Scientist discovers errors in global warming model

[frigidweirdo]

Check your smart-watch. This interglacial is already longer than 2 of the previous three.. Time's a'wasting.
Good news is -- spewing A LOT of CO2 might just help a few people in the higher latitudes survive the next glacial period..

Animal and plant life have always thrived during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Lush tropical climates are perfect for life. It's only when climates turn cold & dry, that life struggles to survive. 'Global Warming' will not spell the end of humanity. In fact, humanity will likely thrive.

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

More CO2 will cause more moisture. So it wouldn't be an extreme dry desert heat. It would more likely be a lush tropical heat. The climate record proves that. So your CO2 Boogeyman isn't quite the Boogeyman you guys make it out to be. The historical climate record shows that animal and plant life thrive in those climates.

Some believe the earth getting colder may have actually contributed to humans experiencing the Dark Ages. They may have experienced a 'Mini-Ice Age. So if you are inclined to live in fear over climate change, the planet getting colder should be more of a concern.

So... we go to a more tropical situation. How many countries in a wet tropical climate do well? Central Africa? No, not really. Brazil is doing okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar?

Some do okay.

The thing is that life can thrive in such conditions. I'm not saying they can't. Dinosaurs seemed to do well. But then they died out. Humans thrive in places between the cold and the hot jungle. If the whole world suddenly changes then for humanity things will change.

In the heat we use a lot of air conditioning. The hotter it gets, the more electricity we'll use, the more pollution we'll pump out and things will just keep getting worse.

Potentially things getting colder will be bad for humanity too. However this is natural. We know, more or less, the impact this will have on the world, we know it will change and go back.

The point I've made quite a few times is with change that isn't controllable, that isn't natural, that could do something that we can't predict, can't deal with.

More CO2 will not spell the end of humanity. Might get a little warmer and wetter, but humanity will survive. All the hysterical fear mongering is totally unnecessary.

Will it?

Prove it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fukushima, Chernobyl and all the others Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see here.

Nuclear is clean but causes potential problems that go beyond bad.

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear, however it's not the solution to all our problems. Renewable energy is the only way forwards.

Proper placement, proper construction, Proper recycling of the waste (over 93% is recyclable in newer constructed plants), and basic smarts in the use were not present in those disasters. The latest generation plants have internal fail safes which scram the plants without the need for outside power to cool them. Its called redundancy.

Why do you fear science and leaps forward?

Why do I fear science? Could I not ask the same thing about climate change to you?

Why do I fear nuclear power stations that have gone wrong in the past? Er...... well... because they go wrong. Sure, better technology means safer power stations. But they're never going to be 100% safe all of the time. Things can go wrong with anything.

Then again the US spends so much time and effort STOPPING countries like Iran getting this technology, even when they have massive pollution problems........

When a countries sole claim to fame is killing everyone else (INFIDELS) there is good reason to keep nuclear tech from them. Islam is NOT, I REPEAT NOT a religion of peace, the main religious tenant is conquer by force or kill your enemy. But that is for another thread.

I am going to laugh my ass off when liberals like yourself see gays and women taken to the street and beheaded or stoned to death because they embraced Sharia law which is Islams ONLY recognized government. These idiots are throwing away the US Constitution for mid-evil king/serf relationships where they live and die at the kings bidding.

The US's main claim to fame is killing everyone too (people sitting on top of oil usually).

Only one country has dropped a nuclear bomb on top of civilians. That's the US.

Islam isn't a religion of peace, and the US isn't a country of peace......

The left wit morons claims... what a pant load of crap.. you really do live in fantasy land..

Great response. Sort of thing I'd expect from a 12 year old.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrong again...

Use your brain.. We could very easily accommodate that if we used all of our resources wisely. That includes nuclear which makes all of your green enviro wacko shit useless.

Fukushima, Chernobyl and all the others Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see here.

Nuclear is clean but causes potential problems that go beyond bad.

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear, however it's not the solution to all our problems. Renewable energy is the only way forwards.

