Scientists and warnings.

[Plasmaball]

Denials? The naysayers are waiting for the proof.

Which has been given over and over and over...

Not without manipulated data.

nah....

 

[BobPlumb]

I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.

If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.

Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.

So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?

Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.

Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.

What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.

Historically speaking, warm = good! cold = bad.

 

[Plasmaball]

Do any of you liberals know the difference between pollution and climate? anyone?

you are claiming that man made pollution is changing the climate of the earth, right?

what man made pollution caused the last ice age?

Pollution is bad--for the planet and form every form of life on it------------BUT, there is absolutely no proof that man made pollution has caused the climate of the planet to change.

Theories, yes, Proof, no.

sigh, there is no reason to reason with someone like you. You are a lost cause.

 

[Plasmaball]

I do agree somewhat but when I read or see something on the tube about the Dust Bowl it does remind me that humans can have an effect on the environment and the weather.

But as for GW I really do wonder if 2 degrees is going to make much of a difference and I am for a 2 degree increase after this last winter. If the volcano in Yellowstone lights off then it really won't matter that much what we have done.

Its like an asteroid. 2 degrees way out in space either means it's going to hit us or miss us. Same thing with the climate.

please google solar radiation and sun spots. the sun controls our climate, not a soccer mom driving an SUV.

lost cause

 

[BobPlumb]

Geological cycles. Nothing more, nothing less. That we're this arrogant to think that we're anything greater than a pinprick is startling. I suggest reading john mcphee.

I do agree somewhat but when I read or see something on the tube about the Dust Bowl it does remind me that humans can have an effect on the environment and the weather.

But as for GW I really do wonder if 2 degrees is going to make much of a difference and I am for a 2 degree increase after this last winter. If the volcano in Yellowstone lights off then it really won't matter that much what we have done.

Its like an asteroid. 2 degrees way out in space either means it's going to hit us or miss us. Same thing with the climate.

Angle degrees and temperature degrees are not the same thing.

 

[westwall]

Rain forest preservation is one of my big things. Mankind should do everything possible to prevent that irreparable harm.

Your Great Pacific Garbage patch is not visible to the naked eye for the most part. In fact when researchers skimmed the area a few years back they couldn't find anything but microscopic plastic bits.

Yes coal has been burned for over 100 years. However,a single major volcanic eruption puts more crap into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history. So, big deal.

Pollution from China should be greatly curtailed. Especially their particulate discharge. None of the GHG's they emit matter however.

AGW has been shown to be a false theory. You need no longer worry about it.

A volcano is a natural reaction. And the affect is typically a more cold snowy winter down the road.

I love you libs---volcanoes cause snow------wow, who knew?

Actually, they can. Big eruptions shoot tons of crap into the atmosphere which universally cools things down. When Tambora erupted the following summer was cold, very cold. So cold it snowed. That year was called "the year without a summer" and tens of thousands died from famine.

What's amusing is the AGW crowd will then tell you that all of that CO2 will then raise the temps up due to the GHG effect. However, what becomes very clear is the temps drop dramatically, then slowly climb back up to pre-eruption levels.

They never go UP, over that level though.

I wonder why

 

[KNB]

The world loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

There is an area of plastic garbage in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the continental United States, accumulating more and feeding into the food chain.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pacific+plastic+gyre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

We have burnt coal and oil continuously all over the world, 24 hours a day, for over 100 years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+revolution+fossil+fuels&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

The pollution over China can be seen from space.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+pollution+seen+from+space&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

This combination of factors has created the Greenhouse Effect. Only the dumbest talking monkeys can look at the state of the world and think, "Everything is fine. GOD is in control."

Yes, it is true that human activity means less than nothing to the Earth. It is true that the planet can shake off the human race like a case of fleas. Plants and animals will reclaim the ruins of every major city within a couple of months after we're gone.

What we are trying to do is to prevent that from happening. We don't want the human race to overpopulate and consume the world's resources until the planet can no longer support us and everyone dies. That is not the ultimate goal of the human race.

First of all not all of them lead to the GH effect, if by that you mean releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

1. The rainforest yes, but that is not in America. Even if we limited our import, which I believe we4 have other countries use the same wood.

2. The island of plastic, no.

3. We in the US are shutting coal fired electric generation plants. China is building one a week. Not much we in the US can do about that. So we put our men out of work for no net gain.

The "world" doesn't care it is an inanimate object. If we destroy anything it will be us, the world, it no care.

In the 70s I heard about how the Earth could never support the population we have today, yet here we are.

Well, you've certainly done absolutely no research. Good for you. I'm stumped.

