Glacier National Park.....climate scientists wrong AGAIN!!

Because people base this malarkey off of records that are equal to a burp in a human lifetime.
Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere
So, interglacial periods warm the planet, but it has no effect on the planet warming?
Well, that just makes a ton of sense. Thanks!
Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.
What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.
I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.
I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.

The premis of the question is that there is such a thing as manmade global warming in the first place.

To answer it is to agree with the premis. So no, skeptics like me would not answer.

Got if Junior?

Oh shit, I asked a question.
 
How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?
Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?
How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?
Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?
Not ardently. I think at the moment it is the most cost effective, non immediatly polluting source of energy. Having said that I see no reason to not try to go full blast for renewable energy and phase it out as quickly as is practical.

Not ardently. I think at the moment it is the most cost effective, non immediatly polluting source of energy.

Tell the rest of your watermelon friends. We'd take them more seriously if they pushed for reliable energy, instead of more expensive, less reliable wind and solar.

Can't run a high tech society if the power craps out when the wind calms or a cloud floats over.
 
Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES! :lol:
Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?
You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.
I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.
So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.
The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?
Sure I'll give you evidence
There is a sharp increase in CO2 levels.
View attachment 148822
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat
View attachment 148823
The planet is heating up
View attachment 148824
Cause and effect clear as day.

Wow! The oceans are really warming up!!

What was the old ocean temperature and what is the new ocean temperature?
 
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?
Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?
Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?
Not ardently. I think at the moment it is the most cost effective, non immediatly polluting source of energy. Having said that I see no reason to not try to go full blast for renewable energy and phase it out as quickly as is practical.

Not ardently. I think at the moment it is the most cost effective, non immediatly polluting source of energy.

Tell the rest of your watermelon friends. We'd take them more seriously if they pushed for reliable energy, instead of more expensive, less reliable wind and solar.

Can't run a high tech society if the power craps out when the wind calms or a cloud floats over.
Exactly. The most green reliable energy is nuclear, and the left killed it.
 
Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.
What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.
I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.
I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.
Zero impact to climate change. Zero.

Besides, Sweden only produces one thing. Salted dried fish.


Well you forgot blondes..........but that too will be gone in another generation.
 
Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.
What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.
I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.
I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.

The premis of the question is that there is such a thing as manmade global warming in the first place.

To answer it is to agree with the premis. So no, skeptics like me would not answer.

Got if Junior?

Oh shit, I asked a question.
Basing decisions on the possibility of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?
 
Last edited:
Actually it's not a new thing. I even pointed out a place in history it happened before. The Permian extinction. The greenhouse gas was the same too CO2. The delivery method was the Siberian Traps Siberian Traps - Wikipedia.
And no, the ice age has to do with the tilt of the earth which wobbles over time.Why do Ice Ages Occur?
And yes I understand how long the earths history is, what I don't understand how it has any bearing on this conversation.
Because people base this malarkey off of records that are equal to a burp in a human lifetime.
Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere
So, interglacial periods warm the planet, but it has no effect on the planet warming?
Well, that just makes a ton of sense. Thanks!
Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
How do you disprove assumption?
LOGIC is the only rebuttal you need.
Basing decisions on the premise of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?
 
Because people base this malarkey off of records that are equal to a burp in a human lifetime.
Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere
So, interglacial periods warm the planet, but it has no effect on the planet warming?
Well, that just makes a ton of sense. Thanks!
Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
How do you disprove assumption?
LOGIC is the only rebuttal you need.
Basing decisions on the premise of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?
How is making it to where the rich are the only ones to afford meat, transportation and electricity a good thing? Especially since we, add what, 5% of carbon into the air? How will that help?
The "solutions" these assholes come up with wont do shit. If they wanted to combat natural earth evolution, they would be figuring out ways to actually help man. Not redistribute and stick a fork in the poor and working class.
 
