*Frozen Solid,Global Warming Help!!!!!*

[Harpy Eagle]

I think we can all agree that there is not nearly enough data to reach a conclusion that human activity is contributing to climate change.

I think we can all agree that taxation is not a solution to the problem, assuming human activity is contributing.

These two conclusions alone should end the debate for the next 50 years at least.

You are half right. Taxation is not the solution.

There is plenty of data pointing to humans as having an impact on our planet and it’s climate.

If it were not for politics being involved nobody would even question it.

Think about this...it took from the dawn of time till 1800s to reach 1 billion humans, then it took another 127 years to reach 2 billion humans, then it took 84 years to reach 7 billion humans.

Is it really all that crazy to think that maybe that has had an effect on our planet...especially considering that growth was coupled with technology that was altering the landscape to allow us to thrive in such numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Issa]

Sorry bout that,

1. I noticed the center part of North America is slipping into an ice age.
2. And their leader the little obama bot thinks global warming is creating it.
3. So warmth in a big way is making it Freeze!!!!
4. Maybe little obama bot should start saying up is down and down is up, I bet some would agree.
5. LOL,....it can't get any more hilarious.
6. Send in the clowns, Nancy, Schumer, and Ryan.....
7. Polar vortex to bring prolonged, life-threatening cold outbreak to midwestern US this week

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You didn't get the memo from the scientists now did ya?
Expect hotter summers and droughts, fires, volcanos, earthquakes and much and more frequent.....oh and those Tsunamis that used to happen every 300 years, now we see them every now and then.
Again 3 continents i've been too lately....ONE word, the climate is changing....There are floods and snow in the desert right now.

And how are you going to change it?

Lower emissions as is scientifically been proven....unless if you know better than the science like the orange.

 

[22lcidw]

Sorry bout that,

1. I noticed the center part of North America is slipping into an ice age.
2. And their leader the little obama bot thinks global warming is creating it.
3. So warmth in a big way is making it Freeze!!!!
4. Maybe little obama bot should start saying up is down and down is up, I bet some would agree.
5. LOL,....it can't get any more hilarious.
6. Send in the clowns, Nancy, Schumer, and Ryan.....
7. Polar vortex to bring prolonged, life-threatening cold outbreak to midwestern US this week

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

You didn't get the memo from the scientists now did ya?
Expect hotter summers and droughts, fires, volcanos, earthquakes and much and more frequent.....oh and those Tsunamis that used to happen every 300 years, now we see them every now and then.
Again 3 continents i've been too lately....ONE word, the climate is changing....There are floods and snow in the desert right now.

And how are you going to change it?

Lower emissions as is scientifically been proven....unless if you know better than the science like the orange.

Lower emissions using common sense and not bleeding the peon trying to survive. And that is pollution not global climate change. Also Diesel engine vehicles of any type is an obvious.

 

[The Original Tree]

Fossil Fuel by the way is a complete hoax and outdated theory.

All Hydrocarbon Fuels are primarily Abiotic in Nature

Scientists Prove Abiotic Oil Is Real!

Abiotic Oil

The abiotic oil formation theory suggests that crude oil is the result of naturally occurring and possibly ongoing geological processes. This theory was developed in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, as the Union needed to be self sufficient in terms of producing its own energy. The science behind the theory is sound and is based on experimental evidence in both the laboratory and in the field. This theory has helped to identify and therefore develop large numbers of gas and oil deposits. Examples of such fields are the South Khylchuyu field and the controversial Sakhalin II field.

In its simplest form, the theory is that carbon present in the magma beneath the crust reacts with hydrogen to form methane as well as a raft of other mainly alkane hydrocarbons. The reactions are more complicated than this, with several intermediate stages. Particular mineral rocks such as granite and other silicon based rocks act as catalysts, which speed up the reaction without actually becoming involved or consumed in the process.

