# Human Caused Global Warming



## cultsmasher (Sep 10, 2014)

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

  Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

  This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live.  But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

  I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.  She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.  Which is true.  Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher.  Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time.  Causing many ice ages.  But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago.  When global CO2 levels were much higher.  We are in uncharted territory.  No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past.  And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2.  Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity.  It's hard to say.  But there is one thing I know for sure.  Most people don't really care what happens.  As long as it happens to someone else.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> 
> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. * Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.*
> 
> ...



Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth. During this time the poles were ice free and there was little if no ice on earth. The paleo climate records shows us that CO2 followed the warmth and was not a driver as water vapor increased.  The planets temperature did not leave the 22 deg C average high at any time.  It did not runaway.. Showing that despite 7,000ppm + the earth did not cataclysmicly warm.

You should listen to you sister and not the shills we have for climate scientist these days


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.



The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present.  I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented.  Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago.  Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event.  This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles.  The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years.  The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

*So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.
> ...






There are rates of rise well over the current 50 year trend. The problem you seem to have is the resolution in the graphing.  This is not an uncommon flaw among warmists.  Michal Mann used 10 year spans to create his hockey stick and promote a rapid rise while the rest of his graph was in 300 year plots.  Had Mann or you plotted the average in equal resolution your myth would simply vanish.. 

Love that 1st year statisticians parlor trick...  but its still crap and a deceitful misrepresentation.


----------



## elektra (Sep 10, 2014)

Human caused idiocy, on both sides of the issue.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Please identify the time at any point in the Phanerozoic Era (the previous 549 million years) wherein the geological record shows a rate of either temperature or CO2 rise exceeding that of the last  50 years.

Can we assume, Billy Bob, by your comment "Love that 1st year statisticians parlor trick", that you have more than a year's education in statistics?


I'm hoping that you are not confused about the term "rate of rise".  
Rate:
_a certain quantity or amount of one thing considered in relation to a unit of another thing and used as a standard or measure:_
ex: at the rate of 60 miles an hour.  Or, at the rate of 0.8 ppm per year.  A rate is a ratio.  It requires two values in comparison.


----------



## Zander (Sep 11, 2014)

The measuring devices used during the Phanerozoic Era were not as accurate as the ones we use now. Also, the SUV's were electric powered.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2014)

> The measuring devices used during the Phanerozoic Era were not as accurate as the ones we use now. Also, the SUV's were electric powered.



I think you really hit the right point...our ability to predict the change in climate is only accurate when we look at our instruments and our ability to understand the historical record/trends....we are just now beginning to get tools that might allow us, one day, to accurately measure temperature in the present....no one can accurately say what happened that far in the past....to say they can is silly...


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Billc said:


> > The measuring devices used during the Phanerozoic Era were not as accurate as the ones we use now. Also, the SUV's were electric powered.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you really hit the right point...our ability to predict the change in climate is only accurate when we look at our instruments and our ability to understand the historical record/trends....we are just now beginning to get tools that might allow us, one day, to accurately measure temperature in the present....no one can accurately say what happened that far in the past....to say they can is silly...



We can currently measure temperatures to certain resolutions with certain accuracies.  Those abilities will improve with time and technological development.  But there is no point where we will pass from inaccurate to accurate. To a limited extent the same is true of paleoclimatic data, though in those cases the limiting factor is not so much technological as the quality of the proxy material available to us.  Clever scientists occasionally think of new proxies with improved performance such as the replacement of carbon 14 by beryllium 10 as a proxy of solar activity.  The passage of time, however, produces an unavoidable degradation in all such measurements.  We will never be able to determine climatic parameters from a billion years in the past as accurately as we can determine them from the past millenia.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 11, 2014)

There is no such thing as human caused global warming


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 11, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  You say that both of my points are incorrect.  But I made more than a couple points.  If you have something to disagree with, you should be a little more specific.  Also, you made me go back and look at a lot of the various graphs that show CO2 levels and temperatures throughout history.  I didn't see anything to refute the points I made.  Except that instead of one hundred million years ago, it was closer to five hundred and fifty million years ago that atmospheric CO2 levels were really high. 

  Though some of the graphs I saw are highly suspect.  Because there are a lot of people with a lot of money who pay scientists to show things the way they would like them to be.  You know, like what tobacco companies used to pay scientists to do.  Also, in the documentaty "Greedy Lying Bastards,"  The CEO of Exxon admitted at a shareholders meeting that global warming was real.

  Also, though I am not a geologist, I don't think we can really use the past as a measure of the present.  Because in the past, many wild things happened.  As with super eruptions that went on for thousands of years or asteroid impacts.  I also mentioned that a lot of the CO2 from volcanoes goes directly into the oceans.  But despite that, it is apparently the CO2 that humans put out that is causing the oceans to warm. 

  There is something else that I said that you might be able to find a scientist to refute.  Which is that as far as our present biosphere goes, we are in uncharted territory.  I have seen people punch holes in the ice on lakes and set the escaping gasses on fire.  From what I have seen, scientists are monitering methane releases.  Which is one thing to be happy about.  As far as any cataclysm with runaway temperatures in the past goes, I am not in a position to say.  For example, I don't know what caused the great Permian extinction.  But I wouldn't bet that it couldn't happen again.

  You also brought up the point of how at one time there were no ice caps.  Because global temperatures were higher.  But as things stand now, at times and in various places, it can be unbearably hot.  I wouldn't look forward to temperatures getting much higher.  Despite the benefits to some for a thriving economy.  That is as most peoples' perception of a thriving economy now stands.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

What is needful is to keep the planet within the state space it has occupied during the reign of human culture.  In particular it would be nice to maintain the sort of conditions under which modern culture, with our large populations and enormous infrastructure has developed.  And, if change is unavoidable, it would be nice were it to take place at the sort of rates seen in the geological record, not at the pace it has been running for the last 150 years.  Human culture could fairly easily handle change as change has taken place in the distant past, when it has taken millions of years for CO2 to rise to a 1000 ppm or temperatures to climb by 8-10C.  Changes like that taking place in a ten-thousandth the time will not be so easy to cope with.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> What is needful is to keep the planet within the state space it has occupied during the reign of human culture.  In particular it would be nice to maintain the sort of conditions under which modern culture, with our large populations and enormous infrastructure has developed.  And, if change is unavoidable, it would be nice were it to take place at the sort of rates seen in the geological record, not at the pace it has been running for the last 150 years.  Human culture could fairly easily handle change as change has taken place in the distant past, when it has taken millions of years for CO2 to rise to a 1000 ppm or temperatures to climb by 8-10C.  Changes like that taking place in a ten-thousandth the time will not be so easy to cope with.


  Crick,
  It gets pretty annoying when people ignore the truth.  Isn't it.  It is easy to look up a graph of how much CO2 has gone into the air since the beginning of the industrial revloution.  And how much more sharply it rises the closer to the present it gets.  But what can you do.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 11, 2014)

Nothing has changed. We have the usual weather patterns for this time of the year but the usually cool refreshing temperatures of mid September are producing rather cold temperatures substantial snow. Your senses might tell you that we might be in for a severe winter but if you subscribe to the global warming religious philosophy you are free to ignore your senses if you have faith in the doctrine. If your faith is strong enough you can convince yourself that frigid temperatures are really a sign of global warming and the decadence of selfish Americans is to blame.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

Rossby waves.  The world is not getting colder.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 12, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Nothing has changed. We have the usual weather patterns for this time of the year but the usually cool refreshing temperatures of mid September are producing rather cold temperatures substantial snow. Your senses might tell you that we might be in for a severe winter but if you subscribe to the global warming religious philosophy you are free to ignore your senses if you have faith in the doctrine. If your faith is strong enough you can convince yourself that frigid temperatures are really a sign of global warming and the decadence of selfish Americans is to blame.


  whitehall,
  Did you not read my post?  All the volcanoes on earth put out an esitmated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year.  But each year, humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons.  There isn't anything religious about those numbers.  I also mentioned to someone that in the documentary, "Greedy Lying Bastards," they show the CEO of Exxon at a shareholders meeting saying that global warming was a reality.  And he had every reason to lie about it.

  Also, I was watching something about weather patterns around the northern hemisphere.  It being cool here just meant that it was warmer in Siberia.  There is just too much evidence that things are warming up to go into.  But you can believe what you want.  Also, you bring up the decadence of Americans.  But a lot of that is driven by what companies want to sell.  Another thing is that, if I'm not mistaken, China has surpassed the U.S. in putting out pollution.  Apart from the desire of U.S. companies to have wage slaves, China's lax environmental laws is just one of the reasons why it was a bad idea to send our jobs over there.  Unfortunately, the pollution created there isn't going to effect only China.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2014)

The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED  Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.

Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.


----------



## Zander (Sep 12, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED  Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.
> 
> Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.



That is far too rational, stop before you scare the AGW cultists. They prefer hyperbole and fear mongering.


----------



## konradv (Sep 12, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> All the volcanoes on earth put out an esitmated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year.  But each year, humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons.



Where'd you get those figures?  Humans emit more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.   The human contribution is on the order of 35 gigatons, while volcanoes contribute about 0.2.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2014)

konradv said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > All the volcanoes on earth put out an esitmated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year.  But each year, humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons.
> ...



Rare opportunity for a handshake here and a buddy hug. .2Gigaton is about 200Million..    Glad to help ya out. 

Probably tho -- this isn't counting all the discovered and undiscovered undersea volcanic vents and nat gas fissures that END up being "natural" CO2 by the time it gets to the surface..


----------



## konradv (Sep 12, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



True, but that's still 1/175th of what humans put out.  So in about 2.1 days we emit more than all the volcanoes on earth.  He got one of the numbers right, but totally underestimated the other, making his premise entirely invalid.


----------



## Cav Scout (Sep 12, 2014)

Well now enter the O&M of a fossil plant....

Oh I am so going to have fun in this thread.

It is almost as good as Yellowstone is going to blow tomorrow and kill us all.


----------



## konradv (Sep 12, 2014)

Cav Scout said:


> Well now enter the O&M of a fossil plant....
> 
> Oh I am so going to have fun in this thread.
> 
> It is almost as good as Yellowstone is going to blow tomorrow and kill us all.



Does your English improve as the thread progresses?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 12, 2014)

Cav Scout said:


> Well now enter the O&M of a fossil plant....
> 
> Oh I am so going to have fun in this thread.
> 
> It is almost as good as Yellowstone is going to blow tomorrow and kill us all.



The Cavalry is ALWAYS late.. Thread already doomed. Welcome to USMB...


----------



## Abishai100 (Sep 13, 2014)

*The Tree House Compromise*

There's nothing like compromise (especially for eco-activism discussions).

Let's say humans did not spew industrial and automobile gases into the atmosphere which created acid rain.  Let's say that clean coal technologies and biomass fuel research will bring back to ecological balance anything possibly out of balance.

While it seems that 'pundits' can cite stats that point either way, there has to be more talk about compromise to throw cold water on the annoying fires.

So here goes: how about a tree house?

A tree house is popular among youngsters.  A tree house is simply a dwelling constructed on a tree-top area.  A tree house is i usually made of wood materials (sigh), and now, more and more adults are seeking hip tree house contracts with real estate developers, and there's even an American television program called "Treehouse Masters" (Animal Planet TV) that presents this trend.

A tree house rather quickly reminds people of man's nifty and basic relationship to Earth itself.  It's hard to ignore the fact that you are being ecologically unwise when you're living in a tree house.

This simple idea sounds like a cliche, but perhaps its cultural attainability makes it less of a cliche than regurgitated red hot liberal talk.





Treehouse Masters Wiki


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

konradv said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


  Konrav,
  I said that all the volcanoes on earth put out an "estimated" 200 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.  While humans are responsible for putting out an "estimated" 26.8 billion tons per year.  I didn't underestimate anything.  I am just quoting figures.  So my premise is still valid on that point.  Though you don't have to be absolutely exact on some point before you can say there is a problem.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

Cav Scout said:


> Well now enter the O&M of a fossil plant....
> 
> Oh I am so going to have fun in this thread.
> 
> It is almost as good as Yellowstone is going to blow tomorrow and kill us all.


  Cav Scout,
  You can't say that Yellowstone isn't going to erupt tomorrow.  Every expert I heard said that it would someday.  And it is already over a half million years overdue.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2014)

here's another group hug moment for y'all. Are you quoting tons of CARBON or tons of CARBON DIOXIDE?? I think BOTH numbers are correct. you are just a victim of the politically correct move to PURPOSELY confuse folks about CO2 and "carbon"... 

So BOTH numbers are freely quoted. The CO2 number should be used EXCLUSIVELY from a scientific viewpoint. And the conversion factor (IIRC) is something like 1.4 X Carbon = CO2... (check that)


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Cav Scout said:
> 
> 
> > Well now enter the O&M of a fossil plant....
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  Just showing my avatar is enough to doom any thread.  But that is the nature of the brainwashed, lie loving beast.


----------



## konradv (Sep 13, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Where'd you get those numbers?  "Estimates" you pull out of the air aren't worth much.  I provided an actual scientific article that says human output is 175 times that of volcanoes.  What do you have that proves it wrong?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cav Scout said:
> ...



Fly that freak flag me boy, but don't whine about the consequences. It kinda clashes with serious science and policy topics --- dontcha think? 

Or it could just be my brainwashing..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2014)

konradv said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



See post #28 before you go to war on Herr Cultmeister.. You both could be right.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2014)

Actually -- I looked it up. Conversion is 3.67.. Which means the 2 of you 
now have to fight to the death..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

Abishai100 said:


> *The Tree House Compromise*
> 
> There's nothing like compromise (especially for eco-activism discussions).
> 
> ...


  Abishai 100,
  I don't wish to be insulting.  But there are probably forums out there geared toward tweens and teens that is probably better suited to iron out your naive ideas at.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 13, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED  Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.
> 
> Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.



Current empirical evidence shows that water vapor is acting as a negative  forcing and reducing the CO2 LOG base by almost 50%.  Just the opposite of what some here are screaming at the top of their lungs.  We still have much to learn but some think the science is settled..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> here's another group hug moment for y'all. Are you quoting tons of CARBON or tons of CARBON DIOXIDE?? I think BOTH numbers are correct. you are just a victim of the politically correct move to PURPOSELY confuse folks about CO2 and "carbon"...
> 
> So BOTH numbers are freely quoted. The CO2 number should be used EXCLUSIVELY from a scientific viewpoint. And the conversion factor (IIRC) is something like 1.4 X Carbon = CO2... (check that)


  flacaltenn,
  I am talking about the CO2 figures.  Nothing else.  But here is a bit of interesting information.  The world is warming.  But if it wasn't for all the crap we put into the air, more sunlight would be reaching the earth.  Warming it up even faster.  So if we cleaned all the dirty crap out of the air, it would only accelerate global warming.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED  Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  I don't think anybody really knows what will happen.  As I mentioned before, there is a possibility that global warming coupled with methane release could cause a positive feedback loop and doom us all much faster than most scientists really figured on.  As I said elsewhere, when it comes to the kind of biosphere we now live in, in geological terms, we are in uncharted territory.  But one thing is for sure.  Right now, humans are doing things they ought not to be doing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2014)

I count it as a win every time one the Cultists use the word "denier"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.
> ...



Hey, you're good at math! Now can you show us an experiment that controls for a 120PPM increase in CO2?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 13, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > here's another group hug moment for y'all. Are you quoting tons of CARBON or tons of CARBON DIOXIDE?? I think BOTH numbers are correct. you are just a victim of the politically correct move to PURPOSELY confuse folks about CO2 and "carbon"...
> ...


 
I dont thinks so, in the long term...


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  These days it seems that you can find a graph to support any contention.  But for those who would deny global warming despite all of the evidence, it is just because they don't want to see the truth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 13, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 
Not so much....  His figures lack accurate comparison to short term trends.  The Paleo Record is like looking at 1000 year plots while he compares it to a 100 year plot.  He lacks the information during the shorter terms to make a valid comparison.  Its the Mike Mann school of illousions...  IN just the last 11,000 years there have been several CO2 spikes and always followng a warm up.  When you consider that the majority of the earth runs 70 to 100 ppm lower than the Manaloa readings you must first find a point that allows a valid compariosn. Then you must disect the time frame to 10 years which can not be done with any accuracy.

In the last two warming trends the CO2 trend followed and conintued to rise for about 200 years after the warming ceased and the rise was 1.5 to 2.1 ppm/year. Very similar to our current trend.

THe major problem with making this kind of comparison is trying to fit the short term trend.  Just as Mann did with the tree proxies and his statistical parlor trick in creating the Hokey Schtick.  When you take the average  of a 1000 year period you miss the short term trends within. Mann did the reverse by using the long trends to omit  data that was troublesome and then placed short terms to get his fantasitc rise.  The same applies with the CO2 Comparison. the average of an average is missleading and improper.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 13, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
The short term is warming (up to 18 years ago). The long term is cooling..


----------



## Zander (Sep 13, 2014)

I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....


  Zander,
  "Coming up with new excuses" is your opinion.  But the really exhausting thing is trying to find a way to get people to accept the truth.  Somebody once basically said that it is difficult to get people to understand the truth.  Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding.  Also, Einstein once said something before my time.  Which is something that I would have probably come up with.  He basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.


----------



## Zander (Sep 13, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....
> ...




Here is a list of the 52 excuses for "the pause".........have at it pal. Of course saying "I DON'T KNOW" isn't one of them.....lol...


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 13, 2014)

Zander said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


  Zander,
  I don't know what "the pause" is in reference to.  You then bring up saying "I don't know."  What is it that you think I don't know.


----------



## Crick (Sep 14, 2014)




----------



## indiajo (Sep 14, 2014)

Crick said:


>


So, we had negative heat content in the oceans up to the eighties?
That's cute.


----------



## Crick (Sep 14, 2014)

No... it was below an arbitrary baseline.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED  Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.
> 
> Should we get 560ppm --- the NEXT doubling for another 1degC change will require TWICE as much CO2 as it required this time.. All the way to 1120ppm.. There is no basis for believing that we live on a planet with a broken climate system that will COMMIT PLANETCIDE because of a 1 or 2 degC change in the "trigger".. NONE. If the climate system was THAT UNSTABLE --- we wouldn't be sitting on our asses arguing about it now.



So you say. People that are knowledgeable in terms of meteorology say otherwise. And while we are at 400 ppm on CO2, we are at over 1800 ppb on CH4, which represents a 250% increase in CH4. CH4, on a decadal basis, is over 100 times of an effective GHG as CO2. So, in effect, we are already at the 500 ppm level. Now add in the increase in NOx, and the industrial gases that have no natural analog, and we are at or past the doubling mark of CO2.

How this extreme rate of increase in going to affect us in the coming years is no known. You see, there has never been a period in the past with this rate of increase.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED  Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.
> ...



You just made a perfect case for my argument. Gee thanks GoldiRocks. 
You want to toss in Methane and claim we're at 500ppm -- have at it. The empirical -- and well measured --- modern temperature record is then WAY below the expected values for these gases without feedbacks and multipliers. Doing it your way just validates a lower and lower Climate Sensitivity effect. MAYBE even NEGATIVE feedbacks in play eh? Kinda like that HUGE amount of heat EATEN by the oceans that NEVER EVER showed up in the IPCC forcing function graphs..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 14, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have a lot more respect for the climate alarmists if they had the dignity and class to simply admit they don't know. Constantly coming up with new excuses must be exhausting.....
> ...



The "truth" is that what we've measured in the Modern era shows NO EVIDENCE that the Earth's climate is in danger of "thermal runaway". And in fact, the warming rate may be below the basic Physics estimates for CO2 only (without all the pretend multipliers that scared folks)

What do YOU think "the truth" is? How much has the planet warmed in your lifetime?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2014)

Yes, the temperature is not what some expected. Yet the melting of the Arctic Ice is nearly a half century ahead of the expectations of those same scientists. And the increase in methane from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates and the land based Permafrost is starting to get to the point of worrisome. There will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030. Glaciers in the Andes are receding far more rapidly than any expected. 

As far as the oceans eating the heat. True. And we will see the result of that in less than a decade.


----------



## Zander (Sep 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, the temperature is not what some expected. Yet the melting of the Arctic Ice is nearly a half century ahead of the expectations of those same scientists. And the increase in methane from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates and the land based Permafrost is starting to get to the point of worrisome. There will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030. Glaciers in the Andes are receding far more rapidly than any expected.
> 
> As far as the oceans eating the heat. True. And we will see the result of that in less than a decade.



Sure it will........we were supposed to have an "ice free Arctic" by 2013 too....


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 14, 2014)

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01a3fd16a72e970b-pi

Well, I think this graph gives a very good idea of how the ice in the Arctic is going.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Yes, the temperature is not what some expected. Yet the melting of the Arctic Ice is nearly a half century ahead of the expectations of those same scientists. And the increase in methane from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates and the land based Permafrost is starting to get to the point of worrisome. There will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030. Glaciers in the Andes are receding far more rapidly than any expected.
> 
> As far as the oceans eating the heat. True. And we will see the result of that in less than a decade.



Your whittle buddy CrickHam thinks that ocean heat absorption accounts for ALL the heat missing from the IPCC projections. That's one GIGANTIC negative feedback ain't it? If only we knew how it actually works.. 

Ice has never worried me. It melts at 0degC. Other than that -- it's not a thermometer and ice loss only tells us about days above 0degC. Same amount of lost for 100 days at 0.1degC  as there is for one day at 10degC. And ice has been melting for 150,000 years on the planet. 

Even the solid downward line on Arctic Sea Ice shows NO ACCELERATION thru this gaseous era..  No ice for me please..


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

That's okay, no FCT for me.

I love Mr Thermo's implication that melting ice uses no heat.


----------



## Zander (Sep 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01a3fd16a72e970b-pi
> 
> Well, I think this graph gives a very good idea of how the ice in the Arctic is going.



Looks like normal variations from natural solar cycles.....Cherry picking dates to create the illusion of a trend is a common tactic of the AGW Cultists.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 15, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  If you want precise facts and figures, you're going to have to look them up yourself.  But a while ago I looked up something about methane release.  If I remember right, the release wasn't as high as expected during the eighties.  But then it started going up again.  You can look at this as a computer like "bullshit in, bullshit out" sort of thing.  But I heard on some news program once that the rate of global warming from about the 70's to today went up twice as fast as what scientists had predicted back in the 70's.

  You say that there is no evidence that the earth is in danger of a thermal runaway.  Well for what it's worth, what I just said is a little proof.  Though as far as evidence of a thermal runaway goes, there is no geological precident on which to judge what the warning signs might be.  But that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.  You also ask how much the earth has warmed in my lifetime.  It's hard to say.  For example, there is a parable about a frog being placed into a bowl of water with the water slowly rising.  The parable states that the frog won't notice the gradual temparature increase and cook to death.  At one time, I thought this parable was of an experiment that was actually done.  Until I looked it up.  Something I thought was funny was the writer of the article pointing out that you can't get a frog to sit still for anything.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 15, 2014)

Zander said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01a3fd16a72e970b-pi
> ...


  Zander,
  Excuse me for butting in.  But from everything I have heard, what is going on has nothing to do with any solar cycle or the earth's orbit.  Also, just in case you might think so, space isn't warming around us.  Neither is mars going through its own global warming because of it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



If you are under 60, the world has warmed about 1/2 a degree in your lifetime. The entire GW circus is about projections that the planet will commit suicide if we reach a 2deg trigger. Not really any evidence that our Climate system is that fragile. And CO2/methane rates -- even in an industrialized world -- are only capable of a 2 degree rise by 2100 at the worst case. NOT the 6 or 8 deg that's being used to scare folks. 

Here's the LONG scale view of methane in the atmos. Top line.. 








Notice how much "thawing of methane" ALREADY has happened WITHOUT any catastrophic effect. How much is left? A lot LESS then there was when Cleveland was under 4,000 feet of ice !!!!! 

And here's what methane (CH4) have looked like recently.. 





Tell me if I need to panic and have a cow..


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

Depends on whether or not it's flatulent.

If you'd like to worry a little more about catastrophic methane release, read up on the Permian-Triassic extinction event.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 15, 2014)

Tell me if I need to panic and have a cow..

*I have no knowledge of that, have you been bending over for the bull?*


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 15, 2014)

And for THIS, America must suffer?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


>


6 buoys off the Seattle coast.... where three rivers dump their water...



S----t----r----e----t-----c-----h........


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 16, 2014)

flacaltenn,
  Yes, I would say that it is time to panic.  Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise.  But I think you're missing the whole point.  What happens if people like me are wrong.  Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework.  Which it is badly in need of anyway.  But what if people like you are wrong.  (Which you are)  Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven.  (I say sarcastically)


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 16, 2014)

Mr. H,
  I don't know exactly what you're getting at.  China burns much more coal than India.  Though in Chinas' case, much of it is due to producing products for the U.S.  Products that should be manufactured here in the first place.  Even if our envioronmental standards are higher.

  Though you bring up an interesting point with India.  I was watching a program once where they were talking to some woman there.  Somebody who is highly respected and thought of as being highly intelligent.  She was saying that if all the people in India were to start to live the same kind of lifestyle as we do in the west, the environmental destruction would surely destroy the earth.  But she was committed to all the people in India living the same kind of lifestyle that we do in the west.  You already know where that will lead.  So what's the answer?  Vote for me as dictator.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Mr. H,
> I don't know exactly what you're getting at.  China burns much more coal than India.  Though in Chinas' case, much of it is due to producing products for the U.S.  Products that should be manufactured here in the first place.  Even if our envioronmental standards are higher.
> 
> Though you bring up an interesting point with India.  I was watching a program once where they were talking to some woman there.  Somebody who is highly respected and thought of as being highly intelligent.  She was saying that if all the people in India were to start to live the same kind of lifestyle as we do in the west, the environmental destruction would surely destroy the earth.  But she was committed to all the people in India living the same kind of lifestyle that we do in the west.  You already know where that will lead.  So what's the answer?  Vote for me as dictator.


 oh, you have evidence do you now?  Funny no one else has presented any yet.  Hear of the pause? hmmmm.......


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 17, 2014)

jc4


jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H,
> ...


  jc456,
  What is it that you want evidence of.  I hope it is that China burns more coal than the U.S.?  In which case, you can look it up.  As for what else I said, I would hope that you aren't so stupid as to question that.  Because as it is, even a blind person could see that the environment is getting worse and worse.  When I hear experts talk about things like population growth, pollution or economics, what I hear is, unsustainable, unsustainable, unsustainable.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc4
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


 that CO2 is harmful to the climate.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 17, 2014)

jc456


jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc4
> ...


  jc456,
  You need to find and watch the documentary, "Greedy Lying Bastards."  It has many interesting things in it.  One of which is them showing the CEO of Exxon admitting at a shareholders meeting that global warming was a reality.  And he had every reason to deny it.  I can't tell you that the ever increasing CO2 is harmful to the environment for one main reason.  You obviously don't want to know.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


Google it....then get back and I'll tell you if your right...


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


 I don't care what a CEO of Exxon has to say, he isn't me.  I'm asking you why you think CO2 is harmful.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456
> ...


 why, I'm not making the statement, prove it is.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 17, 2014)

jc456


jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456
> ...


  jc456,
  Did you even read my thread at the beginning of this?  It would also be helpful if you read some of the back and forth that has been going on in the four pages since.  But I will try to come up with something I haven't already replied to somebody else.  First of all CO2 isn't all that bad.  Especially for the plants that breathe it.  But the rate at which humans are making it go up is alarming.  And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.  Which could very well cause a dasterous increase in methane.  Which is 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.  If you looked around at what was happening in the world, you could see that global warming has had some serious effects on the earth.  These are sure to get worse.  One of the main problems is that these changes don't effect the wealthy as much.  And these are the people who make the rules.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


see when you use words such as alarming you are setting flags.  So what is it you have to make that statement?


----------



## elektra (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn,
> Yes, I would say that it is time to panic.  Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise.  But I think you're missing the whole point.  What happens if people like me are wrong.  Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework.  Which it is badly in need of anyway.  But what if people like you are wrong.  (Which you are)  Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven.  (I say sarcastically)


Yet the solution requires an increase in heavy industry, alternative energy has used more hydrocarbons, by a factor of 10,000 or more, to produce less energy. But, alternative energy has managed to destroy more acres of land than any other source of energy in history.

Green energy is canard, it's like using 15 "green", Cadillacs to get to work, no pollution after they are produced, but you used the largest amount of hydrocarbons possible to make that little journey.

Yes you are wrong and the consequences are everyw gere, highest price of gas ever, highest price of food ever, highest electrical rates ever, inability to provide energy in a state of emergency, the growth of heavy industry outside the pollution laws in the usa.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 17, 2014)

jc456,


jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456
> ...


  jc456,
  Is this how you usually try to win arguments?  By asking utterly and completely pointless questions?  I have already answered you.  If that's not good enough, oh well.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 17, 2014)

elektra said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn,
> ...


  elektra,
  You are kind of all over the place.  But I will try to make some sense out of what you said.  First of all, the solution isn't heavy industry.  The solution lies in efficency and not having a waste based economic system.  It would also be a great help to limit the growth of the human population.  China recently came up with a solution.  Instead of limiting couples to one child, they are now allowing them to have two children instead.  One of the problems humans face is that if you are insane, you aren't likely to solve any problem.

  Next, in a way, I can't really agree with what you said about green solutions causing more environmental problems.  No matter what industry does, it is going to cause pollution.  If it is going to do so, it would be better if the end product caused less pollution.  Right now, it would be better if all cars were completely electric.  Because from what I have heard, power plants can produce electricty more efficently than a gasolene engine can produce power.  If people can't drive as far, too bad.  It would be nice if we could all wipe our butts with mink pelts.  But you can't have everything.

  What I can agree with is that using farm land to grow corn to convert into fuel is a really bad idea.  Then there is the nuclear industry.  That is a nightmare on many levels.  With coal, you mine it and burn it.  The end.  But with nuclear power, you have to mine uranium ore.  Then you have to refine it into a form of uranium that you can use.  Which no doubt takes quite a bit of power.  Then quite a bit is needed in building the power plants.  Which themselves don't have a very long lifespan.  When you tack onto that all of the costs involved in controling raidoactive waste, nuclear power isn't all that efficient anymore.  Other things I have problems with are fracking and the Canadian oil sands.

  As for the last part of your statement,you really loose me.  Gas prices in the U.S. aren't the highest they've ever been.  Other countries pay more for it than we do.  People in the U.S. probably pay less for food than any other industrialized country.


----------



## elektra (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


All over the place, hardly, you simply do not have the knowledge to fathom the amount of hydrocarbons heavy industry uses in the manufacture of alternative energy.

First and foremost, solar and wind are the large, the biggest things in the world ever produced as a source of energy.

Can you grasp the magnitude of what is being built. If it's the largest power plant built, it used the largest among of hydrocarbons in its manufacture.

Further, the life of solar and wind power generators is 20% of the life of any non-renewable source of power.

hell, renewable is a term misused, a ten year life for the world's largest solar or wind power source is not renewable, it .a be recyclable, much different than, "free", "green", or "alternative". 

Alternative, bullshit, how does alternative apply to solar and wind that are 100% dependent on the increase use of hydrocarbons..

100% of my post us relevant, which to those who do not think past headlines would seem, "all over the place".

Green or Alternative energy activists must have a narrow view, the truth and facts show Green and Alternative to be fraud.


----------



## elektra (Sep 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last? 

I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2014)

elektra said:


> You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?
> 
> I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.



LOL. About 30 years.

The Life Span of U.S. Reactors - BusinessWeek

Most solar panels have a gaurantee of 20 to 25 years. Windmills? Probably about 20 years, then you just pull off the turbine for rebuilding, and put a new one on. A nuke, when it is done, it is done, and you have a toxic mess to clean up.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 18, 2014)

Hmmm............  now why did that post that reply like that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2014)

elektra said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



I'm facing that question with one of my clients that provides gauges and read-outs for these aging plants. They last only until you can't get parts and components for them anymore and you can't change the design without an act of Congress. We need to face up to the fact that ALL of our reactors have the computing power of a PlaySchool toy.. And that they NEED to be refurbished soon. Bigger issue than installing more wind that doesn't deliver on Tues, Wed, and part of next Fri..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 18, 2014)

elektra said:


> You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?
> 
> I know so much more about this than most on these boards, so go ahead with the simple, the life of Nuclear Power Plants. How long you think they last. I am sure with such brazen posts you will have the answer off the top of your head.





Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm............  now why did that post that reply like that?




Tried to fix it for you. Did I get it right? 

How can it be only 30 years if MOST of them are going on 60 years? 
Hmmmmmm ?


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > You have no understanding of nuclear power, nuclear power plants do not have a long life? Please tell, how long does a nuclear power plant last?
> ...


[/QUOTE]
Gee, about 30 yet the average life of our Nuclear reactors is 33 years old and still running.  Most are running on licences good for 40 years. Heck some of our plants have been running since 1970, over 44 years. So you are wrong again Old Crock.

Now we see that Solar Panels have a guarantee of 20-25, that is for HOMES? Not commercial Solar, so again Old Crock failed by comparing a tiny panel to a Industrial size Solar Farm.

Wind Turbines, the last 7 years. I am speaking of the Turbine itself, not the tower which it sits on, the towers do last 20 years. 

Of the three which one provides energy 24 hours a day, for 500 days or more straight, without a hiccup, with shutting down. Nuclear Power.

A nuclear power plant that is 20 years old easily runs 500 days in a row, all day long. Talk about perfection.


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2014)

500 days, I bet some reactors, expensive ones run much longer.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 18, 2014)

elektra said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


  elektra,
Of what I said, did you only read what you wanted to?  Green is always going to be better than non-green.  But all that wasn't the important part of what I said.  What is needed besides curbing population growth is efficiency and moving away from a waste based economic system.  You can talk about what you want.  But any other topics about energy apart from these are a useless load of crap.


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


What you wrote was not true.
Just cause you built it and can use Google to find countless websites reprinting the same rant does not make what you wrote factual.

Your post just shows your understanding of the matter is shallow.

Can't build your idea without a trillion dollars, 500 billion admitted in the last two years attributes to that fact.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 18, 2014)

elektra said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


  elektra,
  The information I had heard about the life expectancy nuclear power plants came from quite a while ago.  So I double checked.  It is about forty years.  But those who care more about money than safety would like to operate them for over 100 years.  Though this topic is beside the point.  Because only a severely misinformed or delusional mind could view nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power production.  I know of a doccumentary you should watch.  Really!  Its called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."


----------



## jc456 (Sep 18, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


I agree, what you posted is a useless load of crap, thanks for pointing it out to us.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 18, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


  flacalern,
  You talk about times when renewable energy might not be available.  But batteries and even capacitors could be built to gigantic porportions anywhere there is a large solar or wind farm.  Though on a smaller scale, having solar pannels on most people's roofs would help a lot.  Recently I heard about a big failure with the government providing money to a solar pannel manufacturer.  Which sounds like a load of horseshit to me.  Maybe this company just couldn't make a profit.  Though in such a case, given what is at stake, the government should have jumped in with both feet and made it work.  But no doubt oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power plant owners wouldn't have been verry happy about that.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 18, 2014)

elektra said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


  elektra,
  I'm not too sure who you're talking to here.  But I will answer you.  When it comes to the nuclear industry, you can't believe what they say.  There was an episode of Modern Marvels called "Engineering Desasters 19."  In it they talked about nuclear accidents that were covered up.  You then bring up the topic of money.  First of all, ask the Japanese what it will cost to clean up their nuclear mess.  And when it comes to war, apparently the U.S. has trillions of dollars to throw around.  Also, between the U.S. trade deficit and what we have to pay in interest each year on our national debt, the cost to the U.S. is nearly a trillion dollars a year.  But the cost of doing nothing will end up costing us much more than can be measured by money.  You might end up having to live in a cave with very little to eat.  With people like Mexicans and Chinese outside the cave yelling "Racist!" for not letting them in.  Count your money then.


----------



## elektra (Sep 18, 2014)

[QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]





elektra said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


  elektra,
  The information I had heard about the life expectancy nuclear power plants came from quite a while ago.  So I double checked.  It is about for(ty years.  But those who care more about money than safety would like to operate them for over 100 years.  Though this topic is beside the point.  Because only a severely misinformed or delusional mind could view nuclear energy as an acceptable form of power production.  I know of a doccumentary you should watch.  Really!  Its called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."[/QUOTE]
Waste, how much waste can we state Green/Renewable Solar and Wind generated, that you will never admit. Size matters, you can see Solar from space, how much hydrocarbons and oil does it take to cover 100's of square miles of earth?

Commercial nuclear power in the USA, how much waste is created, just enough to fill a football field. Of course we could do what the French do and recycle our spent nuclear fuel.


> Our commercial nuclear power plants are about the best source of power on earth. Solar and Wind are a complete waste of money that just cost us so much, not just in money but in the amount of power we could now enjoy.
> 
> Had we spent that money on oil and nuclear power, gas would cost a 1$ . But instead we literally threw money in a. endless hole.
> 
> I do like your idea about the population needing to be smaller, go ahead and start that personally so we can see you are not a hypocrite.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Nothing I have ever written is useless crap.  Though trying to get people to listen to reason does seem useless most of the time.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 18, 2014)

elektra said:


> [QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Waste, how much waste can we state Green/Renewable Solar and Wind generated, that you will never admit. Size matters, you can see Solar from space, how much hydrocarbons and oil does it take to cover 100's of square miles of earth?

Commercial nuclear power in the USA, how much waste is created, just enough to fill a football field. Of course we could do what the French do and recycle our spent nuclear fuel.


> Our commercial nuclear power plants are about the best source of power on earth. Solar and Wind are a complete waste of money that just cost us so much, not just in money but in the amount of power we could now enjoy.
> 
> Had we spent that money on oil and nuclear power, gas would cost a 1$ . But instead we literally threw money in a. endless hole.
> 
> I do like your idea about the population needing to be smaller, go ahead and start that personally so we can see you are not a hypocrite.


[/QUOTE]
  elektra,
  You just don't get it.  Obviously you don't know that human caused global warming is a fact.  As for the rest, do the letters F O hold any significance for you?  Our conversation is done.  Anything else you write I will just ignore.  But maybe that's what you want.  So you can spout any nonsense you want that others following this disscussuin can read.  Without not having me to put you in your place.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]
> ...


 
Well this is sure useless.  See you can't prove human caused warming.  Please, all of us skeptics have been waiting on that.  See I did post my sides, here I'll post it again: The Discovery of Global Warming   February 2014

Skepticism (1900-1940s)
Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference


----------



## elektra (Sep 19, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOT soE="ltsmasher, post: 9823141, member: 50409"]
> ...


  elektra,
  You just don't get it.  Obviously you don't know that human caused global warming is a fact.  As for the rest, do the letters F O hold any significance for you?  Our conversation is done.  Anything else you write I will just ignore.  But maybe that's what you want.  So you can spout any nonsense you want that others following this disscussuin can read.  Without not having me to put you in your place.[/QUOTE]
And there you go, challenge one person to a count or admit the amount of energy that solar and wind power consume and all the can reply, is a rant how the are smarter.

Not one scientist has wrote one paper or study stating there is man made global warming, yet cultsmasher DICTATES that there is man made global warming!

The only reply cult master can muster is to dictate what is and tell those who know he is liar and activist to F.O., literally telling me to, fuck off.

When challenged, the challenger is told to "fuck off".

Is there bipartisan compromise on this issue, no. Because this is a political movement we fight, not science.

Cultsmasher is a baby, so much emotion when challenged, dummies get mad when forced to explain.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn,
> Yes, I would say that it is time to panic.  Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise.  But I think you're missing the whole point.  What happens if people like me are wrong.  Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework.  Which it is badly in need of anyway.  But what if people like you are wrong.  (Which you are)  Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven.  (I say sarcastically)



Temperature trend is now cooling...  CO2 trend unabated... Divergence from preapproved flight plan sending alarmists crazy... while showing the link does not exist. (if you studied the past this would have been obvious)....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn,
> Yes, I would say that it is time to panic.  Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise.  But I think you're missing the whole point.  What happens if people like me are wrong.  Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework.  Which it is badly in need of anyway.  But what if people like you are wrong.  (Which you are)  Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven.  (I say sarcastically)



Nope YOU are wrong!! on all counts..  empirical evidence proves it..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 19, 2014)

Billy_Bob,
  You global warming deniers are a joke.  No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it.  Human caused global warming is real.  Deal with it.  This debate has played out.  If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on.  Find some other topic to spout crap about.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob,
> You global warming deniers are a joke.  No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it.  Human caused global warming is real.  Deal with it.  This debate has played out.  If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on.  Find some other topic to spout crap about.



The joke is on you.

Please tell how the earth survived 7,000ppm and greater levels of CO2 for 235 million years and during that time the high average temp was just 22 deg C and during glaciation phases just 12 deg C all over and over again WITHOUT runaway atmospheric temps? If CO2 was really the driver how did we survive as a planet?

The only joke here is on those who deny physical empirical evidence which refutes their very basic premise. Your models are broken toys that can not predict anything and they are NOT empirical evidence of any kind.  The joke is on you.. Because you bought the snake oil tonic..


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2014)

1) The period of interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.
2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event.  Those rates have impacts on the results
3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence
Rising GHGs are empirical evidence
The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence
The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence
The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

What have you got?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob,
> You global warming deniers are a joke.  No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it.  Human caused global warming is real.  Deal with it.  This debate has played out.  If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on.  Find some other topic to spout crap about.



None of us actually deny the world is warming.  There is just no evidence that it will warm any more than a couple degrees by 2100. What do YOU think the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be and WHY?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> 1) The period oI interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.
> 2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event.  Those rates have impacts on the results
> 3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.
> 
> ...


You are lying for the 33nd  time about that #2 and you KNOW it. Unless you are a parrot with an ISP connection.

And your #3 demonsstrates complete ignorance about the meaning of empirical evidence.And how to set up a scientific query.  The temp is the process that NEEDS a theory.  It is in no way the PROOF of the theory.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 20, 2014)

Lets play the idiot game, shall we:


Crick said:


> 1) The period of interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.


This premise denounces any form of natural variation.  By this argument all warming and cooling since man arrived on this planet is mans fault. Are you this foolish?  At least this explains your belief that man is responsible for it all.


Crick said:


> 2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event.  Those rates have impacts on the results


A huge pile of quackery and bull shit. The current rise and change if placed into context of a 300 year averaged plot makes this event disappear.  Knowing this, you must also realize that these rises and falls have happened before and at far faster rates. When we arrive at the next glacial cycle you can pump billions of gigatons of GHG's and it wont stop you from being a ice cube. Empirical paleo evidence shows that even at 7000ppm we have warmed, cooled, and frozen cyclically over and over again.


Crick said:


> 3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.


No, it is not.  Your list below is derived from *MODELS* not from empirical evidence. Model outputs are not empirical evidence. I repeat; *Model outputs are not empirical evidence*



Crick said:


> Rising temperatures are empirical evidence


18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.


Crick said:


> Rising GHGs are empirical evidence


18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.


Crick said:


> The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence


Climate Sensitivity has been reduced below a 1:1 ratio.  Current empirical evidence shows that a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise per doubling of CO2 is now the most likely and accurate level of global response to CO2.  That is a 60% reduction of the lab measurements made of CO2 reflection capability. Water absorbs heat and it also absorbs CO2.


Crick said:


> The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence


Why Yes it is... Funny you would include this one as it is denied by the CAGW folks to have little or no effect on the earths systems. They have tried to remove the LIA, Younger-Dryas, Dalton and Maunder events. Your Man MANN is the one...


Crick said:


> The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
> The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence


I am currently in the process of Direct Measurements as a full study has never been performed. I am curious as to your source for your statement? Radiative imbalance means the whole spectrum of output.


Crick said:


> What have you got?


