Do republicans realize how alone they are on the issue of global warming?

[Wyatt earp]

Prove it.

at best, or worst, the scientific community is now 50/50 on AGW. The only consensus is in the mind of you leftards who think that you can punish evil rich people by making fuel expensive------and the truth is that high fuel costs punish the poor and middle classes.

50/50? You are just making shit up. When it comes to peer reviewed research (the most reliable kind), there are thousands that support the theory. Only a couple dozen dispute it.

Woa! you dont know the politics involved in grant money do you?

 

[LittleNipper]

On the contrary, the scientists believe in Creation, just not the mythology of a particular religion concerning Creation. Floods, especially massive floods, leave ample evidence of their passing. There is zero evidence for a worldwide flood. If God is in control, that is some Diety you propose. Where was that Diety at Auschwitz?

Al Gore is not a scientist. He is a successful politician turned very successful businessman. And you sit critisizing scientists as you type a post on a computer hooked to the internet.
Where do you think that computer came from? The efforts of one of your holy roller preachers? People like you are a hoot. You cannot recognize the irony of your anti-science posts.

I do not believe in the myth of evolution. The computer was CREATED by the power of the human mind as allowed by God for man to do. The computer did not evolve on its own from a lone computer chip that was struck by lightening millions and millions of years ago. You cannot see that the telegraph repeater didn't change into a phonogrph, into a gramophone, into orthophonic sound, into hi fidelity, into stereo electronics. Each was a specific creation (though a progression of knowledge). God knows it all.

Praise Allah!

Allah is not the God of Love I worship. God doesn't promise heaven to those who blow up innocent people ---- the devil promises that lie. And those that continue to believe such things are in for a real surprise someday.

 

[konradv]

at best, or worst, the scientific community is now 50/50 on AGW. The only consensus is in the mind of you leftards who think that you can punish evil rich people by making fuel expensive------and the truth is that high fuel costs punish the poor and middle classes.

50/50? You are just making shit up. When it comes to peer reviewed research (the most reliable kind), there are thousands that support the theory. Only a couple dozen dispute it.

Woa! you dont know the politics involved in grant money do you?

Tell us about it. I'd wager you don't know either. You're just parroting what you've heard. Word to the wise, those saying it are the ones injecting the politics.

 

[thereisnospoon]

CO2 also traps water vapor which creates clouds which reflect the sun's energy back out into the upper atmosphere. This REDUCES the surface temperature. So there are conflicting results of the ultra minute ( as measured) increased amount of CO2 in the lower atmosphere.

CO2 traps water vapor? I think you need to study up before posting. More water vapor is the result of higher temps, an AGW prediction. That WOULD mean more clouds reflecting sunlight back into space. More clouds, however, means more variable weather, another AGW prediction! You seem to be bleeping over the fact that, while clouds would buffer the heating capacity of the added CO2, to get them you'd have to have more heat in the first place!

Generally the water cycle is a zero sum game. The amount of heat it takes to evaporate the water is given back when the water condenses.

I don't believe it is a buffer. They extra heat stays trapped.

But the whole idea that warming hasn't taken place in 20 years is absurd. Some years it's gone down, other years it's gone up. Peaks and valleys, not a straight line graph. The current Solar Cycle (24) has produces half as many sun-spots than the previous Cycle. I think the best indcator is the amount of melt in the artic during the summer months.

Dude..Where do you think clouds come from?
It's not a zero sum game...
Here's a test..Without looking up, can you tell me what "virga" is?

 

[Wyatt earp]

50/50? You are just making shit up. When it comes to peer reviewed research (the most reliable kind), there are thousands that support the theory. Only a couple dozen dispute it.

Woa! you dont know the politics involved in grant money do you?

Tell us about it. I'd wager you don't know either. You're just parroting what you've heard. Word to the wise, those saying it are the ones injecting the politics.

*shrugs* it is what it is and your a fool to think scientist are millionares and independents.

 

[Old Rocks]

Know what is humorous about this whole debate?

The denialists are constantly saying that science is on there side, but when one actually brings the articles from peer reviewed journals to the discussion, they immediatly state that all scientists are incompetant frauds that are only after money.

