Human Caused Global Warming

[cultsmasher]

Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself. Crack a book or three.

westwall,
There is one thing for sure. I wouldn't take your suggestions as to what books to crack.

westwall,
Whatever you wrote, maybe it was interesting. I don't know. Because I didn't read it. Nor do I intend to read anything else you write. Not only don't I like insults, but I like them even less from mental inferiors.




Of that I have no doubt. You choose to live in ignorance. Enjoy being a mushroom.

westwall,
You can call me a mushroom if you want. I've been called worse. But as long as I can fight idiots like you, there's a chance I won't be a cooked mushroom.

Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900. Learn something.

The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world. How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.

westwall,
Apparently in the area you chose to display, there has been a good amount of glacer melt since before 1900. But I'm not seeing the 90% you claim. Though if you want to take in the amount of glacer loss since the end of the ice age, now you're talking. One of the problems here is that you can come up with a graph that can show just about anything. But from everything I have seen, human caused global warming is, if anything, acclerating the loss of glacers. That's what really matters.

Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left. You truly have no clue do you. Time for you to go away. You are now just embarrassing yourself.

westwall,
You deniers make me embarrassed to be human.

Says the asshat sporting the Hitler avi. What a fucking moron. Go away and grow up little troll. And, for the record, you couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag.

 

[cultsmasher]

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

 

[jc456]

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.
And how do you know this?

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
It is true that there is much that science doesn't know about the past. There is even more that I don't know. No doubt looking at correlations between earth's climate and things like orbital position or axial position would be interesting. I'm just telling you what I read. But the fact of what humans are doing having an effect on the earth is as plain as the nose on your face. As far as what gasses the sea can hold and at what temperature goes, the Permian extinction shows that such things can have a very negative effect.

Of course you are...and you are also telling us the nature of your sources...obviously, you only read warmist propaganda....which contains very little truth... Your sources are obviously highly structured to provide what appears to be a very clear picture to people with very limited critical thinking skills....people who need to told explicitly what to think. Here, let me show you an example...

Here is a graph that crick likes to post to show how climate change is melting all of the ice in the arctic...

Terrible huh? Looks awful. Surely this is evidence that things are getting bad. And it would be if it weren't a lie...it is a deliberate effort to fool people who don' t do much thinning for themselves which just happen to be the sort of people who visit those sorts of sites...people who need to be told what to think. Look at that graph and the dismal picture it paints...now look at that graph and use your brain if you can. Look at the bottom of the graph...see the numbers? See where the graph begins? ...1979. Tell me cultsmasher...do you think our knowledge of arctic ice began in 1979? What would make you think for a second that 1979 was a reasonable place to begin a graph showing the growth and retreat of arctic ice?

Well, if you want to make people who don't do much thinking on their own think that the arctic is losing ice at a rate never before seen...and that things are the worst ever up in the arctic, you would want to start your graph at a high point in recent history....and show the decline. Crick, and old rocks and a couple of others show graphs like that a lot to demonstrate that the arctic ice is melting....they either do it out of ignorance (my guess) because they don't do much thinking on their own and visit the same sort of places you visit to be told what to think and to get pretty pictures that seem to prove what they have been told to think...or they are deliberate liars with an agenda and are perfectly willing to misinform people if they think it will move their agenda along.

Being a thinking sort of person who doesn't like being told what to think...I wondered why a graph of arctic ice would start in 1979. I was stationed in the Arctic before 1979 and we certainly had knowledge of the ice pack...ships and submarines were up there all the time so we had a pretty good idea of what the arctic ice looked like at any time...in addition, there were satellites looking at the arctic prior to 1979....so why start a graph at 1979..and only run it out to 2010 rather than show the recovery that has been happening for the past few years?

Here is your answer. See the circle up there....that is where cricks graph starts...just about the highest point in the past half century...if you go back a few years, you will see that the ice coverage was nearly as low in the middle 70s as it is today...before the cyclic recovery began...just like what is happening today.

