Global Warming Pie Chart

[Old Rocks]

Are you thumping your chest as you post this?

Deflect all you want, but I'm still going to keep calling your cult out on the big lies, lack of knowledge, and cultlike behavior. That bothers denialists a lot, so clearly I'm hitting the target.



Since that's your dishonest strawman, I'm not obligated to live up to it. You're lying about what we think. That doesn't make us hypocrites, it makes you a liar. If you want to be considered as something other than a cowardly liar, address what we actually say we believe, instead of making up sleazy lies about what you wished we believed.



Are you perhaps a plant, trying to make denialists look stupid with the "DUH ... SNOW ON GROUND ... AGW IS HOAX!" drooling? If you don't understand how spouting something that stupid makes you look like a gibbering fuktard, I can't help you. This is fourth grade level science. If you can't grasp it, you shouldn't be interrupting the grownups.



Why are you consantly trying to push politics into a non-political scientific topic? Oh, that's right. It's because, like almost all denialists, you're a political cultist, as I keep pointing out. Thanks for the multiple confirmations of my point.

My suggestion is don't buy the hype, I did in the 70s and it turned out we weren't entering a new ice age, they were wrong.

The scientists didn't predict an ice age. Even in the 70s, the scientists overwhelmingly predicted warming.

You got that completely wrong. Why? Because you're regurgitating your cult's propaganda again. More confirmation of the cult origin of denialism.

June '74 Time article on the coming Ice Age...

Dumb fuck. Scientists publish in peer reviewed journals, not Time.

 

[Missourian]

Global Warming = Miasma theory redux.

Only John Snow deduced the actual cause of the cholera outbreak.

That pie chart was 10,000 to 1, and it was the one that was correct.

No one recognized the truth, because there was consensus.

 

[Dragonlady]

Global Warming = Miasma theory redux.

Only John Snow deduced the actual cause of the cholera outbreak.

That pie chart was 10,000 to 1, and it was the one that was correct.

No one recognized the truth, because there was consensus.

Yes, and in the 1950's children with asthma were removed from their parents because it was believed that the parents were too nervous causing the children to become asthmatics. And that was a consensus too.

Science, even in the 1950's was light years behind where we are now. There were no computers which could model climate in the manner that they can now. The amount of data which could be analysed was a drop in the bucket compared to what can be done now.

Really, talking about science in the Middle Ages, is like talking about architecture during the Stone Age.

 

[westwall]

and have NOTHING to show for it

Well, actually there are probably a thiusand excellent pieces of research out there which cover every aspect of climate change from rising ocean levels to glacial melt, from drought patterns to Arctic ice melt. This is impeccable, peer-reviewed, published science that is accepted by every major scientific organisation on earth.

What you mean is that the scientists have produced NOTHING which backs up the claims made by the extreme right wing.

And yes, Westwall, the questions you ask are all easy to answer. So easy to answer that you could answer them yourself as soon as you take your blinkers off.

For 100 BILLION dollars I would expect something tangible don't you? 20 BILLION ended WWII and invented nucler power. 100 Billion has presented us with a whole bunch of maybe's, could's, might's, possibly's and a whole host of other words that say the same thing....which is we don't know.

Maybe that's why every prediction made in the last 30 years hasn't happened. Could that be it? The Arctic still has bucketloads of ice and it is growing ever more extensive year to year. The Antarctic on the other hand has been above your precious 1979-2000 average for nearly two years now. And getting thicker.

Your statements don't hold up to actual facts there junior...try again.

 

[westwall]

If saving money means giving the private sector less useless regulation and more freedom to generate jobs and income for people, and less reason for the government to confiscate mega billions of your hard earned money, then yes, eliminating money wasted on useless climate change research is a huge pro. And I honestly can't come up with any cons for that.

So wouldn't it be smarter to really look at whether we are getting our money's worth instead of groveling at the feet of environmental gods and giving them all the power to dictate to us what our options, choices, preferences, and opportunities will be?

How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to appease the great god of government?

I dont want to waste money on useless climate change research either. I want to invest money in valuable climate change research. It's all in how you look at it. Once you lay it out in Pros vs Cons there is really no comparison

Why bother? As I showed you quite clearly warmer is better and has allways been so. Instead it would be far better to invest in our space program so that we can find those rocks orbitng our planet that actually DO have the ability to end civilisation.

Global Warming can never do that period end of story...but a rock, a big enough one...could. That's reality.....


LiveLeak.com - Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes)

 

[freedombecki]

CO2 isn't pollution.
I'm willing to build a few dozen new nuke plants to reduce CO2, how about you?

Changing the subject doesnt work

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

You're the one who claimed CO2 was pollution.
Are you willing to build nuke plants to reduce CO2?
Why not?

He's avoiding your question because he doesn't have an answer.

