Plasmaball
Gold Member
- Sep 9, 2010
- 20,629
- 2,194
- 175
Denials? The naysayers are waiting for the proof.
Which has been given over and over and over...
Not without manipulated data.
nah....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Denials? The naysayers are waiting for the proof.
Which has been given over and over and over...
Not without manipulated data.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well, you've certainly done absolutely no research. Good for you. I'm stumped.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Well, you've certainly done absolutely no research. Good for you. I'm stumped.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.
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?
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.
Energy corporations issue building and zoning permits? You are a nutcase.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.
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.
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.
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.