLOGY



Yep, you're a parrot. You haven't looked at even one of those papers. You saw an impressive number, and believed with all your heart, because it said what you wanted to hear.



> No, they haven't done it. They were providing fake data, I'm sure you already heard about IPCC leaked emails etc...



Are you under the impression we haven't seen those idiot conspiracy theories a thousand times before? All you do by repeating them is advertise yourself as a brainwashed cultist. I almost feel sorry for you, as you actually probably consider yourself well-informed. That's the effect living in your cult bubble has.



> Someone said earlier, "most likely" and "probably" doesn't count as fact neither. There are no facts from GW scientists, just theories and so called models based on theories. Theories and models are not facts.



Longwave IR measurements aren't theories. Nor is the earth's heat balance, the stratospheric temp, or other things we directly measure. Again, try looking at the actual science. You seem to the think the science depends on models, which marks you as totally ignorant of the science.

Why do you think it is that denialism is restricted to the kook right political fringe, while global warming science crosses all political boundaries all around the world? I'll tell you why. It's because global warming science is actual science, while denialism is a political cult. Your cult has told you what the science is, so you cherrypick facts to match.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 28, 2014)

And of course Mammy dismisses 1350 skeptical papers without even passing the table of contents.  Aint that right Mammy????


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> What I said in the post above is the most likely thing to happen.  The warming for a Doubling of CO2 , is not likely to exceed 1.2degC.    All the rest of the GW hysteria and hype is a side show with political objectives...  The massive feedbacks from the GW Magic Multipliers are not even close to settled.  They are poor guesses to how a complex climate system like the Earth survives for Millions of years without destroying itself.



So, you're claiming that CO2 at double the amount in the atmosphere will only be a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures?

Okay, let's see you evidence.

Also, what do you think a 1.2 degree rise will do to the earth?






Current sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in), 1.46 mm (0.057 in) per year.[5] From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009








So, since 1950 we've seen a rise of about 0.6 degrees in temperature and a rise of 3 inches in sea level. So double that and we're looking at a rise of 6 more inches.






What it could be like if it gets way too high.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

Ame®icano;9010599 said:
			
		

> And because of it's complexity, climate system cannot be based on just correlation of temperature and CO2 emission. Pro GW scientists are screaming that increase of CO2 also increase the temperature. That was also a main theme of the Al Gore's movie, or should I say power point presentation. First of all, global warming science is not proven, it's settled science. Second, correlation does not prove the causation. That theory, and its still just theory is debunked.
> I am not scientist, but just like many of you, I follow what's going on. I red that increase of CO2 doesn't cause temperature increase, but the other way around. If GW scientists are nor political hacks and looking for real proof, they would not settle for most convenient explanation that suits the agenda, but would look for the answers how increased CO2 causes global warming. Since there is no real explanation nor real science behind it, of course they gonna fix the data and provide settled answers. Bottom line, THAT song that they play over and over is, and will continue to pay their bills.



However, people make educated guesses. 

So, when Mao killed all the birds because they ate the crops, his guess was the crops would thrive. It wasn't an educated guess, it was based on simply "logic". 
However he forgot to take stuff into account, like the insects which eat the crops worse than the birds, and the birds ate the insects, so crops were MORE damaged afterwards. 

So with climate change we're looking at an increase in CO2. 

We know CO2 levels rise and fall naturally alongside temperature rises. We're not sure (as far as I can tell) what the impact of CO2 is on temperatures.
However what we can tell from recent history is that temperatures ARE RISING when they should be falling. The only difference we can see is that CO2 levels are rising massively. 

Now, he's the part where we gamble. Do we say "it won't have an impact", or do we say "it might have an impact" or do we say "it will have an impact"? 

An educated guess would suggest that as temperatures have been changing with a rise in CO2 levels, which are a greenhouse gases that do cause warming anyway, that perhaps something will happen.


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Ame®icano;9010731 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These are your words:



mamooth said:


> Both are true. If you don't understand why, you need to look at the science more.
> 
> By science, I don't mean the kook right wing websites that have been feeding you bullshit in the name of politics. Looks at some real science from independent people, instead of the political hacks you've clearly been relying on.



Any website or source that doesn't agree with GW agenda you call "kook right wing". I posted a link to peer reviewed articles, that you dismissed. Why should I accept your "kook left wing" sources if you refuse to accept mine. 