 

[KissMy]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI"]How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change[/ame]

 

[Mustang]

If saving money means giving the private sector less useless regulation and more freedom to generate jobs and income for people, and less reason for the government to confiscate mega billions of your hard earned money, then yes, eliminating money wasted on useless climate change research is a huge pro. And I honestly can't come up with any cons for that.

So wouldn't it be smarter to really look at whether we are getting our money's worth instead of groveling at the feet of environmental gods and giving them all the power to dictate to us what our options, choices, preferences, and opportunities will be?

How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to appease the great god of government?

I dont want to waste money on useless climate change research either. I want to invest money in valuable climate change research. It's all in how you look at it. Once you lay it out in Pros vs Cons there is really no comparison

Why bother? As I showed you quite clearly warmer is better and has allways been so. Instead it would be far better to invest in our space program so that we can find those rocks orbitng our planet that actually DO have the ability to end civilisation.

Global Warming can never do that period end of story...but a rock, a big enough one...could. That's reality.....


LiveLeak.com - Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes)

Take a better look at Venus!

The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 462 °C (864 °F).[11][42] This makes the Venusian surface hotter than Mercury's, which has a minimum surface temperature of −220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C,[43] even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and thus receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

 

[Foxfyre]

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change

This is fascinating KissMy. If it is the real deal and not some kind of scam or hoax, it provides a whole new perspective to the whole issue. Of course it goes against all prevailing scientific wisdom, but that is what, in my opinion, is going to save us from ourselves in many things. I certainly want to learn more about this.

 

[westwall]

I dont want to waste money on useless climate change research either. I want to invest money in valuable climate change research. It's all in how you look at it. Once you lay it out in Pros vs Cons there is really no comparison

Why bother? As I showed you quite clearly warmer is better and has allways been so. Instead it would be far better to invest in our space program so that we can find those rocks orbitng our planet that actually DO have the ability to end civilisation.

Global Warming can never do that period end of story...but a rock, a big enough one...could. That's reality.....


LiveLeak.com - Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes)

Take a better look at Venus!

Take a science class. Venus has a denser atmosphere made up of 96% CO2, O2 is a trace element in the Venusian atmosphere. Further the pressure of the Venusion atmosphere at the surface is 92times that of the Earth.

Only a blissfully ignorant, scientific illiterate would mention the two in the same sentence.

 

[Mustang]

Why bother? As I showed you quite clearly warmer is better and has allways been so. Instead it would be far better to invest in our space program so that we can find those rocks orbitng our planet that actually DO have the ability to end civilisation.

Global Warming can never do that period end of story...but a rock, a big enough one...could. That's reality.....


LiveLeak.com - Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes)

Take a better look at Venus!

Take a science class. Venus has a denser atmosphere made up of 96% CO2, O2 is a trace element in the Venusian atmosphere. Further the pressure of the Venusion atmosphere at the surface is 92times that of the Earth.

Only a blissfully ignorant, scientific illiterate would mention the two in the same sentence.

DUH! LOL!

Venus has MORE CO2. It's also HOTTER than Mercury despite being almost twice as far from the sun, receiving only about 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.

 

[Missourian]

Global Warming = Miasma theory redux.

Only John Snow deduced the actual cause of the cholera outbreak.

That pie chart was 10,000 to 1, and it was the one that was correct.

No one recognized the truth, because there was consensus.

Yes, and in the 1950's children with asthma were removed from their parents because it was believed that the parents were too nervous causing the children to become asthmatics. And that was a consensus too.

Science, even in the 1950's was light years behind where we are now. There were no computers which could model climate in the manner that they can now. The amount of data which could be analysed was a drop in the bucket compared to what can be done now.

Really, talking about science in the Middle Ages, is like talking about architecture during the Stone Age.

I wouldn't call the 1840's the Middle Ages, but I see where you're coming from.

The point is, Snow's evidence was nearly unassailable. In fact, the pump handle from the Broad Street well, and the outbreak was controlled...but afterward, even in the glaring evidence that Snow's Theory was correct, it was UNIVERSALLY REJECTED!

After the cholera epidemic had subsided, government officials replaced the Broad Street Pump Handle.

They had responded only to the urgent threat posed to the population, and afterward they rejected Snow's theory​

It took another 40 years to be recognized as true and accurate.

Science may be more advanced, but human nature is not.

Those computer models did not predict that their fabricated man made global warming would end 16 years ago, and that temperatures would plateau and remain stable.

They predicted rising ocean levels, steadily increasing temperatures, failure of crops, fertile land turning to desert.

1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent

, March 20, 2000.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1850432414/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=heartlands&go.x=0&go.y=0"]"Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press[/ame]

, 1990.


7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology

, September 1971.

Read more: Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts | Fox News
​

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Changing the subject doesnt work

You're the one who claimed CO2 was pollution.
Are you willing to build nuke plants to reduce CO2?
Why not?

He's avoiding your question because he doesn't have an answer.

I don't know why he's such a chicken.
Libs do have an irrational fear of radioactivity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

Pro and cons for what?

