Ecology and Racism.

[Uncensored2008]

The graphs came from scientists making measurments.

No they didn't.

You might have lifted them from a whackjob leftist hate site, but since there is no observed correlation between CO2 and temperature, your graphs or absurd fakes.

Not me. If you want to debate them, look to the organizations who created them and take up the argument with them.

And what organization is that?

Why can't you give me the formula, the ratio of CO2 to temperature?

I'm pretty sure the graphs I showed included who made them. If they didn't, I will add a few others. Also, screw your formulas. You don't need formulas. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. And look at the measurements.View attachment 75224 View attachment 75225 View attachment 75226

Again you fail to cite.

You must have a very sleazy source.

When you were testing CO2 concentrations in ice cores in 1880, were you using Polaris nuclear submarines to get to the Arctic?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have a couple sayings for you to aquaint yourself with. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, "It's better to be safe than sorry." I have something else for you to consider. But it will probably be a little like asking a heroin addict to consider quitting. What "if" you are right. And that's a very very big "IF." What is the worst that can happen by doing something about HCGW. We start living more sustainably with the planet. And in doing so, for instance, stop making creatures go extinct.

But what "if" I am right. And that "if" is nonexistant. Because I am right. What is the worst than can happen by doing nothing about HCGW. Just most of the life on earth going extinct. Which I heard one college professor who had been studying the problem for the last 15 years, could happen in about 20 years. You tell me what is worse. Living sustainably, or destroying most of the life on earth.

I have a little saying for you; obvious fraud is obvious.

 

[krypto]

Even babies have been shown to be "bigoted." Do you suppose they are because they are "gay?" Also, "racism" wouldn't even exist if there wasn't an evolutionary necessity for it.

Babies piss and shit on themselves, drool and stick anything they can pick up in their mouths. Do you believe those are all behaviors we should emulate?

You seem to believe there is an evolutionary necessity for every human behavior. Is that right? Would that include behaviors that have no effect or even a negative effect on reproductive success? I see lots of people who are NOT racist? Why isn't that an evolutionary necessity?

The truth is that you're a racist bigot and you're not very smart. I'm glad you accept AGW and think we ought to do something about it. But you need to separate environmentalism and racism. They are not related as you believe. Neither are the terms "ecology" and "environmentalism" equivalent.

What you refuse to see is that humans are what they are. Just as chimpanzees are what they are and bonobos are what they are. Also, ALL creatures are "racist." Those who claim they're not are brainwashed, victims of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome, making money off multiethnicity, are too cowardly to do anything about the situation or are straight out lying to themselves to get a cheap empathy induced brain drug thrill.

All over the planet there are slightly different creatures that live in proximity to each other. Or whos paths cross. But they mostly stick to their own kind. And it is probably that way in every life bearing planet throughout infinity. But somehow, you are right. What a joke!

Next, I already told you how the environment and racism should be part of the same equation. Because almost nothing is as bad for the environment than overpopulation. But the population of Whites isn't rising. So for White people to do something about it, they HAVE to be "racist." Do you suppose the solution to the problem is to let the one group who isn't contributing to the problem to allow themselves to be bred out of existance? Also, ecology and environmentalism are connected. The ecology of our planet is what environmentalism is all about.

 

[krypto]

.... Next, I have often hears [sic] about heat waves that killed many people over the years. I have never heard of massive numbers of deaths being created by cold waves. .....

Really? Ever heard of Napoleon or Hitler?

More deaths in eastern Europe's big freeze

If thare had been no armies in the field, how many would have died.

 

[krypto]

Because it was what it was due to nature. Not humanity.

If nature did it, that's ideal?
In Chicago, it gets pretty cold in the winter.
The ideal temperature for me is much higher.

It is pretty much ideal. Because human technology and greed isn't the cause. Next, it can also get pretty hot in Chicago. In 1995, it caused 739 deaths. I don't think cold is as hard on people. I can handle cold. Because all I have to do is wear warmer clothing. But it wipes me out when it gets hot out. And apart from air conditioning, there isn't anything you can do about it.

It is pretty much ideal.

So you claim. With no back up.

Because human technology and greed isn't the cause.

Human technology allows us to live where the temperature is not your ideal.

Next, it can also get pretty hot in Chicago. In 1995, it caused 739 deaths. I don't think cold is as hard on people.

You're wrong. More people die from cold and its effects than from heat.

I can handle cold. Because all I have to do is wear warmer clothing.

And release CO2. Fossils fuels come in handy.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal. Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet. Next, I have often hears about heat waves that killed many people over the years. I have never heard of massive numbers of deaths being created by cold waves. Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal.

Nature did starvation and smallpox. Should we keep those going, or work on vaccines and agriculture?

Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet.

And we can use fossil fuels without destroying the planet.

Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

What is this magic clothing that gets made with no CO2 production?

Your starvation and smallpox examples are so weak when it comes to climate as to be almost nonexistant. Next, just a couple weeks ago or so I was watching a discussion about natural gas. How it is supposed to be cleaner than coal. But there is so much leakage in the gas distribution network, it is actually worse for the environment than if we just used coal. Which of course is because methane is about 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Next, making clothing probably produces no more CO2 than making paper does. In fact, probably less. But what last longer. Paper products or warm clothing. Also, if the plant making the clothing used electricty from solar pannels and wind power, they would take much less CO2 to produce. Another thing is that in Germany, they have been going toward solar energy in a big way. And they receive far less sunlight than we do here in the U.S. Why don't we do the same thing here? Because oil and gas companies, as well as the automotive industry can't make as much money off something that is free.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If nature did it, that's ideal?
In Chicago, it gets pretty cold in the winter.
The ideal temperature for me is much higher.