Of course interglacial periods warm the planet. The difference is the time it takes for those changes to occur. Where talking a difference of 5 degrees over a period of about 5 thousand years for the natural warming. Not a difference of about 2 to 6 degrees over 2 centuries as we are experiencing now.Global Warming : Feature Articles
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
How do you disprove assumption?
LOGIC is the only rebuttal you need.
Basing decisions on the premise of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?
How is making it to where the rich are the only ones to afford meat, transportation and electricity a good thing? Especially since we, add what, 5% of carbon into the air? How will that help?
The "solutions" these assholes come up with wont do shit. If they wanted to combat natural earth evolution, they would be figuring out ways to actually help man. Not redistribute and stick a fork in the poor and working class.
So your answer is doing nothing, since you don't see how changing to renewable energy or trying to reduce our carbon footprint or eating less meat will be sufficient? Btw you seem to have shifted your argument from it's a hoax, to even if its true we wont be able to revers the effects. Guess its progress. To answer these objection I have no clear cut answers by the way. I agree it might not work. I know its going to take a major shift in our mentality. (Note I say our, not your since I like my steak just as much as the next guy.) But I also believe that mankind as a species has a remarkable ability to engineer its environment. So I do believe we have the capability to fix this mess if we put our minds to it. What we need is the will to do it, and that starts with us trying to get everybody on board.
 
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?
Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?

If we're doing this, and billions could die, why are warmers against large scale nuclear power?
Being flip isn't an answer either.

Are you anti-nuclear?
Not ardently. I think at the moment it is the most cost effective, non immediatly polluting source of energy. Having said that I see no reason to not try to go full blast for renewable energy and phase it out as quickly as is practical.

Not ardently. I think at the moment it is the most cost effective, non immediatly polluting source of energy.

Tell the rest of your watermelon friends. We'd take them more seriously if they pushed for reliable energy, instead of more expensive, less reliable wind and solar.

Can't run a high tech society if the power craps out when the wind calms or a cloud floats over.
Didn't know I'm supposed to speak for everybody on the left. I'm perfectly happy to defend MY standpoints. That in itself takes enough effort.
 
"you guys stop doing that. You over there, stop doing this. Dont worry about me. Me and my private jet and 10K sq ft home will be fine"
As they skirt off in their 8MPH SUV to the runway and dine on filet mignon and have unprotected sex to abort another kid with their stewardess.
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
How do you disprove assumption?
LOGIC is the only rebuttal you need.
Basing decisions on the premise of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?
How is making it to where the rich are the only ones to afford meat, transportation and electricity a good thing? Especially since we, add what, 5% of carbon into the air? How will that help?
The "solutions" these assholes come up with wont do shit. If they wanted to combat natural earth evolution, they would be figuring out ways to actually help man. Not redistribute and stick a fork in the poor and working class.
So your answer is doing nothing, since you don't see how changing to renewable energy or trying to reduce our carbon footprint or eating less meat will be sufficient? Btw you seem to have shifted your argument from it's a hoax, to even if its true we wont be able to revers the effects. Guess its progress. To answer these objection I have no clear cut answers by the way. I agree it might not work. I know its going to take a major shift in our mentality. (Note I say our, not your since I like my steak just as much as the next guy.) But I also believe that mankind as a species has a remarkable ability to engineer its environment. So I do believe we have the capability to fix this mess if we put our minds to it. What we need is the will to do it, and that starts with us trying to get everybody on board.
I do not think man is clausing natural earth evolution. I still think we should do basic things to protect our environment. What i was getting at was, if people think the world is going to end because raise cows and drive to work, why the fuck dont they come up with something to combat that instead of redistribution taxes and cutting poor and working class people out of electricity and transportation.
Look at Leo Dicaprio. He is a huge environmental guy. Yet, he will jump in his private jet and fly halfway around the world to accept an environment award, just to turn around and fly back to his movie set.
Look at al gore. He has a huge home. NES(the service provider for his electricity) released records where he uses more electricity in a month than 5 family homes in a YEAR
This shit is about more than just the environment or they wouldnt be such hypocrites.
 
