The dangers of bone-headed beliefs

[westwall]

All over the planet currently most of the glaciers that have been present in substantially their present form since the last period of planetary glaciation are retreating rapidly and some are vanishing completely. Since the end of the last glaciation 10,00 years ago, glaciers have advanced and retreated somewhat many times without disappearing. This is a sign of how sensitive glaciers are to even minor climate changes. Since the beginning of the LIA in the sixteenth century, a number of glaciers seem to have advanced and grown somewhat in size over their average size during most of the holocene. The current rapid worldwide glacial melting however is unprecedented since the beginning of the current interglacial period.

Swiss glacier finely tuned to climate changes
PhysOrg.com
June 6, 2011
(excerpts)

During the last ice age, the Rhone Glacier was the dominant glacier in the Alps, covering a significant part of Switzerland. Over the next 11,500 years or so, the glacier, which forms the headwaters of the Rhone River, has been shrinking and growing again in response to shifts in climate. A team of researchers led by two scientists from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have found a novel method to measure this crucial back-and-forth, by measuring isotopes in hunks of stone chipped out from recently exposed bedrock near the edge of the ice. They found that for most of the Holocene Epoch, dating from the end of the last ice age about 11,500 years ago to the present, the Rhone Glacier has been smaller than it is today.

In a paper published last month in the journal Geology, the researchers said that their more robust history of the Holocene glacier fluctuations reflects how sensitive glaciers are to small changes in climate. And, they said, the new method they used to measure glacial movement may allow scientists to make more accurate predictions of what will happen as the earth continues to warm.

Co-author Joerg Schaefer, a geochemist and Lamont associate research professor, is concerned the findings could be misinterpreted by skeptics of climate change. They might conclude that, if the glacier is larger than it has been over most of the time during the past several thousand years, then there is little to worry about today.

“Which is simply wrong,” Schaefer said.

He said the findings show that even though the climate shifts were relatively mild during the Holocene, “we find that the glaciers really reacted strongly … telling us they are very, very sensitive to even very small [changes]. With the addition of man-made warming, the glaciers will react catastrophically to what we are doing to the climate.”

The Swiss Alps record contrasts with the record of glacial movements in the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene. That difference offers important clues about the evolution of summer temperatures in mid-latitudes of the Northern and Southern hemispheres, he said.






Some glaciers retreated a bit in the early part of the holocene, about 7 thousand years ago. Finding fossilized trees under some retreating ice now just means that that glacier has been at least that large for the past 7 thousand years.

I like your article but did you even read it? You left out some good parts but just what you quoted says:
"Melting glaciers in Western Canada are revealing tree stumps up to 7,000 years old where the region's rivers of ice have retreated to a historic minimum..."
"The pristine condition of the wood, [Dr. Koch] said, can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice."

And the parts of that article you left out:
"There have been many advances and retreats of these glaciers over the past 7,000 years, but no retreats that have pushed them back so far upstream as to expose these trees."
""It seems like an unprecedented change in a short amount of time," Koch said. "From this work and many other studies looking at forcings of the climate system, one has to turn away from natural ones alone to explain this dramatic change of the past 150 years."

Millenia is thousands of years, not millions.

Well, of course, who ever said otherwise. Don't assume other people are as linguistically challenged as you are, walleyed. You're "special".

So yes the historic minimum puts it right in the middle of the Holocene Maximum. Just like I said and which you denied.

Yeah, it means that it's warmer now than it has been for at least seven thousand years in some areas of the planet and longer than that in other areas. Or did you overlook this item in the article I quoted: "...the Southern Alps of New Zealand, where the glaciers appear to have been larger than at present for most of the Holocene". What happened to your precious 'Medieval Warm Period' and 'Roman Warm Period' claims? Have you debunked yourself now?

I overlook nothing ol pal. What you are missing (color me not surprised) and which negates you and the whole warmist mantra is it was warmer 7,000 years ago with no CO2 increase. It was warmer back then with no SUV's, no billions of people, no power plants, no anthropogenic sources at all.

It then became colder for thousands of years till it finally began warming again through entirely natural processes.

 

[RWatt]

I overlook nothing ol pal. What you are missing (color me not surprised) and which negates you and the whole warmist mantra is it was warmer 7,000 years ago with no CO2 increase. It was warmer back then with no SUV's, no billions of people, no power plants, no anthropogenic sources at all.

We know why this happened though. It's the tilt of the Earth.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/ideas/Insolation.html

The northern latitudes, including the arctic, were facing the Sun more 7000 years ago and they've been tilting away from the Sun slowly ever since and will continue tiliting away for a few thousand years more.