Experiments have shown that under extreme conditions of heat and pressure it is possible to convert iron oxide, calcium carbonate and water into methane, with hydrocarbons containing up to 10 carbon atoms being produced by Russian scientists last century and confirmed in recent US experiments. The absence of large quantities of free gaseous oxygen in the magma prevents the hydrocarbons from burning and therefore forming the lower energy state molecule carbon dioxide. The conditions present in the Earth's mantle would easily be sufficient for these small hydrocarbon chains to polymerise into the longer chain molecules found in crude oil.

Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions
Anton Kolesnikov1,2, Vladimir G. Kutcherov2,3 & Alexander F. Goncharov1

Abstract

There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes1, 2, 3. Whether hydrocarbons can also be produced from abiogenic precursor molecules under the high-pressure, high-temperature conditions characteristic of the upper mantle remains an open question. It has been proposed that hydrocarbons generated in the upper mantle could be transported through deep faults to shallower regions in the Earth's crust, and contribute to petroleum reserves4, 5. Here we use in situ Raman spectroscopy in laser-heated diamond anvil cells to monitor the chemical reactivity of methane and ethane under upper-mantle conditions. We show that when methane is exposed to pressures higher than 2 GPa, and to temperatures in the range of 1,000-1,500 K, it partially reacts to form saturated hydrocarbons containing 2-4 carbons (ethane, propane and butane) and molecular hydrogen and graphite. Conversely, exposure of ethane to similar conditions results in the production of methane, suggesting that the synthesis of saturated hydrocarbons is reversible. Our results support the suggestion that hydrocarbons heavier than methane can be produced by abiogenic processes in the upper mantle

Other relevant studies:



1. Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, District of Columbia 20015, USA

2. Lomonosov Moscow State Academy of Fine Chemical Technology, 117571 Moscow, Russia

3. Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

 

[Lesh]

Sounds like a lot of energy would be required to create that...energy

 

[dudmuck]

Whenever it's cold outside, the dumbshits have to say this nonsense to validate their ass backwards misbeliefs.

My experience this winter from Minnesota is that prior to last week it's one of the mildest I've ever seen here. There was very little snow accumulation before mid January as it would all melt off. We had 40 degree days not long ago. Now we are finally dipping below 0 on some days and getting some accumulation almost in February. It's been a warm winter again and I think the data is going to back that up when it's over.

So, please stop this idiotic posting when the weather is cold.

Wait? What?

Does this mean the North Pole is cold? Al Gore told me it was ice free. How can it be so cold in the Midwest?

The forecast for Saturday and Sunday is nearly 40. All the snow will melt again. Care to continue commenting?

Sure thing. Again, if the North Pole is ice free, as your boy Al said it is, how the Hell is the Midwest breaking low temperature records. It just doesn’t make sense. No?

I would expect it wouldnt to a pair of non experts like us. As much as you dislike experts, you gotta understand that the more advanced we get, the more impossible it is for any of us to know it all, and the more defendant we are on the diversity in specialization of others. Let the people that studied it exclusively for a decade figure it out. And you do your thing, too. I refuse to take the word of fringe corporate backed conspiracy theorists over a trained professional any day.

LOL. You think climate scientists are unbiased experts. LMFAO. call me skeptical, but I ain’t buying that BS.

Science is based on objective facts. aka, facts which remain whether you believe them or not. Also, scientists are motivated by the chance of proving each other wrong.

 

[gipper]

Wait? What?

Does this mean the North Pole is cold? Al Gore told me it was ice free. How can it be so cold in the Midwest?

The forecast for Saturday and Sunday is nearly 40. All the snow will melt again. Care to continue commenting?

Sure thing. Again, if the North Pole is ice free, as your boy Al said it is, how the Hell is the Midwest breaking low temperature records. It just doesn’t make sense. No?

I would expect it wouldnt to a pair of non experts like us. As much as you dislike experts, you gotta understand that the more advanced we get, the more impossible it is for any of us to know it all, and the more defendant we are on the diversity in specialization of others. Let the people that studied it exclusively for a decade figure it out. And you do your thing, too. I refuse to take the word of fringe corporate backed conspiracy theorists over a trained professional any day.