I wont even discuss the rest of your ideological crap.

By the way, can you define real science and who are independent people?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 29, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> And of course Mammy dismisses 1350 skeptical papers without even passing the table of contents.  Aint that right Mammy????



Did you bother looking at the link? It links to a list of forum postings on a message board. Seriously??


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 29, 2014)

Ame®icano;9010731 said:
			
		

> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Both are true. If you don't understand why, you need to look at the science more.
> ...



LOL, that is the funniest thing I have ever read. Did you even bother reading your own link?


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 29, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ClosedCaption doesn't understand the difference between a hypothesis, theory & fact



CC only knows what he's told to think. If it's moonbat approved "science" he defends it and ridicules any "science" that is used to question or disprove his ecobullshit dogma.

While I applaud the efforts many of you put into arguing with these mindless drones, I can't help but believe it's a pointless endeavor.

It's not even that they can't think, it's that they refuse to think. It's the equivalant of the woman who gets her ass beat by her union plumber boyfriend, but denies it happens until she's bleeding in front of a police car and then tries to stop the cops from dragging his ass to jail "beceause they're in love".

It's worse than willful ignorance or mere stupidity, it's a pathology.


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> However, people make educated guesses.
> 
> So, when Mao killed all the birds because they ate the crops, his guess was the crops would thrive. It wasn't an educated guess, it was based on simply "logic".
> However he forgot to take stuff into account, like the insects which eat the crops worse than the birds, and the birds ate the insects, so crops were MORE damaged afterwards.
> ...



If you checked the link I provided earlier, you would notice that "educated guess" is nothing more then a guess. In the link there are peer reviewed papers that are disproving those educated guesses. Can you provide peer review papers that contains proof of GW? Not a study of computer models, I mean peer reviewed paper of observational data that proves GW. Oops, that's not gonna happen.

Also, about your correlation in between temperature and CO2, which is by the way upside down, you should read some of the data supported documents. CO2 rise lags behind rise of temperature, not the other way around. LINK

By the way, educated guess is still just a guess.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

Ame®icano;9012423 said:
			
		

> If you checked the link I provided earlier, you would notice that "educated guess" is nothing more then a guess. In the link there are peer reviewed papers that are disproving those educated guesses. Can you provide peer review papers that contains proof of GW? Not a study of computer models, I mean peer reviewed paper of observational data that proves GW. Oops, that's not gonna happen.
> 
> Also, about your correlation in between temperature and CO2, which is by the way upside down, you should read some of the data supported documents. CO2 rise lags behind rise of temperature, not the other way around. LINK
> 
> By the way, educated guess is still just a guess.



You want proof of something in the future? Seriously?

Well, if you can find me some good proof on some football scores in the future or whatever, you just let me know, okay?

You can predict the future by looking at the past, by seeing how things should work, and then making GUESSES that is is going to happen again in the future. 

But then again, you're claiming there are things that disprove something in the future. Hmm. 

As for whether CO2 lags behind or not, it doesn't really matter so much at this point in the debate. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Guess what happens when you have more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 29, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > And of course Mammy dismisses 1350 skeptical papers without even passing the table of contents.  Aint that right Mammy????
> ...



If they were serious about their stance on global warming, they wouldn't look to focus the phrase on "climate change" for fear of ridicule due to the colder temperatures in this country over the past few years. Clinging to the fact that polar ice will all melt and the oceans will rise, all while the earth is constantly getting warmer is going to prove an embarrassment to all who wish to cling to this "man-made" theory. The 70s itself had everyone screaming global cooling, now they wish to call it "climate change". In case you haven't figured it out, the earth has been going through trends of warming and cooling ever since they have been keeping records of global temperatures. It's government control under the power of ideological political influence, supported by its high profit making potential in supporting unstable corporations like Solyndra, Nevada Geothermal, First Solar etc.... nothing more. How many taxpayer dollars have we wasted in bad investment choices The reality is solar and wind power is vastly inferior with meeting the needs of consumer demand, compared to that of coal and nuclear power.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 29, 2014)

I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers.  First they are not scientists.  Second, they dont believe scientists.  Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE!  Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.

They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE.  Why?  Because their gut says its not.







