Global Warming 'Splained

[RollingThunder]

Is this some of that famed liberal tolerance I hear so much about, but rarely see?

Translation: 'Aren't you guys supposed to be nice to retards like us?'. LOLOLOL.

No, bozo, 'liberals' don't need to 'tolerate' ignorant, obstructionist tools of the fossil fuel industry anymore than we needed to 'tolerate' Nazis in WWII.

And there it is, folks. The leftist view of the freedom of speech.

And there it is, folks. The rightwingnut inability to comprehend what the hell we're talking about. It's not "free speech", daveboy. I have no problem with 'free speech'. You were the one who thought that 'libruls' were 'supposed' to 'tolerate' ignorant retards who stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Fuck you. No we don't have to tolerate your kind of moronic rejection of science and reality for the sake of corporate profits. I'll call you on your idiocy and ignorant denialism every time.

 

[skookerasbil]

Translation: 'Aren't you guys supposed to be nice to retards like us?'. LOLOLOL.

No, bozo, 'liberals' don't need to 'tolerate' ignorant, obstructionist tools of the fossil fuel industry anymore than we needed to 'tolerate' Nazis in WWII.

And there it is, folks. The leftist view of the freedom of speech.

And there it is, folks. The rightwingnut inability to comprehend what the hell we're talking about. It's not "free speech", daveboy. I have no problem with 'free speech'. You were the one who thought that 'libruls' were 'supposed' to 'tolerate' ignorant retards who stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Fuck you. No we don't have to tolerate your kind of moronic rejection of science and reality for the sake of corporate profits. I'll call you on your idiocy and ignorant denialism every time.

Hey Dave........and we're dummer than a stump!!!!!!

Yuk.......yuk..............


Does global warming science matter?
March 16, 2007
| 9 Comments | Joshua Gans

Regardless of the large number of scientists willing to put their name to predictions of global warming, there remains a debate in public about whether it is caused by humans or not. And alongside this is a debate about whether we can do anything about it in any case. Things that I have read over many years cause me to think that (a) it is impacted on by human action and (b) for that reason why may be able to do something about it or at least about its consequences but this post by Orson Scott Card, someone whom I regard as moderately thoughtful about scientific matters, got me thinking about whether it all matters. (There is also this documentary but I haven’t viewed it yet, although Harry Clarke has). Indeed, I will argue that it doesn’t and that what really matters is the smell.

Let’s take one base issue summarised by this perspective from Card:

If you pay close attention, you’ll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying “Global Warming” lately. No, nowadays it’s “Climate Change.” Do you know why?

Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.


Oops.

<<snip>>

To be sure, I do not want to underestimate the importance of science and what science should achieve. I just want to suggest that science isn’t really driving this debate. Something else is. And so it may be that global warming science does not matter for the environmentalist movement and it is time to accept that.

Does global warming science matter? : Core Economics

Forum policy, to be found HERE, prohibits the posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

 

[skookerasbil]

More on: The Science doesnt mattter................

Don't count on long-term success in climate policy, warns paper in Decision Analysis

 

[skookerasbil]

Even the lefty green nutballs are just this side of hysterical......................

Threat of climate change demands we re-engineer the world economy right now | Damian Carrington | Environment | The Guardian



The science isnt mattering s0ns!!!!




Its become a hobby for those with social issues!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

C'mon Rocks.........its been at least 24 hours since you last posted up that "Greenhouse Effect" link for the 839th time!!!!

Sooo..........its time for that favorite k00k hobby game: POST UP THE SAME GAY-ASS FAKE TEMERATURE LINKS AGAIN

 

[daveman]

Translation: 'Aren't you guys supposed to be nice to retards like us?'. LOLOLOL.

No, bozo, 'liberals' don't need to 'tolerate' ignorant, obstructionist tools of the fossil fuel industry anymore than we needed to 'tolerate' Nazis in WWII.

And there it is, folks. The leftist view of the freedom of speech.

And there it is, folks. The rightwingnut inability to comprehend what the hell we're talking about. It's not "free speech", daveboy. I have no problem with 'free speech'. You were the one who thought that 'libruls' were 'supposed' to 'tolerate' ignorant retards who stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Fuck you. No we don't have to tolerate your kind of moronic rejection of science and reality for the sake of corporate profits. I'll call you on your idiocy and ignorant denialism every time.

Like I said: You tolerate free speech only if it agrees with you.

Congratulations. You have zero understanding of the Constitution and America. Do us all a favor and don't vote, because you're too ignorant.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Samson]

I see that you're still kickin' liberal ass. I'm gonna start posting more here.

Neither of you morons know your ass from a hole in the ground. Intellectually, both of you put together have about as much chance of kicking anyone's ass as a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest with lumberjacks.

I know this much, Jackhole. Liberals have been claiming that the planet is doomed for the last hundred years. At this point you have about as much credibility as guys who predict that the end is near or that they saw Sasquatch. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? Should I consider your ass kicked now or do you want more?

"Lumberjacks....Jackholes.....Sasquatch......Santa Clause AND THE EASTER BUNNY!!"


damn you guys are harsh.

