And so it begins...

[Dot Com]

Here' the end game, tho. No matter what WE do...the pollution of China and India is multiple times worse....and we can't stop them.

It helps if we "lead by example/practice what we preach" AND it will foster developments of alternative energy & bolster inustry Made in the good ol' U.S. of A. (I served in the military like you did)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here' the end game, tho. No matter what WE do...the pollution of China and India is multiple times worse....and we can't stop them.

It helps if we "lead by example/practice what we preach" AND it will foster developments of alternative energy & bolster inustry Made in the good ol' U.S. of A. (I served in the military like you did)

Dot, how much plywood got thru under your watch

 

[Dot Com]

So, do you even know what the word evidence means? Providng models and theory are not evidence, what is evidence is showing validation of the theory. Your theory, if consistent with the rest is that an increase of CO2 causes warmer temperatures. That could be tested in a lab. Do you have results of those types of tests? That is where your evidence would be. See merely showing a graph and making a statement and using the statement as evidence isn't so.

Experiment results proving the theory is what I'd need to see.

That was done in 1859 by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

Another nut job that doesn't know what the word evidence is. Not models, not theories, validation of models and theories, where are those? Come on are you really that stupid?

Stop attacking the messenger If you're not going to be constructive in this thread then, theres the door ->

 

[mudwhistle]

Here' the end game, tho. No matter what WE do...the pollution of China and India is multiple times worse....and we can't stop them.

It helps if we "lead by example/practice what we preach" AND it will foster developments of alternative energy & bolster inustry Made in the good ol' U.S. of A. (I served in the military like you did)

Guess you didn't learn any common-sense while you were in there.

If you've ever been deployed you'll notice that 90% of those foreign countries are shitholes. They're poor and the last thing they're concerned with is Global Warming. They're never even consider thinking about handicapping themselves with all of this political-correct nonsense.

The whole purpose of Climate Change legislation is to screw people out of their hard earned money.

 

[jc456]

That was done in 1859 by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

Another nut job that doesn't know what the word evidence is. Not models, not theories, validation of models and theories, where are those? Come on are you really that stupid?

Stop attacking the messenger If you're not going to be constructive in this thread then, theres the door ->

hmm... let me see you claim CO2 increase will cause catastrophic conditions with temperatures and I ask you to provide evidence and I'm attacking the messinger? Hah! prove it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult Symbol

 

[Amelia]

But they have ZERO, NADA, ZILCH to do with CO2 or Global Warming. Be honest -- and there would be support for enviro issues..

Do you need someone to renounce their beliefs before you'll support any environmental or energy policy which would coincide with what you'd generally consider good policy?

Nope, I want proof, evidence confirmation they are rght. It is simply that easy to move on. So again, why aren't you asking for the evidence that there is gold under your house before you just let them have your house? Still silly.

But why do you need proof that they are right about something in order to advance policy on things that you actually believe are good?

If you believe clean air is good or if you believe an "all of the above" energy policy is good, then why do you need any proof from anybody about anything else?

My suggestion is that people start making advances toward things the majority on both sides believe are good. This can be done without anyone proving or disproving that climate change is a cause for alarm.

There are some good things which people should be able to agree on independent of the climate change debate.

People on both sides are taking an "all or nothing" position. Why should anyone have to prove or disprove anything about climate change before they take measures to help us have a stable energy supply?

 

[jc456]

Do you need someone to renounce their beliefs before you'll support any environmental or energy policy which would coincide with what you'd generally consider good policy?

Nope, I want proof, evidence confirmation they are rght. It is simply that easy to move on. So again, why aren't you asking for the evidence that there is gold under your house before you just let them have your house? Still silly.

But why do you need proof that they are right about something in order to advance policy on things that you actually believe are good?

If you believe clean air is good or if you believe an "all of the above" energy policy is good, then why do you need any proof from anybody about anything else?

My suggestion is that people start making advances toward things the majority on both sides believe are good. This can be done without anyone proving or disproving that climate change is a cause for alarm.

There are some good things which people should be able to agree on independent of the climate change debate.

People on both sides are taking an "all or nothing" position. Why should anyone have to prove or disprove anything about climate change before they take measures to help us have a stable energy supply?

