Climate change deniers explained

[Davey T]

The answer to your question lies in their solution, the same solution when the fear was global cooling: World-wide taxation.

There was no fear of global cooling. Don't try peddling that fable to anyone outside of your cult, because we'll demand evidence for it, and you don't have any.

Taking money from rich countries and giving it to poor countries. How will that stop global anything other than global socialism?

When the whole planet says you're wrong, it's not because of a vast socialist plot. It's because you're wrong.

Go back and check on the cover of Time Magazine in the 70s. It was about global cooling and how the the scientist stated the earth was going to freeze over.

 

[skookerasbil]

God....human racism is so fucking ghey.

We need another planet for these people to go to. I'll pay part of the price for tickets too!! Then you can go do all the utopian shit you want!!! Fix the planet so it is PERFECT!!!!Go..........go.........go.............

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh my, what a bunch of ignorant fucks we have here. When they cannot debate the science, they immediatly start yelling 'socialism'. Then continue on to abortion. Which of course has zero to do with a changing climate created by the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

These retards think that the environmental destruction created by mountaintop removal mining is an improvement on nature. And tobacco is good for you. That lead, mercury, and uranium are good things to put into the atmosphere.

But, they have already lost. Wind is now far cheaper as generation that even dirty coal. Solar will be, perhaps before this year is out. And as the batteries become less expensive and the energy density increases, the EV will replace the ICE auto, and then the same for trucks.

Let's take the opportunity to have an honest heart to heart here O-Rocks.
You've got about 30,000 posts on this topic and BullWinkle As both Crick and Abraham has about 12,000 almost exclusively on Global Warming.

CrickHam can't absorb any information on this topic that doesn't fit his template. PURPOSELY can't remember shit that happened on this board last week. And NOW claims he's unaware of any efforts to scare people into compliance on the AGW issue --- EVEN THO -- the Dictator in Chief of the USA is a PRIME LEADER of the AGW fear campaign.. Having to ask those type of questions is a very trollish behaviour.

So --- the way it's been going on this forum for years is

1) You guys toss up ancient or recent studies that are paid for TARGETED AGW funding and make scary innuendoes about what MIGHT HAPPEN.

2) We tell you the weaknesses in those studies and why these are not settled science or proof of anything. And we wait WILLINGLY to discuss the specifics of each and every study or piece of evidence that you present.

3) You then change the subject, dodge the use of any personal thought or intuition -- call us deniers -- and appeal to authority..

4) 6 months or a year later -- some climate scientist will recant or revise their wildly hysterical prognostications and we will post it. You (you know who you are) will forget EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS discussion and continue to the use the damaged studies as your evidence.

As an example of this -- you continue to post (about 40 times now) a historical version of the role of CO2 in atmospheric warming. I have repeatedly stated that I don't deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a limited ability to warm the planet. And I continue by telling you that YOUR THEORY --- that you are wasting 30,000 posts attempting to defend --- ADMITS that CO2 is only the trigger event for the projected effects of AGW. The scenario where the Earth commits suicide because of 2deg trigger. All because of ill-concieved GLOBAL magic multipliers that bestow SuperPowers upon CO2 as the climate control knob.

YET ---- AGAIN --- you and other warmers run directly away from those observations and continue to troll with no accumulated memory of any of the debate.

One has to reach the conclusion that the maniac strident Climate warriors that waste their time here either cannot FOLLOW the discussion, or are so enamored of the powerful personalities leading this lemming march that you don't care to actually discuss or remember any details...

It's getting real old.. And we need some new Warmer Warriors to get out of this GroundHog Day hell....

Yeah this should be good, I might even take oldcock off ignore just to see if he can complete a coherent sentence with a single fact in it.

On second thought I know better.

By all means --- I would recommend taking him off ignore. It's really time to do something different on these AGW threads. MAYBE --- I'm too optimistic -- but I think we should take the time to get a different result in these threads. They are all starting to sound the same..

My question would be (and it IS DEFINATELY related to this OP) -- does ANYONE want to discuss the science behind Global Warming hysteria -- or is this just some sort of fantasy league excersise???