SSDD,
Though my knowledge of science is limited, there are things I can tell you that no rational person can doubt. To start out, those who wish to maintain the status quo will say anything, ANYTHING, to keep things from changing. I have to wonder if you can even believe that plastic debris is accumulating in oceanic gyres. Also, it is a fact that human caused global warming exists. I was watching a documentary called "Greedy Lying Bastards." In it they showed the CEO of Exxon saying at a shareholders meeting that global warming was a reality. And he had far more reason to deny it than you probably do.

Also, you no doubt already know these stats. All the CO2 output from all the earths' volcanos each year, 200 million tons. All the CO2 put out by mankind each year, 26.8 billion tons. Where could your mind be to think that it doesn't have an effect. I can tell you where your mind is. It is in denier land.

It isn't in my imagination that last year all of Greenland, even mountain tops, underwent melt for the first time ever. It isn't in my imagination that wherever ice is replaced with water, the greenhouse effect increases. It isn't im my imagination that last year there were places in the far north that saw 90 degree temperatures for the first time ever. Etc. times zillions.

I can see why now why I seem to be all alone lately when it comes to debating deniers. It is because debating you people is useless. You want to believe what you want to believe and that's it. Talking to people like you is like having a religious argument with a true believer. Nothing gets through. But I will say for one last time, it isn't better to be sorry than safe.

 

[cultsmasher]

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.
And how do you know this?

jc456,
By comparing various graphs that show the rise and fall of CO2 throughout history.

 

[jc456]

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.
And how do you know this?

jc456,
By comparing various graphs that show the rise and fall of CO2 throughout history.

so do you know how fast it rose back 600,000 years ago?

 

[cultsmasher]

jc, please end the thread spamming. Nobody likes it, and it's violating board rules.

I'll tell you what, grow some and stop acting like you own this thing or the answer will be no.

Publicly stating your intent to continue spamming and breaking board rules is probably not the best tactic for you to use. I'm just kind of pointing out the obvious there. Not that I'm reporting anyone. I'm just asking a few to start acting like grownups.

I'm quite tired of stating the same thing over and over when you all keep posting garbage.

Then don't do it. "Someone insulted me!" is not a justification for spam posting.

Now, I see SSDD is once more doing that deliberate omitting-of-data-that-contradicts-him thing that he's so well known for. Here are some arctic ice extent records going back further. Back beyond 1979, ice levels are higher, which destroys SSDD's conspiracy theory about how 1979 was cherrypicked because it was some kind of all-time peak.

So why 1979? It was the start of the continuous satellite record for arctic sea ice. But it's not used as the baseline any longer. 1981-2010 is the standard ice baseline now, because it's an even 30 years that lands on decade boundaries. Hence, SSDD's 1979 conspiracy fails on yet another level.

mamooth,
I realize that for somebody with an avatar like mine, it can't be much help to people like crick and yourself to have somebody like me agree with you on human caused global warming. For that I apologize. But reality is what it is. Even to a 'bastard" like me.

 

[cultsmasher]

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.
And how do you know this?

jc456,
By comparing various graphs that show the rise and fall of CO2 throughout history.

so do you know how fast it rose back 600,000 years ago?

jc456,
By looking at the graphs.

 

[westwall]

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

Based on the last 17+ years it is very very clear, except to the cultists, that CO2 has no effect on global temps. The levels have been increasing far faster and higher than even Hanson predicted and there has been no subsequent rise in temps.

According to the scientific method that makes it a failed theory. But like all good cult members you ignore facts and spew scripture.

Typical.

 

[jc456]

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.
And how do you know this?

jc456,
By comparing various graphs that show the rise and fall of CO2 throughout history.

so do you know how fast it rose back 600,000 years ago?

jc456,
By looking at the graphs.

ok, do you have one you could share?

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
Your graph doesn't show me anything I don't already know. On another graph it shows that global temperatures have been on a slight downswing since the Permain-Triassic period. This cooling really started to take off at about the mid Tertiary period. This no doubt had something to do with the breakup of the contenents. But though there has been generalized cooling, I wouldn't call it an "ice age." It just happens to be the type of place our planet happens to be in for the time being.