Proper placement, proper construction, Proper recycling of the waste (over 93% is recyclable in newer constructed plants), and basic smarts in the use were not present in those disasters. The latest generation plants have internal fail safes which scram the plants without the need for outside power to cool them. Its called redundancy.

Why do you fear science and leaps forward?

Why do I fear science? Could I not ask the same thing about climate change to you?

Why do I fear nuclear power stations that have gone wrong in the past? Er...... well... because they go wrong. Sure, better technology means safer power stations. But they're never going to be 100% safe all of the time. Things can go wrong with anything.

Then again the US spends so much time and effort STOPPING countries like Iran getting this technology, even when they have massive pollution problems........

Climate Science as it stands today is ideology and not science. Let me know when they give up the math, data, and methods for multidisciplinary review and theroy falsification.

And climate denial is what? Sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening?

You know, I looked into the whole thing, and I'm pretty convinced something bad is going to happen.

I have denied nothing! It is you who deny science by stifling debate, lying, manipulating the data and hiding the data, methods, and empirical evidence.

The climate most certainly changes and has for over 450 billion years. The ludicrous stance of the alarmist, that man can influence the system by adding 120ppm of CO2 when the earth has clearly not self destructed when those same levels were 7,000ppm for millions of years and the temp did not runaway, is the problem. Empirical EVIDENCE shows your meme fraudulent. Yet you persist. One must ask what it is you have to gain by pushing something so obviously wrong?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fukushima, Chernobyl and all the others Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see here.

Nuclear is clean but causes potential problems that go beyond bad.

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear, however it's not the solution to all our problems. Renewable energy is the only way forwards.

Proper placement, proper construction, Proper recycling of the waste (over 93% is recyclable in newer constructed plants), and basic smarts in the use were not present in those disasters. The latest generation plants have internal fail safes which scram the plants without the need for outside power to cool them. Its called redundancy.

Why do you fear science and leaps forward?

Why do I fear science? Could I not ask the same thing about climate change to you?

Why do I fear nuclear power stations that have gone wrong in the past? Er...... well... because they go wrong. Sure, better technology means safer power stations. But they're never going to be 100% safe all of the time. Things can go wrong with anything.

Then again the US spends so much time and effort STOPPING countries like Iran getting this technology, even when they have massive pollution problems........

Climate Science as it stands today is ideology and not science. Let me know when they give up the math, data, and methods for multidisciplinary review and theroy falsification.

And climate denial is what? Sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening?

You know, I looked into the whole thing, and I'm pretty convinced something bad is going to happen.

I have denied nothing! It is you who deny science by stifling debate, lying, manipulating the data and hiding the data, methods, and empirical evidence.

The climate most certainly changes and has for over 450 billion years. The ludicrous stance of the alarmist that man can influence the system by adding 120ppm of CO2 when the earth has clearly not self destructed when those same levels were 7,000ppm for millions of years and the temp did not runaway.

You just wrote a post that was just insults and attacks. When you learn to grow up, then maybe we can talk.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.

There is no scientific evidence. Does this mean it won't happen?

The evidence points to change in climate leads to extinction of different species. Perhaps humans could survive.

Plenty of possibilities. You just ignore each one of them and then sit back happy that you think you've won. The reality is that we don't know what will happen. Some people go into the unknown carefully because of potential problems, others jump in. Who's more likely to die?

Climate Change happens. It's always gonna happen. It's gonna happen no matter how much Government taxes you and takes control of your life. There's no need to panic and live in fear of Climate Change. The 'Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get ya.

I'm not talking climate change. I'm talking man made climate change.

With climate change you know, more or less, what you're getting. We should, in theory, be going through a cooling period. We can deal with this, we've developed enough to be able to cope with this for the most part even if it gets quite cold in a lot of places.

With man made climate change we don't know what we're getting. We don't know the impact what we're putting into the atmosphere will have.

The old line's coming out that "well it was hot before with loads of CO2 and life did well", but life isn't necessarily human life. Also there are other potential things that could happen that we don't know about. And if it goes tits over arse, we're not going to be able to pull back and stop it from happening.