So they are forced to give you an arguement thats based in science but only some science and gut feelings, mix in some jabs at Al Gore and unproven smears that scientists only science for money.  Again not all of them, just the ones their gut tells them.

It's pointless


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 29, 2014)

How about a global colding update >>>>

Soon will be the *coldest start to a year* EVAR!!! >>>>

2014 Closing In On Coldest Start To The Year In US History | Real Science


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 29, 2014)

If the weather clears up soon im gonna start up my wood/charcoal smoker today and smoke some brisket.  I will fondly think of this glorious thread as I bask is the wonderous aroma of the smoke.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers.  First they are not scientists.  Second, they dont believe scientists.  Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE!  Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.
> 
> They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE.  Why?  Because their gut says its not.
> 
> ...



How many people here are scientists? Seems a lot of these scientists who do make comments aren't climatologists either. So what?

Can an individual not have an opinion? Can they not see what other people say and for opinions?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> How about a global colding update >>>>
> 
> Soon will be the *coldest start to a year* EVAR!!! >>>>
> 
> 2014 Closing In On Coldest Start To The Year In US History | Real Science



Naturally, we should be getting colder. 

However somewhere cold in the world doesn't mean the world is getting colder. 

You know how a fridge works? To make it cold inside, the pipes on the outside are hot. Why? It's how it works.


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ame®icano;9012423 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh no, GW scientists were screaming how CO2 causes the increased temperature and ridiculing everyone who had any doubt about it. When it's actually proven with hard data that  temperature increase causes increase in greenhouse gases, now they're saying "it doesn't matter. 

Well, it does matter that people know where greenhouse gases comes from, how much is really caused by humans, and that world wont end tomorrow because GW scientists cooked the date to show hockey stick and that paying more taxes wont prevent volcano eruptions or wild fires or lighting strikes or cows to fart. Do humans contribute to greenhouse emissions? Absolutely. How much, lets discuss.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> Ame®icano;9012423 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really didn't just write this.  Did you?  Wow, I guess you are behind in the times, too bad for a you.  Then I bet you want someone to explain what it is you missed.  Naw, you don't deserve to learn since you can't keep up. LOL


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > How about a global colding update >>>>
> ...


Again, wow, are you out of touch.  We should be warming.  I believe it is time for you to look at how the earth was a million years ago before the ice age hit.  so you want the ice age?  How did the life handle the last one?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

Ame®icano;9013031 said:
			
		

> Oh no, GW scientists were screaming how CO2 causes the increased temperature and ridiculing everyone who had any doubt about it. When it's actually proven with hard data that  temperature increase causes increase in greenhouse gases, now they're saying "it doesn't matter.
> 
> Well, it does matter that people know where greenhouse gases comes from, how much is really caused by humans, and that world wont end tomorrow because GW scientists cooked the date to show hockey stick and that paying more taxes wont prevent volcano eruptions or wild fires or lighting strikes or cows to fart. Do humans contribute to greenhouse emissions? Absolutely. How much, lets discuss.



What you appear to be talking about is that temperature rises have been followed by CO2 rises. 
What you're not talking about is when CO2 rises based not on temperature rises. 

How much do humans contribute to greenhouse gases? 

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to wikipedia, CO2 levels have risen 40% since the 1750s. 
Methane 167% 

Greenhouse gases rise by 260% since Industrial Revolution - The Scotsman

"Greenhouse gases rise by 260% since Industrial Revolution"

"CO2 volumes are now 140 per cent above the levels found before the Industrial Revolution of 1750, (280ppm) when massive changes in human activity began releasing the gases into the air."

How much of this is a natural rise and how much of this is human pollution? 
Where should CO2 levels be? 






In the last 400,000 years the highest we've seen is about 300ppmv. 

We're at 390ppmv right now. So, at least 90, or about 25% of what is in the atmosphere is man made. There have been three previous cycles, two have had a massive rise then a drop, the previous one saw an up, then down and it stayed at a high level, perhaps 285ppmv for quite a few years. 
However we're experiencing something different. 

If you look at the rise, and this rise continues, where will be at? 500ppmv? More? Will it just stop and flatten out even if we're pumping out more CO2? What is the impact of China going to be? I mean their cities are pollution filled hellholes, but not even the worst in the world.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Again, wow, are you out of touch.  We should be warming.  I believe it is time for you to look at how the earth was a million years ago before the ice age hit.  so you want the ice age?  How did the life handle the last one?



