Try denying this

[RollingThunder]

Ya I mean cause the earth has never changed in the millions of years it has been around. Right? Retard.

I'm afraid it is you that is the retard here.

First off, the Earth has "been around for about four and a half billion years, not millions.

Second, natural factors, like orbital changes or massive vulcanism, have driven past changes in climate but those natural factors are not causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes. Scientists have conclusively identified the human caused increase (40% now and still climbing) in atmospheric CO2 levels as being responsible for the rapid warming over the last four decades.

First off, you have no idea how old the earth so you are in no position to correct anyone.

LOLOLOLOL....classic Dunning-Kruger Effect....you're just too stupid to be able to comprehend how stupid and ignorant you actually are....you poor confused bamboozled retard....

Age of the Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4]

Second, the earth's climate has not stayed consistent throughout it's existence.

Nobody ever said that it had, numbnuts. Scientists can identify the natural factors that caused previous changes in world climate and those factors are not causing the current abrupt warming trend. A great deal of scientific research and the laws of physics clearly indicate that it is the human caused 40% (and still climbing) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that is causing the current abrupt warming trend.

Scientist are a bunch of frauds seeking more research money.

That idiotic statement is another very clear indicator that you're an ignorant anti-science retard.

 

[DarkLion]

And google earth hasn't updated the pic of my house in 7 years, before that it was 10 years old. Seems they started out with old pictures taken by satellites and updating them takes 1 to 3 years on average. SO the claim of it being accurate year by year or even every 3 years is dubious.

You're right, the situation is certain to be much worse now.

 

[DarkLion]

scientist are a bunch of frauds seeking more research money.

lol

 

[gslack]

And google earth hasn't updated the pic of my house in 7 years, before that it was 10 years old. Seems they started out with old pictures taken by satellites and updating them takes 1 to 3 years on average. SO the claim of it being accurate year by year or even every 3 years is dubious.

You're right, the situation is certain to be much worse now.

Pretty gloomy outlook you have there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm afraid it is you that is the retard here.

First off, the Earth has "been around for about four and a half billion years, not millions.

Second, natural factors, like orbital changes or massive vulcanism, have driven past changes in climate but those natural factors are not causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes. Scientists have conclusively identified the human caused increase (40% now and still climbing) in atmospheric CO2 levels as being responsible for the rapid warming over the last four decades.

Orbital changes? What orbital changes are you talking about? Are you just spouting nonsense because you think everyone is as stupid as you?

It seems like nonsense to you because you're so extremely ignorant, as well as so very retarded.

Milankovitch cycles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.

Do you think using large fonts and bold prints make you look smart?

 

[Defiant1]

Orbital changes? What orbital changes are you talking about? Are you just spouting nonsense because you think everyone is as stupid as you?

It seems like nonsense to you because you're so extremely ignorant, as well as so very retarded.

Milankovitch cycles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.

Do you think using large fonts and bold prints make you look smart?

Quantam, I wouldn't mess with Rolling Thunder. He uses high level scientific research. Wikipedia.


Bon Jour.

 

[RollingThunder]

Orbital changes? What orbital changes are you talking about? Are you just spouting nonsense because you think everyone is as stupid as you?

It seems like nonsense to you because you're so extremely ignorant, as well as so very retarded.

Milankovitch cycles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.

Do you think using large fonts and bold prints make you look smart?

No, numbnuts, I think it emphasizes the material I'm citing and quoting and clearly distinguishes it from my own words. If you don't like variable sized fonts, you'd better avoid reading newspapers or magazines (not that I think you ever read anything but comic books, if even those). Of course, your own posts are so empty of meaningful content that it doesn't matter what fonts you use, it's still utter drivel. Too bad nothing can "make you look smart", QueerDirtbag, after all of the moronic nonsense you've posted.

 

[skookerasbil]

It seems like nonsense to you because you're so extremely ignorant, as well as so very retarded.

Milankovitch cycles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.

Do you think using large fonts and bold prints make you look smart?

Quantam, I wouldn't mess with Rolling Thunder. He uses high level scientific research. Wikipedia.


Bon Jour.

LAUGH.....MY......BALLS.......OFF

Indeed......what kind of jackass routinely uses Wikipedia as references on the internet? Its rule #1......and this meathead calls everybody else a retard.

