GW causing tidal flooding in Florida...no worries.

[RKMBrown]

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

yeah these guys are so good at predicting. In tne 60s they told us medicare would only cost 10 billion in the 90s, ooooooops.

We better cede all of our freedom to people suckering folks into buying carbon credits.........thats not capitalism, thats the greatest show on earth tomfoolery

Yeah. In 1974 during the oil embargo, which BTW was a huge lie, we were told by our government that the Earth only had a 50 year supply of oil remaining....

Oh god let's not get the peak oil FUD folks going

 

[ClosedCaption]

The way you deny facts about the IPCC's method of cherry picking "papers" and "emails" leaves whatever you have to say questionable.

Notice how they arent even interested in the science? They are too busy dismissing actual science and scientists with TMZ style rumor mill bullshit.

You know the IPCC group are only 20% scientists right? They cherry pick what is used in a report from other scientists. So not all of the data is used, cherry picked.

Of course they do and the proof of that is ....

btw, you're the 6th guy now

 

[jc456]

so you agree that this is just another climate change in a long string of changes and man has little, if any do to with it.

not at all, Saying that is intellectually lazy unless changing times, populations and advances in technology has no effect on anything also. Is that what you're getting at? Now is just like then?

thanks, all you had to do was say that instead of mewling about how i dismiss science.

No problem, you just didnt understand. Glad I cleared that up for you.

how do you explain all the earlier warming periods?

He doesn't know. He's is ill informed and unwlling I supposed to look things up. Instead stay here and argue useless points.

 

[ClosedCaption]

LOL.

You discard the notion that you (the proponent of the fanciful notion that WE can control climate) have any fucking burden of persuasion in that regard, but when folks who don't buy your unsupported bullshit call bullshit on you, you DEMAND "evidence" all of a sudden.

Whoa buddy, I dont believe we can control the climate so you have that wrong. I believe we have an effect on it by our actions. Not that we are Storm from the X-men or something. Second all you have to say is you dont have any proof of what you are saying

You folks are laughable. And nothing more. Just laughable.

If you want the first hint of cred, ClosedMinded, then all you have to do is show the solid science supporting the contention that human beings caused the ice ages or the subsequent warming periods.

Best of luck.

Where is your evidence again? I asked the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th guy but they responded just like you. With smileys and deflection.

Do you beleive CO2 increases cause a rise in temperature? If so, then where is your evidence. Talk about wanting evidence, your kind have produced zip zero, nadda. Yet the sky is falling. Right.

Ok, are you going to answer my one question or not?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Listen you lying/ignorant piece of shit (take your pick), and I say that with utmost respect, the title and opinions expressed in your linked article are just that. Opinions. The post you linked actually agrees with what I said. It's not my fault you can't read past the bullshit political and monetary gain based opinions to see the facts.

Whoa wait, you said the scientific article agreed with you 100% then when I quoted it showing you were lying thru your teeth now the scientific article is wrong and is nothign more than opinion?


Cool then link your own science that shows CO2 is like steroids for plants. Go ahead I dare you!

Fucking idiot

Here's a link showing CO2 and plant growth.

you tube co2 plant growth experiments - Bing Videos

And if you'd use the internet you'd have found it easily. There are many links out there. MANY.

What's that about idiot?

Is that 10 sec clip supposed to show me something that contradicts what I said?

 

[jc456]

Notice how they arent even interested in the science? They are too busy dismissing actual science and scientists with TMZ style rumor mill bullshit.

What is incredibly obvious is the fact that your science is politically driven. The wanted outcome is the redistribution of wealth on the global stage.
You can deny it all you want, but that is the intended end result for the IPCC.

Its SO OBVIOUS that not one of you that make the claim can provide ANY evidence of this INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS thing.

TMZ style rumor mill is really all you got

Yoo, why don't you produce the evidence that CO2 causes more warming when CO2 increases? One experiment that's all, please. Your claim not ours. So you have it back assward.

 

[ClosedCaption]

IOW they had you at their sound bite, and you are to stupid to read on. We call folks like you "low information voters." Easily swayed by catch phrases, like change we can believe in, or affordable health care.

Great so go out there and find some information that doesnt call you a moron right out the gate that shows more CO2 is like steroids for plants and I'll be right here, How about that?

Show us the experiment that shows higher concentration of CO2 causes an increase in temperature. show us that one. Without it your scare tactics are just that.

Dude...you are the only one making that connection. I can defend what I say but I cant defend what you think I said.