You're really asking that? Do you read any of this mumbo jumbo. Like I stated, I am all in on new technology. let's go. What's the problem? We on my side know exactly what the problem is and it ain't us. So again, your point is best targeted at the other side.

You know that there isn't any proof right? That's why it's mumbo jumbo. So, let's move on that new technology. What you got?

 

[Amelia]

Nope, I want proof, evidence confirmation they are rght. It is simply that easy to move on. So again, why aren't you asking for the evidence that there is gold under your house before you just let them have your house? Still silly.

But why do you need proof that they are right about something in order to advance policy on things that you actually believe are good?

If you believe clean air is good or if you believe an "all of the above" energy policy is good, then why do you need any proof from anybody about anything else?

My suggestion is that people start making advances toward things the majority on both sides believe are good. This can be done without anyone proving or disproving that climate change is a cause for alarm.

There are some good things which people should be able to agree on independent of the climate change debate.

People on both sides are taking an "all or nothing" position. Why should anyone have to prove or disprove anything about climate change before they take measures to help us have a stable energy supply?

You're really asking that? Do you read any of this mumbo jumbo. Like I stated, I am all in on new technology. let's go. What's the problem? We on my side know exactly what the problem is and it ain't us. So again, your point is best targeted at the other side.

You know that there isn't any proof right? That's why it's mumbo jumbo. So, let's move on that new technology. What you got?

Climate change proof isn't needed for the things I want to accomplish.

I don't know you. I actually thought I was talking to Flacaltenn. I wasn't paying close enough attention. My bad.

I have no interest in arguing with you. If you're truly all in on new technology then good.

That's all.

 

[Statistikhengst]

eff you. you can't stop third worlders from doing it, so why should we be hurt, hmm? shove your bs.

Hmmmm....

 

[Statistikhengst]

You mean laws have to be passed to force people to behave the way the Global Warming cult wants.

And Amelia gets her answer. You can thank me with liver and tuna.

So is the answer is that you prefer to say "can't be done" because some people don't see things they way you do ... blowing off people like me who are willing to look for common ground?

You're reinforcing my belief that a lot of people don't want change to happen nearly as much as they want a talking point to hold against political opposition.

I sincerely wish that people would step back from the partisanship and look for common ground in the name of things like air quality and energy independence.

I don't want people to lose jobs or food costs to skyrocket or the government to sink a lot of money into speculative activities. But I am very willing to consider making some changes which seem like they would please people who are concerned about global warming.

Let's assume for a minute that you actually mean what you say.

Ok.

Then the first common ground would be to recognize that - although there are extremely diverging opinions on the sub-rubrik of "global warming" - about the main category, "Climate Change", there should be common ground.

Because climate change has always been happening. The only problem is that now it is suddenly happening at a rate much faster than should be, which means that life forms on Earth are going to have a hard time keeping up. And this can be proven in literally thousands of ways, from measuring the effects and rate of glacial calving to the sudden change in the growth of red plankton in the Mediterranean to the sudden shifts in El Nino to the shifts in the size, time frame, scop, location and length of droughts throughout the world to massive shifts in migration patterns of thousands and thousands of species of animals to shifts in the measurement of CO2 on the atmosphere to the size of the Ozone hole and so on and so on and so on.
Maybe you should start there.

Crazy assed people make fun of the sub-rubrik of "global warming" because their current winter has been extremely cold, not realizing that exceptionally cold winters are actually going to contribute to the sudden shift in the rate of fresh water being pumped into a salt water system when thaw time comes, which then contributes to El Nino, which, at the end of the day, also contributes to summers that will get hotter and hotter, which contributes to an out of control drought cycle that is also appearing in places it has never appear before.

There are many sicknesses where a person often has FEVER and CHILLS all at the same time. This is not that much different.

 

[Dot Com]

eff you. you can't stop third worlders from doing it, so why should we be hurt, hmm? shove your bs.

Hmmmm....

I know right?

Here' the end game, tho. No matter what WE do...the pollution of China and India is multiple times worse....and we can't stop them.

It helps if we "lead by example/practice what we preach" AND it will foster developments of alternative energy & bolster inustry Made in the good ol' U.S. of A. (I served in the military like you did)

Dot, how much plywood got thru under your watch

YOU serve Frank57?