You then ask me what would cause me to think that a warming isn't expected. Well first of all, right now it looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done. That is without an asteroid strike or the massive and long lasting eruption of the Siberian traps. And where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. And as I pointed out to someone who showed me one graph, it appeared that in the past, CO2 followed temperatures. These days, it is CO2 leading the way. That can't be good.

Also as to what global warming could be expected, it is unlikely that things are naturally going to change much until something drastic happens to the positions of the contenents. Another point concerns something I was telling someone else around here. To get a true idea of what is going on, we need to go to a parallel universe and find an earth exactly like ours without humans. But as far as I'm concerned, doing something like that isn't necessary to grasp what is now going on.

You know what all this boils down to is what I said in my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test." Which is that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. I will say to you again what I have said to others. It's better to be safe than sorry. Or let me put it another way. It is not better to be sorry than safe. I don't care what happens to our economic system as it now stands. We must change things for many reasons. Human caused global warming just happens to be the most important reason for change.

looks like CO2 is going up at a faster rate than it has ever done.
And how do you know this?

jc456,
By comparing various graphs that show the rise and fall of CO2 throughout history.

so do you know how fast it rose back 600,000 years ago?

jc456,
By looking at the graphs.

ok, do you have one you could share?

jc456,
Haven't thare been enough graphs shown on this discussion? Given them and others I've seen, I didn't see any times when it went up faster than it is today. Also, I'm not all that computer literate. I don't know how to take a graph from the internet and transfer it to a reply. Though an interesting one was showing how much CO2 humans have put into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately it has been rising at a rate that looks to be beyond exponential. But don't take my word for it. Though looking at it, it is at least close to that.

 

[Mustang]

I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy.

I propose it because I think that the scientific debate on climate change is pretty much settled that it's actually happening and that it's caused by human activity even though many details still aren't settled about speed and what the effects will be.

At any rate, here's my solution:

Any scientist who wants to take a stand on climate change and whether it's caused by human activity has to sign on to voluntarily permit their work to go through a peer review process (Note: climatologists are already doing this). We have to establish a date upon which a determination by the entire scientific community will be made as to the merits of all the research. To be able to vote, a scientists needs to have a background in a relevant discipline. The losers must forfeit their entire net worth (no hiding assets).

For the talking heads on radio and TV who want to participate in the debate (journalists, commentators, and general loud-mouthed know-it-alls), I propose that the losers be permanently banished from the airwaves. Let's see how many deniers would be willing to sign on to that.

Mustang,
You have a bit of an idea there about scientific loosers forfeting their savings. But if I were to guess, I would say that those interested in keeping things the way they are would reimburse human caused global warmind denying scientists for at least trying. Also, it's unlikely that those who own broadcasting mediums would fire people for saying what those owners want said.

You know what one of the main problems is can be found throughout history to the present. Which is how much shit the well to do are willing to put the lower classes through. From what I have seen, that is a pretty fearsome ammount of shit. Though I don't watch them, those shows about doomsday preppers disgust me. How do they afford to build their doomsday shelters? By contributing to the things that are likely to bring doom about.

On one occasion, I did see something on one of those types of shows. They had a submarine in one doomsday shelter factorie that they were building for a group of rich clients. But if things get as bad as they could, something like that would only delay their end. Though apparently even that slim hope is better than doing something to keep such doom from happening. Because that would likely mean them losing their position in society. And being the self centered chimps that most people are, it would be better if the earth was destroyed rather than have that happen.

Actually, I was thinking that summary execution would be more appropriate under circumstances.

Let me explain. While greed doesn't'make people' do anything, I think that everyone understands that greed has been (and certainly STILL is) the reason people' say and do certain things in the furtherance of an agenda. Sometimes it's theirs. Sometimes it's someone else's agenda. People can and do get hurt. Sometimes it's just financially. Other times it could be more serious, like a health-related issue that might even lead to the deaths of people. [One issue that comes to mind is the tobacco industry selling a product that they know causes cancer even as they collectively deny that there's any definitive evidence to support that contention. But hey, business is business, right. What are a few hundred thousand deaths over the last few decades when there's money to be made and most people who succumb merely have a shortened life after a lifetime of smoking.]

