CU Sea Level Research Group says +3.3 mm/yr since 1993

[Wyatt earp]

Crick, mammoth,old rocks don't give a shit about science as long as they can convince the low information voter.

And that's why I accept the views of mainstream science while you reject them.

I think he doesn't reject them so much as doesn't understand them. He's a bear of very little brain.

Yet you call me when you lock your keys in your car.

 

[Stephanie]

Hummm? so I guess what we should take from this "research group".
Is we all need to buy boats to keep on hand for: just in case or we are all going to die by drowning.

and how much money did we pay how money for this

 

[threegoofs]

Crick, mammoth,old rocks don't give a shit about science as long as they can convince the low information voter.

And that's why I accept the views of mainstream science while you reject them.

I think he doesn't reject them so much as doesn't understand them. He's a bear of very little brain.

Yet you call me when you lock your keys in your car.

I guess you might have a use. You'd probably be more competent at it than you are at logical reasoning.

Never locked keys in a car. And my phone could open it anyway, so I guess your utility is diminishing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Wack -a-mole?

Seriously dumb fuck pretend scientist?

Wack -a-mole?

That comes out of the children's obama cabinet play list moron.


God you are a fucking child.

Apparently a child that's presented you with a data analysis you're too frickin stupid to understand.

But you know Hansens name (trivia) so you dismiss it.

And then get all pissy when it's pointed out that you don't have the capacity to understand it, despite the fact that you whined for hours about not getting the reference, like I sit on line all the time just eager to produce whatever irrelevant crap you demand.

I love fucking with your ilk type because it's so fun to confuse you...

I'm not confused.

I know you're just another barely literate denier who's stance on the matter is defined by ignorance.

Still no names and ocean temperature records between 1870 ~2004

Ok , like I take your post seriously fruit loop. .

If you want it, look it up, troll.

I'd suggest you first tackle the other reference you asked for...although I think we both know you can't since it's a pretty decent prediction of what has happened from 1981.

You are in the hottest year of the hottest decade ever recorded. And the science told you that was going to happen, but you're too dense to understand.

Crick, mammoth,old rocks don't give a shit about science as long as they can convince the low information voter.

And that's why I accept the views of mainstream science while you reject them.

I think he doesn't reject them so much as doesn't understand them. He's a bear of very little brain.

Yet you call me when you lock your keys in your car.

I guess you might have a use. You'd probably be more competent at it than you are at logical reasoning.

Never locked keys in a car. And my phone could open it anyway, so I guess your utility is diminishing.

So could my phone..I am that good

 

[Crick]

Yea ok fear mongering moron now you are trying to tell us 110 degree heat causes a fire? Phoenix Arizona would be in ashes by now.

It takes a spark to start a fire in the wild.

Are you really that dense? I guess you are. Amazing.

 

[G.T.]

Hummm? so I guess what we should take from this "research group".
Is we all need to buy boats to keep on hand for: just in case or we are all going to die by drowning.

and how much money did we pay how money for this

"How money for this"

ahhh stephanie

 

[Crick]

Crick, mammoth,old rocks don't give a shit about science as long as they can convince the low information voter.

And that's why I accept the views of mainstream science while you reject them.

Ok I will be nice why do you believe them?

Because they understand the subject better orders of magnitude better than you or the people you listen to and because, unlike you and the people you listen to, they reliably apply the scientific method to their studies and I have great confidence that the scientific method is the best way to learn how the natural world works.

Is it because you are poor?

I am not poor. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that would have any bearing on my acceptance of the views of mainstream science?

I know you go out side every day, what is your motive to disrupt the world economy after we just came out of a world wide recession?

To which world wide recession do you refer?

What does going outside have to do with this discussion?

And I act as I do because I believe the consequences of unchecked global warming will be many, many times worse than the cost and effort to stop it.

I just want to seriously know?

Because I am worried about my children and theirs and theirs and theirs suffering from our shortsightedness, laziness and greed. I worry about them suffering the results of ignorance like yours.

With science we know that during the Jurassic period we had 5 times C2O in the air and only 3~6 degrees hotter

This isn't the Jurassic. CO2 took hundreds of thousands of years to reach those levels back then. We will take a couple hundred. Weathering of calcium carbonate buffers the oceans if you give it enough time. We are not giving it enough time. Science, with far better data tells us that the CO2 and methane we are putting into the air is raising temperatures and acidifying the oceans will continue to do so for centuries. What makes you put such faith into one point but reject another aside from your prejudice on the issue?

Life still lived..

No one is suggesting that global warming will kill all life. But geologically rapid increases in CO2 HAVE caused mass die-offs in this planet's history. More of that science you failed to learn or chose to ignore.

So what is the big deal?

Unchecked global warming will cost humanity hundreds of trillions of dollars. It will beggar us all. Millions will starve or die of thirst. Casualties from increased weather intensity and increased damage on inundated coastlines will kill more. Hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to escape rising sea levels. What's the big deal? God what a fucking idiot.

All us"deniers" know what you want, it is to kill CAPITALISM see Naomi Klein.