First and fore most, empirical evidence shows that water vapor is NOT COUPLED to CO2. There is ZERO correlation or causation by empirical evidence. (the alarmist failed climate models are incorrect mathematical constructs, (Funny how we got back to this), that have NO PREDICTIVE POWER AND FAIL 100% of the time)

The earths history shows there is no "tipping point" because there is no coupling of water vapor to CO2. The empirical evidence shows that we get only 1/2 of the warming that we would expect from CO2 in the open atmosphere because water vapor acts as a negative forcing. (just take a CO2 content reading before and after a rain storm and you will understand why).

Again, your fear is misplaced as is your pseudoscience of CAGW.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Proper placement, proper construction, Proper recycling of the waste (over 93% is recyclable in newer constructed plants), and basic smarts in the use were not present in those disasters. The latest generation plants have internal fail safes which scram the plants without the need for outside power to cool them. Its called redundancy.

Why do you fear science and leaps forward?

Why do I fear science? Could I not ask the same thing about climate change to you?

Why do I fear nuclear power stations that have gone wrong in the past? Er...... well... because they go wrong. Sure, better technology means safer power stations. But they're never going to be 100% safe all of the time. Things can go wrong with anything.

Then again the US spends so much time and effort STOPPING countries like Iran getting this technology, even when they have massive pollution problems........

Climate Science as it stands today is ideology and not science. Let me know when they give up the math, data, and methods for multidisciplinary review and theroy falsification.

And climate denial is what? Sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening?

You know, I looked into the whole thing, and I'm pretty convinced something bad is going to happen.

I have denied nothing! It is you who deny science by stifling debate, lying, manipulating the data and hiding the data, methods, and empirical evidence.

The climate most certainly changes and has for over 450 billion years. The ludicrous stance of the alarmist that man can influence the system by adding 120ppm of CO2 when the earth has clearly not self destructed when those same levels were 7,000ppm for millions of years and the temp did not runaway.

You just wrote a post that was just insults and attacks. When you learn to grow up, then maybe we can talk.

Funny;

Your posts are CAGW talking points and lack cognitive thought.. I could say the same to you..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why do I fear science? Could I not ask the same thing about climate change to you?

Why do I fear nuclear power stations that have gone wrong in the past? Er...... well... because they go wrong. Sure, better technology means safer power stations. But they're never going to be 100% safe all of the time. Things can go wrong with anything.

Then again the US spends so much time and effort STOPPING countries like Iran getting this technology, even when they have massive pollution problems........

Climate Science as it stands today is ideology and not science. Let me know when they give up the math, data, and methods for multidisciplinary review and theroy falsification.

And climate denial is what? Sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening?

You know, I looked into the whole thing, and I'm pretty convinced something bad is going to happen.

I have denied nothing! It is you who deny science by stifling debate, lying, manipulating the data and hiding the data, methods, and empirical evidence.

The climate most certainly changes and has for over 450 billion years. The ludicrous stance of the alarmist that man can influence the system by adding 120ppm of CO2 when the earth has clearly not self destructed when those same levels were 7,000ppm for millions of years and the temp did not runaway.

You just wrote a post that was just insults and attacks. When you learn to grow up, then maybe we can talk.

Funny;

Your posts are CAGW talking points and lack cognitive thought.. I could say the same to you..

I think you're for the ignore list. You seem to half want to debate, and the other half just insult. I don't tolerate people who feel the need to insult.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Science as it stands today is ideology and not science. Let me know when they give up the math, data, and methods for multidisciplinary review and theroy falsification.

And climate denial is what? Sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening?

You know, I looked into the whole thing, and I'm pretty convinced something bad is going to happen.

I have denied nothing! It is you who deny science by stifling debate, lying, manipulating the data and hiding the data, methods, and empirical evidence.

The climate most certainly changes and has for over 450 billion years. The ludicrous stance of the alarmist that man can influence the system by adding 120ppm of CO2 when the earth has clearly not self destructed when those same levels were 7,000ppm for millions of years and the temp did not runaway.

You just wrote a post that was just insults and attacks. When you learn to grow up, then maybe we can talk.

Funny;

Your posts are CAGW talking points and lack cognitive thought.. I could say the same to you..