Except that:

1- "The rainforest yes, but that is not in America. Even if we limited our import, which I believe we have other countries use the same wood."
So you're saying that because it doesn't happen in the United States, the world losing an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year won't have any effect on the United States? Or are you somehow implying that the United States can't do anything about it? Once the US legalizes Cannabis Sativa, the UN will legalize it, too. Once the UN legalizes hemp, global deforestation will end. The USDA said this in 1916.
Full text of "1916 USDA Bulletin #404 .pdf www.Hempology.org PRiMe4u = www.psywar.org/"

2- "The island of plastic, no."
No what? No, it doesn't exist? Yes, it does. No, it can't be seen with the naked eye. It isn't a field of plastic grocery bags and water bottles. It is a field of photodegradable petrochemical plastic particles which have been accumulating in the ocean for the past 50 years, gathering more and more each year. Do you think that all of the world's garbage goes in a landfill or to recycling? The plastic debris will continue to accumulate until Cannabis Sativa is legalized again and biodegradable plastic can be made from the cellulose in hemp stalks. If people can make a plastic car out of hemp then people should be able to figure out how to make garbage bags and water bottles from it, as well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=eco+elise&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

3- "We in the US are shutting coal fired electric generation plants. China is building one a week. Not much we in the US can do about that. So we put our men out of work for no net gain."
And why is China building one a week? To keep up with production of Americans' useless shit for export to Wal-Mart. If Americans were free to grow Cannabis hemp again, industrial hemp could provide biomass fuel for power plants and transportation fuel for vehicles without so much Chinese pollution. And because hemp is a plant, it takes in CO2 and cleans the soil as it is growing. China knows this. China currently supplies about $500m worth of hemp fiber to the United States, because growing hemp is illegal in the United States.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf

For the past 75 years, the US has led a global effort to eradicate hemp while simultaneously gutting rainforests and burning fossil fuels, creating an atmospheric imbalance of too much CO2 and not enough vegetation to take it all in.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

Yes, here we are, still destroying the planet for a few rich families' international profits. Constantly doing the wrong thing and scoffing at obvious solutions. Everything is fine and it will only get better once we get rid of the EPA, right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.

Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.

Can I ask you something? If you think scientists who issue warnings should be taken seriously why the fuck do you live in the biggest potential landslide in the US?

Cliff Mass Weather Blog: The Landslide State

If Mount Rainier ever goes the resultant mudslide could wipe out 30,000 people.

Mount Rainier Could Unleash a Mudslide - ABC News

As for your lies about climate change, lets look at exactly what the IPCC summary says.

Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors. With these recognized limitations, the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (emphasis added) (±1 standard deviation around the mean)(medium evidence, medium agreement). Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range (limited evidence, high agreement). Additionally, there are large differences between and within countries. Losses accelerate with greater warming (limited evidence, high agreement), but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above. Estimates of the incremental economic impact of emitting carbon dioxide lie between a few dollars and several hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon (robust evidence, medium agreement). Estimates vary strongly with the assumed damage function and discount rate.

Does the fact that all "scientists" agree that things are going to be worse, even though there is no evidence to back up that belief, really sound like science?

Yet, even though there is no evidence to back up their beliefs we are all supposed to take drastic steps to fix things that might not happen. How much would that cost?

Turns out that people can actually figure that out.

The new report will apparently tell us that the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP – and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). Achieving material mitigation, at a cost of 2 per cent and more of global GDP, would require international co-ordination that we have known since the failure of the Copenhagen conference on climate change simply was not going to happen. Even if it did happen, and were conducted optimally, it would mitigate only a fraction of the total rise, and might create its own risks.
And to add to all this, now we are told that the cost might be as low as 0.2 per cent of GDP. At a 2.4 per cent annual GDP growth rate, the global economy increases 0.2 per cent every month.
So the mitigation deal has become this: Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.

Climate change: the debate is about to change radically ? Telegraph Blogs

Tell me something, oh he who never listens, who are we supposed to listen to? The scientists that actually tell us the danger is overblown by alarmists, or the ones that want us to take drastic steps to prevent things that there is little evidence will actually happen?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.

Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.

You have any links for this? Or are you just making stuff up?

and one doesn't "Stop" a landslide of that magnitude, one moves out of the way.

Links, why yes, of course;

From the American Geophysical Union, the scientific society with the largest number of climate scientists;

AGU Statement on Climate Change | Climate Etc.

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.


American Meteorological Society Issues Updated Statement On Climate Change - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.
Background

This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

How is climate changing?

Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Now virtually every scientific society in the world, all nations, all political systems have similiar policy statements. As do all of the National Academies of Science. As do all the major Universities. Are they all wrong?

