Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The dumb asses here really, really do not like to be reminded of the very real and observable effects of global warming. They also insist that the world's scientific establishment are all in a conspiracy to re-distribute the world's wealth. Next, I expect them all to suggest a meeting at Area 57 to request help from the Greys to put down this nefarious plot.
Yes, they are truly kooks, anti-science wingnuts without a clue. Choosing a Conservative reality that exists in some other dimension, rather the reality that is staring them in the face.
The glaciers are receding worldwide. The polar caps are melting. The permafrost is thawing and emitting vast amount of both CO2 and CH4. The Artic Ocean clathrates have also started to emitt CH4. But none of that is revelant because the Prophet Rush has stated that is is not occuring.
It's not about conservative or liberal you poor silly person (though you consistently try to portray it as such), I am probably more "liberal" in social things than you are, after all I have a significantly lower carbon footprint than you ever will (not that it matters) nor do I work for a company that actively pollutes my neighborhood unlike yourself.
However, to get to your point about the "science" of AGW. There simply is none. There is ample empirical data that supports the theory that the current warming trend is entirely natural and cyclical in nature. You are the anti science followers of Ned Lud in this argument.
Not once have you or your minions been able to show the warming trend is man caused. You have cute little computer models that will show you pretty much whatever you want them to show you but the real world just seems to ignore those crappy little models doesn't she?
It is supposedly the warmest year ever yet the very real facts are that millions of creatures are dying from cold. They are not kicking the bucket due to heat. The so called Russian deaths due to the heat wave are being found to be respiratory in nature for the most part (that would be particulate matter induced, not heat induced) the cause of the forest fires was likewise not the heat. In fact the forests of Russia (much like the sage of California) require fires as part of their life cycle so the fires are not only natural but essential to their continued exhistence. The scope of the fires was due entirely to poor forest managment (as the Russians themselves admitted) not heat.
We have also found that the temperature record has been falsified (and in fact the perps are continuing to do so) in a furhter effort to conceal the fact the world is entering a cooling trend....just a few more years and then the legislation will be passed and the gravy train can begin before the public figures out they have been lied too......uh oh, the public is allready finding out!
You claim to be a liberal, but in fact you are a scientific illiterate who supports the very oil companies and investment companies that screw the very people you claim to be trying to help. You are thevery embodiment of useful idiot that corrupt corporations love to employ to do their dirty work.
Once again ol' dumb fuck denies reality. What does the American Geophysical Union state concerning global warming? Do they state that it is 'natural cycle'? And where the hell is the 'ample evidence' for that? You have yet to present any such evidence, other than the meanderings of such dimbulbs as Watts. Care to point out some peer reviewed articles from scientific journals?
AGU Revises Statement on Global Warming | Desert News
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system – including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons – are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the period 1956-2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850.
The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change – an additional global mean warming of 1 degree Celsius above the last decade – is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and – if sustained over centuries – melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2 degrees Celsius warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of carbon dioxide must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections
This is what real scientists are stating. Scientists that actually do research in this area. And, when this organization has it's annual December meeting, the discussion will not be whether we are creating a bad situation, but whether the situation is really bad, or really, really bad.
There will not be one lecture there stating the changes are natural. Why? Because these are real scientists, not faux scientists on a message board.