I'm not Naomi Klein. I had never heard of the woman before this thread appeared. Aside from the text in the OP, I've not read a word she's ever written. That you should think she speaks for us is simply another piece of evidence that you idiots haven't got jack shit in the way of a valid case.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Crick, mammoth,old rocks don't give a shit about science as long as they can convince the low information voter.

And that's why I accept the views of mainstream science while you reject them.

Ok I will be nice why do you believe them?

Because they understand the subject better orders of magnitude better than you or the people you listen to and because, unlike you and the people you listen to, they reliably apply the scientific method to their studies and I have great confidence that the scientific method is the best way to learn how the natural world works.

Is it because you are poor?

I am not poor. Out of curiosity, what makes you think that would have any bearing on my acceptance of the views of mainstream science?

I know you go out side every day, what is your motive to disrupt the world economy after we just came out of a world wide recession?

To which world wide recession do you refer?

What does going outside have to do with this discussion?

And I act as I do because I believe the consequences of unchecked global warming will be many, many times worse than the cost and effort to stop it.

I just want to seriously know?

Because I am worried about my children and theirs and theirs and theirs suffering from our shortsightedness, laziness and greed. I worry about them suffering the results of ignorance like yours.

With science we know that during the Jurassic period we had 5 times C2O in the air and only 3~6 degrees hotter

This isn't the Jurassic. CO2 took hundreds of thousands of years to reach those levels back then. We will take a couple hundred. Weathering of calcium carbonate buffers the oceans if you give it enough time. We are not giving it enough time. Science, with far better data tells us that the CO2 and methane we are putting into the air is raising temperatures and acidifying the oceans will continue to do so for centuries. What makes you put such faith into one point but reject another aside from your prejudice on the issue?

Life still lived..

No one is suggesting that global warming will kill all life. But geologically rapid increases in CO2 HAVE caused mass die-offs in this planet's history. More of that science you failed to learn or chose to ignore.

So what is the big deal?

Unchecked global warming will cost humanity hundreds of trillions of dollars. It will beggar us all. Millions will starve or die of thirst. Casualties from increased weather intensity and increased damage on inundated coastlines will kill more. Hundreds of millions of people will have to be relocated to escape rising sea levels. What's the big deal? God what a fucking idiot.

All us"deniers" know what you want, it is to kill CAPITALISM see Naomi Klein.

I'm not Naomi Klein. I had never heard of the woman before this thread appeared. Aside from the text in the OP, I've not read a word she's ever written. That you should think she speaks for us is simply another piece of evidence that you idiots haven't got jack shit in the way of a valid case.

Your post reeks of narcissism and arogism you can't handle the fact mass extinction is the circle of life

Why Can you not handle that simple fact?

The earth will continue to climate change ... So big fucking deal,

I know what your biggest problem is you are scared to die and don't believe in God.

 

[Crick]

Why don't you get together with Mr Eagle and both of you can go back to the fourth grade and start over again. PS, "arogism" is not a word and mass extinctions are not part of "the circle of life" and even if they were, someone suggesting we shouldn't try to prevent them needs to be committed to a mental institution.

 

[defcon4]

Why don't you get together with Mr Eagle and both of you can go back to the fourth grade and start over again. PS, "arogism" is not a word and mass extinctions are not part of "the circle of life" and even if they were, someone suggesting we shouldn't try to prevent them needs to be committed to a mental institution.

The arrogance of the leftists. You cannot prevent shit… try to stop a hurricane… try to stop an earthquake… try to stop solar flares..

 

[Crick]

We dramatically raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We made the planet warmer. We CAN change things. The idiocy of the right.

 

[defcon4]

We dramatically raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We made the planet warmer. We CAN change things. The idiocy of the right.

Maybe the body heat from overpopulation?
Yes we can… first step: quit drinking the coolaid...

 

[threegoofs]

We dramatically raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We made the planet warmer. We CAN change things. The idiocy of the right.

Maybe the body heat from overpopulation?
Yes we can… first step: quit drinking the coolaid...

Well, I don't see body heat in any calculations, and if you understand basic physics, you'd know the heat problem is at its base an energy problem.


Here's the factors affecting temperature:

 

[skookerasbil]

PS....there is not a shred of evidence that we can change dick. And the AGW k00ks know it too.

This idea that man can control the climate............HOLY FUCK..........fascinating shit but like Chang says.............

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'll believe that leftist believe in global warming after newyorkers abandon NY b/c of all the constant flooding they are getting.

 

[Crick]

Sandy.

 

[Crick]

We dramatically raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We made the planet warmer. We CAN change things. The idiocy of the right.

Maybe the body heat from overpopulation?
Yes we can… first step: quit drinking the coolaid...

The body heat from overpopulation?

I say again: the idiocy of the right.

 

[defcon4]

The body heat from overpopulation?

I say again: the idiocy of the right.

When you grow up you will recognize sarcasm. It was to illustrate how out of whack you are.. what an idiot….

 

[Crick]

What would such sarcasm have accomplished? Does it show that we have not increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%? Does it show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that the greenhouse effect is not real?

Humans HAVE altered the environment in significant ways. The suggestion that we cannot simply fails.

 

[Old Rocks]

But that is all the deniers like Defcon4 have. Failed attempts at sarcasm and irony. The real irony is that he is using a computer to post on the internet his contempt for scientists.