Global warming

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL!!! No wonder you don't understand the topic, if you think a 67% increase over historical averages is imperceptible! Do you even know what the word means? It means "so low we can't even measure it". Well, we all know THAT'S BS or we wouldn't even know that that at present we're 25-30% above historical averages with no obvious cause except that we're doing it, ourselves.

Really? So why can't you replicate these results given a 67% increase in a laboratory?

I was being generous and giving you 200PPM because 200PPM > 67% increase

Depends what you mean. No one create that an entire climate in a lab, thoough models are done on computers. Simply putting CO2 in a spectrophotometer WILL show that the absorbance numbers go up if you raise the concentration by 200 PPM. BTW, the historical number I've seen and cited in posts is ~300 ppm. How is an increase of 200 ppm greater than 67%??? Could it be that you're both math AND science challenged?

There you go! That's the Warmers Dilemma!

You cannot show in a lab how a 200PPM increase in CO2 does any of the things you claim so you vaporize Warmer "Science" by claiming "No one create that an entire climate in a lab"

Right. We can replicate conditions a nanosecond after the big bang, but its too darn difficult to measure out 800,000PPM N2, 198,000PPM O2 and then various trace elements including CO2

Do you see why there's no real science to your side?

I said a 200PPM INCREASE

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

Do you know what an increase is?

 

[taichiliberal]

Now Walleyes, you have proven yourself a liar about every other post.

So sayeth the EnviroMarxist

Enviro Marxist
Islamo Fascist

The joining of unrelated and contradictory words and definitions.
Neologisms of the intellectually bankrupt new conservative ("neocon" for short) parrots.

 

[westwall]

Now Walleyes, you have proven yourself a liar about every other post.

So sayeth the EnviroMarxist

Enviro Marxist
Islamo Fascist

The joining of unrelated and contradictory words and definitions.
Neologisms of the intellectually bankrupt new conservative ("neocon" for short) parrots.

Well Dr. Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace thinks they're Marxists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g]YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists[/ame]

Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace | Sweetness & Light

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g]YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists[/ame]

 

[taichiliberal]

So sayeth the EnviroMarxist

Enviro Marxist
Islamo Fascist

The joining of unrelated and contradictory words and definitions.
Neologisms of the intellectually bankrupt new conservative ("neocon" for short) parrots.

Well Dr. Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace thinks they're Marxists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g]YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists[/ame]

Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace | Sweetness & Light

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g]YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists[/ame]

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

 

[Old Rocks]

So are you saying the atmosphere is too complex to limit the effects of one variable?

Your soulmate OR said and I quote, "So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years?"

That's about a 67% increase, right? And that's only a 100PPM increase in CO2, no matter how sensitive it is, right?

I'm giving you DOUBLE THAT! Go do 200PPM increase and show me ANY temperature effect as a result.

Don't need to. You yourself have agreed that CO2 is a GHG. What's so hard to understand about, if you have more of it, you'll get more trapped energy? More energy, more heat. I don't care if it can be proven that temps have gone up at all. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, if we keep pumping it into the atmosphere, additional warming is inevitable.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes that there will be no other factors which might slow or eliminate warming.

Thus far, what we have seen is mostly positive feedbacks from the AGW.

We already know that CO2 is a GHG.

Neat, and then deny it does what a GHG does in the next sentence.

The problem is that there are politicians who are trying to tax the air and control the economy because of a theory.

I see. So when we tax someone for putting sulphates into the air, we are taxing the air? Gee Whiz, and all this time I thought we were taxing the polluter. In what bank does the air keep it's funds?

I see, so let's just trust you people, after all, you brought us that lovely little economic burp at the end of 2008. We obviously need a few more of those.

For this reason, causation is important to isolate.

Golly gee whiz, just like cigarettes. You can't really prove that they are bad for you, after Uncle Bubbie smoked all his life and lived to be 90.

When you have no science on your side, do your best to create a climate of doubt.

Other things we know for certain about CO2 is that it reaches its peak at the moment that an Ice Age starts. This is not a causation, but, while the high CO2 probably does not cause cooling, it certainly does not stop the onset of the cold.

As stated previously, unlike the other liars on this board, you have a real classy and slippery logic. Of course, your assumption is that the yokels have no knowledge of the Milankovic Cycles and how they operate. And it is a reasonably safe assumption.

There are other climate driving factors that overpower CO2.

Your proof of which is? Here is a real scientist that states differantly;

A23A

Higher CO2, then, does not mean that additional warming is inevitable. It only means that there is higher CO2.