I think you're for the ignore list. You seem to half want to debate, and the other half just insult. I don't tolerate people who feel the need to insult.

I posted verifiable fact. Yet you take it as being an insult? That doesn't say much for your credibility. Just like Old Rocks and every other warmer here, when the facts disprove you, you take your ball and run home with hurt feelings. I am sorry I hurt your little feelings, but the facts are what they are and I wont stop posting them because your feelings get hurt. That's the thing about science, it doesn't care about your feelings, it depends on facts and verifiable information.

You see this is a tool of the alarmist to stifle debate. You dont want me to repeat that your side refuses to give up their Data, Methods, and Math for review. You would rather they be allowed to kill the debate (consensus-science is settled bull shit) than be truthful.. That makes you no better than they are.

 

[paulitician]

It's an agenda being advanced by World Government Globalists.

No, there's no VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy. You're just a loony. And a boring one. After you've seen one right-wing-extremist-crank political cultist, you've seen them all.

Speaking of cults, how's your DearLeaderPaul doing in the primaries? It must be rough for you, seeing your cult messiah getting rejected like that even by the other crank conservatives. No wonder you're lashing out in such incoherent rage.

And speaking of cranks, Dave Evans, author of the crank article referenced in the OP, has finally stopped referring to himself as a "rocket scientist" on his web page and resume. It looks like the public shaming finally convinced him to stop lying.

Thanks for the kind words, but those doing the hysterical fear mongering are World Government Globalists. However, their massive World Government takeover isn't gonna end Climate Change. Beating the People up by over-taxing em and seizing complete control their lives, isn't the answer.

Climate Change is gonna happen. We'll just have to deal with it as a species. And that's that. The endless scare tactics have gotten very old. It's time to turn the page on the Great Global Warming Swindle.

 

[BlindBoo]

Just because the increasing levels CO2 is the focus of scientist doesn't mean they believe it drives the climate, that's just stupid. They want to know what role it plays in the system but they don't actually know how the system works, hence the errors in their models predictions.

Lacis 2010 is a prime reason to believe they do. Real Climate and other warmer scientist blogs went out of their way to support it.

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob
Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important
climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4,
and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current
climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases,
which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable
temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via
feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the
radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial
greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.



straight from the NASA boys in the journal Science. I would say it is pretty obvious that they do indeed think CO2 drives the climate.

Sounds more like they theorize the non-condencing GHG's have a regulating effect or they help keep the equilibrium of the climate not that they drive the climate.

 

[paulitician]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.

There is no scientific evidence. Does this mean it won't happen?

The evidence points to change in climate leads to extinction of different species. Perhaps humans could survive.

Plenty of possibilities. You just ignore each one of them and then sit back happy that you think you've won. The reality is that we don't know what will happen. Some people go into the unknown carefully because of potential problems, others jump in. Who's more likely to die?

Climate Change happens. It's always gonna happen. It's gonna happen no matter how much Government taxes you and takes control of your life. There's no need to panic and live in fear of Climate Change. The 'Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get ya.

I'm not talking climate change. I'm talking man made climate change.

With climate change you know, more or less, what you're getting. We should, in theory, be going through a cooling period. We can deal with this, we've developed enough to be able to cope with this for the most part even if it gets quite cold in a lot of places.

With man made climate change we don't know what we're getting. We don't know the impact what we're putting into the atmosphere will have.

The old line's coming out that "well it was hot before with loads of CO2 and life did well", but life isn't necessarily human life. Also there are other potential things that could happen that we don't know about. And if it goes tits over arse, we're not going to be able to pull back and stop it from happening.

Well, you go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. That's your call. However i will try and stop you from allowing Government to over-tax and seize complete control of my life. I'd rather take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman than with you guys. That's how i feel.

 

[paulitician]

Animal and plant life have always thrived during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Lush tropical climates are perfect for life. It's only when climates turn cold & dry, that life struggles to survive. 'Global Warming' will not spell the end of humanity. In fact, humanity will likely thrive.

