Try denying this

[DarkLion]

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

Kind of hard to be optimistic when 200 species are going extinct a day. Have you looked at the state of our polluted planet lately? Maybe a little less optimism and more DOING something about it is needed.

 

[gslack]

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

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

It isn't working for you yet..

 

[gslack]

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

Kind of hard to be optimistic when 200 species are going extinct a day. Have you looked at the state of our polluted planet lately? Maybe a little less optimism and more DOING something about it is needed.

Oh now your citing eco-mentalist talking points... 200 species a day is it? okay prove that.. See that's the problem,they can't prove it because its based on things they cannot possibly be sure on..

I got a better idea, why not each of us do our part and clean up after ourselves, and take responsibility for our actions on an individual level, and stop thinking that all of humanity is evil unless they agree with greenpeace or the WWE, or the sierra club, or name the group. Then the world can get cleaner, and we won't have to be miserable from the constant brow beating and negativity from the eco-groups out there..

 

[Ernie S.]

The Disturbing Truth That Can Only Be Seen Using Google Earth

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

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.

Didn't I read something a week ago that said there had been no warming in 15 years?

 

[Ernie S.]

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

Kind of hard to be optimistic when 200 species are going extinct a day. Have you looked at the state of our polluted planet lately? Maybe a little less optimism and more DOING something about it is needed.

You have data to support this, of course?

 

[DarkLion]

You have data to support this, of course?

Of course I do

World Environment Day 2010

 

[gslack]

You have data to support this, of course?

Of course I do

World Environment Day 2010

LOL, where to start...

From your dubious source...

Scientists have no clear idea of how many species -- from algae to blue whales -- live on earth. Estimates are up to 100 million of which only about 1.8 million have been named so far. Humans are but one of those species.

Though the exact number is impossible to determine, an unprecedented mass extinction of life on Earth is occurring. Scientists estimate that between 150 and 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours.

So they tell up front that scientists have no clear idea how many species live on earth, and they tell you that the number is impossible to determine. But then they tell you that 150-200 species become extinct everyday. How in the hell can they make that claim when they don't even know how many there are?????

Damn dude way to debunk your own claim...

 

[DarkLion]

It's a composite of averages. It's very unlikely that 200 species go extinct every day, but rather it equals out to that. Like a pitcher with 3.00 ERA, he doesn't give up exactly 3 runs a game, that is his average.

And the source is the UN. But of course, if the facts don't line up with your beliefs, it always helps to attack the source. Believe me, I encounter that a lot.

 

[RollingThunder]

You have data to support this, of course?

Of course I do

World Environment Day 2010

LOL, where to start...

From your dubious source...

Scientists have no clear idea of how many species -- from algae to blue whales -- live on earth. Estimates are up to 100 million of which only about 1.8 million have been named so far. Humans are but one of those species.

Though the exact number is impossible to determine, an unprecedented mass extinction of life on Earth is occurring. Scientists estimate that between 150 and 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours.

So they tell up front that scientists have no clear idea how many species live on earth, and they tell you that the number is impossible to determine. But then they tell you that 150-200 species become extinct everyday. How in the hell can they make that claim when they don't even know how many there are?????

Damn dude way to debunk your own claim...

Determining how many species are going extinct is in no way dependent on knowing the total number of species on the planet, you freaking idiot.

You are always debunking your own claims about possessing a functional brain, slackjawed, with every moronic post like this one that you poop onto the forum.

 

[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.

Didn't I read something a week ago that said there had been no warming in 15 years?

So just because you read it somewhere, you assume it's true? Wow, are you gullible or what?

Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it
The Guardian
by Dana Nuccitelli
24 April 2013
(excerpts)
There are periods when the ocean heats up more quickly than the surface, and other periods when the surface heats up more quickly than the oceans. Right now we're in a period of fast ocean warming and overall, global warming is continuing at a very fast pace. The confusion on this subject lies in the fact that only about 2 percent of global warming is used in heating air, whereas about 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans (the rest heats ice and land masses). But humans live at the Earth's surface, and thus we tend to focus on surface temperatures. Over the past 10–15 years, Earth's surface temperature has continued to rise, but slowly. At the same time, the warming of the oceans – and the warming of the Earth as a whole – has accelerated. This was the conclusion of a scientific paper I co-authored last year, in which our team found more overall global warming (of the oceans, air, land, and ice combined) over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years. Just recently, another paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters found that the warming of the oceans since the turn of the century has been the most sustained in the past 50 years. They also found that, consistent with my team's research, about 30% of overall global warming has gone into the deep oceans below 700 meters due to changing wind patterns and ocean currents. This accelerated deep ocean warming is also unprecedented in the past 50 years.

We often hear from the media that the (surface air) warming has slowed or paused over the past 15 years. This isn't a puzzle; climate scientists are well aware of several contributing factors. The accelerated warming of the oceans is likely the main contributor. During years with La Niña events, more heat is transferred to the oceans, and surface temperatures are relatively cool as a result. The opposite is true during El Niño years. During the 1990s, there were more El Niño than La Niña events, which resulted in more surface air warming. One of the strongest El Niño events of the century happened in 1998, which not coincidentally was 15 years ago. When people say 'no warming in 15 years', they're cherry picking the timeframe to begin in an abnormally hot year. It's like arguing that your car must have broken down because it hasn't moved in the 15 seconds while you've been stopped at a red light. The argument selects a short timeframe that's not representative of the whole. Since 2000, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events, which has acted to temporarily bury more global warming in the oceans. A new study published in Nature Climate Change found that by taking into account the short-term changes caused by factors like El Niño and La Niña cycles, they could accurately forecast the slowed warming at the surface several years in advance.