I have facts.  As I have line by line torn your crap to shreds it appears you haven't got anything but broken models to play with..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 20, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob,
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  That's cute.  You put me on a slowdown, cause some posts to disappear and expect an answer.  Suspend your slowdown and I will tell you what you apparently refuse to hear.  By the way.  You say that you don't like my avatar.  What do you think Hitler would say about your attempts to stifle the truth.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 20, 2014)

Crick,
  Sorry, but they have me on a slowdown.  Until they lift it, you're going to have to deal with these bozos on your own.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 20, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The period oI interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.
> ...





cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



That is about the exact opposite of what I have said about your avatar, I told you in open forum that it is your cross to bear.  And neither I nor USMB gives a shit about your impaired personal judgement..

BTW   While you are on "discouraged user" you should read the rules.  Because you just broke a major one by discussing moderation actions in the open forum. Hope some moderator doesnt see those posts eh?


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


  flacalten,
  Impared personal judgment?  That is your opinion.  As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup.  And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.

  But before I gat banned, I will answer your questions about global warming.  I will start out by restating what you already know.  Yearly CO2 output of all the earths' volcanoes, 200 million tons.  The yearly amount that humans are responsible for, 26.8 billion tons.  

  It has been shown that whenever CO2 levels raise, temperature also rises.  You know that in earths' recent history, global CO2 levels and temperatures have dropped.  Lately, the earth has been going through a period of ice ages and thawing.  During this time, much methane has become trapped in tundra and shallow seas.  Most of it is no doubt too deep to be affected by the earths warming.  But there is a good chance that there is enough to be released by global warming to increase global warming beyond mere exponential levels.  Which as you know could cause a huge disaster in a short amount of time.

  Even with the greenhouse effect as is is now, major changes are going on.  For example, recently the entire contenent of Greenland experienced some thawing.  And everywhere where there is water where there used to be ice, global warming increases even more.  Also, if you look at historic charts showing the temperatures of the earth, you know how they rise and fall.  Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of how these coincide with the minor fluctuations in the earths' orbit around the sun or in fluctuations in the earth's axis.  I could look all these things up, but what's the point.

  This is what really matters.  What is going on now isn't being caused by any of those things.  It's being caused by humans.  As just one kind of animal on this planet, we dont have the right to effect the earths' climate in that way.  Despite our "intelligence," what kind of supernatural monkey-voodo "god" supposedly created us, or whatever other kind of bullshit people might come up with.

  Here are the facts.  If the ability to understand them hasn't been evolved or brainwashed out of you.  Capitalism is a concept from HELL!  Corporations are without doubt phsychotic, sociopathic entities.  Money determines what is right and wrong.  Even if it means the destruction of the earth.  Our whole economic system is geared toward how much useless crap companies can manage to shove down peoples's throats.  What needs to be done is for humans to adopt a more sustainable and efficient economic system.  But it can't be done through capitalism.

  This brings up the question of what is really needed for people to be happy.  But therein lies another problem.  Have you ever seen a time lapsed film of a slime mold growing along a forest floor?  That shows the perfect analogy for humanity.  (Saying this next point with sarcasm) But I suppose as long as it is a "free" mold, that makes a difference.  

  That the world's population needs to be lowered is clear.  Though this need not be done through slaughter.  But if it is done, to whom will it be done to.  It is highly unlikely that any species of human is going to take population level guidlines from another species of human.  That is why I am a White separatist.  The only hope I see is for different species of human to separate themselves and straighten out this question on their own.  There are only two people I know of that have the ability to do something like this.  Myself and somebody named Aron Loyd.  So this is what the whole CO2 debate boils down to.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacalten,
> 
> Impared personal judgment?  That is your opinion.  As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup.  And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.
> 
> ...




And the Truth comes out that this is merely a ploy to gain control. nothing more and nothing less..  The rise in CO2 has NOT resulted in a linear progression trend. It has infact diverged and shown itself a non player.  The other gases may or may not be as well as the science is incomplete.

You really should take notes on Dr Steve Koonin;


> Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.



WSJ - Climate science is Not Settled.

The left wing arrogance that man can somehow manage the earths climatic systems without understanding them is pure fantasy.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Lets play the idiot game, shall we:
> 
> 
> Crick said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  I have some things to add about the arguement between Crick and yourself.  First of all, look at the chart that shows how much CO2 has been created by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  How foolish are you?  Next, whatever may have caused fluctuations in the earth's CO2 or global temperatures in the past wasn't caused by man.  As for the rate at which CO2 is now rising, go back to the graph I mentioned.  See the hocky stick shape?  I couldn't say for sure without looking it up.  But I doubt if CO2 rates have ever risen faster.  And whatever caused it to do so in the past involved unstoppable forces of astronomy and possibly the earth's interior.  What's humanities' excuse.

  You then bring up models vs empirical evidence.  Looking at how much you have tried to sweep under the rug, I think I know what is going on with you.  Something I have seem from tobacco harm deniers.  Which is until you know everything right down to the finest detail, changing things is an absurdity.  But things don't work that way.  Despite how much human caused global warming deniers would like it to be.  

  You then go into statistics about temperature rise.  Whether or not they are true is another matter.  But it has always been shown when CO2 goes up, temperatures also follow suit.  There is no question that the planet is warming.  But at the same time, the earth is supposed to be in a cycle where it should be cooling.  Heading toward another ice age.  Instead, we are going in the opposite direction.  Such a thing may have happened in the past.  But again, it wasn't the fault of humans.  It is also difficult to say what ramafications it will have.  Then you talk about water absorbing heat.  But that isn't a good thing either.  Also, as I pointed out to flacaltenn, when the ice is replaced by water, the greenhouse effect increases.

  As far as things like the sun's output or cyclical changes in earths' orbit or axis, I again have to point out that what is going on now is the fault of man.  Not those things.  Then both you and Crick get into a thing about radiative factors.  Well that is past my depth of knowledge.  The only thing I can say is of measurements taken after the 9-11 attacks.  Because there were no jets in the air, from what I remember, more sunlight was getting through.  Even if humans cleaned the dirty crap out of the air, it would only increase global warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Lets play the idiot game, shall we:
> ...



Your arrogance is blinding you.  There is no CO2 warming link.  The earth and its cycles has laid that premise waste.

Your use of the derogatory term 'denier' meant to silence/shame dissent and others points of view along with science which does not fit your agenda is telling. Your science can not stand up to scrutiny of review so you hide your work from view, claim everyone else but you is too stupid to know, or just plain pal review your works so as not to meet any dissenting views and or evidence which refutes your position.

This is NOT SCIENCE! This is left wing radical control group think. nothing more and nothing less..

The US has scrubbed about 90% of its particulate emissions and still the USCRN shows a -0.6 deg C decrease in temp over the last 12 years. Even cleaning up the air in the US has lead to cooling despite CO2 rise.   But you all dont want to see why because it dose not fit your warming meme..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > flacalten,
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  What I had to say to flacaltenn is no evicence of any kind "Ploy."  Human caused global warming is real.  What I pointed out to flacaltenn was that there were underlying causes to it.  As I said, look at the graph showing the rise in CO2 levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  That isn't a "ploy."  So don't try to use my political beliefs as another tool in your human caused global warming deniers toolkit.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  You can believe what you will.  But from what I have seen of the graphs shown, there is a link between the rise of CO2 and temperatures.  "Deny" it at your own risk.  Also, from what I have seen, there is no way to label what you say except as something a denier would say.  And I know the reason why.  Even if you don't care to admit it.  Which is that to change the way things are now going would mean an uncomfortable upheavel in existance as you have come to know it.  But religion has the answer.  Simply look forward to the earth being destroyed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob,
> What I had to say to flacaltenn is no evicence of any kind "Ploy."  Human caused global warming is real.  What I pointed out to flacaltenn was that there were underlying causes to it.  As I said, look at the graph showing the rise in CO2 levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  That isn't a "ploy."  So don't try to use my political beliefs as another tool in your human caused global warming deniers toolkit.



Sir, you are a joke! As i have shown with empirical evidence before the rates of warming are statistically the same from 1900-1950 and 1951-2000,  According the the IPCC and the US EPA endangerment finding all rise prior to 1950 was natural variation and all rise after 1950 was man caused.  How did you stop natural variation? What did you do?

With statistically no change in rate of rise despite a rise in CO2 the forcing is 0.0 dec C.  SO what is attributed to man and what is natural process?  When natural variation is considered CO2 has little or NO MEASURABLE EFFECT!

It is an amazing thing, the alarmist thought process, facts mean nothing to them..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So tell me again how you all STOPPED natural variation.. I do not see a CO2 signal in this at all.  I am all ears!


----------



## Mustang (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> 
> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.
> 
> ...



I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.






Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> None of us actually deny the world is warming.  There is just no evidence that it will warm any more than a couple degrees by 2100. What do YOU think the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be and WHY?



I know this was not aimed at me but here is your answer.

Solar output is shifting. This shift along with axial tilt and precision of the earth will cause cooling now for about 30 years. The Spectral change is the wild card.  Axial Tilt and Precision would cool us for about another 25 years as these forces drive Ocean currents which are now cold.

I fully expect about a 2-3 deg C drop in the mean temperature.  We have already seen -0.6 degrees Celsius of that drop in the Northern Hemisphere. 

In 2050 we should be at the bottom of the 60 year cycle and the alarmists will be screaming ice age again..  If the suns shift in energy transference remains it could be a much longer and much deeper cold spell than that however.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The book is a left wing rant, low on facts, yet high on Stalinist/Marxist control principals...  Not one of my recommended books to any one unless your learning how to create propaganda.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.
> ...



Have you read it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacalten,
> Impared personal judgment?  That is your opinion.  As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup.  And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.
> 
> But before I gat banned, I will answer your questions about global warming.  I will start out by restating what you already know.  Yearly CO2 output of all the earths' volcanoes, 200 million tons.  The yearly amount that humans are responsible for, 26.8 billion tons.
> ...



Wow.   Global Warming is a convienent excuse for mass genocide...  who knew?  You are a white supremist who has just lunched on bad science and used it fo feed your warped conclusions.  LOTS of stuff you dont know.  I mean other than the number of human species that you imagine exist.  Lets start with your comparison of volcanic emissions versus man.  That is irrelevent.  What you should start with is the following.  The 32GTon of manmade CO2 is bettercompared to the 700GTon produced by nature every year on this planet.  Almost all of is recycled into the lands and oceans INCLUDING a large chunk of what man emits.  So 1\20 of the NATURAL carbon cycle is what your 32GTon represents.  Second item to put that huge number into better perspective is that just 1 lowly species alone puts about 1/20th of what man puts into the when you combine its CO2 and methane emissions..  its the termite..  Isnt that a better way to look at the big number?

Good luck with your green excuse for white supremacy..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Lots of hype and misrepresentation of science concerning 2nd hand smoke. Not so much for the DIRECT effects of smoking..  BOTH sides whacked science up the side of the head on that one.  Should be a warning about mixing politics and science right there.  Thing is, when one side does it, the other side generally feels the need to join in and abuse science as well


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Have you read it?



Yes. One of my lib professors a while back made it mandatory. I passed his class with an A and after I left his class i tor it up in a book review. since then we have talked many times about his views and mine. No one will win that debate, at least not in his or my mind..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob,
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  If anybody is a joke around here, it is you.  Like it or not, CO2 and global temperature is going up.  Maybe if you looked at a measurement in the last five minutes, it may show otherwise.  But the overall tendancy is going up, up, up.  You also talk about natural variation.  Well let's just go to a parallel universe and look at the earth just as it is without humans.  Comparing the two might give you a little better viewpoint on which to make an accurate measurment.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Look at the graphs that show both CO2 levels and global temperature rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  If you can't see the pattern, there's no hope for you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.
> ...







Got to love that disconnect... That same trend continues to today.. We just haven't updated the plot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

CO2 always lags temperature. Before each and every major cool down there is a spike in both temperature and CO2 followed by rapid cooling. we have seen both in the last 20 years. Given the duration of the Holocene period we are over due for our cool down into the next glacial cycle.   I wonder if this ever crosses the minds of those in power?

It will be clearly evident in about 7-10 years which we are dealing with. Cyclical 60 year trend or 90,000 year glacial cycle... a 2 deg C drop or a 5 deg C drop...


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


  Mustang,
  I suggested that my sister rent a documentary that is along the lines of the book you mentioned.  It is called, "Greedy Lying Bastards."  As far as I know, she never watched it.  Though even if I gave her a bootleg copy, I doubt if she would watch it.  I think she just wants to believe what she wants to believe.  I have known many people to be that way on a wide range of topics.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Nice... steal something, someones property and give it to another because you think its value belongs to them....  Marx would be so proud...


----------



## Mustang (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob,
> You global warming deniers are a joke.  No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it.  Human caused global warming is real.  Deal with it.  This debate has played out.  If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on.  Find some other topic to spout crap about.



There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.

But even if someone wants to take the view that this really IS a debate, conservatives have still already lost since their protestations will not stop action from being taken to confront climate change. The question is how long will they delay it. Therein lies the real question. All I can say is woe unto conservatives if and when it's finally determined that the delay that they singlehandedly caused over a period of decades has led to a bigger crisis than the one we otherwise would be facing.  Because if and when that happens, no one will ever forget it...or forgive them.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

Mustang said:


> *There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. *Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.
> 
> But even if someone wants to take the view that this really IS a debate, they've still already lost since their protestations will not stop action from being taken to confront climate change. The question is how long will they delay it. Therein lies the real question. All I can say is woe unto conservatives if and when it's finally determined that the delay that they highhandedly caused over a period of decades has led to a bigger crisis than the one we otherwise would be facing.  Because if and when that happens, no one will ever forget it...or forgive them.



 Your Delusions of grandeur precede you..  I guess real scientists are to stupid to understand...   Only a fool thinks that the science is in any way settled.. Tell me how you stopped natural variation? Inquiring minds would like to know...


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > flacalten,
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  First of all, there is no doubt that my partiotic views can help your argument.  But appealing to the brainwashed masses doesn't help your arguments much.  Like it or not, there are too many people on the planet for it to sustainably support.  What's your solution.  I have heard of an experiment concerning another solution.  Some scientists took a number of rats and put them into a cage together so that they would live in overcrowded conditions.  If I remember right, they did this experiment a number of times.  Always, all the rats died.  It didn't stop when there were a more livable number of rats in the cage.  With a knowledge of the hell they were put through, they basically figured that nonexistance was better.  I don't know how much eating of babies this involved.  Go ahead and call this "bad science."

  Next, you bring up human species.  Did you read my thread, "What is a "Species."  It too should give you something to disagree with.  Then you bring up the thing I stated about all the earths' volcanoes each year putting out 200 million tons of CO2.  While each year humans were responsible for putting out 26.8 billion tons.  Well whoever put these figures out, argue with them.  Not me.  

  Then you bring up termites and methane.  I think you left out all the methane things like cows and humans emit.  But compared to what a temperature driven methane release could cause, those are probably nothing.  Maybe I mentioned it before, but years ago I saw a couple of things where people were punching holes in lake ice up north.  It was pretty impressive seeing them setting the escaping methane on fire.  More recently, I heard of a couple places in the far north seeing temperatures into the 90's.  Which apparently has never happened before.  No doubt this will cause even more tundra thawing and methane release.

  One of two people are right here.  Either me or you.  As I said before, if I am wrong, big deal.  But if you are wrong, WOW!  Also, I suppose I should thank you for lifting your slowdown curse.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  I have to admit to a good amount of computer ignorance.  Because I don't know how to retrieve graphs and display them on my reply.  But if I bothered to find out, I could bring up graphs that challenge yours.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> View attachment 32169
> 
> CO2 always lags temperature. Before each and every major cool down there is a spike in both temperature and CO2 followed by rapid cooling. we have seen both in the last 20 years. Given the duration of the Holocene period we are over due for our cool down into the next glacial cycle.   I wonder if this ever crosses the minds of those in power?
> 
> It will be clearly evident in about 7-10 years which we are dealing with. Cyclical 60 year trend or 90,000 year glacial cycle... a 2 deg C drop or a 5 deg C drop...


  Billy_Bob,
  Rather than debate what you say about temperatures, look at it this way.  We would be better off with an ice age than a runaway greenhouse effect.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > *There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. *Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.
> ...



There's no delusions of grandeur on my part. I didn't discover the problem or lead the charge on the scientific investigation. Nor did I develop climate models or mathematic formulas to evaluate the evidence. But I have read quite a bit on the subject, and I know enough to be suspicious of the motives of the main players who are denying climate change because I understand the human tendency to deny problems if and when corporations understand that their financial interests will be negatively affected. It's an old story, and the truth of the matter is that burning fossil fuels is a world wide multi-trillion dollar business. Hell, the whole tobacco fight was fought tooth and nail, and that business is peanuts compared to the oil and coal industry and all the other ancillary industries involved in exploration, refining, distribution etc.

As for me, I understand that conservatives want to keep the so-called debate alive because they think as long as people are arguing about it, conservatives are winning. At any rate, everyone already knows that conservatives make more noise than anyone when it comes to any controversy.  If there was a room with 200 people in it, and only 10 of them were conservative, they would be making more of a ruckus than everyone else put together. But I personally refuse to be drawn into a continuous back and forth "debate" with conservatives on this issue because they (you) will NEVER accept evidence of anthropomorphic climate change regardless of how compelling it is. That means that the only people who really must be convinced are the fence sitters who haven't taken an ideological position against climate change because, unlike conservatives, they don't interpret the controversy as some kind of creeping socialism which is what is at the heart of conservative animosity.

In my opinion what will likely happen is this: Scientists will make a scientific argument, and conservatives will end up making an ideological argument. And in the end, cooler, more reasoned heads will prevail. Like I said, you guys have already lost the 'debate.' You just don't know it.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > *There is no debate on the science of climate change. It's settled. *Unfortunately, conservatives have tried to turn the science of climate change into a political debate where the pros and cons can be "debated" ad nauseam and ad infinitum as if this was a debate about the merits of different approaches to business asset depreciation.
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  I saw your bitch to mustang.  I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail.  Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob,
> Rather than debate what you say about temperatures, look at it this way.  We would be better off with an ice age than a runaway greenhouse effect.



There is no such thing as a runaway green house effect.  Paleo records show that the earth has had levels upward of 7,000ppm and the earth has never had that problem. The fact is, the earths physical make up will not allow it.






As this demonstrates the earths 'bumpers' so to speak will not allow a runaway greenhouse effect. What you do have to worry about is a glacial period.  Our current Holocene period is now 11,600 years which is longer than the previous two which lasted jut 9,000 or so years.

This graph resolution is 100,000 year plots.  so the normal cyclical phases can not be seen. this is a general look at long term climactic events.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

Now this plot is only a 1,000 year plot and much of the cycles can be seen.






This is where things get dicey. I disagree with the spike of CO2 as it is taken from Manaloa readings and the majority of the graph is from Antarctic ice cores which are generally 120ppm lower. They tacked the Manaloa readings on the end of this graph much like Mann did his proxy reconstructs. Bad sciences is bad science..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob,
> I saw your bitch to mustang.  I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail.  Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.



Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 22, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Have you read it?
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Excuse me for butting into the thing between you and mustang.  But I get the jist of the book mustang mentioned.  Even though I haven't read it.  So I can't say if it mentioned the real debate.  Which has been going on since the beginning of recorded history.  That being, who is right.  Those with the wealth and power, or those without.  At least in modern times, there is more education of the plebeian class.  Which helps some.  But unfortunately, that often comes at the cost of the chickens being taught by the foxes.  And becoming intreanched in the status quo system.  So the debate rages on.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 22, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Now this plot is only a 1,000 year plot and much of the cycles can be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Somebody was saying that we are in no danger of a runaway global temperature rise.  If you didn't say it, you probably agree with it.  But you can't be so sure.  Especially when the evidence points to just the opposite.  For example, I remember hearing of something from far in my past.  If I remember right, back in the 70's, there were two trains heading across Siberia.  They were going in opposite directions on separate tracks.  There was quite a bit of methane being released from the ground in the area.  I can't say for sure, but it was probably the kind of methane released from global warming.  When these two trains passed each other, it caused some sort of static spark that set off the methane.  Both trains got blasted.  From what I remember, well over a hundred people were killed.

  As to the graph you show here, it shows that temperatures are mostly above CO2.  But these days, it is CO2 that is leading the way.  This would seem to show that whatever is going to happen, it will be something that the earth has never experienced before.  We are certainly playing a dangerous game.  But the stakes of some games are too high to make them worth playing.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 22, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob,
> ...


  Bill_Bob,
  From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing.  Or you are a paid denier by such companies.  But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 22, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 There is human caused global warming?  where?  Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  jc456,
  The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year.  Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 22, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



..... and NATURE "pollutes" the atmos with 700GTons of CO2 every year as I told you before. Why didn't that sink in? You must just be on rant..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 22, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  Where did I come up with the figures of all the volcanoes on earth putting out about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year while the amount from human causes is about 26.8 billion tons.  Well the first place I heard about it was from a documentary called, "Greedy Lying Bastards."  For the producers of it, I would imagine that they did some fact checking.  I also found these numbers at a USGS website.  If you want to ask me who I believe is telling the truth, I afraid it isn't you.  

  Maybe they aren't taking into account things like how much methane termites produce.  Or how much CO2 plants turn into oxygen.  But none of that matters.  It sounds like the kind of crap human caused global warming deniers would spout to confuse the issue.  But what isn't confusing the issue is the increase of the human population.  Or how wasteful our capitalist economic system is.  Or that China has a new coal fired power plant come on line each week.  etc. etc. etc.  Call this a "rant" if you want to.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Are you sure?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Ain't that sweet? hahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaha...........


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.
> ...


If it's not the Jurassic period it ain't shit.

Dinosaurs rule!!!!!!!


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


  jc456,
  If you're going to be flippant on the whole human caused global warming thing, why get involved at all.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Because I dislike when lies affect me and my family like you're intending sir.  That's why.  What is your answer?  I know that you've been asked and have avoided the question.  Do you sir, personally know that man is causing any issue with the planet other than pollution?  You don't even bother doing any research, you just flat out believe because it's your party of choice right?  Why not jump off a cliff if they told you to, or drink the koolaide, and on and on.  I think for myself and I expect my family to do likewise.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 23, 2014)

I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy. 

I propose it because I think that the scientific debate on climate change is pretty much settled that it's actually happening and that it's caused by human activity even though many details still aren't settled about speed and what the effects will be.

At any rate, here's my solution: 

Any scientist who wants to take a stand on climate change and whether it's caused by human activity has to sign on to voluntarily permit their work to go through a peer review process (Note: climatologists are already doing this). We have to establish a date upon which a determination by the entire scientific community will be made as to the merits of all the research. To be able to vote, a scientists needs to have a background in a relevant discipline. The losers must forfeit their entire net worth (no hiding assets).

For the talking heads on radio and TV who want to participate in the debate (journalists, commentators, and general loud-mouthed know-it-alls), I propose that the losers be permanently banished from the airwaves. Let's see how many deniers would be willing to sign on to that.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  If you're asking me if I personally did the measurements that showed that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere while mankind is responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons, no.  I didn't personally do it.  Or if I personally saw that last year the entire icesheet of Greenland experienced melting for the first time ever.  No, I didn't personally view it.  Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

  You know what the real problem is?  That famly you speak of, they're fucking dead!  They're deader than dead.  The only question is how much hell they are going to go through before it happens.  You are also feeling guilty because you're contributing to it.  But trying to prevent it is too difficult.  Somebody once basically said that it's nearly impossible to get somebody to understand the truth.  Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding.  Einstein also basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.

  I'm sorry if I was a little rough.  But trying to deny the reality of human caused global warming isn't going to solve any problems.  This brings up something I said to someone else.  What if I am wrong.  What's the worst that can happen.  Our whole economy gets restructured to a more sustainable and ecologically compatable form for very little benefit.  Other than what I stated.  But what's the worst that can happen if people like you are arong.  WOW!  Just the thought of it is horrible.


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.
> ...









Lets do history.  History says every claim you have made that increased temperatures will cause...didn't.  Game, set, match.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 23, 2014)

Mustang said:


> I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy.
> 
> I propose it because I think that the scientific debate on climate change is pretty much settled that it's actually happening and that it's caused by human activity even though many details still aren't settled about speed and what the effects will be.
> 
> ...


  Mustang,
  You have a bit of an idea there about scientific loosers forfeting their savings.  But if I were to guess, I would say that those interested in keeping things the way they are would reimburse human caused global warmind denying scientists for at least trying.  Also, it's unlikely that those who own broadcasting mediums would fire people for saying what those owners want said.

  You know what one of the main problems is can be found throughout history to the present.  Which is how much shit the well to do are willing to put the lower classes through.  From what I have seen, that is a pretty fearsome ammount of shit.  Though I don't watch them, those shows about doomsday preppers disgust me.  How do they afford to build their doomsday shelters?  By contributing to the things that are likely to bring doom about.

  On one occasion, I did see something on one of those types of shows.  They had a submarine in one doomsday shelter factorie that they were building for a group of rich clients.  But if things get as bad as they could, something like that would only delay their end.  Though apparently even that slim hope is better than doing something to keep such doom from happening.  Because that would likely mean them losing their position in society.  And being the self centered chimps that most people are, it would be better if the earth was destroyed rather than have that happen.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 23, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 23, 2014)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  westwall,
  The debate between Crick and Billy_Bob aside, I have to say again that we could possibly be facing changes that have never happened before.  Is it really worth the risk?  Also, there are graphs that say all types of things.  But Billy_Bob showed one that charted both temperatures and CO2 levels.  Across the whole chart, temperatures led the way.  But these days, CO2 is leading the way.  That's something different.  On another chart I was looking at it showed that methane release was also going up.  Which as you probably know is an even worse greenhouse gas.  I don't think we can yet call this dangerous game.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 23, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> 
> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.
> 
> ...


 



Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.  
What a load of bullshit!  



> I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.


Good for her.  At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal


----------



## westwall (Sep 23, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...







Why?  What is different now than back then?  The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer.  Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer.  Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did.  Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact.  Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing.  Life prospered.  That much is very clear.  Life likes it warm.  ALL life.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 23, 2014)

westwall said:


> *Why?  What is different now than back then?  The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer.  Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer.  Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did.  Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact.*  Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.
> 
> Well, not nothing.  Life prospered.  That much is very clear.  Life likes it warm.  ALL life.



And That is the issue in a nut shell...  That simple observation of the past lays the warmists hype waste..  WOW we just did science...!


----------



## Crick (Sep 24, 2014)

Humans burning fossil fuels and putting its waste into the atmosphere at a rate not seen for 65 million years.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> Humans burning fossil fuels and putting its waste into the atmosphere at a rate not seen for 65 million years.



You mean not since the beginning of the ICE AGE that we are currently exiting?...Low CO2 during an ice age...who would have thought?  You are among the most dishonest people on this board crick...everything you post is either an outright lie or an omission either because you are f'ing ignorant or a deliberate liar...like your arctic ice graphs that begin at a peak ice period and don't bother to look back a bit further when ice was as low or lower than it is today.


----------



## Crick (Sep 24, 2014)

Since 1750.  Since the steam engine.  Since the automobile.  Since electrification. You could use a history  lesson.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 and more and more and more dam I'm all 'd out!!!!! Just for Jimminie!!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> Since 1750.  Since the steam engine.  Since the automobile.  Since electrification. You could use a history  lesson.


 and more an more Geez Jimminie I'm all 'd out!!!


----------



## mamooth (Sep 24, 2014)

jc, please end the thread spamming. Nobody likes it, and it's violating board rules.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


  Wildcard,
  It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth.  Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing.  Or maybe you are making a living through pollution.  Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier.  Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once.  In that case, I will say it again.

  Read this very slowly and try to understand.  Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere.  Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!!  Can you really think that doesn't make a difference?  Really?  You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality.  Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind.  On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change.  But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Since 1750.  Since the steam engine.  Since the automobile.  Since electrification. You could use a history  lesson.
> ...


  jc456,
  There you go trying to be flippant about the whole thing again.  Let me know when you have something serious to say.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


  westwall,
  First of all, nobody wants to turn our economic system upside down.  So what's going on with all the scientists who agree that human caused global warming is real.  Are they just stupid?  Well if I was to make such an assumption about them or you being so, I'm afraid it would be you.

  That things have been a little warmer in the past is true.  And as far as I know, nothing bad really happened.  But that's not to say it couldn't.  Especially when CO2 levels seem to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  And where CO2 goes, temperatures and methane release are sure to follow.  But as I keep having to say, it's better to be safe than sorry.  

  Then there are things like melting glacers and desertification to consider.  As things are now, there is a huge lake drying up in Africa.  Causing the Darfur food war.  There is another thing to consider with the past CO2 and global temperatures.  It wasn't humans causing it.  What the earth might naturally do is one thing.  But what's our excuse.  

  Also, from what I was able to find out, China alone is starting a new coal fired power plant between two a week and one every ten days.  You also bring up the Holocene thermal maxium.  Which was after the last ice age.  Well this may just be a savage talking, but how much methane do you think could have built up under a sheet of ice.  Etc.  All in all, I just can't see your silver lining.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > *Why?  What is different now than back then?  The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer.  Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer.  Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did.  Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact.*  Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  You shouldn't be so quick to gloat.  Just look at my reply to westwall.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, please end the thread spamming. Nobody likes it, and it's violating board rules.


 I'll tell you what, grow some and stop acting like you own this thing or the answer will be no.  I'm quite tired of stating the same thing over and over when you all keep posting garbage.  Stop the garbage posts.  You don't have the consensus and the sooner you get there and debate without insuls then all will be just fine, until, oh well.  I didn't provide the smiley service, I use it for the role it was intended to call a post what it is.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 Let me know when you stop posting the same thing five others have posted.  go read the threads, and stop posting hashed out material.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


Dude, you understand you come off condescending.  Perhaps why you get the responses you get.  Why behave this way.  You want a make this about quality of posts, fine post something of quality and stop with all the condescension.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> Since 1750.  Since the steam engine.  Since the automobile.  Since electrification. You could use a history  lesson.



Prior to the beginning of the present ice age...atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm and an ice age started....doesn't say much for your belief that CO2 causes warming.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> Humans burning fossil fuels and putting its waste into the atmosphere at a rate not seen for 65 million years.






And it all came from the Earth before, was in the Earths atmosphere before, and the CO2 concentrations have been higher and lower while the temps have likewise been higher and lower when CO2 concentrations were much higher.  In fact, during the last interglacial, there was a 1000 year period where the CO2 concentrations were higher than they are today and the Earth went through two warm cold cycles.  All while the CO2 levels remained elevated.  Get your buddy olfraud to post the study again.

He refuses to use it after I pointed out that fact to him.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Since 1750.  Since the steam engine.  Since the automobile.  Since electrification. You could use a history  lesson.
> ...


  SSDD,
  From what I read, what caused the last ice age didn't have anything to do with CO2.  It had to do with the formation of the Isthmus of Panama.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...






Those same scientists claimed that another ice age was impending in the 1970's too.  They are shysters looking for government handouts and the only way you get government handouts is by presenting scary scenarios.

Glacier loss began with the end of the Little Ice Age.  90% of the glacier loss was BEFORE 1900.  Desertification is a perennial thing but parts of the Sahara are actually greening again or hadn't you heard?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change 

The Darfur food war is caused by government corruption as are 99% of sub Saharan Africa's problems.

And all of this is merely window dressing for the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures.  Trace gasses simply don't have the power that the faithful claim they do.  The Earths atmospheric engine is far more powerful than any climatologist can imagine and is far far more capable of dealing with anything we pathetic humans are capable of doing.

Progressives like you love to claim that you really don't want to harm the economies of the world and I can't figure out if you're just ignorant or lying.  The cost to do "something" which even your high priests stipulate might not work (and their goal is merely to lower the global average temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....conveniently after they are long dead after having robbed you blind) is a mere 76 TRILLION dollars.

Who gets that money?  Politicians, third world dictators, bankers, scientists of course, Big Oil, industrialists, and of course a few hundred thousand workers will make some decent money while they are putting up this new "green" infrastructure,  and not one penny is actually earmarked for pollution control.

You can come back to me when you actually know something more than the talking points you've been given.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



We don't have any idea what caused the last ice age or the one before that or the one before that...nor do we know what caused the ice ages to end...it is all guessing.  What we do know is that atmospheric CO2 has been in excess of 7000ppm here on earth and it didn't trigger any sort of runaway greenhouse effect causing anything like the sort of warming being claimed by warmers today...we know that in the past, the earth has fallen into ice ages with atmospheric CO2 over 4500ppm, and again with atmospheric CO2 over 4000ppm and again with atmospheric CO2 over 2000ppm and the last ice age..the one the earth has been exiting for a good long time now began with atmospheric CO2 over 1000ppm.  

Relative to earth history, the atmosphere of the earth is positively starved for CO2 at its present levels.  It is doubtful that CO2 has anything at all to do with climate other than it increases as it warms due mainly to outgassing by warming waters and it decreases as it cools due to the fact that cooler water can hold more CO2...


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







What's so special about your reply?  You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades.  You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


  westwall,  
  First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age.  Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age.  Science is tricky.  As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin.  If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today.  Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening.  Probably because it isn't true.  If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

  As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption.  It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food.  You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine.  But the effect humans are having are all around.  They are too numerous to go into.  If you refuse to see it, that's up to you.  You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see.  If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.  

  As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive.  Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand.  There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better.  One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees.  Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition.  Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres.  Etc. times zillions.

  You then bring up the cost of doing something.  But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing.  Then you bring up what the "high priests" say.  Well I'm not them.  I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better.  Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while.  Which is even more reason to do something.  

  Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies.  But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry.  You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  jc456,
  As far as I know, I'm not being condescending.  Though if I have any attitude, it comes from the responses I get from my avatar.  But waking people up to a better reality makes it necessary.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...







Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900.  Learn something.










The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world.  How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  It is true that there is much that science doesn't know about the past.  There is even more that I don't know.  No doubt looking at correlations between earth's climate and things like orbital position or axial position would be interesting.  I'm just telling you what I read.  But the fact of what humans are doing having an effect on the earth is as plain as the nose on your face.  As far as what gasses the sea can hold and at what temperature goes, the Permian extinction shows that such things can have a very negative effect.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  westwall,
  Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing.  But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food.  It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...







Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself.  Crack a book or three.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


  westwall,
  Apparently in the area you chose to display, there has been a good amount of glacer melt since before 1900.  But I'm not seeing the 90% you claim.  Though if you want to take in the amount of glacer loss since the end of the ice age, now you're talking.  One of the problems here is that you can come up with a graph that can show just about anything.  But from everything I have seen, human caused global warming is, if anything, acclerating the loss of glacers.  That's what really matters.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


  westwall,
  There is one thing for sure.  I wouldn't take your suggestions as to what books to crack.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...









Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left.  You truly have no clue do you.  Time for you to go away.  You are now just embarrassing yourself.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...






Of that I have no doubt.  You choose to live in ignorance.  Enjoy being a mushroom.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


  westwall,
  You can call me a mushroom if you want.  I've been called worse.  But as long as I can fight idiots like you, there's a chance I won't be a cooked mushroom.


westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


  westwall,
  You deniers make me embarrassed to be human.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...







Says the asshat sporting the Hitler avi.  What a fucking moron.  Go away and grow up little troll.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2014)

westwall said:


> Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left.  You truly have no clue do you.  Time for you to go away.  You are now just embarrassing yourself.



Context is everything...  Most alarmists see context as their life span and nothing more.   The fact that the earth is at 1 % of glacial ice in-comparison to just one of the 90,000 year glacial cycles is amazing.  I believe the amount of melting we have seen in the last 400 years is extremely minor in comparison to the warm ups from a glacial cycle.


----------



## westwall (Sep 24, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left.  You truly have no clue do you.  Time for you to go away.  You are now just embarrassing yourself.
> ...






Yep, the extraordinary myopia of these clowns is remarkable.  A mere 14,000 years ago, the patch of land I call home, was underneath a mile thick slab of ice.  A mere 8,000 years ago the global temperature was 5 degree's C warmer than it is now.  Nothing happened.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> westwall,
> First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age.  Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age.  Science is tricky.  As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin.  If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today.  Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening.  Probably because it isn't true.  If anything, the Sahara is expanding.



Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth.  Heading towards another ice age?  Where would anyone get a silly idea like that?  We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages.  Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> It is true that there is much that science doesn't know about the past.  There is even more that I don't know.  No doubt looking at correlations between earth's climate and things like orbital position or axial position would be interesting.  I'm just telling you what I read.  But the fact of what humans are doing having an effect on the earth is as plain as the nose on your face.  As far as what gasses the sea can hold and at what temperature goes, the Permian extinction shows that such things can have a very negative effect.



Of course you are...and you are also telling us the nature of your sources...obviously, you only read warmist propaganda....which contains very little truth...  Your sources are obviously highly structured to provide what appears to be a very clear picture to people with very limited critical thinking skills....people who need to told explicitly what to think.  Here, let me show you an example...

Here is a graph that crick likes to post to show how climate change is melting all of the ice in the arctic...






Terrible huh?  Looks awful.  Surely this is evidence that things are getting bad.  And it would be if it weren't a lie...it is a deliberate effort to fool people who don' t do much thinning for themselves which just happen to be the sort of people who visit those sorts of sites...people who need to be told what to think.  Look at that graph and the dismal picture it paints...now look at that graph and use your brain if you can.  Look at the bottom of the graph...see the numbers?  See where the graph begins? ...1979.  Tell me cultsmasher...do you think our knowledge of arctic ice began in 1979?  What would make you think for a second that 1979 was a reasonable place to begin a graph showing the growth and retreat of arctic ice?  

Well, if you want to make people who don't do much thinking on their own think that the arctic is losing ice at a rate never before seen...and that things are the worst ever up in the arctic, you would want to start your graph at a high point in recent history....and show the decline.  Crick, and old rocks and a couple of others show graphs like that a lot to demonstrate that the arctic ice is melting....they either do it out of ignorance (my guess) because they don't do much thinking on their own and visit the same sort of places you visit to be told what to think and to get pretty pictures that seem to prove what they have been told to think...or they are deliberate liars with an agenda and are perfectly willing to misinform people if they think it will move their agenda along.

Being a thinking sort of person who doesn't like being told what to think...I wondered why a graph of arctic ice would start in 1979.  I was stationed in the Arctic before 1979 and we certainly had knowledge of the ice pack...ships and submarines were up there all the time so we had a pretty good idea of what the arctic ice looked like at any time...in addition, there were satellites looking at the arctic prior to 1979....so why start a graph at 1979..and only run it out to 2010 rather than show the recovery that has been happening for the past few years?






Here is your answer.  See the circle up there....that is where cricks graph starts...just about the highest point in the past half century...if you go back a few years, you will see that the ice coverage was nearly as low in the middle 70s as it is today...before the cyclic recovery began...just like what is happening today.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, please end the thread spamming. Nobody likes it, and it's violating board rules.
> ...



Publicly stating your intent to continue spamming and breaking board rules is probably not the best tactic for you to use. I'm just kind of pointing out the obvious there. Not that I'm reporting anyone. I'm just asking a few to start acting like grownups.



> I'm quite tired of stating the same thing over and over when you all keep posting garbage.



Then don't do it. "Someone insulted me!" is not a justification for spam posting.

Now, I see SSDD is once more doing that deliberate omitting-of-data-that-contradicts-him thing that he's so well known for. Here are some arctic ice extent records going back further. Back beyond 1979, ice levels are higher, which destroys SSDD's conspiracy theory about how 1979 was cherrypicked because it was some kind of all-time peak. 

So why 1979? It was the start of the continuous satellite record for arctic sea ice. But it's not used as the baseline any longer. 1981-2010 is the standard ice baseline now, because it's an even 30 years that lands on decade boundaries. Hence, SSDD's 1979 conspiracy fails on yet another level.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 Still whinning I see


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

westwall said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > westwall,
> ...


  SSDD,
  Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know.  On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period.  This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period.  This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents.  But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age."  It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

  You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected.  Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.  That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps.  And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.  And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures.  These days, it is CO2 leading the way.  That can't be good.

  Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents.  Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here.  To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans.  But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

  You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test."  Which is that most people don't really care what happens.  As long as it happens to someone else.  I will say to you again what I have said to others.  It's better to be safe than sorry.  Or let me put it another way.  It is not better to be sorry than safe.  I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands.  We must change things for many reasons.  Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


*looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done*.
And how do you know this?


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  Though my knowledge of science is limited, there are things I can tell you that no rational person can doubt.  To start out, those who wish to maintain the status quo will say anything, ANYTHING, to keep things from changing.  I have to wonder if you can even believe that plastic debris is accumulating in oceanic gyres.  Also, it is a fact that human caused global warming exists.  I was watching a documentary called "Greedy Lying Bastards."  In it they showed the CEO of Exxon saying at a shareholders meeting that global warming was a reality.  And he had far more reason to deny it than you probably do.

  Also, you no doubt already know these stats.  All the CO2 output from all the earths' volcanos each year, 200 million tons.  All the CO2 put out by mankind each year, 26.8 billion tons.  Where could your mind be to think that it doesn't have an effect.  I can tell you where your mind is.  It is in denier land.  

  It isn't in my imagination that last year all of Greenland, even mountain tops, underwent melt for the first time ever.  It isn't in my imagination that wherever ice is replaced with water, the greenhouse effect increases.  It isn't im my imagination that last year there were places in the far north that saw 90 degree temperatures for the first time ever.  Etc. times zillions.  

  I can see why now why I seem to be all alone lately when it comes to debating deniers.  It is because debating you people is useless.  You want to believe what you want to believe and that's it.  Talking to people like you is like having a religious argument with a true believer.  Nothing gets through.  But I will say for one last time, it isn't better to be sorry than safe.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  jc456,
  By comparing various graphs that show the rise and fall of CO2 throughout history.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 so do you know how fast it rose back 600,000 years ago?


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


  mamooth,
  I realize that for somebody with an avatar like mine, it can't be much help to people like crick and yourself to have somebody like me agree with you on human caused global warming.  For that I apologize.  But reality is what it is.  Even to a 'bastard" like me.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  By looking at the graphs.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...








Based on the last 17+ years it is very very clear, except to the cultists, that CO2 has no effect on global temps.  The levels have been increasing far faster and higher than even Hanson predicted and there has been no subsequent rise in temps.

According to the scientific method that makes it a failed theory.  But like all good cult members you ignore facts and spew scripture.

Typical.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


ok, do you have one you could share?


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Haven't thare been enough graphs shown on this discussion?  Given them and others I've seen, I didn't see any times when it went up faster than it is today.  Also, I'm not all that computer literate.  I don't know how to take a graph from the internet and transfer it to a reply.  Though an interesting one was showing how much CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately it has been rising at a rate that looks to be beyond exponential.  But don't take my word for it.  Though looking at it, it is at least close to that.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy.
> ...



Actually, I was thinking that summary execution would be more appropriate under circumstances.

Let me explain. While greed doesn't'make people' do anything, I think that everyone understands that greed has been (and certainly STILL is) the reason  people' say and do certain things in the furtherance of an agenda. Sometimes it's theirs. Sometimes it's someone else's agenda. People can and do get hurt. Sometimes it's just financially. Other times it could be more serious, like a health-related issue that might even lead to the deaths of people. [One issue that comes to mind is the tobacco industry selling a product that they know causes cancer even as they collectively deny that there's any definitive evidence to support that contention. But hey, business is business, right. What are a few hundred thousand deaths over the last few decades when there's money to be made and most people who succumb merely have a shortened life after a lifetime of smoking.]

However, all sarcasm aside, cigarette smoking, even with the dangers of second hand smoke, is only dangerous to people within proximity. Climate change is another matter all together. In my particular case, I've read seven books that were either all about climate change or were partly about it. I would classify 3 out of the 7 books as excellent. One is the book by James Hansen which concentrates on the science and figures related to forcings and feedbacks and how that translates into watts per square meters.






Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity 

The second book was written by Naomi Oreskes and is more of a history of scientific naysayers.




 Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming 

The third book is more anecdotal in nature although there certainly is science peppered throughout. 




 Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change 

They all paint a pretty grim picture even though each book focuses on a slightly different aspect of the subject.

But here's the thing. Even though I KNOW that there are people who believe that climate change is either not happening or it's not caused by humans, the scientists are virtually in complete agreement. Furthermore, they're alarmed which is out of the ordinary because scientists are usually dispassionate while it's laypeople who get all worked up about something.

