Lets get back to earths normal climate, please?

I think the first thing that one has to realize about these people is that they are scientifically illiterate. The second is that, for them, ideology always trumps reality. So they will make up whatever 'facts' that seem to support their denial at the moment.

This is very much connected to what we see happening in the Gulf. We have the chief denier of reality claiming that nature will magically take care of the oil, even as the wildlife and estuaries are dying. They were busy screaming "Drill, baby, Drill", but now that the drillers have been shown to be criminally incompetant, seek to lay this catastrophe at the doorstep of the current admin.

And when the ineviteable adrupt climate change arrives, they will lay the blame on the scientists for not successfully comminicating the magnitude of the changes. But, for now, these cretins are calling those same scientists "Lying Alarmists".

It has always been the same. There are a certain percentage of people that are unteachable. In past times, this trait led to an early demise on their part. History will probably repeat itself, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Still not sinking in, is it, Matthew? It is not that it is getting warmer or colder, it is the rate of change that is the problem.

If the problem isn't that it is getting warming or colder, then the rate of change shouldn't be an issue at all unless it is sudden such as would occur as some ice ages have descended or if a large asteroid should strike the Earth triggering a 'nuclear winter' lasting decades or centuries. Certainly any rate of change occuring now is not a threat to life on Earth as we know it.

In fact, the danger from a large asteroid striking Earth is far more a threat to humankind than any anthropogenic created CO2 or cows farting methane could possibly ever be. And yet we are devoting almost no resources to identify and deflect such a threat that might target Earth.

This always gets me. AGW believers are told they don't have enough data to make the predictions being made, but here we have a denier making a blanket statement for which there is all sorts of data to the contrary!!! Pollution of the air and water, dead zones in the oceans, holes on the ozone layer and the ability of humanity to destroy itself several times over in a matter of minutes all make the above post totally ludicrous.

At least I know the difference between climate change and environmental impact. Apparently some of you 'warmers' don't. :)
 
Then explain it to us. All I see are irrelevancies from the denier side. Talking about million of years ago isn't relevant. We're concerned with what's happening NOW in OUR era.
 
Then explain it to us. All I see are irrelevancies from the denier side. Talking about million of years ago isn't relevant. We're concerned with what's happening NOW in OUR era.

I'm sorry. I simply don't have time to educate you if you think talking about millions of years ago is not relevant in a discussion on climate change.

Suffice it to say that the climate has been changing and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing and decreasing, sometimes dramatically, long before humankind was a factor in that and will continue to do so if humans should be suddenly zapped off the Earth this afternoon. Climate change of course affects the environment in which living things must exist on Earth, and there is a growing body of science that suggests we humans cannot do anything about that. The one exception is that we possibly could detonate enough nuclear explosions into the atmosphere to trigger a nuclear winter, but otherwise we are not going to affect climate simply by living our lives.

Humankind, as can other creatures on Earth, can impact the environment, sometimes quite dramatically, and humans serve themselves best when they have concern for clean air, soil, water including concern for life in the oceans.

Climate change and environment are related but separate issues.
 
Then explain it to us. All I see are irrelevancies from the denier side. Talking about million of years ago isn't relevant. We're concerned with what's happening NOW in OUR era.

I'm sorry. I simply don't have time to educate you if you think talking about millions of years ago is not relevant in a discussion on climate change.

Changes occurring over a period of millions of years are not relevant to what is happening today. What is happening today is a very rapid change in the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat due to the GHGs that mankind is putting into the atmosphere.

Rapidly added GHGs has happened in the past. Two such events were the P-T Extinction, and the PETM event, which also involved a minor extinction event.


Suffice it to say that the climate has been changing and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing and decreasing, sometimes dramatically, long before humankind was a factor in that and will continue to do so if humans should be suddenly zapped off the Earth this afternoon. Climate change of course affects the environment in which living things must exist on Earth, and there is a growing body of science that suggests we humans cannot do anything about that.

Why don't you site some of this evidence? Preferably from a peer reviewed source. Neither Anthony Watts or Limpbaugh qualify, I do hope you realize that.


The one exception is that we possibly could detonate enough nuclear explosions into the atmosphere to trigger a nuclear winter, but otherwise we are not going to affect climate simply by living our lives.

Are you being purposely obtuse? What you are telling me is that bluegreen algea could not affect our planet by just living it's little lives. Yet, about two billion years ago, bluegreen algea totally changed our atmosphere.

Humankind, as can other creatures on Earth, can impact the environment, sometimes quite dramatically, and humans serve themselves best when they have concern for clean air, soil, water including concern for life in the oceans.

Climate change and environment are related but separate issues.

They are not seperate issues at all. The Gulf is dying because of our use of fossil fuels. It is this use that is creating the conditions for an adrupt climate change that has the potential to drastically reduce the human population in the period of a decade.
 
Then explain it to us. All I see are irrelevancies from the denier side. Talking about million of years ago isn't relevant. We're concerned with what's happening NOW in OUR era.

I'm sorry. I simply don't have time to educate you if you think talking about millions of years ago is not relevant in a discussion on climate change.