It is pretty much ideal. Because human technology and greed isn't the cause. Next, it can also get pretty hot in Chicago. In 1995, it caused 739 deaths. I don't think cold is as hard on people. I can handle cold. Because all I have to do is wear warmer clothing. But it wipes me out when it gets hot out. And apart from air conditioning, there isn't anything you can do about it.

It is pretty much ideal.

So you claim. With no back up.

Because human technology and greed isn't the cause.

Human technology allows us to live where the temperature is not your ideal.

Next, it can also get pretty hot in Chicago. In 1995, it caused 739 deaths. I don't think cold is as hard on people.

You're wrong. More people die from cold and its effects than from heat.

I can handle cold. Because all I have to do is wear warmer clothing.

And release CO2. Fossils fuels come in handy.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal. Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet. Next, I have often hears about heat waves that killed many people over the years. I have never heard of massive numbers of deaths being created by cold waves. Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal.

Nature did starvation and smallpox. Should we keep those going, or work on vaccines and agriculture?

Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet.

And we can use fossil fuels without destroying the planet.

Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

What is this magic clothing that gets made with no CO2 production?

Your starvation and smallpox examples are so weak when it comes to climate as to be almost nonexistant. Next, just a couple weeks ago or so I was watching a discussion about natural gas. How it is supposed to be cleaner than coal. But there is so much leakage in the gas distribution network, it is actually worse for the environment than if we just used coal. Which of course is because methane is about 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Next, making clothing probably produces no more CO2 than making paper does. In fact, probably less. But what last longer. Paper products or warm clothing. Also, if the plant making the clothing used electricty from solar pannels and wind power, they would take much less CO2 to produce. Another thing is that in Germany, they have been going toward solar energy in a big way. And they receive far less sunlight than we do here in the U.S. Why don't we do the same thing here? Because oil and gas companies, as well as the automotive industry can't make as much money off something that is free.

Your starvation and smallpox examples are so weak

So weak and so not ideal.

Also, if the plant making the clothing used electricty from solar pannels and wind power, they would take much less CO2 to produce.

What about the CO2 from the coal or nat gas plant that needs to spin up every time the wind slows or a cloud blocks the sun?
High tech equipment doesn't work very well with fluctuating current, eh?

Another thing is that in Germany, they have been going toward solar energy in a big way.

Yeah, so much that they had to burn more lignite.
Good stuff, right?

Because oil and gas companies, as well as the automotive industry can't make as much money off something that is free.

Solar and wind are free? I guess we can stop wasting billions to subsidize it. Thanks!

 

[westwall]

Completely untrue but never let a murderous progressive actually pay attention to facts. The real facts are this. The carrying capacity of this planet is around 40 billion people. We will top out at around 9 billion and then slowly drop back to around 6 billion if we do nothing. Yet another progressive lie put forth as an excuse to commit mass murder. You scum are all the same.

If you are going to post me, I would appreciate it if you didn't sniff glue first. Let me guess, you also think that human caused global warming is a hoax. So I guess there's no point in pointing out that humans cause HCGW. Another point is that there are about 65 million people in the U.K. I have heard it estimated that if they all switched over to living an agrarian lifestyle, they could only produce enough food to feed 8 million people. So there alone, they are beyond their carrying capacity by 57 million people.

Also, what about all the environmental damage caused by humans. Then there are animals going extinct. Some even before they become known to science. And as things now stand, we are basically killing our oceans. You should check out a documentary called, "End of the line." Then, for what food is grown, there would be far less if we didn't manufacture fertalizer out of oil. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

And you think the earth could support 40 billion people!? But let's just say for argument's sake that it could. What makes you think the population would stop at 9 billion. Because when it comes to breeding, non-whites are no different from bacteria. White people used to be the same way. But the population levels of Whites isn't rising any more. Another thing is what is this magical thing that is supposed to drop the population from 9 billion to 6 billion. Whatever it is, you should use it to drop the world population of over 7 billion to 4 billion.

Yes. There is zero empirical data to support that now very failed "theory". The only people pushing that particular load of bull poo, are globalists who wish to use the supposed danger of global warming to push their socialist agenda.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements. Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

Correlation does not equal causation is a scientific axiom that you should aquaint yourself with.

I have a couple sayings for you to aquaint yourself with. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, "It's better to be safe than sorry." I have something else for you to consider. But it will probably be a little like asking a heroin addict to consider quitting. What "if" you are right. And that's a very very big "IF." What is the worst that can happen by doing something about HCGW. We start living more sustainably with the planet. And in doing so, for instance, stop making creatures go extinct.

But what "if" I am right. And that "if" is nonexistant. Because I am right. What is the worst than can happen by doing nothing about HCGW. Just most of the life on earth going extinct. Which I heard one college professor who had been studying the problem for the last 15 years, could happen in about 20 years. You tell me what is worse. Living sustainably, or destroying most of the life on earth.

Neither of those are scientific silly boy. i thought you were interested in science and the scientific method. You see dear child, the scientific method was developed over centuries to educate religious fanatics such as yourself so that you would stop sacrificing virgins to the volcano God. Clearly you are still locked in the 600's.

 

[flacaltenn]

Look at the graphs. They should tell you what organization created them. I have a couple more for you. If you think it will help.

Why can't you give me the formula, the ratio of CO2 to temperature?

X CO2 causes Y warming.

What is X? What is Y?

Why can't you tell me this?

View attachment 75228

If I want to know the sum of squares to find the slop in a regression analysis I can use the above formula.

You see in real science, in legitimate science, things are quantifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable.