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

More CO2 will cause more moisture. So it wouldn't be an extreme dry desert heat. It would more likely be a lush tropical heat. The climate record proves that. So your CO2 Boogeyman isn't quite the Boogeyman you guys make it out to be. The historical climate record shows that animal and plant life thrive in those climates.

Some believe the earth getting colder may have actually contributed to humans experiencing the Dark Ages. They may have experienced a 'Mini-Ice Age. So if you are inclined to live in fear over climate change, the planet getting colder should be more of a concern.

So... we go to a more tropical situation. How many countries in a wet tropical climate do well? Central Africa? No, not really. Brazil is doing okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar?

Some do okay.

The thing is that life can thrive in such conditions. I'm not saying they can't. Dinosaurs seemed to do well. But then they died out. Humans thrive in places between the cold and the hot jungle. If the whole world suddenly changes then for humanity things will change.

In the heat we use a lot of air conditioning. The hotter it gets, the more electricity we'll use, the more pollution we'll pump out and things will just keep getting worse.

Potentially things getting colder will be bad for humanity too. However this is natural. We know, more or less, the impact this will have on the world, we know it will change and go back.

The point I've made quite a few times is with change that isn't controllable, that isn't natural, that could do something that we can't predict, can't deal with.

More CO2 will not spell the end of humanity. Might get a little warmer and wetter, but humanity will survive. All the hysterical fear mongering is totally unnecessary.

Will it?

Prove it.

We've already covered it. You guys dong all the fear mongering, haven't proven that life can't or doesn't survive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Your fear mongering is completely unnecessary.

You're using fear to push a particular political agenda. If you're gonna push your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda, the burden's on you to show how it's fact. Relying on your word or having 'Faith', just isn't good enough.

 

[jc456]

you know those two pieces are contradicting correct?

What? Are you insane?

Do you know what the words "impact" and "control" are? If you don't, I suggest you look them up because they're NOT contradictory. And NO, I'm not going to teach you basic fucking English.

it's now obvious you don't.

Oh jeez, someone trying to take the high ground when they're clearly not aware of differences in words. Sorry, I'm not in the mood for this kind of crap right now.

not at all, someone explaining that you have no idea what the difference is. No moral high ground, just more factual information regarding how uneducated folks as yourself are with the environment. Funny stuff frank!!!!

Oh, God, you're going to make me show you what they mean, aren't you? You're going to fight and fight and defend an undefensible position.

impact: definition of impact in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

impact

"The effect or influence of one person, thing, or action, on another:"

control: definition of control in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

control

1.1) Maintain influence or authority over:

1.4) Regulate (a mechanical or scientific process):



Impact is when you influence something. I throw a ball into a crowd of people, I impact that crowd of people.

Control is when you do something and you retain the ability to impact at all times.

If you've thrown the ball into the crowd of people you no longer control the ball. You have had an impact on the crowd but you don't control the crowd or the ball, but the impact of your original decision is there.

Clearly they mean two different things.

If we put pollution into the air, you are having an impact. If you stop putting pollution into the air and it does exactly what you want it to do, then you control it. If you put pollution into the air and then you can no longer predict how things will work and everything gets out of control, you no longer have control, but you impacted the situation.

This wouldn't have been so difficult for you to look up. It's basic English.

It really annoys me when people fight over the meaning of basic English. I wonder what kind of person I'm dealing with who can't even grasp that sort of thing, especially with so many online dictionaries.

I found great synonyms for "impact" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Impact - the two best matches on the thesaurus are "brunt" and "shock"

Control there are many, authority, curb, discipline, domination, force, government, jurisdiction, management, oversight, regulation, restraint, restriction, rule, supervision.

Funny how a synonym of Impact isn't "control" and a synonym of control isn't "impact".

funny stuff Frank. so a question; if there is no impact, is there a probability of control? BTW, did you look up the word 'influence'?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot.

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires.

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.

More CO2 will cause more moisture. So it wouldn't be an extreme dry desert heat. It would more likely be a lush tropical heat. The climate record proves that. So your CO2 Boogeyman isn't quite the Boogeyman you guys make it out to be. The historical climate record shows that animal and plant life thrive in those climates.