Out of touch huh?






If you look at the 100,000 year cycle, you see that temperatures rose, then dropped, a nice little spike. 

If you look at the one we are in now, the spike happened, it dropped and then it stopped dropping and has stayed about the same level. 

Also, some who reject man made climate change also said that temperatures should be dropping.

Don Easterbrook - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> "If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."[1]





> While IPCC was predicting global warming, Easterbrook (2001) predicted three decades of cooling due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting from its warm to cool phase.[5] He correlated PDO with climatic changes over the last 500 years.[6]
> 
> "The IPCC has predicted a global temperature increase of 0.6°C (1°F) by 2011 and 1.2°C (2°F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3 yrs) and cooling of about 0.30.5°C by 2040."



So, global cooling by 2007 huh? Probably would have happened without so much greenhouse gas in the air. 

William M. Gray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Gray does not say there has not been any warming, but states "I don't question that. And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."


 Written in 2006.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 29, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers.  First they are not scientists.  Second, they dont believe scientists.  Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE!  Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.
> 
> They believe that since they dont understand the science then that means the science is NOT TRUE.  Why?  Because their gut says its not.
> 
> ...




The study of the sun's activity through sunspots and it's proven effect on the earth's climate is a SCIENCE that is backed by more years of research than climate change. In fact I trust a science that has a longer history of unbiased research over any global warming trend who's study can't seem to  separate itself from financial political influence.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > How about a global colding update >>>>
> ...


Naturally?  By whose say so?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Apr 29, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers.  First they are not scientists.  Second, they dont believe scientists.  Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE!  Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.
> ...



Shhhh

ClosedCaption thinks celestial observations are pie in the sky kook stuff.

Don't wanna embarrass him


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 29, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand why you guys are arguing science with the deniers.  First they are not scientists.  Second, they dont believe scientists.  Third, they base their arguments against scientists on...wait for it....SCIENCE!  Yeah, just try and wrap your head around that one.
> ...



You must repeat this but you cannot prove this.  Which means you are dismissing science based on your gut.  Thats not science works buddy.

Also the length of time of research has nothing to do with anything unless you were planning a birthday party


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, wow, are you out of touch.  We should be warming.  I believe it is time for you to look at how the earth was a million years ago before the ice age hit.  so you want the ice age?  How did the life handle the last one?
> ...



Not sure what your attempting to point out.  I believe in your one line you stated those opposed to man made stated it should be cooler.  The reason is due to the 30 year cycle.  1940 to 1970 cooler then, warmer 1970 to 2000 warmer and now back cooler 2001 to 2014.  Although the warming actually leveled off in 1998. The next warming cycle 2030 will be warmer than the previous warming cycle by 1 degree C.  It is all normal, no man made anything contributing.  What your missing I suppose is that the earth was once warmer.  So attempting to state something unusual is happening is just not accurate.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Again, wow, are you out of touch.  We should be warming.



No, we finished exiting the ice age 5000 years ago, and have been slowly cooling ever since. According to the natural cycles, the globe should be slowly cooling down into the next ice age right now. Instead, the world is warming fast.

And your junk science fails hard at explaining why the world is now warming quickly instead of cooling slowly.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Not sure what your attempting to point out.  I believe in your one line you stated those opposed to man made stated it should be cooler.  The reason is due to the 30 year cycle.  1940 to 1970 cooler then, warmer 1970 to 2000 warmer and now back cooler 2001 to 2014.  Although the warming actually leveled off in 1998. The next warming cycle 2030 will be warmer than the previous warming cycle by 1 degree C.  It is all normal, no man made anything contributing.  What your missing I suppose is that the earth was once warmer.  So attempting to state something unusual is happening is just not accurate.



The point is, the world SHOULD be getting cooler, but it isn't. It's getting slightly warmer. 

It's not a 30 year cycle, and i'm not sure where you get a 30 year cycle from. It's a 100,000 year cycle. But yes, the earth gets warmer and cooler within warming and cooling periods. It is natural. 

However there's a difference between where we would be at if we hadn't polluted the world massively and where we actually are, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Darkwind (Apr 29, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


You do understand that 'peer reviewed' is a political distinction, right?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Naturally?  By whose say so?