 

[Old Rocks]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.

Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.

You have any links for this? Or are you just making stuff up?

and one doesn't "Stop" a landslide of that magnitude, one moves out of the way.

OK, Marty, how do we move out of the way of this landslide? Could you give us your plans as to which planet we can all move to? And how we will do that?

 

[flacaltenn]

The scientists' obligation is to inform folks of risks.. To make those risks as quantitative as possible. Some in government believe that risk of any magnitude is simply not acceptable. And they would eagerly ABUSE political power to separate folks from ALL risk. No financial risks, no health risks, no educational risks, no enviro risks.. Thats unrealistic and unwanted restriction on personal choice and liberty.

The GW crazytrain has failed to provide adequate precision in their fearsome projections. Not specific enough to uproot our entire economic base and lifestyle. And the complicit Green movement has failed to offer any viable alternatives to CO2 emissions. There is no true consensus, because scientists are no longer arrogant enough to predict the temperature anomaly for 2060..

Challenge for the Warmer Zealots... WHAT is the consensus temperature anomaly for 2060? If you dont have that to any certainty, why are we here discussing mitigations?

 

[Old Rocks]

A volcano is a natural reaction. And the affect is typically a more cold snowy winter down the road.

I love you libs---volcanoes cause snow------wow, who knew?

Actually, they can. Big eruptions shoot tons of crap into the atmosphere which universally cools things down. When Tambora erupted the following summer was cold, very cold. So cold it snowed. That year was called "the year without a summer" and tens of thousands died from famine.

What's amusing is the AGW crowd will then tell you that all of that CO2 will then raise the temps up due to the GHG effect. However, what becomes very clear is the temps drop dramatically, then slowly climb back up to pre-eruption levels.

They never go UP, over that level though.

I wonder why

I wonder why someone that is supposedly a Phd Geologist doesn't realize that he has just spouted a load of crap. The eruptions of the Siberian Trapp volcanics raised the temperature of the whole of the atmosphere and oceans significantly and the result was the largest extinction in the history of the Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

The scientists' obligation is to inform folks of risks.. To make those risks as quantitative as possible. Some in government believe that risk of any magnitude is simply not acceptable. And they would eagerly ABUSE political power to separate folks from ALL risk. No financial risks, no health risks, no educational risks, no enviro risks.. Thats unrealistic and unwanted restriction on personal choice and liberty.

The GW crazytrain has failed to provide adequate precision in their fearsome projections. Not specific enough to uproot our entire economic base and lifestyle. And the complicit Green movement has failed to offer any viable alternatives to CO2 emissions. There is no true consensus, because scientists are no longer arrogant enough to predict the temperature anomaly for 2060..

Challenge for the Warmer Zealots... WHAT is the consensus temperature anomaly for 2060? If you dont have that to any certainty, why are we here discussing mitigations?

What was the consensus area for the anticipated large slide at Oso? 1/4 mile? 1/2 mile? 1 mile? Such a number was not given, and didn't really matter, for a loss of life and property were involved in all cases. The geologists warnings were ignored and a lot of people have died.

We already know from the affects already observed that the costs of the increased temperatures will be very non-trivial. We are seeing villages abondoned in the Andes because of glaciers that no longer provide the late summer water for crops.

But, because of a lot of people that are supporting the lies of the energy corps, the neccessary measures will not be taken. And a lot of people are going to suffer. And neither the energy corperations or their supporters give a damn.

 

[westwall]

The world loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

There is an area of plastic garbage in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the continental United States, accumulating more and feeding into the food chain.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pacific+plastic+gyre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

We have burnt coal and oil continuously all over the world, 24 hours a day, for over 100 years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+revolution+fossil+fuels&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

The pollution over China can be seen from space.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+pollution+seen+from+space&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

This combination of factors has created the Greenhouse Effect. Only the dumbest talking monkeys can look at the state of the world and think, "Everything is fine. GOD is in control."

Yes, it is true that human activity means less than nothing to the Earth. It is true that the planet can shake off the human race like a case of fleas. Plants and animals will reclaim the ruins of every major city within a couple of months after we're gone.

What we are trying to do is to prevent that from happening. We don't want the human race to overpopulate and consume the world's resources until the planet can no longer support us and everyone dies. That is not the ultimate goal of the human race.

First of all not all of them lead to the GH effect, if by that you mean releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere.

1. The rainforest yes, but that is not in America. Even if we limited our import, which I believe we4 have other countries use the same wood.

2. The island of plastic, no.

3. We in the US are shutting coal fired electric generation plants. China is building one a week. Not much we in the US can do about that. So we put our men out of work for no net gain.