LOL. You think climate scientists are unbiased experts. LMFAO. call me skeptical, but I ain’t buying that BS.

Science is based on objective facts. aka, facts which remain whether you believe them or not. Also, scientists are motivated by the chance of proving each other wrong.

Not when it comes to AGW. The money from the globalists is too good for anything other than what the globalists demand.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think we can all agree that there is not nearly enough data to reach a conclusion that human activity is contributing to climate change.

I think we can all agree that taxation is not a solution to the problem, assuming human activity is contributing.

These two conclusions alone should end the debate for the next 50 years at least.

You are half right. Taxation is not the solution.

There is plenty of data pointing to humans as having an impact on our planet and it’s climate.

If it were not for politics being involved nobody would even question it.

Think about this...it took from the dawn of time till 1800s to reach 1 billion humans, then it took another 127 years to reach 2 billion humans, then it took 84 years to reach 7 billion humans.

Is it really all that crazy to think that maybe that has had an effect on our planet...especially considering that growth was coupled with technology that was altering the landscape to allow us to thrive in such numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ah, my free market friend. It's political because that same free market system makes a lot of money fucking the earth up.

 

[bripat9643]

I think we can all agree that there is not nearly enough data to reach a conclusion that human activity is contributing to climate change.

I think we can all agree that taxation is not a solution to the problem, assuming human activity is contributing.

These two conclusions alone should end the debate for the next 50 years at least.

You are half right. Taxation is not the solution.

There is plenty of data pointing to humans as having an impact on our planet and it’s climate.

If it were not for politics being involved nobody would even question it.

Think about this...it took from the dawn of time till 1800s to reach 1 billion humans, then it took another 127 years to reach 2 billion humans, then it took 84 years to reach 7 billion humans.

Is it really all that crazy to think that maybe that has had an effect on our planet...especially considering that growth was coupled with technology that was altering the landscape to allow us to thrive in such numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The fact that something is plausible doesn't make it a fact. All the data you point to is fake. It has been "homogenized." The wizards of the climate cult have been caught lowering temperatures before 1950 and raising the temperatures after 1950.

 

[bripat9643]

I think we can all agree that there is not nearly enough data to reach a conclusion that human activity is contributing to climate change.

I think we can all agree that taxation is not a solution to the problem, assuming human activity is contributing.

These two conclusions alone should end the debate for the next 50 years at least.

You are half right. Taxation is not the solution.

There is plenty of data pointing to humans as having an impact on our planet and it’s climate.

If it were not for politics being involved nobody would even question it.

Think about this...it took from the dawn of time till 1800s to reach 1 billion humans, then it took another 127 years to reach 2 billion humans, then it took 84 years to reach 7 billion humans.

Is it really all that crazy to think that maybe that has had an effect on our planet...especially considering that growth was coupled with technology that was altering the landscape to allow us to thrive in such numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ah, my free market friend. It's political because that same free market system makes a lot of money fucking the earth up.

Perhaps it's because the majority of Americans don't want their standard of living lowered by several orders of magnitude.

 

[HappyJoy]

I think we can all agree that there is not nearly enough data to reach a conclusion that human activity is contributing to climate change.

I think we can all agree that taxation is not a solution to the problem, assuming human activity is contributing.

These two conclusions alone should end the debate for the next 50 years at least.

You are half right. Taxation is not the solution.

There is plenty of data pointing to humans as having an impact on our planet and it’s climate.

If it were not for politics being involved nobody would even question it.

Think about this...it took from the dawn of time till 1800s to reach 1 billion humans, then it took another 127 years to reach 2 billion humans, then it took 84 years to reach 7 billion humans.

Is it really all that crazy to think that maybe that has had an effect on our planet...especially considering that growth was coupled with technology that was altering the landscape to allow us to thrive in such numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ah, my free market friend. It's political because that same free market system makes a lot of money fucking the earth up.