However, all sarcasm aside, cigarette smoking, even with the dangers of second hand smoke, is only dangerous to people within proximity. Climate change is another matter all together. In my particular case, I've read seven books that were either all about climate change or were partly about it. I would classify 3 out of the 7 books as excellent. One is the book by James Hansen which concentrates on the science and figures related to forcings and feedbacks and how that translates into watts per square meters.

Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity

The second book was written by Naomi Oreskes and is more of a history of scientific naysayers.


Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The third book is more anecdotal in nature although there certainly is science peppered throughout.


Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change

They all paint a pretty grim picture even though each book focuses on a slightly different aspect of the subject.

But here's the thing. Even though I KNOW that there are people who believe that climate change is either not happening or it's not caused by humans, the scientists are virtually in complete agreement. Furthermore, they're alarmed which is out of the ordinary because scientists are usually dispassionate while it's laypeople who get all worked up about something.

But just like with tobacco, I ALSO believe that there are plenty of people connected to the climate change denying side of the debate who KNOW that it's actually happening and that humans are the cause of it, but they don't give a damn. After all, as the old saying goes, life's a bitch and then you die. I think many of them figure that it won't matter once they're gone.

Well, it's one thing to take a fatalistic attitude about yourself and even about your own family (like people who smoked cigarettes around their kids and others for years even after the cancer warnings were issued), but it's another thing to figuratively pile the rest of humanity into your rickety old bus with the bad breaks as you drive it over some winding mountain pass after a rainstorm.

So, what >I< think is that there should be a date by which a definitive report should be issued on climate change and its causes. Five years prior to that report being compiled and released, people connected to the fossil fuel industry and all their so-called experts and media boosters should be given a polygraph test to find out what they really believe. And IF the report comes back that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans, AND IF the polygraph test reveals that they REALLY believed that climate change was real even though they were claiming there was no definitive evidence to back up the theory, they should be taken out and executed.

But here's the point. The point is not to execute people. It's to get them to be honest and say what they really believe to be the case. My bet is that a lot of deniers would change their tune under those circumstances. It might just save us a lot of time...and more.

 

[Stephanie]

Secretary of State John Kerry Explains the Greenhouse Effect

Upcoming Anniversary October 1st Will Mark 18 Years Of No Global Warming US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lol Liberals Want Laws Against Global Warming Deniers. Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[idb]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

 

[cultsmasher]

I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy.

I propose it because I think that the scientific debate on climate change is pretty much settled that it's actually happening and that it's caused by human activity even though many details still aren't settled about speed and what the effects will be.

At any rate, here's my solution:

Any scientist who wants to take a stand on climate change and whether it's caused by human activity has to sign on to voluntarily permit their work to go through a peer review process (Note: climatologists are already doing this). We have to establish a date upon which a determination by the entire scientific community will be made as to the merits of all the research. To be able to vote, a scientists needs to have a background in a relevant discipline. The losers must forfeit their entire net worth (no hiding assets).

For the talking heads on radio and TV who want to participate in the debate (journalists, commentators, and general loud-mouthed know-it-alls), I propose that the losers be permanently banished from the airwaves. Let's see how many deniers would be willing to sign on to that.

Mustang,
You have a bit of an idea there about scientific loosers forfeting their savings. But if I were to guess, I would say that those interested in keeping things the way they are would reimburse human caused global warmind denying scientists for at least trying. Also, it's unlikely that those who own broadcasting mediums would fire people for saying what those owners want said.

You know what one of the main problems is can be found throughout history to the present. Which is how much shit the well to do are willing to put the lower classes through. From what I have seen, that is a pretty fearsome ammount of shit. Though I don't watch them, those shows about doomsday preppers disgust me. How do they afford to build their doomsday shelters? By contributing to the things that are likely to bring doom about.

On one occasion, I did see something on one of those types of shows. They had a submarine in one doomsday shelter factorie that they were building for a group of rich clients. But if things get as bad as they could, something like that would only delay their end. Though apparently even that slim hope is better than doing something to keep such doom from happening. Because that would likely mean them losing their position in society. And being the self centered chimps that most people are, it would be better if the earth was destroyed rather than have that happen.