Based on historical records of temperature rises and falls.


----------



## bedowin62 (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Naturally?  By whose say so?
> ...



 lol historical records; 

two words genius; Grand Canyon


global warming?

man-made?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 29, 2014)

Ame®icano;9012180 said:
			
		

> Any website or source that doesn't agree with GW agenda you call "kook right wing".



So after I call you out on that lie, you double down on it.

Here's a hint, kook. Sites that talk about the great global socialist agenda are kook right wing blogs. Political agenda isn't defined by science, it's defined by the political agenda that the websites openly advertise.



> I posted a link to peer reviewed articles, that you dismissed. Why should I accept your "kook left wing" sources if you refuse to accept mine.



First, because my sources aren't discussing politics like yours do. Mine just discuss science.

Second, your source quotes all kinds of political conspiracy theories. It rants about the IPCC, Al Gore, supposedly faked data, all the standard kook political nonsense.

Third, your source lies big about the papers. Most of them flat out don't say what your source claims they do. For example, let's look at what Pielke says about his own work being on the list.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Better Recheck That List
--
A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does. 
--

So, I have addressed your source directly, by pointing out the author just makes shit up. You may continue to run from that point.



> I wont even discuss the rest of your ideological crap.



Spanked you that badly, I see. You don't want to talk about why only a handful of bitter right-wing political cranks take the denier side, while nearly the whole world takes the side of rationality. When the whole world disagrees with you, a rational person considers the world might have a point, and that they personally may have made an error. An irrational person declares a global conspiracy must exist.



> By the way, can you define real science and who are independent people?



Again, a big clue is whether they often ramble about imaginary political conspiracies when the topic is science.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, wow, are you out of touch.  We should be warming.
> ...



Just wrong.  The earth temperature cycles, you should know this if you believe in science. We are currently in a non warming cooling period until 2030. Go look at the graphs man!


----------



## Ame®icano (Apr 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Ame®icano;9012180 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Visit the link I provided. Until then, stop polluting.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

bedowin62 said:


> lol historical records;
> 
> two words genius; Grand Canyon
> 
> ...



You're going to have to explain your cryptic clue.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure what your attempting to point out.  I believe in your one line you stated those opposed to man made stated it should be cooler.  The reason is due to the 30 year cycle.  1940 to 1970 cooler then, warmer 1970 to 2000 warmer and now back cooler 2001 to 2014.  Although the warming actually leveled off in 1998. The next warming cycle 2030 will be warmer than the previous warming cycle by 1 degree C.  It is all normal, no man made anything contributing.  What your missing I suppose is that the earth was once warmer.  So attempting to state something unusual is happening is just not accurate.
> ...


Pure nonsense. Not worthy of anymore than that.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Pure nonsense. Not worthy of anymore than that.



Oh, sure, anything you don't agree with is clearly just nonsense. You must be right all the time, it's a God given right, right?


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 29, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



I rather enjoy seeing him embarrassed.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 29, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > What I said in the post above is the most likely thing to happen.  The warming for a Doubling of CO2 , is not likely to exceed 1.2degC.    All the rest of the GW hysteria and hype is a side show with political objectives...  The massive feedbacks from the GW Magic Multipliers are not even close to settled.  They are poor guesses to how a complex climate system like the Earth survives for Millions of years without destroying itself.
> ...



If the projected temperature from Doubling CO2 was just the "CO2 only" contribution -- it wouldn't even be making the news. Because the NEXT doubling takes CO2 from about 560ppm to 1120ppm --- FAAAAR into the future. 

The 1.2degC is the generally agreeded upon number for CO2 only influence. 



> CO2 no-feedback sensitivity | Climate Etc.
> 
> The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4.   This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change.  These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by  most skeptics.  Well, perhaps they should be disputed.



Even the cult leader James Hansen started this out by saying.. 



> CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks  Hansen 1984



This is referred to in GW folklore as "the trigger".. I'll accept the "trigger" or something less than that -- but the rest of the Magic Multiplier are far from "settled science".. Even the latest IPCC report has a HUGE range on the feedback effects from a CO2 doubling. Not an indication of "settled science" either. 