Doesn't explain the recent warming though.

 

[westwall]

I overlook nothing ol pal. What you are missing (color me not surprised) and which negates you and the whole warmist mantra is it was warmer 7,000 years ago with no CO2 increase. It was warmer back then with no SUV's, no billions of people, no power plants, no anthropogenic sources at all.

We know why this happened though. It's the tilt of the Earth.

Insolation

The northern latitudes, including the arctic, were facing the Sun more 7000 years ago and they've been tilting away from the Sun slowly ever since and will continue tiliting away for a few thousand years more.

Doesn't explain the recent warming though.

Actually, no we don't; we suspect but we don't "know". As far as what is happening now, the PDO, the AO, lack of solar activity (predicted by Piers Corbin and not a single climatologist, all of whom denigrate him because he is not a climatologist, he does however acurately predict the weather over a year out....something the warmist have never been able to do) are the most likely causes of the current cooling.

And amazingly enough they do the same thing in the opposite direction. They warm for 30 years then they cool for 30 years. Amazing how cycles work.... And how long was that cooling cycle when climatologists were warning that we were headed for a new ice age? Uhhh around 30 years. How long was the cooling after that? Uhhh, about the same.

 

[RollingThunder]

I overlook nothing ol pal. What you are missing (color me not surprised) and which negates you and the whole warmist mantra is it was warmer 7,000 years ago with no CO2 increase. It was warmer back then with no SUV's, no billions of people, no power plants, no anthropogenic sources at all.

We know why this happened though. It's the tilt of the Earth.

Insolation

The northern latitudes, including the arctic, were facing the Sun more 7000 years ago and they've been tilting away from the Sun slowly ever since and will continue tiliting away for a few thousand years more.

Doesn't explain the recent warming though.

Actually, no we don't; we suspect but we don't "know".

While it is true that you don't know squat about anything, as you repeatedly demonstrate on this forum, the rest of the world is not as intellectually challenged as you are. Scientists who spend their lives studying something often know quite a bit. But that is totally beyond you, of course. If only you weren't so dreadfully afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect perhaps you would just shut up and enjoy your happy little 'Forrest Gump' type world in peace.

 

[skookerasbil]

Gotta give credit to Rolling for one thing: he keeps coming in here even after getting pwned. That takes some resiliency..........but Id say if Daveman is in a thread dude, best move someplace else. Davemans Post #76 above blows up the whole thread for the k00ks............

By the way..........anybody see the rioters in Vancouver? The environmentalist activists on this forum are cut from the same mold = angry, miserable radicals lurking on the fringe of society completely disregarding ANY and ALL views that do not conform with their own. ( as Daveman astutely points out above). At the core of their rage is their obsession with destroying wealth. It is the common thread amongst all the green k00ks.

Its called........."Eco-Snobbery"............

Why are Prius sales surging when other hybrids are slumping, the Times asked? Because buyers "want everyone to know they are driving a hybrid." According to a marketing survey (which the Times ran in a graphic I couldn't hide from), more buyers bought the Prius this year because it "makes a statement about me" (57 percent) than because of its better gas mileage (36 percent) or lower carbon dioxide emissions (25 percent) or new technology (7 percent).


Is our family annoying because we own a Prius? - By Emily Bazelon - Slate Magazine

 

[daveman]

I hear that there's a blogger in Jönköping, Sweden who is in favor of Cap & Trade!

Forum bitch daveman will be SOOOOO excited!

You're really not very good at this. That's because you're stupid.

You just don't get it (see previous remark for the reason).

Idiot leftists are the most intolerant and closed-minded people on the planet. (See your posts to me for proof.)

Some of you want those who disagree with you tattooed. Some of you want their professional credentials revoked. Some of you want them jailed or executed.

From the last link:

The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?
Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:
NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.
Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.
November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be 'criminally irresponsible' Excerpt: The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.
September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public' Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction." (LINK)
Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?
October 28, 2008: License to dissent: 'Internet should be nationalized as a public utility' to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google's Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...
November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' – UK Daily Express
Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.
U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)
Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN's scientific “consensus."
Former US Vice President Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)
Gore Refuses to Hear Skeptical Global Warming Views (Video)
UK environment secretary David Miliband said 'those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century' (October 6, 2006)
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
Barone: Warmists have 'a desire to kill heretics' -- Calls for capital punishment for 'global warming deniers' - DC Examiner - June 9, 2009
Strangle Skeptics in Bed! 'An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds' - June 5, 2009​

This bears repeating: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?

So, you little dumbfuck: You're stupid. There really is no rational denial of this.