Some believe the earth getting colder may have actually contributed to humans experiencing the Dark Ages. They may have experienced a 'Mini-Ice Age. So if you are inclined to live in fear over climate change, the planet getting colder should be more of a concern.

So... we go to a more tropical situation. How many countries in a wet tropical climate do well? Central Africa? No, not really. Brazil is doing okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar?

Some do okay.

The thing is that life can thrive in such conditions. I'm not saying they can't. Dinosaurs seemed to do well. But then they died out. Humans thrive in places between the cold and the hot jungle. If the whole world suddenly changes then for humanity things will change.

In the heat we use a lot of air conditioning. The hotter it gets, the more electricity we'll use, the more pollution we'll pump out and things will just keep getting worse.

Potentially things getting colder will be bad for humanity too. However this is natural. We know, more or less, the impact this will have on the world, we know it will change and go back.

The point I've made quite a few times is with change that isn't controllable, that isn't natural, that could do something that we can't predict, can't deal with.

More CO2 will not spell the end of humanity. Might get a little warmer and wetter, but humanity will survive. All the hysterical fear mongering is totally unnecessary.

Will it?

Prove it.

We've already covered it. You guys dong all the fear mongering, haven't proven that life can't or doesn't survive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Your fear mongering is completely unnecessary.

You're using fear to push a particular political agenda. If you're gonna push your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda, the burden's on you to show how it's fact. Relying on your word or having 'Faith', just isn't good enough.

Because no one is saying LIFE can't survive during this time. Whether humans can is a completely different matter.

You're ignoring the fact that when things go out of control, then there are problems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What? Are you insane?

Do you know what the words "impact" and "control" are? If you don't, I suggest you look them up because they're NOT contradictory. And NO, I'm not going to teach you basic fucking English.

it's now obvious you don't.

Oh jeez, someone trying to take the high ground when they're clearly not aware of differences in words. Sorry, I'm not in the mood for this kind of crap right now.

not at all, someone explaining that you have no idea what the difference is. No moral high ground, just more factual information regarding how uneducated folks as yourself are with the environment. Funny stuff frank!!!!

Oh, God, you're going to make me show you what they mean, aren't you? You're going to fight and fight and defend an undefensible position.

impact: definition of impact in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

impact

"The effect or influence of one person, thing, or action, on another:"

control: definition of control in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

control

1.1) Maintain influence or authority over:

1.4) Regulate (a mechanical or scientific process):



Impact is when you influence something. I throw a ball into a crowd of people, I impact that crowd of people.

Control is when you do something and you retain the ability to impact at all times.

If you've thrown the ball into the crowd of people you no longer control the ball. You have had an impact on the crowd but you don't control the crowd or the ball, but the impact of your original decision is there.

Clearly they mean two different things.

If we put pollution into the air, you are having an impact. If you stop putting pollution into the air and it does exactly what you want it to do, then you control it. If you put pollution into the air and then you can no longer predict how things will work and everything gets out of control, you no longer have control, but you impacted the situation.

This wouldn't have been so difficult for you to look up. It's basic English.

It really annoys me when people fight over the meaning of basic English. I wonder what kind of person I'm dealing with who can't even grasp that sort of thing, especially with so many online dictionaries.

I found great synonyms for "impact" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Impact - the two best matches on the thesaurus are "brunt" and "shock"

Control there are many, authority, curb, discipline, domination, force, government, jurisdiction, management, oversight, regulation, restraint, restriction, rule, supervision.

Funny how a synonym of Impact isn't "control" and a synonym of control isn't "impact".

funny stuff Frank. so a question; if there is no impact, is there a probability of control? BTW, did you look up the word 'influence'?

Who's Frank. And what are you going on about?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.

There is no scientific evidence. Does this mean it won't happen?

The evidence points to change in climate leads to extinction of different species. Perhaps humans could survive.

Plenty of possibilities. You just ignore each one of them and then sit back happy that you think you've won. The reality is that we don't know what will happen. Some people go into the unknown carefully because of potential problems, others jump in. Who's more likely to die?