No Magic Multipliers -- no crisis. And we'd be spending time fixing REAL PROBLEMS in the environment. We SEEN AND OBSERVED warming more like this simple Doubling number than ANY GW model has projected. About 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Sea level rise since pre-industrial has not accelerated much at all. EVENTUALLY, it will. Because the Climate is rising from the Little Ice Age and the effect of temperature on SLevel rise is highly non-linear. Ice melts at 32degF.. THAT'S when the seas rise. And even at the rate in the 1800s, Greenland would eventually start seeing more months at 32degF or above.. 

I believe we are in a warming trend, that CO2 is small effect on that rise. And that all those "magic multipliers" are too poorly conceived and modeled to be believed. Because if the Earth Climate System was THAT UNSTABLE -- where a couple degree rise would drive it into Runaway Warming -- we wouldn't be here  today to argue about it.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 29, 2014)

Ame®icano;9014344 said:
			
		

> Visit the link I provided. Until then, stop polluting.



I did, shit-for-brains. That would be why I talked about it so much, and why I know the author is a liar.

In contrast, you haven't looked at it beyond a casual glance, making you a hypocrite as well as a dumbshit.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 29, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Ame®icano;9014344 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"The Author" ??? You never looked at the list of Journal Articles didya? 
People don't "author" lists of journal articles.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 29, 2014)

That's pathetic in its desperation, flac. The nitpicking, that is.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2014)

Here is the problem for the deniers. Flat and Walleyes have been predicting a cooling trend. Now with an El Nino imminent, they can see that this year, and next year, also, will be warm. Maybe much warmer than 1998, 2005, or 2010. And there goes not only their 'pause', but also, their cooling trend. So now you see them starting to talk about 100,000 year warming trends and other total nonsense. 

Look up the Milankovic Cycles and see where we are in those cycles. We really should be in a cooling trend. Not only a lower Total Solar Irradiance, but also India and China mucking up the atmosphere with  particulates that reflect the sunlight ( See Dr. James Hansen's article, The Faustian Bargain). We should be cooling, but we are not.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 29, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is the problem for the deniers. Flat and Walleyes have been predicting a cooling trend. Now with an El Nino imminent, they can see that this year, and next year, also, will be warm. Maybe much warmer than 1998, 2005, or 2010. And there goes not only their 'pause', but also, their cooling trend. So now you see them starting to talk about 100,000 year warming trends and other total nonsense.
> 
> Look up the Milankovic Cycles and see where we are in those cycles. We really should be in a cooling trend. Not only a lower Total Solar Irradiance, but also India and China mucking up the atmosphere with  particulates that reflect the sunlight ( See Dr. James Hansen's article, The Faustian Bargain). We should be cooling, but we are not.



Do me a favor GoldiRocks -- and quit lying about what I've been saying. Not at all interested in making year by year predictions like you are.. Aint' no cooling trend in my tea leaves unless the solar guys are right and we are heading for another Solar Min. Unlike YOU -- I'll wait 'til that's clear before I join the lemmings..


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2014)

What is clear is that we have had a trend for over 100 years of warming. And that trend is accelerating. Also, the absorption spectrum of the GHGs have been known since 1859. Enough so that Arrhenius predicted the amount of warming from the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere pretty accurately in 1896. Now we are seeing the end of the Arctic Ice, and an increase in the amount of extreme weather events. Much sooner than even the 'alarmists' predicted. 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov (Apr 30, 2014)

ClosedCaption said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



The length of time through unbiased research, vs political influence has everything to do with a little known word I like to call "credibility" ... something you have a hard time coming to grips with. If you don't think decades of research is science, then I doubt you really have the slightest clue as to what actual science really is. Decades of study is simply more reliable when trying to base your knowledge on actual fact, anything less is merely unproven opinion. Anyone with some common sense knows this to be true.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Apr 30, 2014)

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> ...



You forgot to prove your political influence changes the science talking points.  I'm sure you just forgot its not like you're lying or anything.

you'll get right around to it any day now


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 30, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> So, you're claiming that CO2 at double the amount in the atmosphere will only be a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures?
> 
> Okay, let's see you evidence.
> 
> ...



If the projected temperature from Doubling CO2 was just the "CO2 only" contribution -- it wouldn't even be making the news. Because the NEXT doubling takes CO2 from about 560ppm to 1120ppm --- FAAAAR into the future. 