 

[jc456]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

And blaming Obama.

isn't he political, he isn't a scientist is he?

 

[jc456]

no i didnt say that...i'll jsut copy and paste it for you:



You acknowledge we are cutting down the co2 recyclers (aka trees) but still think this has no effect on cleaning our air? Or less trees mean nothing? What?

listen, moron. I said planting trees is good, cutting down forests is bad. What part of that statement keeps confusing you? The prime effect of more co2 is more plant growth. That humans are cutting down trees is a separate issue that nature has learned to address through plant growth. For example, when volcanoes erupt they generate more co2 than mankind has or will ever cause. Yet here were are.

why are avoiding my question? I didnt ask you whether planting trees was good or not...i asked

since we are removing those trees then you realize there is less recylcing of co2 as well correct?

omg

 

[jc456]

Great so go out there and find some information that doesnt call you a moron right out the gate that shows more CO2 is like steroids for plants and I'll be right here, How about that?

Show us the experiment that shows higher concentration of CO2 causes an increase in temperature. show us that one. Without it your scare tactics are just that.

Dude...you are the only one making that connection. I can defend what I say but I cant defend what you think I said.

not without an experiment that validates the theory. I've been waiting for a very long time for one of you nut jobs to produce your experimental validation of CO2 being a reason for a rise in temperature as the CO2 increases. Not one. BTW, two message boards. Still no proof. None, nadda, zero, zip!!!! So you have nothing but a bunch of mumbo jumbo from scientists who were told the models didn't follow the observed data. So evidence is purely on your side. So where is it?

 

[jc456]

Whoa buddy, I dont believe we can control the climate so you have that wrong. I believe we have an effect on it by our actions. Not that we are Storm from the X-men or something. Second all you have to say is you dont have any proof of what you are saying



Where is your evidence again? I asked the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th guy but they responded just like you. With smileys and deflection.

Do you beleive CO2 increases cause a rise in temperature? If so, then where is your evidence. Talk about wanting evidence, your kind have produced zip zero, nadda. Yet the sky is falling. Right.

Ok, are you going to answer my one question or not?

I don't answer any question without the experimental proof. Once provided I will entertain any question. To date none, nadda.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Listen, retard, can I call you retard? No one is saying that man has no effect on co2 emissions, no one is arguing that co2 has no effect on the climate. That you think anyone is, really just explains why I see you as retarded. No secret code is require, dumb ass, just read the abstract of the paper. If you want the rest of the paper go get it yourself. It's against the copyright laws for me to replicate it.

Against copyright laws?

And it may have a negative effect also, right? right?



No its not. Just because Darth Vader is worst than Jason doesnt mean Jason is a moot point.

Still further, even if we wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, which we don't, why would we agree to unilaterally reduce our emissions by killing our food supply (cows etc.) and ending our use of cheap fossil fuels just to move our food sources and production to asia?

No one wants to murder cows so now you can rest easy. I love a good steak.

No one is saying ending using fossil fuels just reducing them.

Many, if not most, scientific papers have to be purchased from the organization from which they are published. Typically the abstract page is available but details of the paper require $, and are copyrighted. Given that this board, USMB, is a public board, I would not presume to copy someone's copyrighted works here. I would assume that is forbidden in our rules if not merely against the law.

Yes, the resulting effect of taking a fart, passing gas, flushing your shit down the toilet may be net positive or net negative.

I've made a break thru...At least you admit that it MAY be a positive OR a negative.

So stop dismissing talks about the negative and pretending it can only be positive. The positive is great but the negative can make it harder to yanno, live. So why not err on the side of living?

 

[jc456]

Notice how they arent even interested in the science? They are too busy dismissing actual science and scientists with TMZ style rumor mill bullshit.

You know the IPCC group are only 20% scientists right? They cherry pick what is used in a report from other scientists. So not all of the data is used, cherry picked.

Of course they do and the proof of that is ....

btw, you're the 6th guy now

The proof of what? What is it that you didn't understand from six people now. That tells me your missing something.

 

[SSDD]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

Warming has been going on for 14 thousand years and is expected to continue till the earth has fully exited the present ice age. Man is not responsible. If we must spend trillions on climate, then it should be spent on adaptation since history has shown that the climate on earth is extremely variable.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Flooding has been going on for centuries. Add the fact that the region has an outdated drainage system in need of repair and you've got problems.

Nothing the liberals are proposing will change any of this. Redistributing wealth does not stop floods, tornadoes or change temps. Scientists revealed that during the Renaissance era, the core temp was slightly hotter than it is today.