But then AGW, just like Astrology or parapsychology is not legitimate, not science at all.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements.

No son, they sure didn't.

We are the wrong crowd to lie to.

Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

No, it's a con.

Yes fetus, they sure do. Next, "I" am the wrong person to lie to. Next, a couple of years ago, for example, the entire continent of Greenland experienced melting for the first time. Even mountain tops. Was that a con? I have a documentary to suggest to you. It's called "Greedy Lying Bastards." One of the things you can see is the CEO of EXXON admitting that human caused global warming was a reality. If anybody would have reason to tell your kind of lies about HCGW, he would. So what does that have to say about your position on the matter.

Let's ditch this nasty fable of "all of Greenland melting for the first time".. Not unusual in a warm period for LARGE portions of surface ice to melt and then refreeze. Doesn't predict a great loss except thru some sublimation because of clear skies and the sun. And the "first time"? Well that's since we've had the ABILITY TO OBSERVE a quick surface melt of an entire Greenland. Roughly since 1975 when the first reliable satellites went up. --- Not since forever is it? OR -- maybe no one was LOOKING hard enough for an event like that until it became to lucrative to find it..

And it turns out -- the scientists at Exxon called out predictions that were FAR MORE ACCURATE than what the "established" climate science had made about the same time. They should be given credit for the BETTER scientific projections -- not scorned. The "real" climate scientist predictions from that same era --- the ones that PURPOSELY frightened tiny minds in the public --- have all failed miserably.. So the CEO admits his people figured out how warming more CO2 would contribute. They were conservative and they were RIGHT !!! And it's not now the fucking disaster that the GW "establishment believed it would be. They should be HONORED for their research..

See -- it's not enough to say that man is causing some GW -- You need to accurately state HOW much warming to allow society to adapt. And the GW theory is that we're gonna reach a "tipping point" at which the Earth just destroys it's climate system. That's NOT part of what Exxon admitted. And it's not actually likely a real scenario..

 

[krypto]

It is pretty much ideal. Because human technology and greed isn't the cause. Next, it can also get pretty hot in Chicago. In 1995, it caused 739 deaths. I don't think cold is as hard on people. I can handle cold. Because all I have to do is wear warmer clothing. But it wipes me out when it gets hot out. And apart from air conditioning, there isn't anything you can do about it.

It is pretty much ideal.

So you claim. With no back up.

Because human technology and greed isn't the cause.

Human technology allows us to live where the temperature is not your ideal.

Next, it can also get pretty hot in Chicago. In 1995, it caused 739 deaths. I don't think cold is as hard on people.

You're wrong. More people die from cold and its effects than from heat.

I can handle cold. Because all I have to do is wear warmer clothing.

And release CO2. Fossils fuels come in handy.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal. Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet. Next, I have often hears about heat waves that killed many people over the years. I have never heard of massive numbers of deaths being created by cold waves. Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal.

Nature did starvation and smallpox. Should we keep those going, or work on vaccines and agriculture?

Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet.

And we can use fossil fuels without destroying the planet.

Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

What is this magic clothing that gets made with no CO2 production?

Your starvation and smallpox examples are so weak when it comes to climate as to be almost nonexistant. Next, just a couple weeks ago or so I was watching a discussion about natural gas. How it is supposed to be cleaner than coal. But there is so much leakage in the gas distribution network, it is actually worse for the environment than if we just used coal. Which of course is because methane is about 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Next, making clothing probably produces no more CO2 than making paper does. In fact, probably less. But what last longer. Paper products or warm clothing. Also, if the plant making the clothing used electricty from solar pannels and wind power, they would take much less CO2 to produce. Another thing is that in Germany, they have been going toward solar energy in a big way. And they receive far less sunlight than we do here in the U.S. Why don't we do the same thing here? Because oil and gas companies, as well as the automotive industry can't make as much money off something that is free.

Your starvation and smallpox examples are so weak

So weak and so not ideal.

Also, if the plant making the clothing used electricty from solar pannels and wind power, they would take much less CO2 to produce.

What about the CO2 from the coal or nat gas plant that needs to spin up every time the wind slows or a cloud blocks the sun?
High tech equipment doesn't work very well with fluctuating current, eh?

Another thing is that in Germany, they have been going toward solar energy in a big way.

Yeah, so much that they had to burn more lignite.
Good stuff, right?

Because oil and gas companies, as well as the automotive industry can't make as much money off something that is free.

Solar and wind are free? I guess we can stop wasting billions to subsidize it. Thanks!

First, you use solar and wind to produce more than you need. The rest you store for when there is no wind or sun. Next, I don't know what "lignite" is. But I take it that it is a form of coal. Well if they didn't have the solar energy that they have, they would probably be burning more of it. Next, today we had both sun and wind. Did you pay for any of it?

 

[krypto]

If you are going to post me, I would appreciate it if you didn't sniff glue first. Let me guess, you also think that human caused global warming is a hoax. So I guess there's no point in pointing out that humans cause HCGW. Another point is that there are about 65 million people in the U.K. I have heard it estimated that if they all switched over to living an agrarian lifestyle, they could only produce enough food to feed 8 million people. So there alone, they are beyond their carrying capacity by 57 million people.

Also, what about all the environmental damage caused by humans. Then there are animals going extinct. Some even before they become known to science. And as things now stand, we are basically killing our oceans. You should check out a documentary called, "End of the line." Then, for what food is grown, there would be far less if we didn't manufacture fertalizer out of oil. Etc, etc, etc, etc.

