The Truth About Climate Change

[daveman]

A23A

So which part of that do you believe constitutes hard observable repeatable proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. Just list the time marker and I will be happy to go back to that point. I listened to the whole crock of crap and neither heard, nor saw anything that established any sort of proof that CO2 drives the climate or alters the temperature, much less that manmade CO2 is responsible.

If your scripture doesn't constitute proof, what makes you think a priest reciting scripture will make it proof? Here is the status of your religion rocks:

Your priests claim that CO2 levels directly control global temperatures --- they don't
Your priests predicted accelerated warming --- not happening
Your priests claimed that the warming was unprecedented --- it wasn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was unequivocal - it wasn't
Your priests claimed that sea level rises would accelerate --- they didn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was global --- it isn't
Your priests claimed that severe weather would increase --- it didn't
Your priests claimed that weather disasters are the worst in history --- they aren't
Your priests claimed that the climate and its impacts could be predicted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that the climate models could be trusted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that 97% of scientists agreed with them --- they don't
Your priests claimed that there was a scientific consensus on global warming --- there wasn 't.

Tell me rocks, doesn't your religion have anything to say about following false prophets?

Your post is worthless, because you used the word 'priest'. It just proves you'd rather sling any old bullshit to see what sticks, than argue the science like a normal person. Thanks?!?! For what? It's those with the "faith" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth, who follow the Priests of De Nile!!!

So, you can't point to any flaws in his argument, just the way he presented it?

Not at all surprising.

 

[HenryBHough]

I'll get my "truth" about climate change from the science, not some op-ed.

Would that be from the discredited British scientists or, perhaps the discredited American scientist?

 

[westwall]

Fact: Plant life required carbon dioxide to exist.

Fact: Plants emit oxygen, required for humans to live.

So, we do away with as much carbon dioxide as possible, killing (or at least weakening) plant life which return the favour by giving off less oxygen.

Hey, presto! We all die and Earth goes on as it always has.

The longer they come, the dumber they get. Look, silly ass, the problem is that we have increased the atmospheric CO2 by 40%, and the CH4 by 150%.

Normal range for CO2 for the last 2 million years, 180 ppm to 300 ppm. Today we are at 390 ppm. We have not been at that level in the last 15 million years. Plus the CH4 level is far higher than it has been for many million years.

UCLA Researcher Finds CO2 at Highest Levels in 15 Million Years,* UCLA Climate Change Portal

Only a toffenosed maloderous pervert would try and limit the worlds 5 billion year history to a paltry 2 million year period. Interestingly enough the majority of that 2 million years was miserable. Go figure it was cold, CO2 was lacking, plant life was struggling, animal life was struggling, mankind was struggling. Sounds like a paradise there olfraud!

Now, the Earth has warmed and CO2 has followed the normal pattern and begun to increase making plant life more abundant and hearty and that can only bode well for the critters that eat it. Only you religious fanatics think that a return to a nice warm time is bad.

 

[wirebender]

Your post is worthless, because you used the word 'priest'. It just proves you'd rather sling any old bullshit to see what sticks, than argue the science like a normal person.

Want to talk science? Sure lets talk science. Of course I have tried that with you before and found that you aren't up to the conversation. Have you learned anything since I last tried to talk science with you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Their settled science is neither.

 

[wirebender]

UCLA Researcher Finds CO2 at Highest Levels in 15 Million Years,* UCLA Climate Change Portal

Geez rocks, not only are atmospheric CO2 levels not the highest they have been in the past 15 million years, they aren't even the hightest they have been in the past 180 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels were as high as 470ppm in the early 1800's and spent nearly a decade above between 390 and 410ppm in the 1930's through the 1940's.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/CO2databaserev3.pdf

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/180_years_of_chemical_CO2_measurements.pdf

 

[rdean]

I'll get my "truth" about climate change from the science, not some op-ed.

For a second I thought you were saying, "Right wingers believe in (gasp) SCIENCE". Then I realized that's not what you said at all. Sorry.

 

[Si modo]

I'll get my "truth" about climate change from the science, not some op-ed.

For a second I thought you were saying, "Right wingers believe in (gasp) SCIENCE". Then I realized that's not what you said at all. Sorry.

I can see why you would have that thought - you think science is some kind of faith. But, you are deanie-do, a board assclown, so we just laugh at your thoughts.

 

[konradv]

So which part of that do you believe constitutes hard observable repeatable proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. Just list the time marker and I will be happy to go back to that point. I listened to the whole crock of crap and neither heard, nor saw anything that established any sort of proof that CO2 drives the climate or alters the temperature, much less that manmade CO2 is responsible.