 

[freedombecki]

You're the one who claimed CO2 was pollution.
Are you willing to build nuke plants to reduce CO2?
Why not?

He's avoiding your question because he doesn't have an answer.

I don't know why he's such a chicken.
Libs do have an irrational fear of radioactivity.

Tell me about it. Anti - nuclear protests in the United States

It would help the situation of CO2, though if they researched and found it's kinder to the environment. They just zero in on the storage of nuclear wastes issue rather than look at the big picture. Actually, nuclear storage can be and is being done safely and effectively, but that is conveniently ignored by the axe-to-grind crowd.

 

[freedombecki]

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change

Kiss my, that was the best 22 minutes I've spent watching any video that could positively impact the environment. I'm glad the researcher found his answer in doing what people had done for eons--conserved lands through allowing an interaction of wild and domestic herds to maintain vegetation in marginal desert lands that are now overtaking the planet while vegetarians are proffering the lie that livestock damage the planet with CO2. What they missed was the green earth livestock and wild herds interacted with to conserve grasslands and with it water. Water is lost through evaporation when herds disappear and the vegetation dies due to lack of nutrients from herd waste products, and in the case of migrant herds, vast lands are experiencing "desertification" on all the continents.

Man has been an unwise steward to remove herds, and people who think being a vegan is cool need their heads examined and taught the truth: kill animals off, kill the vegetation on the land.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He's avoiding your question because he doesn't have an answer.

I don't know why he's such a chicken.
Libs do have an irrational fear of radioactivity.

Tell me about it. Anti - nuclear protests in the United States

It would help the situation of CO2, though if they researched and found it's kinder to the environment. They just zero in on the storage of nuclear wastes issue rather than look at the big picture. Actually, nuclear storage can be and is being done safely and effectively, but that is conveniently ignored by the axe-to-grind crowd.

If we started reprocessing, reversing another Jimmy Carter mistake, we could reduce our waste by a huge amount and recycle "spent" fuel.

 

[freedombecki]

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change

This is fascinating KissMy. If it is the real deal and not some kind of scam or hoax, it provides a whole new perspective to the whole issue. Of course it goes against all prevailing scientific wisdom, but that is what, in my opinion, is going to save us from ourselves in many things. I certainly want to learn more about this.

Foxfyre, I found this on Allan Savory's biography form at Wikipedia:

(Clifford) Allan Redin Savory (born September 15, 1935) is a Zimbabwean biologist, farmer, soldier, exile, environmentalist, and winner of the 2003 Banksia International Award[1] and the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge

I would heartily recommend watching his video to anyone who wonders why so much of the earth has become a desert and what can be done about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change

This is fascinating KissMy. If it is the real deal and not some kind of scam or hoax, it provides a whole new perspective to the whole issue. Of course it goes against all prevailing scientific wisdom, but that is what, in my opinion, is going to save us from ourselves in many things. I certainly want to learn more about this.

Foxfyre, I found this on Allan Savory's biography form at Wikipedia:

(Clifford) Allan Redin Savory (born September 15, 1935) is a Zimbabwean biologist, farmer, soldier, exile, environmentalist, and winner of the 2003 Banksia International Award[1] and the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge

I would heartily recommend watching his video to anyone who wonders why so much of the earth has become a desert and what can be done about it.

Just think of all the implication if Savory is right. Instead of having fewer but oversized, grain fed, hormone laden cattle, etc., you have lots more of them but in their more natural state, living off the land. We would no doubt have healthier meat, and the sheer numbers would feed millions of hungry people, reduce costs of food all over the world, and help solve our climate issues all with one fairly simple solution.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is fascinating KissMy. If it is the real deal and not some kind of scam or hoax, it provides a whole new perspective to the whole issue. Of course it goes against all prevailing scientific wisdom, but that is what, in my opinion, is going to save us from ourselves in many things. I certainly want to learn more about this.

Foxfyre, I found this on Allan Savory's biography form at Wikipedia:

(Clifford) Allan Redin Savory (born September 15, 1935) is a Zimbabwean biologist, farmer, soldier, exile, environmentalist, and winner of the 2003 Banksia International Award[1] and the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge

I would heartily recommend watching his video to anyone who wonders why so much of the earth has become a desert and what can be done about it.

Just think of all the implication if Savory is right. Instead of having fewer but oversized, grain fed, hormone laden cattle, etc., you have lots more of them but in their more natural state, living off the land. We would no doubt have healthier meat, and the sheer numbers would feed millions of hungry people, reduce costs of food all over the world, and help solve our climate issues all with one fairly simple solution.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.................... Maybe we were mistaken in removing the buffalo from North America.

Now that is not the answer for all desert land. Eastern Oregon lost the buffalo before the white man arrived. Apparently the drying of that area was simply too severe to maintain the herds.

However, as pointed out, the range fed animals are far more healthier meat than the type of meat we are eating today.