 

[flacaltenn]

That was done in 1859 by John Tyndall.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

Another nut job that doesn't know what the word evidence is. Not models, not theories, validation of models and theories, where are those? Come on are you really that stupid?

Stop attacking the messenger If you're not going to be constructive in this thread then, theres the door ->

THe messenger has been posting that 60 yr old science history 73 times. And he's aware that NONE of those folks had the tools or the methods to accurately assess the warming from CO2 any better than the current group of failures (see the GoodBye NYC thread).

Somehow GoldiRocks believes that doubters that me deny that CO2 is GH gas.. That's not true. The ISSUE is whether all those hysterical Magical Multipliers have any scientific validity. And TO THIS DAY --- even the IPCC has a THREE TO ONE error bracket over their predictions of the warming rate. NOTHING has really changed and there is no "consensus" for the predicted magnitude of this "problem"..

Basic science today estimates a 1.2DegC change in warming for a doubling of CO2 without all the voodoo magic. And THAT NUMBER is the most accurate estimate of what we've actually observed..

 

[jc456]

And Amelia gets her answer. You can thank me with liver and tuna.

So is the answer is that you prefer to say "can't be done" because some people don't see things they way you do ... blowing off people like me who are willing to look for common ground?

You're reinforcing my belief that a lot of people don't want change to happen nearly as much as they want a talking point to hold against political opposition.

I sincerely wish that people would step back from the partisanship and look for common ground in the name of things like air quality and energy independence.

I don't want people to lose jobs or food costs to skyrocket or the government to sink a lot of money into speculative activities. But I am very willing to consider making some changes which seem like they would please people who are concerned about global warming.

Let's assume for a minute that you actually mean what you say.

Ok.

Then the first common ground would be to recognize that - although there are extremely diverging opinions on the sub-rubrik of "global warming" - about the main category, "Climate Change", there should be common ground.

Because climate change has always been happening. The only problem is that now it is suddenly happening at a rate much faster than should be, which means that life forms on Earth are going to have a hard time keeping up. And this can be proven in literally thousands of ways, from measuring the effects and rate of glacial calving to the sudden change in the growth of red plankton in the Mediterranean to the sudden shifts in El Nino to the shifts in the size, time frame, scop, location and length of droughts throughout the world to massive shifts in migration patterns of thousands and thousands of species of animals to shifts in the measurement of CO2 on the atmosphere to the size of the Ozone hole and so on and so on and so on.
Maybe you should start there.

Crazy assed people make fun of the sub-rubrik of "global warming" because their current winter has been extremely cold, not realizing that exceptionally cold winters are actually going to contribute to the sudden shift in the rate of fresh water being pumped into a salt water system when thaw time comes, which then contributes to El Nino, which, at the end of the day, also contributes to summers that will get hotter and hotter, which contributes to an out of control drought cycle that is also appearing in places it has never appear before.

There are many sicknesses where a person often has FEVER and CHILLS all at the same time. This is not that much different.

chances are you wouldn't know what common ground even means. And Amelia, why you'll never get your wish. Like I said Amelia, the problem ain't on my side. The psuedo science side will never back off no matter what the climate is. And stats response is a perfect example

 

[Statistikhengst]

So is the answer is that you prefer to say "can't be done" because some people don't see things they way you do ... blowing off people like me who are willing to look for common ground?

You're reinforcing my belief that a lot of people don't want change to happen nearly as much as they want a talking point to hold against political opposition.

I sincerely wish that people would step back from the partisanship and look for common ground in the name of things like air quality and energy independence.

I don't want people to lose jobs or food costs to skyrocket or the government to sink a lot of money into speculative activities. But I am very willing to consider making some changes which seem like they would please people who are concerned about global warming.

Let's assume for a minute that you actually mean what you say.

Ok.

Then the first common ground would be to recognize that - although there are extremely diverging opinions on the sub-rubrik of "global warming" - about the main category, "Climate Change", there should be common ground.

Because climate change has always been happening. The only problem is that now it is suddenly happening at a rate much faster than should be, which means that life forms on Earth are going to have a hard time keeping up. And this can be proven in literally thousands of ways, from measuring the effects and rate of glacial calving to the sudden change in the growth of red plankton in the Mediterranean to the sudden shifts in El Nino to the shifts in the size, time frame, scop, location and length of droughts throughout the world to massive shifts in migration patterns of thousands and thousands of species of animals to shifts in the measurement of CO2 on the atmosphere to the size of the Ozone hole and so on and so on and so on.
Maybe you should start there.