 

[Politico]

There's simply no way to deny the reality of these images.

DENIED! See that was quite easy.

 

[DarkLion]

Pretty gloomy outlook you have there.

Reality is reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems like nonsense to you because you're so extremely ignorant, as well as so very retarded.

Milankovitch cycles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Milankovitch theory describes the collective effects of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian geophysicist and astronomer Milutin Milanković, who worked on it during First World War internment. Milanković mathematically theorized that variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing.

Do you think using large fonts and bold prints make you look smart?

No, numbnuts, I think it emphasizes the material I'm citing and quoting and clearly distinguishes it from my own words. If you don't like variable sized fonts, you'd better avoid reading newspapers or magazines (not that I think you ever read anything but comic books, if even those). Of course, your own posts are so empty of meaningful content that it doesn't matter what fonts you use, it's still utter drivel. Too bad nothing can "make you look smart", QueerDirtbag, after all of the moronic nonsense you've posted.

Where did I say I don't like variable fonts? I use them myself to emphasize my words when I feel strongly about something, using them to distinguish the words of other people makes you look stupid. If you want to distinguish things from your own demented ravings you should use HTML quotes.

I do find it informative that you think that I would be offended by your implication that I like to sleep with men. Are you insecure in your own sexuality? I could give you a list of people that can help with that, if I cared.

 

[YoungRepublican]

The money tied up in keeping the Global Warming issue fueled is ridiculous. These scientists need jobs and legislators need a strong safe platform to spit at us from. Entertaining the idea that this may possibly be blown out of perportion is too much for the easily influenced to handle. Theyre the same people that think wind farms and the Prius are what will save the polar bears. I'm just saying, explore other hypothesis. I realize that there may be a serious problem at hand, I also realize that the answer is being formulated by people who know what they're doing, not Toyota.

 

[gslack]

Pretty gloomy outlook you have there.

Reality is reality.

Nah I'll take the glass half full outlook. Could be better.

 

[RollingThunder]

Do you think using large fonts and bold prints make you look smart?

No, numbnuts, I think it emphasizes the material I'm citing and quoting and clearly distinguishes it from my own words. If you don't like variable sized fonts, you'd better avoid reading newspapers or magazines (not that I think you ever read anything but comic books, if even those). Of course, your own posts are so empty of meaningful content that it doesn't matter what fonts you use, it's still utter drivel. Too bad nothing can "make you look smart", QueerDirtbag, after all of the moronic nonsense you've posted.

Where did I say I don't like variable fonts? I use them myself to emphasize my words when I feel strongly about something, using them to distinguish the words of other people makes you look stupid. If you want to distinguish things from your own demented ravings you should use HTML quotes.

Translation: 'I can't stand it when you debunk my denier cult BS with clear, easily readable scientific facts so I'm going to quibble about your use of fonts even though it makes me look very stupid'.

I do find it informative that you think that I would be offended by your implication that I like to sleep with men. Are you insecure in your own sexuality? I could give you a list of people that can help with that, if I cared.

Oh, dirtbag, you're queer in so many other, more important ways, the sexual significance is trivial.

 

[gslack]

No, numbnuts, I think it emphasizes the material I'm citing and quoting and clearly distinguishes it from my own words. If you don't like variable sized fonts, you'd better avoid reading newspapers or magazines (not that I think you ever read anything but comic books, if even those). Of course, your own posts are so empty of meaningful content that it doesn't matter what fonts you use, it's still utter drivel. Too bad nothing can "make you look smart", QueerDirtbag, after all of the moronic nonsense you've posted.

Where did I say I don't like variable fonts? I use them myself to emphasize my words when I feel strongly about something, using them to distinguish the words of other people makes you look stupid. If you want to distinguish things from your own demented ravings you should use HTML quotes.

Translation: 'I can't stand it when you debunk my denier cult BS with clear, easily readable scientific facts so I'm going to quibble about your use of fonts even though it makes me look very stupid'.

I do find it informative that you think that I would be offended by your implication that I like to sleep with men. Are you insecure in your own sexuality? I could give you a list of people that can help with that, if I cared.

Oh, dirtbag, you're queer in so many other, more important ways, the sexual significance is trivial.