Get it, Synthia? You're stupid.

Yoo hoo! Synthia!

 

[Synthaholic]

I hear that there's a blogger in Jönköping, Sweden who is in favor of Cap & Trade!

Forum bitch daveman will be SOOOOO excited!

You're really not very good at this. That's because you're stupid.

You just don't get it (see previous remark for the reason).

Idiot leftists are the most intolerant and closed-minded people on the planet. (See your posts to me for proof.)

Some of you want those who disagree with you tattooed. Some of you want their professional credentials revoked. Some of you want them jailed or executed.

From the last link:

The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?
Small sampling of threats, intimidation and censorship:
NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
A 2008 report found that 'climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. In addition, a July 2007 Senate report detailed how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.
In 2007, then EPA Chief Vowed to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic and dissenters of warming fears have been called 'Climate Criminals' who are committing 'Terracide' (killing of Planet Earth) (July 25, 2007) In addition, in May 2009, Climate Depot Was Banned in Louisiana! See: State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing.
Below are many more examples of the threats, name calling and intimidation skeptics have faced in recent times.
November 12, 2007: UN official warns ignoring warming would be 'criminally irresponsible' Excerpt: The U.N.'s top climate official warned policymakers and scientists trying to hammer out a landmark report on climate change that ignoring the urgency of global warming would be "criminally irresponsible." Yvo de Boer's comments came at the opening of a weeklong conference that will complete a concise guide on the state of global warming and what can be done to stop the Earth from overheating.
September 29. 2007: VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: 'I was told that I could not speak in public' Excerpt: Michaels has argued that the climate is becoming warmer but that the consequences will not be as dire as others have predicted. Gov. Kaine had warned. Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views. "I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist," Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. "It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction." (LINK)
Skeptical State Climatologist in Oregon has title threatened by Governor (February 8, 2007) Excerpt: “[State Climatologist George Taylor] does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change...So the [Oregon] governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor.
Skeptical State Climatologist in Delaware silenced by Governor (May 2, 2007) Excerpt: Legates is a state climatologist in Delaware, and he teaches at the university. He`s not part of the mythical climate consensus. In fact, Legates believes that we oversimplify climate by just blaming greenhouse gases. One day he received a letter from the governor, saying his views do not concur with those of the administration, so if he wants to speak out, it must be as an individual, not as a state climatologist. So essentially, you can have the title of state climatologist unless he`s talking about his views on climate?
October 28, 2008: License to dissent: 'Internet should be nationalized as a public utility' to combat global warming skepticism - Australian Herald Sun - Excerpt: British journalism lecturer and warming alarmist Alex Lockwood says my blog is a menace to the planet. Skeptical bloggers like me need bringing into line, and Lockwood tells a journalism seminar of some options: There is clearly a need for research into the ways in which climate skepticism online is free to contest scientific fact. But there is enough here already to put forward some of the ideas in circulation. One of the founders of the Internet Vint Cerf, and lead for Google's Internet for Everyone project, made a recent suggestion that the Internet should be nationalized as a public utility. As tech policy blogger Jim Harper argues, “giving power over the Internet to well-heeled interests and self-interested politicians” is, and I quote, “a bad idea.” Or in the UK every new online publication could be required to register with the recently announced Internet watchdog...
November 5, 2008: UK Scientist: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' – UK Daily Express
Excerpt: FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV. A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.
U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears (May 10, 2007)
Excerpt: UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN's scientific “consensus."
Former US Vice President Al Gore compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006)
Gore Refuses to Hear Skeptical Global Warming Views (Video)
UK environment secretary David Miliband said 'those who deny [climate change] are the flat-Earthers of the twenty-first century' (October 6, 2006)
Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics (January 17, 2007) Excerpt: The Weather Channel's most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.
Barone: Warmists have 'a desire to kill heretics' -- Calls for capital punishment for 'global warming deniers' - DC Examiner - June 9, 2009
Strangle Skeptics in Bed! 'An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds' - June 5, 2009​

This bears repeating: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?

So, you little dumbfuck: You're stupid. There really is no rational denial of this.

Get it, Synthia? You're stupid.

So, this is your argument and complaint? That idiots are being called idiots? That people who whore out their scientific principles to corporate interests are being called out? That, in the face of overwhelming evidence, some people still stick their fingers in their ears and claim what they cannot back up with counter evidence? No matter what the evidence shows, these people deny it, but never prove their positions.

Now go back to posting how some corporate shill is shrieking that their bullshit isn't taken seriously.

Oh, and I've been busy - I don't have the luxury of sucking off that DoD teat.