So let me tell you like it is, assholes. We are going to see some big changes in climate and liveability on this small planet in just the next decade. And your grandchildren will curse your willfull ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Old Rocks]

First all why do people make this political? I would assume there are quite a few Democrats who think for themselves and realize that GW is not the threat we have been told. We should be underwater by Al Gore's fear mongering, but we are not. The models should be right on, but they are not.

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

1. How cold should the world be?
2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?
3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

Dumb fuck. Damn you just go on repeating that idiotic mantra.

It is like trying to explain calculus to a cat. You simply don't have the mental equipment to handle the simple science involved, or you would not be repeating this idiocy.

 

[Old Rocks]

A23A

 

[thereisnospoon]

Know what is humorous about this whole debate?

The denialists are constantly saying that science is on there side, but when one actually brings the articles from peer reviewed journals to the discussion, they immediatly state that all scientists are incompetant frauds that are only after money.

So let me tell you like it is, assholes. We are going to see some big changes in climate and liveability on this small planet in just the next decade. And your grandchildren will curse your willfull ignorance and stupidity.

Oh...So now YOU have all the answers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

First all why do people make this political? I would assume there are quite a few Democrats who think for themselves and realize that GW is not the threat we have been told. We should be underwater by Al Gore's fear mongering, but we are not. The models should be right on, but they are not.

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

1. How cold should the world be?
2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?
3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

Dumb fuck. Damn you just go on repeating that idiotic mantra.

It is like trying to explain calculus to a cat. You simply don't have the mental equipment to handle the simple science involved, or you would not be repeating this idiocy.

Those questions really hit a nerve, didn't they?

 

[Redfish]

Know what is humorous about this whole debate?

The denialists are constantly saying that science is on there side, but when one actually brings the articles from peer reviewed journals to the discussion, they immediatly state that all scientists are incompetant frauds that are only after money.

So let me tell you like it is, assholes. We are going to see some big changes in climate and liveability on this small planet in just the next decade. And your grandchildren will curse your willfull ignorance and stupidity.

If we are going to see those kinds of changes, and no one really knows do they, then there is nothing we can do to stop it or reverse it. Man is not controlling the climate of the planet.

Now, what man is doing is polluting the planet and over populating it. If you left wing fools want a real cause how about taking on pollution and overpopulation. Those are real problems that will affect how we live in the future.

 

[konradv]

First all why do people make this political? I would assume there are quite a few Democrats who think for themselves and realize that GW is not the threat we have been told. We should be underwater by Al Gore's fear mongering, but we are not. The models should be right on, but they are not.

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

1. How cold should the world be?
2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?
3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

I thought the earth wasn't warming. Stepping on your own argument, aren't you?

The answer to your questions is that it should be like it's been for the majority of the Holocene Age, the one that nurtured the evolution of man. Warmth brings life, but it also brings flooding of the areas where most humans live and would promote the spread of tropical diseases. The life you seem to be championing would be mosquitoes and other pathogen bearing beasties.

 

[Redfish]

First all why do people make this political? I would assume there are quite a few Democrats who think for themselves and realize that GW is not the threat we have been told. We should be underwater by Al Gore's fear mongering, but we are not. The models should be right on, but they are not.

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

1. How cold should the world be?
2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?
3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

Dumb fuck. Damn you just go on repeating that idiotic mantra.

It is like trying to explain calculus to a cat. You simply don't have the mental equipment to handle the simple science involved, or you would not be repeating this idiocy.

Those questions really hit a nerve, didn't they?

poor old rocks in the head, he just cannot stop repeating the lies fed him by the prophet algore and huff puff post. I really feel sorry for the old duffer.

 

[Redfish]

First all why do people make this political? I would assume there are quite a few Democrats who think for themselves and realize that GW is not the threat we have been told. We should be underwater by Al Gore's fear mongering, but we are not. The models should be right on, but they are not.

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

1. How cold should the world be?
2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?
3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

I thought the earth wasn't warming. Stepping on your own argument, aren't you?

The answer to your questions is that it should be like it's been for the majority of the Holocene Age, the one that nurtured the evolution of man. Warmth brings life, but it also brings flooding of the areas where most humans live and would promote the spread of tropical diseases. The life you seem to be championing would be mosquitoes and other pathogen bearing beasties.

LOL you are one funny dude, zhivago. holy shit everybody run!!!! we are all going to boil in sea water !!!!! Run !!!!!!!!

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Know what is humorous about this whole debate?