Climate Change happens. It's always gonna happen. It's gonna happen no matter how much Government taxes you and takes control of your life. There's no need to panic and live in fear of Climate Change. The 'Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get ya.

I'm not talking climate change. I'm talking man made climate change.

With climate change you know, more or less, what you're getting. We should, in theory, be going through a cooling period. We can deal with this, we've developed enough to be able to cope with this for the most part even if it gets quite cold in a lot of places.

With man made climate change we don't know what we're getting. We don't know the impact what we're putting into the atmosphere will have.

The old line's coming out that "well it was hot before with loads of CO2 and life did well", but life isn't necessarily human life. Also there are other potential things that could happen that we don't know about. And if it goes tits over arse, we're not going to be able to pull back and stop it from happening.

Well, you go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. That's your call. However i will try and stop you from allowing Government to over-tax and seize complete control of my life. I'd rather take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman than with you guys. That's how i feel.

So you'd rather fuck up the planet for your own gains, and screw everyone else?

 

[paulitician]

More CO2 will cause more moisture. So it wouldn't be an extreme dry desert heat. It would more likely be a lush tropical heat. The climate record proves that. So your CO2 Boogeyman isn't quite the Boogeyman you guys make it out to be. The historical climate record shows that animal and plant life thrive in those climates.

Some believe the earth getting colder may have actually contributed to humans experiencing the Dark Ages. They may have experienced a 'Mini-Ice Age. So if you are inclined to live in fear over climate change, the planet getting colder should be more of a concern.

So... we go to a more tropical situation. How many countries in a wet tropical climate do well? Central Africa? No, not really. Brazil is doing okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar?

Some do okay.

The thing is that life can thrive in such conditions. I'm not saying they can't. Dinosaurs seemed to do well. But then they died out. Humans thrive in places between the cold and the hot jungle. If the whole world suddenly changes then for humanity things will change.

In the heat we use a lot of air conditioning. The hotter it gets, the more electricity we'll use, the more pollution we'll pump out and things will just keep getting worse.

Potentially things getting colder will be bad for humanity too. However this is natural. We know, more or less, the impact this will have on the world, we know it will change and go back.

The point I've made quite a few times is with change that isn't controllable, that isn't natural, that could do something that we can't predict, can't deal with.

More CO2 will not spell the end of humanity. Might get a little warmer and wetter, but humanity will survive. All the hysterical fear mongering is totally unnecessary.

Will it?

Prove it.

We've already covered it. You guys dong all the fear mongering, haven't proven that life can't or doesn't survive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Your fear mongering is completely unnecessary.

You're using fear to push a particular political agenda. If you're gonna push your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda, the burden's on you to show how it's fact. Relying on your word or having 'Faith', just isn't good enough.

Because no one is saying LIFE can't survive during this time. Whether humans can is a completely different matter.

You're ignoring the fact that when things go out of control, then there are problems.

What's your solution to ending Climate Change? I'm fair-minded, i'm willing to listen.

 

[paulitician]

There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.

There is no scientific evidence. Does this mean it won't happen?

The evidence points to change in climate leads to extinction of different species. Perhaps humans could survive.

Plenty of possibilities. You just ignore each one of them and then sit back happy that you think you've won. The reality is that we don't know what will happen. Some people go into the unknown carefully because of potential problems, others jump in. Who's more likely to die?

Climate Change happens. It's always gonna happen. It's gonna happen no matter how much Government taxes you and takes control of your life. There's no need to panic and live in fear of Climate Change. The 'Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get ya.

I'm not talking climate change. I'm talking man made climate change.

With climate change you know, more or less, what you're getting. We should, in theory, be going through a cooling period. We can deal with this, we've developed enough to be able to cope with this for the most part even if it gets quite cold in a lot of places.

With man made climate change we don't know what we're getting. We don't know the impact what we're putting into the atmosphere will have.

The old line's coming out that "well it was hot before with loads of CO2 and life did well", but life isn't necessarily human life. Also there are other potential things that could happen that we don't know about. And if it goes tits over arse, we're not going to be able to pull back and stop it from happening.