Taking care of the planet is good. The stupid cap and trade plot is all about wealth redistribution and gaining control and has nothing to do with saving the earth.

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

Warming has been going on for 14 thousand years and is expected to continue till the earth has fully exited the present ice age. Man is not responsible. If we must spend trillions on climate, then it should be spent on adaptation since history has shown that the climate on earth is extremely variable.

According to science right? Do you understand the irony?

 

[jc456]

Whoa wait, you said the scientific article agreed with you 100% then when I quoted it showing you were lying thru your teeth now the scientific article is wrong and is nothign more than opinion?


Cool then link your own science that shows CO2 is like steroids for plants. Go ahead I dare you!

Fucking idiot

Here's a link showing CO2 and plant growth.

you tube co2 plant growth experiments - Bing Videos

And if you'd use the internet you'd have found it easily. There are many links out there. MANY.

What's that about idiot?

Is that 10 sec clip supposed to show me something that contradicts what I said?

What? You stated:"Cool then link your own science that shows CO2 is like steroids for plants. " I did. I did it in 10 seconds, your point?

 

[SSDD]

Very true

We should probably wait centuries before we decide whether it is really global warming or not

Of course by then, you will be telling us it is too late to do anything about it

Warming has been going on for 14 thousand years and is expected to continue till the earth has fully exited the present ice age. Man is not responsible. If we must spend trillions on climate, then it should be spent on adaptation since history has shown that the climate on earth is extremely variable.

According to science right? Do you understand the irony?

There is science...and then there is climate pseudoscience. Science tells us that the climate on earth varies to an incredible degree...climate pseudoscience tells us that the small variation we have seen over the past 100 years because we burn fossil fuels... they tell us this and expect that we believe although there is no actual proof of this and their hypothesis is failing spectacularly.

In real science, one failure of a hypothesis is just grounds to scrap it and go back to the drawing board....in climate pseudoscience, no number of failed predictions of the hypothesis are grounds to wonder if perhaps they got it wrong.

 

[jc456]

Whoa wait, you said the scientific article agreed with you 100% then when I quoted it showing you were lying thru your teeth now the scientific article is wrong and is nothign more than opinion?


Cool then link your own science that shows CO2 is like steroids for plants. Go ahead I dare you!

Fucking idiot

Here's a link showing CO2 and plant growth.

you tube co2 plant growth experiments - Bing Videos

And if you'd use the internet you'd have found it easily. There are many links out there. MANY.

What's that about idiot?

Is that 10 sec clip supposed to show me something that contradicts what I said?

Here another experiment. Not much longer but it is:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsOL5nWkn1k]Plant Timelapse CO2 Carbon Dioxide Concentration Global Warming Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes Yes

Yes

You do know that we are cutting down vast amounts of trees that would usually clean our air tho right? And some of the GW plans is planting trees right? Right?

That still doesnt show that CO2 is good for you fuck face or you would be huffing your exhaust pipe right now.

Listen, moron, I said plants breathe co2 and that is why co2 is good for us. We exhale co2. Saying co2 is bad for us is equivalent to saying breathing is bad for the environment. It's beyond moronic.

Yes, planting trees is good, cutting down forests is bad. But cow shit and cow farts are good for the environment, comprende? Cycle of life. Learn it.

Oh ok, since we are removing those trees then you realize there is less recycling of CO2 as well correct? Or this is where you jump off the logic train?

Removing trees? Says who?.
Logging? Ok, just what happens when the forest canopy in a certain area used for logging?
I will answer for you. the SUN light hits the ground. And what needs sun light to develop? PLANTS.....And what does the replacement plant life produce? CO2.
'Nuff said. You have no argument.

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to what? Science?

The theory was proposed and proven through experimentation. Life, plant life in this case, has learned to take advantage of co2, to thrive. Introducing excess co2 into our environment is like injecting steroids into plant life. They grow twice as big and twice as fast. Further you'll find the additional co2 will result in additional o2, which will make animals grow faster and bigger as well, but that's just my random theory I don't know if anyone has tested effects of excess o2 on animals.

not according to science. Maybe now you're using your gut

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Show me where anyone says more CO2 is better for plants across the board. You cant because its not true. At least, according to science

And the scientific community which depends upon funding from various sources, most of which comes from government grants has been politicized by this administration.
Scientific studies commissioned by this administration and those commissioned by people and groups with environmentalist agendas will be skewed so that the study produces a predetermined result.