AGW is an internet hobby. That's all it is.....for the past 15 years. They can howl until the cows come home about the "consensus science". It hasn't mattered for dick in the real world. Look at solar power........provides us with.........ready for this......0.2% of our electricity. Beyond laughable.


Internet hobby!!!

 

[IsaacNewton]

The moneyed interests that have funded, with more than a billion dollars in the last 15 years, the telling of the big lie that global warming is false will soon enough be shown to be the lowlifes and greedy losers they are.

Global Warming has been steadily increasing with the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now at 402ppm. The average level for the last 11,000 years is 280ppm.

You have to ignore those who are too ignorant to understand the rather simple science or are simply too scared to accept reality. The effects of global warming are already in plain sight and growing daily. The U.S. military has started preparing for the consequences of global warming.

The claim that 'global cooling' was the big thing in the 1970s is a lie. Out of 50 peer review science papers back then per year, 7 sited 'slight' global cooling likely caused by the huge amounts of sulfur industry had been dumping into the atmosphere for the decades prior. 42 of the scientific peer review papers sited global warming was happening. So in fact global warming has been the thing scientists have been predicting since the 1970s. Laws were passed that removed the sulfur particulates from the air.

We are currently in a mass extinction. Over the last 600 million years there have been 5 large mass extinctions and 17-18 small mass extinctions. Large meaning 50-96% of all species went extinct, small meaning 20-50% went extinct. Everyone knows of the K/T extinction or the dinosaur extinction which happened 65 million years ago, where 75% of all species were wiped out. The largest mass extinction happened at the P/T boundary or Permian/Triassic extinction 250 million years ago. During this extinction 96% of all species went extinct.

We are still researching these extinction but either an asteroid strike or volcanic activity cause the global climate to change to cause such wide spread loss of species. Its very hard to kill off every single fly of a species everywhere on Earth.

Ignore the ignorant who don't know what they are talking about. 97% of all PH.D's on the planet agree on Global Warming.

There is no debate. It is real and accelerating.

 

[jc456]

The moneyed interests that have funded, with more than a billion dollars in the last 15 years, the telling of the big lie that global warming is false will soon enough be shown to be the lowlifes and greedy losers they are.

Global Warming has been steadily increasing with the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere now at 402ppm. The average level for the last 11,000 years is 280ppm.

You have to ignore those who are too ignorant to understand the rather simple science or are simply too scared to accept reality. The effects of global warming are already in plain sight and growing daily. The U.S. military has started preparing for the consequences of global warming.

The claim that 'global cooling' was the big thing in the 1970s is a lie. Out of 50 peer review science papers back then per year, 7 sited 'slight' global cooling likely caused by the huge amounts of sulfur industry had been dumping into the atmosphere for the decades prior. 42 of the scientific peer review papers sited global warming was happening. So in fact global warming has been the thing scientists have been predicting since the 1970s. Laws were passed that removed the sulfur particulates from the air.

We are currently in a mass extinction. Over the last 600 million years there have been 5 large mass extinctions and 17-18 small mass extinctions. Large meaning 50-96% of all species went extinct, small meaning 20-50% went extinct. Everyone knows of the K/T extinction or the dinosaur extinction which happened 65 million years ago, where 75% of all species were wiped out. The largest mass extinction happened at the P/T boundary or Permian/Triassic extinction 250 million years ago. During this extinction 96% of all species went extinct.

We are still researching these extinction but either an asteroid strike or volcanic activity cause the global climate to change to cause such wide spread loss of species. Its very hard to kill off every single fly of a species everywhere on Earth.

Ignore the ignorant who don't know what they are talking about. 97% of all PH.D's on the planet agree on Global Warming.

There is no debate. It is real and accelerating.

Dude, got any evidence? How warm does 120 ppm of co2 make the earth? Evidence please!

 

[IsaacNewton]

There are volumes available online, or go talk to a PH.D in chemistry, physics, biology, or geology at your local university.

Ice cores going back 800,000 years show CO2 levels have gone between 180ppm and 280ppm. At 180ppm you have an ice age. At 280ppm. you have the relatively stable temperatures we've had the last 11,000 years, right up until the Industrial Revolution started.

Just from that little bit of info, can you guess what effect 403ppm is going to have? You don't have to, the science has been done and is readily available. All you have to do is read for a half hour and you will understand the reality.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm sorry your new to Earth, there are volumes available online. Can you type?