Perhaps it's because the majority of Americans don't want their standard of living lowered by several orders of magnitude.

Ok, that's already happening. Enjoy it.

 

[bripat9643]

Wait? What?

Does this mean the North Pole is cold? Al Gore told me it was ice free. How can it be so cold in the Midwest?

The forecast for Saturday and Sunday is nearly 40. All the snow will melt again. Care to continue commenting?

Sure thing. Again, if the North Pole is ice free, as your boy Al said it is, how the Hell is the Midwest breaking low temperature records. It just doesn’t make sense. No?

I would expect it wouldnt to a pair of non experts like us. As much as you dislike experts, you gotta understand that the more advanced we get, the more impossible it is for any of us to know it all, and the more defendant we are on the diversity in specialization of others. Let the people that studied it exclusively for a decade figure it out. And you do your thing, too. I refuse to take the word of fringe corporate backed conspiracy theorists over a trained professional any day.

LOL. You think climate scientists are unbiased experts. LMFAO. call me skeptical, but I ain’t buying that BS.

Science is based on objective facts. aka, facts which remain whether you believe them or not. Also, scientists are motivated by the chance of proving each other wrong.

The so-called facts are fake, and the wizards of the AGW cult don't report them honestly.

 

[bripat9643]

I think we can all agree that there is not nearly enough data to reach a conclusion that human activity is contributing to climate change.

I think we can all agree that taxation is not a solution to the problem, assuming human activity is contributing.

These two conclusions alone should end the debate for the next 50 years at least.

You are half right. Taxation is not the solution.

There is plenty of data pointing to humans as having an impact on our planet and it’s climate.

If it were not for politics being involved nobody would even question it.

Think about this...it took from the dawn of time till 1800s to reach 1 billion humans, then it took another 127 years to reach 2 billion humans, then it took 84 years to reach 7 billion humans.

Is it really all that crazy to think that maybe that has had an effect on our planet...especially considering that growth was coupled with technology that was altering the landscape to allow us to thrive in such numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Ah, my free market friend. It's political because that same free market system makes a lot of money fucking the earth up.

Perhaps it's because the majority of Americans don't want their standard of living lowered by several orders of magnitude.

Ok, that's already happening. Enjoy it.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

 

[Pilot1]

There is no Free Market. It is already very heavily regulated. So when people say Capitalism doesn't work it is because we don't let it work. A little regulation is ok, but this is ridiculous.

 

[Nova78]

Use to be global warming, when that did not work , it is now climate change

Hmm, no, it's still global warming. Climate change includes global warming, and ocean acidification, and ice melt, and atmospheric changes, etcetera. They cover this in 6th grade these days.

Your full of shit !

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. How do you want your Chicago, on the rocks?
2. Ice rocks?

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I think we can all agree that there is not nearly enough data to reach a conclusion that human activity is contributing to climate change.

I think we can all agree that taxation is not a solution to the problem, assuming human activity is contributing.

These two conclusions alone should end the debate for the next 50 years at least.

You are half right. Taxation is not the solution.

There is plenty of data pointing to humans as having an impact on our planet and it’s climate.

If it were not for politics being involved nobody would even question it.

Think about this...it took from the dawn of time till 1800s to reach 1 billion humans, then it took another 127 years to reach 2 billion humans, then it took 84 years to reach 7 billion humans.

Is it really all that crazy to think that maybe that has had an effect on our planet...especially considering that growth was coupled with technology that was altering the landscape to allow us to thrive in such numbers?




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The fact that something is plausible doesn't make it a fact.

I did not say it made it a fact, I am just highligthing the weakiness in the denier cult's main tactic that it is somehow beyond the imagination that man could affect on the plane.

All the data you point to is fake. It has been "homogenized." The wizards of the climate cult have been caught lowering temperatures before 1950 and raising the temperatures after 1950.

