Global Cooling Chills Summer

[KittenKoder]

Why is the ice melting?

You don't have the answer to your own question, but even if you did it's meaningless without knowing the one simple fact:

Why is the ice important in nature?

Science is steps, if you skip steps then you are not using science, you are just being a politician. Now, if you like science so much, answer this question and give anyone a reason to care, otherwise there is no need to care.

Why is the ice melting?

*yawn* Reread my post. I already addressed your question in it.

 

[Chris]

You don't have the answer to your own question, but even if you did it's meaningless without knowing the one simple fact:

Why is the ice important in nature?

Science is steps, if you skip steps then you are not using science, you are just being a politician. Now, if you like science so much, answer this question and give anyone a reason to care, otherwise there is no need to care.

Why is the ice melting?

*yawn* Reread my post. I already addressed your question in it.

Why is the ice melting?

 

[KittenKoder]

Why is the ice melting?

*yawn* Reread my post. I already addressed your question in it.

Why is the ice melting?

You don't have the answer to your own question, but even if you did it's meaningless without knowing the one simple fact:

Why is the ice important in nature?

Science is steps, if you skip steps then you are not using science, you are just being a politician. Now, if you like science so much, answer this question and give anyone a reason to care, otherwise there is no need to care.

 

[Chris]

What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?

 

[KittenKoder]

What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?

Let's see, changing 40% of less than 1% of the atmosphere, that's a .4% change ...


Now, why does nature "need" the ice? What purpose does it serve?

 

[KittenKoder]

I know exactly why your sources have not given you this bit of information. There is a reason why they won't publish it with the facts that hinge on it, because if they did, their whole hoax would sink like the Titanic.

 

[Chris]

What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?

Let's see, changing 40% of less than 1% of the atmosphere, that's a .4% change ...


Now, why does nature "need" the ice? What purpose does it serve?

The scientists at MIT predict that there is a 90% chance that the increase in CO2 will increase the earth's temperature between 4-7 degrees by 2100.

 

[KittenKoder]

What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?

Let's see, changing 40% of less than 1% of the atmosphere, that's a .4% change ...


Now, why does nature "need" the ice? What purpose does it serve?

The scientists at MIT predict that there is a 90% chance that the increase in CO2 will increase the earth's temperature between 4-7 degrees by 2100.

Predictions based on incomplete science is flawed science. Why does nature need the ice in the first place?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Let's see, changing 40% of less than 1% of the atmosphere, that's a .4% change ...


Now, why does nature "need" the ice? What purpose does it serve?

The scientists at MIT predict that there is a 90% chance that the increase in CO2 will increase the earth's temperature between 4-7 degrees by 2100.

Predictions based on incomplete science is flawed science. Why does nature need the ice in the first place?

nature does not need ice.

what is your next brilliant question?

how is babby formed?

 

[code1211]

What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?

Let's see, changing 40% of less than 1% of the atmosphere, that's a .4% change ...


Now, why does nature "need" the ice? What purpose does it serve?

The scientists at MIT predict that there is a 90% chance that the increase in CO2 will increase the earth's temperature between 4-7 degrees by 2100.

The IPCC predicted that warming would be .2 to .4 degrees more then it has been OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS. They have been wrong.

Warming as predicted by your source for MIT would be in variance to anything that has happened in the history of the world. This warming is also in variance to what another group of MIT Scietists predicted for the same period.

The IPCC is wrong. One of the groups of MIT Scientists will be wrong and probably both will be wrong.

A prediction that is based on fear mongering is worthless. A prediction that is already shown to be wrong is worthless. When the best minds in the field predict something and it is shown to be wrong by events, perhaps it is time to question the predictions rather than the events.

As a doubter, all I require is proof. Show me how the "CO2 raises temperature correlation" is proven by every example in nature or as often as gravity for instance, and my doubts will be less firm.

Saying that natural law works now but not then, here but not there, is not science. It's superstition.

 

[KittenKoder]

The scientists at MIT predict that there is a 90% chance that the increase in CO2 will increase the earth's temperature between 4-7 degrees by 2100.

Predictions based on incomplete science is flawed science. Why does nature need the ice in the first place?

nature does not need ice.

what is your next brilliant question?

how is babby formed?

Really? You think nature has no use for the ice ... okay, we'll take it from there.

If this is true then why are we worried about it melting? If there is no use for the ice then why should we care?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Predictions based on incomplete science is flawed science. Why does nature need the ice in the first place?

nature does not need ice.

what is your next brilliant question?

how is babby formed?

Really? You think nature has no use for the ice ... okay, we'll take it from there.

If this is true then why are we worried about it melting? If there is no use for the ice then why should we care?

maybe you start learning how to pose a scientific question, then maybe you will get better answers.

no, nature has no use for ice. ice is part of nature. nature is not some girl sitting around worrying about the purpose and use of ice. that would be you.

 

[KittenKoder]

nature does not need ice.

what is your next brilliant question?

how is babby formed?

Really? You think nature has no use for the ice ... okay, we'll take it from there.

If this is true then why are we worried about it melting? If there is no use for the ice then why should we care?

maybe you start learning how to pose a scientific question, then maybe you will get better answers.

no, nature has no use for ice. ice is part of nature. nature is not some girl sitting around worrying about the purpose and use of ice. that would be you.