Well, you go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. That's your call. However i will try and stop you from allowing Government to over-tax and seize complete control of my life. I'd rather take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman than with you guys. That's how i feel.

So you'd rather fuck up the planet for your own gains, and screw everyone else?

What's 'fucking up the planet?' What do you mean? And who are you to force others to go along with your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda? As i said, you can go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. You make that decision. Just don't think you're gonna force more Government oppression on others. We're not all gonna go along with that. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

 

[jc456]

More CO2 will cause more moisture. So it wouldn't be an extreme dry desert heat. It would more likely be a lush tropical heat. The climate record proves that. So your CO2 Boogeyman isn't quite the Boogeyman you guys make it out to be. The historical climate record shows that animal and plant life thrive in those climates.

Some believe the earth getting colder may have actually contributed to humans experiencing the Dark Ages. They may have experienced a 'Mini-Ice Age. So if you are inclined to live in fear over climate change, the planet getting colder should be more of a concern.

So... we go to a more tropical situation. How many countries in a wet tropical climate do well? Central Africa? No, not really. Brazil is doing okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar?

Some do okay.

The thing is that life can thrive in such conditions. I'm not saying they can't. Dinosaurs seemed to do well. But then they died out. Humans thrive in places between the cold and the hot jungle. If the whole world suddenly changes then for humanity things will change.

In the heat we use a lot of air conditioning. The hotter it gets, the more electricity we'll use, the more pollution we'll pump out and things will just keep getting worse.

Potentially things getting colder will be bad for humanity too. However this is natural. We know, more or less, the impact this will have on the world, we know it will change and go back.

The point I've made quite a few times is with change that isn't controllable, that isn't natural, that could do something that we can't predict, can't deal with.

More CO2 will not spell the end of humanity. Might get a little warmer and wetter, but humanity will survive. All the hysterical fear mongering is totally unnecessary.

Will it?

Prove it.

We've already covered it. You guys dong all the fear mongering, haven't proven that life can't or doesn't survive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Your fear mongering is completely unnecessary.

You're using fear to push a particular political agenda. If you're gonna push your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda, the burden's on you to show how it's fact. Relying on your word or having 'Faith', just isn't good enough.

Because no one is saying LIFE can't survive during this time. Whether humans can is a completely different matter.

You're ignoring the fact that when things go out of control, then there are problems.

what exactly are we ignoring? What is out of control? Do you know what will be out of control? You have a crystal ball then?

 

[jc456]

So... we go to a more tropical situation. How many countries in a wet tropical climate do well? Central Africa? No, not really. Brazil is doing okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar?

Some do okay.

The thing is that life can thrive in such conditions. I'm not saying they can't. Dinosaurs seemed to do well. But then they died out. Humans thrive in places between the cold and the hot jungle. If the whole world suddenly changes then for humanity things will change.

In the heat we use a lot of air conditioning. The hotter it gets, the more electricity we'll use, the more pollution we'll pump out and things will just keep getting worse.

Potentially things getting colder will be bad for humanity too. However this is natural. We know, more or less, the impact this will have on the world, we know it will change and go back.

The point I've made quite a few times is with change that isn't controllable, that isn't natural, that could do something that we can't predict, can't deal with.

More CO2 will not spell the end of humanity. Might get a little warmer and wetter, but humanity will survive. All the hysterical fear mongering is totally unnecessary.

Will it?

Prove it.

We've already covered it. You guys dong all the fear mongering, haven't proven that life can't or doesn't survive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Your fear mongering is completely unnecessary.

You're using fear to push a particular political agenda. If you're gonna push your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda, the burden's on you to show how it's fact. Relying on your word or having 'Faith', just isn't good enough.

Because no one is saying LIFE can't survive during this time. Whether humans can is a completely different matter.

You're ignoring the fact that when things go out of control, then there are problems.

What's your solution to ending Climate Change? I'm fair-minded, i'm willing to listen.

dude I've asked dozens of times and to date, no answer given. They don't even know what problem to solve, so having a solution to that is impossible. But the sky is falling in their worlds, that's all.