Changes occurring over a period of millions of years are not relevant to what is happening today. What is happening today is a very rapid change in the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat due to the GHGs that mankind is putting into the atmosphere.

Rapidly added GHGs has happened in the past. Two such events were the P-T Extinction, and the PETM event, which also involved a minor extinction event.


Suffice it to say that the climate has been changing and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing and decreasing, sometimes dramatically, long before humankind was a factor in that and will continue to do so if humans should be suddenly zapped off the Earth this afternoon. Climate change of course affects the environment in which living things must exist on Earth, and there is a growing body of science that suggests we humans cannot do anything about that.

Why don't you site some of this evidence? Preferably from a peer reviewed source. Neither Anthony Watts or Limpbaugh qualify, I do hope you realize that.


The one exception is that we possibly could detonate enough nuclear explosions into the atmosphere to trigger a nuclear winter, but otherwise we are not going to affect climate simply by living our lives.

Are you being purposely obtuse? What you are telling me is that bluegreen algea could not affect our planet by just living it's little lives. Yet, about two billion years ago, bluegreen algea totally changed our atmosphere.

Humankind, as can other creatures on Earth, can impact the environment, sometimes quite dramatically, and humans serve themselves best when they have concern for clean air, soil, water including concern for life in the oceans.

Climate change and environment are related but separate issues.

They are not seperate issues at all. The Gulf is dying because of our use of fossil fuels. It is this use that is creating the conditions for an adrupt climate change that has the potential to drastically reduce the human population in the period of a decade.

The oil spill in the gulf is affecting that environment, yes.
It is not affecting the climate.

I bet even you could see that distinction if you tried really, really hard.
 
Still not sinking in, is it, Matthew? It is not that it is getting warmer or colder, it is the rate of change that is the problem.

If the problem isn't that it is getting warming or colder, then the rate of change shouldn't be an issue at all unless it is sudden such as would occur as some ice ages have descended or if a large asteroid should strike the Earth triggering a 'nuclear winter' lasting decades or centuries. Certainly any rate of change occuring now is not a threat to life on Earth as we know it.

In fact, the danger from a large asteroid striking Earth is far more a threat to humankind than any anthropogenic created CO2 or cows farting methane could possibly ever be. And yet we are devoting almost no resources to identify and deflect such a threat that might target Earth.

This always gets me. AGW believers are told they don't have enough data to make the predictions being made, but here we have a denier making a blanket statement for which there is all sorts of data to the contrary!!! Pollution of the air and water, dead zones in the oceans, holes on the ozone layer and the ability of humanity to destroy itself several times over in a matter of minutes all make the above post totally ludicrous.




What Foxfyre said was absolutely true konrad. The ONLY event that has the capacity to end our lives in a truly catastrophic way is an asteroid strike. For 99.99999% of mans
existence on this rock we have not had the ability to defend ourselves but we really aren't putting a lot of effort into that, which is stupid beyond belief. Instead we chase phantoms.

Pollution of the air and water is a truly horrible thing but until some more credible science presents itself the only PROVABLE effects are local. The ozone hole was only discovered in the 70's so we honestly don't even really know what "normal" is and the same goes for the dead zones in the oceans....we didn't discover them till recently so we have no idea whether they are normal or not. We didn't know about life around volcanic vents until the 1980's so until then there was a whole world we had no idea even existed.

So her post is not ludicrous, her post was very well thought out and reasoned and addresses a very real concern.
 
I think the first thing that one has to realize about these people is that they are scientifically illiterate. The second is that, for them, ideology always trumps reality. So they will make up whatever 'facts' that seem to support their denial at the moment.

This is very much connected to what we see happening in the Gulf. We have the chief denier of reality claiming that nature will magically take care of the oil, even as the wildlife and estuaries are dying. They were busy screaming "Drill, baby, Drill", but now that the drillers have been shown to be criminally incompetant, seek to lay this catastrophe at the doorstep of the current admin.

And when the ineviteable adrupt climate change arrives, they will lay the blame on the scientists for not successfully comminicating the magnitude of the changes. But, for now, these cretins are calling those same scientists "Lying Alarmists".

It has always been the same. There are a certain percentage of people that are unteachable. In past times, this trait led to an early demise on their part. History will probably repeat itself, unfortunately.




old fraud the only scientifically illiterates in this thread are you and yours. My only question is are you truly iliterate or is there some other reason that you are so blind to the arguments that are being presented.
 
Then explain it to us. All I see are irrelevancies from the denier side. Talking about million of years ago isn't relevant. We're concerned with what's happening NOW in OUR era.





And the proof of the scientific illiteracy is here in your post. Events that occur today began decades if not centuries ago. That is the way this amazing engine we call Earth operates.
Humanity has been aware of itself on this rock for .00000001% of the worlds existence. There are horrible things that man does to this planet, of that there is no doubt. But the hysterical fear mongering that the warmers perpetrate is going to help no one and in fact many of your ideas and policies will have the exact opposite effect.
 
Then explain it to us. All I see are irrelevancies from the denier side. Talking about million of years ago isn't relevant. We're concerned with what's happening NOW in OUR era.