 

[daveman]

So, this is your argument and complaint? That idiots are being called idiots? That people who whore out their scientific principles to corporate interests are being called out?

No, my complaint is that fucking wanna-be fascists want to kill people who disagree with them. It says much about you that you don't have a problem with that.

That, in the face of overwhelming evidence, some people still stick their fingers in their ears and claim what they cannot back up with counter evidence? No matter what the evidence shows, these people deny it, but never prove their positions.

Can you answer this question: "If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?"

Can you, dipshit? Hint: No, you can't.

Now go back to posting how some corporate shill is shrieking that their bullshit isn't taken seriously.

As I've just shown, it's the AGW cult who are acting like petulant children. That includes you.

Oh, and I've been busy - I don't have the luxury of sucking off that DoD teat.

Yeah, that Muzak ain't gonna program itself. How's the Justin Bieber collection coming along?

 

[RollingThunder]

I hear that there's a blogger in Jönköping, Sweden who is in favor of Cap & Trade!

Forum bitch daveman will be SOOOOO excited!

You're really not very good at this. That's because you're stupid.

You just don't get it

So, you little dumbfuck: You're stupid. There really is no rational denial of this.

Get it, Synthia? You're stupid.

No, daveboy, she's not stupid, you're just a complete flaming retard with your head jammed so far up your ass that you can tickle your tonsils when you wiggle your ears.

 

[daveman]

I hear that there's a blogger in Jönköping, Sweden who is in favor of Cap & Trade!

Forum bitch daveman will be SOOOOO excited!

You're really not very good at this. That's because you're stupid.

You just don't get it

So, you little dumbfuck: You're stupid. There really is no rational denial of this.

Get it, Synthia? You're stupid.

No, daveboy, she's not stupid, you're just a complete flaming retard with your head jammed so far up your ass that you can tickle your tonsils when you wiggle your ears.

Oh, goody. I was wondering if I was going to get my minimum daily requirement of Vitamin Rolling Thunder Mindless Knee-Jerk Lashing Out. Thanks!

So, I guess you don't want to take a crack at answering this question, huh? Nobody else does.

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

 

[daveman]

Hey, Synth: RT thinks you're a girl.

 

[percysunshine]

If the public ever realizes the full extent and meaning of what you AGW denier cretins are doing in the service of the oil corp profits, you deniers would probably be hunted down in the streets by angry mobs and strung up from lampposts. And it would be no more than what you so richly deserve for working so stupidly to prevent any effective action to deal with this climate change crisis mankind has created that threatens the lives of billions of humans and large parts of the biosphere. If there is any justice in the world, we may yet see Exxon executives on trial before a world tribunal for 'crimes against humanity'.

The planet has too many people. Eventually, those numbers will be reduced dramatically. Maybe the Earth heating up will be the cause of our reduced numbers over the next few hundred or thousand years.

Or maybe environmentalists will just start shooting people at random.

 

[westwall]

We know why this happened though. It's the tilt of the Earth.

Insolation

The northern latitudes, including the arctic, were facing the Sun more 7000 years ago and they've been tilting away from the Sun slowly ever since and will continue tiliting away for a few thousand years more.

Doesn't explain the recent warming though.

Actually, no we don't; we suspect but we don't "know".

While it is true that you don't know squat about anything, as you repeatedly demonstrate on this forum, the rest of the world is not as intellectually challenged as you are. Scientists who spend their lives studying something often know quite a bit. But that is totally beyond you, of course. If only you weren't so dreadfully afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect perhaps you would just shut up and enjoy your happy little 'Forrest Gump' type world in peace.

Ahhh if only you weren't a foul mouthed little twerp you might learn something from your betters. But you aren't in control of yourself so what can we expect.

 

[westwall]

If the public ever realizes the full extent and meaning of what you AGW denier cretins are doing in the service of the oil corp profits, you deniers would probably be hunted down in the streets by angry mobs and strung up from lampposts. And it would be no more than what you so richly deserve for working so stupidly to prevent any effective action to deal with this climate change crisis mankind has created that threatens the lives of billions of humans and large parts of the biosphere. If there is any justice in the world, we may yet see Exxon executives on trial before a world tribunal for 'crimes against humanity'.

The planet has too many people. Eventually, those numbers will be reduced dramatically. Maybe the Earth heating up will be the cause of our reduced numbers over the next few hundred or thousand years.

Or maybe environmentalists will just start shooting people at random.

It's been suggested before.....

In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.
Jacques Yves Cousteau

Read more: Jacques Yves Cousteau Quotes - BrainyQuote

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey, Synth: RT thinks you're a girl.