It is not fake, there are probably a million points of data and even if some of them were unethically changed not enough were to affect the outcome. Most of what you people call cheating were just standard statistical practices being employed. But whatever right wing news source you get your science from leaves that part out. One more weakness of getting your science from the news.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I did not say it made it a fact, I am just highligthing the weakiness in the denier cult's main tactic that it is somehow beyond the imagination that man could affect on the plane.

Yes, it is posssible for human activity to affect systems and processes. Your reasoning is sound on that point.

My argument is that there is the evidence that human activity HAS affected them is weak and incomplete.

"Scientists" seem to have completely abandoned the scientific method when it comes to climate change. There is no way in hell the research science community would make such a call on anything else without decades more data. Theories proposed long ago that seem plausable still have yet to be proved. The rushed nature of the "consensus" makes people suspicious, especially when considering what proponents demand from a policy perspective.

But, I am not opposed to REASONABLE changes in activity to slow the release of greenhouse gasses and/or prepare for drought conditions, just to be safe.

Demanding that Americans shit on our own economy while the rest of the world goes about business as usual (The Paris Accords) or trying to fraudulently transfer wealth via a scheme that assigns all "businesses" (profitable and productive being optional) a limited number of "pollution credits" that they can sell to big profitable corporations via an exchange similar to the stock market (Cap and Trade) makes one suspicious about the motives of those doing the "research" because it looks like a huge communist scam (it is).

It is insulting beyond murderous rage that the motherfuckers trying to pull off these scams think we're too stupid to connect the fucking dots.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, it is posssible for human activity to affect systems and processes. Your reasoning is sound on that point.

My argument is that there is the evidence that human activity HAS affected them is weak and incomplete.

I do not think that it is as weak and incomplete as you claim, but since both are subjective terms I see no benefit in arguing about them.

"Scientists" seem to have completely abandoned the scientific method when it comes to climate change. There is no way in hell the research science community would make such a call on anything else without decades more data. Theories proposed long ago that seem plausable still have yet to be proved. The rushed nature of the "consensus" makes people suspicious, especially when considering what proponents demand from a policy perspective.

I do not think it is the Scientists that are at fault for the most part, it is the people that exploit what they say and publish. Very few if any article/study in a scientific journal are a definitive as the press/politicians makes them out to be.

But, I am not opposed to REASONABLE changes in activity to slow the release of greenhouse gasses and/or prepare for drought conditions, just to be safe.

But sadly for the most part this cannot happen because people are too busy fighting over the cause, instead of dealing with the reality. I know I use the example a lot, but the farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and tiling to their land for the better part of a decade as they have seen the shifting climate and know they have to adapt to survive. Some areas are getting the same amount of rain as they always have, but now they it is in 5 days spread out over the the course of months instead of a little at a time like they used to. Other places are not getting it at all.

California is an example of doing noting and now paying the price. Their entire water control/usage system was built upon the old climate of lots of snow in the mountains during the winter that slowly melted and was collected over time. That is why they are having issues with their dams, they were not designed to handle massive rainfalls all at once...because such a thing was almost unheard of for the previous few hundred years.

Demanding that Americans shit on our own economy while the rest of the world goes about business as usual (The Paris Accords) or trying to fraudulently transfer wealth via a scheme that assigns all "businesses" (profitable and productive being optional) a limited number of "pollution credits" that they can sell to big profitable corporations via an exchange similar to the stock market (Cap and Trade) makes one suspicious about the motives of those doing the "research" because it looks like a huge communist scam (it is).

It is insulting beyond murderous rage that the motherfuckers trying to pull off these scams think we're too stupid to connect the fucking dots.

.

I do not disagree with any of this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wait the Libs told me "The Science is Settled", and the "Debate is Over", so I am not ALLOWED to disagree anymore.

Oh you poor, poor baby . Let's all have a moment of silence for the uneducated fool who is mad that people make fun of him for thinking he has outsmarted scientists.