Climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery

[CrusaderFrank]

Your every post is a sure sign that you are completely retarded.

Namecalling. Again a sure sign that your argument is so weak that even you know it can't win.

We did win on the science, some time ago actually. It was never even a contest with you reality denying dumbshits.

Actually no. You didn't win. You have been steadily loosing for quite some time now and it has finally reached the point that you are trying the hail mary tactic of making it a moral issue. That is going to fail also.

Nobody has to "turn it into an emotional issue", SSoooDDumb. This climate change crisis that threatens our civilization and all future generations is already an enormously emotional issue to everyone who had a heart and isn't a total retard, like you.

Except that it is an emotional issue for you. Mostly anger in your case; perhaps from sheer frustration over taking such a weak side, but the near hysterical mania you exhibit with every one of your cut and pastes suggests something more than frustrated anger.

As I mentioned before, SSooooDDumb, the evidence for AGW is so overwhelming that it has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community and most of the population of the planet. It is only the brainwashed rightwingnut morons, mostly in America, who still futilely try to deny the reality of our situation.

Actually, it has convinced no one but a very select cadre of hoaxters who are making a mint on the sham. But hey, when you are as emotional as you about an issue, clear thinking isn't to be expected.

I have peer reviewed this post and it is at least 100% accurate

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I also note that rolling thunder is consistently a profane douchebag who still hasn't explained how AGW could be anywhere near correct in the face of a 600,000 year dataset to the contrary

 

[SSDD]

I have peer reviewed this post and it is at least 100% accurate

Maybe its content shoud be the basis for a model. Maybe skeptics should just do some models that say that AGW is a hoax (since models tell you whatever you want them to). These guys put much more stock in computer output than actual observation. Maybe that is where skeptics are missing the boat...hammering them with observable fact rather than computer model output.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have peer reviewed this post and it is at least 100% accurate

Maybe its content shoud be the basis for a model. Maybe skeptics should just do some models that say that AGW is a hoax (since models tell you whatever you want them to). These guys put much more stock in computer output than actual observation. Maybe that is where skeptics are missing the boat...hammering them with observable fact rather than computer model output.

How many tree rings should we include in the model?

 

[SSDD]

How many tree rings should we include in the model?

Lots... They just luuuuuuuvvvvvvv tree rings. Except for those post 1960 tree rings which must have been hippy tree rings on drugs because they just didn't support the pre determined outcome.

Now that it think about it, they must have been hippie tree rings. After all, didn't they "stick it to the mann?"?

 

[westwall]

Man made climate change is quite real and it is rapidly altering the Earth's climate pattens and the planetary ecosystem that is so intimately tied to those patterns that were previously fairly stable for many thousands of years. How this generation handles this planetary crisis will affect all future generations and possibly even threaten the survival of the human race. One of the world's most eminent and honored climate scientists recently gave a talk about this issue and offered some pretty clear warnings.

Nasa scientist: climate change is a moral issue on a par with slavery
The Guardian
Severin Carrell
6 April 2012
(excerpts)
Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen. He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an "injustice of one generation to others". Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions. In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award, Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet. "The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control," he said. "We're in an emergency: you can see what's on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction."

Hansen will argue in his lecture that current generations have an over-riding moral duty to their children and grandchildren to take immediate action. Describing this as an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery, Hansen said: "Our parents didn't know that they were causing a problem for future generations but we can only pretend we don't know because the science is now crystal clear. "We understand the carbon cycle: the CO2 we put in the air will stay in surface reservoirs and won't go back into the solid earth for millennia. What the Earth's history tells us is that there's a limit on how much we can put in the air without guaranteeing disastrous consequences for future generations. We cannot pretend that we did not know."

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Yet more proof that the cult of AGW is nothing more than a poor religion. Science deals in facts. Religions deal in morality.

 

[Staidhup]

What about that rogue killer asteroid heading toward the earth! Oh my, chicken little the sky is falling. Once there was fire, then mother Nature, then gods for everything, then one God, then the politicians who proclaimed, there is no God, only the almighty Scientist! Screw global warming, soon it will be global cooling and the next ice age.

 

[RosieS]

Man made climate change is quite real and it is rapidly altering the Earth's climate pattens and the planetary ecosystem that is so intimately tied to those patterns that were previously fairly stable for many thousands of years. How this generation handles this planetary crisis will affect all future generations and possibly even threaten the survival of the human race.

You don't handle Mother Nature; she handles you.

The hubris of you people is astonishing.

Slogans are no substitute for rational thought.

You really think seven billion people have no impact on the Earth?