The denialists are constantly saying that science is on there side, but when one actually brings the articles from peer reviewed journals to the discussion, they immediatly state that all scientists are incompetant frauds that are only after money.

So let me tell you like it is, assholes. We are going to see some big changes in climate and liveability on this small planet in just the next decade. And your grandchildren will curse your willfull ignorance and stupidity.

What do you want to do about it, move everyone back into caves?

Invade China and impose our energy policies on them?

Make sunshine smiles mandatory for everyone?

 

[konradv]

First all why do people make this political? I would assume there are quite a few Democrats who think for themselves and realize that GW is not the threat we have been told. We should be underwater by Al Gore's fear mongering, but we are not. The models should be right on, but they are not.

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

1. How cold should the world be?
2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?
3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

I thought the earth wasn't warming. Stepping on your own argument, aren't you?

The answer to your questions is that it should be like it's been for the majority of the Holocene Age, the one that nurtured the evolution of man. Warmth brings life, but it also brings flooding of the areas where most humans live and would promote the spread of tropical diseases. The life you seem to be championing would be mosquitoes and other pathogen bearing beasties.

LOL you are one funny dude, zhivago. holy shit everybody run!!!! we are all going to boil in sea water !!!!! Run !!!!!!!!

Just answering the question. Glad I can be entertaining. Compared to the worthless crap you post, it's Pulitzer material.

 

[blackhawk]

Seriously, how can this be a politically motivated ideology when the INTERNATIONAL scientific community overwhelming believes it to be a very real, man made phenomenon.

I really think if a douche like Al Gore hadn't shined the light on it, the US would be on board. It should have been independent scientists that came forward on this issue. Of course then Americans would just ignore it because they are willfully ignorant.

You do realize that pretty much the only people who are still buying into global warming, global cooling, climate change, line is the green energy industry the rest of the country and I suspect a good part of the world have seen through this con which explains the lack of success by green energy in the marketplace.

 

[mamooth]

So could the fearist tell me just a few things.

When you stop shrieking in fear so loudly, you'll look less ridiculous talking like that.

1. How cold should the world be?

Ideally, the same temp that human civlization grew up with over the past thousand years. As I've told you before. You don't seem to like the answer, hence you pretend you never saw it.

2. Why do we think that the temperature used for the comparision is right and normal?

That's ... meaningless jabber.

3. Why do the fearist think cold is better then warm when throughout the history of the world warmth has brought life?

Why do you keep shrieking out this hysterical fear of not-warmth, Mr. Fearful McFearypants?

"Warmth has brought life" shows ignorance of human history. Warmth helped northern Europe, but it pretty much screwed everyone else. North Africa and Arabia used to be fertile. Ditto southwestern America. Warmth sure didn't bring life there.

 

[Redfish]

I thought the earth wasn't warming. Stepping on your own argument, aren't you?

The answer to your questions is that it should be like it's been for the majority of the Holocene Age, the one that nurtured the evolution of man. Warmth brings life, but it also brings flooding of the areas where most humans live and would promote the spread of tropical diseases. The life you seem to be championing would be mosquitoes and other pathogen bearing beasties.

LOL you are one funny dude, zhivago. holy shit everybody run!!!! we are all going to boil in sea water !!!!! Run !!!!!!!!

Just answering the question. Glad I can be entertaining. Compared to the worthless crap you post, it's Pulitzer material.

yes, to an avowed leftist like you, posting the truth is worthless crap. But that has been well established by the way you on the left continue to support the failed policies of your hero obama.

skyrocking energy prices-----------WTF, how is that good for US citizens?

but tell me, what fuel do you propose that we use in place of oil?

 

[Redfish]

Seriously, how can this be a politically motivated ideology when the INTERNATIONAL scientific community overwhelming believes it to be a very real, man made phenomenon.

I really think if a douche like Al Gore hadn't shined the light on it, the US would be on board. It should have been independent scientists that came forward on this issue. Of course then Americans would just ignore it because they are willfully ignorant.

You do realize that pretty much the only people who are still buying into global warming, global cooling, climate change, line is the green energy industry the rest of the country and I suspect a good part of the world have seen through this con which explains the lack of success by green energy in the marketplace.

Yes, those evil corporations that are motivated by evil profit and take advantage of evil tax credits and subsidies. Everything that obama and the libs claim to hate, what a bunch or moronic hypocrites.