"you guys stop doing that. You over there, stop doing this. Dont worry about me. Me and my private jet and 10K sq ft home will be fine"
As they skirt off in their 8MPH SUV to the runway and dine on filet mignon and have unprotected sex to abort another kid with their stewardess.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
How do you disprove assumption?
LOGIC is the only rebuttal you need.
Basing decisions on the premise of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?
How is making it to where the rich are the only ones to afford meat, transportation and electricity a good thing? Especially since we, add what, 5% of carbon into the air? How will that help?
The "solutions" these assholes come up with wont do shit. If they wanted to combat natural earth evolution, they would be figuring out ways to actually help man. Not redistribute and stick a fork in the poor and working class.
So your answer is doing nothing, since you don't see how changing to renewable energy or trying to reduce our carbon footprint or eating less meat will be sufficient? Btw you seem to have shifted your argument from it's a hoax, to even if its true we wont be able to revers the effects. Guess its progress. To answer these objection I have no clear cut answers by the way. I agree it might not work. I know its going to take a major shift in our mentality. (Note I say our, not your since I like my steak just as much as the next guy.) But I also believe that mankind as a species has a remarkable ability to engineer its environment. So I do believe we have the capability to fix this mess if we put our minds to it. What we need is the will to do it, and that starts with us trying to get everybody on board.
I do not think man is clausing natural earth evolution. I still think we should do basic things to protect our environment. What i was getting at was, if people think the world is going to end because raise cows and drive to work, why the fuck dont they come up with something to combat that instead of redistribution taxes and cutting poor and working class people out of electricity and transportation.
Look at Leo Dicaprio. He is a huge environmental guy. Yet, he will jump in his private jet and fly halfway around the world to accept an environment award, just to turn around and fly back to his movie set.
Look at al gore. He has a huge home. NES(the service provider for his electricity) released records where he uses more electricity in a month than 5 family homes in a YEAR
This shit is about more than just the environment or they wouldnt be such hypocrites.
Again, the fact that people are hypocrites doesn't excuse us from taking responsibility to change. I even admitted to being a hypocrite since I mentioned I like my red meat, I would hate it if I would need to become a vegetarian. But I do see a mentality change in the generation that is coming, I even see a change in how I behave. I recycle now for instance, when I go to the store I use reusable bags. Electric cars are getting cheaper and more efficient year after year. I'm not claiming it'll be enough, I am claiming that denying it, even if it would be all wrong, or saying we don't need to change because it wont work is a dangerous, in my view even irresponsible attitude.
 
The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.
The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?
Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?
CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. Established in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. In 1824, Joseph Fourier established that something in the atmosphere is absorbing out going energy, otherwise the earth's oceans would be frozen almost to the equator. And in 1896, Svante Arrhenius did the calculations for how much the temperature of the atmosphere would increase from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are seeing that increase, in spite of the inertia of the oceans, as we have sailed right past 400ppm of CO2 and 1800 ppb of CH4. At less than one half the doubling of CO2 we are seeing the melting of the alpine glaciers, the Arctic Sea Ice, and the Continental Ice Caps.

It ain't natural, boy, and we know how much of the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere because we have the records of how much coal and other fossil fuels that we have burned.

Now addressing the OP. No, 2017 is not the year I have seen as the year that most of the remnants of the glaciers of Glacier National Park will be gone. For the last several decades, the figure I have seen is 2030.


Glaciers - Glacier National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

What is going on with Glacier's glaciers?

In 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age, there were an estimated 150 glaciers in the area that is now Glacier National Park. By 1968, these had been reduced to around 50. Today the number of glaciers in the park is 25, many of which are mere remnants of what they once were. Rapid retreat of mountain glaciers is not just happening in the park, but is occurring worldwide. If the current rate of warming persists, scientists predict the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be completely gone by the year 2030, if not earlier.