But just like with tobacco, I ALSO believe that there are plenty of people connected to the climate change denying side of the debate who KNOW that it's actually happening and that humans are the cause of it, but they don't give a damn. After all, as the old saying goes, life's a bitch and then you die. I think many of them figure that it won't matter once they're gone.

Well, it's one thing to take a fatalistic attitude about yourself and even about your own family (like people who smoked cigarettes around their kids and others for years even after the cancer warnings were issued), but it's another thing to figuratively pile the rest of humanity into your rickety old bus with the bad breaks as you drive it over some winding mountain pass after a rainstorm. 

So, what >I< think is that there should be a date by which a definitive report should be issued on climate change and its causes. Five years prior to that report being compiled and released, people connected to the fossil fuel industry and all their so-called experts and media boosters should be given a polygraph test to find out what they really believe. And IF the report comes back that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans, AND IF the polygraph test reveals that they REALLY believed that climate change was real even though they were claiming there was no definitive evidence to back up the theory, they should be taken out and executed.  

But here's the point. The point is not to execute people. It's to get them to be honest and say what they really believe to be the case. My bet is that a lot of deniers would change their tune under those circumstances. It might just save us a lot of time...and more.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 25, 2014)

Secretary of State John Kerry Explains the Greenhouse Effect

Upcoming Anniversary October 1st Will Mark 18 Years Of No Global Warming US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lol Liberals Want Laws Against Global Warming Deniers. Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## idb (Sep 25, 2014)

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

Mustang said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


  Mustang, 
  Of course, I agree with you.  Like I said near the beginning of my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test," most people don't really care what happens.  As long as it happens to someone else.  Then there are all of the religious people who actually look forward to the destruction of the earth.  So they can go be in heaven with Jesus.  It's beyond disgusting.

  To me, there is only one real answer.  Seperation.  And White separatism at that.  You will never be able to change the mind of the vast majority of a greedy mob.  Especially when that greed is being stoked in every way possible by those who are even more greedy.  But what to do.  Well Bill Gates and the U.S. government combined have given over ten million dollars to "La Raza."  Which as you may know means "The Race."  But all I get is food stamps.  I wonder which buys more influence.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Secretary of State John Kerry Explains the Greenhouse Effect
> 
> Upcoming Anniversary October 1st Will Mark 18 Years Of No Global Warming US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Lol Liberals Want Laws Against Global Warming Deniers. Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


  Stephanie,
  It's on Political Discussion Form!  It must be true!  Don't make me laugh.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 25, 2014)

idb said:


> I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.


  idb,
  I take it that is a rhetorical question.  Because you know the answer as well as I.  Just follow the money.


----------



## idb (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.
> ...


No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.


----------



## gipper (Sep 25, 2014)

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.


----------



## idb (Sep 25, 2014)

gipper said:


> Oh brother...not another global warming thread...
> 
> Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.
> 
> Its not science...its politics.


Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 


It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.
> ...







Indeed.  The IPCC wants 76 TRILLION.  More than the combined world GDP for ten years.  Yes indeed.  Follow the money.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2014)

idb said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Oh brother...not another global warming thread...
> ...








Maybe you can tell us how mans contribution of less than 5% to the total global CO2 budget can possibly make a difference.  Further I am sure you can show us how the temperature that hasn't risen in 17 years is really not true and that CO2 is still making the temps rise inexorably.  Good luck.


----------



## idb (Sep 25, 2014)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know.  On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period.  This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period.  This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents.  But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age."  It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.



The fact that ice exists at both poles indicates that the earth is presently in an ice age whether you would call it an ice age or not.  Google the term "present ice age" and you will get plenty of credible sources stating that the earth is in an ice age...we are experiencing an interglacial period at present but the ice age is not over and won't be for a good long time yet...the fact is that the earth is coming out of an ice age and as you can see by the graph of earth temperature history I provided, the temperature has a good long way to climb before the ice age ends....the fact that the temperature increases as the earth exits an ice age should come as no surprise to anyone..



cultsmasher said:


> You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected.  Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.  That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps.  And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.  And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures.  These days, it is CO2 leading the way.  That can't be good.



You are making a lot of assumptions there...the first one is that CO2 has anything at all to do with climate other than the fact that it is a gas that follows temperature around...ice cores show us clearly that CO2 follows temperature...it doesn't lead...and paper after paper keep coming out finding ever smaller climate sensitivity to CO2 vs the IPCC and climate science propaganda....eventually, the climate sensitivity to CO2 will be found very close to zero....the only effect CO2 has on climate is its contribution to the actual weight of the atmosphere.  As I pointed out...relative to earth history, the present 400ppm of CO2 is abnormally low....The average CO2 concentration on earth is in excess of 1000ppm and as the ice age drags on to its inevitable end, the same thing is going to happen again....CO2 will reach normal levels regardless of what we want.



cultsmasher said:


> Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents.  Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here.  To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans.  But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.



Visit the paleomap project...there are some interesting maps of previous climate and the position of the continents...drastic climate shifts don't depend nearly as much on land movement around the globe as you seem to think.

For example, 14 million years ago, the land masses looked like this:






Not much has changed since then... note there was no ice at the north pole and little if any at the south...Coastlines were different due to the fact that there was much more water in the oceans due to less ice.  

The land masses have not moved much since that time..and yet, here is what the earth looked like 18K years ago during the last glacial maximum.






Ocean currents would have still been running much as they are today and yet, antarctic ice was almost to south american...and ice sheets extended down south of the great lakes and covered much of europe.  The land masses have shifted almost none since that time and this is what the earth looks like now..






Clearly there has been a major shift in climate since the last glacial maximum but the land masses haven't moved appreciably.  If you go back into history, you see further evidence that drastic changes in climate happened without drastic land movement.

This is what the earth looked like during the late Carboniferous period...100 million years ago. During that time, extensive rain forests covered most of pangea which had northern and southern deserts...Ice covered the south pole.






The Permian period, 5 million years later didn't see much change in land position, ocean currents certainly wouldn't have altered in any drastic way and yet, the ice had extended from the south and most of the southern hemisphere was covered...the tropical rain forests started turning into coal at this time....by the end of the Permian period, again, not much land movement, the ice had melted from the south pole, the tropical rain forests had been replaced with temperate forests and much of the desert had greened...it was during this time that an ice cap began to form over the north pole...





So you see, climate can change drastically with or without appreciable land movement...human beings have seen that since our time on earth began...we have moved from glacial period to interglacial with practically no land movement...the only real differences humans have experienced has been due to melting ice which was not due to land movement.



cultsmasher said:


> You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test."  Which is that most people don't really care what happens.  As long as it happens to someone else.  I will say to you again what I have said to others.  It's better to be safe than sorry.  Or let me put it another way.  It is not better to be sorry than safe.  I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands.  We must change things for many reasons.  Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.



Better safe than sorry is a terrible way to look at things....if you look at history, more often people have ended up being sorry that they tried to be safe.  Acting on an imagined unknown opens the door wide for unintended consequences and human beings have seen plenty of them.  If hard evidence existed that CO2 was changing the climate rather than the weak corroboratory evidence, data tampering, and complete rejection of the scientific method, I would be on board...I am not because there just isn't any evidence that anything at all is happening in the climate that is even approaching the limits of natural variability.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> Though my knowledge of science is limited, there are things I can tell you that no rational person can doubt.  To start out, those who wish to maintain the status quo will say anything, ANYTHING, to keep things from changing.



Again, history doesn't really bear out your claims...it is more likely that people who want change will say anything to get the change they wanted...do you think stalin, and lenin, and pol pot, and hitler, etc told the people what they had to look forward to when their change eventually came to pass or do you think they say whatever they thought was necessary to initiate the change and the consequences be damned?  

Look back through history with an honest eye and you will see that more often than not, the torch of progress in reality is a devouring conflagration.



cultsmasher said:


> I have to wonder if you can even believe that plastic debris is accumulating in oceanic gyres.



True...there are some serious environmental problems that exist...problems that are real and need serious attention...  Unfortunately, the global warming hoax sucks all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure from the vaults.  We can't address the serious and addressable problems till this hoax is sent to the dustbin of history.



cultsmasher said:


> Also, it is a fact that human caused global warming exists.



That is not a fact at all.  Describe anything happening in the climate today or for the past 500 years that is outside the bounds of natural variability.



cultsmasher said:


> I was watching a documentary called "Greedy Lying Bastards."  In it they showed the CEO of Exxon saying at a shareholders meeting that global warming was a reality.  And he had far more reason to deny it than you probably do.



A documentary produced by who?  Exxon stands to make its billions with a climate crisis or without...in fact, they stand to make more if the climate crisis continues...climate science on the other hand depends on crisis for their present state of wealth...who is more likely to lie...and what the hell does an MBA at exxon know about climate anyway?




cultsmasher said:


> It isn't in my imagination that last year all of Greenland, even mountain tops, underwent melt for the first time ever.  It isn't in my imagination that wherever ice is replaced with water, the greenhouse effect increases.  It isn't im my imagination that last year there were places in the far north that saw 90 degree temperatures for the first time ever.  Etc. times zillions.



The rate of sea level increase decelerated during the 20th century...it didn't accelerate as would be the case if the ice were melting as you believe.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2014)

idb said:


> Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
> I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.
> 
> It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
> I could accept that 3% might be.



Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability.  If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?


----------



## idb (Sep 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
> ...


Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 26, 2014)

idb said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


The climate is always changing.   How is the present change outside the boundaries of natural variations


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

SSDD said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 nothing like rehashing everything again.  Newbies that now think they have all the answers.  This is just too funny.  I ask the guy to provie his post and he states that enough graphs have been displayed.  hah, what is it skooks calls them?  oh yeah k00ks!!!!!!


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...







No, you're willing to suspend your ability to think.  That's all.  You don't have to be a climatologist to know what the scientific method is, and how it is supposed to be practiced.  Further it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the climatologists abandoned the scientific method and have resorted to simple falsification of records to support their now failed theory.  Additionally the 97% meme has been disproven on so many different occasions I have lost count and yet the willfully ignorant keep trotting that number out as if it means something.

It just means you are either too lazy, or too stupid, to think for yourself.  That's all.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

idb said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...







The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement.  And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims.  A thinking person would be asking questions.  They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.


----------



## gipper (Sep 26, 2014)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Agreed.

It is clear that the AGW cultist is easily duped by the elites.  Anyone capable of thinking for themselves, should know better than to believe anything promoted by proven liars.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 26, 2014)

westwall said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


you all are so so lost.  We don't care about the peer reviewers, they are all part of the falsify good ole boys club.  And as normal you have resorted to insults.  Such a debate technique. There is no evidence, zip nada and dude, you're like number five now on the liar side.  There is no need for us skeptics to rehash with you all previous discussion points, go read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mustang (Sep 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Do you even know what peer review is?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


yes I do, do you?


----------



## Mustang (Sep 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





jc456 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So, you know what peer review is, but you don't care about it? Why? Because you don't like the fact that the science subjected to peer review scrutiny over several years and several studies, you decide that peer review is not worth caring about and must somehow be wrong? Then you're no longer engaging in a review of science; you've entered the area of faith. That's fine if and when you want to believe that Jesus bodily rose toward heaven after his resurrection, or if you want to believe that your girlfriend isn't cheating on you even when she's not home at 3AM. It's also fine for the mother who doesn't believe her son committed a crime because she loves him and he was always such a good boy, despite all the evidence that he's actually guilty of the crime of which he's accused. So, like I said, faith is fine when it comes to those kinds of things. But science isn't built on faith. Theories have to be tested, and anthropomorphic climate change has been subjected to peer review and hasn't been discredited despite the fact that certain people in certain circles outside of the scientific mainstream have developed alternate theories to account (they say) for the increased warming. What THOSE people need to do is to subject their theories to peer review for careful analysis. If they're confident of the outcome, it shouldn't be a problem to prove their theories to scientists as opposed to just convincing laypeople with no scientific background.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 26, 2014)

idb said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


  idb,
  As I said before, follow the money.  Where do scientists and governments get their money.  From the companies that pollute.  So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 26, 2014)

gipper said:


> Oh brother...not another global warming thread...
> 
> Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.
> 
> Its not science...its politics.


  gipper,
  Human caused global warming is real.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...






No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk.  Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models.  Do you even understand what that means?  Do you?  Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction.  They are not real.  The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict.  The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming.  A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...






Yes, we do.  Which is why we care that the climatologists have corrupted it to serve their meme.  Once again a thinking person would wonder what they had to hide.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 26, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  Wildcard,
  The truth speaks for itself.  If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...








Yes.  Funny how you think that oil companies are so bad for making billions of dollars for providing a commodity that is critical to the function of the world. 

Here's the report from the UN.  Tell me silly boy, what is bigger...billions or trillions?
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Follow the money indeed...  And it is you cultists who want every dime the world has.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...







Indeed it does.  Why do you lie?


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Oh brother...not another global warming thread...
> ...







And yet you can't point to a single shred of evidence to support it.   You are a full fledged cultist my boy.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 26, 2014)

westwall said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 26, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Oil isn't necessary for the functioning of the world. The world functions just fine without oil. It's humans that need and want oil.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 26, 2014)

westwall said:


> No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models.



So, according to westwall here, if scientists claim "Sea level is currently rising at 3.2 mm / year" ... it's a model.

Back in the real world, global warming is well proven without any models at all. Models are just icing on the cake. If someone can't fathom such a basic concept, they have no business annoying the grownups.

We've also pointed out to westwall many times how his cult has snookered him big time with their deliberately fudged data concerning the models, models which are very good. It has no effect on him. His religion instructs him that the models are all wrong, and no silly facts and data are going to sway him from the TrueFaith.



westwall said:


> Do you even understand what that means?  Do you?  Can you is probably the better question.
> 
> I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction.  They are not real.  The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.
> 
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.



1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own... We don't actually know that the 3% wouldn't still be the imbalance if man cut back their paltry amount. Because that excess is probably driven by TEMPERATURE --- not the other way around.. 

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. No MAGIC ever measured. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker)  where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..


----------



## Mustang (Sep 26, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.
> ...



The ignorance of the climate change deniers is stunning.

Ultimately, the ocean *IS *the repository of heating the planet. But guess what? It's the oceans, and NOT the atmosphere, that DRIVES the climate of the planet. We're also making the oceans more acidic in the process.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...







Big fucking deal.  The atmosphere weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons.  The amount of CO2 that we insert into the atmosphere is less than 5% of the total global CO2 budget.  So our contribution to a trace gas is a trace.  You can spew all these cute little words like "feedback loops" and any other horse crap you wish but this is real science I'm going to tell you here.  You can look it up anywhere.

The globe warms because the Sun warms the oceans.  The primary frequency of that warming is UV which can penetrate a few meters deep into the ocean.  Long wave IR (which you guys are all worried about) can penetrate MICRONS deep into the water.  In other words the very thing that you are worried about cannot happen.  It is physically impossible.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...






That is absolutely true.  The first factual thing you have said.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 26, 2014)

westwall said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You obviously know very little about the topic.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...






Another fact.  Congrats!  Now read the fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the ocean.  Your long wave IR simply can't do what you claim.  Period.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...






I know more about the subject than you ever will.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models.
> ...










Global stationary temps are well "proven".  You clowns haven't been able to show any warming in 17 years no matter how many records you alter.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



*"The truth speaks for itself". 
*
Oh, you mean the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming that is based on fraudulent science then repackaged as being the truth that brain-washed morons like yourself fully believe and accept and then are trying to convince others of.  

That so-called "truth"?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Warm ocean surfaces absorb and retain LESS CO2.. Fact that again points to stabilizing negative NEGATIVE feedback -- not positive. And Ocean Acidification is largely a surface effect. Because at DEPTH, those cold waters hold MORE CO2 than man alone could possibly pump into the few 100 feet of the surface. More acidification of the surface from UPWELLING of colder waters, than what is coming from the Atmos.

As to the "oceans eating the warming" excuse --- that heat showing up at depth could only accurately be measured globally for the past 50 years or so. And every study in the period shows no change in the rate of absorption. However, proxy studies of mid ocean sediments indicate that the Oceans have been warmer in the past 1000 yrs even before the industrial revolution.. Heat at depth is NEVER likely to re-enter the greenhouse. Unless we actually discover specific conveyor currents that can move it back to the surface. Returning on it's own would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics..


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2014)

westwall said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



And by the converse, heat held at depth cant' warm atmospheric CO2 because it would never propagate IR to the surface..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 26, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Do you even know what peer review is?



You certainly dont...   When science was doing real peer review they placed in print their hypothesis, Their plan to make determinations, Their data, Their method of data collection to include checks and balances, AND THEIR MATH and its outcome. 

This was all made accessible to the reviewers and to the general scientific community at large as each discipline reviews different portions of the work for errors. But no more...

Today peer review is PAL review where the data, math and methods are kept from the general scientific community along with the general public. Even the so called scientific journals will no longer supply the facts about their own publications.

In the Climate Science world you are shunned if your not one of the chose few.. Papers that discredit their chosen are never printed even if the science is sound..

When I hear the term "peer review" from an alarmist it means they only accept what they believe and any evidence to the contrary is garbage.  This isn't science!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Oh brother...not another global warming thread...
> ...



Wrong!


----------



## Mustang (Sep 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even know what peer review is?
> ...



Over the years I've come to understand that the world is full of BS. Talk radio is probably the biggest purveyor of that with the possible exception of advertising where unsubstantiated claims are made for products of all kinds. Miracle cures and get rich quick schemes are a part of that. But it always seems as if the miracle cures have some "expert" who's willing to come forward and claim that the product does everything they say. Often, the so-called expert will point to some "study" that supports his claim. But is the study peer reviewed by the medical establishment? You can bet money that it is not. Does that mean that the developers of the product and the "expert" on the product's efficacy have been marginalized by a community of peers? Yes and no. He certainly shouldn't expect the medical community to sign on to a product that does little more for a patient than have an efficacy rate that's pretty much what one could expect from the placebo effect of taking a sugar pill if and when a person believes it will help them get better. 

But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals. The same goes for global warming deniers who develop alternate theories but then can't substantiate their claims with any scientific data that can be studied and independently verified. It's certainly not the fault of the scientific community if the supporters of alternate theories to the causes of climate change can't adequately back up their claims with the necessary research that led them to their conclusions which is what it would take to pass a peer review study. I say that simply because that's what it takes. You MUST back up your claims because you can't just go in to a peer review with an unproved theory and no supporting documentation and expect to get the respect of the scientific community. 

But that failure to get the respect of the scientific community certainly hasn't stopped the people with alternate theories from making those claims in other forums where the standard for publication is only someone's willingness to do so. That may be a victory for someone's freedom of the speech, but it's also very similar to the difference between a book of nonfiction and a book of fiction. As for me, I've seen and heard so much BS in my life, that I refuse to believe something just because it's something I want to be true. Needless to say, I don't buy any miracle vitamin cures which, unsurprisingly, are heavily marketed on AM talk radio.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/16/IDontKnowWhatToBelieve_web2011.pdf


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Over the years I've come to understand that the world is full of BS. Talk radio is probably the biggest purveyor of that with the possible exception of advertising where unsubstantiated claims are made for products of all kinds. Miracle cures and get rich quick schemes are a part of that. But it always seems as if the miracle cures have some "expert" who's willing to come forward and claim that the product does everything they say. Often, the so-called expert will point to some "study" that supports his claim. But is the study peer reviewed by the medical establishment? You can bet money that it is not. Does that mean that the developers of the product and the "expert" on the product's efficacy have been marginalized by a community of peers? Yes and no. He certainly shouldn't expect the medical community to sign on to a product that does little more for a patient than have an efficacy rate that's pretty much what one could expect from the placebo effect of taking a sugar pill if and when a person believes it will help them get better.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals. The same goes for global warming deniers who develop alternate theories but then can't substantiate their claims with any scientific data that can be studied and independently verified. It's certainly not the fault of the scientific community if the supporters of alternate theories to the causes of climate change can't adequately back up their claims with the necessary research that led them to their conclusions which is what it would take to pass a peer review study. I say that simply because that's what it takes. You MUST back up your claims because you can't just go in to a peer review with an unproved theory and no supporting documentation and expect to get the respect of the scientific community.
> 
> ...




All of that to post you are totally clueless as to what is occurring today.   This is either by intentional omission or you are that ignorant. Either way your a shill with blinders on.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Over the years I've come to understand that the world is full of BS. Talk radio is probably the biggest purveyor of that with the possible exception of advertising where unsubstantiated claims are made for products of all kinds. Miracle cures and get rich quick schemes are a part of that. But it always seems as if the miracle cures have some "expert" who's willing to come forward and claim that the product does everything they say. Often, the so-called expert will point to some "study" that supports his claim. But is the study peer reviewed by the medical establishment? You can bet money that it is not. Does that mean that the developers of the product and the "expert" on the product's efficacy have been marginalized by a community of peers? Yes and no. He certainly shouldn't expect the medical community to sign on to a product that does little more for a patient than have an efficacy rate that's pretty much what one could expect from the placebo effect of taking a sugar pill if and when a person believes it will help them get better.
> ...



Although I'm not much of a believer (in general) in conspiracies, I know they happen. What's more common is collusion for some purpose. 

So, let's say for the sake of argument, that when it comes to the climate change debate, there's some collusion taking place on one side or the other. Now, from an Occam's razor perspective, which possibility seems more likely? 

Is it that thousands of independent-minded scientists who steadfastly guard their reputations in their peer-review world and who are also always jockeying for recognition in a highly competitive field are more likely to collude together to falsify scientific data in the climate change debate for the purpose of getting relatively small mounts of money in research grants, or is it more likely that business interests with trillions of dollars at stake in coal, oil, and gas sales are likely to try to maintain the status quo in order that they can continue to exploit natural resources.

Before you answer option A, think about something. Scientists are saying that the debate about whether this is happening or not is over. How does that translate into more research into the causes of climate change. If they were really trolling for more research money, wouldn't they be far more likely to say that the cause is undetermined at this point and more research is needed in order to pinpoint the cause?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 27, 2014)

The Jonestown cultists looked well-grounded in reality compared to how the deniers look now. They've been reduced to repetitive screaming about the great global socialist conspiracy. At least at Jonestown, Jim Jones just claimed the US government was after them, not the entire world.

I wonder, where does it end? Will the denier cult end as tragically as Jonestown? Let's all hope not.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Although I'm not much of a believer (in general) in conspiracies, I know they happen. What's more common is collusion for some purpose.
> 
> So, let's say for the sake of argument, that when it comes to the climate change debate, there's some collusion taking place on one side or the other. Now, from an Occam's razor perspective, which possibility seems more likely?
> 
> ...



How many scientists do you know today who have been denied publishing because what they find does not fit the UN/OBAMA/EPA agenda?   The list is long and distinguished...  

And many of the papers being published like COOK Et Al and all those trying like hell to give him cover for his deceitful lies along with his abomination he called and you call science.. Cook turned a 0.05 number into 97%... That is the kind of stuff your mighty journals of science are publishing...  They are publishing AGENDA direct by Socialists..


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  First of all, just because ice exists at a planet's poles is no indication to me that such a planet is in an ice age.  You then mention how high temperatures can climb before they get to past levels.  Well first of all, there are times and places where things get too hot as it is.  I wouldn't want to live in the kind of world that you describe.  Also, what the world does of it's own accord is a different matter.  The point is, what's our excuse for throwing the biosphere into such turmoil.  The filthy idea that god created us and gave us the planet to do with as we please?  That idea is grotesque.  The real reason is greed piled on top of greed.  That's it.  Discussion over.  But I will continue anyway.

  Then you bring up temperature increase during a supposed "ice age."  But that only goes to show just how detrimental of an effect that we are having on the planet.  You then go on to say that temperatures follow CO2.  But I have seen graphs that show that CO2 levels usually follow trmperatures.  And according to something I saw on TV, CO2 levels are going up at a faster rate than they have in the past 800,000 years.  And this isn't due to something like geology, earth orbit or axis change.  And when temperatures start to catch up, it isn't going to be a pretty picture.  Also, according to something on the same program, apparently some scientist believe that we are just twenty years away from catastrophe.

  As for everything you did with the maps showing the positions of the contenents over time.  I won't go into all that.  Because it is largely unimportant.  Though I will say that you are right about how things have changed since humans appeared.  But that isn't the point.  The point is how much humans are now making things change.  For things like coral, alge or whatever, they have an excuse.  But we are thinking creatures.  That takes our excuse away.  You then disagree with the "better safe than sorry" logic.  Even calling it terrible.  But it is exactly the approach humans should be taking.  Believe it or not.


----------



## Mustang (Sep 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Although I'm not much of a believer (in general) in conspiracies, I know they happen. What's more common is collusion for some purpose.
> ...



People don't get their work rejected for publication in reputable scientific journals because it "does not fit the UN/OBAMA/EPA agenda" whatever that's supposed to mean. If it's rejected at all, it's because they've failed to make a convincing scientific case for their theories. After all, they ARE scientific journals. As such, the publishers have a reputation to protect. That's even more so than the average newspaper that tries very hard to make sure they don't make any grievous errors in their news reporting. As such, a scientific journal that publishes some wild, unsubstantiated theory about anything is likely to suffer a severe hit to their reputation in much the same way that a medical journal would if they started publishing articles about the healing power of crystals IF the work did not provide double blind statistical studies that were independently verified and supported the efficacy of crystals leading to some kind of heretofore unexplained and/or undocumented medicinal benefit to patients. Otherwise, as far as anyone knows, it's just an unsubstantiated claim at best, and claptrap at worst.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  Your analogies of past dictators isn't very accurate.  They are just people at certain times.  It doesn't really have anything to say about the way humans usually behave for the vast majority of the time.  Believe it or not, it is those who are wealthy, powerful and want to stay that way who usually hold sway.  No matter what it means to the vast majority of the populace.

  You then admit to environmental problems.  But somehow you come to the conclusion that unless you first deny the reality of human caused global warming, you can't begin to fix the other problems.  You cant really be that ignorant.  So I'll just that one pass as a natural mistake.  After all, none of us are perfect.  Even though I do seem to come closest to it.  You then ask me to mention something new that has happened in the last 500 years.  Well I'm no expert.  But as I said before, according to something I saw, last year the entire surface of Greenland underwent some melting.  Even mountaintops.  Apparently that never happened before.

  You then ask about who produced the documentary, "Greedy Lying Bastards."  It doesn't matter.  What matters is what the CEO of Exxon said.  You then ask what he knows.  Well apparently enough to be CEO of Exxon.  A company that I might add has enough money to, and probably does, hire about the best scientists there are.  Scientists who the CEO of Exxon has probably consulted with on numerous occasions.

  You then bring up sea levels during the 20th century.  But I'm not about to go diging around through all such data.  All I can say is that sea levels are rising.  No doubt, human caused global warming is to blame.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Enough graphs have indeed been shown.  I think that what brought the whole thing up was how fast CO2 levels were climbing.  Well according to something I recently saw about the topic, CO2 levels are rising faster than they have in the past 800,000 years.  And whatever caused it to happen in the past, it can't be blamed on a supposedly "thinking" creature like mankind.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

gipper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


  gipper,
  As I told others around here, each year all the earth's volcanos put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere.  Each year humans are responsible for an estimated 26.8 billion tons.  I am going to guess that you would disagree that this can and does have an impact.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

Mustang said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


  Mustang,
  Some of the things you say I agree with.  Especially on human caused global warming. Some, not so much.  You bring up some clean technology presenting itself.  Did you ever see the Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Man?"  If you did, you know that it was about aliens coming down and giving mankind technology to end hunger, war and disease.  But these aliens apparently enjoyed eating humans.  So the resulting population explosion that these technologies would produce would be ok as far as the aliens were concerned.

  So even if some green technology did come about, we would still be in need of Fascism.  You then bring up the Holocaust.  But according to one web site, Red Cross records of the time show that only about 270,000 Jews died in concentration camps.  As to whether or not those records are accurate, I can't say.  I'm not a historian.  

  But I can say that under Stalin, the Ukrainians suffered even worse than what the Jews were supposed to have suffered.  But the U.S. supported Stalin anyway.  You then basically go into a defeatist rant.  But you're not defeated until you're dead.  And if you're good at haunting, maybe not even then.  As long as you can support White separatism, there is hope.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  You know the figures.  All the volcanos on earth each year, 200 million tons of CO2.  Humans are responsible each year for 26.8 billion tons.  That's billion with a B.  That must have some effect on your 5% claim.  You then talk about how much CO2 the earth eats.  Well the measurements taken don't show what has been "eaten."  It shows what it there.  And it keeps increasing.  Also, I have seen graphs that show usually comes before CO2 increase.  That isn't the way it is happening today.

  You then talk about positive feedbacks.  But from what I have seen, not enough science is known to say that a positive feedback couldn't happen.  Though from everytyhing I see, what is happening just as it is is bad enough.  But positive feedback or not, what is sure is that it's better to be safe than sorry. 

  Then you really go off the rails by talking about the earth's surface absorbing heat.  What do you think the earth is.  Some magical place at the other end of your toilet where things go, to never be heard of again?  I can tell you that it isn't.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  Wildcard,
  The truth shows that temperatures are rising.  The truth shows that manmade CO2 levels are rising at an almost, if not completely vertical track.  According to something I saw on a PBS show recently, they said that CO2 levels are going up faster than they have in the past 800,000 years.  But whatever may have made it go up faster in the past, at least it wasn't one supposedly intelligent kind of animal causing it.  Admit it and get over it.  You deniers are wrong.  Dangerously wrong.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...











Your comment....

"But that doesn't mean that he was treated unfairly because science is NOT a political debate any more than it's a subjective debate. Science deals in objective facts that are either quantifiable and verifiable, or they're not. If they're not verifiable, and the claims can't be substantiated by replicating the data, then the supporters will not be able to get their "findings" published in reputable medical or scientific journals."

Certainly describes how science is SUPPOSED to be done.  However, climatologists and their believers have substituted computer models for facts.  Models never are, and can never be "facts".  They are mathematical constructs that are limited by the skill (or lack thereof) of the modelers.

Some of the more ridiculous "studies" I have seen are where they take several models, run them, get a number and then run that number through other models!  That is not science.  That is science fiction.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...







"Positive feedbacks" exist only in the minds of computer modelers and their creations.  To date there has not been a shred of empirical evidence for them.  Not one tot.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...








"Truth" is the realm of religion.  Science deals only with facts.  The facts tell us that there has been no warming for 17 years.  Facts (based on the Vostock ice core data) shows that the most likely source for the increase in CO2 is completely natural, based on the time lag from the MWP which occurred 800 years ago and the observed time lag of 800 years for CO2 increases after like warming periods from the past.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 


> The truth shows that temperatures are rising.


 
Survey says:  Wrong again!

 Global warming No the planet is getting cooler World News Daily Express


> You deniers are wrong.  Dangerously wrong.


 
No.... we're not wrong.  We're just not gullible like you warmists are.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 27, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  Wildcard,
  What time frame did the world news daily express get this from.  The last five minutes?  The trend since the beginning of the industral revloution has been upward.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...










No, the trend since the end of the Little Ice Age has been upward.  The LIA's end just happens to coincide with the IR.  Furthermore there have been multiple cycles within the last 150 years of cooling/warming which you and your fellow cultists ignore.


----------



## idb (Sep 28, 2014)

westwall said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Hang on...do you think that the warming of the oceans...or not...is driven by direct solar radiation?
Like a giant microwave?
Now I understand why you're so confused.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 28, 2014)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Should let Westwall respond, but you ought to realize that the added CO2 insulation only re-radiates in narrow IR bands. It has no power to penetrate water as direct solar illumination does.

So for instance -- ice free polar seas CAN absorb more heat from direct solar radiation then when  they were iced, but damn little  of that comes from down radiation of the atmospheric GHgases.. In general, the oceans ARE largely temperature driven by direct solar radiation (or not).. And a minimal amount of direct heat convection cooling to the sky..


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2014)

idb said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...







What exactly do you think warms the oceans?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 28, 2014)

Someone has been watching 2012 the movie way to damn much...  Those bothersome Nutrinos are boiling the oceans I say...


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 28, 2014)

Harry Reid Koch Brothers Are One Of The Main Causes Of Climate Change


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

Mustang said:


> Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.



Thinking is not that tough...you should try it sometime...  Here, from Wiki...you guys seem to think that wiki is trustworthy...

Ice age - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


			
				wiki said:
			
		

> There is strong evidence that the Milankovitch cycles affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods within an ice age. *The present ice age* is the most studied and best understood, particularly the last 400,000 years, since this is the period covered by ice cores that record atmospheric composition and proxies for temperature and ice volume. Within this period, the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milanković orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted.



Here...from the University of Indiana....

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation



> he episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods *within the present Ice Age* (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cycles for Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude.



Here is an entry from a kids encyclopedia...maybe this one would be more to your reading level.

Ice age - Academic Kids



> The present ice age began 40 million years ago with the growth of an ice sheet in Antarctica, but intensified during the Pleistocene(starting around 3 million years ago) with the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000 and 100,000 year time scales. The last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. A map is available showing estimated ice extent and coastline changes during the last glacial period.



You want books...OK...here, from books.

*Fundamentals of Weather and Climate*
By Robin McIlveen



> page 573...In fact,* we are in the latest of a series of relatively short, mild interglacials which have punctuated, but not interrupted the present ice age*



Here, from *The Encyclopedia of World Climatology*
edited by John E. Oliver pp 422



> The present ice age condition has lasted about 2 million years and is identified as the Quaternary Period.



How many more references do you need to convince you that the earth is presently in an interglacial period within a larger period known as an ice age?




Mustang said:


> Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!



I have...I would suggest that you take your own advice..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...




Since the global warming hoax began...and governments began to put regulations in place to address the supposed warming...what has happened to energy prices?  During the recent deep recession, which sector has continued to make record profits?...due in part to increased energy costs due to regulation?....Libs suck at economics...energy companies stand to make more as a result of the energy crisis.....how sweet is it for energy companies that the very people who hate them most are the ones leading the way on the hoax that makes them all the richer?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Oh brother...not another global warming thread...
> ...



Prove it... what is happening in the climate that is outside the boundaries of natural variation...and if nothing is outside of natural variation...how can you be sure humans are involved?


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 29, 2014)

*OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!*


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> Harry Reid Koch Brothers Are One Of The Main Causes Of Climate Change


  Vigilante,
  Being a denier, you probably won't do it.  But you should watch the documentary "Greedy Lying Bastards."  It starts out a little slow.  No doubt there will be a lot of dismissive eye rolling on your part.  But it gets way more interesting.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable.  But that isn't the point.  The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.  Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it.  And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  If your arguments are coming down to asking people to repeat themselves, you may as well just give up.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 And  me thinks you're loco!!!!!!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



 It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming."


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...





> The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.


Is the sky falling too, chicken little?


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> *OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!*


  Vigilante,
  We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to.  The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency.  For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour.  There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  You think it's better to be sorry than safe.  I get it.  But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years.  And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.  You may be willing to let that take us where it will.  But I'm not.  Nor would any thinking person.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Get back to me when you have a real claim about human caused global warming to make.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 and you have that evidence do you now?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 ditto fool!


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > *OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!*
> ...



NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FRICTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


 This dudes  been running himself ragged trying to convince himself of something.  He's failed.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


  Vigilante,
  Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc.  From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced.  But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years.  Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



There is a time, when the COST of things OUTWEIGHTS it's usefulness, a car as described would NOT be consumer friendly!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...





> And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.



Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


  Vigilante,
  Why not.  I'm not talking about building a tank.  Also, how old do you think gold would have to be before it no longer looks like gold.  I'm not sure there is a time limit with it.  As for stainless steel, it is also rust proof.  I'm not sure there is a time limit on it either.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Since you are talking about a car, you haven't taken into consideration outside forces which damage and destroy....accidents, human contact, vandalism, etc.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  wildcard, 
  Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history.  You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 and that is that CO2 follows temperature.  And I challenge you to find a causation of the opposite direction.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 29, 2014)

*Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?*
The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.
A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.
There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.
As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.
So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).
"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."
Source: NASA Earth Observatory
The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, *roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming*."
Source: NASA Earth Observatory​


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


  Vigilante,
  Of course I didn't take those things into account.  Except for human contact.  Upholstery would be one of the parts that would probably need replacing from time to time.  As would rubber tires.  What I was saying was we could build a car to last that long without outside forces wreaking havoc on it.


----------



## Vigilante (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Then it would be completely USELESS to man!


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  jc456,
  If CO2 followed temperatures in the past, it stands to reason that temperatures would follow CO2.  If you want me to go back to 6th grade and prove that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect, I'm afraid I'm not willing to go there.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



I went my browser and found this instead.

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



So in other words, you are *NOT* willing to back-up your bullshit claims with some "undeniable real proof".

Is that right?


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...


  Vigilante,
  No.  It would be the same as any other car.  It would just be made out of materials that could last that long.  Maybe if the owner of such a car and their descendants were careful and lucky, it would.  I can remember cars being built that were basically made to be disposable.  The Chevrolet Chevette comes to mind.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  I said to bring up graphs.  Not some article in Forbs.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  I am not that computer literate.  Others are able to bring up images from the web and paste them on their replies.  I don't know how to do it.  If I could, then you would see it for yourself.  Before denying it for whatever denier cultist logic.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



I don't take orders.

You want graphs?  Bring them up yourself, or have someone help you.

Make some attempt at backing-up the bullshit that YOU claim with some "undeniable real proof".

What's the matter, does that article from Forbes goes against the bullshit lies and misinformation about global warming that you faithfully believe in and accept without question?


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 29, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  It isn't that you don't take orders.  You're just making up that it was an order to keep yourself from being proven wrong.  But I have something else to tell you that you can take as fact.  But I won't ask you to look it up if you don't believe me.  I can guess where that would lead.  But here is the fact.  Each year all of the earths' volcanoes put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere.  Each year, the activities of humans results in the release of 26.8 BILLION tons.  That's billion with a B.  Also, depending on what you read, China alone starts up a new coal fired electric power plant either twice a week or once every ten days.  Unfortunately is is more pleasing to stick your denier head in the sand.  Just like those cartoon pictures of ostrichs doing.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Sep 29, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



 



> You're just making up that it was an order to keep yourself from being proven wrong.



There is nothing truthful or factual about global warming to be proven wrong.

Everything about global warming is a lie!


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable.



Considering the fact that observation tells us that regulation has, indeed driven up energy prices, the point is not debatable...it is undeniable that regulation has driven up energy prices.



cultsmasher said:


> that isn't the point.  The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.



So you say, but you can't point to any hard evidence that human caused global warming is a reality...you can't point to any repeatable experiment that proves that additional CO2 in an open atmosphere causes temperatures to rise...and you can't point to anything that is happening in the present climate that is outside of natural variability.  If you can't point to any such proof that human caused global warming even exists...how can you claim that it is reality.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



You have not answered the question....if the climate is within the bounds of natural variability....where is the human fingerprint?....how do you separate it from the natural noise?

You have made a claim that you have not substantiated...can you, or can you not substantiate it?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> wildcard,
> You think it's better to be sorry than safe.  I get it.  But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years.  And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.  You may be willing to let that take us where it will.  But I'm not.  Nor would any thinking person.



The earth is in an ice age...low CO2 levels are to be expected...look to the time just prior to the beginning of the present ice age and you will find CO2 levels over 1000ppm and an ice age began with CO2 levels that high....now explain how the very low levels of CO2 now are going to burn us up when the ice age we are presently in began with CO2 levels over 1000ppm.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 30, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 you don't know anything about this, all of your talk is hearsay.  And you even admitted you don't know how to read the graphs to even support your own position.  sounds like you're just on a message board passing time on a subject you know very little on.  And oh, CO2 follows temperatures, and until someone from your side can prove otherwise, that is the only direction that is a causal influence.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 30, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  You can tell yourself that all you want.  But it isn't going to make it true.  If you look at how much CO2 has gone up since the beginning of the industrial revolution, even you can see where things are going.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  I have pointed out many things that proves human caused global warming is a reality.  You, like wildcard, just don't want to see it.  Such as things continuly getting warmer and CO2 continully rising.  Or as I told wildcard, the amount CO2 has risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  From what I heard is the fastest it has risen in the last 800,000 years.  I don't know what made CO2 rise that fast in the past.  But I can tell you what didn't cause it to.  Humans.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  Refer to my last answer.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > wildcard,
> ...


  SSDD,
  What's the point.  We can't even agree on what an ice age is.  Also, as I said a zillion times, the evidence for human caused global warming is all around.  For CO2 levels being as low as you say, it's still sure kicking ass.  And there is no reason to believe it won't kick ass even harder as CO2 continues to rise.  Also, I know you like to "poo poo" methane release.  But it is going up too.  After such a long period of falling global temperatures, you can't say that it can't have a drastic effect.  But like I said before, I know what your feelings are.  It's better to be sorry than safe.


----------



## cultsmasher (Sep 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Is this what things have come to?  You making things up?  I never said that I didn't know how to read graphs.  I said I didn't know how to copy and past them to a reply for denier cultist like you to look at.  Then you go on to talk about causal influence.  Well duh!  But the point is that most ovten in the past, CO2 followed temperatures.  But these days, CO2 is leading the way.  That can't be good.


----------



## Kosh (Sep 30, 2014)

AGW is a farce, there is zero real science to support this religion.

CO2 does NOT drive climate.

Pollution does NOT equal AGW..


----------



## elektra (Sep 30, 2014)

People throw around the word, "scientist", like it means something. 

97% How many people is that exactly, what are their names?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> I have pointed out many things that proves human caused global warming is a reality.



You have pointed out some things but the only thing that you have proved is that you aren't quite sure what constitutes proof.



cultsmasher said:


> You, like wildcard, just don't want to see it.



When you don't see something because it isn't there does that mean you don't want to see it?



cultsmasher said:


> Such as things continuly getting warmer and CO2 continully rising.



True, it has gotten about a half a degree warmer in the past century, but most of that warming took place prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were supposedly safe.  Keep that in mind while considering that CO2 has been rising very steadily for the past 20 years but temperatures have not and if you are a thinking person, you have to wonder if CO2 has any effect at all on climate.



cultsmasher said:


> Or as I told wildcard, the amount CO2 has risen since the beginning of the industrial revolution.



You are working from an assumption...You are claiming that all of this warming is due to CO2....before you can claim CO2 is doing anything but increasing, you first must prove that CO2 can even cause warming.  The fact that ice ages have began with atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 4500ppm casts serious doubt on that assumption.  CO2 follows temperature around...it does not lead temperature.



cultsmasher said:


> From what I heard is the fastest it has risen in the last 800,000 years.



So what?  If you can't prove that CO2 causes the temperature to increase, it doesn't matter.  Sure it has been warming...the earth is coming out of an ice age...and warm water can't hold as much CO2 as cold water so the oceans outgas CO2.  



cultsmasher said:


> I don't know what made CO2 rise that fast in the past.  But I can tell you what didn't cause it to.  Humans.



Again, you are assuming that CO2 causes temperature to rise....before you can credibly make claims of human caused warming, you must first prove that CO2 can cause warming and no such proof exists.

You seem to be the victim of your own vocabulary....have you ever heard the word correlation?  Correlation is when two things appear on the surface to be related..people who believe in human caused warming often confuse the words correlation with causation.  Causation means that one thing directly causes the other.  You are assuming that increasing CO2 causes warming but the evidence tells us that most of the warming in the past 100 years or so took place at a time when atmospheric CO2 levels were in what science calls the "safe" range and while CO2 has increased at a rapid pace for the past 2 decades, temperatures have not increased with them.  The AGW hypothesis predicted constant warming with the increase in CO2...it hasn't happened....the hypothesis is wrong.  Why do you continue to believe in a failed hypothesis?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



I did...it was a non answer...it shows that you don't know the difference between correlation and causation...it is a common characteristic among those who believe in the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> What's the point.  We can't even agree on what an ice age is.