The "world" doesn't care it is an inanimate object. If we destroy anything it will be us, the world, it no care.

In the 70s I heard about how the Earth could never support the population we have today, yet here we are.

Well, you've certainly done absolutely no research. Good for you. I'm stumped.

Except that:

1- "The rainforest yes, but that is not in America. Even if we limited our import, which I believe we have other countries use the same wood."
So you're saying that because it doesn't happen in the United States, the world losing an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year won't have any effect on the United States? Or are you somehow implying that the United States can't do anything about it? Once the US legalizes Cannabis Sativa, the UN will legalize it, too. Once the UN legalizes hemp, global deforestation will end. The USDA said this in 1916.
Full text of "1916 USDA Bulletin #404 .pdf www.Hempology.org PRiMe4u = www.psywar.org/"

2- "The island of plastic, no."
No what? No, it doesn't exist? Yes, it does. No, it can't be seen with the naked eye. It isn't a field of plastic grocery bags and water bottles. It is a field of photodegradable petrochemical plastic particles which have been accumulating in the ocean for the past 50 years, gathering more and more each year. Do you think that all of the world's garbage goes in a landfill or to recycling? The plastic debris will continue to accumulate until Cannabis Sativa is legalized again and biodegradable plastic can be made from the cellulose in hemp stalks. If people can make a plastic car out of hemp then people should be able to figure out how to make garbage bags and water bottles from it, as well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=eco+elise&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

3- "We in the US are shutting coal fired electric generation plants. China is building one a week. Not much we in the US can do about that. So we put our men out of work for no net gain."
And why is China building one a week? To keep up with production of Americans' useless shit for export to Wal-Mart. If Americans were free to grow Cannabis hemp again, industrial hemp could provide biomass fuel for power plants and transportation fuel for vehicles without so much Chinese pollution. And because hemp is a plant, it takes in CO2 and cleans the soil as it is growing. China knows this. China currently supplies about $500m worth of hemp fiber to the United States, because growing hemp is illegal in the United States.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32725.pdf

For the past 75 years, the US has led a global effort to eradicate hemp while simultaneously gutting rainforests and burning fossil fuels, creating an atmospheric imbalance of too much CO2 and not enough vegetation to take it all in.
The Greenhouse Effect

Yes, here we are, still destroying the planet for a few rich families' international profits. Constantly doing the wrong thing and scoffing at obvious solutions. Everything is fine and it will only get better once we get rid of the EPA, right?

You talk as if that gyr has an effect on something. It doesn't. more to the popint it is synthetic yes, but made from natural substances so in the long run it will return to its constituent parts and that is all that matters.

Your class warfare BS is just that, BS. The POOREST people living in the first world, live far better, and longer lives, than the richest aboriginals. That's a fact. You're just a typical progressive drone using the environment to try and push your class warfare crap.

Piss off and move to Venezuela.

 

[westwall]

I love you libs---volcanoes cause snow------wow, who knew?

Actually, they can. Big eruptions shoot tons of crap into the atmosphere which universally cools things down. When Tambora erupted the following summer was cold, very cold. So cold it snowed. That year was called "the year without a summer" and tens of thousands died from famine.

What's amusing is the AGW crowd will then tell you that all of that CO2 will then raise the temps up due to the GHG effect. However, what becomes very clear is the temps drop dramatically, then slowly climb back up to pre-eruption levels.

They never go UP, over that level though.

I wonder why

I wonder why someone that is supposedly a Phd Geologist doesn't realize that he has just spouted a load of crap. The eruptions of the Siberian Trapp volcanics raised the temperature of the whole of the atmosphere and oceans significantly and the result was the largest extinction in the history of the Earth.

What a jackass. No, that is a HYPOTHESIS. Not a fact, you ignoramus. Do learn the difference. Let's apply a little of the PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORMITARIANISM shall we? Every major eruption has been followed by an IMMEDIATE period of cooling. The temps have then slowly risen back up to the pre-eruption temps. That too is a fact.

Your "science fiction" is based on computer models generated by global warming fanatics and have zero empirical data to support them. On the other hand there is ample evidence that shows glaciation was common from 350 to 250 million years ago, the end time of that glaciation covering the extinction of 252 million years ago.

That is a fact. There is NOTHING to support your warming hypothesis but computer models. I have glacial striations in Africa, India, Australia and South America supporting the theory that cold was the killer. You've got bupkus.

 

[elektra]

Scientist? Right? Today if you spend enough money you can be a scientist. Even those who finish last in their class can call themselves scientist.