Pretty sure there is a rule against attacking someones sexuality like that troll..

Your rep is 12 now, you'd think you would catch on at some point but it seems no, you won't.

You are well on your way to insuring we don't have to put up with your ranting and raving at people much longer. Please continue in your breakdown..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, numbnuts, I think it emphasizes the material I'm citing and quoting and clearly distinguishes it from my own words. If you don't like variable sized fonts, you'd better avoid reading newspapers or magazines (not that I think you ever read anything but comic books, if even those). Of course, your own posts are so empty of meaningful content that it doesn't matter what fonts you use, it's still utter drivel. Too bad nothing can "make you look smart", QueerDirtbag, after all of the moronic nonsense you've posted.

Where did I say I don't like variable fonts? I use them myself to emphasize my words when I feel strongly about something, using them to distinguish the words of other people makes you look stupid. If you want to distinguish things from your own demented ravings you should use HTML quotes.

Translation: 'I can't stand it when you debunk my denier cult BS with clear, easily readable scientific facts so I'm going to quibble about your use of fonts even though it makes me look very stupid'.

That is what you got out of that?

If I understand you correctly, you are attempting to use Milankovitch cycles to debunk my denialist position major problem with that is I am not a denialist. I have actually said on multiple occasions that climate change is real, and that humans are contributing to it. I just see no reason to go apeshit over something just because it is happening now instead of a few thousand years in the future, and absolutely scoff at the idea that it will result in a massive extinction event.

Keep attacking positions I don't have if it makes you feel smart though, you probably need all the ego boosting you can get.

I do find it informative that you think that I would be offended by your implication that I like to sleep with men. Are you insecure in your own sexuality? I could give you a list of people that can help with that, if I cared.

Oh, dirtbag, you're queer in so many other, more important ways, the sexual significance is trivial.

Thank you.

 

[RollingThunder]

Where did I say I don't like variable fonts? I use them myself to emphasize my words when I feel strongly about something, using them to distinguish the words of other people makes you look stupid. If you want to distinguish things from your own demented ravings you should use HTML quotes.

Translation: 'I can't stand it when you debunk my denier cult BS with clear, easily readable scientific facts so I'm going to quibble about your use of fonts even though it makes me look very stupid'.

That is what you got out of that?

Of course. You ignore the information presented and go off topic on a rant about my use of larger fonts.

If I understand you correctly, you are attempting to use Milankovitch cycles to debunk my denialist position major problem with that is I am not a denialist.

That's a pretty idiotic misunderstanding of what was said. Have you already forgotten how this interaction started?

...natural factors, like orbital changes or massive vulcanism, have driven past changes in climate but those natural factors are not causing the current abrupt warming trend and its consequent climate changes. Scientists have conclusively identified the human caused increase (40% now and still climbing) in atmospheric CO2 levels as being responsible for the rapid warming over the last four decades.

Orbital changes? What orbital changes are you talking about? Are you just spouting nonsense because you think everyone is as stupid as you?

I was responding to another denier cult twit when you hopped in with your ignorant disbelief that the climate had ever been influenced by "orbital cycles" so I posted some info on the Milankovitch cycles for your edification, not to debunk your denialist position. Doubting the influence of orbital cycles just reflects stupid ignorance, not a specific "denialist position".

I have actually said on multiple occasions that climate change is real, and that humans are contributing to it. I just see no reason to go apeshit over something just because it is happening now instead of a few thousand years in the future, and absolutely scoff at the idea that it will result in a massive extinction event.

The climate patterns are changing because the Earth is getting hotter and the Earth is getting hotter because humans have pumped hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, raising CO2 levels 40% over the pre-industrial levels that had stayed within a very limited range for several million years. Humans aren't just contributing to global warming and its consequent climate changes, we are causing it. You are a denier.

You again show your complete ignorance of this topic with your assertion that what is happening now would happen anyway in "a few thousand years. Utter nonsense and completely backwards. The Earth was on a long, very slow pattern of declining temperatures that would have eventually, in thousands of years, taken the planet into another period of heavy glaciation, or ice age, similar to the one that ended about ten thousand years ago. Our CO2 emissions have reversed that course and the world is now headed for conditions not seen on this planet for tens of millions of years.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

You can "scoff all you want (that's what deniers do, after all) at the fact that AGW is going to cause extinction events but the science is very clear and the extinctions have already begun.