The sheer stupidity of you denier cult people is very astonishing.

It is impossible to instill scientific literacy on a messageboard. Moreso when those who think they have it consume threads proving they don't.

Just sayin'.

Regards from Rosie

 

[skookerasbil]

Thunder bro.......you're so whacked out, its not even worth responding to you anymore!!! Would love to be present at your deathbed though s0n so I could laugh my balls off at you when it is plain that all your k00k idea's ended up getting fubar'd. Its miserable nutty asses like you that are dooming our country to shit.............Disneyland mental cases who make up about 1/10 of 1% of our population.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[RollingThunder]

AGW can't explain a 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature so it fails as a theory

Wrong again, as always, CrazyFruitcake. CO2 often leads temperatures. Of course, you're way too retarded to comprehend the facts so I guess you're stuck with your moronic denier cult slogans.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
10 April 2012

 

[RollingThunder]

Our fragile human civilization is currently struggling to feed over seven billion people with a world agricultural network that is very dependent on the stable climate patterns and regular, dependable, seasonally timed rainfall patterns that have prevailed for about the last seven thousand years or so. Many agricultural regions and high population areas are very dependent on irrigation and drinking water from rivers that are fed by melting ice in the mountains and this water supply is increasingly threatened by the rapid melting of high mountain glaciers all over the planet. If these mountains cease to store water for the summer months, as seems quite likely, vast areas with high populations will go dry in the summer, resulting in massive crop failures and thus mass starvation on top of no drinking water.

Wars over dwindling vital resources, like water, are very probable, according to Pentagon simulations. Over 44% of the human population lives less than a hundred miles from the coastline. Rising sea levels are going to destroy tens of trillions of dollars worth of coastal infrastructure in the coming decades, including most of world's major cities. There could easily be hundreds of millions, if not billions, of climate refugees fleeing flooded coastal area and drought regions. Example - Bangladesh (formally 'East Pakistan'), a country about the size of Indiana and Illinois put together with over 150 million people in it and with almost all of the country less than 40 feet above sea level and almost 20% of the country less than 3 feet above sea level. Bangladesh already suffers massive flooding during tropical storms, with over two thirds of the country being flooded in 1988, resulting in enormous crop losses and incredibly high numbers of displaced and homeless people, as well as high death tolls. Projected sea level rises in the rest of this century and the storm surges accompanying tropical cyclones will nearly wipe out Bangladesh. The only place 'available' for all of those people (all Muslim) to flee to as the waters rise is India (mostly Hindu) which is already overpopulated and struggling to feed its own people. If the Indians try to close the boarders to the Muslim refugees, then Pakistan will likely get involved and both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons.

The potential for literally billions of people to starve to death or die from other climate change related causes is very great at this time. Anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes pose the greatest challenges, both moral and physical, that mankind has ever faced in our species history.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[Politico]

Bahahahaha!

 

[daveman]

AGW is a doomsday cult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW can't explain a 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature so it fails as a theory

Wrong again, as always, CrazyFruitcake. CO2 often leads temperatures. Of course, you're way too retarded to comprehend the facts so I guess you're stuck with your moronic denier cult slogans.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
10 April 2012

Shakun has been totally debunked and exposed for the fraud he is, Herr Goebbels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW is "Science" for fools and suckers

 

[RollingThunder]

AGW can't explain a 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature so it fails as a theory

Wrong again, as always, CrazyFruitcake. CO2 often leads temperatures. Of course, you're way too retarded to comprehend the facts so I guess you're stuck with your moronic denier cult slogans.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
10 April 2012

Shakun has been totally debunked and exposed for the fraud he is, Herr Goebbels.

Not in the real world, CrazyFruitcake. Only in your denier cult myths.

 

[RollingThunder]

AGW is "Science" for fools and suckers

AGW denial is for fools, suckers, dupes, idiots and paid agents of disinformation.

AGW science is for real scientists.

Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (free to reproduce)

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]​

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:

The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]​

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]

Or, for a very clear explanation of just what this consensus means and how it happens, check this out:

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wrong again, as always, CrazyFruitcake. CO2 often leads temperatures. Of course, you're way too retarded to comprehend the facts so I guess you're stuck with your moronic denier cult slogans.

Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag
10 April 2012

Shakun has been totally debunked and exposed for the fraud he is, Herr Goebbels.

Not in the real world, CrazyFruitcake. Only in your denier cult myths.

Vostok shows CO2 lagging temp for 600,000 consecutive years, so your Cult members made up phony "proxy" data "proving" your "theory"

That's not how science works