Of course the fact that the major scientific societies all disagree with you just means that they are not as smart as you, correct?

http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf

ACS POSITION
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
The effects of projected unmitigated climate change on key Earth system components, ecological systems and human society over the next fifty years will be profound and, quite possibly, irreversible (IPCC, 2007). Higher surface temperatures will severely impact many land-based life forms, damaging vulnerable ecosystems and endangering key plant and animal species. Sea level is rising and the ocean is acidifying; the first threatens coastal habitations and ecosystems, the second will have profound effects on marine ecosystems. Snowfall and snowmelt patterns are changing and rainfall patterns may also be unstable, threatening fresh water supplies in vulnerable regions. Increases in severe weather events are very likely, with increasing damage due to floods, drought, and heat waves. We are, in effect, in the midst of a vast experiment with the Earth’s climate—with uncertain, but likely quite unpleasant, outcomes.

 

[westwall]

Enviro Marxist
Islamo Fascist

The joining of unrelated and contradictory words and definitions.
Neologisms of the intellectually bankrupt new conservative ("neocon" for short) parrots.

Well Dr. Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace thinks they're Marxists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g]YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists[/ame]

Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace | Sweetness & Light

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g]YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists[/ame]

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well Dr. Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace thinks they're Marxists.

YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace | Sweetness & Light

YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

And what is your explanation for the hollow moon, oh great and all knowing faux geologist

 

[code1211]

Don't need to. You yourself have agreed that CO2 is a GHG. What's so hard to understand about, if you have more of it, you'll get more trapped energy? More energy, more heat. I don't care if it can be proven that temps have gone up at all. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, if we keep pumping it into the atmosphere, additional warming is inevitable.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes that there will be no other factors which might slow or eliminate warming.

Thus far, what we have seen is mostly positive feedbacks from the AGW.

We already know that CO2 is a GHG.

Neat, and then deny it does what a GHG does in the next sentence.

The problem is that there are politicians who are trying to tax the air and control the economy because of a theory.

I see. So when we tax someone for putting sulphates into the air, we are taxing the air? Gee Whiz, and all this time I thought we were taxing the polluter. In what bank does the air keep it's funds?

I see, so let's just trust you people, after all, you brought us that lovely little economic burp at the end of 2008. We obviously need a few more of those.

For this reason, causation is important to isolate.

Golly gee whiz, just like cigarettes. You can't really prove that they are bad for you, after Uncle Bubbie smoked all his life and lived to be 90.

When you have no science on your side, do your best to create a climate of doubt.

Other things we know for certain about CO2 is that it reaches its peak at the moment that an Ice Age starts. This is not a causation, but, while the high CO2 probably does not cause cooling, it certainly does not stop the onset of the cold.

As stated previously, unlike the other liars on this board, you have a real classy and slippery logic. Of course, your assumption is that the yokels have no knowledge of the Milankovic Cycles and how they operate. And it is a reasonably safe assumption.

There are other climate driving factors that overpower CO2.

Your proof of which is? Here is a real scientist that states differantly;

A23A

Higher CO2, then, does not mean that additional warming is inevitable. It only means that there is higher CO2.

Of course the fact that the major scientific societies all disagree with you just means that they are not as smart as you, correct?

http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf

ACS POSITION
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
The effects of projected unmitigated climate change on key Earth system components, ecological systems and human society over the next fifty years will be profound and, quite possibly, irreversible (IPCC, 2007). Higher surface temperatures will severely impact many land-based life forms, damaging vulnerable ecosystems and endangering key plant and animal species. Sea level is rising and the ocean is acidifying; the first threatens coastal habitations and ecosystems, the second will have profound effects on marine ecosystems. Snowfall and snowmelt patterns are changing and rainfall patterns may also be unstable, threatening fresh water supplies in vulnerable regions. Increases in severe weather events are very likely, with increasing damage due to floods, drought, and heat waves. We are, in effect, in the midst of a vast experiment with the Earth’s climate—with uncertain, but likely quite unpleasant, outcomes.

As always, you deny how small the observed effects are and how slight the effects of CO2 are by talking about sulfur and the resulting acid rain and Cigarette smoking. Why might one do this instead of using proof that has to do with AGW?

It might be that the proof of AGW does not exist.

Any warming that we are currently expeiencing is only going to bring us into a range of climate that was prevalent 8000 years ago. That warming occurred without the aid of CO2 in the levels we enjoy today.

A truly curious person might wonder why that warming occurred and wonder if those same causes are having an effect today.

A truly agenda driven propagandist might use any bit of isolated, cherry picked conjecture and use it to prop up his agenda.

For ease of understanding the utter lack of definitive knowledge contained in the article above, I've high lighted the words that make all of the other words above into nothing. Period. The trouble with AGW proponents is that they say nothing, but take so long to say it and do so with such conviction.

Words and phrases like "have shown" and "have proven" carry more weight for me than "coulda, woulda, shoulda or likely, may possibly or other forms of the predictive without the various forms of the have shown conclusively.

The climate system is currently too complex to be understood by the experts who continually are flumuxed by Mother Nature.

 

[code1211]

As stated previously, unlike the other liars on this board, you have a real classy and slippery logic. Of course, your assumption is that the yokels have no knowledge of the Milankovic Cycles and how they operate. And it is a reasonably safe assumption.

.

A left handed compliment is better than none at all. Thank you.

The Milankovitch Cycles are a perfect example of a factor that is not driven by CO2 and still drives the climate. Without CO2's vascillation within its current limits, the Milankovitch Cycles will drive Climate as they do. These cycles have seemed to dictate Ice Ages since the drift of continents reached their current placements.

Prior to that, Ice Ages were not a real regular feature of Climate.

With that, we discover that the Milankovitch Cycles, Continental drift, and Ocean Currents all have more powerful impacts on Climate than does CO2.

Another impact on the Milankovitch Cycles is the Gravity of Saturn and Jupiter.

Beyond any other influence, though, is the Sun itself. Any other factor only serves to increase or diminish the radiated heat from the Sun. If the Sun rages, we simmer, if it sleeps, we cool. Everything else is just ripples on the pond.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

And what is your explanation for the hollow moon, oh great and all knowing faux geologist

How many more times must I tell you that there is far more read hard scientific data and evidence that the Moon may be hollow than there is for your "Man Made Global Warming" Theory? I'm not running from it. I mentioned the Hollow Moon for a very specific reason and I enjoy that you keep bringing it up and letting me show you how stupid and feeble your AGW theory is in comparison

First, the Moon has an extraordinarily low density.

Second, is just way too big to even be there! Irwin I.Shapiro of the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for astrophysics once said, "Looking at all the anomaly's and unanswered questions regarding the Moon, the best explanation for the Moon is observational error, it doesn't exist"

Also Moon rocks are apparently older than the Earth.

Finally, when Apollo 13 dropped its booster on the lunar surface, seismometers left by Apollo 12 recorded that the shock reverberated for 3 1/2 hours traveling to a depth of only 25 miles beneath the surface. NASA engineers remarked that the Moon reverberated in such a specific way, as if had dampening struts.

I'll put that real science up against your: "It's warm someplace therefore it must be ManMade Global Warming" any day of the week

You have a simple task, if you want to show that a 200PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures, all you have to do is repeat the experiment in a lab.

That you refuse too means your theory a pile of steaming Alaskan moose shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

A left handed compliment is better than none at all. Thank you.

The Milankovitch Cycles are a perfect example of a factor that is not driven by CO2 and still drives the climate. Without CO2's vascillation within its current limits, the Milankovitch Cycles will drive Climate as they do. These cycles have seemed to dictate Ice Ages since the drift of continents reached their current placements.

Prior to that, Ice Ages were not a real regular feature of Climate.

There have been prior ice ages in geologic history, some far more severe than anything in the last two million years.

With that, we discover that the Milankovitch Cycles, Continental drift, and Ocean Currents all have more powerful impacts on Climate than does CO2.

From a real scientist with considerable background in the subject;

A23A

Another impact on the Milankovitch Cycles is the Gravity of Saturn and Jupiter.

This is the second time someone has stated that, without any citation of source. Do you have a source for this?

Beyond any other influence, though, is the Sun itself. Any other factor only serves to increase or diminish the radiated heat from the Sun.

Precisely. At the time of the 'Snowball Earth', there was very little CO2 for that period, and the oceans were frozen nearly to the equator. At the Permian-Triassic boundry, a volcanic event triggered the outgassing of the clatherates, and the temperatures spiked, creating the Great Dying.

If the Sun rages, we simmer, if it sleeps, we cool. Everything else is just ripples on the pond.

Well, it you think that the several times that there have been major extinctions associated with spiking GHGs are ripples on the pond, what is your definition of a major event?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, it you think that the several times that there have been major extinctions associated with spiking GHGs are ripples on the pond, what is your definition of a major event?

Meteor impacts probably cause the temporary spike in GHG's, or are you now claiming that the SUV is millions of years old?

 

[code1211]

Well, it you think that the several times that there have been major extinctions associated with spiking GHGs are ripples on the pond, what is your definition of a major event?

Of course there was very little CO2 during the Snowball Earth phase. There wasn't enough warmth to realease it. It was all sequestered. This is the proven cause effect realationship between CO2 and temperature: If it is warmer, there is more CO2.

I make a referance to the REGULAR cycle of Ice Ages coincidental to the Milankovitch Cycles since the current arrangements of the Continents was achieved and you cite the few times in the past that they may have happened. All of these previous occurrances were probably unrelated to the Milankovitch Cycles in any event.

You are trying to refute one assertion with something entirely unrelated. Next you'll be tying in the effect on climate from the In Field Fly Rule. There may be something to this as Summer Rarely occurs in the Northern hemispere until the Infield Fly Rule has been invoked.

My definition of a major event has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about causation. I think it is safe to assume that if the Sun was extinguished today, there would be very few life forms alive by this time next year on this planet. All of the other causes for climate variation are driven by the Sun. No Sun? No us.

 

[westwall]

A left handed compliment is better than none at all. Thank you.

The Milankovitch Cycles are a perfect example of a factor that is not driven by CO2 and still drives the climate. Without CO2's vascillation within its current limits, the Milankovitch Cycles will drive Climate as they do. These cycles have seemed to dictate Ice Ages since the drift of continents reached their current placements.

Prior to that, Ice Ages were not a real regular feature of Climate.

With that, we discover that the Milankovitch Cycles, Continental drift, and Ocean Currents all have more powerful impacts on Climate than does CO2.

Another impact on the Milankovitch Cycles is the Gravity of Saturn and Jupiter.

Beyond any other influence, though, is the Sun itself. Any other factor only serves to increase or diminish the radiated heat from the Sun. If the Sun rages, we simmer, if it sleeps, we cool. Everything else is just ripples on the pond.

Very well put!

 

[westwall]

Well, it you think that the several times that there have been major extinctions associated with spiking GHGs are ripples on the pond, what is your definition of a major event?

PROOVE THIS STATEMENT

 

[code1211]

Well, it you think that the several times that there have been major extinctions associated with spiking GHGs are ripples on the pond, what is your definition of a major event?

For whatever reason, the server is not reproducing the quoted portions. You asked about the source of the idea that Jupiter and Saturn affect the Orbit of the Earth.

Milankovitch Cycle | Universe Today

<snip>

The path of the Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle, but an ellipse. This elliptical shape changes from less elliptical (nearly a perfect circle) to more elliptical and back, and is due to the gravitational fields of neighboring planets (particularly the large ones – Jupiter and Saturn). The measure of the shape's deviation from being a circle is called its eccentricity.
That is, the larger the eccentricity, the greater is its deviation from a circle. Thus, in terms of eccentricity, the Earth's orbit undergoes a cyclical change from less eccentric to more eccentric and back. One complete cycle for this kind of variation lasts for about 100,000 years.

 

[taichiliberal]

Well Dr. Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace thinks they're Marxists.

YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace | Sweetness & Light

YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

Gee, you should do better research before your fingers hit the keys....or you should actually READ the links other's provide in a discussion. Moore exaggerates/lies...as the people he refers to were concerned about EXCESSIVE uses of chlorine and industrial waste that contains high levels of chlorine. Just because one has a PhD that does not automatically make one a paragon of virtue.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

Frank is a liar and BS artist...as are you. The ONLY difference between you two jokers and Moore is that Moore's a professional of a higher caliber in a specific field and a successful businessman.

People talking about POPULATION CONTROL are NOT advocating mass murder or any such nonsense. Moore and his ilk seek out quotes from fringe elements of a debate and paint everyone as such...or they just exaggerate/make stuff up. I defy you or Frank to produce a quote from a Greenpeace member who says that we should start murdering people to decrease the world's population, because Moore sure as hell hasn't done so.

 

[westwall]

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

Gee, you should do better research before your fingers hit the keys....or you should actually READ the links other's provide in a discussion. Moore exaggerates/lies...as the people he refers to were concerned about EXCESSIVE uses of chlorine and industrial waste that contains high levels of chlorine. Just because one has a PhD that does not automatically make one a paragon of virtue.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

Frank is a liar and BS artist...as are you. The ONLY difference between you two jokers and Moore is that Moore's a professional of a higher caliber in a specific field and a successful businessman.

People talking about POPULATION CONTROL are NOT advocating mass murder or any such nonsense. Moore and his ilk seek out quotes from fringe elements of a debate and paint everyone as such...or they just exaggerate/make stuff up. I defy you or Frank to produce a quote from a Greenpeace member who says that we should start murdering people to decrease the world's population, because Moore sure as hell hasn't done so.

Please answer my question.

 

[taichiliberal]

Well Dr. Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace thinks they're Marxists.

YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

Founder Explains Why He Left Greenpeace | Sweetness & Light

YouTube - The Anti-Human Mindset Of Environmentalists

Patrick Moore is full of shit...period. He has a nasty little habit of working with/for corporation like Monsato, who promote an image of environmental responsibility while doing the exact opposite in reality. Also, he has a tendency to exaggerate (if not outright lie) when it suits his purposes. Moore may have his own business agenda and does some good with it, as he did with Greenpeace. But he lies down with dogs too much, which contradicts what good he has done.


Bruce Cox defends Greenpeace (and takes on Patrick Moore) - Full Comment


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore | Greenpeace USA
Patrick Moore - SourceWatch


Crusader Frank is just another neocon parrot squawking the talking points fed to him. And you Westie, are no better...you just think you're smarter than Frank (hint: you're not).

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

Gee I don't think so. Moore got a real PhD and just because he knows that chlorinated water is actually good for mankind he is vilified by the likes of you.

Gee, you should do better research before your fingers hit the keys....or you should actually READ the links other's provide in a discussion. Moore exaggerates/lies...as the people he refers to were concerned about EXCESSIVE uses of chlorine and industrial waste that contains high levels of chlorine. Just because one has a PhD that does not automatically make one a paragon of virtue.

So riddle me this batman, do you think the population of the Earth is too high? And if so what is your method of change? And Frank is certainly your intellectual superior and I hope I am as smart as he is.

Frank is a liar and BS artist...as are you. The ONLY difference between you two jokers and Moore is that Moore's a professional of a higher caliber in a specific field and a successful businessman.

People talking about POPULATION CONTROL are NOT advocating mass murder or any such nonsense. Moore and his ilk seek out quotes from fringe elements of a debate and paint everyone as such...or they just exaggerate/make stuff up. I defy you or Frank to produce a quote from a Greenpeace member who says that we should start murdering people to decrease the world's population, because Moore sure as hell hasn't done so.

Please answer my question.

You should have derived my stance from the last paragraph. And you should not try this lame dodge that so many Rove scholars use when they can't adequately defend their position. The discussion is NOT about how you or I would do things, but it's about whether Moore is telling a truthful story or is exaggerating/lying about what others say. My challenge to you stands, because like I said Moore sure as hell can't back up his accusations with documented quotes.

So you've got a choice.....met the challenge or acknowledge defeat or stubbornly pursue your dodge to the point of insipidness.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course there was very little CO2 during the Snowball Earth phase. There wasn't enough warmth to realease it. It was all sequestered. This is the proven cause effect realationship between CO2 and temperature: If it is warmer, there is more CO2.

I make a referance to the REGULAR cycle of Ice Ages coincidental to the Milankovitch Cycles since the current arrangements of the Continents was achieved and you cite the few times in the past that they may have happened. All of these previous occurrances were probably unrelated to the Milankovitch Cycles in any event.

You are trying to refute one assertion with something entirely unrelated. Next you'll be tying in the effect on climate from the In Field Fly Rule. There may be something to this as Summer Rarely occurs in the Northern hemispere until the Infield Fly Rule has been invoked.

My definition of a major event has nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about causation. I think it is safe to assume that if the Sun was extinguished today, there would be very few life forms alive by this time next year on this planet. All of the other causes for climate variation are driven by the Sun. No Sun? No us.

I see. So what you are stating is that heat causes GHGs. The fact that the absorption spectra of GHGs has nothing at all to do with warming the atmosphere.

Now Code, only the whole of the scientific information in physics and chemistry says that is totally wrong.

The causation of the present warming is the fact that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and 150% more CH4, along with many industrial GHGs that are tens of thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. Every single Scientific Society dealing with Physics and Chemistry states that this is a fact.

Physics Society Quietly Reaffirms Climate Change Policy Stance Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine.

In April of this year, the APS posted an addendum to its official policy stance on climate change. The addendum strongly reaffirmed the Society’s existing policy and support of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory.

The posting was the last chapter in a fabricated controversy that started out with blustering, gale-force winds blowing throughout the endless corridors of the Internet and ended with hardly a whisper. That the APS was revisiting its policy received massive amounts of attention from the blogosphere as well as major media outlets in 2009. However, the actual result, borne from a year-long process that included the solicitation, review, and incorporation of comments from the Society’s 46,034 members, was barely noticed.

Originally issued in November 2007, the APS’ official policy statement on Climate Change concluded that “emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate” and that “if no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.”