And you think the earth could support 40 billion people!? But let's just say for argument's sake that it could. What makes you think the population would stop at 9 billion. Because when it comes to breeding, non-whites are no different from bacteria. White people used to be the same way. But the population levels of Whites isn't rising any more. Another thing is what is this magical thing that is supposed to drop the population from 9 billion to 6 billion. Whatever it is, you should use it to drop the world population of over 7 billion to 4 billion.

Yes. There is zero empirical data to support that now very failed "theory". The only people pushing that particular load of bull poo, are globalists who wish to use the supposed danger of global warming to push their socialist agenda.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements. Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

Correlation does not equal causation is a scientific axiom that you should aquaint yourself with.

I have a couple sayings for you to aquaint yourself with. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, "It's better to be safe than sorry." I have something else for you to consider. But it will probably be a little like asking a heroin addict to consider quitting. What "if" you are right. And that's a very very big "IF." What is the worst that can happen by doing something about HCGW. We start living more sustainably with the planet. And in doing so, for instance, stop making creatures go extinct.

But what "if" I am right. And that "if" is nonexistant. Because I am right. What is the worst than can happen by doing nothing about HCGW. Just most of the life on earth going extinct. Which I heard one college professor who had been studying the problem for the last 15 years, could happen in about 20 years. You tell me what is worse. Living sustainably, or destroying most of the life on earth.

Neither of those are scientific silly boy. i thought you were interested in science and the scientific method. You see dear child, the scientific method was developed over centuries to educate religious fanatics such as yourself so that you would stop sacrificing virgins to the volcano God. Clearly you are still locked in the 600's.

It might take up to 50 (fifty) years, but how "scientific" do you think it will be when most of the life on earth is extinct.

 

[westwall]

Yes. There is zero empirical data to support that now very failed "theory". The only people pushing that particular load of bull poo, are globalists who wish to use the supposed danger of global warming to push their socialist agenda.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements. Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

Correlation does not equal causation is a scientific axiom that you should aquaint yourself with.

I have a couple sayings for you to aquaint yourself with. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, "It's better to be safe than sorry." I have something else for you to consider. But it will probably be a little like asking a heroin addict to consider quitting. What "if" you are right. And that's a very very big "IF." What is the worst that can happen by doing something about HCGW. We start living more sustainably with the planet. And in doing so, for instance, stop making creatures go extinct.

But what "if" I am right. And that "if" is nonexistant. Because I am right. What is the worst than can happen by doing nothing about HCGW. Just most of the life on earth going extinct. Which I heard one college professor who had been studying the problem for the last 15 years, could happen in about 20 years. You tell me what is worse. Living sustainably, or destroying most of the life on earth.

Neither of those are scientific silly boy. i thought you were interested in science and the scientific method. You see dear child, the scientific method was developed over centuries to educate religious fanatics such as yourself so that you would stop sacrificing virgins to the volcano God. Clearly you are still locked in the 600's.

It might take up to 50 (fifty) years, but how "scientific" do you think it will be when most of the life on earth is extinct.

it won't be. I suggest you do a little research. If you do, you will find that when it has been even warmer than it is today the plant and animal life has blossomed. The most recent species explosion occurred 55 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum and other than some benthic forams that died in some very localized areas (most likely do to anoxic conditions) the rest of the flora and fauna exploded in both diversity and sheer numbers.

EVERY time you look at the paleo record the facts are clear, when it has been warmer it has been better. FAR better. The end is nigh BS that you idiots spew is just that, BS. There is ZERO empirical evidence to support a single one of the predictions that global warming will lead to mass extinction. It amazes me that supposedly thinking people can look at the billions of years of Earths history and ignore it in favor of predictions made by idiots who have never been correct.

Here's a fact for you.....did you know that the well known charlatan Sylvia Brown has a better predictive rate than your so called experts? And not just a little better, her hit rate is significantly better than ANY of your experts.

That's just sad. But, it just lends further proof that the cult of AGW is just that, a religious cult. You have no facts to back up one iota of your belief, but who needs facts when you have "faith"?

 

[krypto]

Look at the graphs. They should tell you what organization created them. I have a couple more for you. If you think it will help.

Why can't you give me the formula, the ratio of CO2 to temperature?

X CO2 causes Y warming.

What is X? What is Y?

Why can't you tell me this?

View attachment 75228

If I want to know the sum of squares to find the slop in a regression analysis I can use the above formula.

You see in real science, in legitimate science, things are quantifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable.

But then AGW, just like Astrology or parapsychology is not legitimate, not science at all.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements.

No son, they sure didn't.

We are the wrong crowd to lie to.

Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

No, it's a con.

Yes fetus, they sure do. Next, "I" am the wrong person to lie to. Next, a couple of years ago, for example, the entire continent of Greenland experienced melting for the first time. Even mountain tops. Was that a con? I have a documentary to suggest to you. It's called "Greedy Lying Bastards." One of the things you can see is the CEO of EXXON admitting that human caused global warming was a reality. If anybody would have reason to tell your kind of lies about HCGW, he would. So what does that have to say about your position on the matter.

Let's ditch this nasty fable of "all of Greenland melting for the first time".. Not unusual in a warm period for LARGE portions of surface ice to melt and then refreeze. Doesn't predict a great loss except thru some sublimation because of clear skies and the sun. And the "first time"? Well that's since we've had the ABILITY TO OBSERVE a quick surface melt of an entire Greenland. Roughly since 1975 when the first reliable satellites went up. --- Not since forever is it? OR -- maybe no one was LOOKING hard enough for an event like that until it became to lucrative to find it..