Crazy assed people make fun of the sub-rubrik of "global warming" because their current winter has been extremely cold, not realizing that exceptionally cold winters are actually going to contribute to the sudden shift in the rate of fresh water being pumped into a salt water system when thaw time comes, which then contributes to El Nino, which, at the end of the day, also contributes to summers that will get hotter and hotter, which contributes to an out of control drought cycle that is also appearing in places it has never appear before.

There are many sicknesses where a person often has FEVER and CHILLS all at the same time. This is not that much different.

chances are you wouldn't know what common ground even means. And Amelia, why you'll never get your wish. Like I said Amelia, the problem ain't on my side. The psuedo science side will never back off no matter what the climate is. And stats response is a perfect example

Were you talking to me? You don't even know me.

 

[jc456]

Let's assume for a minute that you actually mean what you say.

Ok.

Then the first common ground would be to recognize that - although there are extremely diverging opinions on the sub-rubrik of "global warming" - about the main category, "Climate Change", there should be common ground.

Because climate change has always been happening. The only problem is that now it is suddenly happening at a rate much faster than should be, which means that life forms on Earth are going to have a hard time keeping up. And this can be proven in literally thousands of ways, from measuring the effects and rate of glacial calving to the sudden change in the growth of red plankton in the Mediterranean to the sudden shifts in El Nino to the shifts in the size, time frame, scop, location and length of droughts throughout the world to massive shifts in migration patterns of thousands and thousands of species of animals to shifts in the measurement of CO2 on the atmosphere to the size of the Ozone hole and so on and so on and so on.
Maybe you should start there.

Crazy assed people make fun of the sub-rubrik of "global warming" because their current winter has been extremely cold, not realizing that exceptionally cold winters are actually going to contribute to the sudden shift in the rate of fresh water being pumped into a salt water system when thaw time comes, which then contributes to El Nino, which, at the end of the day, also contributes to summers that will get hotter and hotter, which contributes to an out of control drought cycle that is also appearing in places it has never appear before.

There are many sicknesses where a person often has FEVER and CHILLS all at the same time. This is not that much different.

chances are you wouldn't know what common ground even means. And Amelia, why you'll never get your wish. Like I said Amelia, the problem ain't on my side. The psuedo science side will never back off no matter what the climate is. And stats response is a perfect example

Were you talking to me? You don't even know me.

You're right I don't know you. I don't know anyone on the message board. But it is a message board so I don't have to know someone. And yes my first sentence was for you, the rest was for Amelia. Reading your posts, I percieve that you are angry at those who don't agree with you on this topic. Shame. See Amelia seemed geniune in her post. But calling people crazy assed is counter productive to her post. And your response seems to indicate you don't wish to find common ground on the subject. Am I off base?

 

[flacaltenn]

There can be SERIOUS reconcilation on enviro issues. But the discussions need to be specific to the issues.
"Air quality" has NOTHING to do CO2 or the entire GW distraction.. Cleaning up the floating trash in the oceans, getting the govt to stop the radiation damage at their nuclear weapons facilities, public land use debates, energy issues, ----- ALL of this has been SQUASHED together into the Global Warming/Climate Change ploy. It has sucked the life out of environmentalism. The zealots are doing more damage to the environment than the people they hate. BECAUSE they are dishonestly making everything about GW.

Be honest, drop the fantasy, make specific proposals.. It's easier than you think it is.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Personally, I hope the planet warms 10c and the oceans raise 10 feet.

Doesn't matter to me.

 

[flacaltenn]

Personally, I hope the planet warms 10c and the oceans raise 10 feet.

Doesn't matter to me.

Of course it does.. It's good for your business of chasing severe storms. Or that's what you think. You ---- are a special interest hoping for some doom and gloom action...

The bitch is gonna be when you get that 10C and there are no storms to chase..

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Because climate change has always been happening. The only problem is that now it is suddenly happening at a rate much faster than should be...

Who says what rate of the climate changing should or should not be?