As I said, let's assume you are right and nature has no use for the ice, then it's existence has no meaning to nature one way or the other. So why would it be important to "save" the ice?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Really? You think nature has no use for the ice ... okay, we'll take it from there.

If this is true then why are we worried about it melting? If there is no use for the ice then why should we care?

maybe you start learning how to pose a scientific question, then maybe you will get better answers.

no, nature has no use for ice. ice is part of nature. nature is not some girl sitting around worrying about the purpose and use of ice. that would be you.

As I said, let's assume you are right and nature has no use for the ice, then it's existence has no meaning to nature one way or the other. So why would it be important to "save" the ice?

no, let's not assume.

come up with a serious question and maybe i will answer.

 

[elvis]

What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% have on the earth's climate?

Let's see, changing 40% of less than 1% of the atmosphere, that's a .4% change ...


Now, why does nature "need" the ice? What purpose does it serve?

The scientists at MIT predict that there is a 90% chance that the increase in CO2 will increase the earth's temperature between 4-7 degrees by 2100.

does al whore know?

 

[KittenKoder]

maybe you start learning how to pose a scientific question, then maybe you will get better answers.

no, nature has no use for ice. ice is part of nature. nature is not some girl sitting around worrying about the purpose and use of ice. that would be you.

As I said, let's assume you are right and nature has no use for the ice, then it's existence has no meaning to nature one way or the other. So why would it be important to "save" the ice?

no, let's not assume.

come up with a serious question and maybe i will answer.

I did ask a serious question, and you gave an assumption for the answer, so anything after that could only be an assumption.

 

[L.K.Eder]

As I said, let's assume you are right and nature has no use for the ice, then it's existence has no meaning to nature one way or the other. So why would it be important to "save" the ice?

no, let's not assume.

come up with a serious question and maybe i will answer.

I did ask a serious question, and you gave an assumption for the answer, so anything after that could only be an assumption.

i can't help you if you think this was a serious question.

i and another poster even took it like it was serious and gave it the answer it deserved. now you have another "serious" question.

now i have a serious question:

are you stupid or a troll or a stupid troll?

 

[KittenKoder]

no, let's not assume.

come up with a serious question and maybe i will answer.

I did ask a serious question, and you gave an assumption for the answer, so anything after that could only be an assumption.

i can't help you if you think this was a serious question.

i and another poster even took it like it was serious and gave it the answer it deserved. now you have another "serious" question.

now i have a serious question:

are you stupid or a troll or a stupid troll?

Really? So we are suppose to worry about something that has no meaning, purpose, or reason for existing?

The question was serious: What purpose does glacial ice serve in nature?

Your answer is an assumption that it serves no purpose, so the logical conclusion is, why should we worry about keeping it?

However, you assumption is wrong, it does serve a purpose, as does everything in nature, a very scientific purpose actually. But the reason I asked this question, in spite of knowing the answer myself, is because if you look through all your environut science, the information is omitted. The reason they won't tell you, is because the answer negates concern for the environment and places the concern on human survival, something which your scientists and corporations cannot profit from.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I did ask a serious question, and you gave an assumption for the answer, so anything after that could only be an assumption.

i can't help you if you think this was a serious question.

i and another poster even took it like it was serious and gave it the answer it deserved. now you have another "serious" question.

now i have a serious question:

are you stupid or a troll or a stupid troll?

Really? So we are suppose to worry about something that has no meaning, purpose, or reason for existing?

The question was serious: What purpose does glacial ice serve in nature?

Your answer is an assumption that it serves no purpose, so the logical conclusion is, why should we worry about keeping it?

However, you assumption is wrong, it does serve a purpose, as does everything in nature, a very scientific purpose actually. But the reason I asked this question, in spite of knowing the answer myself, is because if you look through all your environut science, the information is omitted. The reason they won't tell you, is because the answer negates concern for the environment and places the concern on human survival, something which your scientists and corporations cannot profit from.

what purpose do the rocky mountains serve?

what purpose does the continent of antarctica serve?

what purpose does a grain of sand serve?

why am i existing?

what the fuck is this shit?

 

[KittenKoder]

i can't help you if you think this was a serious question.

i and another poster even took it like it was serious and gave it the answer it deserved. now you have another "serious" question.

now i have a serious question:

are you stupid or a troll or a stupid troll?

Really? So we are suppose to worry about something that has no meaning, purpose, or reason for existing?

The question was serious: What purpose does glacial ice serve in nature?

Your answer is an assumption that it serves no purpose, so the logical conclusion is, why should we worry about keeping it?

However, you assumption is wrong, it does serve a purpose, as does everything in nature, a very scientific purpose actually. But the reason I asked this question, in spite of knowing the answer myself, is because if you look through all your environut science, the information is omitted. The reason they won't tell you, is because the answer negates concern for the environment and places the concern on human survival, something which your scientists and corporations cannot profit from.

what purpose do the rocky mountains serve?

what purpose does the continent of antarctica serve?

what purpose does a grain of sand serve?

why am i existing?

what the fuck is this shit?

I can answer all those questions, and they all serve a purpose in nature.

For Antarctica ... you do realize that's pretty much the same question I asked, right?

Nature is a big picture system, not a tiny fragment of one. Like the data environuts use, there is a lot you are ignoring to scare people who know too little on the subject.