Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And they're ALL of proven crappyness:So you are yet another one of the idiots who think a one degree rise is somehow meaningful. What is the difference in average temperature from Tierra Del Fuego and the Gobi Desert? People and animals live in both places.
And, for the record, your little whiney last sentence sounds like something my 7 year old daughter would say when she isn't allowed a treat.
And you are one of those idiots who think that a 12 degree change is benign.
We plainly can't afford that kind of problem avoidance.
12 degrees?Not even the IPCC in their wildest fit of lunacy has made that claim. Please show us evidence for a 12 degree rise that isn't based on a computer model of proven crappiness.
Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!
What we spend will easily save us ten times that amount given what we already know. There is no uncertainty regarding the greenhouse effect. There is no uncertainty regarding sea level rise. Both represent an enormously costly threat to our civilization. Feel free to ignore it. Putting things off as long as possible is almost always the best approach, isn't it.
And they're ALL of proven crappyness:And you are one of those idiots who think that a 12 degree change is benign.
We plainly can't afford that kind of problem avoidance.
12 degrees?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
The surest way for the Warmers to end the debate is to show us in a lab how an 800ppm atmosphere of CO2 will raise temperature by 3 degrees
That would convince me
There are too many variable to do such an experiment in a lab.
That is untrue Snookie. It IS a doable experiment. They just don't want to do it because it won't support their hypothesis.
Absolutely worthless. The models can't even predict PAST climate, when we have the temperature record to check them against.And they're ALL of proven crappyness:12 degrees?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
12 degrees was the upper limit of the IPCC's spread and was based on the likely worst case scenario of AGW plus positive feedbacks.
Absolutely worthless. The models can't even predict PAST climate, when we have the temperature record to check them against.And they're ALL of proven crappyness:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
12 degrees was the upper limit of the IPCC's spread and was based on the likely worst case scenario of AGW plus positive feedbacks.
Your "science" is based on crap, kid.
And they're ALL of proven crappyness:And you are one of those idiots who think that a 12 degree change is benign.
We plainly can't afford that kind of problem avoidance.
12 degrees?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
Quick, let's spend tens of trillions, before we find out!!!!
What we spend will easily save us ten times that amount given what we already know. There is no uncertainty regarding the greenhouse effect. There is no uncertainty regarding sea level rise. Both represent an enormously costly threat to our civilization. Feel free to ignore it. Putting things off as long as possible is almost always the best approach, isn't it.
Really? According to the paper produced by the IPCC they estimate for the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars we will be able to lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....maybe...
But hey don't believe a word I say... you can read it for yourself!
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf
Pssst: When the country's official name is something like The People's Democratic etc. -- it's not a democracy.I have. Obviously, you haven't -- otherwise you'd see that what you advocate is a proven failure.
Actually, democracy has been very successful.
Idiot.
And they're ALL of proven crappyness:12 degrees?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
12 degrees was the upper limit of the IPCC's spread and was based on the likely worst case scenario of AGW plus positive feedbacks.
And they're ALL of proven crappyness:12 degrees?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
Only to those who don't have the education and experience to understand them.
What we spend will easily save us ten times that amount given what we already know. There is no uncertainty regarding the greenhouse effect. There is no uncertainty regarding sea level rise. Both represent an enormously costly threat to our civilization. Feel free to ignore it. Putting things off as long as possible is almost always the best approach, isn't it.
Really? According to the paper produced by the IPCC they estimate for the expenditure of 76 trillion dollars we will be able to lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....maybe...
But hey don't believe a word I say... you can read it for yourself!
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf
Can you show us the particular quote from your reference that says that specifically?
You know what happens when you assume:Absolutely worthless. The models can't even predict PAST climate, when we have the temperature record to check them against.12 degrees was the upper limit of the IPCC's spread and was based on the likely worst case scenario of AGW plus positive feedbacks.
Your "science" is based on crap, kid.
So your recommendation I assume, is to stick our heads in the sand, declare ourselves not smart enough, do nothing, and hope for the best.