The 1.2degC is the generally agreeded upon number for CO2 only influence. 



> CO2 no-feedback sensitivity | Climate Etc.
> 
> The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4.   This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change.  These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by  most skeptics.  Well, perhaps they should be disputed.



Even the cult leader James Hansen started this out by saying.. 



> CO2 would directly cause about 1.2ºC of warming if it doubled, without any feedbacks  Hansen 1984



This is referred to in GW folklore as "the trigger".. I'll accept the "trigger" or something less than that -- but the rest of the Magic Multiplier are far from "settled science".. Even the latest IPCC report has a HUGE range on the feedback effects from a CO2 doubling. Not an indication of "settled science" either. 

No Magic Multipliers -- no crisis. And we'd be spending time fixing REAL PROBLEMS in the environment. We SEEN AND OBSERVED warming more like this simple Doubling number than ANY GW model has projected. About 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Sea level rise since pre-industrial has not accelerated much at all. EVENTUALLY, it will. Because the Climate is rising from the Little Ice Age and the effect of temperature on SLevel rise is highly non-linear. Ice melts at 32degF.. THAT'S when the seas rise. And even at the rate in the 1800s, Greenland would eventually start seeing more months at 32degF or above.. 

I believe we are in a warming trend, that CO2 is small effect on that rise. And that all those "magic multipliers" are too poorly conceived and modeled to be believed. Because if the Earth Climate System was THAT UNSTABLE -- where a couple degree rise would drive it into Runaway Warming -- we wouldn't be here  today to argue about it.[/QUOTE]

You say we're in a heating period. I disagree. I think we should be in a cooling period. 






Such a charge shows the ups and down. We should have hit the peak and should be on the  way down, not the way up. Never has the temperature gone above the initial peak. 

What seems to be the case with natural global warming is, the temperatures rise, CO2 rises, causing more warming. Then it just goes up and up and up and then suddenly stops and temperatures just drop. 

The rise in temperatures once the rise in CO2 gets going has seen up to a 12 degrees (Celsius) rise in temperatures within a 10,000 year period. 






This happened with a rise in CO2 of from about 180 to 300. That's a rise of 120ppmv.

We peaked at what should have been our maximum CO2 level and temperature level. Things should be going down, not necessarily always going down, but having a downward spiral.

Now, if we were to see a rise of CO2 to say 600ppmv, where would we be? 






It's hard to know. This chart suggests that historically it is going to be difficult to predict. Because at times CO2 levels hit 7000ppmv and temperatures were only a few degrees higher than what they are now. There were times when high temperatures saw low CO2 levels.  
The problem appears to be understanding why temperatures and CO2 did what they did back then, and now they seem to be more consistent. Either that or we simply have bad data from such a long time ago.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 30, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're claiming that CO2 at double the amount in the atmosphere will only be a 1.2 degree rise in temperatures?
> ...





			
				frigidweirdo said:
			
		

> You say we're in a heating period. I disagree. I think we should be in a cooling period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's difficult to predict because Climate Science has wasted so much time and public arm-twisting on CO2.. Instead of LEARNING TO PREDICT the hows and whens of the natural cycles that take us in and out of Ice Ages. Your view of ANOTHER inevitable "Ice Age" with mile deep glaciers is chilling (pun intended). But from a Systems Theory point of view, a system that oscillating nicely -- tends to stay oscillating nicely or "the ringing" dies out slowly over MANY cycles of up/down.. 

CO2 could someday be our ONLY defense against City-Eating glaciers -- if you are right. Although we manufacture some REALLY Bad Ass Shit that's 1000s of times more powerful as a GHGas..


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 30, 2014)

By the normal cycles, that would be at least another ten thousand years in the future, more than likely 20. If you look at the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods, you will note that the descent into the glacial is slow, while the warming is quite rapid. 

But it is not going to happen on schedule, as the GHGs that we have already put into the atmosphere will warm things for hundreds of years.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> By the normal cycles, that would be at least another ten thousand years in the future, more than likely 20. If you look at the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods, you will note that the descent into the glacial is slow, while the warming is quite rapid.
> 
> But it is not going to happen on schedule, as the GHGs that we have already put into the atmosphere will warm things for hundreds of years.