And it turns out -- the scientists at Exxon called out predictions that were FAR MORE ACCURATE than what the "established" climate science had made about the same time. They should be given credit for the BETTER scientific projections -- not scorned. The "real" climate scientist predictions from that same era --- the ones that PURPOSELY frightened tiny minds in the public --- have all failed miserably.. So the CEO admits his people figured out how warming more CO2 would contribute. They were conservative and they were RIGHT !!! And it's not now the fucking disaster that the GW "establishment believed it would be. They should be HONORED for their research..

See -- it's not enough to say that man is causing some GW -- You need to accurately state HOW much warming to allow society to adapt. And the GW theory is that we're gonna reach a "tipping point" at which the Earth just destroys it's climate system. That's NOT part of what Exxon admitted. And it's not actually likely a real scenario..

First, I've heard it all before. The disappearance or thinning of the polar ice caps is just part of some natural cycle. Well I guess for you, it is better to be sorry than safe. Next, "as it turns out," I said what I said. The CEO of EXXON admitted on camera, (though it was a hidden camera) that human caused global warming was a reality. End of story.

Next, I will tell you a story that never seems to end. When something is going on that it would be unprofitable to put an end to, those in power promise to study the problem further. Into infinity. That way, nothing will change. But you don't have to know absolutely every little thing about human caused global warming to know that it is a problem that must be dealt with.

Next, I will tell you what the "real scenario" is likely to be. HCGW will create more methane release from tundra and shallow parts of the ocean. This will cause more warming. Causing more methane release. In an exponential effect, things will start to get so bad so fast, you will shit your pants. And metaphorically speaking, most of the life on earth will start to die off before the shit has had time to run down your leg.

 

[westwall]

Look at the graphs. They should tell you what organization created them. I have a couple more for you. If you think it will help.

Why can't you give me the formula, the ratio of CO2 to temperature?

X CO2 causes Y warming.

What is X? What is Y?

Why can't you tell me this?

View attachment 75228

If I want to know the sum of squares to find the slop in a regression analysis I can use the above formula.

You see in real science, in legitimate science, things are quantifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable.

But then AGW, just like Astrology or parapsychology is not legitimate, not science at all.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements.

No son, they sure didn't.

We are the wrong crowd to lie to.

Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

No, it's a con.

Yes fetus, they sure do. Next, "I" am the wrong person to lie to. Next, a couple of years ago, for example, the entire continent of Greenland experienced melting for the first time. Even mountain tops. Was that a con? I have a documentary to suggest to you. It's called "Greedy Lying Bastards." One of the things you can see is the CEO of EXXON admitting that human caused global warming was a reality. If anybody would have reason to tell your kind of lies about HCGW, he would. So what does that have to say about your position on the matter.

Let's ditch this nasty fable of "all of Greenland melting for the first time".. Not unusual in a warm period for LARGE portions of surface ice to melt and then refreeze. Doesn't predict a great loss except thru some sublimation because of clear skies and the sun. And the "first time"? Well that's since we've had the ABILITY TO OBSERVE a quick surface melt of an entire Greenland. Roughly since 1975 when the first reliable satellites went up. --- Not since forever is it? OR -- maybe no one was LOOKING hard enough for an event like that until it became to lucrative to find it..

And it turns out -- the scientists at Exxon called out predictions that were FAR MORE ACCURATE than what the "established" climate science had made about the same time. They should be given credit for the BETTER scientific projections -- not scorned. The "real" climate scientist predictions from that same era --- the ones that PURPOSELY frightened tiny minds in the public --- have all failed miserably.. So the CEO admits his people figured out how warming more CO2 would contribute. They were conservative and they were RIGHT !!! And it's not now the fucking disaster that the GW "establishment believed it would be. They should be HONORED for their research..

See -- it's not enough to say that man is causing some GW -- You need to accurately state HOW much warming to allow society to adapt. And the GW theory is that we're gonna reach a "tipping point" at which the Earth just destroys it's climate system. That's NOT part of what Exxon admitted. And it's not actually likely a real scenario..

First, I've heard it all before. The disappearance or thinning of the polar ice caps is just part of some natural cycle. Well I guess for you, it is better to be sorry than safe. Next, "as it turns out," I said what I said. The CEO of EXXON admitted on camera, (though it was a hidden camera) that human caused global warming was a reality. End of story.

Next, I will tell you a story that never seems to end. When something is going on that it would be unprofitable to put an end to, those in power promise to study the problem further. Into infinity. That way, nothing will change. But you don't have to know absolutely every little thing about human caused global warming to know that it is a problem that must be dealt with.

Next, I will tell you what the "real scenario" is likely to be. HCGW will create more methane release from tundra and shallow parts of the ocean. This will cause more warming. Causing more methane release. In an exponential effect, things will start to get so bad so fast, you will shit your pants. And metaphorically speaking, most of the life on earth will start to die off before the shit has had time to run down your leg.

Why? During the HTM it was at least 8 degrees warmer than the present day and not a single one of your methane catastrophes happened. Not one. Your guys are long on hysteria but real short on facts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is pretty much ideal.

So you claim. With no back up.

Because human technology and greed isn't the cause.

Human technology allows us to live where the temperature is not your ideal.

Next, it can also get pretty hot in Chicago. In 1995, it caused 739 deaths. I don't think cold is as hard on people.

You're wrong. More people die from cold and its effects than from heat.

I can handle cold. Because all I have to do is wear warmer clothing.

And release CO2. Fossils fuels come in handy.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal. Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet. Next, I have often hears about heat waves that killed many people over the years. I have never heard of massive numbers of deaths being created by cold waves. Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

Why would I need to back up that what nature does, relatively speaking, is ideal.

Nature did starvation and smallpox. Should we keep those going, or work on vaccines and agriculture?