While that probably is the best that you can do, it not the best that we can do.
It doesn't take any education and experience to know when predictions aren't backed up by data, kid.And they're ALL of proven crappyness:12 degrees?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
Only to those who don't have the education and experience to understand them.
And they're ALL of proven crappyness:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/312717-how-have-the-ipcc-s-computer-models-performed.html
Only to those who don't have the education and experience to understand them.
You know you don't have to be even remotely clever to understand that when random guessing is more accurate than your computer models you have a problem. I think even a person of below average intelligence can figure that out quite easily.
Why you guys haven't been able to add two plus two is beyond me....maybe you're just really, really stupid?
Only to those who don't have the education and experience to understand them.
You know you don't have to be even remotely clever to understand that when random guessing is more accurate than your computer models you have a problem. I think even a person of below average intelligence can figure that out quite easily.
Why you guys haven't been able to add two plus two is beyond me....maybe you're just really, really stupid?
Here's the thing that is beyond you, apparently. You are representing you. Your capabilities, your education, your experience, your objectiveness, your training, your intelligence. What I'm defending is science. Not because of who I am, but who the IPCC is.
I can't tell you how easy my role is compared to yours.
You don't see that, and some others don't either and that's great.
All I have to do to support the institution of science is keep you posting.
What you accomplish for me is revealing the breadth and depth of both sides to the objective observer. And they are all I care about.
But you don't want a United States of America.Pssst: When the country's official name is something like The People's Democratic etc. -- it's not a democracy.Actually, democracy has been very successful.
Idiot.
I was referring to the United States of America.
As has been repeatedly shown, the IPCC are corrupt, incompetent ideologues.Only to those who don't have the education and experience to understand them.
You know you don't have to be even remotely clever to understand that when random guessing is more accurate than your computer models you have a problem. I think even a person of below average intelligence can figure that out quite easily.
Why you guys haven't been able to add two plus two is beyond me....maybe you're just really, really stupid?
Here's the thing that is beyond you, apparently. You are representing you. Your capabilities, your education, your experience, your objectiveness, your training, your intelligence. What I'm defending is science. Not because of who I am, but who the IPCC is.
I can't tell you how easy my role is compared to yours.
You don't see that, and some others don't either and that's great.
All I have to do to support the institution of science is keep you posting.
What you accomplish for me is revealing the breadth and depth of both sides to the objective observer. And they are all I care about.
The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life.
See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.
The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.
To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.
''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''
Thats why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.
The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.
The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.
We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. Thats what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.
I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.
Sweety.
See you keep moving the goal posts but continue to say ignorant things. It is true that many species that live now had not yet evolved during that that time. But that period, more than any other, provided the building blocks for the great mammals to follow. The carboniferous period was the time that great reptiles, huge complex plants, and the more primitve fish shed their armor and evolved into very similar species that we know today.
The Carboniferous Period saw the first true bony fishes, the first sharks and the first amphibians evolve. It also was the time period during which the first amniotes arose. The amniotic egg, the defining characteristic of amniotes, enabled the ancestors or modern reptiles, birds, and mammals to to reproduce on land and colonise terrestrial habitats that were previously uninhabited by vertebrates.
To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.
''To assume that ANY modern creatures would not be able to survive and thrive in that lush, temperate, and amazing period is simply absurd.''
Thats why I didn't assume it. I don't know why you did.
The AGW issue is an economic one. Many of us could survive on Mars if we had to but the world would go broke building the required infrastructure.
The only climate we're adapted to with our infrastructure is the one we've had for a few millenia.
We don't know for sure how much that climate will change from the current atmospheric load of GHGs. We don't know how much more we'll add. Thats what the IPCC is modeling so we can decide what are alternatives are.
I can't personally understand why anybody would not want that insight.
Sweety.
That's why you didn't assume it? You said it. I quoted you saying it. It is quoted again here. You said specifically up there: "The one fact in your post is correct. It would have been more accurate for me to be more specific and say inhospitable to higher forms of life."
And with that one statement you show yourself totally ignorant of what you pretend to know.