I'm sorry. I simply don't have time to educate you if you think talking about millions of years ago is not relevant in a discussion on climate change.

Changes occurring over a period of millions of years are not relevant to what is happening today. What is happening today is a very rapid change in the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat due to the GHGs that mankind is putting into the atmosphere.

Rapidly added GHGs has happened in the past. Two such events were the P-T Extinction, and the PETM event, which also involved a minor extinction event.


Suffice it to say that the climate has been changing and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing and decreasing, sometimes dramatically, long before humankind was a factor in that and will continue to do so if humans should be suddenly zapped off the Earth this afternoon. Climate change of course affects the environment in which living things must exist on Earth, and there is a growing body of science that suggests we humans cannot do anything about that.

Why don't you site some of this evidence? Preferably from a peer reviewed source. Neither Anthony Watts or Limpbaugh qualify, I do hope you realize that.


The one exception is that we possibly could detonate enough nuclear explosions into the atmosphere to trigger a nuclear winter, but otherwise we are not going to affect climate simply by living our lives.

Are you being purposely obtuse? What you are telling me is that bluegreen algea could not affect our planet by just living it's little lives. Yet, about two billion years ago, bluegreen algea totally changed our atmosphere.

Humankind, as can other creatures on Earth, can impact the environment, sometimes quite dramatically, and humans serve themselves best when they have concern for clean air, soil, water including concern for life in the oceans.

Climate change and environment are related but separate issues.

They are not seperate issues at all. The Gulf is dying because of our use of fossil fuels. It is this use that is creating the conditions for an adrupt climate change that has the potential to drastically reduce the human population in the period of a decade.




The Gulf is not DYING! old fraud. It is suffering a very severe amount of damage but it is not dying. Even if we did nothing at all the gulf would not die. Eventually the oil would run out and the gulf would clean itself. This has happened naturally in the past and will happen naturally in the future whether we are involved or not.
 
I'm sorry. I simply don't have time to educate you if you think talking about millions of years ago is not relevant in a discussion on climate change.

Changes occurring over a period of millions of years are not relevant to what is happening today. What is happening today is a very rapid change in the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat due to the GHGs that mankind is putting into the atmosphere.

Rapidly added GHGs has happened in the past. Two such events were the P-T Extinction, and the PETM event, which also involved a minor extinction event.


Suffice it to say that the climate has been changing and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing and decreasing, sometimes dramatically, long before humankind was a factor in that and will continue to do so if humans should be suddenly zapped off the Earth this afternoon. Climate change of course affects the environment in which living things must exist on Earth, and there is a growing body of science that suggests we humans cannot do anything about that.

Why don't you site some of this evidence? Preferably from a peer reviewed source. Neither Anthony Watts or Limpbaugh qualify, I do hope you realize that.


The one exception is that we possibly could detonate enough nuclear explosions into the atmosphere to trigger a nuclear winter, but otherwise we are not going to affect climate simply by living our lives.

Are you being purposely obtuse? What you are telling me is that bluegreen algea could not affect our planet by just living it's little lives. Yet, about two billion years ago, bluegreen algea totally changed our atmosphere.

Humankind, as can other creatures on Earth, can impact the environment, sometimes quite dramatically, and humans serve themselves best when they have concern for clean air, soil, water including concern for life in the oceans.

Climate change and environment are related but separate issues.

They are not seperate issues at all. The Gulf is dying because of our use of fossil fuels. It is this use that is creating the conditions for an adrupt climate change that has the potential to drastically reduce the human population in the period of a decade.

The oil spill in the gulf is affecting that environment, yes.
It is not affecting the climate.

I bet even you could see that distinction if you tried really, really hard.




Hi Foxfyre,

No, they can't see, because they choose not to.
 
I think the first thing that one has to realize about these people is that they are scientifically illiterate. The second is that, for them, ideology always trumps reality. So they will make up whatever 'facts' that seem to support their denial at the moment.

This is very much connected to what we see happening in the Gulf. We have the chief denier of reality claiming that nature will magically take care of the oil, even as the wildlife and estuaries are dying. They were busy screaming "Drill, baby, Drill", but now that the drillers have been shown to be criminally incompetant, seek to lay this catastrophe at the doorstep of the current admin.

And when the ineviteable adrupt climate change arrives, they will lay the blame on the scientists for not successfully comminicating the magnitude of the changes. But, for now, these cretins are calling those same scientists "Lying Alarmists".

It has always been the same. There are a certain percentage of people that are unteachable. In past times, this trait led to an early demise on their part. History will probably repeat itself, unfortunately.
Crocks, face it. You're a luddite who want to return to a pre-Christian Gaelic society.

I keep thinking of a line from Black Adder II:

"Give people the likes of Baldrick here the vote and we'll be back to death by stoning, cavorting druids and dung for dinner."
 
The oil spill in the gulf is affecting that environment, yes.
It is not affecting the climate.

I bet even you could see that distinction if you tried really, really hard.

No, I don't think he can. Most econazis can't. They view the whole thing as a ball of climapolluchange. Dirty air is the same as global warming in their brains because they focus on the emotions of fear and hate.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top