Worried about you a bit Rocks.  2 or 3 of those thermal peaks were LESS than 10,000 yrs.  US??  According to that chart and the big guess that history will repeat??? Could happen in the next millenia.... And there is not that much difference in slope on either side for major changes.  The total cold periods are longer and more varied in level,  but our version of "normal"  is dissapointly short and rare.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 30, 2014)

Mitchell Zuckoff's great true account of the downing and subsequent search for American planes lost over Greenland during WW2 "Frozen in Time" inadvertently touches on the alleged global warming fake statistic agenda. People might well assume that a WW2 plane that went down on a Greenland glacier south of the Arctic Circle 70 years ago might be snow covered and have it's outline vaguely visible if you looked hard enough and with global warming and all, the planes might be shining in the sun. Wrong. The planes were 200 ft deep in the ice after 70 years. The ice didn't melt, the intense cold and fierce winters buried the planes in an ever increasing ice mass. Doesn't that simple but absolute truth fly in the face of global warmers who claim that polar bears are walking on thin ice?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 1, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> It's difficult to predict because Climate Science has wasted so much time and public arm-twisting on CO2.. Instead of LEARNING TO PREDICT the hows and whens of the natural cycles that take us in and out of Ice Ages. Your view of ANOTHER inevitable "Ice Age" with mile deep glaciers is chilling (pun intended). But from a Systems Theory point of view, a system that oscillating nicely -- tends to stay oscillating nicely or "the ringing" dies out slowly over MANY cycles of up/down..
> 
> CO2 could someday be our ONLY defense against City-Eating glaciers -- if you are right. Although we manufacture some REALLY Bad Ass Shit that's 1000s of times more powerful as a GHGas..



It seems to be both sides that are willing to say what needs to be said to get funding, however I do think there are scientists out there who are also doing a good job, and doing what should be done. 

Yes, CO2 might stop us from going into another ice age, we also might be dead before then. Who knows?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> By the normal cycles, that would be at least another ten thousand years in the future, more than likely 20. If you look at the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods, you will note that the descent into the glacial is slow, while the warming is quite rapid.
> 
> But it is not going to happen on schedule, as the GHGs that we have already put into the atmosphere will warm things for hundreds of years.



Yeah, for an ice age it is a long way off. However we should be, I believe, in a period of temperatures dropping.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 1, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Mitchell Zuckoff's great true account of the downing and subsequent search for American planes lost over Greenland during WW2 "Frozen in Time" inadvertently touches on the alleged global warming fake statistic agenda. People might well assume that a WW2 plane that went down on a Greenland glacier south of the Arctic Circle 70 years ago might be snow covered and have it's outline vaguely visible if you looked hard enough and with global warming and all, the planes might be shining in the sun. Wrong. The planes were 200 ft deep in the ice after 70 years. The ice didn't melt, the intense cold and fierce winters buried the planes in an ever increasing ice mass. Doesn't that simple but absolute truth fly in the face of global warmers who claim that polar bears are walking on thin ice?



You're talking global warming with an example of a plane in one place? Does it not get cold in the artic in winter then? Sure it does. So, if it melts in summer, freezes in winter, where would you expect the plane to be?


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, wow, are you out of touch.  We should be warming.
> ...



Do you never tire of being an idiot.  We are not out of an ice age as evidenced by ice at the poles.  The earth is in the process of exiting an ice age.  Here...Look at this graph of the temperature history of the earth and tell me with a straight face that the earth should be cooling.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 1, 2014)

Logic never convinces cult members that their God is flawed. The AGWCult has their Modern CO2 on a pedestal and there's no chart or experiment or statement we can make that will get them to think otherwise


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I'm going to say yes, we should be cooling. Why?

Historically the world has been much hotter, back in the days of the dinosaurs, however the earth is getting older, and things have changed, become more settled than normal. 
I can't say why the Earth was hotter before, but I know now that weather has been much less extreme in the last 400,000 years, and quite settled into a peak of heat and then cooling from that, and we've just been through the peak.


----------



## mamooth (May 2, 2014)

frigidweirdo said:


> I can't say why the Earth was hotter before,



One big reasons is the continents are in different positions now. Both poles are now isolated from warm ocean currents that would melt ice, which allows ice caps to form. Large ice caps change the global albedo, so less energy is absorbed, resulting in a lower average temperature now.


----------