Yeah, I saw that!

But he also thinks you're a dumbass, so at least he's half right!

 

[RollingThunder]

You're really not very good at this. That's because you're stupid.
You just don't get it
So, you little dumbfuck: You're stupid. There really is no rational denial of this.
Get it, Synthia? You're stupid.

No, daveboy, she's not stupid, you're just a complete flaming retard with your head jammed so far up your ass that you can tickle your tonsils when you wiggle your ears.

Oh, goody. I was wondering if I was going to get my minimum daily requirement of Vitamin Rolling Thunder Mindless Knee-Jerk Lashing Out. Thanks!

So you can dish it out but you can't take it, eh davedumb. LOL...so typical of you mindless rightwingnut bullies.

So, I guess you don't want to take a crack at answering this question, huh? Nobody else does.

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

Easy. There is no "strong impulse to shut down debate" or "threaten those who disagree" except among you brainwashed rightwingnuts.


After Death Threats to Climate Researchers, Australian Universities Take Tough Protection Measures
The Chronicle
June 9, 2011
(excerpts)

In Australia, the climate for climate-science researchers has deteriorated to an alarming state. At least a dozen university climate scientists have in recent months received messages threatening death or violence against themselves and, in some cases, their families. The threats—which came as Australian lawmakers prepared to debate imposing carbon taxes in an effort to discourage the emission of climate-altering greenhouse gases—appear considerably more serious than those against researchers at American universities, and Australian authorities have reacted accordingly.

A public-affairs officer at Australian National said the death threats there had occurred over the course of three years and had escalated in recent months. As a result, nine scientists were "moved to a more secure location that requires card access." The added security, the officer continued, "means students may have to plan ahead to make an appointment to see these researchers and general staff."

One of the scientists who received death threats is David J. Karoly, a professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne and a lead author of recent assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who has appeared regularly in the Australian media to convey the current scientific consensus on the issue. He says he started receiving "an increased number of offensive and abusive e-mails" following media appearances in connection with the release of the panel's 2007 report, escalating to a death threat "in the last 12 months." The intensity and volume of the threats appeared to him to be "closely related to scientists like myself appearing on the media."

A spokeswoman at the University of New South Wales didn't respond to questions about the threats but noted in a press release that scientists there had "reported receiving abusive e-mails and phone calls, including threats of violence, sexual assault, or attacks on family members."

Mr. Karoly said younger scientists and those at government research centers had strong disincentives to "take a high public profile on anything to do with policy" because of the damaging personal attacks that often follow. "In my own situation, the increasing volume and intensity of this discussion has the reverse effect on me, in that it indicates the issue is important," Mr. Karoly said. "Because there are a limited number of people who are both willing and able to communicate the best information on climate change, it reinforces my perception that we need to do this."

Glyn C. Davis, chair of Universities Australia and vice chancellor of the University of Melbourne, said the "systemic and sustained threats" to the scientists represented "a fundamental attack upon intellectual inquiry. Aggressive abuse and hate campaigns make no helpful contribution to a crucial policy debate. They simply seek to silence unwelcome voices," Mr. Davis said. "Fortunately, academics at Australian universities continue to refuse to be intimidated by the few who grasp neither the principles of academic freedom not the urgent imperative of independent research."

 

[daveman]

Hey, Synth: RT thinks you're a girl.

Yeah, I saw that!

But he also thinks you're a dumbass, so at least he's half right!

Coming from you, "dumbass" is a compliment.

 

[Synthaholic]

Looks like Rolling Thunder has made this thread moot!

 

[daveman]

No, daveboy, she's not stupid, you're just a complete flaming retard with your head jammed so far up your ass that you can tickle your tonsils when you wiggle your ears.

Oh, goody. I was wondering if I was going to get my minimum daily requirement of Vitamin Rolling Thunder Mindless Knee-Jerk Lashing Out. Thanks!

So you can dish it out but you can't take it, eh davedumb. LOL...so typical of you mindless rightwingnut bullies.

Oh, I can take it. But the level of what you dish out is painfully stupid. You're like the Biff Tannen of the internet...loud and stupid.

So, I guess you don't want to take a crack at answering this question, huh? Nobody else does.

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

Easy. There is no "strong impulse to shut down debate" or "threaten those who disagree" except among you brainwashed rightwingnuts.

Oh, you stupid piece of shit. I've proven there is at least three damn times in the last few days.

Your stupid, childish insistence that it's not there has absolutely no affect on reality, are you aware of that?

 

[daveman]

Looks like Rolling Thunder has made this thread moot!

You're right. He is a dangerous bonehead.