Better not get to close to the rapier wits clashing together...I may get a paper-cut.

 

[Old Rocks]

New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest. We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states. Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.

And yet in the past, New Mexico has been under the ocean and it had its lush rain forest period when dinosaurs were plentiful and an enormous diversity of plant and animal life here.

I am hoping for a climate shift in my lifetime that will return us to another lush green prosperous era.

I think CO2 fluctuations that are mostly natural and cyclical occurrences are probably not a huge problem for us. (Or anybody for that matter.)

You are in the wrong place, buddy. Going to get warmer and drier in New Mexico. And, more than likely, where I live now will get warmer and wetter. Wish we could send you a little of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest. We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states. Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.

And yet in the past, New Mexico has been under the ocean and it had its lush rain forest period when dinosaurs were plentiful and an enormous diversity of plant and animal life here.

I am hoping for a climate shift in my lifetime that will return us to another lush green prosperous era.

I think CO2 fluctuations that are mostly natural and cyclical occurrences are probably not a huge problem for us. (Or anybody for that matter.)

You are in the wrong place, buddy. Going to get warmer and drier in New Mexico. And, more than likely, where I live now will get warmer and wetter. Wish we could send you a little of that.

It may. Or may not I've lived long enough to have experienced minor climate change both in New Mexico/West Texas and Kansas--changes that feel 'permanent' after a decade or two. But these aren't even blinks in the grand scheme of things. When science measures things in tens of thousands or millions or billions of years, a couple of hundred years doesn't mean much.

However it goes I figure I will spend my time more effectively by adapting to whatever climate throws at us rather than expend precious time, energy, and resources on trying to control the climate.

Given its track record on managing other things, do we really WANT to trust govrenment with control of the climate?

 

[skookerasbil]

New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest. We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states. Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.

And yet in the past, New Mexico has been under the ocean and it had its lush rain forest period when dinosaurs were plentiful and an enormous diversity of plant and animal life here.

I am hoping for a climate shift in my lifetime that will return us to another lush green prosperous era.

I think CO2 fluctuations that are mostly natural and cyclical occurrences are probably not a huge problem for us. (Or anybody for that matter.)

You are in the wrong place, buddy. Going to get warmer and drier in New Mexico. And, more than likely, where I live now will get warmer and wetter. Wish we could send you a little of that.

Really s0n???!!!!

Just like your prediction a few years back that snowstorms would become rare events??!!!

PS Rocks......your "Predictions" thread seems to have died there bub. Still waiting to see a response from ANY k00k on how the data is mattering in the real world. Data debate for the sake of debating data is gay. MIght as well use the time to make some improvements in that backyard emergency ark project you have going.

 

[daveman]

New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest. We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states. Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.

And yet in the past, New Mexico has been under the ocean and it had its lush rain forest period when dinosaurs were plentiful and an enormous diversity of plant and animal life here.

I am hoping for a climate shift in my lifetime that will return us to another lush green prosperous era.

I think CO2 fluctuations that are mostly natural and cyclical occurrences are probably not a huge problem for us. (Or anybody for that matter.)

You are in the wrong place, buddy. Going to get warmer and drier in New Mexico. And, more than likely, where I live now will get warmer and wetter. Wish we could send you a little of that.

Better get an umbrella, Foxfyre, because I hear the sky is falling.

 

[daveman]

New Mexico is the fifth largest state in land mass in the USA and one of the dryest. We have less surface water than any state in the union and our terrain is mostly high desert and forested mountain alpine but of a variety that supports wildlife rather skimpily when compared to other mountain states. Temperatures will exceed 100 degrees in the summer in several parts of the state and sub zero temps are common in the winter in others.

And yet in the past, New Mexico has been under the ocean and it had its lush rain forest period when dinosaurs were plentiful and an enormous diversity of plant and animal life here.

I am hoping for a climate shift in my lifetime that will return us to another lush green prosperous era.

I think CO2 fluctuations that are mostly natural and cyclical occurrences are probably not a huge problem for us. (Or anybody for that matter.)

You are in the wrong place, buddy. Going to get warmer and drier in New Mexico. And, more than likely, where I live now will get warmer and wetter. Wish we could send you a little of that.

It may. Or may not I've lived long enough to have experienced minor climate change both in New Mexico/West Texas and Kansas--changes that feel 'permanent' after a decade or two. But these aren't even blinks in the grand scheme of things. When science measures things in tens of thousands or millions or billions of years, a couple of hundred years doesn't mean much.

However it goes I figure I will spend my time more effectively by adapting to whatever climate throws at us rather than expend precious time, energy, and resources on trying to control the climate.

Given its track record on managing other things, do we really WANT to trust govrenment with control of the climate?

"Yeah, we know the government hasn't worked very well before, but this time, it'll work great! No, really! Honest! Besides...uh....we're all gonna die if you don't vote Democrat!! Yeah! That's the ticket!!"

Right, Old Rocks?

 

[Old Rocks]

I see, Daveboy. We lost WW2? How about the Corps of Discovery? Transcontinental railrod? Interstate highway system? National Park System? Forest Service?

And would you care to explain how private enterprise is doing so good when it was the unregulated greed that created both the First Great Republican Depression, and almost created the Second Great Republican Depression.

 

[Samson]

I see, Daveboy. We lost WW2? How about the Corps of Discovery? Transcontinental railrod? Interstate highway system? National Park System? Forest Service?

And would you care to explain how private enterprise is doing so good when it was the unregulated greed that created both the First Great Republican Depression, and almost created the Second Great Republican Depression.

By "Transcontinental Railroad" do you mean AMTRACK?

Interstate Highway system is falling apart.

The National Park System is nice, except for the Raging Fires and Pine Bark Beetles that have taken them over because of Forest Service Mismanagement.

And finally, Old Retard, bringing up war as an example of government success exemplifies just how far out in left field you continue to be on almost any issue.

WWII cost millions of lives and can be viewed as the pentultimate government failure.

 

[daveman]

I see, Daveboy. We lost WW2? How about the Corps of Discovery? Transcontinental railrod? Interstate highway system? National Park System? Forest Service?

And would you care to explain how private enterprise is doing so good when it was the unregulated greed that created both the First Great Republican Depression, and almost created the Second Great Republican Depression.

Yeah, government is swell. That's why they should make everyone's decisions for them. No, really. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[edthecynic]

Does global warming science matter?
March 16, 2007
| 9 Comments | Joshua Gans

Things that I have read over many years cause me to think that (a) it is impacted on by human action and (b) for that reason why may be able to do something about it or at least about its consequences but this post by Orson Scott Card, someone whom I regard as moderately thoughtful about scientific matters, got me thinking about whether it all matters. (There is also this documentary but I haven&#8217;t viewed it yet, although Harry Clarke has). Indeed, I will argue that it doesn&#8217;t and that what really matters is the smell.

Let&#8217;s take one base issue summarised by this perspective from Card:

If you pay close attention, you&#8217;ll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying &#8220;Global Warming&#8221; lately. No, nowadays it&#8217;s &#8220;Climate Change.&#8221; Do you know why?

Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.


Oops.

And the backtracking continues.
Deniers used to say that it's been cooling for the last 15 years. Then they backtracked to the last 10 years. Never mind that the last decade was the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Oops.

And NOW the deniers have backtracked to saying the last 3 years have been cooling, again ignoring the fact that 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year in the history of direct instrument measurement even though there was an El Nino half the year.

Oops.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2010
Global Highlights

• For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

 

[RollingThunder]

And there it is, folks. The leftist view of the freedom of speech.

And there it is, folks. The rightwingnut inability to comprehend what the hell we're talking about. It's not "free speech", daveboy. I have no problem with 'free speech'. You were the one who thought that 'libruls' were 'supposed' to 'tolerate' ignorant retards who stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Fuck you. No we don't have to tolerate your kind of moronic rejection of science and reality for the sake of corporate profits. I'll call you on your idiocy and ignorant denialism every time.

Hey Dave........we're dummer than a stump!!!!!!

That's quite true, as both of you demonstrate every time you post.

Does global warming science matter?
March 16, 2007
| 9 Comments | Joshua Gans

Regardless of the large number of scientists willing to put their name to predictions of global warming, there remains a debate in public about whether it is caused by humans or not. And alongside this is a debate about whether we can do anything about it in any case. Things that I have read over many years cause me to think that (a) it is impacted on by human action and (b) for that reason why may be able to do something about it or at least about its consequences but this post by Orson Scott Card, someone whom I regard as moderately thoughtful about scientific matters, got me thinking about whether it all matters. (There is also this documentary but I haven’t viewed it yet, although Harry Clarke has). Indeed, I will argue that it doesn’t and that what really matters is the smell.

Let’s take one base issue summarised by this perspective from Card:

If you pay close attention, you’ll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying “Global Warming” lately. No, nowadays it’s “Climate Change.” Do you know why?

Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.


Oops.

<<snip>>

To be sure, I do not want to underestimate the importance of science and what science should achieve. I just want to suggest that science isn’t really driving this debate. Something else is. And so it may be that global warming science does not matter for the environmentalist movement and it is time to accept that.

Does global warming science matter? : Core Economics

Good post for illustrating just how idiotic you are, kooker. The author of the blog, Joshua Gans, is making the point that people are increasingly taking the environmentalist view about global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. Which is just the opposite of what you imagine is happening and what you seem to think his blog is saying. He makes it clear in one of the comments.

# Joshua Gans on March 18th, 2007 11:56 am

Harry, I wasn’t supporting Card’s views. Instead I was suggesting something completely independent of all this: that the current tip towards environmentalism has nothing to do with any change in the scientific evidence. That has changed a little while views have changed alot. Something else is driving peoples’ changed views and, you and I, as economists should think about that and what it might mean for policies.


And the science fiction author he quotes, Orson Scott Card, has his head up his ass too. Global temperatures haven't been falling, they've been still rising. 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record and 2009 was tied for the second warmest year on record. There has been no change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" in recent years as he and you foolishly imagine. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was first established in 1988, dumbass. Both terms have been widely used since then.