Well that is precisely the point, isn't it?  There is no agreeing or disagreeing...the fact that there are large ice fields at the poles, an ice sheet covering greenland, and glaciers is evidence that the earth is in an ice age.  An ice age is defined as a long period of time in which the earth's climate sees a dramatic drop in temperatures, accompanied by ice fields in the polar regions  A quick look at the temperature history of the earth should tell you that the period we are presently in constitutes a dramatic drop from the normal temperature of the earth







The fact that the earth is in the process if coming out of an ice age should indicate that warming is to be expected.  Take a look at the temperature history of the earth above...look at what seems to be the normal temperature...it is about 10 degrees C warmer than the temperatures we are experiencing now.  Look at the normal temperature...about 25 degrees C and tell me that you think that ice at the poles and glaciers are the normal for planet earth.  If you can't accept that the earth is presently experiencing an interglacial period within an ice age, then you are so far behind the curve that you really don't have anything to add to the conversation.

Brush up on the difference between an ice age and an interglacial period within an ice age and the difference between causation and correlation.



cultsmasher said:


> Also, as I said a zillion times, the evidence for human caused global warming is all around.



I agree that you have said it, but saying it doesn't make it so...if you look around you, and at the history of the past couple of hundred years, what you claim to be evidence is in fact, evidence that humans are not causing warming....again, most of the warming of the past hundred or so years happened prior to 1950 back when CO2 levels were considered safe...CO2 has been steadily rising for the past 20 years while no warming has happened...we know that the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels more than double the current rate and on and on.  There is no evidence of human caused global warming.....Since human caused global warming would be unique in the history of the earth...human caused global warming would look different.  Nothing is happening in the climate that is outside of the bounds of natural variation...so you are, in effect, saying that human caused global warming looks just like natural global warming...if they look the same and you don't have any proof that CO2 causes warming where is your evidence?



cultsmasher said:


> For CO2 levels being as low as you say, it's still sure kicking ass.



That is an assumption...not a fact.  AGAIN...most of the warming in the past century took place prior to 1950....CO2 has been rapidly increasing for the past 20 years with no warming at all.  Your correlation breaks down when compared with observation.



cultsmasher said:


> Also, I know you like to "poo poo" methane release.  But it is going up too.



The hypothesis is that the mechanism by which methane causes warming is the same as by which CO2 causes warming except CO2 is not causing warming...the hypothesized mechanism is flawed.  



cultsmasher said:


> After such a long period of falling global temperatures, you can't say that it can't have a drastic effect.  But like I said before, I know what your feelings are.  It's better to be sorry than safe.



Everything you say is a product of misinformation...look above at the temperature history of the earth...look at where we are right now....tell me what you think is surprising about the fact that the earth is warming.  Give me one reason to think that the long term climate trend will not be warming until such time as there is no ice at either pole with or without humans introducing CO2 into the atmosphere.

And again, regarding your better safe than sorry attitude...look back in history and over and over humans have found out that taking action when the complete picture is not known is not a good course of action...more often than not, people have ended up being sorry that they tried to stay safe....the problems they encounter from the better safe than sorry way of thinking are all to often worse than the problems, or non problems they would have faced had they taken no action.  Taking action in an attempt to counter the unknown is never a good plan.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

elektra said:


> People throw around the word, "scientist", like it means something.
> 
> 97% How many people is that exactly, what are their names?


 and what were the questions asked.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 sure, and some day maybe you could prove what you post.  You have no evidence, none, nadda of any CO2 causing a climate or temperature change.  As has been pointed out to you here, the past 18 year pause is an observed damning of your claim.  While CO2 increased, temps stayed basically flat. So the cause is no where to be found.  And as many on your side here have posted, at least you admit that CO2 follows temperature and to all of us is the only influence on the planet.  So have a nice day and when you find that evidence you claim you have, that you don't, let us all know.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> AGW is a farce, there is zero real science to support this religion.
> 
> CO2 does NOT drive climate.
> 
> Pollution does NOT equal AGW..


  Kosh,
  Like it or not, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas.  And as has been shown in many ways, it is causing global temperatures to generally rise.  As far as particulate pollution goes, it may help keep temperatures from rising as fast by keeping some sunlight from reaching the ground.  Maybe that's how some of you deniers can sleep at night.  Because if things gat as bad as they probably will, all the government has to do is send a couple ground penetrating hydrogen bombs crashing into a couple places where super volcanos exist.  But that isn't much of a solution.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 1, 2014)

elektra said:


> People throw around the word, "scientist", like it means something.
> 
> 97% How many people is that exactly, what are their names?


 elektra,
  I'm still not reading anything you write.  So go away.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is a farce, there is zero real science to support this religion.
> ...


 Nope!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > People throw around the word, "scientist", like it means something.
> ...


 So you have no answers eh?  We all knew it.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  First of all, I am sure of what constitutes proof.  Then as far as your not wanting to see, I have proven that clearly enough.  As far as how much things have warmed in the last 20 years, you can concentrate on the fluctuations all you want.  But it is clear that the trand for CO2 and temperatires is upward.  Next, I don't have to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  You can believe it or not.  Next, rising CO2 levels are more from the activity of man.  Not outgassing of warmer oceans.  Next, don't complain about my volcabulary.  My use of "correlation" was appropriate.  

  Next, most of my talk has been about the CO2 increase since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Not the temperature increase.  Though temperatures have been going up too.  Lastly, I have to go along with what the vast majority of scientists say.  I also have to go along with what most of the graphs say.  When it comes to your opinion about human caused global warming, compared to those things, it isn't even in the running.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  It was only a non answer to somebody who refuses to see.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  I'm going to skip most of what you said.  Because it is all the same denier crap all over again.  Then you really venture into insane land by claiming that it is better to be sorry than safe.  Just like the DEVO song, "If you have a problem, you just have to whip it."  Even if something is only a perceived threat, it is ALWAYS a good idea to do something about it.  Though of course, you claim that there is no problem.  On that point, I guess we're just going to have to disagree.  Also, as I said to somebody, it isn't a good idea to wait until everything is known diwn to the finest, exact detail until a problem is recognized.  If we took that course, science would probably still be saying that tobacco was safe.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  First of all, it appears in the past that CO2 usually followed temperatures.  But that isn't what is happening today.  And as sure as the greenhouse effect is, Temperatures are sure to follow.  Also, from what I heard, ocean temperatures have been rising more than atmospheric temperatures.  Which apparently wasn't expected.  But even warmer oceans isn't a good thing.  Let me guess, you want me to dig up some graphs or find some scientific publication to quote.  Well guess what.  I have better things to do.  Believe what you want.  As you can tell from my avatar, I have more important cults to smash.


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is a farce, there is zero real science to support this religion.
> ...









GHG yes.  Shown to be doing anything....anything at all?  No.  With a capital NO!


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...









Keep posting your science denying propaganda little NAZI boy, it makes our job so much easier.  The only people who believe your crap now are you and your fellow scientific illiterates.  Thinking people have figured out that you don't know anything, and further will lie, cheat and steal, to further your political goals because that's what this crap is all about.  Politics.

Science has nothing to do with your cult any longer.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


First of all CO2 will always follow temperature, that is science.  You sir still have not proved anything other than that.  So, I don't believe you nor the links you constantly post, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?  It doesn't matter how many times you post it the same reaction will be received....DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? So tell me what else is there to discuss?  WiNNiNG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  It appears I was able to make a graph appear that shows that right now, CO2 is leading the way.  You should be able to click on one of the graphs to inlarge it.  So what does that have to say about your assertion that CO2 always follows temperatures.  Or that you're winning.  Chew on that for a while!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...





> You can tell yourself that all you want.  But it isn't going to make it true.


And you can continue to convince yourself that global warming is real, and that mankind is to blame, but it isn't going to make it true.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2014)

westwall said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Really? Another get together coming up for the AGU. You will  be there to tell all of those scientists how they are all wrong, and that GHGs don't do anything. Right? Come on now, I, and many like me watch the videos. Surely you won't miss this chance to show us all that we are wrong.

Or perhaps you would prefer to us the GSA as a forum. Just tell us when you will be speaking, we will surely not miss that.

But the reality is that you, and people like you, have nothing to present that would pass even minimal peer review. You would get your asses laughed out of either forum.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



OK, asshole, present evidence for your position.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


Hey dumbfuck, search the thread.

But we both know that whatever evidence is presented,  YOU will automatically reject it.  Why?  Because it doesn't support the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming that YOU and the other moronic warmists so faithfully believe in and accept without question.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



Well, present us some evidence from credible sources. Not undegreed ex-TV weathermen, fake British Lords, and obese junkies on the radio. 

All of the Scientific Societies of the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all of the major Universities have policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2014)

Hey Walleyes, gonna see you at the AGU convention in San Francisco this year, right?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



This BULL SHIT AGAIN????


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



First we would have to see real science and real data from the alarmists... none of  this fake modeled crap and  made up tree ring proxies..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > AGW is a farce, there is zero real science to support this religion.
> ...



It has been shown in no way to make global temperatures rise.  It has been hypothesized...it has been modeled and both the hypothesis and models have failed.  CO2 does not drive the climate.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> First of all, I am sure of what constitutes proof.



Really?  So what is the number one thing in your mind that proves that AGW is real?



cultsmasher said:


> Then as far as your not wanting to see, I have proven that clearly enough.  {/quote]
> 
> Claiming that I don't want to see the proof that you haven't provided is about as weak an argument as possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Refuse to see what you haven't shown?  I have seen what you have produced and it certainly doesn't constitute proof of anything.  You clearly don't know the difference between correlation and causation.  You seem to be terrified of CO2 levels going much above the present 400ppm because you fear warming but CO2 levels were above 1000ppm when the present ice age began...if CO2 causes catastrophic warming, how did an ice age begin....in fact, all of the ice ages of the past begin with CO2 levels over 1000ppm and in some cases with CO2 levels over 4000ppm?  Do you think CO2 from human activity is somehow different than natural CO2?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> I'm going to skip most of what you said.



Of course you are...that is how zealots operate...when you can't answer, you ignore and hope that no one notices.  



cultsmasher said:


> Then you really venture into insane land by claiming that it is better to be sorry than safe.



Can you prove that we will be sorry?  If you can, then do it...if you can't, then you are no more than a crazy on the sidewalk with a sandwich sign saying that "The end is near"



cultsmasher said:


> Just like the DEVO song, "If you have a problem, you just have to whip it."



So according to you, if it is in a song, it must be true?  I know some people who think like that...they live their lives by song lyrics...no matter what happens they have a song lyric...and they are, to the last one...sad losers.  They prove beyond a doubt that living your life by song lyrics is not a good plan.



cultsmasher said:


> Even if something is only a perceived threat, it is ALWAYS a good idea to do something about it.



Really?  Ever see a paranoid?  They perceive all sorts of threats and act on them and it seldom works out for them...Was it a good idea to start the war in the middle east over the perceived threat of WMD in Iraq?  I could go on with examples of taking disastrous action based on "perceived" threats for pages and pages.  When you perceive a threat, the first thing you do is determine whether it is an actual threat...then you assess how much of a threat it is and then perform a gain loss assessment to determine whether taking action is better than not.  Simply taking action based on perceived threats is one of the most stupid things you could possibly do.  Chicken little took action based on a perceived threat...how did that work out for him?



cultsmasher said:


> Though of course, you claim that there is no problem.



I am not making any claim at all.  I am saying that there is nothing going on in the climate that is outside of, or even getting close to the bounds of natural variation...I am saying that if humans are having an effect on the climate, it isn't distinguishable from natural climate variations.  You are claiming imminent disaster that must be addressed and I am asking for you to substantiate your claims and you don't seem to be able to do it...you simply respond with more claims of imminent disaster.  You claim that an increase of the present concentration 400ppm CO2 concentration is going to lead to disastrous warming but the ice age we are in began with atmospheric CO2 over 1000ppm.  I am not making any claims at all...I am asking you what solid evidence of imminent disaster you base your claims of impending doom requiring immediate action upon.



cultsmasher said:


> Also, as I said to somebody, it isn't a good idea to wait until everything is known diwn to the finest, exact detail until a problem is recognized.



And I don't think that you should wait until every possible detail is known....but you should wait until you know whether a real threat exists and how serious that threat is.  Consider the question..."how sensitive is the climate to a doubling of CO2?  Don't you think that such a basic bit of knowledge would be useful in determining whether a threat exists and the level of that threat.  Right now, the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 is somewhere between zero and 8 degrees for a doubling of CO2.    Is that enough information to even determine whether a threat even exists...much less to determine a course of action based upon a perceived threat?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456,
> It appears I was able to make a graph appear that shows that right now, CO2 is leading the way.  You should be able to click on one of the graphs to inlarge it.  So what does that have to say about your assertion that CO2 always follows temperatures.  Or that you're winning.  Chew on that for a while!



CO2 is increasing but temperatures are not...do you really believe that the oceans ate the global warming?  What sort of mechanism do you think is responsible for the heat suddenly shifting from the atmosphere to the oceans...how do square your belief that the oceans are eating the warming with the fact that there is no dramatic increase in the rate that the oceans are accumulating heat over the time that the heat supposedly started being eaten by the oceans...and if the oceans are eating the heat, why are we not seeing a sudden acceleration in sea level due to thermal expansion instead of the observed decrease in sea level increase?  

Your claims simply do not hold up when compared with what we are observing?


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 2, 2014)

'Ground penetrating hydrogen bombs'

Most supervolcano magma chambers are several miles underground. Deepest specially-designed ground penetrating bomb doesn't go deeper than about 100 meters. Deepest cavity vaporized out of solid earth from an underground nuclear detonation is less than about 1,000 meters.

Nuclear weapons optimally are airburst to maximize shockwave effects. Detonations on the ground reflect the majority of their energy up into the atmosphere. If you tried setting off a supervolcano like the one in Yellowstone with nuclear weapons, you'd move some earth and irradiate the vicinity, but you wouldn't get anywhere close to exposing the magma chamber so as to set it off.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 2, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  Wildcard,
  Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456.  Click on one of the graphs on my reply.  Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out about 200 million tons of CO2.  Each year, human activities put out 26.8 billion tons.  Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456.  Click on one of the graphs on my reply.  Given what I said, tell me that what is happening now is just a coincidence.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  I wonder how much denier money went to whoever made your graph.  Even so, I still see a warming trend.  Despite this, There are other graphs that show the opposite.  But despite what your graph says, my graphs can beat up your graphs.  Though I am new to this, you should be able to click on either graph to get a better view.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  It would seem that the kind of "proof" you deniers require doesn't exist.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  You can deny graphs like these all you want.  But even you have to admit that it is likely that there is at least some "truthiness" to them.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 2, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> 'Ground penetrating hydrogen bombs'
> 
> Most supervolcano magma chambers are several miles underground. Deepest specially-designed ground penetrating bomb doesn't go deeper than about 100 meters. Deepest cavity vaporized out of solid earth from an underground nuclear detonation is less than about 1,000 meters.
> 
> Nuclear weapons optimally are airburst to maximize shockwave effects. Detonations on the ground reflect the majority of their energy up into the atmosphere. If you tried setting off a supervolcano like the one in Yellowstone with nuclear weapons, you'd move some earth and irradiate the vicinity, but you wouldn't get anywhere close to exposing the magma chamber so as to set it off.


  Delta4Embassy,
  Not that any sane person would ever do it, but a hydrogen bomb even just 100 meters underground would still create quite a shockwave.  Enough to shatter any layers of rock for miles.  And maybe cause some of the magma to fizz.  I have no doubt that it would work.  Also, if that was their intent, I'm sure bomb makers could do something to make such a projectile go deeper.  Such as if the jet carrying it released it wlile heading toward the ground at 1500 mph.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  You are picking the hell out of some nits.  Maybe you can tell me where CO2 levels were at when the entire earth froze over.  But none of that matters.  What matters is the effects of what humans are now doing is having.  And if greed or being able to multiply like bacteria are worth it.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 


I'm not interested in the lies and misinformation about global warming that you are trying to convince others of that it is real.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 2, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  Wildcard,
  You call these graphs lies and misinformation.  But they hold more weight than the blanlet denials that you come up with.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 


> You call these graphs lies and misinformation.


Yes I do.



> But they hold more weight than the blanlet denials that you come up with.


Of course you believe that, after all you were gullible enough to be sold on the lies and misinformation of global warming.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 2, 2014)




----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 2, 2014)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Too Funny... You Plot CO2 as if it is a direct correlation ( and you had to do some mighty fun tricks to get it to plot that way too).

IF CO2 is LOG functioning how does it magically plot equal to temperature when temperature is NOT LOG FUNCTIONING.  your graphs are a lie!  If you simply use basic science your whole premise is blown out the door...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

Wildcard said:


>



We are at the top portion of the 60 year warm side of the solar output.  We will now continue to cool for about 30-50 years until we again reach the bottom of the cooling cycle.  We have been out of all modeled predictions for over 14 years. 126 models updated just 10 years ago are now failed. And its 100%..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > First we would have to see real science and real data from the alarmists... none of  this fake modeled crap and  made up tree ring proxies..
> ...



A legend in your own mind... nothing more...  You are a marxist, communist who is using lie and deceit to get the control over everyone you desire.   I have posted real facts and all you have posted is "modeled" non-facts...


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



You prefer the thermometer proxies?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> [
> Wildcard,
> Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456.  Click on one of the graphs on my reply.  Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out about 200 million tons of CO2.  Each year, human activities put out 26.8 billion tons.  Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456.  Click on one of the graphs on my reply.  Given what I said, tell me that what is happening now is just a coincidence.



"All" the volcanoes on earth?  Really?  Do we know about all of the volcanoes on earth?  Do we know how much CO2 each is spewing out?  You guys just talk and talk with very little indication that you have done any research to determine whether you are lying or not.  We know more about the topography of the moon and mars than we do about our own planet.  We have a pretty good handle on the volcanoes on land, but know very little about the volcanoes and vents under the oceans which means that we know very little about most of the surface of the earth.  A new map has recently been released which is "twice" as accurate as the previous maps (which isn't saying much) but this new map reveals the possible locations of literally thousands of volcanoes that we had no idea existed.  Think again before you make proclamations about how much CO2 "all" the volcanoes on earth put out when in fact, we have no idea of how many volcanoes and vents there are.


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2014)

Estimates from volcano-sourced CO2 include estimates of unknown, additional emissions. That estimate is significantly less than 1 percent of human emissions.  If you want to contend there are more than one hundred times as many venting volcanoes on the planet as geologists believe, you better start searching.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...





cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> You can deny graphs like these all you want.  But even you have to admit that it is likely that there is at least some "truthiness" to them.



Where did those graphs come from?  Who made them?  They bear little resemblance to the long term ice cores such as Vostok which clearly show that for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 has followed temperature...not the other way around.  An ongoing problem with you warmer types is that you are terrified to show the big picture....you show little clips of time and think it proves your case but when that little bit of time is compared to the larger picture, it becomes clear that you don't have an argument.  You think for the past 400,000 years CO2 has followed temperature around like a little puppy on a leash, but in the past 150 years, suddenly CO2 grew up into a bad dog and is running the show?  How do you suppose that might have happened?

CO2 does not control the climate.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> You are picking the hell out of some nits.  Maybe you can tell me where CO2 levels were at when the entire earth froze over.  But none of that matters.  What matters is the effects of what humans are now doing is having.  And if greed or being able to multiply like bacteria are worth it.



No, I am telling you where CO2 levels were just prior to the whole earth freezing over.  You are claiming that a small increase in CO2 which is presently around 100ppm is going to cause catastrophic warming....the fact is that an ice age began when CO2 levels were 250% higher than they are now.  Your claims simply don't add up when put in the context of history.  

Your claims are simply baseless.  If you are going to claim that our small contribution to atmospheric CO2 is going to lead to catastrophic consequences, then you need to be able to explain why when CO2 levels were far higher than they are at present, the same sort of catastrophe that you are predicting didn't happen.  If you can't, then you have no justification for taking action on your claims of impending doom.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard,
> You call these graphs lies and misinformation.  But they hold more weight than the blanlet denials that you come up with.



Yes, those graphs are misinformation...they are misinformation because they attempt to make a case for how the climate behaves, and what causes it's behavior based on a very thin slice of time.  They are lies by omission.  If you want to make a case for how the climate behaves, then you must show as much of the climate history as possible in order to get all of the information.  This is a slice of time that is 346,153% larger than your little slice of time and it tells an entirely different story than your little graph...it tells us that CO2 follows temperature...it doesn't cause temperatures to increase.  It doesn't support your claims based on that little 130 year slice of time.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Estimates from volcano-sourced CO2 include estimates of unknown, additional emissions. That estimate is significantly less than 1 percent of human emissions.  If you want to contend there are more than one hundred times as many venting volcanoes on the planet as geologists believe, you better start searching.



Estimates of unknown additional emissions?   How many unknown volcanoes is that?  50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000?  How many?...and how much?  Again, you are talking about climate science making a blind assed guess.....A few weeks ago, there were believed to be about 1500 active volcanoes worldwide....recent sat maps released of the ocean floor, which claim to be twice as accurate as previous maps (which isn't saying much) reveal that there may be thousands of previously unknown undersea volcanoes and vents...not hundreds more, but thousands more.  So again, how many unknown volcanoes did science estimate?  Do you think they estimated thousands more than they actually knew about?


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2014)

The odds that geologist's estimates of the planet's total volcanic activity are off by a factor of 134 are nil.  Your argument here is precisely equivalent to "it's only a theory".  Unfortunately, the uneducated masses that populate your side of this argument don't even understand the point.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> The odds that geologist's estimates of the planet's total volcanic activity are off by a factor of 134 are nil.  Your argument here is precisely equivalent to "it's only a theory".  Unfortunately, the uneducated masses that populate your side of this argument don't even understand the point.



The odds that stomach ulcers were not caused by stress were nil till they weren't...The odds that plate tectonics were at work were nil till they were....The odds that quasicrystals exist were nil...till they did.....the odds that there were any number of planets in the solar system other than 9 were nil, till there weren't.....the odds that there were more than 30 orders of insects were nil, till there were....the odds that humans evolved directly from something other than a tree dwelling primate were nil, till we didn't....and on and on and on.  The idea that geologists know what is going on under the oceans which we know less about than the moon is just stupid.  As knowledge grows, we find out that we were wrong on lots of things and this new map of the sea floor is a pretty good indication that geologists really didn't have much of an idea of what was happening down there....so if they underestimated the number of active volcanoes and vents by thousands...what does that do to your claim that volcanoes hardly make any contribution at all to atmospheric CO2?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2014)

West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes - LA Times


Operative word being *"naturally".............*


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...




that is because the earth has a vent to throw off excessive heat


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  You're bringing up nonsense again.  There have been many wild events in the past.  The Siberian Traps eruption, asteroid strikes and the like.  You cant use such past events as a model for current events.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  For whatever reply I was referring to, I obviously skiped most of what you said becaise it was either stupid or irrelevent.  Bringing up such topics as you did is how zealots really operate.  Then you ask for proof that we will be sorry.  Will the earth be sorry for the activities of humans?  WAKE UP!  It is already sorry!  And by the way things are going, it and the humans living on it will get increasingly sorry.

  As for the DEVO lyrics, I wasn't trying to be profound.  Also, I know how you would have written such lyrics.  "If you got a problem, just don't try to whip it."  You then bring up being paranoid.  But I'm not talking about insanity.  I'm talking about reality.  Then you bring up taking action even about a perceived threat.  But I still say that doing so is always a good idea.  Also, as they say, a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Then as a lame example, you bring up what led to the second Iraq war.  But threats had nothing to do with it.  It was basically about oil.  You also bring up some "chicken little" nonsense.  But I will just skip that.

  You then say that what is going on isn't outside of natural variation. Well when you basically include things like a small planet colliding with the earth, things indeed are within natural variation.  Then you ask for evidence that disaster is heading our way.  But you don't want to see the evidence.  You will just keep spouting that everything will be just fine.  Well it isn't fine right now and it is unlikely to get better.  Despite whatever kind of weather a trilobite may have had to endure.  But even though you don't want to see it, I will give you four photos to deny.  Take a look at what has happened to lake Chad.




  Then you bring up what is needed to be known before action is taken.  Well out of zillions of things that are going on, take a look again at what remains of lake Chad.  Such things are all that nees to be known as far as whether or not action should be taken.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456,
> ...


  SSDD,
  What I had to say about oceans getting warmer than they were expected to doesn't have anything to do with what I believe.  It was from a documentary or news thing.  If you have any problem with that, you're going to have to dig up the scientists who made that observation and take up the issue with them.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  Do you really think that the vast majority of scientists are wrong and you are right?  Can your ego really be that overblown?


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Wildcard said:


>


  wildcard,
  Despite your model, I am still seeing an upward trend.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Wildcard said:


>


  wildcard,
  I don't know where you dug this graph up at.  But seeing how most other graphs show just the opposite, I'm going to have to go with them.  Also, this graph doesn't show CO2.  And as I said, where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.  Another thing is that according to a program on PBS I watched just last night on the subject, where temperatures are taken makes a difference.

  If this graph you show is indeed authentic, there must be some flaw in it.  After all, what is making glaciers and ice caps melt the way they are.  Superman's heat vision?  Or what is making sea levels rise.  God pissing into the ocean from orbit?


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  You call this my plot and talk about tricks I do.  But these graphs aren't mine and I didn't alter them.  I went to my browser and entered, "Graphs that show CO2 and temperature rates since the beginning of the industrial revolution."  One of the sites shows such graphs.  Tons of them.  I picked a couple and printed them.  Then I scanned them into my computer.  From there, I did a split screen thing and draged the image over into my reply.  So for what the graphs show, you're just going to have to live with it.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  I have heard that kind of crap before.  But the sun's output has nothing to do with what's going on.  Neither does any deviation in either our axis or orbit.  Neither are we in a warmer part of space that is also causing global warming on mars.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Like Popeye used to say, "I ams what I ams and that's all that I am."  Also, I am neither a Marxist or a communist.  My political leanings are more toward National Socialist.  As for the validity of the "facts" you came up with, that is highly questionable.  As for the facts I came up with, I can't take credit for the graphs.  But all my points of reason you can take to the bank.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


  Crick,
  That's telling wildcard!  If he understands.  Though to be honest, if not for a show I watched on PBS last night about the subject, I probably wouldn't have understood myself.  I never knew that actual measurements done with thermometers was so limited.  The number of proxies used by scientists through various means around the world to reveal more of earth's past was fascinating.  But even as a dummy, I can see what is going on.  But I hope that even as a dummy to some degree, I am doing something to wake these denier cultists up.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


  SSDD,
  There you go again.  Wanting to know everything down to the finest, most minute and exacting detail before making a judgment on something.  The tonnage of CO2 I mentioned are just estimates.  You also bring up the bullshit of us knowing more about the moon or mars than we do of our own planet.  Do you even have the slightest conception of the thousands of core samples that have been taken around the earth?  Also, you can take a boat out on the ocean and drop a bucket over the side with a rope attached to it.  With it, you can bring up some sediment to examine.  What would it take for you to do the same in the moon or mars.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  I told you where I found the graphs.  If you want to know who made them, you are going to have to find that out for yourself.  Also, I can dig up graphs that show the entire known history of the earth in regard to CO2 and global temperatures.  But it is hardly relevant.  As for CO2 being a driving factor in climate, that is a different matter.  But CO2 IS a greenhouse gas.  And the greenhouse effect IS a known phenomena.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard,
> ...


  SSDD,
  To answer you here, just go and look at the last reply I gave you.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


  jon_berzerk,
  Right now, the earth is building up heat.  Apparently it isn't throwing off ehough heat to keep that from happening.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




not for the past fifteen years


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


  jon_berzerk,
  That depends on who you ask.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 3, 2014)

soon the period of no global warming will be longer 

then the period of global warming


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> [
> 
> jon_berzerk,
> Right now,* the earth is building up heat.*  Apparently it isn't throwing off ehough heat to keep that from happening.



What a butt load of crap... You must be talking to Trenbreth who is making claims that are not supported by fact and can not be verified.  It also violates the Law of Thermal Dynamics on several levels..


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 3, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Did you not see the graphs I showed you?  Temperatures are indeed going up.  So whatever this "vent" is that is throwing off evcessive heat, it apparently isn't doing that good of a job.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 


> Do you really think that the vast majority of scientists are wrong and you are right?


Yup.
Those scientists that you refer to would lie for money.
Whether it's called global warming or climate change it is nothing more then a scam.


> Can your ego really be that overblown?


That's a stupid question.  My ego has not a goddamn thing to do with this.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 


> AGW is real, and a clear and present danger


Yeah, sure it is.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 


> But even as a dummy, I can see what is going on.


No you can't.  Not as long as you believe and accept the lies and misinformation of global warming as being truth, you can't.



> But I hope that even as a dummy to some degree, I am doing something to wake these denier cultists up.


 
What a load of crap!  If anybody need to wake the fuck up, it's idiots like you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob,
> Did you not see the graphs I showed you?  Temperatures are indeed going up.  So whatever this "vent" is that is throwing off evcessive heat, it apparently isn't doing that good of a job.



Your graph is a lie. 95% of the rise shown in your fantasy graphing is made up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 3, 2014)

Dr Ben Santers prediction of catastrophic global warming falsification came and went without so much as a whimper or whine from the alarmists.  



> LIVERMORE, Calif. — In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.
> 
> To address criticism of the reliability of thermometer records of surface warming, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists analyzed satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere (the region of the atmosphere from the surface to roughly five miles above) and saw a clear signal of human-induced warming of the planet.



This ought to be fun.. and Ocean temps at 700 feet have declined 0.01 degrees C... where has Trenbreth hidden his warming now?

Source


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 


> And as I said, where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.


 
BULLSHIT!  

And as I said before, there is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 3, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Those scientists that you refer to would lie for money.



You just don't get it. You assume because you completely lack ethics yourself and would instantly sell out for a back, that everyone must think the same way you do.

That's not how it works. We are not like you. We don't share your ethical failings. On both an intellectual and moral level, you're not fit to sniff the jocks of the men you libel.

Remember, your side has been caught red-handed lying, fudging and fabricating data over and over. Given the history of pathological lying associated with your cult, why do you think you can lecture anyone on honesty? You're like a whore lecturing on chastity. All it does it get people laughing.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Those scientists that you refer to would lie for money.
> ...



 

Another crap filled post from Mamooth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> [
> <snip>
> Remember, your side has been caught red-handed lying, fudging and fabricating data over and over. Given the history of pathological lying associated with your cult, why do you think you can lecture anyone on honesty? You're like a whore lecturing on chastity. All it does it get people laughing.


Your main man Mann is out on limb without support...

And your projection of the situation you  and your alarmist friends find yourself in is funny as hell!


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 4, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  If anybody around here is an idiot, it's you.  For instance, in an earlier reply you said that scientists would be willing to lie for money.  You couldn't be more wrong.  If anybody was likely to pay scientists money, it would be the polluters who have most of the money.  Also, if they went around saying things that went against science, they would probably loose their credibility and their jobs.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob,
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  This isn't my graph.  If you have any problem with them, take it up with the scientists who made them.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dr Ben Santers prediction of catastrophic global warming falsification came and went without so much as a whimper or whine from the alarmists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Do I need to dig up more graphs to beat up your graphs.  I thought you might at least have found the pictures of lake Chad drying up to be interesting.  But despite all this, almost every scientist agrees that human caused global warming is a reality.  And I bet that they have looked into the subject more deeply than you.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 4, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  Did you miss these graphs?


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Those scientists that you refer to would lie for money.
> ...


  mamooth,
  I would like to see these denier cultists watch the documentary "Greedy Lying Bastards" and bullshit their way out of it.  Maybe it would give them the idea of buying a fake title to give themselves more credibility.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  The villagers living around lake Chad aren't laughing much.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 4, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Oh you mean those graphs that are based on lies and misinformation?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 4, 2014)

George Carlin has a very interesting point of view. And he is right on the money! This 7 min 38 second video is hilarious and very informative as well.  He has his facts straight to boot.....


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 4, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...





No.  It's *YOU *who are an idiot who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming without questioning it, then try to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.  



> you said that scientists would be willing to lie for money.  You couldn't be more wrong.



I'm NOT wrong.  You're just  stupid and gullible.  

Articles Why Scientists Lie -- and What to Do about It


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 4, 2014)




----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 5, 2014)

Wildcard said:


>


  wildcard,
  When you tell criminals that they shouldn't be criminals, they sure do put up a fuss.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...




Again, you disregard points you can't answer..it isn't a new tactic among your sort.  And showing a picture of a dog hardly proves your point when one looks at the result of blind action to "perceived" threats throughout history.  Your idiot picture suggests that we should kill all canines and nothing more.  It takes a single photo of a dog and distorts it to the point that it could be taken for nearly any dog suggesting that all dogs present an imminent threat...Is killing all dogs a good course of action based on incomplete information? 

Funny thing about your photo...if you take averages of things you get images very akin to your photo above.  Here, for example is an average of photo's with Santa:






As you see, averages don't produce things that look much like reality.  Climate science is built almost in its entirety on averages.  The average global mean temperature is the foundation for the temperature records that climate science produce.  The photos above are averages of a few hundred to 1000 or so photos....imagine if they were the averages of millions of photos as is the case with the temperature record...how much resemblance do you think there is between the average and the actual?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> What I had to say about oceans getting warmer than they were expected to doesn't have anything to do with what I believe.  It was from a documentary or news thing.  If you have any problem with that, you're going to have to dig up the scientists who made that observation and take up the issue with them.



Actually the problem is with people like you who simply repeat without bothering to try and understand...You hold a political position and simply repeat what people who also hold your same political opinion tell you to say.  You don't do any actual thinking on your own...you are a parrot....a useful idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Were the vast majority of scientists wrong on the cause of ulcers...on the number of planets in the solar system....on the existence of quasicrystals...and on and on and on?  The majority of scientists have at some point been wrong on damned near every topic in science....climate science is still operating on the basis of some quaint 19th century science which was disproven shortly after it was published.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Dude, still waiting on your evidence.  Take some of your own advice and first provide your evidence of which you have zero of.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...




He has what all warmers have...and he has it in abundance...he has his faith...he has his belief...and most importantly, he has his marching orders.  He his a parrot...evidence isn't high on his priorities.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

Cultivator, I have been away for awhile on personal business, but I'm back and read most of your posts, but didn't want to address each point because, it isn't needed.  Sir you're wrong. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but seriously you're a lost fart looking for a place to vent.  Well take your smell to some other place, because frankly you have no idea of what you preach.  You are like the show 'lost', lost without an ending.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


It's sure a funny thing, demand upon demand upon demand, yet the likes of the warmers is just talk and faith. Post shit without knowledge of what they post.  Ideas based on idealogy that something bad must be ready to happen.  The world didn't end in 2012 as the mayan predictions had it, is there someone out there that has a prediction that ever did happen as advertized?  Oh, please someone, show me the successful prediction. Oh and the nutjob who stated twice the world would end, and eventually his did.  I thumb my nose at all the warmers, post here all you want, my tone will not change and all your invalid posts will be just that, invalid.  And it means nil to me!!!!! Smoke some more of your whacky tabbacy and see you in another life. For now,  WiNNiNg!!!!!!!


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  In bringing up a picture of a dog, I have to assume that you aren't talking to me.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  As for what you said about trying to understand, there is nothing to try to understand.  Everything is there for people to see.  It is the cultist deniers like you who keep harping on about needing ever greater proof to make a determination about what is really going on.  You saw the pictures of lake Chad that I included in a reply to you.  And that was just one of the zillions of proofs that human caused global warming is a reality.  If anybody around here is a parrot or an idiot, it's you.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  Why didn't you bring up the thing about most scientists believing at one time that it was impossible to fly.  Or go faster than the speed of sound.  Or be able to go to the moon.  Or that man evolved and wasn't created by some god.  Sure, science isn't always perfect.  But it adapts.  Cultist deniers don't.  At least not nearly so easly.  As for your assertion that science is stuck in the 19th century, I have to laugh upon you.  If science is stuck in anything, it is in the scientific method.  Which is where I hope it will always be stuck.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  jc456,
  I am not in a position to provide the kind of evidence that you seem to require.  Which is no surprise.  Though I could provide proof that god doesn't exist.  Or at least that if some sort of supernatural entity did exist that people call god, it would be the lowest form of life possible.  There are hordes of religious people who would deny that to the bitter end too.  But I will again give you some proof.  Even though I know it is pointless.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  Look at it again.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Cultivator, I have been away for awhile on personal business, but I'm back and read most of your posts, but didn't want to address each point because, it isn't needed.  Sir you're wrong. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but seriously you're a lost fart looking for a place to vent.  Well take your smell to some other place, because frankly you have no idea of what you preach.  You are like the show 'lost', lost without an ending.


  jc456,
  Wherever you went away to, go back there.  Your repetitive denier cherps aren't making any point.  Apart from how utterly closeminded you are.  And how much your opinion stinks.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Cultivator, I have been away for awhile on personal business, but I'm back and read most of your posts, but didn't want to address each point because, it isn't needed.  Sir you're wrong. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but seriously you're a lost fart looking for a place to vent.  Well take your smell to some other place, because frankly you have no idea of what you preach.  You are like the show 'lost', lost without an ending.
> ...


 none of your posts make a point other than you know nothing.  Go away yourself.  You have offered up nothing.  Yes you've posted material, all which is a lie.  So you have no proof, admitted you don't have any so just go away mad.  WiNNiNg............


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  So you think the pictures showing how much lake Chad has dried up were doctored.  Very interesting.  Tell me, do you think that you could come up with some pictures that aren't doctored and show the opposite?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Nope, I just don't see them proving any point you're trying to make.  So a lake dried up so what?


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  There is a large lake drying up in Russia too.  But from what I hear, much of it is due to water being taken out for things like agriculture than it is being replenished.  But lake Chad is different.  That can be laid at the doorstep of human caused global warming.  If you want, you could probably look up the cause on the internet and call the people making that claim liars too.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Dude, you can't prove jack so shut up already.  You have a nice pretty picture of an empty something.  Good for you.  Hope it helps you sleep at night.  Doesn't do jack here though, so either prove your point or move on!!! *WiNNiNg*


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  The pictures I included showed one of the proofs of human caused global warming.  And seeing how this whole thread is about human caused global warming, it does do "jack" here.  You know, if you're getting tired of being proven wrong, all you have to do is bow out of the discussion entirely.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 proven?  You have none.  Admitted such.  you're so losing dude.  but all that you posted is crap!!!! Let's just get the story straight.  you first prove human evidence and then let's go from there.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 BTW, you make me laugh!!!


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  I have given you plenty of proof that goes in one ear and out the other.  But I have known for quite some time that you and people like you are just gadflies.  The point is to not make a point.  It is to just keep talking nonsence because it amuses you.  But if you want to continue your silliness, feel free to do so.  It doesn't bother me.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Nope, sorry you haven't, you are just LoSiNg.  so typical for your side.  See there is no proof of humans affecting temperature or climate or anything other than the stoopoids like yourself.  So, I will just tell you that no matter how many times you wish to post that ridiculas statement, it just isn't factual.  You're a fraud!!!!


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 




> I have given you plenty of proof


 
You can tell yourself that all you want, but it isn't going to make it true.  

Your ignorance amuses me.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> As for what you said about trying to understand, there is nothing to try to understand.  Everything is there for people to see.  It is the cultist deniers like you who keep harping on about needing ever greater proof to make a determination about what is really going on.  You saw the pictures of lake Chad that I included in a reply to you.  And that was just one of the zillions of proofs that human caused global warming is a reality.  If anybody around here is a parrot or an idiot, it's you.




So you claim that you can, in fact see the emperors clothes?  Tell me about them...What color, what style...what material....how do they fit?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> Why didn't you bring up the thing about most scientists believing at one time that it was impossible to fly.  Or go faster than the speed of sound.  Or be able to go to the moon.  Or that man evolved and wasn't created by some god.  Sure, science isn't always perfect.  But it adapts.  Cultist deniers don't.  At least not nearly so easly.  As for your assertion that science is stuck in the 19th century, I have to laugh upon you.  If science is stuck in anything, it is in the scientific method.  Which is where I hope it will always be stuck.



And still no answer....how predictable is that?


----------



## Crick (Oct 7, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> You can tell yourself that all you want, but it isn't going to make it true.



Go to IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4 and AR5.  If you're hungry for more, read the many thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which those assessment reports are based.

When you have a case that can top all that evidence, come back and let us know.



Wildcard said:


> Your ignorance amuses me.



Yours doesn't


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456,
> There is a large lake drying up in Russia too.  But from what I hear, much of it is due to water being taken out for things like agriculture than it is being replenished.  But lake Chad is different.  That can be laid at the doorstep of human caused global warming.  If you want, you could probably look up the cause on the internet and call the people making that claim liars too.



Are you saying that lakes never dried up before humans invented the internal combustion engine?  And human caused global warming is an assumption which has no hard proof in its support...every predicted human fingerprint that would prove we were altering the global climate has stubbornly refused to appear....including warming.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456,
> I have given you plenty of proof that goes in one ear and out the other.  But I have known for quite some time that you and people like you are just gadflies.  The point is to not make a point.  It is to just keep talking nonsence because it amuses you.  But if you want to continue your silliness, feel free to do so.  It doesn't bother me.



The only thing you have given proof of is that you are a sucker for assumptions.  You are among those who are willing to give human caused global warming credit for everything even though human caused caused global warming is far from being proven.  You see it...someone tells you it is due to AGW and you believe.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > You can tell yourself that all you want, but it isn't going to make it true.
> ...




Sure...great source even more sure that humans are altering the global climate based on failing models and the fact that the climate isn't cooperating with the failed hypothesis.  When the models don't match the observation..then the observation must be wrong and must be "adjusted".  Climate science is a joke.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > You can tell yourself that all you want, but it isn't going to make it true.
> ...


 Just so I'm clear, you're saying that in those reports is evidence/ proof of human caused warming?  Just making sure.  Tell you what, if that is what you're saying can you attach the line from one of them that actually shows such evidence?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



It is amazing, isn't it....what passes for "evidence" in the eyes of certain people.  It is true....there is one born every minute.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  So you like being told the same thing over and over again so you can deny it.  As you wish.  All the earths' volcanos put an estimated 200  million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year.  Human activities put out an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons.  Like it or not, the science behind CO2 being a greenhouse gas is well understood.  On top of that, the higher temperatures it causes also causes more methane to be released.  Which is a far more potent greenhouse gas.  
  On top of that, the diminishing ice absorbs more sunlight.  Causing temperatures to rise even more.  When you put all of this into a feedback loop, it proves that you are not only losing, but you must also be a psycho.  Or a sociopath.  It's hard to decide which.  Also, as I said before, in the extremely unlikely event that I'm wrong, so what.  What's the worse that can happen.  Our economy gets turned into one that is more efficient, sustainable and ecologically friendly.  (I say with a sarcastic tone to my voice)  How horrible that would be!  But what if you're wrong.  (Which you are)  The consequences will be horrendous.  Put that in your denier pipe and smoke it.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  wildcard,
  What I have to say is far more true than it needs to be.  You can call me ignorant if you want.  But here's a point that even you can't deny.  My "ignorance" isn't in any danger of destroying the planet.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  It is clear to me that you don't want proof.  I tell you how much more CO2 humans put out compared to all the earth's volcanos, it does no good.  I point out the entire ice cap of greenland undergoing some melting, it does no good.  I show various graphs and pictures of lake Chad drying up, it does no good.  As I said either to you or some other denier, the kind of proof that would satisfy you doesn't exist.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


So you still haven't provided any proof of anything you've been writing. And since I live in a democracy we'll vote for our reps to represent our economics moving forward.  I disagree with all you write.  Accept that.  You aren't going to change it.  But please, gather evidence to prove a point, it helps get you an audience.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456,
> ...


  SSDD,
  I don't know that much about historical ecology.  But obviously the lakes that formed various salt flats out west dried up.  Though I couldn't say how long ago.  As for the pictures of lake Chad that I showed you, apparently things have improved some in recent years.  But how long that will last, who knows.  Half of the water loss is said to have come from shifting weather patterns.  That is probably due to human caused global warming.

  According to a documentary I was watching years ago, humans have been having an impact on the environment for centuries.  Causing deseritification all around the Mediterranean.  Human caused activities are also said to have been the reason behind the collapse of some Centeral American empire.  And all of this happened before human caused global warming.  All of these things and more don't paint the pretty picture you would like to portray.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456,
> ...