Next, we can have technology, like air conditioning, without destroying the planet.

And we can use fossil fuels without destroying the planet.

Next, I never heard of CO2 being released by wearing warmer clothing.

What is this magic clothing that gets made with no CO2 production?

Your starvation and smallpox examples are so weak when it comes to climate as to be almost nonexistant. Next, just a couple weeks ago or so I was watching a discussion about natural gas. How it is supposed to be cleaner than coal. But there is so much leakage in the gas distribution network, it is actually worse for the environment than if we just used coal. Which of course is because methane is about 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Next, making clothing probably produces no more CO2 than making paper does. In fact, probably less. But what last longer. Paper products or warm clothing. Also, if the plant making the clothing used electricty from solar pannels and wind power, they would take much less CO2 to produce. Another thing is that in Germany, they have been going toward solar energy in a big way. And they receive far less sunlight than we do here in the U.S. Why don't we do the same thing here? Because oil and gas companies, as well as the automotive industry can't make as much money off something that is free.

Your starvation and smallpox examples are so weak

So weak and so not ideal.

Also, if the plant making the clothing used electricty from solar pannels and wind power, they would take much less CO2 to produce.

What about the CO2 from the coal or nat gas plant that needs to spin up every time the wind slows or a cloud blocks the sun?
High tech equipment doesn't work very well with fluctuating current, eh?

Another thing is that in Germany, they have been going toward solar energy in a big way.

Yeah, so much that they had to burn more lignite.
Good stuff, right?

Because oil and gas companies, as well as the automotive industry can't make as much money off something that is free.

Solar and wind are free? I guess we can stop wasting billions to subsidize it. Thanks!

First, you use solar and wind to produce more than you need. The rest you store for when there is no wind or sun. Next, I don't know what "lignite" is. But I take it that it is a form of coal. Well if they didn't have the solar energy that they have, they would probably be burning more of it. Next, today we had both sun and wind. Did you pay for any of it?

First, you use solar and wind to produce more than you need.

You make it sound so easy. How many thousands of square miles will we need?

Next, I don't know what "lignite" is.

If only we could harness the energy of all the things you don't know.......

Well if they didn't have the solar energy that they have, they would probably be burning more of it.

Or they could use something reliable and useful, like nat gas or nuclear........

Next, today we had both sun and wind. Did you pay for any of it?

Based on the stupid subsidies we have in place, probably.

 

[flacaltenn]

Look at the graphs. They should tell you what organization created them. I have a couple more for you. If you think it will help.

Why can't you give me the formula, the ratio of CO2 to temperature?

X CO2 causes Y warming.

What is X? What is Y?

Why can't you tell me this?

View attachment 75228

If I want to know the sum of squares to find the slop in a regression analysis I can use the above formula.

You see in real science, in legitimate science, things are quantifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable.

But then AGW, just like Astrology or parapsychology is not legitimate, not science at all.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements.

No son, they sure didn't.

We are the wrong crowd to lie to.

Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

No, it's a con.

Yes fetus, they sure do. Next, "I" am the wrong person to lie to. Next, a couple of years ago, for example, the entire continent of Greenland experienced melting for the first time. Even mountain tops. Was that a con? I have a documentary to suggest to you. It's called "Greedy Lying Bastards." One of the things you can see is the CEO of EXXON admitting that human caused global warming was a reality. If anybody would have reason to tell your kind of lies about HCGW, he would. So what does that have to say about your position on the matter.

Let's ditch this nasty fable of "all of Greenland melting for the first time".. Not unusual in a warm period for LARGE portions of surface ice to melt and then refreeze. Doesn't predict a great loss except thru some sublimation because of clear skies and the sun. And the "first time"? Well that's since we've had the ABILITY TO OBSERVE a quick surface melt of an entire Greenland. Roughly since 1975 when the first reliable satellites went up. --- Not since forever is it? OR -- maybe no one was LOOKING hard enough for an event like that until it became to lucrative to find it..

And it turns out -- the scientists at Exxon called out predictions that were FAR MORE ACCURATE than what the "established" climate science had made about the same time. They should be given credit for the BETTER scientific projections -- not scorned. The "real" climate scientist predictions from that same era --- the ones that PURPOSELY frightened tiny minds in the public --- have all failed miserably.. So the CEO admits his people figured out how warming more CO2 would contribute. They were conservative and they were RIGHT !!! And it's not now the fucking disaster that the GW "establishment believed it would be. They should be HONORED for their research..

See -- it's not enough to say that man is causing some GW -- You need to accurately state HOW much warming to allow society to adapt. And the GW theory is that we're gonna reach a "tipping point" at which the Earth just destroys it's climate system. That's NOT part of what Exxon admitted. And it's not actually likely a real scenario..

First, I've heard it all before. The disappearance or thinning of the polar ice caps is just part of some natural cycle. Well I guess for you, it is better to be sorry than safe. Next, "as it turns out," I said what I said. The CEO of EXXON admitted on camera, (though it was a hidden camera) that human caused global warming was a reality. End of story.

Next, I will tell you a story that never seems to end. When something is going on that it would be unprofitable to put an end to, those in power promise to study the problem further. Into infinity. That way, nothing will change. But you don't have to know absolutely every little thing about human caused global warming to know that it is a problem that must be dealt with.

Next, I will tell you what the "real scenario" is likely to be. HCGW will create more methane release from tundra and shallow parts of the ocean. This will cause more warming. Causing more methane release. In an exponential effect, things will start to get so bad so fast, you will shit your pants. And metaphorically speaking, most of the life on earth will start to die off before the shit has had time to run down your leg.