Mass extinctions linked to climate change are already underway.
Environmental News
Aug 29, 2011
(excerpts)

Maclean, IMD and RJ Wilson, 2011. Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017352108.

New evidence confirms what scientists have long suspected: that climate change is already having major effects on many of the world's species. Researchers report for the first time that the documented species responses – migration to a higher or cooler climate or changes in population – suggest actual extinction risks linked to climate change are almost double those that were predicted. Just as grim are future outlooks – almost one-third of species will be threatened by 2100. Temperature, ocean acidity and other climate-related changes can set the stage for widespread extinctions by adding even more pressure to ecosystems already stressed by habitat loss, pollution, disease and other human-related impacts.

 

[gslack]

translation: 'i can't stand it when you debunk my denier cult bs with clear, easily readable scientific facts so i'm going to quibble about your use of fonts even though it makes me look very stupid'.

that is what you got out of that?

of course. You ignore the information presented and go off topic on a rant about my use of larger fonts.





That's a pretty idiotic misunderstanding of what was said. Have you already forgotten how this interaction started?

orbital changes? What orbital changes are you talking about? Are you just spouting nonsense because you think everyone is as stupid as you?

i was responding to another denier cult twit when you hopped in with your ignorant disbelief that the climate had ever been influenced by "orbital cycles" so i posted some info on the milankovitch cycles for your edification, not to debunk your denialist position. Doubting the influence of orbital cycles just reflects stupid ignorance, not a specific "denialist position".

i have actually said on multiple occasions that climate change is real, and that humans are contributing to it. I just see no reason to go apeshit over something just because it is happening now instead of a few thousand years in the future, and absolutely scoff at the idea that it will result in a massive extinction event.

the climate patterns are changing because the earth is getting hotter and the earth is getting hotter because humans have pumped hundreds of billions of tons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere, raising co2 levels 40% over the pre-industrial levels that had stayed within a very limited range for several million years. Humans aren't just contributing to global warming and its consequent climate changes, we are causing it. You are a denier.

You again show your complete ignorance of this topic with your assertion that what is happening now would happen anyway in "a few thousand years. Utter nonsense and completely backwards. The earth was on a long, very slow pattern of declining temperatures that would have eventually, in thousands of years, taken the planet into another period of heavy glaciation, or ice age, similar to the one that ended about ten thousand years ago. Our co2 emissions have reversed that course and the world is now headed for conditions not seen on this planet for tens of millions of years.

last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
ucla
by stuart wolpert
october 08, 2009
(excerpts)
you would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on earth as high as they are today, a ucla scientist and colleagues report oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal science. "the last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the arctic and very little ice on antarctica and greenland," said the paper's lead author, aradhna tripati, a ucla assistant professor in the department of earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

you can "scoff all you want (that's what deniers do, after all) at the fact that agw is going to cause extinction events but the science is very clear and the extinctions have already begun.

mass extinctions linked to climate change are already underway.
environmental news
aug 29, 2011
(excerpts)

maclean, imd and rj wilson, 2011. Recent ecological responses to climate change support predictions of high extinction risk. proceedings of the national association of sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017352108.

new evidence confirms what scientists have long suspected: That climate change is already having major effects on many of the world's species. Researchers report for the first time that the documented species responses – migration to a higher or cooler climate or changes in population – suggest actual extinction risks linked to climate change are almost double those that were predicted. Just as grim are future outlooks – almost one-third of species will be threatened by 2100. Temperature, ocean acidity and other climate-related changes can set the stage for widespread extinctions by adding even more pressure to ecosystems already stressed by habitat loss, pollution, disease and other human-related impacts.

big font because it"s the only way a troll gets attention!!!!

 

[TNHarley]

The Disturbing Truth That Can Only Be Seen Using Google Earth

There's simply no way to deny the reality of these images.

Yes, they need to leave the Amazon alone
Lakes are actually considered "temporary bodies of water"
And glaciers melt
It is the way of the world
Get over it

 

[RollingThunder]

big font because it"s the only way a troll gets attention!!!!

So...is it working for you yet, slackjawed?