  SSDD,
  Human caused global warming is a fact.  Just because you want to attribute it to natural variations doesn't prove anything.  Though it's beyond me how you can attribute HCGW to natural variations when humans are causing 26.8 billion tons of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere each year.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  You speak of our economy moving forward.  But where exactly do you think it is moving forward to.  I can tell you where.  Overpopulation, increased CO2 emissions, ever decreasing fish stocks, more deseritification, etc.  You know, when bacteria like you live in a petri dish, there is only so much petri dish.  The idea that more and more and more is the answer is not only delusional, but pathetic.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 7, 2014)

Human Caused Global Warming is a myth..

Human Caused Global Pollution is another story entirely.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Human Caused Global Warming is a myth..
> 
> Human Caused Global Pollution is another story entirely.


  Kosh,
  HCGW is a reality.  As for overpopulation, that is a different story.  For White people, the numbers aren't going up.  But they are for non-whites everywhere else in the world.  Some of it can probably be due to it being a substitute for social security.  But not all of it.  Also, there is probably no limit as to how "secure" most of these people would like to be in their old age.  Which is just plain greed.  

  As I was telling someone else once, maybe for instance the U.S. should invade Centeral America and impose our will there.  Make them institute a social security system so such people wouldn't feel as much need to have as many children as possible.  But that would probably cause a lot of resentment among such people against the "gringos."


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Human Caused Global Warming is a myth..
> ...


 dude, we don't care, again, don't you get that?  Your info is all bullshit and we know it.  So trying to push off lies and fear is shameful.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Individualism is what I promote k00k!  It's what the k00ks like you fear the most.  People thinking for themselves.  Makes them less dependant on k00ks like you.  Find out your enemy and what they're talking about.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


  jc456,
  You keep saying my information is bullshit.  What information is that.  Maybe I could narrow down the field for you a little.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 All of it.  You post lie after lie.  You have no proof of anything you write about.  That's what! You want to sell fear.  ewwwww........


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  You want individualism?  But isn't that basically another word for freedom?  Well look at where that has gotten us.  I'm not against people thinking for themselves.  But I am against them thinking only about themselves.  Because in a society, it is the society that must come first.  Unless you prefer the way cockroachs do things.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  First of all, I didn't make anything up.  Much of it comes from those pesky scientists you seem to despise so much.  You also say that I'm selling fear.  But I'm not trying to sell anything.  Though even if I was, I haven't received any payment for what I "sold."  The only thing I am doing is telling people the truth.  If you don't like it, that's up to you.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 sorry, but it has been you preaching that humans cause global warming right?  I didn't see one scientist making that claim on here.  So not sure what you're referring to.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
Says who?
Edit: BTW, what is it that cockroaches do that has you worried.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  I never saw any scientists trying to refute all the wacos who say that the moon landing was a fake.  I guess there are some things that are below their dignity to argue with idiots about.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  I wouldn't exactly say that cockroaches worry me.  But I prefer not having them around.  Also, they live in filth, sometimes eat their young, scurry around where they aren't wanted and basically behaving like individuals.  I also don't like the way they apparently give latinos famly planning lessons.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Well good for you! I notice that the lack of dignity follows the likes of your side around.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 7, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 hey, at least you have your computer to come on here and lie and fear monger right?  lucky twit!


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 7, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  So I supposedly have no dignity and am a fear mongerer.  How often have I seen this before.  People lose their argument and resort to being insulting.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 8, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 yes you are.  admitting you have a problem is the first step to sanity!! See you later fear mongerer.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 8, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 


> What I have to say is far more true than it needs to be.


 
Only to those who drank the Kool-Aid.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > You can tell yourself that all you want, but it isn't going to make it true.
> ...


 
Crick, just another gullible idiot.   

So is that the best you can do?  Refer me to the IPCC's website for some so-called "evidence" that global warming is real.   

The IPCC is a corrupt organization that has spewed lies and misinformation to help push the global warming / climate change political agenda. 

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.htm


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2014)

Wow, really crickets on this thread.  Old Cultivator is all wrinkled up and gone.


----------



## Crick (Oct 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...



If you want to convince us to reject over 13,000 peer reviewed studies and the thousands of scientists' work that have gone in to the IPCC's assessment reports, you need one HELL of a lot better argument than that.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





> you need one HELL of a lot better argument than that.



And so do YOU with that crap that you referred me to look up.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


  Crick,
  Wildcard and jc456 are idiots.  They may even be paid deniers.  You would be better off not even wasting your time with them.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 9, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



 

So says the one who's been brainwashed to faithfully believe in and accept the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change, and trying to convince others that it's real and that it's a threat.


----------



## Crick (Oct 9, 2014)

Did you have anything in the way of a rational comment to make about the thread topic or not?


----------



## Kosh (Oct 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> Did you have anything in the way of a rational comment to make about the thread topic or not?



The irony of those comments from this AGW cult member.

Pushing the AGW programmed religious agenda is not definitely not rational..


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



I would love to see some proof...the problem is that there is none.  Again, you need to learn the difference between causation and correlation.  There is no proof that CO2 can cause warming in an open atmosphere.  The graphs that you keep posting prove that CO2 is increasing...and that temperature used to be increasing along with it but for the past 2 decades, CO2 has continued to rise while the heating has stopped...

A quick look back to the years leading up to the end of the 20th century yields that not only was CO2 rising, but the output of the sun was at its highest level for nearly 1000 years...the sun, near the end of the 20th century entered a quiet phase and even though atmospheric concentrations of CO2 continue to rise, the temperature is not, and might actually be cooling.  Considering those facts, coupled with the fact that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to WWII when CO2 levels were considered safe, doesn't it make more sense that perhaps the sun, whose output was at its highest level for 1000 years was more likely responsible for the warming since even though CO2 continues to rise, the temperatures have stalled with the sun going into a quiet phase?

You believe manmade warming is a fact, but in truth it isn't...it is a hypothesis, and the hypothesis just keeps on failing.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> I don't know that much about historical ecology.  But obviously the lakes that formed various salt flats out west dried up.  Though I couldn't say how long ago.  As for the pictures of lake Chad that I showed you, apparently things have improved some in recent years.  But how long that will last, who knows.  Half of the water loss is said to have come from shifting weather patterns.  That is probably due to human caused global warming.



You don't seem to "KNOW" much about anything and yet, you are seemingly irrevocably convinced that manmade warming is a fact.  People who don't know much about the history of the climate on earth seem to be the ones who are most easily convinced that imminent crisis is upon us...perhaps that is because you really can't see the larger picture...you are looking at this little slice of time with no context...when you look at the larger picture, what you see is that the present climate is in no way unusual, unprecedented, or threatening.

For all of your fears that global warming is changing weather patterns, the earth is not warming and has not been for two decades now...therefore any shifts in weather patterns are not due to warming but instead are the result of natural variation.  Even the previous  warming leasing up to the end of the 20th century was well within the boundaries of natural variability and just happened to coincide with the output of the sun being at its greatest in nearly 1000 years...and when it went into a quiet phase, the warming stopped even though CO2 continued to rise...which is the more likely cause of the warming and the pause...the sun which has changed with our climate or CO2 which has continued to increase even though temperatures have not?



cultsmasher said:


> According to a documentary I was watching years ago, humans have been having an impact on the environment for centuries.  Causing deseritification all around the Mediterranean.  Human caused activities are also said to have been the reason behind the collapse of some Centeral American empire.  And all of this happened before human caused global warming.  All of these things and more don't paint the pretty picture you would like to portray.



A documentary made by who?  Perhaps people who depend on a continuing crisis to keep grant money flowing?  Of course we have an impact on our environment, but not on global climate....and the idea that the aztecs and mayans altered the climate enough to cause their collapse is patently absurd and only a genuine fool would believe such tripe.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> Human caused global warming is a fact.  Just because you want to attribute it to natural variations doesn't prove anything.  Though it's beyond me how you can attribute HCGW to natural variations when humans are causing 26.8 billion tons of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere each year.



No...human caused global warming is a hypothesis...and a piss poor one at that...it is supported by almost zero observational evidence.  The vast vast majority of what climate science calls science is in fact, nothing more than the out put of failing computer models....models whose predictions, by the way, fail more spectacularly every year.


----------



## Sarah G (Oct 10, 2014)

At least you're getting the correct question finally.  It's not whether global warming exists, it's how it was caused.


----------



## Crick (Oct 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> No...human caused global warming is a hypothesis...and a piss poor one at that...it is supported by almost zero observational evidence.  The vast vast majority of what climate science calls science is in fact, nothing more than the out put of failing computer models....models whose predictions, by the way, fail more spectacularly every year.



That virtually every climate scientist on the planet accepts it as a valid THEORY tells us, definitively, that it is no longer just a hypothesis.  The amount of empirical evidence supporting the theory is mountainous and you and yours, despite much effort and many opportunities, have failed to ever falsify it or provide anything approaching a reasonable, alternative explanation for the many observations.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> Did you have anything in the way of a rational comment to make about the thread topic or not?


 Yes I do..... WiNNiNg


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  HCGW comes from both observations and geological studies.  You also seem to have a thing against computer models.  But something tells me you're no expert in such things.  Being against main stream science must be a pretty lonely place.  You would be better off by trying to tell people that what was good for creatures 500 million years ago is good for us.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 10, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> At least you're getting the correct question finally.  It's not whether global warming exists, it's how it was caused.


  Sarah G,
  As I told some of the deniers here before, all the earth's volcanoes put an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year.  But each year the activities of humans are responsible for releasing an estimated 26.8 billion tons of CO2.  Which the deniers don't like to admit IS a greenhouse gas.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 10, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > At least you're getting the correct question finally.  It's not whether global warming exists, it's how it was caused.
> ...


 I like whack jobs like you who lie all the time and fear monger on message boards.  You are completely lost with where you are in your life.  Someone who can continue to post irrelavent crap that he can't back up.  Seems like such a waste of print.

WiNNiNg


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Why don't we take them one at time? Wanna start with your favorite "the oceans ate my warming" study from BTK ? Where the T-guy Trenberth FAILED to include that surface warming from ocean absorption of heat in his PREVIOUSLY famous misnamed paper Heat Energy Diagram?

And NOW realizes that he missed one of largest variables in the Heat balance analysis -- but got the right answer anyway?? 

Please --- let's do that one again.. Then we can tackle the other 12,999.
Maybe this time you'll have an explanation for how the heat left the ocean surface just in time to create the "pause".. 

You got nothing.. BTK has nothing.. It's all over except for the lecture from the 21st century Hitler Youth Squad who's here to back you up...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 10, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > At least you're getting the correct question finally.  It's not whether global warming exists, it's how it was caused.
> ...



I see after 20 pages you're STILL riffing on that volcanic shit. Boy -- Don't think I've missed a damn thing.. 

Not a word from you about the 700 billions tons of CO2 that mother nature puts up into the atmos every year.. You don't want to learn anything. You're hear to give moving lectures on cultsmashing..


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...








Nah, Hitler light isn't interested in science.  He's a statist (go figure) who's still hoping that they can ram these carbon taxes through so he can kill more Jews and other "undesirables" who stand in his way.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 10, 2014)

Westwall, you'd kill millions through malaria just so you don't have to admit to being wrong. You're a poster child for the banality of evil. As are so many deniers here. First they lost on the science, then they lost on the politics. Now, seeing no other options for their cult, their thoughts are turning to violence.

Oh, Godwin. Westwall loses.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 10, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No...human caused global warming is a hypothesis...and a piss poor one at that...it is supported by almost zero observational evidence.  The vast vast majority of what climate science calls science is in fact, nothing more than the out put of failing computer models....models whose predictions, by the way, fail more spectacularly every year.
> ...



When did 0.3% become 97%   OH that's right you believe the lies purported by Cook Et AL..


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Westwall, you'd kill millions through malaria just so you don't have to admit to being wrong. You're a poster child for the banality of evil. As are so many deniers here. First they lost on the science, then they lost on the politics. Now, seeing no other options for their cult, their thoughts are turning to violence.
> 
> Oh, Godwin. Westwall loses.







Your OP started it  I merely followed his lead.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  More denier crap.  Does you belief that scientists are part of some conspiracy help you sleep at night?  Tell me, what papers did these graphs originate from:


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


  flacaltenn,
  And you accuse me of bringing up the same old crap!  The point isn't what the natural carbon cycles are.  The point is what humans are doing to upset the balance.  As far as I can tell, the ever increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the activities of humans.  It may be small compared to what nature does.  But it is having quite an effect.  And with China alone starting a new coal fired electric power plant between twice a week or once every ten days, along with other factors, things are likely to get worse.  Have I smashed your cult yet?


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Westwall, you'd kill millions through malaria just so you don't have to admit to being wrong. You're a poster child for the banality of evil. As are so many deniers here. First they lost on the science, then they lost on the politics. Now, seeing no other options for their cult, their thoughts are turning to violence.
> 
> Oh, Godwin. Westwall loses.


  mamooth,
  You mention malaria.  But don't forget about ebola.  Where for convenience, profits or politically correct ideals, the need for some degree of quarantine is being completely ignored.  Though it was nice to see that people in Africa were taking the temperatures of American soldiers as they left their planes there.  I don't know what they were expecting to find.  But it makes about as much sense as anything else people are doing.  Though maybe it was to dispel the magic "ju ju" of thermometers for the locals.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall, you'd kill millions through malaria just so you don't have to admit to being wrong. You're a poster child for the banality of evil. As are so many deniers here. First they lost on the science, then they lost on the politics. Now, seeing no other options for their cult, their thoughts are turning to violence.
> ...








You guys are so stupid.  Malaria has been around in the "cooler areas" for hundreds of years.  One of the worst outbreaks of malaria was in Archangel Russia back in the 1930s when thousands died.  Or how about that hot bed of "tropical" malaria Whitehall!  Where Cromwell died of the disease way back in 1658.

Historical reality shows your assertions to be ridiculous bullshit.

Malaria Journal Full text Endemic malaria an indoor disease in northern Europe. Historical data analysed


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...








You have merely reinforced the impression that you're a statist and a global warming cultist.  There is zero empirical evidence to support anything you claim.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 11, 2014)

westwall said:


> You guys are so stupid.  Malaria has been around in the "cooler areas" for hundreds of years.  One of the worst outbreaks of malaria was in Archangel Russia back in the 1930s when thousands died.  Or how about that hot bed of "tropical" malaria Whitehall!  Where Cromwell died of the disease way back in 1658.
> 
> Historical reality shows your assertions to be ridiculous bullshit.



If I had ever made an assertion that malaria was solely a tropical disease, that would indeed be a devastating riposte.

However, since I've never said or implied any such thing, you would just appear to be making crap up about me again. It's a habit you have.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are so stupid.  Malaria has been around in the "cooler areas" for hundreds of years.  One of the worst outbreaks of malaria was in Archangel Russia back in the 1930s when thousands died.  Or how about that hot bed of "tropical" malaria Whitehall!  Where Cromwell died of the disease way back in 1658.
> ...



THE AGW titanic is sinking and you plan to say on board as the scriptures tell you that is NOT sinkable.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are so stupid.  Malaria has been around in the "cooler areas" for hundreds of years.  One of the worst outbreaks of malaria was in Archangel Russia back in the 1930s when thousands died.  Or how about that hot bed of "tropical" malaria Whitehall!  Where Cromwell died of the disease way back in 1658.
> ...






The claim of you CAGW cultists is that global warming is spreading malaria to places it has never been and the historical record shows that claim to be absolute horseshit.  But thanks for playing.


----------



## elektra (Oct 12, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


They originated from a  coloring book, credible science is not a colored drawing.


----------



## Crick (Oct 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> I would love to see some proof...the problem is that there is none.



You have things you believe: you believe the Earth has stopped warming.  You believe increasing CO2 will not cause temperatures to increase.  You believe the oceans are not rising.  You believe neither Antartica nor Greenland are melting into the sea.  Where is YOUR proof?

Your demand for proof just shows us ONCE AGAIN, that you do not understand the BASICS of natural science.  There will BE NO PROOF...FOR EITHER SIDE. There will only be evidence.  Get used to it.  And get used to failing because you HAVE none.



SSDD said:


> Again, you need to learn the difference between causation and correlation.



What you really mean is that the world's scientists need to learn the difference, because they're the ones you believe wrong.  And, you know, I could be wrong, but I suspect they DO understand the difference and do so one hell of a lot better than you do.  For instance, you would like to reject ALL correlations we find, but did it ever occur to you that while not all correlation are cause-effect relationships, all cause-effect relationships will show a correlation?  It would seem that the idea never came to you.



SSDD said:


> There is no proof that CO2 can cause warming in an open atmosphere.



There is proof that CO2 absorbs IR, whether in the atmosphere or a test tube.  There is evidence that it has warmed the Earth sufficient to convince more than 99% of the scientists and scientifically educated people on the plant for over a century.  When you reject the greenhouse effect, the only thing you do is announce your stupidity.



SSDD said:


> You believe manmade warming is a fact, but in truth it isn't...it is a hypothesis, and the hypothesis just keeps on failing.



You stay in your closet and keep telling yourself that. That rest of the human race will stay out here and continue to work based on reality as it is, not as someone might want it to be.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see some proof...the problem is that there is none.
> ...



And yet still ZERO proof has been posted other than AGW religious dogma.

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.


----------



## MaryL (Oct 12, 2014)

I am well over 50 years old, I despise these phonies that hide the obvious, our  climate is changing for the worse. There is like 7 billion humans on this planet, pooping, polluting and poaching and THAT has no effect whatsoever?  Really, it's all imaginary. Do tell.


----------



## percysunshine (Oct 12, 2014)

MaryL said:


> I am well over 50 years old, I despise these phonies that hide the obvious, our  climate is changing for the worse. There is like 7 billion humans on this planet, pooping, polluting and poaching and THAT has no effect whatsoever?  Really, it's all imaginary. Do tell.




So the root problem is overpopulation? What is your solution for that?

This should be interesting.

.


----------



## Crick (Oct 12, 2014)

Reduce our footprint.  What did you think the solution would be?

And do you have any comment besides "this should be interesting"?


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 12, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


  Kosh,
  I wouldn't have you believe that temperatures preceed CO2 rise.  Though it seems to be what usually happened in the past.  But these days, CO2 is leading the way.  Temperatures are sure to catch up.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 12, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > I am well over 50 years old, I despise these phonies that hide the obvious, our  climate is changing for the worse. There is like 7 billion humans on this planet, pooping, polluting and poaching and THAT has no effect whatsoever?  Really, it's all imaginary. Do tell.
> ...


  percysunshine,
  Excuse me for butting in.  Just wanted to know if you would you like to hear the solution from a guy who uses a Hitler avatar?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2014)

westwall said:


> The claim of you CAGW cultists is that global warming is spreading malaria to places it has never been and the historical record shows that claim to be absolute horseshit.  But thanks for playing.



I've told you before that your panicked screaming about some mythical "CAGW" makes you appear hysterical and irrational to normal people. Try not to instantly broadcast your status as a WUWT cultist.

Oddly, you seem to think that it's an either/or situation, either "warm enough for malaria" or "immune to malaria". Sensible people understand that temperature is just one factor in the spread of malaria, and that warmer temps, while not the only factor necessary, certainly help the spread.

And, as usual, the facts back us up, which is why you'll now have to tell everyone how the facts are a socialist conspiracy. Malaria _is_ moving into places it hasn't been before, such as the African highlands.

BBC News - Malaria spreading to new altitudes 
---
But the scientists say the disease is entering new regions that had previously been malaria-free.

To investigate, scientists looked at densely populated areas in the highlands of Colombia and Ethiopia, where there are detailed records of both temperature and malaria cases from the 1990s to 2005.

They found that in warmer years, malaria shifted higher into the mountains, while in cooler years it was limited to lower elevations.
---


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The claim of you CAGW cultists is that global warming is spreading malaria to places it has never been and the historical record shows that claim to be absolute horseshit.  But thanks for playing.
> ...






Sensible people realize that you're full of poo.  Malaria doesn't care what the temperature is.  That's the point.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 13, 2014)

As Temperatures Climb So Does Malaria - Scientific American

In a paper published online yesterday in the journal _Science_, Pascual and her collaborators looked at how malaria moved up in elevation with temperature in Ethiopia and Colombia. Tracking year-to-year temperature variations from 1990 to 2005, researchers observed how malaria's range shifted.

Infection rates tend to increase as temperatures go up, since the _Plasmodium_ parasite that causes the disease reproduces faster inside vector mosquitoes when it's warmer, increasing the infection likelihood when the mosquito bites someone, Pascual explained. The _Anopheles_ mosquitoes that spread the disease also thrive in the heat.

The results confirmed for the first time that malaria creeps uphill during warmer years and recedes as temperatures cool, a dangerous effect as the climate warms. "The implication is this will, without any mitigation, result in the increase of the malaria burden," Pascual said.

*Now who has the most credibility, an unknown poster on the internet, or the Scientific American*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 13, 2014)

Implications of temperature variation for malaria parasite development across Africa Scientific Reports Nature Publishing Group

Temperature is an important determinant of malaria transmission. Recent work has shown that mosquito and parasite biology are influenced not only by average temperature, but also by the extent of the daily temperature variation. Here we examine how parasite development within the mosquito (Extrinsic Incubation Period) is expected to vary over time and space depending on the diurnal temperature range and baseline mean temperature in Kenya and across Africa. Our results show that under cool conditions, the typical approach of using mean monthly temperatures alone to characterize the transmission environment will underestimate parasite development. In contrast, under warmer conditions, the use of mean temperatures will overestimate development. Qualitatively similar patterns hold using both outdoor and indoor temperatures. These findings have important implications for defining malaria risk. Furthermore, understanding the influence of daily temperature dynamics could provide new insights into ectotherm ecology both now and in response to future climate change.

*Real scientists doing real science.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 13, 2014)

Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News

Now, University of Michigan ecologists and their colleagues are reporting the first hard evidence that malaria does—as had long been predicted—creep to higher elevations during warmer years and back down to lower altitudes when temperatures cool.

The study, based on an analysis of records from highland regions of Ethiopia and Colombia, suggests that future climate warming will result in a significant increase in malaria cases in densely populated regions of Africa and South America, unless disease monitoring and control efforts are boosted and sustained.

"We saw an upward expansion of malaria cases to higher altitudes in warmer years, which is a clear signal of a response by highland malaria to changes in climate," said U-M theoretical ecologist Mercedes Pascual, senior author of a paper scheduled for online publication in Science on March 6

*Once again, ol' Walleyes is exposed as a fraud.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> Reduce our footprint.  What did you think the solution would be?
> 
> And do you have any comment besides "this should be interesting"?


Do your part in footprint lowering and please stop posting.

You're being a hypocrite

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see some proof...the problem is that there is none.
> ...


Ah, here we go again, so you can't provide evidence to support your lies, so now it's you asking for proof from those who don't agree with the nonsense.  Dude that is side splitting!!!!

First you ask, so here:
-1940 to 1970 the CO2 levels increased and the temperatures cooled.
-18 years back from today, CO2 rose and the temperatures didn't follow.
-Fact the summer ice melt at the poles are still occurring as they have for centuries.
-Glaciers still exist.

How many more proofs do you need,  I'm sure I can find them?  Now smart arse, show me the evidence that 120 PPM of CO2 causes an increase in temperature.

You won't, I know you won't and that sir/ madam is what makes you a liar!!! Notice L I A R.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see some proof...the problem is that there is none.
> ...


Wow, I almost missed this one, what a dumb arse you are.  Causation will always have a correlation.  Isn't it sort of obvious?  Now correlation without causation is well still correlation.  Do you know what that even means?  Nope you don't, and that makes you a dumb arse.  All the science in the world cannot make correlation = causation, only causation = correlation.  Come on man!!!!! Get your genus mind out of the gutter.  I suggest/ recommend you look up the word causation and see what the actual definition is.

Here, I'll help you out because I know you lack the ability to find things:\

Causation
Causation is an action or occurrence that can cause another. The result of an action is always predictable, providing a clear relation between them which can be established with certainty.
Causation involves correlation which means that if an action causes another then they are correlated. The causation of these two correlated events or actions can be hard to establish but it is *certain.*


----------



## westwall (Oct 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News
> 
> Now, University of Michigan ecologists and their colleagues are reporting the first hard evidence that malaria does—as had long been predicted—creep to higher elevations during warmer years and back down to lower altitudes when temperatures cool.
> 
> ...








Well well.  Looky here.  Malaria at the unheard of altitude of 2200 meters (that's pretty far up there for you who believe that malaria only exists in the lowlands) and surprise surprise (well, once again.....not really)  It's PEOPLE who spread it.

"We report an epidemic of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in the remote valley of Bamian (altitude 2250 m-2400 m) in the central highlands of Afghanistan. A team of malaria experts from the World Health Organization and HealthNet International carried out the investigation. A total of 215 peripheral blood smears were obtained and 63 cases of malaria (90.5% P. falciparum, the remainder P. vivax) were confirmed. The study revealed that areas vulnerable to malaria in Afghanistan are more widespread than previously recognized. The area had been malaria-free until recently, when the disease appears to have been introduced as a consequence of protracted conflict and resultant population movement, and transmitted locally during the short summer months. The outbreak led to severe morbidity and high mortality in a province having only a few poorly-provisioned health care facilities."


High altitude epidemic malaria in Bam... East Mediterr Health J. 2003 - PubMed - NCBI


And here the acknowledgement that malaria is a frequent visitor to the African highlands...

"Malaria epidemics have long been known to recur in the African highlands. Efforts to develop systems of early warning and detection for epidemics are outlined here with special emphasis on the Highland Malaria Project (HIMAL). This project has been conducting research on the operational implementation of a district-based surveillance and epidemic-monitoring system using a network of sentinel sites in four pilot districts of Kenya and Uganda. The potential use of weather monitoring as well as disease surveillance for effective early warning is being investigated."

http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-044de7f6-1d21-357c-8847-3c25c8dfc983

*Once again, olfraud is exposed as a moron.*


----------



## westwall (Oct 13, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News
> 
> Now, University of Michigan ecologists and their colleagues are reporting the first hard evidence that malaria does—as had long been predicted—creep to higher elevations during warmer years and back down to lower altitudes when temperatures cool.
> 
> ...








Well well.  Looky here.  Malaria at the unheard of altitude of 2200 meters (that's pretty far up there for you who believe that malaria only exists in the lowlands) and surprise surprise (well, once again.....not really)  It's PEOPLE who spread it.

"We report an epidemic of Plasmodium falciparum malaria in the remote valley of Bamian (altitude 2250 m-2400 m) in the central highlands of Afghanistan. A team of malaria experts from the World Health Organization and HealthNet International carried out the investigation. A total of 215 peripheral blood smears were obtained and 63 cases of malaria (90.5% P. falciparum, the remainder P. vivax) were confirmed. The study revealed that areas vulnerable to malaria in Afghanistan are more widespread than previously recognized. The area had been malaria-free until recently, when the disease appears to have been introduced as a consequence of protracted conflict and resultant population movement, and transmitted locally during the short summer months. The outbreak led to severe morbidity and high mortality in a province having only a few poorly-provisioned health care facilities."


High altitude epidemic malaria in Bam... East Mediterr Health J. 2003 - PubMed - NCBI


And here the acknowledgement that malaria is a frequent visitor to the African highlands...

"Malaria epidemics have long been known to recur in the African highlands. Efforts to develop systems of early warning and detection for epidemics are outlined here with special emphasis on the Highland Malaria Project (HIMAL). This project has been conducting research on the operational implementation of a district-based surveillance and epidemic-monitoring system using a network of sentinel sites in four pilot districts of Kenya and Uganda. The potential use of weather monitoring as well as disease surveillance for effective early warning is being investigated."

http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-044de7f6-1d21-357c-8847-3c25c8dfc983

*Once again, olfraud is exposed as a moron.*


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 13, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 


Still posting the same old crap, while trying so hard to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs that global warming is real.   

You're like a stupid parrot who repeats lies over and over.


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 13, 2014)

OMG!!!

We're all gonna DIE!

And that part's true if we wait long enough.  But it surer'n hell ain't gonna have nawthin' to do with "climate change" - unless we wait a damned long time like the dinosaurs did.   Mother is a chrome-plated bitch but a SLOW moving chrome-plated bitch.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No...human caused global warming is a hypothesis...and a piss poor one at that...it is supported by almost zero observational evidence.  The vast vast majority of what climate science calls science is in fact, nothing more than the out put of failing computer models....models whose predictions, by the way, fail more spectacularly every year.
> ...



It is not a theory...it is a hypothesis...  Tell me crick...in your mind, in real science,  how many failures should a hypothesis be allowed before it is scrapped?....how can a hypothesis that has failed in any of its predictions ever be elevated to the status of a theory?

In politics, a failed hypothesis could certainly be elevated to the status of theory and still be allowed to continue to fail if there is enough money available to prop it up.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 15, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News
> 
> Now, University of Michigan ecologists and their colleagues are reporting the first hard evidence that malaria does—as had long been predicted—creep to higher elevations during warmer years and back down to lower altitudes when temperatures cool.
> 
> ...



Here is something to show that the AGW cult are frauds and hate real science.






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 15, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Warmer temperatures push malaria to higher elevations University of Michigan News
> ...


  Kosh,
  Excuse me for butting in, but you call clouds a greenhouse gas.  But later, you admit that clouds reflect sunlight.  There seems to be a flaw in your reasoning.  Also, high altitude clouds reflect sunlight in pretty much the same was as low altitude clouds.  Also, with your graph you seem to dispute the fact that man's activity, as small as it is, is having an impact.  Well I have a couple graphs too.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 15, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Yes you posted the hockey stick.. It has been debunked over an dover again..

Also something that the AGW cult will deny:


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2014)

How about you show us a peer reviewed study by honest-to-god climate scientists that debunks the hockey stick.  Eh?

Meanwhile:


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 15, 2014)

Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> How about you show us a peer reviewed study by honest-to-god climate scientists that debunks the hockey stick.  Eh?
> 
> Meanwhile:









In 1998 a team of scientists applied a statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and reported that instead of having a  Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick. Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr. Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set to the scientists wanting to verify his results.






Finally, two Canadian scientists found out the data set used by Mann, and analyzed Mann's statistical approach. They determined that Mann and his team used incorrect statistics to come up with the curve. In fact, it was so bad that the same curve was created even if they inputted a completely random data set. The curve was a function of the statistics used, and had nothing to do with reality. When the Canadian scientists applied the correct statistics, out popped the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum (see above). Worse, a scandal at Great Britain's Climate Research Unit in the late fall of 2009 revealed that the data used in the graph after 1960 was from a totally different and completely corrupted data set. Even if the second data set was not corrupted, combining two radically different data sets (apples and oranges) into one graph negates its scientific validity.  Although the Hockey Stick Curve was thoroughly discredited, it continued to be used in publications and media reports for years, and was a main component of Al Gore's video _The Inconvenient Truth._ Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this episode is that even after having his error exposed, Dr. Michael Mann is still a principal scientist in the IPCC and receives millions of dollars from the US government. Tragically, this kind of slipshod research has also been discovered coming out of  NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Since the finding that  NASA's temperature data was in error in 2007, other errors are being reported.

And of course the big one that the AGW cult ignores:






It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Now that is what real science looks like vs AGW cult and scriptures that will try and sell their snake oil to the public.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 15, 2014)

Oh needed to add this one:






Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 15, 2014)

Kosh said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


  Kosh,
  You disagree with the "hockey stick" graph.  Then you show me another.  You won't win many arguments that way.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 15, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.


  wildcard,
  I think the graphs of crick and I beat yours.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 15, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > How about you show us a peer reviewed study by honest-to-god climate scientists that debunks the hockey stick.  Eh?
> ...


  Kosh,
  Denier gibberish.  It's all a conspiracy!  Science just doesn't work like that.  If the observations didn't back up the whole human caused global warming thing, there's a good chance that the vast majority of scientists would acknowledge it.  Or at least enough of them to cast some "real" doubt about the whole thing.


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.



Still waiting for a peer-reviewed study by reputable climate scientists that refutes the hockey stick.  As to your graphs here Wildcard: the one you have here labeled "before Michael Mann" would probably be 1965 Lamb data from Central England.  That would be before widespread access tocomputers and before satellites and their data.  Michael Mann's work built on all of that but went further, with far, far more observations, better understanding of proxy-temperature relationships and the ability to handle orders of magnitude more data.  Where in god's name would you get the idea that the older data were better?  And Mann is not the only one to discover that CO2 and temperature have both shot up radically in the 20th and 21st century.  All scientists studying those issues are finding that because THAT IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

If you also think hockey stick graphs have been refuted - and we can use Mann, Bradley & Hughes temperature reconstruction if you like - I'd be glad to discuss it with you.  I'll give you a hint: you'll need to look at the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKittrick.  But before you come throw that at me, you might want to look up some of the responses to _their_ work that have come out from better qualified statisticians.  For instance, the claim that McIntyre has made and that damn near every denier on Earth repeated, that MBH's processing would produce a hockey stick shaped graph out of pink noise has been shown to be complete shite.  Mr McIntyre has not been entirely honest in this affair.  He plays a great deal more fast and loose with MBHs data than MBH ever did.  But don't take my word for it.  Go.  Read.  Learn.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 15, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Oh needed to add this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Kosh,
  Temperature doesn't always precede CO2.  As the graph shows.  And when you throw in the position of contenents and many other factors, that too throws a monkey wrench into your ideas.

 
 


  Sorry about the duplication.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 15, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



They have been post on another post already!


----------



## Kosh (Oct 15, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Oh needed to add this one:
> ...





cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Oh needed to add this one:
> ...








Yep the Erath is in a warming cycle (naturally occurring) yet the AGW cult wants to blame humans.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Oh needed to add this one:
> ...


I don't agree with you.  Accept we don't.  All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data.  Understand?

Provide the unaltered data from the stations.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 16, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I don't agree with you.  Accept we don't.  All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data.  Understand?



We understand that's a kook conspiracy theory on your part, contradicted by both the data and common sense.

We also understand that since you're so completely brainwashed, you no longer care about the data or common sense. Your cult has commanded you to repeat something, therefore you're going to repeat it, no matter how stupid and crazy it is.

Good luck with your little echo chamber here. The rest of the world is ignoring you. You can keep screaming into your echo chamber here, and you will, but the world will still keep ignoring you. At this point, your only relevance is as an interesting example of cult psychology.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't agree with you.  Accept we don't.  All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data.  Understand?
> ...


WiNNiNg though hahahahahahahahah *WiNNiNg*

BTW, I have more common sense in my little pinky than you have in your entire body.  So thanks and have another LoSing day!!!!!


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 16, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Yeah.  The graphs is showed were manufactured.  Manufactured from reliable scientific investigation.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Yep, they follow this rule;
form Wikipedia:
"In statistics and applications of statistics, *normalization* can have a range of meanings.[1] In the simplest cases, *normalization of ratings* means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale, often prior to averaging. In more complicated cases, normalization may refer to more sophisticated adjustments where the intention is to bring the entire probability distributions of *adjusted values into alignment"*


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 16, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Statistics has little or nothing to do with it.  What matters are the measurements.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 16, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Crick is just another brain-washed gullible idiot like Cultsmasher who bought into the lies and misinformation of global warming / climate change that was put out by the corrupt organization IPCC.
> ...



Of course you do.  That's because you drank the Kool-aid, dumbass.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I don't agree with you.  Accept we don't.  *All of the graphs you posted are using manufactured data*.  Understand?
> 
> *Provide the unaltered data from the stations.*




FINALLY! SOMEONE TELLS THESE MORONS ....

Yet somehow they continue to post those graphs WITHOUT their Sourcing, Data, and methodology. About Thirty years ago a few were asking Mann where his stuff was....  He and Trenbreth went out looking for it and have not returned.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 16, 2014)

Wildcard, do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?

It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.

So, make a choice. Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wildcard, do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?
> 
> It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.
> 
> So, make a choice. Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?


 




> do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?


I'm not, however you do.  You have aligned yourself with some the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board with regards to global warming / climate change.

Just like the OP, Crick, and Goldierocks, you have faithfully accepted and believe in the lies and misinformation and are trying hard to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs. 



> It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.


Is this your weak-assed attempt at a scare tactic?

But it's much too late for you and the other three stooges.  You all drank the Kool-aid and didn't look back.   



> So, make a choice.


 
I already did long ago.  You should've realized that from the posts that I made.



> Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2014)

A shame really.  So sad... to willfully choose stupid...


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Your comment regarding normalization should have been addressed to me.  After all the screaming from your side about adjustment made to the US HCN temperature record, you ears should have perked up at the mention of adjustment.  As well, you failed to look up detrending.  One description is "In most cases, where only a single time series exists to be analysed, the variance of the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




's is estimated by fitting a trend, thus a*llowing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 to be subtracted from the data*





(thus _detrending_ the data) and leaving the residuals 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 as the _detrended data_, and calculating the variance of the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




's from the residuals — this is often the only way of estimating the variance of the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




's."

Suffice it to say your temperature data were absolutely WORTHLESS as something which could be compared to the data already presented.  I did NOT describe the actual global temperatures but was processed to allow an examination of its normalized variance.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 17, 2014)

There have been more than a dozen studies that have confirmed the Hockey Stick graph. And here is another;

Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick ThinkProgress

Not that it matters, you political nutters are going to deny this until it becomes so obvious that you can no longer do that, then you are going to blame the scientists for failing to warn you.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Right, that are normalized.  Why?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 I did earlier. That was a repost.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> There have been more than a dozen studies that have confirmed the Hockey Stick graph. And here is another;
> 
> Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick ThinkProgress
> 
> Not that it matters, you political nutters are going to deny this until it becomes so obvious that you can no longer do that, then you are going to blame the scientists for failing to warn you.


 ding, ding, ding, ding..........Wow and I thought you were without hope.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 17, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Is this your weak-assed attempt at a scare tactic?



Yes, in the same way that they take at-risk youth to prisons to scare them straight. I figure if I point to specific examples of what denialism usually leads to, that might scare you straight.

I doubt it will work, though. It rarely does. The lure of the perverted denialist lifestyle is just too strong. It gives those who embrace it the cheap emotional validation that they're hooked on, while removing any need for them to behave rationally. That total abdication of reason which the denier cult allows is irresistible to those who are too lazy to work at thinking.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 Dude, the argument is why do they touch the data.  1000 station readings divided by a 1000 and get your average.  Then collect that data for a month and divide those numbers by the days in the month and you have  average monthly data.  Normalized is used to smooth out a past performance.  We don't need this, it is observed temperatures. Not a product wearing over time.  The fact that you agree with this just makes you like them.  A Liar.... misrepresentation of data is lying.


----------



## Crick (Oct 17, 2014)

This coming from the poster (Billy Bob) with the WORST record of providing sources for his data and his claims.  You have NEVER provided raw data or methodology for anything you've put up here.  And nine times out of ten (or more) you don't provide your sources.  Your post above is the most hypocritical piece of shite I've seen in a very long while.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wildcard, do you really want to throw your lot in with the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board?
> 
> It's not too late for you. Do you want to end up like skook, jc, Billy, Kosh and Frank? Look at them as examples of what you'll become if you don't turn away from the PathOfTheCultBedwetter. Not a pretty sight, eh? But it's what's in store for you. That ought to chill your blood.
> 
> So, make a choice. Are the attaboys you'd get from fellow denier cultists worth getting classified as a laughingstock by the rest of the world?



THIS IS A BADGE OF HONOR!  

An Alarmist, who uses no basis in facts for anything it does, throws out ADHOMs like they were candy (ie:the biggest crybabies, dumbasses and liars on the board) and is totally clueless.  I am in awe watching a Moron continue to self destruct.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> This coming from the poster (Billy Bob) with the WORST record of providing sources for his data and his claims.  You have NEVER provided raw data or methodology for anything you've put up here.  And nine times out of ten (or more) you don't provide your sources.  Your post above is the most hypocritical piece of shite I've seen in a very long while.



Keep on throwing your shit pellets BOY!  

I sent you directly to the Graphing Software and its data sets provided by NOAA, NWS, GISS, among others Who direct access source the data sets.

Your inability to read or do basic science is not my fault...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Dude, the argument is why do they touch the data.  1000 station readings divided by a 1000 and get your average.  Then collect that data for a month and divide those numbers by the days in the month and you have  average monthly data.  *Normalized is used to smooth out a past performance*.  We don't need this, it is observed temperatures. Not a product wearing over time.  The fact that you agree with this just makes you like them.  A Liar.... misrepresentation of data is lying.



It is used to give the illusion that the spike we see today is somehow bigger than the spike (they washed out with normalization) that has occurred previously.  Its called scientific FRAUD!

TIs the same quest the Michel Mann set upon with his tree rings a while back to give greater panic for this 'were goona fry' movement...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, the argument is why do they touch the data.  1000 station readings divided by a 1000 and get your average.  Then collect that data for a month and divide those numbers by the days in the month and you have  average monthly data.  *Normalized is used to smooth out a past performance*.  We don't need this, it is observed temperatures. Not a product wearing over time.  The fact that you agree with this just makes you like them.  A Liar.... misrepresentation of data is lying.
> ...


Well we normalize our data at my company, as the number of products are deployed hit the field. We do it to show the 'up' time of the systems (available).  We do that based on increases of products against that up time metric.  It was interesting to me that the warmer on here admitted they do that for temperature readings.  Why would they need to smooth out the history of datasets from past collections?  That is the gist of our argument.  now they admit they do it.  And we're deniers.  LOL.....


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> 
> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.
> 
> ...


 
Sounds like your sister got the good genes and you got what ran down your baby mama's leg.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 17, 2014)

Zander said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > The rise of CO2 from 280 ppm pre-industrial to a doubling at 560ppm (which we yet to acheive) should cause a temp increase of ABOUT 1degC. That's from basic atmos physics --- no hysterical GW amplifications included. EMPIRICAL evidence is that we are WELL within those bounds and tracking a CO2 ONLY warming with NO EXAGGERATED  Global Warming "magic multipliers" involved.
> ...


 
Since humans emit CO2 when they exhale and all the global warming nuts say CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they can prove what they say about their support no longer exhaling.  They'll prove to me they believe what they say.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 17, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Since humans emit CO2 when they exhale and all the global warming nuts say CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they can prove what they say about their support no longer exhaling.  They'll prove to me they believe what they say.



It's rare to find a denier who isn't lusting for the death of their political opponents. As a general rule, they're on the sociopathic side.

Conservative65, you'll fit in well with the denier death-cult here. Count on them to welcome you with open arms. The more unstable you act, the more they'll love you.


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...






No, manufactured form a SINGLE tree within the Yamal grove of trees.  It was the single tree that he could generate that graph from.

Doesn't matter though.  It's you braindead fools who are talking to yourselves.  We've already moved on to the next "big thing"... in other words.....*WiNNING*


----------



## SSDD (Oct 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Since humans emit CO2 when they exhale and all the global warming nuts say CO2 emissions need to be reduced, they can prove what they say about their support no longer exhaling.  They'll prove to me they believe what they say.
> ...


Which side is actually calling for the imprisonment or death of the opposition?


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...







Bullshit.  Mann et al are using stats to generate their little fantasies.  Grow up kid.  You're out of your depth and don't even understand the base lies they are telling you.  When real statisticians look over Mann et al's work they invariably rip it to shreds within hours.  In other words your precious high priests are terrible at math.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Which side is actually calling for the imprisonment or death of the opposition?



Yours has called for violence, over and over. Crick has documented that well. Plus, you've freely admitted you want Dr. Mann and other scientists in the gulag. There's not a single denier here who doesn't support such political persecution.

In contrast, nobody here on the rational side here has called for hurting or imprisoning anyone. All the goosestepping here is on your side. When you flail about and point to some random meaningless person somewhere who did call for imprisonment, we here say that person is a dumbass. We simply don't have that Stalinist DNA which is so common in the deniers.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 17, 2014)

The US Department of Defense has put out their 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf

Yes, the socialist conspiracy is _everywhere_, even in the US military.


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2014)

Bullpuckey, as they say.  Your pathetic attempt to cast the net of vitriol that your high priests and acolytes have hurled at the sceptics is duly noted, and laughed at out of hand.   To date the ONLY published threats have been by your side.