Actually, I was thinking that summary execution would be more appropriate under circumstances.

Let me explain. While greed doesn't'make people' do anything, I think that everyone understands that greed has been (and certainly STILL is) the reason people' say and do certain things in the furtherance of an agenda. Sometimes it's theirs. Sometimes it's someone else's agenda. People can and do get hurt. Sometimes it's just financially. Other times it could be more serious, like a health-related issue that might even lead to the deaths of people. [One issue that comes to mind is the tobacco industry selling a product that they know causes cancer even as they collectively deny that there's any definitive evidence to support that contention. But hey, business is business, right. What are a few hundred thousand deaths over the last few decades when there's money to be made and most people who succumb merely have a shortened life after a lifetime of smoking.]

However, all sarcasm aside, cigarette smoking, even with the dangers of second hand smoke, is only dangerous to people within proximity. Climate change is another matter all together. In my particular case, I've read seven books that were either all about climate change or were partly about it. I would classify 3 out of the 7 books as excellent. One is the book by James Hansen which concentrates on the science and figures related to forcings and feedbacks and how that translates into watts per square meters.

Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity

The second book was written by Naomi Oreskes and is more of a history of scientific naysayers.


Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

The third book is more anecdotal in nature although there certainly is science peppered throughout.


Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change

They all paint a pretty grim picture even though each book focuses on a slightly different aspect of the subject.

But here's the thing. Even though I KNOW that there are people who believe that climate change is either not happening or it's not caused by humans, the scientists are virtually in complete agreement. Furthermore, they're alarmed which is out of the ordinary because scientists are usually dispassionate while it's laypeople who get all worked up about something.

But just like with tobacco, I ALSO believe that there are plenty of people connected to the climate change denying side of the debate who KNOW that it's actually happening and that humans are the cause of it, but they don't give a damn. After all, as the old saying goes, life's a bitch and then you die. I think many of them figure that it won't matter once they're gone.

Well, it's one thing to take a fatalistic attitude about yourself and even about your own family (like people who smoked cigarettes around their kids and others for years even after the cancer warnings were issued), but it's another thing to figuratively pile the rest of humanity into your rickety old bus with the bad breaks as you drive it over some winding mountain pass after a rainstorm.

So, what >I< think is that there should be a date by which a definitive report should be issued on climate change and its causes. Five years prior to that report being compiled and released, people connected to the fossil fuel industry and all their so-called experts and media boosters should be given a polygraph test to find out what they really believe. And IF the report comes back that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans, AND IF the polygraph test reveals that they REALLY believed that climate change was real even though they were claiming there was no definitive evidence to back up the theory, they should be taken out and executed.

But here's the point. The point is not to execute people. It's to get them to be honest and say what they really believe to be the case. My bet is that a lot of deniers would change their tune under those circumstances. It might just save us a lot of time...and more.

Mustang,
Of course, I agree with you. Like I said near the beginning of my thread, "A Freedom of Speech Test," most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. Then there are all of the religious people who actually look forward to the destruction of the earth. So they can go be in heaven with Jesus. It's beyond disgusting.

To me, there is only one real answer. Seperation. And White separatism at that. You will never be able to change the mind of the vast majority of a greedy mob. Especially when that greed is being stoked in every way possible by those who are even more greedy. But what to do. Well Bill Gates and the U.S. government combined have given over ten million dollars to "La Raza." Which as you may know means "The Race." But all I get is food stamps. I wonder which buys more influence.

 

[cultsmasher]

Secretary of State John Kerry Explains the Greenhouse Effect

Upcoming Anniversary October 1st Will Mark 18 Years Of No Global Warming US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Lol Liberals Want Laws Against Global Warming Deniers. Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Stephanie,
It's on Political Discussion Form! It must be true! Don't make me laugh.

 

[cultsmasher]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

idb,
I take it that is a rhetorical question. Because you know the answer as well as I. Just follow the money.

 

[idb]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

idb,
I take it that is a rhetorical question. Because you know the answer as well as I. Just follow the money.

No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.

 

[gipper]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

 

[idb]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue.