Its called"Earth Cyclical Climate Change,"Global warming is a scam.!

[Oddball]

I didn't answer your moironic question because it is both begging the question and non sequitur.

As has been already pointed out, the sun isn't the only variable in the equation. Moreover, the overall global temperature has dropped since '98....Strangely, roughly over the same time period of this lowered solar activity.

Self-declarations of victory don't make them so.

 

[Chris]

I didn't answer your moironic question because it is both begging the question and non sequitur.

As has been already pointed out, the sun isn't the only variable in the equation. Moreover, the overall global temperature has dropped since '98....Strangely, roughly over the same time period of this lowered solar activity.

Self-declarations of victory don't make them so.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

The sun is not the only variable in the equation. Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is another variable. One that will make the earth warmer.

 

[Oddball]

My agreement with you in one relatively minor area is incidental....It's known as the law of averages.

40% change of .04% of the total is still statistically insignificant, viz. that total.

Re-re-re-re-re-repeating your extremely limited menu of scaremonger talking points doesn't make them any more true or statistically significant.

 

[sealybobo]

No...It's not proven.

Repeating that it is over and over and over and over and over again doesn't prove it the 1,000,001st time, any more than it did the previous 1,000,000 repetitions.

We need to change the topic because you guys LOVE it being about whether or not humans are contributing to global warming.

That's an argument you can debate with us forever.

So lets change it to, "are we as humans polluting the planet and is that harmful to our long term existence"?

Is all the plastic in the ocean bad for us? Hell yea.

Is all the toxic CO2 bad for us to be breathing?

Can we clean up our air? Fuck if its causing global warming. We can't breath!!!! We're getting cancer from it. Fish are dying.

I bet the GOP deregulated this too much, just like they did our economy. I bet we will find that companies can pollute now more than ever. And I bet the GOP have fudged stats that suggest the environment is cleaner after Bush, and I bet that turns out to be a big fat lie.

Corporations and tax payers are going to have to pay for the cleanup. And this is something that we all share blame on. But corporations pollute way more than we do. And they don't want to get better gas milage out of cars. They want the status quo!!!

Right wingers are stupid.

Nothing more than just an emotional outburst by bobo

See! He doesn't want to discuss corporate pollution. He wants to stay on the question, "are humans contributing signifigantly to global warming or is it just nature", because that can be debatable, even though most scientists agree that humans are contributing signifigantly.

But I don't want to go there. I'd rather ask, "are corporations polluting too much and should we force them to clean up their act".

Because the answer will be 100% yes, unless you are a fucking moron. Of course they should clean up.

Get ready to lose your lunch: The Bush Administration has shamed environmentalists once again. And this time, we’re not talking about another sickeningly un-eco 11th-hour regulation.

Results of a Congressional investigation released yesterday show that the Bush administration has delayed or dropped more than 500 Clean Water Act violation cases since 2006. In other words, developers and corporations have been allowed to sully America’s waterways for years without being penalized.

Checkmate stupid!!!

Bush administration allowed corporations to pollute waterways — Plenty Magazine

If we discuss this, you lose. You're losing the GW argument too, but it is taking way too long. Newt admitted a year ago you are just lying because you don't want corporations to pay for going green and you don't want the regulations.

Its a lot easier to argue with you when I know your secret motivations.

 

[Oddball]

Here we go again!!

It's all because of GEORGE BOOOOOOOOSH!.....And Halliburton!!...And Cheney, running a shadow gubmint in the basement of Wal-Mart!!!!

 

[Meister]

We need to change the topic because you guys LOVE it being about whether or not humans are contributing to global warming.

That's an argument you can debate with us forever.

So lets change it to, "are we as humans polluting the planet and is that harmful to our long term existence"?

Is all the plastic in the ocean bad for us? Hell yea.

Is all the toxic CO2 bad for us to be breathing?

Can we clean up our air? Fuck if its causing global warming. We can't breath!!!! We're getting cancer from it. Fish are dying.

I bet the GOP deregulated this too much, just like they did our economy. I bet we will find that companies can pollute now more than ever. And I bet the GOP have fudged stats that suggest the environment is cleaner after Bush, and I bet that turns out to be a big fat lie.

Corporations and tax payers are going to have to pay for the cleanup. And this is something that we all share blame on. But corporations pollute way more than we do. And they don't want to get better gas milage out of cars. They want the status quo!!!

Right wingers are stupid.

Nothing more than just an emotional outburst by bobo

See! He doesn't want to discuss corporate pollution. He wants to stay on the question, "are humans contributing signifigantly to global warming or is it just nature", because that can be debatable, even though most scientists agree that humans are contributing signifigantly.

But I don't want to go there. I'd rather ask, "are corporations polluting too much and should we force them to clean up their act".

Because the answer will be 100% yes, unless you are a fucking moron. Of course they should clean up.

Get ready to lose your lunch: The Bush Administration has shamed environmentalists once again. And this time, we’re not talking about another sickeningly un-eco 11th-hour regulation.

Results of a Congressional investigation released yesterday show that the Bush administration has delayed or dropped more than 500 Clean Water Act violation cases since 2006. In other words, developers and corporations have been allowed to sully America’s waterways for years without being penalized.

Checkmate stupid!!!

Bush administration allowed corporations to pollute waterways — Plenty Magazine

If we discuss this, you lose. You're losing the GW argument too, but it is taking way too long. Newt admitted a year ago you are just lying because you don't want corporations to pay for going green and you don't want the regulations.

Its a lot easier to argue with you when I know your secret motivations.

Another emotional outburst from bobo

 

[Chris]

My agreement with you in one relatively minor area is incidental....It's known as the law of averages.

40% change of .04% of the total is still statistically insignificant, viz. that total.

Re-re-re-re-re-repeating your extremely limited menu of scaremonger talking points doesn't make them any more true or statistically significant.

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

 

[Oddball]

I love it when lemming on a message board, without an analytical thought in his head, can't come up with any more cogent an argument than; "some dude I don't even know told me something I'm predisposed to believe, so that settles it".

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

It's a scam? Wow, it's just a coincidence that in the last 150 years since the industrial revolution ( and all that resultant CO2) that the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle? A scam that wealthy countries (the ones that produced all that CO2) cooked up just to sell carbon credits to exploit the poor? OK, prove it. Perhaps, you are wrong. Perhaps, all that mumbo jumbo about volcanoes and all that is correct, or perhaps, it's flat wrong. Perhaps we should gamble our future on speculation and for fleeting profit, and if you are wrong, so what. Let's roll the dice and gamble with the future. Is that a better alternative?

 

[KittenKoder]

My agreement with you in one relatively minor area is incidental....It's known as the law of averages.

40% change of .04% of the total is still statistically insignificant, viz. that total.

Re-re-re-re-re-repeating your extremely limited menu of scaremonger talking points doesn't make them any more true or statistically significant.

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

Physics? Do you even know what different sciences and mathematics actually exist or have you been ignoring everything else for so long you forgot?

 

[Oddball]

As scam that treats a dynamic ecosystem, with literally millions of variables, as a static system in a vacuum??

Say it ain't so!!!

 

[code1211]

My agreement with you in one relatively minor area is incidental....It's known as the law of averages.

40% change of .04% of the total is still statistically insignificant, viz. that total.

Re-re-re-re-re-repeating your extremely limited menu of scaremonger talking points doesn't make them any more true or statistically significant.

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

 

[code1211]

It's a scam? Wow, it's just a coincidence that in the last 150 years since the industrial revolution ( and all that resultant CO2) that the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle? A scam that wealthy countries (the ones that produced all that CO2) cooked up just to sell carbon credits to exploit the poor? OK, prove it. Perhaps, you are wrong. Perhaps, all that mumbo jumbo about volcanoes and all that is correct, or perhaps, it's flat wrong. Perhaps we should gamble our future on speculation and for fleeting profit, and if you are wrong, so what. Let's roll the dice and gamble with the future. Is that a better alternative?

This general warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. Is it your contention that the CO2 released following 1850 caused the warming that started in 1700?

 

[Oddball]

In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

Boy is gonna need a slide rule or three to figger that one out!!

 

[jeffrockit]

To paraphrase a Geo. Carlin rant; those claiming global warming have the arrogance to think that man has any real affect on the earth. Earth has been around billions of years and will be around billions of years after man. To think we have changed the climate and then to also think we can slow the perceived changes is insanity.
GW is nothing more than enviro nuts trying to change our way of life because they see themselves smarter than anyone else...again arrogance pure and simple. The sheep buying into the sky is falling hysteria makes it even more laughable though I stop laughing when they affect policy changes based on this hoax.

 

[Old Rocks]

As scam that treats a dynamic ecosystem, with literally millions of variables, as a static system in a vacuum??

Say it ain't so!!!

Fellow, you yap a lot, without a singe referance. So this is a subject dealing with science. Trot out some real science to support your position. All I have to support my postition on this subject is every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. And you have what?

 

[Old Rocks]

My agreement with you in one relatively minor area is incidental....It's known as the law of averages.

40% change of .04% of the total is still statistically insignificant, viz. that total.

Re-re-re-re-re-repeating your extremely limited menu of scaremonger talking points doesn't make them any more true or statistically significant.

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

Sure, a real cooling in progress. 2008, solar minimum, strong persistant La Nina, still makes the top ten of the warmest years in the last 150.


Read at : UNnews
2008 AMONG 10 WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD (UNNews) « Desertification
2008 AMONG 10 WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD, UN REPORTS
New York, Dec 18 2008 11:00AM

The year 2008 is likely to rank as the 10th warmest year on record since the beginning of the instrumental climate records in 1850, although the global average temperature was slightly lower than previous years of the 21st century, according to the United Nations meteorological agency. The combined sea-surface and land-surface air temperature for 2008 is estimated at 0.31 degrees Celsius (C) or 0.56 Fahrenheit (F), above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14C, or 57.2F, while the Arctic Sea ice volume during the melt season was its lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979, the UN World Meteorological Organization (<”http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_835_en.html”>WMO) said. The average temperature of 2008 was moderated by La Niña, a weather phenomenon that shrinks the warm pool water in the central and western Pacific, which developed in the latter half of 2007.

Climate extremes, including devastating floods, severe and persistent droughts, snowstorms, and heat and cold waves, were recorded in many parts of the world, with above-average temperatures all over Europe and a remarkably cold winter over Eurasia stretching from Turkey to China, causing hundreds of casualties in Afghanistan and China.

 

[Old Rocks]

To paraphrase a Geo. Carlin rant; those claiming global warming have the arrogance to think that man has any real affect on the earth. Earth has been around billions of years and will be around billions of years after man. To think we have changed the climate and then to also think we can slow the perceived changes is insanity.
GW is nothing more than enviro nuts trying to change our way of life because they see themselves smarter than anyone else...again arrogance pure and simple. The sheep buying into the sky is falling hysteria makes it even more laughable though I stop laughing when they affect policy changes based on this hoax.

Come on, idiot, find someone with real credentials to back up you hypothesis that you can add nearly 40% more CO2, and over 250% more CH4 to the atmosphere and not affect the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains.

More braindead maunderings from the willfully ignorant.

 

[Meister]

To paraphrase a Geo. Carlin rant; those claiming global warming have the arrogance to think that man has any real affect on the earth. Earth has been around billions of years and will be around billions of years after man. To think we have changed the climate and then to also think we can slow the perceived changes is insanity.
GW is nothing more than enviro nuts trying to change our way of life because they see themselves smarter than anyone else...again arrogance pure and simple. The sheep buying into the sky is falling hysteria makes it even more laughable though I stop laughing when they affect policy changes based on this hoax.

Come on, idiot, find someone with real credentials to back up you hypothesis that you can add nearly 40% more CO2, and over 250% more CH4 to the atmosphere and not affect the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains.

More braindead maunderings from the willfully ignorant.

Yes you are

 

[Meister]

As scam that treats a dynamic ecosystem, with literally millions of variables, as a static system in a vacuum??

Say it ain't so!!!

Fellow, you yap a lot, without a singe referance. So this is a subject dealing with science. Trot out some real science to support your position. All I have to support my postition on this subject is every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. And you have what?

And it has been debunked as a scam Old Rocks.