*"The death penalty*
In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers. But before coming to this surprising conclusion, please allow me to explain where I am coming from.
I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon.
Even mass murderers should not be executed, in my opinion. Consider the politically motivated murder of 77 people in Norway in 2011. Of course the murderer does not deserve to live, and there is not the slightest doubt that he is guilty. But if the Norwegian government killed him, that would just increase the number of dead to 78. It would not bring the dead back to life. In fact, it would not achieve anything positive at all. I respect the families and friends of the victims if they feel differently about that. I am simply presenting what seems to me to be a logical argument.
GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate."

Richard Parncutt - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## mamooth (Oct 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> Bullpuckey, as they say.  Your pathetic attempt to cast the net of vitriol that your high priests and acolytes have hurled at the sceptics is duly noted, and laughed at out of hand.



I already mentioned the desperation and dishonesty of the tactic you're using. You know, pointing to some random meaningless person you found somewhere, and then declaring that person represents the entire rational side. Even for you, that's pathetic.



> To date the ONLY published threats have been by your side.



You mean except for the ones you and the other deniers here keep making. And the threats you can find in mass quantities from deniers everywhere.

You, Westwall, have personally demanded jail for for scientists who come to conclusions that disagree with your political dogma. It's especially hypocritical of you to be projecting your Stalinist way of thinking on to ethical people.

Every denier on this board backs the Stalinist tactic of political prison for climate scientists. A few have made direct threats of violence, and many have made indirect threats.

In contrast, no rational person here has asked for anyone to be jailed, or made any threats of violence.

You're Stalinists, and we're not.


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bullpuckey, as they say.  Your pathetic attempt to cast the net of vitriol that your high priests and acolytes have hurled at the sceptics is duly noted, and laughed at out of hand.
> ...







Dude!  You're too funny!  "Random meaningless persons"?  David Suzuki is a random person?

Post the threats made by deniers you silly person.   No, the Stalinists are YOU!  The posts I provided are from the leading lights in YOUR camp.  There are MANY more I can post but the reasonable thinking people already know that.  If we make a comment it is invariably one of defensive nature as in"if you asshats try and put us in "re-education" camps, you had better be well prepared."

You are such a pathetic liar.  Really, just go away.  You're such a poor excuse for a representative of your cause you give me no joy in destroying you.  You're simply no challenge.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Bullpuckey, as they say.  Your pathetic attempt to cast the net of vitriol that your high priests and acolytes have hurled at the sceptics is duly noted, and laughed at out of hand.
> ...


  mamooth,
  Thanks for not calling these idiots Nazis.  Because with how into science the Germans were with things like rocketry, thery would probably have acceted the truth of human caused global warming.  But for someone like Stalin, who caused up to 10 million Ukrainians to starve to death, that is more along the lines of denier logic.  Except the level of destruction that they seem willing to invite is even worse.


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Yet another moron who thinks he's smart.  Listen up little Nazi, it was AMERICAN and BRITISH science that kicked the ass of those twerps, the Germans.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> A shame really.  So sad... to willfully choose stupid...


You should say that while looking in a mirror.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Is this your weak-assed attempt at a scare tactic?
> ...


 


> I figure if I point to specific examples of what denialism usually leads to, that might scare you straight.


I'm very happy being Kool-Aid free.  You however should try it sometime, but I seriously doubt that you will break your brain-washed beliefs.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Oct 17, 2014)




----------



## mamooth (Oct 17, 2014)

westwall said:


> Dude!  You're too funny!  "Random meaningless persons"?  David Suzuki is a random person?



Yep. I had never heard of the guy before deniers started claiming he was my leader. Just because you're into pop-science instead of actual science, don't assume others are.



> Post the threats made by deniers you silly person.



We can start with this thread.

The Whoppers Being Told By The Agw Climate Crusaders US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Post #38 has a long list of such quotes compiled by Crick

Post #37 has skook letting us know we better elect red senators if we don't want to be shot by him and his pals.



			
				skookerasbil said:
			
		

> The limpwristers have no clue about how passionate real Americans are because they cant comprehend the concept of absolute truths which real Americans hold dear......truths like American traditions the far left works daily on to extinguish. I talk to these people all the time and they are many. The AGW k00ks and the rest of the faggoty left think that the 70 million guns sold the last 6 years are bought by nuts with a gun obsession. LOL.....we all laugh about that.
> 
> The AGW k00ks should be praying that the Senate becomes red in November.......in fact, they should ALL be going out and voting for a red candidate.



Post #10, from Billy_Bob. Short and to the point, he wants us dead if we don't obey.



			
				Billy_bob said:
			
		

> These fuckers need to be looking in the buisness end of a gun as they try to trample and take our rights from us. IMHO



And let's not forget about you in post #14, getting your phony stand-your-ground defense in place to justify killing us.



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> Well, it is you and yours who wish to place any sceptic in prison, or kill them, so I think self defense is a legitimate option if you idiots ever try and go that far. But please realize...it will be a response to YOUR actions. We will never initiate such a vile act. That's the purview of scum like you.



That was just one thread. How much more do you want?



> No, the Stalinists are YOU!



Yet your side is the only side here calling for scientists to be jailed. Every denier here demands it. Good little apparatchiks, you are. And you keep running from that point. Good tactic on your part, since the actions of your side are indefensible, not to mention morally repugnant to all decent people.



> The posts I provided are from the leading lights in YOUR camp.



Let's go over your list.

1. Richard Parncutt. Who? I still have no idea who this guy is. Random nobody.

2. Random nobody group that made a dark comedy video. Monty Python blowing-people-up stuff. If you're a moron, you could miss the dark humor. Normal people don't miss it.

3. Some purple text about a satirical play by random nobodies. If you're a moron, you could say that's a threat. Normal people couldn't.

4. A quote from David Suzuki that was pretty dumb. If you ever find me or anyone here declaring we need to do what David Suzuki says, you've certainly got a stunning comeback at hand to use.

Meanwhile, you're still a proud Stalinist who wants to put scientists in the gulag. Compared to you and your side's lust to imprison, Suzuki is rather tame.



> There are MANY more I can post but the reasonable thinking people already know that.  If we make a comment it is invariably one of defensive nature as in"if you asshats try and put us in "re-education" camps, you had better be well prepared."



It's SOP for statist tyrants to claim self-defense to justify offing their opponents.



> You are such a pathetic liar.  Really, just go away.  You're such a poor excuse for a representative of your cause you give me no joy in destroying you.  You're simply no challenge.



When you stop kissing the asses of people who announce they want to murder me, and also stop demanding that scientists go to the gulag, I'll stop pointing out what a proud Stalinist ratfuck you are. Deal?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> mamooth,
> Thanks for not calling these idiots Nazis.  Because with how into science the Germans were with things like rocketry, thery would probably have acceted the truth of human caused global warming.  But for someone like Stalin, who caused up to 10 million Ukrainians to starve to death, that is more along the lines of denier logic.  Except the level of destruction that they seem willing to invite is even worse.



I am going to put this very bluntly as it appears that you and your moronic cult of alarmist Nazi's like to project your own beliefs on others.

IF you had your way, everyone would be denied food, water, warmth, and every other necessity of life.  Your energy killing policies are depriving millions of people those very basic necessities. And just like your silly ass ban on DDT where you intended to kill millions. I wonder what they would say toady  if their voices could be heard and how their lives were wasted for the failed liberal agenda

Your silly ass band of clowns intends to deprive third world countries of any economic growth or ability to use medications to aid them because your so smart and you think you have the right to take from everyone else for them..  Stalin and Hitler both espoused those same demonic/dictatorial traits and you encourage them too..

Your shoddy crap you put forth as evidence has been shredded time and time again. Then you resort to projecting your own wants and desires for control onto others, pointing out how utterly disgusting it is, while secretly holding on to the dream..

I cant decide which is more revolting to me.  The fact that you believe what you spout or the fact that you would betray your country and hand over the freedoms of all for your agenda?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dude!  You're too funny!  "Random meaningless persons"?  David Suzuki is a random person?
> ...



You really should check yourself!

You're making accusations that could very well land you in a court of law.


----------



## westwall (Oct 17, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Trust me, morons like this are no threat and they are not worth the effort.  Far better to use their asshattery as a springboard to educate those who wish to know what is going on.  These losers have been fighting a rear guard action since the first CLIMATEGATE and they are losing it badly.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which side is actually calling for the imprisonment or death of the opposition?
> ...


In typical fashion you mindlessly blame the other side for the actions your side is guilty of. You have become more predictable than the rotation of the earth


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2014)

In YOUR typical fashion, you blatantly lie.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> In YOUR typical fashion, you blatantly lie.


No it is you guys who lie.  Lets see the public calls for death and imprisonment of warmers by the skeptic side.  You like to point to instances on this board where people have asked why you idiots don't commit suicide but you don't seem to know the difference between a voluntary act and involuntary imprisonment or execution.

All you seem to know is how to lie and support liars.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2014)

boedicca;9470539 said:
			
		

> In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.





			
				SSDD;9341885 said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?





			
				CrusaderFrank;9351969 said:
			
		

> It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid





			
				daveman;9286914 said:
			
		

> So, it looks like you can kill yourself out of shame now.  But that's one emotion you're incapable of, isn't it?





			
				Kosh;9265767 said:
			
		

> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..





			
				dilloduck;9222002 said:
			
		

> I just made one and you're right---it's too expensive to let people with breathing problems live.





			
				Redfish;9002464 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?





			
				HenryBHough;8907868 said:
			
		

> Nice part of cults is that they tend to mass suicide.
> 
> In this instance, if they are right, their lemmingesque checking out would do an immense bit toward ending the warming they fear most.  Provided they all just took dirt naps instead of being roasted and emitting all those nasty pollutants......





			
				CrusaderFrank;8907884 said:
			
		

> Oh Please! Oh God! That would be so fucking awesome! They don't even have to die, just get off the Internet





			
				gallantwarrior;8850843 said:
			
		

> Really, the absolute best way for humans to limit their emissions is to minimize the number of humans.  I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation of those who believe that humans are a major factor in "global warming", or "climate change" (whatever the current buzzword is) in the "minimize humans" green program..go ahead, do us all a favor, your personal contribution to decreasing human damage to the planet will be welcomed.





			
				CrusaderFrank;8850029 said:
			
		

> This is why I say the Warmers are a sick, death-worshiping Cult





			
				Kosh;8268794 said:
			
		

> Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.





			
				Sunshine;8197631 said:
			
		

> Reduce air pollution.  Stop breathing.  We promise to miss you.  But we will enjoy the cleaner air.





			
				gallantwarrior;8152161 said:
			
		

> I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
> If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way.  You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation.  I'll be watching the obits to see whether you all are convinced enough to put your money where your mouth is.





			
				gallantwarrior;8043002 said:
			
		

> The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive.  Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
> C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.





			
				flacaltenn;8043233 said:
			
		

> "If you want to save the Planet, Stop breathing dammit"





			
				Uncensored2008;9525238 said:
			
		

> So why wouldn't you stop the damage you do by killing yourself?



If you'd like more, my search results had another 8 pages to go.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2014)

I have never wished death on the idiots, but I have reminded them that there are political consequences to being terminally wrong on a subject that affects everyone on the planet. Already the march in New York City demonstrated the amount of people concerned on this subject, enough so that they took action, and will continue to take action. And many more will join them.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> boedicca;9470539 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So which of those is a call for imprisonment or execution..further and more important which was not just an anonymous statement on a message board?


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2014)

Anonymous?  Do you not know what the word means?


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 18, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth,
> ...


  Billy_BOB,
  First of all, if anybody around here is a cultist, it is you deniers.  At least what we believe and science backs up isn't likely to destroy the planet.  And your assertion that doing something about HCGW will deny people the necessities of life is just fear mongering.  Then you call the ban on DDT silly.  Now I know you're just freaken fruit loops.

  Then you talk about HCGW knowers denying third world countries economic growth and medicine.  As far the economic thing, the world can't even handle what we're doing now.  I wouldn't deny anybody economic growth.  It just needs to be done in a sustainable and ecologically friendly way.  As for medicine, it would be stupid to think that doing something about HCGW would greatly impact the field of medecine.

  Then you bring up Hitler and Stalin.  Well I don't care for Stalin.  But we need a Fascist government somewhat like what Hitler had to undo all tha damage done by democracy and capitalism.  Like what you promote.  Where there is never too much and humanity as well as industry can expand forever.  You must be living in a cartoon world.  I talked about people like you in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test."  You're the type of person who doesn't really care what happens.  As long as it happens to someone else.

  Then you basically call the whole HCGW thing shoddy and that the evidence for it has repetedly been shreeded.  In your dreams.  You then talk about taking away people's freedoms.  Do you mean like the "freedom" to shear off the tops of mountains to get at coal instead of hiring miners?  Yes.  I would take that "freedom" away.  And many others that are destroying the planet.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> Anonymous?  Do you not know what the word means?


Sure..can you actually name any of the people who made those statements?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 18, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> You really should check yourself!



You really should stop threatening people with violence. Until you stop doing it and apologize for it, I'll occasionally keep pointing out what a disgusting human being you are.



> You're making accusations that could very well land you in a court of law.



It's unlikely the courts would prosecute you unless you got more specific with your threats, so remember to keep it vague. Don't threaten to kill any specfic person, just keep threatening to kill liberals. And as long you just threaten death to a group instead of individuals, you'll even be okay on this board.

Just keep up the stochastic terrorism which you deniers do so well. That is, rant about how your political enemies deserve death, being that you're deliberately trying to goad some mentally unstable person into murdering your enemies, after which you'll pretend that there's no possible way you could have foreseen such an outcome.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Anonymous?  Do you not know what the word means?
> ...




Ahh... I see.

So, do you believe that makes it okay?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 19, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You really should check yourself!
> ...



Yet you continue... You call those with whom you disagree terrorists and other sorted terms like deniers which denigrates them so you feel you have the higher ground.  Got news for you, Liberalism/Socialism,Marxists piece of scum that you are, The US Constitution gives me the right to protect myself from governmental tyranny and the kind of control you espouse.  I will not apologize for my beliefs and my unalienable right to protect my rights from people like you.

What I find utterly disgusting are the shear numbers of idiots who think as you do and are ready to trample me and my rights for your personal gain. I have no sympathy for you and your communist beliefs. They are in direct conflict with the US Constitution and my rights. Those same right you wish to take through the CAGW lie.

I owe you nothing but contempt as it was your ilk who first wanted us killed, jailed, and removed from all aspects of life. Three words: Go Fuck Yourself


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2014)

Ah, Billy Boob, one has to love your sweet, loving character.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



So first off, you didn't know what anonymous means...not surprising.

Tell me crick...are you like mammoth....such an embittered old woman entrenched in the throes of victimhood that your world view has been skewed to the point that you are unable to differentiate actual public calls for imprisonment and execution of a particular group and anonymous musings wondering why if a group is so worried about an issue, they don't do what is within their power to help alleviate the problem....VOLUNTARILY?

How skewed, exactly is your world view?...Lets take a look.  Can you see a difference between this anonymous statement on a message board suggesting that you voluntarily hold your breath



			
				boedicca;9470539 said:
			
		

> In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.



and Robert F Kennedy saying in 2007 in a rant against skeptics....



			
				Robert F Kennedy said:
			
		

> *“This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”*



One asking why you don't hold your breath and the other asking why skeptics aren't being tried as traitors.  Are you really saying you can't see a difference there?    Really?

Lets try another....



			
				CrusaderFrank;9351969 said:
			
		

> It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid



Ok...Frank says that you will gladly drink the koolaid when your high priests hand it to you....while Joe Romm, ever hear of him?....says of climate skeptics:



			
				Joe Romm said:
			
		

> An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds



An anonymous post on a blog saying that you and yours will gladly drink the koolaid vs a public threat by a public personality threatening that you and yours will soon strangle us skeptics in our beds....You don't see any difference there?

Lets look at another....



			
				Kosh;8268794 said:
			
		

> Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.



OK...Kosh says that you can show your belief that CO2 needs to be reduced by not producing any more.

Lawrence Torcello, a professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology says on the conversation, which is funded by the following universities...Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff, City, Durham, Glasgow Caledonian, Goldsmiths, Lancaster, Leeds, Liverpool, Nottingham, The Open University, Queen's University Belfast, Salford, Sheffield, Surrey, UCL and Warwick..



			
				Lawrence Torcello said:
			
		

> that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about ‘global warming’ should face trial for ‘criminal negligence.



So one anonymous poster on a message board says hold your breath and a public figure....a professor, on a public site funded by no less than 19 British universities says that skeptics should face trial for criminal negligence.  No difference there that you can detect?  Really?

Another?



			
				Sunshine;8197631 said:
			
		

> Reduce air pollution.  Stop breathing.  We promise to miss you.  But we will enjoy the cleaner air.



Another anonymous suggestion on a message board to VOLUNTARILY stop breathing while professor Richard Parncutt, in an article says:



> *In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.*



One unknown on a message board says stop breathing....a progressive professor in the press says death penalty for skeptics....No difference that you can see?  Really?

How about another?



			
				daveman;9286914 said:
			
		

> So, it looks like you can kill yourself out of shame now.  But that's one emotion you're incapable of, isn't it?



So daveman says that you can KILL YOURSELF while this very expensive and widely distributed film says that if you are a skeptic, you will be killed...instantly.


You don't see a difference there?....No pressure?  Really?

How about one more....

Put your own quote  



			
				crickJust from a hypothetical viewpoint said:
			
		

> Against any of those you mentioned....do you really not see a difference between a suggestion that one take a voluntary action and being "offed"?  No difference?  Really?
> 
> You and yours are a twisted death worshipping cult who are already responsible for the deaths of tens of millions as a result of your ongoing efforts to deny cheap available energy to the third world for decades now.  The difference now is that rather than just advocating for the deaths of brown people, you have shown that you are willing to kill anyone who doesn't agree with you.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 20, 2014)

SSDD, _you_ are personally pushing the Stalinism, and not some random denier professor. You, SSDD, are a proud Stalinist, demanding political prison for scientists who contradict the dogma of TheParty. All the deniers here support that. We don't even have to list examples of your politicians calling for it, which would be easy, because you're doing it here personally.

In contrast, not a single rational person here is pushing imprisonment for deniers. You keep lying outright by saying we do, but that's what Stalinists do. TheParty tells its apparatchiks to lie about their enemies, the better to demonize them and create excuses to send them to the camps.

The two sides are polar opposites. All of the deniers here support Stalinist tactics, while none of the rational people are. You'll keep trying to deflect by yammering about a random nobody professor, but it won't work. I'll just keep returning to the fact that you, SSDD, are a gulag-pushing Stalinist.

Any denier can easily demonstrate that they reject Stalinist tactics. They simply need to criticize TheParty for their attempts to have Dr. Mann and other scientists sent to prison. I keep asking, but so far not a single denier has been willing to renounce their Stalinist tactics. Their devotion to TheParty seems to vastly outweigh their devotion to liberty.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dude!  You're too funny!  "Random meaningless persons"?  David Suzuki is a random person?
> ...


 So curious, when is it you're getting into real science?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD, _you_ are personally pushing the Stalinism, and not some random denier professor. You, SSDD, are a proud Stalinist, demanding political prison for scientists who contradict the dogma of TheParty. All the deniers here support that. We don't even have to list examples of your politicians calling for it, which would be easy, because you're doing it here personally.
> 
> In contrast, not a single rational person here is pushing imprisonment for deniers. You keep lying outright by saying we do, but that's what Stalinists do. TheParty tells its apparatchiks to lie about their enemies, the better to demonize them and create excuses to send them to the camps.
> 
> ...


 I think you're wrong.  Oh, sorry, I know you're wrong.  Nice try.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> In YOUR typical fashion, you blatantly lie.


 LIAR...LIAR, LIAR...by three dog night.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 20, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> I owe you nothing but contempt as it was your ilk who first wanted us killed, jailed, and removed from all aspects of life. Three words: Go Fuck Yourself



You have to kind of feel sorry for the WUWT trolls. Never having had to face opposition in their WUWT safe zone where all contrary opinions are auto-censored, they don't know how to deal with people pointing out their stupidity and laughing at it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I owe you nothing but contempt as it was your ilk who first wanted us killed, jailed, and removed from all aspects of life. Three words: Go Fuck Yourself
> ...


 Hey Pot, How you doin?  Liar....WiNiNg
Hey, Why are you on here?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I think you're wrong. Oh, sorry, I know you're wrong.  Nice try.



jc, do you support or condemn your party's attempts to jail Dr. Mann and other climate scientists?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 20, 2014)

LOL......vids of far left k00ks stating "jail for the skeptics" are all over the internet, Robert Kennedy Jr being the most notable who just a few weeks ago made the same statement.

Lefty PBS scientist wants climate skeptic politicians thrown in prison

RFK Jr. Wants to Jail Climate-Change Skeptics


Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board - Put Climate Skeptics in Jail with War Criminals

The PJ Tatler Gawker 8217 s Adam Weinstein Wants to Put You in Jail for Being a Climate Change 8216 Denier 8217 


Hansen wants the sceptics thrown in jail 8211 A Few Things Ill Considered


Prison Planet.com Liberal Fascist Calls For Global Warming Skeptics to be Arrested






The far left *rejects* the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment. Skeptics embrace it with every ounce of their being.

So......who exactly are the "Stalinists"?????



I urge everybody who has not read *1984 *to go read it. The AGW people are the 2014 version of the thought police. If they could throw you in jail for not embracing AGW, they'd do it in a heartbeat.


The public is worried about ISIS? The AGW mofu's are the most dangerous people in the country.......they'd burn the US Constitution tomorrow.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're wrong. Oh, sorry, I know you're wrong.  Nice try.
> ...


 Hmmm that's a  tough question.  I think a court ought to define that. Do I believe he has an agenda to fool the public?  You betcha.  Especially for money. Is there evidence.  I'm not involved.  If there is evidence, then to court he should go.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You really should check yourself!
> ...


 You're a sick individual. Wow.....


----------



## mamooth (Oct 20, 2014)

But there is no evidence. As in zero. Zilch. Not a bit. Never has been. The political persecution of Dr. Mann and other climate scientists is unprecedented in American history. The persecution of scientists by the Lysenkoists under Stalin is the historical parallel.

Skook, what a about you? When you're not lying about what we believe, can you take the time out to reject your party's open Stalinism? Probably not. I've never encountered a denier who will. Authoritarianism is just too deeply engrained in them.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> But there is no evidence. As in zero. Zilch. Not a bit. Never has been. The political persecution of Dr. Mann and other climate scientists is unprecedented in American history. The persecution of scientists by the Lysenkoists under Stalin is the historical parallel.
> 
> Skook, what a about you? When you're not lying about what we believe, can you take the time out to reject your party's open Stalinism? Probably not. I've never encountered a denier who will. Authoritarianism is just too deeply engrained in them.


 Question, did Mann take government money?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD, _you_ are personally pushing the Stalinism, and not some random denier professor. You, SSDD, are a proud Stalinist, demanding political prison for scientists who contradict the dogma of TheParty. All the deniers here support that. We don't even have to list examples of your politicians calling for it, which would be easy, because you're doing it here personally.
> 
> In contrast, not a single rational person here is pushing imprisonment for deniers. You keep lying outright by saying we do, but that's what Stalinists do. TheParty tells its apparatchiks to lie about their enemies, the better to demonize them and create excuses to send them to the camps.
> 
> ...



You are such a f'ing idiot.  Stalin was a socialist.....like you.  Big government.  I, on the other hand recognize that the larger government gets, the more poorly it operates.  You are the stalinist.  

As to who is pushing for imprisonment....sure....but look at crick...he thinks it would be more efficient to just off skeptics....and mann....who can know whether or not he needs to go to jail till he releases all that data he has been hiding....if it turns out that the hockey stick is the fraud most skeptics think it is, and is methods were shabby to the point of incompetence, don't you think he should answer for it considering all of the money that has been wasted because of the hockey stick?

By the way, his results have been duplicated and that bit of reconstruction was achieved by employing some highly questionable techniques.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, _you_ are personally pushing the Stalinism, and not some random denier professor. You, SSDD, are a proud Stalinist, demanding political prison for scientists who contradict the dogma of TheParty. All the deniers here support that. We don't even have to list examples of your politicians calling for it, which would be easy, because you're doing it here personally.
> ...




Idiots can't differentiate between big government types such as themselves and small government types such as conservatives....anyone who attempts to compare a conservative to communist, socialist, stalinist, maoist, etc is a complete moron who doesn't know the first thing about political philosophy.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you're wrong. Oh, sorry, I know you're wrong.  Nice try.
> ...



Actually, us skeptics support taking him to trial...looking at his data and having him answer questions under oath...you and yours on the other hand favor summary imprisonment and execution.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> But there is no evidence. As in zero. Zilch. Not a bit. Never has been. The political persecution of Dr. Mann and other climate scientists is unprecedented in American history. The persecution of scientists by the Lysenkoists under Stalin is the historical parallel.
> 
> Skook, what a about you? When you're not lying about what we believe, can you take the time out to reject your party's open Stalinism? Probably not. I've never encountered a denier who will. Authoritarianism is just too deeply engrained in them.




The fact that more than a million dollars has been spent hiding his research is certainly probable cause for further investigation.  that research, after all was paid for by public money....the public owns it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > But there is no evidence. As in zero. Zilch. Not a bit. Never has been. The political persecution of Dr. Mann and other climate scientists is unprecedented in American history. The persecution of scientists by the Lysenkoists under Stalin is the historical parallel.
> ...




You don't really expect an honest answer to that one do you?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


nope, but I had to ask it as I walk down the road he/she was going. BTW, do they ever answer any question? Ever?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



All sorts of answers....very little in the way of honesty.  Honesty isn't their thing.  You can't hold their point of view and be honest at the same time.....incompatable.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


They deflect with their answers.  There is an agenda to the answers they give.  They believe they are so smart that they don't have to answer honestly.  You know, the science is settled.  Then one has to ask them, if that is so, why are they here on an environmental thread posting insults. Why should they care, the science has spoken. 

Their issue is, as I see it, that the earth hasn't cooperated with their settled science and they are worried.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They want disaster.....they hope for disaster....they believe it is what humans deserve.  They hate themselves and seem to be able to identify with others who also hate themselves....they hate us conservative types with a special sort of vitriol because we don't hate ourselves.  If disaster isn't coming, then they were wrong and for self haters like themselves, being wrong about it all isn't a viable option.  If they are wrong about this, what else might they have been wrong about....as if the failure of liberal thinking hasn't already left an indelible mark on history.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Actually, us skeptics support taking him to trial...looking at his data and having him answer questions under oath.



And with that, Stalin looks up at his star pupil SSDD, and smiles in approval. jc is a less advanced pupil, but ghost-Stalin has high hopes for him as well.



> you and yours on the other hand favor summary imprisonment and execution.



If you couldn't lie, you couldn't talk. That's the biggest reason why the whole planet holds your cult in such well-deserved contempt.

You Stalinists won't even try to defend your own actions, being even you know how your actions are indefensible. That's why you keep trying to deflect by lying about the rational side. None of us here have threatened you with death or imprisonment. Nobody of any note in the world has done so. You two are merely inept cult liars, and you suck at hiding it. Given you'll respond to anything by openly lying about what we said, there's really no point in engaging you, other than to mock you for being such disgusting human beings.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, us skeptics support taking him to trial...looking at his data and having him answer questions under oath.
> ...


hahahahahahaahahaha LoSiNg
how low can you go?

BTW, why again are you here?

I have an answer.  I'll let you speak first.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, us skeptics support taking him to trial...looking at his data and having him answer questions under oath.
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Oct 21, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Hairball is here because she feels compelled to spread the lie of AGW.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 to who?  She has to be smart enough to know she ain't changing our minds.  So what else is there for her to accomplish accept look like a nutjob.  DOH!!!!!!


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, us skeptics support taking him to trial...looking at his data and having him answer questions under oath.
> ...









And yet your latest hero sports a avi of Hitler because he admires him so!  You guys are just too funny.  It's your policy to kill those you don't like, and those who have no use.  When one thinks Stalinism, one immediately thinks mammy, saigon, olfraud, crick, blunder, and old crazy ed.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> to who?  She has to be smart enough to know she ain't changing our minds.  So what else is there for her to accomplish accept look like a nutjob.  DOH!!!!!!



You would think that wouldn't you?  You would be wrong.  She isn't trying to change our minds...she is just here to vent her bitterness on people who she especially hates because unlike here, we don't hate ourselves and in turn feel like mankind deserves to be punished.  Mamooth is a few cats past the point of becoming a crazy cat lady.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2014)

westwall said:


> It's your policy to kill those you don't like, and those who have no use.  When one thinks Stalinism, one immediately thinks mammy, saigon, olfraud, crick, blunder, and old crazy ed.



Why don't you put together a collection of quotes from the people you just accused.  Something like the collection below of deniers doing precisely that of which you've accused us.



			
				boedicca;9470539 said:
			
		

> In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.





			
				SSDD;9341885 said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?





			
				CrusaderFrank;9351969 said:
			
		

> It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid





			
				daveman;9286914 said:
			
		

> So, it looks like you can kill yourself out of shame now.  But that's one emotion you're incapable of, isn't it?





			
				Kosh;9265767 said:
			
		

> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..





			
				Kosh;9265767 said:
			
		

> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..





			
				dilloduck;9222002 said:
			
		

> I just made one and you're right---it's too expensive to let people with breathing problems live.





			
				Redfish;9002464 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?





			
				HenryBHough;8907868 said:
			
		

> Nice part of cults is that they tend to mass suicide.
> 
> In this instance, if they are right, their lemmingesque checking out would do an immense bit toward ending the warming they fear most.  Provided they all just took dirt naps instead of being roasted and emitting all those nasty pollutants......





			
				CrusaderFrank;8907884 said:
			
		

> Oh Please! Oh God! That would be so fucking awesome! They don't even have to die, just get off the Internet





			
				gallantwarrior;8850843 said:
			
		

> Really, the absolute best way for humans to limit their emissions is to minimize the number of humans.  I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation of those who believe that humans are a major factor in "global warming", or "climate change" (whatever the current buzzword is) in the "minimize humans" green program..go ahead, do us all a favor, your personal contribution to decreasing human damage to the planet will be welcomed.





			
				CrusaderFrank;8850029 said:
			
		

> This is why I say the Warmers are a sick, death-worshiping Cult





			
				Kosh;8268794 said:
			
		

> Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.





			
				Sunshine;8197631 said:
			
		

> Reduce air pollution.  Stop breathing.  We promise to miss you.  But we will enjoy the cleaner air.





			
				gallantwarrior;8152161 said:
			
		

> I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
> If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way.  You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation.  I'll be watching the obits to see whether you all are convinced enough to put your money where your mouth is.





			
				gallantwarrior;8043002 said:
			
		

> The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive.  Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
> C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.





			
				flacaltenn;8043233 said:
			
		

> "If you want to save the Planet, Stop breathing dammit"





			
				Uncensored2008;9525238 said:
			
		

> So why wouldn't you stop the damage you do by killing yourself?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It's your policy to kill those you don't like, and those who have no use.  When one thinks Stalinism, one immediately thinks mammy, saigon, olfraud, crick, blunder, and old crazy ed.
> ...


 Nice collection.  Except one thing. I don't see anyone in that list discussing doing away with anyone.  Please, if you believe there is a phrase of someone stating to do away with someone point it out.  Those quotes don't.  All of that is request for volunteers who believe their lives are in danger and a suggested way to avoid that anguish.  So, not sure the point.


----------



## cultsmasher (Oct 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


  jc456,
  You have all gotten off the track.  The point isn't who should do what to who.  The point is that human caused global warming is real.  I think it was SSDD who came up with the best denier argument against it by talking about how much CO2 the earth naturally produces.  As weak as that argument was.

  However you want to look at it, the ammount of CO2 humans are responsable for IS having an impact.  Maybe it's because the CO2 humans are responsable for comes out in a more concentrated and localized form.


----------



## westwall (Oct 23, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...







Funny how you can't show its happening without major falsification of data.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2014)

boedicca;9470539 said:
			
		

> In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.





			
				SSDD;9341885 said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?





			
				CrusaderFrank;9351969 said:
			
		

> It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid





			
				daveman;9286914 said:
			
		

> So, it looks like you can kill yourself out of shame now.  But that's one emotion you're incapable of, isn't it?





			
				Kosh;9265767 said:
			
		

> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..





			
				Kosh;9265767 said:
			
		

> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..





			
				dilloduck;9222002 said:
			
		

> I just made one and you're right---it's too expensive to let people with breathing problems live.





			
				Redfish;9002464 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?





			
				HenryBHough;8907868 said:
			
		

> Nice part of cults is that they tend to mass suicide.
> 
> In this instance, if they are right, their lemmingesque checking out would do an immense bit toward ending the warming they fear most.  Provided they all just took dirt naps instead of being roasted and emitting all those nasty pollutants......





			
				CrusaderFrank;8907884 said:
			
		

> Oh Please! Oh God! That would be so fucking awesome! They don't even have to die, just get off the Internet





			
				gallantwarrior;8850843 said:
			
		

> Really, the absolute best way for humans to limit their emissions is to minimize the number of humans.  I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation of those who believe that humans are a major factor in "global warming", or "climate change" (whatever the current buzzword is) in the "minimize humans" green program..go ahead, do us all a favor, your personal contribution to decreasing human damage to the planet will be welcomed.





			
				CrusaderFrank;8850029 said:
			
		

> This is why I say the Warmers are a sick, death-worshiping Cult





			
				Kosh;8268794 said:
			
		

> Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.





			
				Sunshine;8197631 said:
			
		

> Reduce air pollution.  Stop breathing.  We promise to miss you.  But we will enjoy the cleaner air.





			
				gallantwarrior;8152161 said:
			
		

> I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
> If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way.  You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation.  I'll be watching the obits to see whether you all are convinced enough to put your money where your mouth is.





			
				gallantwarrior;8043002 said:
			
		

> The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive.  Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
> C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.





			
				flacaltenn;8043233 said:
			
		

> "If you want to save the Planet, Stop breathing dammit"





			
				Uncensored2008;9525238 said:
			
		

> So why wouldn't you stop the damage you do by killing yourself?





			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> Nice collection.  Except one thing. I don't see anyone in that list discussing doing away with anyone.  Please, if you believe there is a phrase of someone stating to do away with someone point it out.  Those quotes don't.  All of that is request for volunteers who believe their lives are in danger and a suggested way to avoid that anguish.  So, not sure the point.



Let's see quotes from all the people you accused of wanting to kill those who disagree.  Put those up or admit that you've flat out lied and apologize.

Asshole.

Where the fuck management ever got the idea you were qualified to be a moderator here is beyond me.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> Let's see quotes from all the people you accused of wanting to kill those who disagree.  Put those up or admit that you've flat out lied and apologize.
> 
> Asshole.
> 
> Where the fuck management ever got the idea you were qualified to be a moderator here is beyond me.



Which one of those suggests that the poster wants to kill anyone?  Are you unable to differentiate voluntary indefinite holding of breath from summary imprisonment and execution.  Gads but you are a stupid fuck.



			
				Robert F Kennedy said:
			
		

> *“This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”*





			
				Joe Romm said:
			
		

> An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds





			
				Lawrence Torcello said:
			
		

> that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about ‘global warming’ should face trial for ‘criminal negligence.





			
				 Richard Parncutt said:
			
		

> *In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.*



And then there is this video produced at great expense....the message is perfectly clear.  No pressure.


You really can't see the difference between a suggestion to hold your breath by an anonymous poster on a message board and public calls for imprisonment and execution?  Is your contact with reality really that tenuous?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Dude, I simply don't agree with you.  And there is no evidence to support your claim.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2014)

There are mountains of evidence and you know it.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2014)

What's the matter crick...can't admit that you stuck your foot in your lying mouth?  You think that if you ignore the fact that you can't differentiate between requests to hold your breath indefinitely and public calls for the imprisonment and execution of skeptics it will go away?........it won't.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are mountains of evidence and you know it.



There are mountains of claims, altered and tampered data, and the bodies of the victims of environmentalism....there are no mountains of actual evidence to support the claims.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are mountains of evidence and you know it.


 Zip and continued zip with a pass of nadda that = none!!!!!!!


----------



## Crick (Oct 28, 2014)

Was that supposed to be an intelligible sentence?

Nada (one "n") is not an applicable descriptor for the evidence in AR5.  As you recently read, out of over 15,000 peer reviewed studies, less than 1% of the authors expressed any doubt in AGW.  Do you actually think 15,000 supportive studies qualify as no evidence?  How whacked do you have to be to get that disconnected from reality?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Was that supposed to be an intelligible sentence?
> 
> Nada (one "n") is not an applicable descriptor for the evidence in AR5.  As you recently read, out of over 15,000 peer reviewed studies, less than 1% of the authors expressed any doubt in AGW.  Do you actually think 15,000 supportive studies qualify as no evidence?  How whacked do you have to be to get that disconnected from reality?


 so jiminie, do everyone a favor and just post the excerpt from the report that proves your point and I'll go away.  Until then you are acting liking a Loser who can't produce.  And that is LoSiNg


----------



## Saigon (Oct 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Was that supposed to be an intelligible sentence?
> 
> Nada (one "n") is not an applicable descriptor for the evidence in AR5.  As you recently read, out of over 15,000 peer reviewed studies, less than 1% of the authors expressed any doubt in AGW.  Do you actually think 15,000 supportive studies qualify as no evidence?  How whacked do you have to be to get that disconnected from reality?



This really nails it. 

I would also add that there are around 60 major international scientific bodies, representing scientific groups such as physicists, biologists, anthrolopists and climatologists. 

Of those 60, 59 have confirmed that humans play a role in climate change. One organisation is neutral. 

Every major western oil company and most auto manufacturers have also confirmed that their own products add to climate change. 

In the other corner, we have a handful of semi-literate highschool dropouts, three cats and a particulaly angry blogger called Ken. 

Who to believe, really?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Was that supposed to be an intelligible sentence?
> ...


 And yet, not one of thos 60 can show an experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 affects temperature.  Not one, Nadda=None


----------



## Saigon (Oct 30, 2014)

jv456 - 

Do not confuse lack of scientific evidence with your own inability to read scientific evidence.

As long as you don't want to know the facts - you won't. It's your choice.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> jv456 -
> 
> Do not confuse lack of scientific evidence with your own inability to read scientific evidence.
> 
> As long as you don't want to know the facts - you won't. It's your choice.


 BAM


----------



## Saigon (Oct 30, 2014)

jc - 

Have you noticed how many climate deniers suffer from very poor standards of literacy?

This is not a coincidence.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> jc -
> 
> Have you noticed how many climate deniers suffer from very poor standards of literacy?
> 
> This is not a coincidence.


I have noticed how none of you deniers can show one experiment that proves your point.  Prove it!  Show me all of this literacy on your side, provide the experiment that shows what an added 120 PPM of CO2 does to tempertures.  provide it and I go away. I know you can't BTW.......And looky at that pretty graph that proves my point.  See how that CO2 add did not affect US temperatures. not one year.Not one.  Go ahead though and post the experiment.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 30, 2014)

jc456 - 

I have absolutely 0 interest in posting anything for you, nor do I have any interest in trying to convince you of anything. 

You simply aren't bright enough to understand the evidence, and it's fairly clear that your political views make any rational scientific discussion impossible. 

You have decided to believe what no scientist believes, and that's fine with me.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> jc456 -
> 
> I have absolutely 0 interest in posting anything for you, nor do I have any interest in trying to convince you of anything.
> 
> ...


 So in other words you don't have it. Thanks for conceding. Why not just say that you don't have that experiment.  I'll understand.  I'm still WiNNiNg


----------



## Saigon (Oct 30, 2014)

jc456b - 

Yes, you win. Fantastic. You must be thrilled.

Perhaps you can now let those who can read and write continue a discussion about something called 'science'.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> jc456b -
> 
> Yes, you win. Fantastic. You must be thrilled.
> 
> Perhaps you can now let those who can read and write continue a discussion about something called 'science'.


 I am thrilled.  I am thrilled daily on here.  The likes of liars like you who think you know something and you don't. you wouldn't know science if it hit you in the face.  I see you add absulotely nothing to the discussion.  that is the funniest thing of all.  then you bang your chest like you know something.  Hahahahhahahhahaha such a loser type if I do say so myself.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> jc456 -
> 
> I have absolutely 0 interest in posting anything for you, nor do I have any interest in trying to convince you of anything.



Of course you don't and aren't...propaganda is your thing...pure and simple.


----------



## Crick (Oct 30, 2014)

Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".


----------



## Saigon (Oct 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".



Exactly that. 

Science and propaganda cannot be on the same side. 

And for SSDD, this is fairly simple stuff. Ask yourself what side most of the scientists are on? What side are most scientific organisations on, and what do they believe?

And then ask yourself why it is that you are on the other side. There's your propaganda.

Really, dude - until such time as you stop seeing this as a political issue, you will NEVER avoid the propaganda.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".




Of course I do....which is precisely why I used the word. Propaganda is communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but is always carefully selected for its political effect.  The blaring headlines for example that based on this study or that study which proclaim that man made climate change is worse than feared and then the silent retraction of the same papers....idiot claims such as siagon's yesterday that louisiana was sinking due to man made climate change when no such thing is true since man made climate change has yet to be proven....and the veritable host of claims of everything from the sex habits of toads to acne being influenced by man made climate change....all for political impact.

Not to mention the litany of failed predictions made by climate science...and on and on.  Pure propaganda.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Then you don't understand the definition of "propaganda".
> ...



Of course they can't....which is why climate science is all politics all the time.



Saigon said:


> And for SSDD, this is fairly simple stuff. Ask yourself what side most of the scientists are on? What side are most scientific organisations on, and what do they believe?



For one who claims to be a journalist, you are singularly ignorant of history....look back if you can bear it....in any government sponsored propaganda campaign, on whose side were the scientists?....and if it wasn't a "science" campaign, on whose side were the "experts".



Saigon said:


> And then ask yourself why it is that you are on the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Saigon (Oct 31, 2014)

SSDD -

Please try to post honestly and wi a little common sense.

There is not one single scientific organisation your corner, because there is no science in tour corner.

There are at least 59 major international scientfiic organisations in my corner, because there is science in my corner.

None of this has anything to do with government, son. 

Man up and accept that.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2014)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Please try to post honestly and wi a little common sense.



Again, pure politics.  What is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability...that is to say, what constitutes the human fingerprint?



Saigon said:


> There is not one single scientific organisation your corner, because there is no science in tour corner.



Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?



Saigon said:


> There are at least 59 major international scientfiic organisations in my corner, because there is science in my corner.



Sponsored by the various governments?  Of course....find me an organization or two which gets no government money which is on the AGW crazy train.



Saigon said:


> None of this has anything to do with government, son.



Exactly the sort of statement a propagandist would make.


----------



## Crick (Oct 31, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Again, pure politics.  What is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability...that is to say, what constitutes the human fingerprint?



CO2 absorbs infrared.  The greenhouse effect is quite real and you are absolutely ridiculous to reject it.  The source of all the CO2 added to the atmosphere in the last 150 years is the combustion of fossil fuels:  A human fingerprint.



Saigon said:


> There is not one single scientific organisation your corner, because there is no science in tour corner.





SSDD said:


> Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?



Because they are not all government sponsored organizations and you have no reason to believe those that are so sponsored are doing anything wrong.  For one, government scientists are not getting rich from research grants as your alternative fantasy goes.



Saigon said:


> There are at least 59 major international scientfiic organisations in my corner, because there is science in my corner.





SSDD said:


> Sponsored by the various governments?  Of course....find me an organization or two which gets no government money which is on the AGW crazy train.



Find one of any sort that reject AGW.

As for scientific organizations not controlled or funded by government:
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS,  About AAAS AAAS - The World s Largest General Scientific Society)
The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (ICAETS, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences Inc. CAETS - Home)
The United States National Academies of Science (NAS, Who We Are National-Academies.org Where the Nation Turns for Independent Expert Advice)

Your charge that these organizations are controlled by governments fails as does your unsupported supposition that such support is de facto proof of malfeasance



Saigon said:


> None of this has anything to do with government, son.





SSDD said:


> Exactly the sort of statement a propagandist would make.



This, of course, the sort of circular rejoinder one gets from someone who has not a single fact to present supporting his claims.

The FACT that every national academy of science across the planet as well as EVERY other science and/or technical organization of the least standing, accept AGW as a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate is overwhelming evidence that your opinion is NOT supported by any element of mainstream science and that your viewpoint is as fringe as fringe can get.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again, pure politics.  What is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability...that is to say, what constitutes the human fingerprint?
> ...


 
Jiminie, I think your comment is very untrue.  We all understand that CO2 absorbs infrared.  I don't think you'd find anyone from our side challenging that. How flippin long have you been on here?  Answer me this, what is the power of that absorbed infrared?  And has it been tested?


----------



## Saigon (Oct 31, 2014)

SSDD - 



SSDD said:


> Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?



I know you often post things that you do not believe, but even by your standards, this is utterly preposterous!!

Here are FIVE reasons why we know you do not believe this:

1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish. 

2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true. 

3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim. 

4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true. 

5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense. 

We both know that the only reason you post this garbage is because you can't face the research and the science. You KNOW that is true. 

We also both know that there simply is no science on your side of this debate. So your are left with these childish, desperate attempts to save face, long after you know you've been found out. 

Really - why do you bother?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 31, 2014)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 So with all this, why isn't there at least one experiment that shows what 120PPM of CO2 does to temperatures?  I find it hilarious all this schtick you have and then provide absolutely nothing to back it up.  So take some of your own advice.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 31, 2014)

Jc456 - 

I can think of very few things less relevant to this debate than any experiment. What we can observe and measure in the real world is a little more important than what takes place in any lab, I think.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 31, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Jc456 -
> 
> I can think of very few things less relevant to this debate than any experiment. What we can observe and measure in the real world is a little more important than what takes place in any lab, I think.


 oh, ok francis.  LOL.  When the observed doesn't fit you must acquit.  I think you fail.  The theory is unproven and as such was based off of an expectation, that didn't formulate as expected.  AR5 report shows the pause, the pause puts to bed the past model errors.  So now we're left with if you wish to state that an added 120PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere affects temps, prove it.  And sir in science, if you even know what that is, testing is done through experimentation.  So where is the experiment that gives you confidence that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature and climate.  please sir show us your wit!  WiNNiNg


----------



## SSDD (Oct 31, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Jc456 -
> 
> I can think of very few things less relevant to this debate than any experiment. What we can observe and measure in the real world is a little more important than what takes place in any lab, I think.



Observation tells us that for the past 2 decades, it hasn't warmed at all and in fact, the most advanced data gathering network on the face of the earth tells us that for at least the past 10 years, it has been cooling in the us while adjusted temperatures continue to show either no warming or slight warming....all this in the face of ever increasing atmospheric CO2 and in the face of any climate model you care to mention.

And if you can't demonstrate it in a lab....something as fundamental as the claimed warming properties of CO2...then it is because CO2 can not cause warming.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 1, 2014)

SSDD - 

As we have seen - there is no reason at all for you to ignore the thousands of research papers that have been produced on this topic, just as there is no reason for you to ignore the real world observations of glaciers, droughts & floods, or the melting Arctic. 

We also both know that should this experiment be produced tomorrow, you would dismiss it out of hand. Admit to that, at least.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 1, 2014)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> As we have seen - there is no reason at all for you to ignore the thousands of research papers that have been produced on this topic, just as there is no reason for you to ignore the real world observations of glaciers, droughts & floods, or the melting Arctic.
> 
> We also both know that should this experiment be produced tomorrow, you would dismiss it out of hand. Admit to that, at least.




In case you haven't noticed the arctic has been approaching normal for the past couple of years....the antarctic has been posting record after record...the glaciers have been melting for 14k years now....and there is no evidence at all that droughts, floods, or any weather at all is due to man...

What you see is the emperors clothes...myself, I don't, nor have I ever seen them.  Not that gullible.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 2, 2014)

SSDD - 

Oh, you are very, very, very gullible. Why else would you believe nutcase blogs, politicians and rogue 'scientists'?

And no - the Arctic is not returning "to normal", bauble: 

Following the seasonal daily minimum of 5.02 million square kilometers (1.94 million square miles) that was set on September 17, 2014 (6th lowest in the satellite record), Arctic sea ice has started its seasonal cycle of growth. Arctic sea ice extent averaged for the month of September 2014 was 5.28 million square kilometers (2.04 million square miles), also the 6th lowest in the satellite record. This is 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 1.65 million square kilometers (637,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for September that occurred in 2012.

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


----------



## Crick (Nov 2, 2014)

This bears repeating



SSDD said:


> Government sponsored organizations.....organizations which depend largely on government money....why would I expect them to be on my side in a government sponsored propaganda campaign?





Saigon said:


> SSDD - I know you often post things that you do not believe, but even by your standards, this is utterly preposterous!!
> 
> Here are FIVE reasons why we know you do not believe this:





Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.





Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true.





Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim.





Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true.





Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense.





Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> *We both know that the only reason you post this garbage is because you can't face the research and the science. You KNOW that is true. *





Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> We also both know that there simply is no science on your side of this debate. So your are left with these childish, desperate attempts to save face, long after you know you've been found out.
> 
> Really - why do you bother?



*BRAVO ! ! !*​


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> This bears repeating
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 3, 2014)

1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.[/quote]



SSDD said:


> And the idiot moves up a class on the crazy train...tell me, crick...what is happening in New Zealand right now with regard to their temperature data base?  The whole argument and anything that might follow collapsed right there.



As usual, you see your own flaws in others.  We are not charging that conservative government distort research one way and liberals another.  We are making the demonstrable contention that governments have virtually no effect on the results of peer reviewed research.  That one very dubious paper gets published in New Zealand (see NZ cranks finally publish an NZ temperature series 8211 but their paper 8217 s stuffed with errors)means nothing.  It wasn't sponsored or suppressed by the government.



Saigon said:


> 2) Because if governments ordered research to fit their policies, we would see hugely contradictory findings - right-wing findings in some countries, left-wing in others, objective in others. And actually we don't, so this is obviously not true.





SSDD said:


> Is that so?  Were there wildly contradictory findings regarding plate tectonics....



Were there wild charges of political bias in the discussion of plate tectonics?  Was Wegener accused of being a socialist or a communist bent on the destruction of the German economy?  



SSDD said:


> how about any of the instances of supposedly settled science over the past 100 years?  Again, the argument fails...it is based on unsubstantiated assumptions...not fact.



What are you babbling about?  Saigon has said nothing here about settled science.



Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 3) Because - as you well know- universities in Europe are funded on a per-project basis, but on the basis of how many students they have. The system is specifically designed to ensure that politicians can not do as you claim.





SSDD said:


> And you think that prevents predetermined outcome of funded studies...hell, you are even more naive than I thought.



Until you present some evidence supporting your position, there's simply no reason anyone should believe you.  Till you do, it's all your fantasy.



Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 4) Because research is conducted by universities, Quangos, NGOs and government agencies, they would produce hugely contradictory results if some research was tailor made and some conducted scientifically. This does not happen, so your claim cannot be true.





SSDD said:


> Again, is that the case with what was previously thought to be "settled science" which turned out to be wrong?  Epic failure after epic failure.  Your reasons are your opinions...not supported by previous observation.



What epic failure after epic failure has taken place in climate science in the last 30 years?  Thousands and thousands of peer reviewed papers (over 30,000 referenced by AR5) find AGW to be a valid description of the behavior of the Earth's climate and to accurately identify the cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years.  The amount of science supporting your position wouldn't fill a chip in a thimble for a fruitfly.



Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 5) Because few scientists are actually socialists, the idea that a 20-year professor would willingly damage his own career and those of his students to fake research is just silly. Any professor could sell out their own government if they chose to, and the fact that they don't is fairly clear evidence that what you claim is nonsense.





SSDD said:


> You think only socialists can be bought if there is enough money in the pot?  How many billions per year are up for grabs?



None.  The only benefit researchers get from research grants is an increased likelihood of keeping their jobs.  The denier meme that researchers stick grant money in their pockets and then go buy Ferraris and beach front houses with it are complete nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> 1) Because countries like Germany, the UK, New Zealand and Finland have had more conservative governments than anything else the past 20 years, and the idea that a right-wing government would order up left-wing research findings is simply childish.




Clearly you don't know what conservative means....Germany, the UK, New Zealand, and Finland are socialist states to varying degrees...the precise opposite of conservative.  Perhaps they are on the more conservative side of socialism, but socialist none the less.


----------



## Crick (Nov 12, 2014)

The are all strong supporters of business, industry and large corporations.  In that regard they have all be quite protectionist.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> The are all strong supporters of business, industry and large corporations.  In that regard they have all be quite protectionist.



The foundational cornerstone of conservativism is small unobtrusive government and as a result, low taxes...a government can not be conservative and large and obtrusive with the resulting high taxes at the same time....there is no doubt that china is socialist but they are strong supporters of business, industry, and large corporations....in fact, the attitude towards corporate type socialism is very much like hitler's...without the warlike nationalism and final solution....hitler thought that his version of socialism would be far more effective than the soviet style because he was going to socialize the man rather than the man's business.



			
				hitler said:
			
		

> "Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."


----------



## Saigon (Nov 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> china is socialist but they are strong supporters of business, industry, and large corporations....in fact, the attitude towards corporate type socialism is very much like hitler's.



Except for the fact that Hitler was fascist, and thus obviously not socialist, of course. 



SSDD said:


> The foundational cornerstone of conservativism is small unobtrusive government and as a result, low taxes.



No, it isn't. 

Conservatism has nothing whatsoever to do with unobtrusive government or low taxes; and actually to the contrary, most countries with strong environmental protection have had rather higher than average taxes and a fairly large administration.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 13, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Except for the fact that Hitler was fascist, and thus obviously not socialist, of course.



Not obvious at all if you have a clue...which you clearly don't...fascists were socialists just as surely as communists were....different degrees of the same ideology.



SSDD said:


> The foundational cornerstone of conservativism is small unobtrusive government and as a result, low taxes.





Saigon said:


> No, it isn't.



Of course it is...which demonstrates how little you actually know on the topic of political philosophy or conservativism.

Fascism is the far right wing of the socialist philosophy...but not conservative in the least.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

*fascism*
noun:
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having
complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

*socialism*
noun:
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

*conservatism*
noun:
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

*liberalism*
noun:
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

Dictionary.com Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 14, 2014)

And the definition of Liberalism is why corksmokers like SSo DDumb hate liberals. People that would be free and think for themselves scare the holy bejeebers out of him. People like him shit their britchs at the thought of people owning their own sources of electrical generation and providing power for their homes and vehicles themselves.

That is why our 'Conservatives' hate science, because we question everything, including all their assumptions.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 14, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> And the definition of Liberalism is why corksmokers like SSo DDumb hate liberals. People that would be free and think for themselves scare the holy bejeebers out of him. People like him shit their britchs at the thought of people owning their own sources of electrical generation and providing power for their homes and vehicles themselves.
> 
> That is why our 'Conservatives' hate science, because we question everything, including all their assumptions.


 hahahaahahhahhahaahahaahahaha..................that's all that response is worth!!!!! Each day you become more stupid.


----------



## Crick (Nov 14, 2014)

The important differences between socialism and fascism is that the former wants to put ownership and control into the hands of the community, while the latter wants to put it in the hands of the oligarchy.  Fascisms have all been dictatorships.  Most (but not all) examples of socialism have been democracies.  And, of course, our fascist examples have all used national, ethnic and racial prejudices to manufacture unifying enemies.  Most modern socialisms have firmly established legal systems enforcing strong civil rights.  Our fascisms have not.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> *fascism*
> noun:
> (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having
> complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
> ...



Typically shallow...you tend to look just far enough to find something that agrees with you and then you stop...you never look into a topic deeply enough to actually learn something...hence you remain ignorant....

Learn the difference between classical liberalism, which is now conservativism, and modern liberalism, which is, in fact, socialism.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > china is socialist but they are strong supporters of business, industry, and large corporations....in fact, the attitude towards corporate type socialism is very much like hitler's.
> ...



Now socialists (according to the far left) can not be racists..

Oh my! The far left truly does not know anything beyond their programming..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> The important differences between socialism and fascism is that the former wants to put ownership and control into the hands of the community, while the latter wants to put it in the hands of the oligarchy.  Fascisms have all been dictatorships.  Most (but not all) examples of socialism have been democracies.  And, of course, our fascist examples have all used national, ethnic and racial prejudices to manufacture unifying enemies.  Most modern socialisms have firmly established legal systems enforcing strong civil rights.  Our fascisms have not.




You keep saying "most' socialisms...look at the ones that matter...I can only suppose you are talking about european socialist states when you say "most" but they are merely socialist lite...can you say the same about the soviet union...china, cambodia...n viet nam....n korea....fascist germany?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Oh my! The far left truly does not know anything beyond their programming..



Now the enemy is "deniers"  an obviously inaccurate term, but used in the way fascists always use such terms...and if you wonder what their goal actually is, look at my sig line...it is the same with all socialist/fascist regimes...to win and do whatever they perceive that it takes to win, even if it involves mass murder.


----------



## Crick (Nov 17, 2014)

boedicca;9470539 said:
			
		

> In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.





			
				SSDD;9341885 said:
			
		

> I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?





			
				CrusaderFrank;9351969 said:
			
		

> It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid





			
				daveman;9286914 said:
			
		

> So, it looks like you can kill yourself out of shame now.  But that's one emotion you're incapable of, isn't it?





			
				Kosh;9265767 said:
			
		

> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..





			
				Kosh;9265767 said:
			
		

> If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..





			
				dilloduck;9222002 said:
			
		

> I just made one and you're right---it's too expensive to let people with breathing problems live.





			
				Redfish;9002464 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?





			
				HenryBHough;8907868 said:
			
		

> Nice part of cults is that they tend to mass suicide.
> 
> In this instance, if they are right, their lemmingesque checking out would do an immense bit toward ending the warming they fear most.  Provided they all just took dirt naps instead of being roasted and emitting all those nasty pollutants......





			
				CrusaderFrank;8907884 said:
			
		

> Oh Please! Oh God! That would be so fucking awesome! They don't even have to die, just get off the Internet





			
				gallantwarrior;8850843 said:
			
		

> Really, the absolute best way for humans to limit their emissions is to minimize the number of humans.  I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation of those who believe that humans are a major factor in "global warming", or "climate change" (whatever the current buzzword is) in the "minimize humans" green program..go ahead, do us all a favor, your personal contribution to decreasing human damage to the planet will be welcomed.





			
				CrusaderFrank;8850029 said:
			
		

> This is why I say the Warmers are a sick, death-worshiping Cult





			
				Kosh;8268794 said:
			
		

> Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.





			
				Sunshine;8197631 said:
			
		

> Reduce air pollution.  Stop breathing.  We promise to miss you.  But we will enjoy the cleaner air.





			
				gallantwarrior;8152161 said:
			
		

> I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
> If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way.  You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation.  I'll be watching the obits to see whether you all are convinced enough to put your money where your mouth is.





			
				gallantwarrior;8043002 said:
			
		

> The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive.  Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
> C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.





			
				flacaltenn;8043233 said:
			
		

> "If you want to save the Planet, Stop breathing dammit"





			
				Uncensored2008;9525238 said:
			
		

> So why wouldn't you stop the damage you do by killing yourself?



If you'd like more, my search results had another 8 pages to go.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> You keep saying "most' socialisms...look at the ones that matter...I can only suppose you are talking about european socialist states when you say "most" but they are merely socialist lite...can you say the same about the soviet union...china, cambodia...n viet nam....n korea....fascist germany?



Jesus wept....what the fuck are you talking about??!!

WHAT European socialist states?!

Name ONE!

And fascist Germany in a lost of socialist countries.....um.....what might be wrong with that, do you think??!!


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Clearly you don't know what conservative means....Germany, the UK, New Zealand, and Finland are socialist states to varying degrees...the precise opposite of conservative. Perhaps they are on the more conservative side of socialism, but socialist none the less.



OH. MY. GOD!!!!

This may be the stupidest comment in the entire history of the board! That is priceless!!!

And no, SSDD, not one of the four countries is socialist in any way. They all have conservative governments. Do you really need proof?!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> boedicca;9470539 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Dude, how many times have you been told??????


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Fascism is the far right wing of the socialist philosophy...but not conservative in the least.



Hahahahahahahahahahahha!!!!

I can't believe this....I so wish I'd seen this when it was posted! Fantastic!!!


----------



## mamooth (Nov 17, 2014)

Is SSDD dreaming about offing everyone that he classifies as undesirable again? It might be creepy if it wasn't so comical.

Deniers raving about phantom socialists confirms to everyone how denialism is part of a loony political cult. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, those are deniers.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fascism is the far right wing of the socialist philosophy...but not conservative in the least.
> ...


  Large obtrusive government...massive social programs...etc etc etc...not conservative...or classically liberal, whichever way you prefer to say it...one in the same.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Is SSDD dreaming about offing everyone that he classifies as undesirable again? It might be creepy if it wasn't so comical.
> 
> Deniers raving about phantom socialists confirms to everyone how denialism is part of a loony political cult. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, those are deniers.


 So sayeth the crybaby....pardon me while I fart in your general direction.


----------



## MrDVS1 (Nov 17, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> 
> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.
> 
> ...



Global warming is here, what caused it is a moot point, it's time to deal with surviving it, prepare or perish, as usual!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Is SSDD dreaming about offing everyone that he classifies as undesirable again? It might be creepy if it wasn't so comical.
> 
> Deniers raving about phantom socialists confirms to everyone how denialism is part of a loony political cult. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, those are deniers.


 You're a liar and do what liars do best, lie some more.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

MrDVS1 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...



 hahahaahhaahahhahaha.  You don't even know what global warming looks like. holy c_rap is this funny.


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.



Well, some of us anyway.



cultsmasher said:


> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the amount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.



The problem you will find around here is that the deniers here will argue that no one can prove the greenhouse effect is real.  This takes a number of variations.  We have those who think CO2 causes some warming but it is a trivial component of the observed warming and essentially irrelevant.  We have others who continue to claim that no experiment has ever shown CO2 causing a temperature increase despite having been shown text and video describing several experiments that, of course, show precisely that.  We have others who've begun to argue that adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually causes the planet to cool.

We get analogous arguments about the acidification of the oceans: that the amount of CO2 humans have released couldn't possibly have had a significant effect on the ocean's pH to those that argue that CO2 in solution forms not carbonic acid but sodium bicarbonate.



cultsmasher said:


> This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live.  But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.



It's really not possible to judge the Earth's climate from an isolated location for a limited amount of time.



cultsmasher said:


> I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.  She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.  Which is true.  Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher.  Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time.  Causing many ice ages.  But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago.  When global CO2 levels were much higher.  We are in uncharted territory.  No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past.  And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2.  Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity.  It's hard to say.  But there is one thing I know for sure.  Most people don't really care what happens.  As long as it happens to someone else.



I'm not sure what all that was supposed to mean.  But... the predominant cause of warming and cooling in the Earth's geological past has been the Milankovitch orbital cycles.  When changes in the amount of sunlight the Earth receives take place, it tends to change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  That has shown itself, at least in studies of the last 22,000 years, to enhance warming and cooling periods.  Warming is begun initially by orbital changes but after only a few hundred years, greenhouse warming from increased CO2 becomes the dominant driver.  And the extremes in the Earth's past - all of the non-catastrophic changes - took place immensely more slowly than they are taking place today.  The same changes in CO2 levels and temperatures that humans have seen in the last 150 years could easily have taken 150,000 years in the pre-human past.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2014)

Crick said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


So show those videos of the experiment?  However, if you use the mythbuster one, remember what has been pointed out, they didn't show adding 120PPM.  They filled the chamber up.  Just sayin, you have no link, no video, no anything as proof of an experiment that proves your lousy point!  You are challenged Jiminie, or will you lie like your wooden puppet?


----------



## Crick (Nov 20, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



They state quite clearly that they are recreating current atmospheric conditions.  You think it proper to assume they are lying because that's the only defense you have against the truth.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


who is 'they'?

I believe scientist are lying because they have no experiment to validate their hypothesis.  And because I want to see that you resort to vulgarity and insults.  So childish of you!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Tell me....what are current atmospheric conditions...how precisely does energy move through the atmosphere? ...what precisely are the total feedbacks positive and negative?   If climate science can't answer all those questions then they are modeling a best guess of current atmospheric conditions


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





> The point is that human caused global warming is real.


Yeah, sure it is.  

Idiots like yourself who keep saying it's real *DOES NOT* make it true.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  How often I have seen this sort of thing.  You want to know absolutely everything about everything before you will admit to anything.  I saw the same sort of thing with the tobacco industry trying to say that their cigaretts were safe and non-addictive.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 24, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  Wildcard,
  Read'em and weep.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> There are mountains of evidence and you know it.





There are mountains of bullshit lies and misinformation that is based on fraudulent science but you're too damn stupid to realize it.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 24, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > There are mountains of evidence and you know it.
> ...


  Wildcard,
  If 99%+ of scientists say that human caused global is real, I think I will go with them.  Not you.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Same old bullshit, from that same old gullible idiot Cultsmasher.

Yawn.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Keep drinking that Kool-Aid and believing the lies.  It's what gullible idiots like yourself know best.


----------



## westwall (Nov 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...









The CO2 FOLLOWS the warming.  That means it doesn't control it.  "Correlation does not equal causation" is a scientific axiom which clearly you're too stupid to understand.


----------



## westwall (Nov 24, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









Yeah, if that number were true, so might I.  As it has been summarily destroyed, that argument is simply of no account.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 24, 2014)

Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 24, 2014)

* Robot Sub Finds Much Thicker Than Expected Antarctic Sea Ice*

Just wow... Antarctic sea ice is estimated to be 30-40% thicker than the satellite measurements.  This means the calibration on those birds is wrong and the amount of ice is much larger than thought.  

I know some alarmists that will go sideways hearing that there is more ice than expected...


----------



## Saigon (Nov 24, 2014)

Billy Bob - 

That's an excellent and interesting read. 

I particularly noted this conclusion:


Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations.
This text was edited out of the original text by the blog you linked, but it is in the text on the British Antarctic Survey site. 

I'm assuming that you agree with it, given you linked it.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You don't think those would be important things to know if you are going to start making high dollar decisions based on a model of energy flows through the atmosphere?  A claim was just made stating that models were duplicating current atmospheric conditions when our knowledge barely scratches the surface on what actual atmospheric conditions are.    And my questions are nothing like wanting to know everything...those questions only touch on the basic knowledge necessary if one is going to make the claim that models are replicating current atmospheric conditions.

Good of you to admit that the claim was untrue and that climate science actually knows very little about how energy moves through the system.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Really?  Do you realize that 99% of scientists were at one time wrong on most of what we actually know today?  Why go with a group that history shows is most assuredly wrong?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 time to invest into some new posts.  Same old garbage is still garbage.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 Well first you have to find those 99% don't you think.  LOL.  ewwwwwwwwwww hahahahahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy Bob -
> 
> That's an excellent and interesting read.
> 
> ...


 I'm sorry, but I'd like to know on what page of the article you found these two bullets.  Seems I did a search on it, and you know what, it ain't there.  hahahaahahahahahaaahaha loser


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online



*This is from the American Meteorological Society. I think it effectively refutes the above.*

2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

*How is climate changing?*

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence.  Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century. 

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat. 

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.


*Why is climate changing?*

Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online
> ...


 Is there a point in there somewhere?  We know where they stand.  It is wrong and you know so.  You have no evidence.  Let's see their experiment that correlates to their comments?


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Is there a point in there somewhere?  We know where they stand.  It is wrong and you know so. * You have no evidence.  Let's see their experiment* that correlates to their comments?



Their comments don't have to be based on experiments to be valid.  They can be based on observations alone.  Just because you don't believe the evidence, doesn't mean there is no evidence.  You've backed yourself into a corner with a foolish absolute, IMO.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a point in there somewhere?  We know where they stand.  It is wrong and you know so. * You have no evidence.  Let's see their experiment* that correlates to their comments?
> ...



Observation is that for 2 decades now there has been no warming while CO2 has continued to increase.....Observation is that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were considered safe....observation is that no tropospheric hot spot has materialized even though the greenhouse hypothesis says it must exist....observation is that the hypothesis has repeatedly failed but rather than act as true scientists and scrap a failed hypothesis and go back to the fundamentals to determine why the hypothesis failed, excuse upon excuse upon excuse is made in an attempt to preserve the failed hypothesis...observation is increasing arctic and antarctic ice....observation is data tampering....observation does not support the hoax.


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Observation is that for 2 decades now there has been no warming while CO2 has continued to increase.....Observation is that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were considered safe....observation is that no tropospheric hot spot has materialized even though the greenhouse hypothesis says it must exist....observation is that the hypothesis has repeatedly failed but rather than act as true scientists and scrap a failed hypothesis and go back to the fundamentals to determine why the hypothesis failed, excuse upon excuse upon excuse is made in an attempt to preserve the failed hypothesis...observation is increasing arctic and antarctic ice....observation is data tampering....observation does not support the hoax.



You fail to explain what happens to the IR radiation that CO2 absorbs.  Failing that, you can't say that observation won't uncover an accelerating warming trend.  You point out many things that have not been observed, but don't address the IR story.  WHY?!?!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a point in there somewhere?  We know where they stand.  It is wrong and you know so. *You have no evidence.  Let's see their experiment* that correlates to their comments?
> ...


 I am on full trott at you. You believe that observed data supports your side. Yep only when you can falsify the data I supposed.  But even with that manipulation, the observed doesn't follow the models.  Sorry but they don't.  1940 to 1970 friend.  Just explain that for me, that's observed.

Still waiting on the experiment. It is how science works k00k!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Observation is that for 2 decades now there has been no warming while CO2 has continued to increase.....Observation is that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were considered safe....observation is that no tropospheric hot spot has materialized even though the greenhouse hypothesis says it must exist....observation is that the hypothesis has repeatedly failed but rather than act as true scientists and scrap a failed hypothesis and go back to the fundamentals to determine why the hypothesis failed, excuse upon excuse upon excuse is made in an attempt to preserve the failed hypothesis...observation is increasing arctic and antarctic ice....observation is data tampering....observation does not support the hoax.
> ...


 It goes out to space you k00k!!!


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> I am on full trott at you. You believe that observed data supports your side. Yep only when you can falsify the data I supposed.  But even with that manipulation, the observed doesn't follow the models.  Sorry but they don't.  1940 to 1970 friend.  Just explain that for me, that's observed.
> 
> Still waiting on the experiment. It is how science works k00k!!!!



Sorry, but you don't sound like you know a thing about the science or you'd discuss it.  You sound like you're parroting something you heard elsewhere.  Want to prove yourself?  Tell me what happens to the infra-red radiation absorbed by CO2, if the concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising.  Despite all your contentions of data supporting one side or another, you still manage to keep dodging the fundamental issue.  Are you the guy that can finally clear this up?


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You fail to explain what happens to the IR radiation that CO2 absorbs.  Failing that, you can't say that observation won't uncover an accelerating warming trend.  You point out many things that have not been observed, but don't address the IR story.  WHY?!?!
> ...



Statistically only 50% would.  What happens to the other 50%?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> 
> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.
> 
> ...



So is there a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over the world’s eyes? It seems highly unlikely, considering the numerous studies that show overwhelming consensus among respected scientists that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is indisputable.

at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change

The study says that the few "contrarian" scientists are a vocal, but small, minority. They also found that those scientists denying human-caused climate change tend to have less expertise in the subject than those who believe in it.
Another survey out of the University of Illinois found that 82 percent of earth scientists (out of more than 3,000 respondents) believe that global temperature shifts are human-caused. Among climate-specific earth scientists who responded, 97.4 percent said they believe in human-caused climate change.  
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,"


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I am on full trott at you. You believe that observed data supports your side. Yep only when you can falsify the data I supposed.  But even with that manipulation, the observed doesn't follow the models.  Sorry but they don't.  1940 to 1970 friend.  Just explain that for me, that's observed.
> ...



Liar Liar Pants on Fire

Global warming is a hoax says Louisiana congressional hopeful Lenar Whitney PolitiFact


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but you don't sound like you know a thing about the science or you'd discuss it.  You sound like you're parroting something you heard elsewhere.  Want to prove yourself?  Tell me what happens to the infra-red radiation absorbed by CO2, if the concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising.  Despite all your contentions of data supporting one side or another, you still manage to keep dodging the fundamental issue.  Are you the guy that can finally clear this up?
> ...


Lenar Whitney is a HOAX.  Quit stalling and tell me what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


 
*at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change*

75/77 is very convincing.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



It turns out all the scientists got together and discussed your question and after some serious debate they decided that global warming is real.  97% of them say what you are saying is bullshit.

What we need is a Sunday Morning debate on tv on NBC or CBS or ABC.  I wonder why that doesn't happen?  Let the world know that global warming deniers and the entire GOP are wrong on this issue and why they are wrong or why they are lying.  Oh yea, because the media is corporate owned and controlled. 

Even China knows it is real.  How dumb do you think us Americans are?  Oh yea, half of the 40% of us that vote voted for GOP who deny global warming and the other 60% of us who can vote didn't even vote so I guess we are pretty stupid. 

Newt Gingrich admitted a long time ago what the motives are behind denying it.  I get it.  But what I don't get is why a broke ass like you denies it?  Even a lot of middle class Republican voters admit that GW is real.  So either you are one of those right wingers who argues EVERY right wing talking point or you own a lot of stock on coal or you work in a coal mine?  What is your motivation?  I'm assuming its pure brainwashed ignorance but maybe it's more?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I am on full trott at you. You believe that observed data supports your side. Yep only when you can falsify the data I supposed.  But even with that manipulation, the observed doesn't follow the models.  Sorry but they don't.  1940 to 1970 friend.  Just explain that for me, that's observed.
> ...


 I know based on a lab test in 1901 that as CO2 reaches saturation, they will not absorb IR waves, instead they will pass them to space.  Herr Koch!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 yep 75/77 of them.  The other 13,000 state otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So what?  Clearly there is something else you are leaving out.  Because after all the experts got together and discussed this they continued the thought process to it's conclusion and they almost all agreed that GW is real.  So you are trying to have an experts conversation with a bunch of people on USMB.  Either you are one of the 3% experts who disagrees with all of your colleagues or you are a right wing tool who's not an expert but is using expert information that you yourself don't even fully understand because the coal companies through rush or fox told you what to say in this argument...

That shouldn't even be an argument anymore.  You are now a conspiracy theorist if you deny gw.  Period.  A kook.  Like someone who thinks Bush let 9-11 happen.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Maybe they lean right.  Maybe they have a stake in burning coal.  Maybe they are from West Virginia or wherever they dig for coal?

The tobacco companies use to pay 13,000 scientists to say cigs don't cause cancer.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 It all goes to space


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 Dude, you make a statement and my peer gives you the numbers.   What is it you're missing?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



So 260,000 of them are wrong or conspiring not the 13000?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Who is your peer?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 Who cares about tobacco, your argument is climate.  Stay there.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 75/77 is your consensus


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me what happens to the infra-red radiation absorbed by CO2, if the concentration in the atmosphere keeps rising.  Despite all your contentions of data supporting one side or another, you still manage to keep dodging the fundamental issue.  Are you the guy that can finally clear this up?
> ...


That's about the CO2 being saturated.  If the concentration of CO2 keeps going up, then the amount of energy needed to saturate it will go up, too.  What happens to that added energy?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 who do you think?  Are you that naive?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 it doesn't get absorba and again goes to space.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The study says that the few "contrarian" scientists are a vocal, but small, minority. They also found that those scientists denying human-caused climate change tend to have less expertise in the subject than those who believe in it.

Another survey out of the University of Illinois found that 82 percent of earth scientists (out of more than 3,000 respondents) believe that global temperature shifts are human-caused. Among climate-specific earth scientists who responded, 97.4 percent said they believe in human-caused climate change.  
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," the 2009 report said

Yet still the debate rages on????  Not for me.  I just come here to laugh at you.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

"The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policymakers and a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.*"*


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

there is a consensus among the world’s premier science organizations -- such as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Royal Society in London -- that human-caused global warming is real


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It's like I'm arguing with someone that the earth is round and you are insisting its flat.  That's how dumb you are.


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I said what about the energy that DOES get absorbed.  As CO2 goes up there would have to be more energy absorbed to saturate the extra CO2.  What happens to that energy?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Wherever you are getting your bad information from

 found a strong link between conservative think tanks and climate change denial books. It also found that a growing number of these books are produced by people with no scientific training, and nearly 90 percent of the books examined did not go through a peer review process, meaning they were not subjected to scientific scrutiny.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Why don't you go read a book from a scientist who owns a coal mine and I bet you he tells you burning coal is good for us.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Climate change skeptics’ talking points have evolved since the 1990s as the scientific evidence has grown. They first said the Earth wasn’t warming. Then they said the Earth was warming, but it’s not caused by human activity. Now, many agree with the science, but it’s not that big of a problem.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 and yet there is an 18 and half year pause.  Hmmmmm.IPCC even recognizes that.


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> and yet there is an 18 and half year pause.  Hmmmmm.IPCC even recognizes that.


So?  You do realize there are climatic cycles, don't you?  I don't doubt you'd be pointing that out if the roles were reversed.  Well, regardless, a pause doesn't explain what happens to the INCREASING energy needed to saturate an INCREASING concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > and yet there is an 18 and half year pause.  Hmmmmm.IPCC even recognizes that.
> ...


Dude, I don't care.  And cycles there are many different ones.   climate has been changing for a long long time buddy:


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Dude, I don't care.  And cycles there are many different ones.   climate has been changing for a long long time buddy:


You don't care?  You don't know.  You're just spouting off what you've heard and throwing in a neat graph.  Answer the question.  What becomes of the energy?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, I don't care.  And cycles there are many different ones.   climate has been changing for a long long time buddy:
> ...


why does it matter?  The proof is that it isn't mattering.

You show me the experiment, and I'll answer your question.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 25, 2014)

Crick said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


  Crick,
  I am on your side.  Though I can accept the fact than on any other topic besides thr reality of human caused global warming, you're not on mine.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 ahhhh, do you need a tissue? snif snif.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


  jc456,
  Do you believe in god?  If so, you are probably one of those religious people who actually look forward to the destruction of the earth.  So you can go hang out in heaven with Jesus.  (Though you would probably prefer that it happens to someone else)  I would hope that your denier cult is religiously motivated.  Because if it is science that you base your human caused global warming denial on, such moronic stupidity is almost beyond imignation.  Maybe it's time I showed you these graphs again.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 25, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online


  Wildcard,
  Fuck your daily mail online.  Try looking up something in Scientific American or some other respectable science publication on the subject.  Even the Pentagon knows that HCGW is real.  In the documentary, "Greedy Lying Bastards," they showed the CEO of Exxon admiting to it.  And he would have every reason to lie about it.  But for most people, apart from you, jc456 and SSDD, you can only pretend to be "so" stupid.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 25, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> * Robot Sub Finds Much Thicker Than Expected Antarctic Sea Ice*
> 
> Just wow... Antarctic sea ice is estimated to be 30-40% thicker than the satellite measurements.  This means the calibration on those birds is wrong and the amount of ice is much larger than thought.
> 
> I know some alarmists that will go sideways hearing that there is more ice than expected...


  Billy_Bob,
  You are such an idiot.  I remember seeing something from about a couple of decades ago where a chunk of sea ice broke off Antarctica and started to float away.  It was about the size of Belgium.  And when sea ice leaves, the ice on land flows to the sea faster.  Also, It is possible to sail a submarine under the Arctic ice cap.  But seeing how much of the Antarctic is contenent, it would be a little more difficult to do.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online
> ...



 

Fuck you and that bullshit that YOU continually post calling it proof, whining like a little bitch, saying that global warming is real and that it's a threat to the planet, and that it's man-made.  WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!

YOU are wrong, YOU have been wrong, and YOU will continue to be wrong, but YOU are too damn stupid to realize it.  

Global warming / climate change is a lie.




.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  We all know.  A long time ago, most scientists didn't believe that man could fly.  etc. etc. etc.  But the way I think science works is that the more you know about it, as scientists do today, the better it becomes.  Also, I'm not a metrologist or anything.  But your statements about energy flow through the atmosphere has "BULLSHIT" written all over it.  Besides, it isn't the issue.  The greenhouse effect is.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 25, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 25, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



You're just mad cause not everyone believes in and accepts the crap that you do?


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > You don't care?  You don't know.  You're just spouting off what you've heard and throwing in a neat graph.  Answer the question.  What becomes of the energy?
> ...


You don't know that.  You're taking a small slice of time and saying it's the standard without accounting for all the facts.  Aren't facts nasty when they get in the way of your deeply held biases?  So much for being "on full trott at me".  So it ends, not with a bang, but a whimper!


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> ahhhh, do you need a tissue? snif snif.


Are you an adult?  You do realize this is a board for mature adults, right?  Do you have your parents permission to be here?  We don't really have time for immature outbursts from children.  We get enough of that from the so-called adults around here.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy Bob -
> 
> That's an excellent and interesting read.
> 
> ...



You assume wrong.. Those two statements are conjecture. There is no basis in fact and the facts presented show those two statements false. Their own paper shows the alarmist drivel fraud. Yet they placed them in for the faithful to latch on too as the facts are damming. The statements are an attempt to keep their funding. You will find them in every paper which is damming and the people are trying like hell  to keep the money flowing.

The ICE INCREASE is in direct conflict with the AGW meme..  You glossed over that part and went right to the lies..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Observation is that for 2 decades now there has been no warming while CO2 has continued to increase.....Observation is that most of the warming of the past 150 years happened prior to 1950 when CO2 levels were considered safe....observation is that no tropospheric hot spot has materialized even though the greenhouse hypothesis says it must exist....observation is that the hypothesis has repeatedly failed but rather than act as true scientists and scrap a failed hypothesis and go back to the fundamentals to determine why the hypothesis failed, excuse upon excuse upon excuse is made in an attempt to preserve the failed hypothesis...observation is increasing arctic and antarctic ice....observation is data tampering....observation does not support the hoax.



The Null Hypothesis is such a damming thing. No temp rise yet CO2 continued to increase without a corresponding rise in temp. Simple Observation shows the premise False.


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> You assume wrong.. Those two statements are conjecture. There is no basis in fact and the facts presented show those two statements false. Their own paper shows the alarmist drivel fraud. Yet they placed them in for the faithful to latch on too as the facts are damming. The statements are an attempt to keep their funding. You will find them in every papaer which is damming and the people are trying like hell  to keep the money flowing.


How do you know it's the funding and not merely the fact that deniers never give a satisfactory answer to the question of what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs as its concentration in the atmosphere increases?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


Awe... Poor little libtard is using John Cooks FALSE STATEMENTS (which are quoted in both papers) as fact when they have been show a lie...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You assume wrong.. Those two statements are conjecture. There is no basis in fact and the facts presented show those two statements false. Their own paper shows the alarmist drivel fraud. Yet they placed them in for the faithful to latch on too as the facts are damming. The statements are an attempt to keep their funding. You will find them in every papaer which is damming and the people are trying like hell  to keep the money flowing.
> ...



First of all you must understand that it responds in a LOG function decreasing return as the level increases.





The law of diminishing returns rules.  CO2 has already spent 0ver 95% of its usable warming effect in our atmosphere and with current observations that number may be 99.9%.  CO2 in the lab reacts differently than it does in our atmosphere. The amount of actual absorption by CO2 is less than 1.5% which occurs at planet surface. The reflected energy which transfers in our upper atmosphere has not resulted in any hot spot of any kind, thus absorption is not indicated. To understand this one need only look at how other items in our atmosphere react.





Until you reconcile these items you will never know what CO2 is doing. As of today the increase in CO2 without the coupled response of temp rise shows the AGW premise false using the Null hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.


----------



## konradv (Nov 25, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Until you reconcile these items you will never know what CO2 is doing. As of today the increase in CO2 without the coupled response of temp rise shows the AGW premise false using the Null hypothesis.



Isn't that just one model vs another.  Your premise is that yours is correct anfthe other is wrong, despite there being no more evidence for your favorite than the other.  A logarithmic increase is still an increase.  A 30-40% increase in CO2 equals 11-15% on a log scale.  Still seems quite significant in my book.  I guess we'll have to wait until the current "pause" is over.  Hope it's not too late.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

konradv said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Until you reconcile these items you will never know what CO2 is doing. As of today the increase in CO2 without the coupled response of temp rise shows the AGW premise false using the Null hypothesis.
> ...



We are at 400ppm and we will only see 0.5 deg F in increase, IF it is not countered by water vapor, at a full doubling to 800ppm.  Then you must take into account that at 800ppm that same rise of 0.5 Deg F will have to wait until we hit 1,600ppm.

As to my second post, Those facts are presented by the IPCC and  NOAA who both proclaimed that all warming prior to 1950 was natural variation and all after was man made.  I have always wondered how they stopped natural variation. when you take into account natural variation there is no CO2 induced rise. It just isn't there empirically.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

While the suns Total Solar Irradiance (TSI defined in Watts/meter^2) is relatively stable, the way in which the sun emits its energy is changing. The Infrared bands (IR) of light are what carry a very good portion of heat onto the earths surface and heats the molecules in our atmosphere.(note that IR causes excitement of other molecules and therefore heat) During the day we have high energy and high frequency input. At night we have Low frequency black body radiation to space.

During the day the energy is pushed through the atmosphere colliding with everything, reflecting and absorption. CO2's primary roll is during the day when it reflects back to earth some of the heat it allows to pass through our atmosphere in the high frequency bands. At night the low frequency bands are actually allowed to escape faster back into space with higher concentrations of CO2.

As the suns power bands change it can affect the earths warm up time in direct sun light. The current active bands are of much lower frequency, so it easily passes through the atmosphere and looses much of its heat to space. The net result is cooling. The poles will be the areas most affected as the atmosphere is thin. Today we have major polar lows (2 to 3 times the size) than just 10 years ago. This loss of heat can be directly traced to solar output and resulting solar wind decline.

A sun nearing a time of slumber would be a rapid cool down. The last ten years of observations are very interesting as we watched the shift in IR bands and the resulting shift on the earth while TSI remained constant.

The shift occurred just before the ADO and PDO went cold. So there is yet to be more discussion on what the effects of both did and by how much. This shift can also explain why we have had periods of Glaciation in conjunction with high levels of CO2 throughout geological history.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

CO2 is a trace gas. Its only claim to fame is it can cause short wave radiation to bounce back to earth which happens during the day.  Its other balancing effect is that long wave black body radiation slips easily through it which occurs at night releasing the accumulated increase from the day. In day time instances the increase is logarithmic. At night the increase allows faster escape of long-wave radiation that water vapor would have reflected back to earth.


The graph above shows a laboratory experiment and reality seen in earths atmosphere at exactly the same levels of CO2.

As the trace gas increases, the potential increase in temp increases. This however has a rate of diminishing return or a logarithmic function.  CO2 takes 2 times the rise in CO2 to obtain 1 deg C in warming. At 400ppm it would take a further increase of 800ppm to obtain that 1 degree of warming. Thus by the time we reach 500ppm further doubling would essentially be a flat line in temperature rise.

Essentially we have seen the warming that is capable with CO2 alone already. The question now becomes how will other systems react to that warming? As we have seen in the last 17 years and 9 months since the peak of temp rise and peak of solar maximum the earth responds by many variables and those variables mitigate the temp rise.


Even the IPCC is now acknowledging that their own climate sensitivity predictions were way to high and that it is much closer to the *one to one* relationship number than to their high end *one to six* that has been shown falsified.. CO2 isn't driving anything.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

> NCA CLAIM #3: Third LOE – “The Climate Models”
> 
> The third line of evidence comes from using climate models to simulate the climate of the past century, separating the human and natural factors that influence climate. (NCA, Page 24)
> 
> ...




I do not know how to explain this any better than they did. Scientific Process was purposely ignored by the EPA. Just reading the whole in context on Anthony Watts site pretty much mirrors my review of CAGW. The links to the writers works and refuting data are a good source of information. They even show the arctic warming and spike to be statistically the same as 1940.

The majority of the Admins Document is pure conjecture and baseless.

What I find rather interesting is the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC are backpedaling fast on the climate sensitivity issue and they have both reduced there ratings to 1-1/1-1.3 while the Obama Administration and the EPA are still touting a 1-6 sensitivity.

The Obama Admin and EPA have lost all credibility..


Source


----------



## Saigon (Nov 25, 2014)

Bill Bob - 

At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.

Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Bill Bob -
> 
> At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.
> 
> Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.








Give it a rest saggy.  The propaganda has failed.  No one with a brain believes your bullshit anymore.  Climate change is natural and given the fact that the Arctic sea ice has been at a 10 year high for the last month or so, and the fact that the Great Lakes are icing up the earliest in 40 years, and the fact that century old snow records are being demolished, shows that the world is cooling off.  The lies and deceit that you fraudsters have been perpetrating on the peoples of this world is over.  You've lost.  Now it's just a matter of time till the fraud is totally discounted.  That time is close, 69% of Aussies now think your tall tale is hogwash.  They were among the most ardent of "believers"  Here's Lake Michigan in Feb 2014.  Looks more like the Arctic Circle doesn't it...





Great Lakes ice cover developing Earliest in over 40 years MLive.com


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Bill Bob -
> 
> At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.
> 
> Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.


You refuse to see the lie being thrown about and the facts trashing your religion.  Those two paragraphs are at odds with the facts presented. But bury your head and 'believe'...  the kookaid is killing you.!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 hahaahahahaahahaha, dude you presenting nothing and then claiming to hold me off is just, laughable.  Let's see your experiment dude, without that, you can't stop me, so you should probably put the keys down and go to bed now.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No pause.  It is amazing anyone is still denying it even exists.  At some point you will shift your argument to either 

a.  There is nothing we can do about it
b.  It is happening but isn't as bad as the majority of experts say

And the corporations and rich people, once they can no longer deny, will argue on how to solve the problem.  They'll say we should pay for it because "they already pay their fair share".  Meanwhile they haven't paid their fair share since Reagan.  

Any GOP politician that denies is being paid to deny and they are considered right wing nuts by their peers.  But they don't care because they gerimandered themselves some very white ignorant districts.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 Do you even know what  peer is?  dude that's just flippin hilarious.  Why don't you go learn english.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Pier, Peer, Pear.  Go jump off one of them dummy.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ahhhh, do you need a tissue? snif snif.
> ...


 still crying I see.  You sure are a whiny little one aren't you?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 thanks for proving my point!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Bill Bob -
> 
> At the time when even your own sources condemn your nonsese - it really is time to ask yourself why you believe something that no one else believes.
> 
> Really man - wake up and start listening to your own sources.


 did you forget to take the marbles out of your hands?


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 26, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



Your entire position is a lie.  90% say so.  Once your side decides it is no longer effective to lie/deny they will argue their second talking point then 3rd.  Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution.  We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should but you guys will fight that until ultimately you will make us the people pay.  

And I don't blame you.  Why not sock it to the people?  They don't even show up to vote so keep fucking them until they have had enough.  Clearly they haven't had enough.  The America people are so dumb.  

By the way, this is the same thing happening in Michigan with our roads.  Michigan allows corporations to put more weight on trucks than any of the other 50 states.  That alone is a reason why corporations do business in Michigan.  No need to give them more tax breaks although Snyder did give them more.  Anyways, the point is that corporate trucks tear up our roads more than our cars do.  So corporations should pay for the roads.  But Snyder says no.  He gave them tax breaks and says we don't have any $ to fix the roads, so he's going to raise our taxes.  Basically proving me right.  Republicans are only anti tax for the rich.  They actually shift the tax burden from the rich onto us.  Essentially they are for raising our taxes so they can lower the taxes for the rich.  If you are for that, either you are dumb or rich.

Remember for how many years Republicans said NO NEW TAXES?  Suddenly they win a 2nd term and sock it to the middle class?  Where are all my middle class buddies who vote Republican?  Suddenly they are defending tax increases?  Interesting.  Just like when they win back the white house they will stop being deficit hawks bet me.  THey'll double the debt and you won't hear a sound out of their defenders.  In fact remember Chaney said debt was good?  I do.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The earth is not flat you fucking idiot!  It is no longer the 14th century.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 the moon is in the sky!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 
*Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should*

That sounds like a great idea! How do you do it without making "the people pay"?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 that dude's been hit with a stupid stick a long time ago.  he doesn't understand climate and so I know he doesn't understand economics..


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Todsterpatriot,
  This isn't the right thread to be talking economics.  But as to who pays what, here's a good place to start.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


  jc456,
  How can you be so stupid.  Time and time again it has been pointed out to you that human caused global warming is real.  But you still stick to your denier cult.  You are a joke.  But the planet isn't laughing.  Maybe you should build some cheap land at Love Canal and build a house.  All you have to do is deny that the ground is contaminated.


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...









How can you be so stupid.  Time and again it has been pointed out to you that computer models *ARE NOT FACTS!  *The facts are that there has been no warming for 18 years.  That's an undeniable fact.  What you post is merely easily disproven propaganda.  But given who you worship that is no surprise.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 
You have a link for that silly chart?


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 26, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online
> ...





> This is from the American Meteorological Society. I think it effectively refutes the above.


You refuted absolutely nothing dumbass.

All you did was repeat the same old lies and misinformation.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 26, 2014)




----------



## idb (Nov 26, 2014)

Wildcard said:


>


Why is it Liberal?
It's either true or it isn't.
Bringing politics into only confuses the issue and hardens positions.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 26, 2014)

idb said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...





> Why is it Liberal?



Why Liberals Love the Global Warming Cause Capitol Commentary


----------



## idb (Nov 26, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


So, you are just mindlessly parroting an opinion piece that contains no evidence at all.
Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Your entire position is a lie.  90% say so.  Once your side decides it is no longer effective to lie/deny they will argue their second talking point then 3rd.  Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution.  We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should but you guys will fight that until ultimately you will make us the people pay.
> 
> And I don't blame you.  Why not sock it to the people?  They don't even show up to vote so keep fucking them until they have had enough.  Clearly they haven't had enough.  The America people are so dumb.
> 
> ...



You cant determine what is pollution and what is good for the earth. SO i take your intelligence level to be very low on scientific items. 

As for your 90+% consensus lie, its a LIE!  John Cook is a liar! he manipulated data and inferred things about papers and people he had no knowledge of.  Its called scientific fraud.





As for the debt.. Obama and liberals quadrupled the debt in just six years.. And im dam mad about that too..  Most of that money found its way into obama donors hands through the green enviro wacko agenda...


----------



## Wyld Kard (Nov 26, 2014)

idb said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I guess that article was just to hard for you to grasp?



> Bringing politics into only confuses the issue and hardens positions



The issue concerning global warming has always been more about politics and less about actual science. It's nothing more then a massive scam to push a political agenda to introduce more taxation, more regulations, and more government control all in the name of "_saving the planet_".  

And liberals do love big government.


----------



## idb (Nov 26, 2014)

Wildcard said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Wildcard said:
> ...


There were no facts in that opinion piece...it was simply spouting off a bunch of anti-Liberal talking points.
Reading the comments at the bottom is hilarious such as "Liberals never have to show facts..." in light of the paucity of 'facts' in the rant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2014)

idb said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
*Why is it Liberal?*

Because instead of useful methods to reduce CO2, like nuclear power, the solutions are always bigger government, higher taxes and unreliable "green energy".


----------



## westwall (Nov 26, 2014)

idb said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...






The AGW movement is purely political.  They abandoned science a long, long time ago.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2014)

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus? 

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?
> 
> Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL



How many times do oi have to remind you that those statements do not reflect the majority of the people who are in those clubs.  They are politically motivated and have little to do with science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2014)

Really? What a damnable liar you are, Billy Boob. And tell me, how many scientific societies do you belong to? And what is the basis of that lie, other than wishful thinking?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2014)

*The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change*

*Climate Change*
_Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013_

*Position Statement*
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

_*Purpose*_
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

*If you read the whole statement, you will find evidence cited for their position. And referances as to where to find the scientists and their articles on that evidence.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?
> 
> Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL


 
In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change*
> 
> *Climate Change*
> _Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013_
> ...



Bull Shit!



policy statements... are political.  this only proves they like federal monies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?
> ...



LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change*
> ...


 Really? Those of us that are members of that Society get to vote on who makes those statements. Seems like you are the one making political statements with absolutely no scientfic support.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
*Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.*

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

*grid scale batteries*

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.







You never cease to amaze me how you can say this bull shit knowing that batteries are decades away from being able to do this.

at just 14 -20 % increses it will take 50-100 years to obtain batteries that could store enough energy to balance the gird and the battery farms would be massive all over the place on earth..

You really are a moron..

source


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.*
> 
> That's hilarious!!!
> If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.
> ...



A battery storage facility to replace a 500Mw plant is over 1 acre X 2 acre and contains over 25,000 1,500ah batteries and regulating equipment.  It would take 2 TeraWatts of green input as wind and solar are only 20% effective to charge it and maintain it.   And you would still need Coal fired plants for surge and fail protections. This is brain dead stupidity.


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[19] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.


Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2012 global fossil fuel subsidies totalled $544bn (£323bn; 392bn euros), while those for renewables amounted to $101bn. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts the total for hydrocarbons nearer $2 trillion.



BBC News - Fossil fuel subsidies growing despite concerns


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
*Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances*

If every business gets to deduct normal business expenses, why do liberals insist this is a subsidy for oil companies?

* but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines*

Wow! More liberal confusion about what a subsidy really is. Hilarious!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
*Equally, selling a barrel of oil domestically at $20 to keep petrol prices low when you could export that same barrel at the open market price of $100 represents an $80 subsidy.*

Yeah, selling oil at $20, instead of $100, is very helpful for the oil companies. LOL!
You should stop now, even I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2014)

Pretty much the responses I'd expect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

idb said:


> Pretty much the responses I'd expect.


 
I know, refuting your errors is pretty easy.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  Todsterpatriot,
  I take it you're talking about the tax disparity chart.  I can find it But I have a couple more for you.  Also, if you want to talk abouc such things, I suggest you do so in my thread, "War on the rich: Best idea in the history of man."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
Yeah, thanks for stupid, pointless charts that have nothing to do with the discussion.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 27, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Excuse me for butting in, but you are all wrong about batteries  All that would be needed for any battery is to scale it up.  The same is true for capacitors and using them to store electricty for either night time or low wind or low sun days.  Coal or oil should only be used as a last resort.  Nuclear energy should never be used.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  Todsterpatriot,
  You said to show you where I got the graph from.  If you didn't want to know the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 
*Nuclear energy should never be used.*
Right. Why would we want a CO2 free, reliable, large scale source of energy?
Windmills and lead batteries are the way to go. LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
The graph had nothing to do with my comment.
A graph without a source is useless.
If you had a source, I could show you it was wrong, but you're too stupid.
It would be a waste of effort.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  Todsterpatriot,
  You bring up subsidies.  I have some graphs for them as well.  Though I only include the second one because it mentions Exxon.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Todsterpatriot,
  You need to see the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."  When nuclear goes bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean it up.  That isn't very economical.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  Todsterpatriot,
  If you weren't so stupid, you would look it up yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 *Todsterpatriot,
You bring up subsidies.*

Actually, I was mocking the liberal idiot that brought them up.

Where do you come up with these useless, horribly inaccurate charts?
They're ridicuolous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Todsterpatriot,
> You need to see the documentary, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."  When nuclear goes bad, there isn't enough money in the world to clean it up.  That isn't very economical.


 
Nuclear is so dangerous, more Americans have died in Ted Kennedy's car than from US civilian nuclear power.


----------



## westwall (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Funny how you never address the toxicity of actually CREATING your imaginary batteries.  Why is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
I'm not interested in scouring the internet for the source of a chart that is laughably inaccurate and
has nothing to do with my original comment.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  Todsterpatriot,
  There is nothing stupid about the unfortunate corporate welfare that this country hands out.  As for my graphs, go to your web browser and ask it to show graphs on whatever topic you're interested in.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
If you have real, sourced, info about corporate welfare, provide it and I'll be happy to discuss.

Provide an unsourced, obviously inaccurate graph, and I'll just point and laugh.


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Mocking?
Saying "no it isn't" over and over again is hardly mocking.
Mocking pre-supposes some cleverness - you are way too unqualified for mocking.

In your own mind I bet you win every argument you get into because the other party always gives up.
The truth is that's because beating your head against an idiot only feels good when you stop.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
Tell me again how selling oil at $20 instead of $100 is a subsidy for oil.


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Is the article too difficult for you to understand?
If the government is making up the $80 difference then that is a subsidy.
Try reading for comprehension.


> No sense'
> But most subsidies are handed out in developing economies in the form of state investments at very low rates of return, and lost income from selling fuel at an artificially low price.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
If the government gives an $80 subsidy to its oil consumers, that is in no way a subsidy to the oil producers. Sorry.


----------



## idb (Nov 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
A subsidy is still a subsidy.
Sorry.

Going back to the original point - if fossil fuel production is so much more efficient and cost-effective than renewables then why does it need subsidies at all?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 
*Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
A subsidy is still a subsidy.
Sorry.*

Yeah, welfare is welfare. Which has nothing to do with fossil fuels still being the best, most cost effective energy source out there today.


*Going back to the original point - if fossil fuel production is so much more efficient and cost-effective than renewables then why does it need subsidies at all.*

It doesn't need subsidies to encourage production, unlike renewables which will shut down when the government money is cut off.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 28, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  Toddsterpatriot,
  You basically said that oil, gas and coal company welfare has nothing to do with them being the "best" sources of energy.  But if they're so great, why do they get subsidies at all.  Though all this is beside the point.  The point is HCGW.  Also, you could learn something from the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car."  But as a spoiler, I will tell you  that car companies did.  Probably because Both the oil and car companies own large percentages of each other's stock.  Also, electric cars don't need things like lubricating oil, oil filters, air filters, fan belts and a zillion other things that car companies make money selling.

  Another thing is that with these companies receiving subsidies, how eager do you think bribed government officals would be to do things that would destroy those industries.  Or do things that would make them significantly change the way they do business.  That is what is holding us up in adopting green energy.  Not technology.


----------



## MaxGrit (Nov 28, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > jv456 -
> ...


lol


----------



## Saigon (Nov 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
> A subsidy is still a subsidy.
> Sorry.*
> 
> ...



Take a look at my sig line - fossil fuels have received FAR more in subsidies than renewables. 

So when people say follow the money to understand climate change - I guess what they mean is look at what the coal, nuclear and il industries are doing, and you'll see why climate change science is so widely accepted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Did I say that oil producers receive the subsidy?
> ...


 
*Take a look at my sig line*

Thanks, I've pointing out the multiple flaws in your subsidy claims before.

*fossil fuels have received FAR more in subsidies than renewables.*

Writing off normal business expenses is not a subsidy. Sorry.

*you'll see why climate change science is so widely accepted.*

I want to know how widely global warming science is accepted.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 29, 2014)

Todd - 

Which industry has received more subsidies in the US in the past 25 years - solar or nuclear?


Climate change science is accepted by 59 of the largest international scientific bodies in the world, and the remaining one is neutral. Not one scientific body backs your position.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 29, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Which industry has received more subsidies in the US in the past 25 years - solar or nuclear?
> 
> ...


* 
Climate change science*

I'm still trying to get used to the name change. LOL!

*Not one scientific body backs your position.*

What position is that?


----------



## Saigon (Nov 30, 2014)

Todd - 

Your position is one of blind, political denial. 

btw, The word climate change has been used for 30 years now - so if you can use the word 'website' I'd imagine you can learn to use 'climate change' as well. 

I have to say, man - there are days you come across as being a little....um.....simple, you know?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Your position is one of blind, political denial.
> 
> ...


 
*Your position is one of blind, political denial.*

It's true, I deny the political solutions of the warmers. Simple.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Todd -
> 
> Your position is one of blind, political denial.
> 
> ...






Its not like the name has not changed some 6 times in the last 7 years..


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2014)

Billy, stop lying. It's always been and still is global warming. Except when Bush tried to change it to "climate change", because he wanted to divert away from the fact of the warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy, stop lying. It's always been and still is global warming. Except when Bush tried to change it to "climate change", because he wanted to divert away from the fact of the warming.



What warming?   F'ing Moron... You lie so much..


----------



## idb (Nov 30, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy, stop lying. It's always been and still is global warming. Except when Bush tried to change it to "climate change", because he wanted to divert away from the fact of the warming.
> ...


2014 on track to be hottest year on record says US science agency Environment The Guardian


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

idb said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


LOL...  THE GUARDIAN.... LOL.....

And they Cite the GISS data set which has been adjusted upward 1.2 deg C.. And if you track the UNADJUSTED data set it is the 24th warmest out of 31 years...


----------



## mamooth (Nov 30, 2014)

Billy, you're just yanking crazy nonsense out of your ass now.

It's all you can do, because you're a cult moron. 

That would account for all the laughter directed at you.


----------



## idb (Nov 30, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


The Guardian is only reporting the story.
Would you believe Fox?
NOAA Globe sets 5th hottest-month record of 2014 FOX 11 Online WLUK-TV


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

idb said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



They are reporting the lies from our government. Both are wrong.. Having FOX jump on the lie bandwagon is a bit concerning but they will get the message soon enough.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

What message? That there are idiots out there that think what they pull out of their ass is more credible than what scientists who have studied this issue the whole of their lives state?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 dude, dude.  hmmmm dude. it is so so simple.  Just show me the experiment.  Got it.  You rambling like this, I already stated does zilch to your effort.  show me the experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 dude, don't you have anything new?  My god the same old cliche's over and over is boring.  Hmmmm but you feel so much better having gotten them babies off though right.  What a fool.  BT, you make me laugh!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?
> 
> Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL


 Nope!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> What message? That there are idiots out there that think what they pull out of their ass is more credible than what scientists who have studied this issue the whole of their lives state?


 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? What a damnable liar you are, Billy Boob. And tell me, how many scientific societies do you belong to? And what is the basis of that lie, other than wishful thinking?


 we don't care you k00k!!!! why not just show us the experiment?  do.....you....understand?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change*
> 
> *Climate Change*
> _Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013_
> ...


 boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 where are the alternative sources that matter?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 so dude, why isn't it a done deal.  Let's have it!!! Tell all of those college kids who are working on ways to improve the life of a battery's charge!!  Where's that at?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 he beats you fool!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 too, too funny!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy, stop lying. It's always been and still is global warming. Except when Bush tried to change it to "climate change", because he wanted to divert away from the fact of the warming.


 when has it warmed in the last 18 1/2 years?  hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 LOL..you know that info is all manufactured garbage right?  Oh, I forgot, you're gullible!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Billy, you're just yanking crazy nonsense out of your ass now.
> 
> It's all you can do, because you're a cult moron.
> 
> That would account for all the laughter directed at you.


 I love it when this is all you got!!!!  What a f00l


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

All the dumbasses who think humans cause it, accept this challenge.  When you exhale you emit CO2.  My challenge to you is if you think human CO2 production is causing global warming, prove you believe it by no longer breathing.  That will tell me you truly believe what you say.


----------



## idb (Dec 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Billy, you're just yanking crazy nonsense out of your ass now.
> ...


No I'm not...YOU are!


----------



## idb (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> All the dumbasses who think humans cause it, accept this challenge.  When you exhale you emit CO2.  My challenge to you is if you think human CO2 production is causing global warming, prove you believe it by no longer breathing.  That will tell me you truly believe what you say.


Brilliant riposte!!!
The climate change deniers have clearly got the science wrapped up!


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > All the dumbasses who think humans cause it, accept this challenge.  When you exhale you emit CO2.  My challenge to you is if you think human CO2 production is causing global warming, prove you believe it by no longer breathing.  That will tell me you truly believe what you say.
> ...


 
The climate hoax believers say what is causing global warming but won't prove they believe it by setting the example.  There's enough of those SOBs that if they all did it, whether or not it would help what they say is happening isn't important.  That they would no longer be around to spread their nonsense is.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 1, 2014)

Check it out, another genocide-pushing denier, announcing how he wants all his political opponents dead.

I wish I could say it was a surprise, but the bloodthirsty nature of the denier side shouldn't surprise anyone, given how often they put it on display.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, another genocide-pushing denier, announcing how he wants all his political opponents dead.
> 
> I wish I could say it was a surprise, but the bloodthirsty nature of the denier side shouldn't surprise anyone, given how often they put it on display.



You guys truly are stupid...a suggestion that  you voluntarily hold your breath indefinitely is not pushing genocide....take a look at the quote any crick in my sig line if you want to see a  true genocide pushing denier.  No voluntary breath holding there...just off the skeptics to clear the path to nirvana on earth.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Then provide the experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 affects temperature.  Then You are no longer a fool, until then, baby it's cold outside!!!!!

BTW, I didn't know you were manmoth, if you're not, then you also can't avoid the stupid stick.  wow!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Check it out, another genocide-pushing denier, announcing how he wants all his political opponents dead.
> 
> I wish I could say it was a surprise, but the bloodthirsty nature of the denier side shouldn't surprise anyone, given how often they put it on display.


dude/dudette, stop getting hit with that stupid stick.  Doesn't that hurt?  You need to learn what offing someone actually means.  So until then stay away from the stupid sticks, you're getting hit way too frequently.


----------



## idb (Dec 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Sorry guy, that one was busted a long time ago...hundreds of times the amount of CO2 that is found in the atmosphere.


----------



## idb (Dec 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## idb (Dec 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Why would you suddenly start believing evidence?
You've shown no interest in it up 'til now.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 hahahahahahahaahahhahahhahahhhahaha oh dude, you got hit by multiple stupid sticks.  Holy crap.


----------



## idb (Dec 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I'm struggling to find something simple enough for you...I'm trying Donald Duck cartoons now but I'm not sure I can do it.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

idb said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


so it's actually quite simple, let me dumb it down for ya, Do you.......you idb, have an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures?  Do you? a controlled experiment that starts with benchmark values and then in a controlled manner and incremental 10 PPM amounts of CO2 are added and the temperature recorded for each increment?  Not some guy filling up a jar with all CO2 and saying seee it's a gas!!!! wow such stupid.


----------



## idb (Dec 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Ya know what?
I've just done a scan back on this thread to see what you're putting up as counter-evidence.
I found some of these 
some of these
and a heap of other rubbish.

One thing I couldn't find is you actually using any facts to support your position...in fact, to be truthful, you haven't actually stated your position that I can see although I can infer that Global Warming is probably Liberal so must be wrong...or bad...or something...I'm not really sure.


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 1, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  Excuse me for butting in.  But years ago, Calvin Coolidge said that the business of government IS business.  Seeing how doing something about human caused global warming is to business what showing a crucifix to a vampire is, why would the government be saying anything that supported HCGW.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

idb said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Sorry again guy....note the sealed bottles...that experiment demonstrates a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...CO2 being more dense than air generates more pressure when heated...more pressure...higher temperature.  See the ideal gas laws.  If that experiment is done with a vent to allow the pressures within the bottles to remain the same the temperature will also remain the same.  CO2 does not cause warming and there is no experiment showing that it does for the same reason there is no experiment showing that rocks fall up when dropped...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

idb said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



You must first understand what is being done...I guess you believe a magician can make a quarter materialize in your ear...the prima facia evidence certainly suggests it.  It isn't till you grasp what it is that you aren't seeing that you realize that you have been tricked.  What you see and think is being demonstrated isn't necessarily what is actually being demonstrated....like the bottle experiment above.  It is a fine demonstration of the heat of compression...not the warming properties of CO2 in an open atmosphere since there are none.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



you must first prove human caused global warming....at present it is an unsubstantiated assumption...nothing more.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 2, 2014)

idb said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


son, I am not claiming anything.  You are, therefore the burden is on your stupid ass to present your evidence to support your claim.  See you state that 120 PPM of CO2 added in the atmosphere increases temperatures, I say prove it.  there is my position.  Now can you prove it? Do you have an experiment that defines the climb in temperature as CO2 is added up to 120 PPM in a controlled lab?   Got that one do you?  Until you do, your position is in quicksand and has no ground to stand on.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


SO your ok with binding the media and having them spout a lie if it advances your political agenda...  The government has no buisness in buisness.. They are to have very limited scope and intrusion into personal lives and buisness in general.  The problem is the government thinks they should control you lock, stock and barrel. Only a communist or a dictator thinks this way... No thanks! This is exactly why the founding fathers got out of Europe... Individuals free will ALWAYS out perform those under bondage.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Government in business is the socialist way...


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Oh we are all going to pay.  I have no idea how we are going to move from gas cars to hydrogen cars but it has to and will happen.  

If you want humans to continue to exist then we'll have to pay.  I actually think it would be better if we don't pay and if we kill off humans and leave this planet to all the other species, I think all the other species will be better off.  Humans are the plague of this planet.  As smart as we are, we are doomed because of our warring and overpopulating.  

Think about it.  Without humans earth would be a garden of edin.  Maybe one day if the deer evolve enough to be smart enough to make up god in their minds then they'll think every time a wolf or bear eats one of them they'll call that "evil".  But don't worry because mommy Bambi just went to deer heaven.

God humans are dumb.  If it weren't for 1% of the people who figured out electricity and medicines and how to make an engine, where would fools like you be?  I'll tell you where you would be.   Instead of spewing your bullshit on the net you'd be writing it on a cave wall somewhere.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Are you kidding me?  The fucking government is the referee in the game of business.  

Democracy - Not The Free Market - Will Save America s Middle Class

The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 4, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Aren't you the same free market fools who gave the rich tax breaks while starting two wars you didn't win, hired illegals who were only doing jobs Americans wouldn't do, and sent all our good paying manufacturing jobs overseas and caused the Great Recession of 2007?     

This is the same thing you'll do with Global Warming.  You'll deny deny deny until you can't any longer then you'll blame Carter, Obama, Clinton, Freddy Mack and Fanny Mae, Pelosi, Reed.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Your entire position is a lie.  90% say so.  Once your side decides it is no longer effective to lie/deny they will argue their second talking point then 3rd.  Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution.  We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should but you guys will fight that until ultimately you will make us the people pay.
> ...



Show me the 90% consensus is a lie.  You claim it is a lie, do you have a link that goes into detail explaining how it is a lie?  I doubt you do because you are a spinster.  Why do you deny GW?  My hunch is you are a right winger who defends every and all right wing positions no matter how wrong they are.

How can I take you seriously when you are a flat out idiot or liar?

Global warming is a hoax says Louisiana congressional hopeful Lenar Whitney PolitiFact


----------



## jc456 (Dec 4, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the envy card eh? You're jealous of us smarter folks.  I see that a lot. one day perhpas you'd actually understand how the tax thing actually works.  From a site 'Center Forward"
*"2010 taxpayer income (in 2011 dollars) Share of all federal taxes paid 
*

$16,961 and under (Bottom 20%) -0.1%


$16,962 to $33,870 (21%-40%) 2.8%


$33,871 to $59,154 (41%-60%) 9.8%

 $59,155 to $103,428 (61%-80%) 18.7%

$103,428 and over (Top 20%) 68.6%"


----------



## jc456 (Dec 4, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 
*  If it weren't for 1% of the people who figured out electricity and medicines and how to make an engine, where would fools like you be?*

I'm in the 1% inventing, you're in the 99% whining that my invention is making Gaia cry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 4, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 
*Aren't you the same free market fools who gave the rich tax breaks*

Everyone got tax breaks.

*hired illegals who were only doing jobs Americans wouldn't do*

I'm in favor of sealing the border and sending those illegals back, unlike Obama.


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 4, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  As I told you, Calvin Cooledge said that the business of government IS business.  Any capitalist thinks the same way.  For example, there is some interesting history you should look up.  Go to your browser and type in something like, "Smedley Butler and his statement comparing the U.S. to Al Capone."  It shouldn't be hard to find.  After reading it, keep in mkind that the more things change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 4, 2014)

jc456 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  jc456,
  How long can you state stupidity.  Instead of an experiment, how about you look at some results again.


 

 .


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  todsterpatriot,
  Nice to see you spread your stupidity around.  I have some tax break information for you.  Also, there are no jobs that Americans won't do.  Desperate wetbacks are just willing to do them for a cheaper price than Americans will stand for.


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


  SSDD,
  As long as corruption exists, government in business is everybody's way.  Do you have any idea how many places in the U.S. alone are polluted?  Do you know why they're polluted?  Because the government corruption that allowed businesses to pollute.  It's the American freaken way!


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 4, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


  Sealybobo,
  Excuse me for butting in.  Have you ever seen the documentary, "Who killed the electric car?"  Hydrogen powered cars are a joke.  Electric cars are all that are needed.  Or as I suggested in another thread, electric cars with a small one cylinder home generator to extend the range a little if necessary or run air conditioning.  Everything else is just bullshit to keep electric cars from being mass produced.  

  I agree with most of what you say about humanity.  But humans need to survive.  They just need to do so with fewer and superior (White) versions of them.  But it can't happen through democracy.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> SSDD,
> As long as corruption exists, government in business is everybody's way.  Do you have any idea how many places in the U.S. alone are polluted?  Do you know why they're polluted?  Because the government corruption that allowed businesses to pollute.  It's the American freaken way!



You think for one minute that government is less corrupt than business?  How naive are you exactly?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


 whew...stop with the stupid!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 5, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 check out this link

From the report:
*2010 taxpayer income (in 2011 dollars) Share of all federal taxes paid 
*

$16,961 and under (Bottom 20%) -0.1%


$16,962 to $33,870 (21%-40%) 2.8%


$33,871 to $59,154 (41%-60%) 9.8%

 $59,155 to $103,428 (61%-80%) 18.7%

$103,428 and over (Top 20%) 68.6%


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD,
> ...


  SSDD,
  I don't know where you got the idea that I said government is less corrupt than business.  But as it turns out, it is.  Because governments are answerable to the voters.  But business answers to nobody.  Money is the measure of what is right and wrong to them.  That is the main reason why I am apposed to all forms of privatization of public functions.  Such as national parks or highways.  Because though these things are meant for the good of all people, if they were private, those running things would be answerable to nobody.


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 5, 2014)

jc456 said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


  jc456,
  My thread "War on the rich: best idea in the history of man" is the best place to be having this discussion.  But I will play along.  Who pays what isn't the point.  The point is what percentace of somebody's income must be paid.  With the wealthy, they have lawyers to help them hide wealth.  I am reminded of the Clinton administration.  They used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like the U.S. had a balanced budget.

  When it comes to who pays what, I was talking to SSDD about companies that pollute.  The poor are the ones who pick up the lion's share in that.  One way how comes from a story of when I was in the military.  I got involved with a crooked used car company.  They ended up having to go to a military hearing at which I and some other service people spoke.  The military ended up putting the place off limits to service personnel.  What did the used car company do?  Change the name of their business.  From what I saw, that was all that changed.  The point is that there are endless ways for the wealthy to keep from paying the piper.  And when it comes to HCGW, everybody is going to end up paying the piper far more than they can afford.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 5, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Same old wall of shit...

Empirical evidence blows your fantasy to bits...-->  Human Caused Global Warming Page 79 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## cultsmasher (Dec 6, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


  Billy_Bob,
  My graphs are better than yours.  Why?  Because mine are backed up by the vast majority of scientists.  Now it's your turn to tell me that most scientists are part of an evil conspiracy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



You rely on consensus....  I believe you still think the world is flat, and it didn't work out so well for the consensus back then as it will not for them now.. In both instances the consensus has had a political agenda to push which was and is still control of people..

True science is always skeptical thus consensus is not scientific in any way as it is the antithesis of what science is..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 6, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 
Jewish scientists back your position?


----------



## Saigon (Dec 7, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> True science is always skeptical thus consensus is not scientific in any way as it is the antithesis of what science is..



So the fringe minority is usually correct, is it?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...


 dude, I'm happy to go over there and limit the discussion in the environmental forum.

But it seems to me that you aren't using all of your genius to understand that the percentage of tax from someone making more is going to be more even if the percentage between brackets is the same.

i.e., 11% of 50k is 5k and the 11% of a 100k is double to the 50k.  Basic math.  So is it you're jealous because someone makes more than you?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > True science is always skeptical thus consensus is not scientific in any way as it is the antithesis of what science is..
> ...


 it is when the observed doesn't match the models!


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 12, 2015)

cultsmasher said:


> In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> 
> Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2.  Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans.  Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year.  Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential.  There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.
> 
> ...



I heard this while watching The Cosmos.  The new one.  Everyone should watch the old one and the new one.

We can read the unbroken record of Earth's atmosphere that extends back over the last 800,000 years.  In all that time, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air never rose above three-hundredths of one percent.  That is, until the turn of the 20th century.  It's now more than 40% higher than before the Industrial Revolution.  By burning coal, oil and gas, our civilization is exhaling carbon dioxide much faster than Earth can absorb it.  So CO2 is building up in the atmosphere.  The planet is heating up.  

All right but how do we know that we're the problem?   Maybe it's those damn volcanoes.  Every few years, Mount Etna, in Sicily, blows its stack.  Each big eruption sends millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Now, combine that with the output of all the other volcanic activity on the planet.  Let's take the largest scientific estimate-- about 500 million tons of volcanic CO2 entering the atmosphere ever year.
Sounds like a lot, right? But that's not even two percent of the 30 billion tons of CO2 that our civilization is cranking out every year.

It's clear that the increased CO2 in the air is not from volcanoes.  It's a pretty tight case.  Our fingerprints are all over this one.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> cultsmasher said:
> 
> 
> > In my thread "Will You Vote Republican,"  somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing.  But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.
> ...


SIlly you...

You think CO2 has never before been higher than today?  That is an outright lie and a fabrication. You should check your sources more carefully.


 

We have been well over 7,000ppm and the earth has been over 1,500 for most of its history.  

Epic Cult FAIL


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2015)

Billy Bob said:
			
		

> *SIlly you...
> 
> You think CO2 has never before been higher than today?*  That is an outright lie and a fabrication. You should check your sources more carefully.
> View attachment 35838
> ...



Stupid you Billy Bob...

Can you not *read*?!?!?



sealybobo said:


> *We can read the unbroken record of Earth's atmosphere that extends back over the last 800,000 years.  In all that time, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air never rose above three-hundredths of one percent. *


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean the data set that shows CO2 lagging temperature on both the increase and decline for 800,000 consecutive years?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 14, 2015)

But the data doesn't show that, Frank. That's been explained to you before.

And even if it did, it wouldn't mean what deniers claim it means. The present is not required to act like the past, given conditions in the present are wildly different. A third grader grasps such common sense, but nearly every denier doesn't. Most deniers are literally just morons.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> But the data doesn't show that, Frank. That's been explained to you before.
> 
> And even if it did, it wouldn't mean what deniers claim it means. The present is not required to act like the past, given conditions in the present are wildly different. A third grader grasps such common sense, but nearly every denier doesn't. Most deniers are literally just morons.



You sound literally insane.

First you tell me that the data isnt really showing CO2 lagging temperature for 800,000 consecutive years, then you're telling me that even if it did, modern CO2 is different.

Nuts.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > But the data doesn't show that, Frank. That's been explained to you before.
> ...


 you see this over here, it is a bean and you see this over here, this is a bean.  I know it looks like an egg, but I'm liberal left and it's a bean.  I said so, so therefore it is. Frank,  Don't you just love this stuff.  Skooks has it pegged everyday on here.  Like I've posted many times today, them lefties love to post the stupid.

And if you want more, go to morestupid@mamooth.com.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 14, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You sound literally insane.



You don't run well. You lean so crazily to the right, you just go in circles.



> First you tell me that the data isnt really showing CO2 lagging temperature for 800,000 consecutive years



Yep. Do learn the basics, will you?

The easy way out is to compare ice core layer readings for CO2 and temperature from the same ice layer. That's the wrong way.

CO2 measurements come from the trapped air in the air bubbles in the ice.

Temperature measurements come from the ice itself.

As the ice is laid down, it remains air-permeable for thousands of years. Thus, the air in the bubbles is much younger than the ice those bubbles are trapped in. Thus, if you simply compare from the same layers, you get a totally wrong answer. If you line up the layers correctly, CO2 is found to match temperature increase, not lag it.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
---
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---

You will, of course, keep pretending you never saw this science, since your cult commands it of you.



> Then you're telling me that even if it did, modern CO2 is different.



Nobody has ever told you such a crazy thing. And that's why you and your cult have such a bad reputation, because you choose to lie about everything.

And jc, the grownups are trying to talk. Please have your tantrums at the kiddie table down in the basement.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You sound literally insane.
> ...



Let me see if I understand this, the unaltered data refuses to validate your insane theory, so you adjust the data to fit your insane theory.

Also since your latest lie is that CO2 won't raise temperature until thousands of years later...whats the problem?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 14, 2015)

Frank, I'm sure nobody expected you'd be able to locate your balls and address the science. You're just fundamentally yellow, down to your innermost core. A perfect denier cultist, in other words.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, I'm sure nobody expected you'd be able to locate your balls and address the science. You're just fundamentally yellow, down to your innermost core. A perfect denier cultist, in other words.



What "science"? Altering the data is fraud, not science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 14, 2015)

Bernie Madoff, Patron Saint of the Global Warming Cult. Don't like the data, alter it


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 14, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cherry PICKING YOUR START TIME SO YOU CAN CLAIM MAN IS THE TOTAL INFLUENCE IS BOGUS. That is the reason I choose to call the lie out.  It is you that cant read or is is simply that you dont want to be shown a fool for crying its all man made when empirical evidence says it is not.?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2015)

I didn't cherry pick jack shit.  That was what the man said and it was that to which you FAILED to respond.  You're the liar, not him.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > cultsmasher said:
> ...



You are lying and/or wrong and the kind of co2 we spew out is different than volcanic co2 you idiot.  Anyone who denies man made climate change is a fool and shouldn't even be listened to.  Please don't reply back to me on this subject you dumb fuck.  People like you are why we will go extinct.  Humans have only been "in control" for 40,000 years.  We know so little.  You are proof of it.  Watch the Cosmos with Sagan and Tyson.  Watch both of them you dumb mother fucker.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2015)

Also go to NASA's website schmuck.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 15, 2015)

So what happens when you combine Shankun's phony proxies with the thousand year delay in CO2 raising temperature and apply them to the Vostock Ice core, why the altered data perfectly matches the failed models and now shows CO2 driving the climate, amiright?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


This is sooooooo typical leftist stupidness.  bobo just showin us all how the left works.  See I tell you something and you are not allowed to counter argue, you will sit and adhere to the program thus you are a liar denier, etc.  Dude, you got jack.  Just remember who told you that.  JC456.  you got jack.  Now you wish to discuss the topic in a debate environment, then provide us the lab work from the experiment that proves your foolish claim.   Anytime!!!!

Don't forget, I got Herr Koch 1901 proving my side of the debate.  I have an open challenge to disprove that one experiment.  Ready set, go!!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I can either listen to you and 33 right wing scientists who have been paid to deny global warming or the majority of scientists, all the other countries who know GW is happening, NASA.

Yea, I'll worry about what some stupid libertarian on USMB thinks.  Fuck you.  NASA is all I need to say.  Do I believe you, the corporations who want to continue burning fossil fuels or NASA and science.  No brainer just like you.  I'll remember JC456 is a stupid fuck.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 You do know that NASA is a space agency right?  They are not climate scientists. At least state your position correctly. 

And, I knew your majority, didn't have the experiment to disprove my guy Herr Koch and the proof of what CO2 actually does.  You don't want to debate, fine, just get off of here.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 15, 2015)

jc, your strange fables about Herr Koch have been refuted multiple times. You know that. You're just a pathological liar. Seriously, just stop lying about that experiment.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Humans are a greedy ignorant self destructive species.  I think everyone gets that at some level.  But no one ever admits they are part of that society.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


 and.......


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 15, 2015)

sealybobo said:


> I can either listen to you and 33 right wing scientists who have been paid to deny global warming or the majority of scientists, all the other countries who know GW is happening, NASA.
> 
> Yea, I'll worry about what some stupid libertarian on USMB thinks.  Fuck you.  NASA is all I need to say.  Do I believe you, the corporations who want to continue burning fossil fuels or NASA and science.  No brainer just like you.  I'll remember JC456 is a stupid fuck.






lIB STUPID FAIL...

As for CO2, please show me the lab work which differentiates types in our atmosphere and there respective latency rates.


----------



## Crick (Jan 15, 2015)

Billy Bob, that you think Legates is a valid argument to bring out tells us your either truly desperate, truly stupid or both.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 16, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy Bob, that you think Legates is a valid argument to bring out tells us your either truly desperate, truly stupid or both.



I see you have your facts confused with opinion.  Legates et. al.  is fact... The other paper isn't even fit for publication as it was contrived OPINION and in no way determined the true intent of the papers COOK  and his 12 reviewers read the abstracts of.   I found it funny that several of his reviewers have been caught ghost reviewing their own works under fraudulent names to give themselves credibility...  Wonderful crowd Cook and his followers at SKS have going for them... FRAUD is A-OK...


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2015)

Do you accept the idea of judging papers that make NO comment about the causes of global warming as being in disagreement with the IPCC?

Given the results of Cook, Nuccitelli et al's results when they surveyed authors about their papers (and, yes, I'm aware Watts found four of the several thousand authors who disagree), do you accept the idea that any author who agrees with the IPCC would state so explicitly in their paper no matter the actual subject?

Legates work was the absolute bottom of bullshit.  Claiming any validity there tells us more about you than about the topic under discussion.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you accept the idea of judging papers that make NO comment about the causes of global warming as being in disagreement with the IPCC?
> 
> Given the results of Cook, Nuccitelli et al's results when they surveyed authors about their papers (and, yes, I'm aware Watts found four of the several thousand authors who disagree), do you accept the idea that any author who agrees with the IPCC would state so explicitly in their paper no matter the actual subject?
> 
> Legates work was the absolute bottom of bullshit.  Claiming any validity there tells us more about you than about the topic under discussion.



Legates looked for exact statements without looking for opinion induced by the reader as Cook did.  Cook cited papers to be in full agreement with CAGW when they infact stated otherwise. Cook and Co LIED!

But hey, alarmist only have lying as the facts do not support them.


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2015)

Was it lies when the authors themselves said their papers assumed or supported AGW in greater numbers than Cooj et al had found?

God are you stupid!


----------



## westwall (Jan 17, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy Bob, that you think Legates is a valid argument to bring out tells us your either truly desperate, truly stupid or both.
> ...








It's not just A-OK, it is systemic and encouraged.


----------



## westwall (Jan 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you accept the idea of judging papers that make NO comment about the causes of global warming as being in disagreement with the IPCC?
> 
> Given the results of Cook, Nuccitelli et al's results when they surveyed authors about their papers (and, yes, I'm aware Watts found four of the several thousand authors who disagree), do you accept the idea that any author who agrees with the IPCC would state so explicitly in their paper no matter the actual subject?
> 
> Legates work was the absolute bottom of bullshit.  Claiming any validity there tells us more about you than about the topic under discussion.









Many of the authors, who's papers were referenced by Cook and Co., have stated publicly that their papers were either misrepresented, or Cook and Co. outright lied about the results of the papers referenced.

The fact that you still reference a paper that was suspected of being fraudulent, but which we now KNOW is fraudulent, relegates you to the dustbin of posters.

Truly, you are a political whore who will support anybody who is willing to pay you.

Slink away and pollute the other boards out there.  Your putrid posts aren't even amusing anymore, they are too smelly.


----------



## westwall (Jan 17, 2015)

Crick said:


> Was it lies when the authors themselves said their papers assumed or supported AGW in greater numbers than Cooj et al had found?
> 
> God are you stupid!









It was the opposite, as you well know.  And yes, you are a stupid political hack with no scruples.


----------



## elektra (Jan 19, 2015)

Global Warming theory is based on the Ether, when something moves through the Ether, all things in the Ether must move, its that simple. 

Yet since than there is no Ether, according to Einstein and all those who came after.

Follow the idiots links to Tyndall, who did experiments on things in the Ether. 

Ridiculous at best.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 19, 2015)

There you have it, the understanding of physics by Elektra.


----------