How thick exactly is Arctic Sea Ice? The fact that it melts does virtually NOTHING to sea level change. It could ALL melt at some point one summer and in less than a decade be restored to where it was 40 years ago. Because the "older ice" up there is 4 to 8 yrs old. That's all. And all indications are that it does indeed cycle over multiple decades. We've only had complete ability to ACCURATELY track it for 40 years..

The Antarctic is a completely different story.. MASSIVE glaciers and permanent ice cover. Could NEVER be restored in less than 10,000 years. And down there -- the concern is the structure of the coastal glaciers mostly. Almost EVERY recent science paper on the topic admits --- straight away -- that there is an extremely POOR understanding of the sea floor footings of these giant ice sculptures and how they move and change. Not even CLOSE to settled science. YET -- that doesn't stop them from making outrageous claims as to what MIGHT happen and when it MIGHT happen..

Would you really want to live in a climate where all the glaciers were healthy and GROWING??

 

[flacaltenn]

Look at the graphs. They should tell you what organization created them. I have a couple more for you. If you think it will help.

Why can't you give me the formula, the ratio of CO2 to temperature?

X CO2 causes Y warming.

What is X? What is Y?

Why can't you tell me this?

View attachment 75228

If I want to know the sum of squares to find the slop in a regression analysis I can use the above formula.

You see in real science, in legitimate science, things are quantifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable.

But then AGW, just like Astrology or parapsychology is not legitimate, not science at all.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements.

No son, they sure didn't.

We are the wrong crowd to lie to.

Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

No, it's a con.

Yes fetus, they sure do. Next, "I" am the wrong person to lie to. Next, a couple of years ago, for example, the entire continent of Greenland experienced melting for the first time. Even mountain tops. Was that a con? I have a documentary to suggest to you. It's called "Greedy Lying Bastards." One of the things you can see is the CEO of EXXON admitting that human caused global warming was a reality. If anybody would have reason to tell your kind of lies about HCGW, he would. So what does that have to say about your position on the matter.

Let's ditch this nasty fable of "all of Greenland melting for the first time".. Not unusual in a warm period for LARGE portions of surface ice to melt and then refreeze. Doesn't predict a great loss except thru some sublimation because of clear skies and the sun. And the "first time"? Well that's since we've had the ABILITY TO OBSERVE a quick surface melt of an entire Greenland. Roughly since 1975 when the first reliable satellites went up. --- Not since forever is it? OR -- maybe no one was LOOKING hard enough for an event like that until it became to lucrative to find it..

And it turns out -- the scientists at Exxon called out predictions that were FAR MORE ACCURATE than what the "established" climate science had made about the same time. They should be given credit for the BETTER scientific projections -- not scorned. The "real" climate scientist predictions from that same era --- the ones that PURPOSELY frightened tiny minds in the public --- have all failed miserably.. So the CEO admits his people figured out how warming more CO2 would contribute. They were conservative and they were RIGHT !!! And it's not now the fucking disaster that the GW "establishment believed it would be. They should be HONORED for their research..

See -- it's not enough to say that man is causing some GW -- You need to accurately state HOW much warming to allow society to adapt. And the GW theory is that we're gonna reach a "tipping point" at which the Earth just destroys it's climate system. That's NOT part of what Exxon admitted. And it's not actually likely a real scenario..

First, I've heard it all before. The disappearance or thinning of the polar ice caps is just part of some natural cycle. Well I guess for you, it is better to be sorry than safe. Next, "as it turns out," I said what I said. The CEO of EXXON admitted on camera, (though it was a hidden camera) that human caused global warming was a reality. End of story.

Next, I will tell you a story that never seems to end. When something is going on that it would be unprofitable to put an end to, those in power promise to study the problem further. Into infinity. That way, nothing will change. But you don't have to know absolutely every little thing about human caused global warming to know that it is a problem that must be dealt with.

Next, I will tell you what the "real scenario" is likely to be. HCGW will create more methane release from tundra and shallow parts of the ocean. This will cause more warming. Causing more methane release. In an exponential effect, things will start to get so bad so fast, you will shit your pants. And metaphorically speaking, most of the life on earth will start to die off before the shit has had time to run down your leg.

See -- now that's the problem here. I admit that more CO2 in the atmos means "some" temperature elevation. I ADMIT IT. Just like you "THINK" the Exxon plead guilty to hiding sometthing. But here's the rub. That's NOT the question that defines GW theory. GW 'science' took the REAL warming powers of CO2 and greatly exaggerated them with speculations about positive feedbacks and runaway conditions and "magic multipliers" to the basic warming power of CO2. THAT is where the real questions are. Not as simply as "is it warming and could man be contributing to that". But the media and politicians rely on folks not following the science deeper than the sound bites and the MASSIVE PR campaign.

Which relates directly into your "new story".. ..... about those massive methane calthrates thawing.
Turns out -- the recent climate history of the planet is a series of FOUR repetitive DEEP and LONG Ice Ages that were punctuated with much shorter "climate optimums" like the one we live in. When the Great Lakes were under a MILE of ice -- there was enough "thawing" to remove them COMPLETELY from the planet. During those periods of thaw --- the CO2 and methane were climbing astronomically because of methane/CO2 released from the frozen land and oceans. The AMOUNTS of GH gases released were HUGE compared to what's left in the tundra regions and under cold seas. Very LITTLE is left to thaw.

So if this "positive feedback" of thawing buried calthrates is gonna cause runaway GW NOW --- why didn't those much more MASSIVE thaws -- involving 16 or 18degC swings CONTINUE to runaway those previous 4 times? Why wouldn't ZOOMING LEVELS of CO2 and methane continue to thaw every last bit of frozen methane calthrates back then? Do we really believe that a mere 2degC average Global change is sufficient to "end it all"? I don't..