Ice cores going back 800,000 years show CO2 levels have gone between 180ppm and 280ppm. At 180ppm you have an ice age. At 280ppm. you have the relatively stable temperatures we've had the last 11,000 years, right up until the Industrial Revolution started.

Just from that little bit of info, can you guess what effect 403ppm is going to have? You don't have to, the science has been done and is readily available. All you have to do is read for a half hour and you will understand the reality.

Just as we all thought.. NO EVIDENCE... there has been no science done to determine causation. They haven't even ruled out natural variation.. The CO2 boogie man is a lie...

The only mountains of data and facts are the ones falsified by alarmists and their agenda. When we look at the unmolested data, the CAGW lie falls apart..

 

[Kosh]

I'm sorry your new to Earth, there are volumes available online. Can you type?

Ice cores going back 800,000 years show CO2 levels have gone between 180ppm and 280ppm. At 180ppm you have an ice age. At 280ppm. you have the relatively stable temperatures we've had the last 11,000 years, right up until the Industrial Revolution started.

Just from that little bit of info, can you guess what effect 403ppm is going to have? You don't have to, the science has been done and is readily available. All you have to do is read for a half hour and you will understand the reality.

Since you brought it up the Ice core samples also showed that CO2 lagged temperature, thus proving that coloration does not equal causation.

So now can anyone for the AGW religion produce the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate?

Anyone?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Nah I know you're averse to learning or fact as you are a conservative. I knew you wouldn't want to read the facts.

We know global warming is from man-made sources because the carbon isotope content of naturally occurring CO2 is different than the carbon isotope content of CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

You people that try to carry this childish 'hoax' idea have really run up against a wall. The U.S. military has ALREADY started preparing for the effects of Global Warming. Who here do you think is going to take your jibberish on a message board over the U.S. military.

I mean give it up. You are scared children. Go hide, we'll protect you.

But stop with your mindless tantrums and outright lies.

 

[Politico]

The more ridiculous the global warming crowd becomes, the less I believe anything they say.

But...but...if they could only reduce the cow farts and eat more kale everything would be ok.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nah I know you're averse to learning or fact as you are a conservative. I knew you wouldn't want to read the facts.

We know global warming is from man-made sources because the carbon isotope content of naturally occurring CO2 is different than the carbon isotope content of CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

You people that try to carry this childish 'hoax' idea have really run up against a wall. The U.S. military has ALREADY started preparing for the effects of Global Warming. Who here do you think is going to take your jibberish on a message board over the U.S. military.

I mean give it up. You are scared children. Go hide, we'll protect you.

But stop with your mindless tantrums and outright lies.

bwahahahaha!!!! so tell us moron out of that 402 ppm is man made C02?

Waiting bitch for the link

 

[Old Rocks]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

There you have it, Mr. Bear.

 

[skookerasbil]

Every time I post this up in a thread, I burst out laughing as I click on "POST REPLY".


It indeed is the ultimate, "Who looks stoopid?" vid!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....been saying for 20 years that alarmists solutions to this CO2 stuff.........beyond mental case!!! Like going to a proctologist for treatment of a cold........but even stoopider!!!!



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html][/URL]

 

[mamooth]

Dyson is a senile crank on this topic, a raging dumbshit. On this topic, I am far smarter and better informed than Freeman Dyson. So are just about all the rational people on this thread.

That is, Dyson is a crybaby kook loser, much like the deniers who use him as an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

There you have it, Mr. Bear.

How many times must we show this as the BS it is?

 

[mamooth]

Once would work, but you've never done that. Care to give it a try? We could use the laughs. Show us the keen logical insights of your scientific mind.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Billy.........lmao!!!!


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cat%20fail.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

There you have it, Mr. Bear.

How many times must we show this as the BS it is?

Hey Billy.........be careful.....don't piss off the troll!!!!





Moderation Note: I'm flagging posts today -- rather than deleting them, so that everyone will have examples of Zone2 violations. Especially those posts that are all flame -- no content. It's not working just to delete them. We NEED to have this forum under "relevant content" rules to give it the respect it deserves..

FlaCalTenn