If your scripture doesn't constitute proof, what makes you think a priest reciting scripture will make it proof? Here is the status of your religion rocks:

Your priests claim that CO2 levels directly control global temperatures --- they don't
Your priests predicted accelerated warming --- not happening
Your priests claimed that the warming was unprecedented --- it wasn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was unequivocal - it wasn't
Your priests claimed that sea level rises would accelerate --- they didn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was global --- it isn't
Your priests claimed that severe weather would increase --- it didn't
Your priests claimed that weather disasters are the worst in history --- they aren't
Your priests claimed that the climate and its impacts could be predicted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that the climate models could be trusted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that 97% of scientists agreed with them --- they don't
Your priests claimed that there was a scientific consensus on global warming --- there wasn 't.

Tell me rocks, doesn't your religion have anything to say about following false prophets?

Your post is worthless, because you used the word 'priest'. It just proves you'd rather sling any old bullshit to see what sticks, than argue the science like a normal person. Thanks?!?! For what? It's those with the "faith" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth, who follow the Priests of De Nile!!!

So, you can't point to any flaws in his argument, just the way he presented it?

Not at all surprising.

What argument? All I see is a list of lies and exaggerations.

 

[daveman]

Your post is worthless, because you used the word 'priest'. It just proves you'd rather sling any old bullshit to see what sticks, than argue the science like a normal person. Thanks?!?! For what? It's those with the "faith" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth, who follow the Priests of De Nile!!!

So, you can't point to any flaws in his argument, just the way he presented it?

Not at all surprising.

What argument? All I see is a list of lies and exaggerations.

Ahhh. Selective perception.

 

[konradv]

So, you can't point to any flaws in his argument, just the way he presented it?

Not at all surprising.

What argument? All I see is a list of lies and exaggerations.

Ahhh. Selective perception...

...on your part. No one's got any priests except the O'Limbeck worshippers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does pointing to places where its warmer and going, "See that? ManMade Global Warming!!" pass for science?

 

[konradv]

How does pointing to places where its warmer and going, "See that? ManMade Global Warming!!" pass for science?

It doesn't. You're just creating a strawman. Show us who's doing that. I don't mean on the board. We're just talking here, not doing science. Show us a real researcher that's doing it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does pointing to places where its warmer and going, "See that? ManMade Global Warming!!" pass for science?

It doesn't. You're just creating a strawman. Show us who's doing that. I don't mean on the board. We're just talking here, not doing science. Show us a real researcher that's doing it.

I know you're not doing science.

 

[konradv]

How does pointing to places where its warmer and going, "See that? ManMade Global Warming!!" pass for science?

It doesn't. You're just creating a strawman. Show us who's doing that. I don't mean on the board. We're just talking here, not doing science. Show us a real researcher that's doing it.

I know you're not doing science.

The point being what, you can't answer my question so you choose the usual denier trick of attacking the messenger? I'll wager I've done more science than you ever will.

 

[daveman]

What argument? All I see is a list of lies and exaggerations.

Ahhh. Selective perception...

...on your part.

No. He listed scientific claims by AGW cultists. None have any actual scientific basis.

No one's got any priests except the O'Limbeck worshippers.

Apostasy! The Goracle will be displeased!

 

[daveman]

It doesn't. You're just creating a strawman. Show us who's doing that. I don't mean on the board. We're just talking here, not doing science. Show us a real researcher that's doing it.

I know you're not doing science.

The point being what, you can't answer my question so you choose the usual denier trick of attacking the messenger? I'll wager I've done more science than you ever will.

Watching "Beakman's World" doesn't count as doing science.

 

[rdean]

I'll get my "truth" about climate change from the science, not some op-ed.

For a second I thought you were saying, "Right wingers believe in (gasp) SCIENCE". Then I realized that's not what you said at all. Sorry.

I can see why you would have that thought - you think science is some kind of faith. But, you are deanie-do, a board assclown, so we just laugh at your thoughts.

Accepting anything becomes a belief. I believe in the science of evolution, right wingers believe we were magically created from dirt.

 

[Si modo]

For a second I thought you were saying, "Right wingers believe in (gasp) SCIENCE". Then I realized that's not what you said at all. Sorry.

I can see why you would have that thought - you think science is some kind of faith. But, you are deanie-do, a board assclown, so we just laugh at your thoughts.

Accepting anything becomes a belief. I believe in the science of evolution, right wingers believe we were magically created from dirt.

Odd, then as a right winger myself, I wonder how it is that I don't think we "were magically created from dirt".

I love idiotic generalizations.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL. You cannot live without some salt in your diet. It is absolutely essential. So here, eat a whole quart of it right down. Has to be good for you, right?

Frazzle, you are an idiot.

We're talking about the difference between one grain of salt in your diet and one and a half grains of salt in your diet.