Climate science is a fairly new discipline. And it grew at a time when our ability to OBSERVE the present state of the climate improved tremendously. But settling all that science has not yet happened. A lot of folks want to pretend it's all in the books.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes. There is zero empirical data to support that now very failed "theory". The only people pushing that particular load of bull poo, are globalists who wish to use the supposed danger of global warming to push their socialist agenda.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements. Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

Correlation does not equal causation is a scientific axiom that you should aquaint yourself with.

I have a couple sayings for you to aquaint yourself with. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." Also, "It's better to be safe than sorry." I have something else for you to consider. But it will probably be a little like asking a heroin addict to consider quitting. What "if" you are right. And that's a very very big "IF." What is the worst that can happen by doing something about HCGW. We start living more sustainably with the planet. And in doing so, for instance, stop making creatures go extinct.

But what "if" I am right. And that "if" is nonexistant. Because I am right. What is the worst than can happen by doing nothing about HCGW. Just most of the life on earth going extinct. Which I heard one college professor who had been studying the problem for the last 15 years, could happen in about 20 years. You tell me what is worse. Living sustainably, or destroying most of the life on earth.

Neither of those are scientific silly boy. i thought you were interested in science and the scientific method. You see dear child, the scientific method was developed over centuries to educate religious fanatics such as yourself so that you would stop sacrificing virgins to the volcano God. Clearly you are still locked in the 600's.

It might take up to 50 (fifty) years, but how "scientific" do you think it will be when most of the life on earth is extinct.

You really dropped out too soon.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can't wait to get back to the racism connection..

 

[krypto]

'
There is no logical reason there should be more than a hundred million hominids on this planet.
.

so why are there more than that?

I wish you would have asked me that question.

Why?

Because then I could have told him that when it comes to breeding, most humans aren't much different than bacteria.

 

[flacaltenn]

Look at the graphs. They should tell you what organization created them. I have a couple more for you. If you think it will help.

Why can't you give me the formula, the ratio of CO2 to temperature?

X CO2 causes Y warming.

What is X? What is Y?

Why can't you tell me this?

View attachment 75228

If I want to know the sum of squares to find the slop in a regression analysis I can use the above formula.

You see in real science, in legitimate science, things are quantifiable, testable, verifiable, repeatable.

But then AGW, just like Astrology or parapsychology is not legitimate, not science at all.

If you took your blood pressure with one of those digital blood pressure monitors, would the readout it gave be a "theory?" The graphs I shoud came from actual measurements.

No son, they sure didn't.

We are the wrong crowd to lie to.

Also, everybody want's more. Scientists are no different. But reality dissuades them. What is going on isn't a socialist agenda. It is a survival agenda.

No, it's a con.

Yes fetus, they sure do. Next, "I" am the wrong person to lie to. Next, a couple of years ago, for example, the entire continent of Greenland experienced melting for the first time. Even mountain tops. Was that a con? I have a documentary to suggest to you. It's called "Greedy Lying Bastards." One of the things you can see is the CEO of EXXON admitting that human caused global warming was a reality. If anybody would have reason to tell your kind of lies about HCGW, he would. So what does that have to say about your position on the matter.

Let's ditch this nasty fable of "all of Greenland melting for the first time".. Not unusual in a warm period for LARGE portions of surface ice to melt and then refreeze. Doesn't predict a great loss except thru some sublimation because of clear skies and the sun. And the "first time"? Well that's since we've had the ABILITY TO OBSERVE a quick surface melt of an entire Greenland. Roughly since 1975 when the first reliable satellites went up. --- Not since forever is it? OR -- maybe no one was LOOKING hard enough for an event like that until it became to lucrative to find it..

And it turns out -- the scientists at Exxon called out predictions that were FAR MORE ACCURATE than what the "established" climate science had made about the same time. They should be given credit for the BETTER scientific projections -- not scorned. The "real" climate scientist predictions from that same era --- the ones that PURPOSELY frightened tiny minds in the public --- have all failed miserably.. So the CEO admits his people figured out how warming more CO2 would contribute. They were conservative and they were RIGHT !!! And it's not now the fucking disaster that the GW "establishment believed it would be. They should be HONORED for their research..

See -- it's not enough to say that man is causing some GW -- You need to accurately state HOW much warming to allow society to adapt. And the GW theory is that we're gonna reach a "tipping point" at which the Earth just destroys it's climate system. That's NOT part of what Exxon admitted. And it's not actually likely a real scenario..

First, I've heard it all before. The disappearance or thinning of the polar ice caps is just part of some natural cycle. Well I guess for you, it is better to be sorry than safe. Next, "as it turns out," I said what I said. The CEO of EXXON admitted on camera, (though it was a hidden camera) that human caused global warming was a reality. End of story.

Next, I will tell you a story that never seems to end. When something is going on that it would be unprofitable to put an end to, those in power promise to study the problem further. Into infinity. That way, nothing will change. But you don't have to know absolutely every little thing about human caused global warming to know that it is a problem that must be dealt with.

Next, I will tell you what the "real scenario" is likely to be. HCGW will create more methane release from tundra and shallow parts of the ocean. This will cause more warming. Causing more methane release. In an exponential effect, things will start to get so bad so fast, you will shit your pants. And metaphorically speaking, most of the life on earth will start to die off before the shit has had time to run down your leg.

I figured out where you got this Ecology and Racism crap.. You caught it from THIS GUY apparently..

Islamophobia and Ecological Disasters -- How they are related??????