Listen to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Research Ecologist Dan Fagre explain climate change research underway in Glacier National Park
sperry-glacier.jpg
 
The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?
Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?
Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are GENIUSES! :lol:

Damn, but you are a fucking ignoramus. We have climate records through ice cores, lake varves, tree rings, and chemical interactions in sea shells and soil. That you have not taken the time to actually know a little of what you are posting about simply means that you have no more credibility than Frankie boi, or Silly Billy.
 
AGW leaders say carbon will kill the planet. AGW leaders fly around in private jets releasing more CO2, than a single man for a year, to go get an environmental award on the other side of the planet :lol:
What the fuck is an AGW leader? You silly clueless dumb fuck, the people that study the climate are scientists like Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Richard Alley, just to name two prominent scientists. You cocksucks continually lie about what they say, and their studies. I hope that your grandchildren realize what a shame your kind are to the human race.
 
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?
Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES! :lol:
Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?
You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.
I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.
So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.
The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?
Damn! Here, this is the evidence and argument provided by the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Multiple links to the history of the study that has led to the consensus opinion that we are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are experiancing. But, of course, you will not even look at the link. You people are afraid of anything that would change your willful ignorance.
 
The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?
Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
How is it safe to say humans are responsible for climate change? How is it safe to say humans are responsible FOR NATURAL EARTH EVOLUTION?
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
This is why "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
My question to you is this. Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?
Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are GENIUSES! :lol:
So why does it happen in cycles and how did we cause it just 111,000 years ago?
CO2 and Ice Ages.JPG


Fucking idiot!
 
Humans MUST be responsible considering the Earth doesnt do this by itself. Not to mention, we have a whole 150 or so years of recordings!
You and your ilk are a GENIUSES! :lol:
Does the little room for doubt there is warrant you and people like you actively fight against the scientific consensus when we are talking millions if not billions of people dying and trillions in economic damage, when the worst of the effects hit?
You can rate me funny all you want. To me its an admission that you don't have an answer to this.
I rate you funny because your retarded posts make me laugh. Want to tax me for that too?
There is PLENTY of room for doubt. Thats why your posts are so damn funny!
AGW is like religion. They dont have answers so they fill it in with whatever they understand. Most humans are fucking idiots. Regressive idiots.
So you feel there's enough doubt to risk millions of lives? You are willing to bet on it with my and possibly your children? And btw if you find me funny then come out with actual counterarguments. In the end it comes down to respect. I'm willing even eager to talk to people I don't agree with. What I hate is when people don't have anything to offer on merit they feel trying to demean the person is an acceptable second.
The counter argument is LOGIC. You have ZERO evidence man is causing it. ZERO.
There is nothing BUT doubt. All AGW does is fill in holes with "man"
Give me some evidence to counter, why dont ya?
Damn! Here, this is the evidence and argument provided by the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Multiple links to the history of the study that has led to the consensus opinion that we are the primary cause of the rapid warming that we are experiancing. But, of course, you will not even look at the link. You people are afraid of anything that would change your willful ignorance.
Another FAILED model being touted as truth and evidence... LOL
 
The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.
The climate science phonies predicted that by 2017, Glacier National Park would be glacier free.........of course, from the signage in the park, "according to computer models".

fAiL

Global warming and Glacier National Park | Behind The Black


Really, is there any need to elaborate here? Of course, the climate alarmists get suckered all the time with the lobbing of the prediction bombs which will never change............snowflakes for life = ghey.
This OP seems to ignore one basic fact of science. Science is always open to change. When making predictions on something as complicated as climate it's not abnormal that there are variations. US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left
This is irrefutable. If it takes 3 or 13 or 20 years to disappear completely the fact remains that the glaciers are disappearing. The fact that they can't put an exact time on when they will be completely gone and you using it as some kind of proof that global warming is a hoax, seems not a little bit dishonest.

Science is always open to change.