The dumbest scientists in the world get hired into government funded and ruled Universities. All the got to do is smile and tow the line.

 

[Iceweasel]

What was the consensus area for the anticipated large slide at Oso? 1/4 mile? 1/2 mile? 1 mile? Such a number was not given, and didn't really matter, for a loss of life and property were involved in all cases. The geologists warnings were ignored and a lot of people have died.

We already know from the affects already observed that the costs of the increased temperatures will be very non-trivial. We are seeing villages abondoned in the Andes because of glaciers that no longer provide the late summer water for crops.

But, because of a lot of people that are supporting the lies of the energy corps, the neccessary measures will not be taken. And a lot of people are going to suffer. And neither the energy corperations or their supporters give a damn.

Energy corporations issue building and zoning permits? You are a nutcase.

 

[zeke]

The world loses an area of rainforest the size of Panama each year.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic

There is an area of plastic garbage in the Pacific ocean that is the size of the continental United States, accumulating more and feeding into the food chain.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pacific+plastic+gyre&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

We have burnt coal and oil continuously all over the world, 24 hours a day, for over 100 years.
https://www.google.com/search?q=industrial+revolution+fossil+fuels&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

The pollution over China can be seen from space.
https://www.google.com/search?q=china+pollution+seen+from+space&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

This combination of factors has created the Greenhouse Effect. Only the dumbest talking monkeys can look at the state of the world and think, "Everything is fine. GOD is in control."

Yes, it is true that human activity means less than nothing to the Earth. It is true that the planet can shake off the human race like a case of fleas. Plants and animals will reclaim the ruins of every major city within a couple of months after we're gone.

What we are trying to do is to prevent that from happening. We don't want the human race to overpopulate and consume the world's resources until the planet can no longer support us and everyone dies. That is not the ultimate goal of the human race.

Rain forest preservation is one of my big things. Mankind should do everything possible to prevent that irreparable harm.

Your Great Pacific Garbage patch is not visible to the naked eye for the most part. In fact when researchers skimmed the area a few years back they couldn't find anything but microscopic plastic bits.

Yes coal has been burned for over 100 years. However,a single major volcanic eruption puts more crap into the atmosphere than all of mans pollution for all of mans history. So, big deal.

Pollution from China should be greatly curtailed. Especially their particulate discharge. None of the GHG's they emit matter however.

AGW has been shown to be a false theory. You need no longer worry about it.

Now why would that be a concern of yours? Haven't you learned and read right here that mankind has no ability to influence the climate of the world.

Surley to fucking goodness you don't think that the massive carbon removal areas known as "rain forests" have any fucking thing to do with "climate", "air quality", "carbon removal", "oxygen regeneration", etc.

You just want it (rain forest) preserved so you can vacation there. Right? Not because trees and plants serve any important functions in out climate.

Only the sun effects our climate. Man cutting down trees cannot do anything. I learned that right here from friends of yours and if you like I can find the post number PROVING that cutting down the entire rain forest won't mean a thing to the earth. Nah jk.

 

[Meister]

I love you libs---volcanoes cause snow------wow, who knew?

Actually, they can. Big eruptions shoot tons of crap into the atmosphere which universally cools things down. When Tambora erupted the following summer was cold, very cold. So cold it snowed. That year was called "the year without a summer" and tens of thousands died from famine.

What's amusing is the AGW crowd will then tell you that all of that CO2 will then raise the temps up due to the GHG effect. However, what becomes very clear is the temps drop dramatically, then slowly climb back up to pre-eruption levels.

They never go UP, over that level though.

I wonder why

I wonder why someone that is supposedly a Phd Geologist doesn't realize that he has just spouted a load of crap. The eruptions of the Siberian Trapp volcanics raised the temperature of the whole of the atmosphere and oceans significantly and the result was the largest extinction in the history of the Earth.

Was it the temperature or the creation of gasses and chemicals that did the mass extinctions, Rocks? hmmmmm?
Have you checked out what the ice ages did to life on this planet?????????


PS....This change was from a "super volcano" and there was an immediate change in the environment. If it had been a change over thousands of years life would have adapted.
So your premise holds no water, rocks.

 

[depotoo]

The Climate Change issue has been used and hijacked by Communists and New World Order assholes. But their scam is now coming to an end. Less & less people are buying into it. Most people are sick of their endless hysterical fear mongering. The great Global Warming Scam is over. The Communists and New World Order assholes are just gonna have to deal with that reality.

Unfortunately some still don't realize this. And their uneducated fears are being exacerbated by so-called reports this administration is behind. And those reports make them feel empowered they are educated, just upon their reading, rather than questioning what they are reading.