The science isn't settled?
Science is never completely settled. It's not how it works. If science is settled it stagnates. It's the process of questioning that propagates progress. Let's take the example of global warming. It's safe to say that the earth is warming. It's also safe to say that human are a major cause of that warming. It doesn't mean everything is set in stone. For instance the gulf stream might slow or disappear because of the increases in temperature increases the amount of freshwater in the oceans, causing a cooling in Europe. There might be an sudden jump in temperature because of greenhouse gasses being released from the ocean bottom. Like might have happened during the Permian extinction.Permian extinction | Overview & Facts Science has a hard time predicting what the consequences of a sudden rise in temperature would have on the global system that is earth. The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?


I concur.........so if its "never completely settled.....that's how it works" we really don't know dick about tomorrow..........or 50 years from now. So this idea of "we must address climate change now" is a bunch of bullshit. To accomplish what exactly? Moreover, can we actually accomplish anything? Anybody who says yes to that is short some cards in the deck.

Bottom line is...........the climate change industry still hasn't made its case. If it had, we might actually have a presidential debate that brings the subject up.......lol.......its still yet to be addressed. Because........in 2017, nobody is caring about climate change. Might be big in internet forums and in academia and the media........but nobody else is sitting home worrying about climate change. Ten years of zero climate change legislation from congress is all you need to know. People are much more concerned about real stuff right in front of them............:popcorn::eusa_dance::eusa_dance:
Our first snow of the season was almost a month ago.. guess what is coming to stay...
Snow Headed for Western Wyoming; Storm to Impact Natrona County
 
Why do you refuse to list the steps required to stop this manmade global warming threat? I thought it was important to you.

Fact is you refuse to answer because you know its BS.
Fact is I've spent about 12 posts now defending my standpoint when you guys have yet to spent one single post defending your standpoints that global warming is either a hoax or we can't do anything about it as you are here trying to defend. I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring. What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business. As to your impact question. A few we see now. The Extinction Crisis Global warming and its loss of habitats accompanying it is 1 of the causes. The treat to coastal cities as water levels rise and storms get more severe. Not to mention increased wildfires and droughts. Now my question.
The question is, does the fact that the science doesn't know how severe ,or even what the ultimate consequences of global warming will be, excuse us from trying to prevent it. Because non of the possible scenarios are good?
So you have no solutions to offer, only hysteria.

Typical leftist.

And they are always wrong. Always.

The left love hysteria.

Global starvation from overpopulation
Hetro HIV epidemic
Silicone breast implants
Freezing from global cooling
Drowning from global warming
Hundreds of thousands of women dying from anorexia nervosa
Smog will kill all trees
Patriot Act will kill liberty
Eating animals is like the holocaust.
What we as a human raise can do is eat more vegetables since meat drains way more resources. Get serious about getting energy from renewable resources. And become aware that consuming more resources then the earth can provide is not a sustainable way of doing business.
I did answer. Whats more some countries are on their way to do what you say can't be done.
Sweden's carbon-tax solution to climate change puts it top of the green list
Sweden just committed to having zero carbon emissions, and perfectly trolled Trump at the same time
Having said that since you seem to be incapable of answering my one question I will stop this conversation for the reason I stated the previous post.
I will spent this post to defend my standpoint and answer your questions but if the very next post of you guys isn't an answer to my question I will stop it. A debate where only one person is obliged to explain his views gets boring.

The premis of the question is that there is such a thing as manmade global warming in the first place.

To answer it is to agree with the premis. So no, skeptics like me would not answer.

Got if Junior?

Oh shit, I asked a question.
Basing decisions on the possibility of something is the whole bases of insurance. You don't get medical insurance because you are sick, you get it because you suspect you'll get sick somewhere in the future. To draw that analogy further, what you guys are claiming is that its unnecessary to get health insurance because you only have a mild cough atm. That in the end is the premise of the question. Why is the mere chance of me being wrong a valid excuse to not want to act?

The mere chance? Your evidence that doing anything will stop anything from occurring is mere speculation.

I can statistically validate the need for health insurance. WE ALL GET SICK AND DIE.

what I cannot do is statistically validate what you claim. THERE IS NOT THE HISTORICAL LENGTH OF NON SUSPECT DATA!

Geez, really?
 

Forum List

Back
Top