 

[t_polkow]

The Disturbing Truth That Can Only Be Seen Using Google Earth

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

Unless.....


Christianity Today Gleanings: Most Pastors Don't Believe in Global Warming


No surprise since these neanderthals peddle idiotic nonsense such as talking snakes to their minions and deny reality

 

[gslack]

It's a composite of averages. It's very unlikely that 200 species go extinct every day, but rather it equals out to that. Like a pitcher with 3.00 ERA, he doesn't give up exactly 3 runs a game, that is his average.

And the source is the UN. But of course, if the facts don't line up with your beliefs, it always helps to attack the source. Believe me, I encounter that a lot.

So then no you can't prove the claim, and nobody can agreed... And your link was to the blog, dude..

 

[gslack]

Of course I do

World Environment Day 2010

LOL, where to start...

From your dubious source...

Scientists have no clear idea of how many species -- from algae to blue whales -- live on earth. Estimates are up to 100 million of which only about 1.8 million have been named so far. Humans are but one of those species.

Though the exact number is impossible to determine, an unprecedented mass extinction of life on Earth is occurring. Scientists estimate that between 150 and 200 species of life become extinct every 24 hours.

So they tell up front that scientists have no clear idea how many species live on earth, and they tell you that the number is impossible to determine. But then they tell you that 150-200 species become extinct everyday. How in the hell can they make that claim when they don't even know how many there are?????

Damn dude way to debunk your own claim...

Determining how many species are going extinct is in no way dependent on knowing the total number of species on the planet, you freaking idiot.

You are always debunking your own claims about possessing a functional brain, slackjawed, with every moronic post like this one that you poop onto the forum.

Really??

Okay then I just won an estimated 1-2 maybe even 10 million in the lottery we can't be sure. I went broke in a year so can you tell me for certain how much money I spent per day? It's gotta be pretty close I mean within fifty dollars...

See the problem yet troll? LOL

 

[RollingThunder]

LOL, where to start...

From your dubious source...



So they tell up front that scientists have no clear idea how many species live on earth, and they tell you that the number is impossible to determine. But then they tell you that 150-200 species become extinct everyday. How in the hell can they make that claim when they don't even know how many there are?????

Damn dude way to debunk your own claim...

Determining how many species are going extinct is in no way dependent on knowing the total number of species on the planet, you freaking idiot.

You are always debunking your own claims about possessing a functional brain, slackjawed, with every moronic post like this one that you poop onto the forum.

Really??

Okay then I just won an estimated 1-2 maybe even 10 million in the lottery we can't be sure. I went broke in a year so can you tell me for certain how much money I spent per day? It's gotta be pretty close I mean within fifty dollars...

See the problem yet troll? LOL

Yeah, I see the problem and it is, as always, the fact that you are just plain too stupid to understand anything, slackjawed. Scientists are directly observing species going extinct; it's not some mathematical calculation, numbnuts. The number of observed extinctions has nothing to do with the exact number of species in existence. Come back when you manage to grow a brain.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

We are killing our planet. Naysayers or not...that is exactly what is happening. Earth is overpopulated...soon, there will be nothing but people...cement, brick, mortar. Nothing green. And the only thing still alive will be bugs and humans.

I hope I am dead before then.

I don't think so, Gracie. If Man messes with the earth too much, the earth will snuff him out. Long before all the forests are snuffed out. And once Man is gone, everything will grow back the way it was.

It's like when people say they're environmentalists because they want to save the earth, it's not really the earth they want to save. It's Mankind. Because old Mother Earth will be just fine no matter what we do to her, and she will recover and I believe many animal species would survive. But she may become really inhospitable to Man if we abuse her too much and we'll go bye-bye!

That's just my opinion, anyway.

 

[gslack]

Determining how many species are going extinct is in no way dependent on knowing the total number of species on the planet, you freaking idiot.

You are always debunking your own claims about possessing a functional brain, slackjawed, with every moronic post like this one that you poop onto the forum.

Really??

Okay then I just won an estimated 1-2 maybe even 10 million in the lottery we can't be sure. I went broke in a year so can you tell me for certain how much money I spent per day? It's gotta be pretty close I mean within fifty dollars...

See the problem yet troll? LOL

Yeah, I see the problem and it is, as always, the fact that you are just plain too stupid to understand anything, slackjawed. Scientists are directly observing species going extinct; it's not some mathematical calculation, numbnuts. The number of observed extinctions has nothing to do with the exact number of species in existence. Come back when you manage to grow a brain.

I'm sorry dude did you say something? All I saw was "BOO HOO!"

 

[RollingThunder]

Really??

Okay then I just won an estimated 1-2 maybe even 10 million in the lottery we can't be sure. I went broke in a year so can you tell me for certain how much money I spent per day? It's gotta be pretty close I mean within fifty dollars...

See the problem yet troll? LOL

Yeah, I see the problem and it is, as always, the fact that you are just plain too stupid to understand anything, slackjawed. Scientists are directly observing species going extinct; it's not some mathematical calculation, numbnuts. The number of observed extinctions has nothing to do with the exact number of species in existence. Come back when you manage to grow a brain.

I'm sorry dude did you say something? All I saw was "BOO HOO!"

Yeah...LOL....everyone has noticed how you go into denial every time your idiotic drivel gets debunked and your sorry butt gets kicked to the curb, again. You are such a troll.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yeah, I see the problem and it is, as always, the fact that you are just plain too stupid to understand anything, slackjawed. Scientists are directly observing species going extinct; it's not some mathematical calculation, numbnuts. The number of observed extinctions has nothing to do with the exact number of species in existence. Come back when you manage to grow a brain.

I'm sorry dude did you say something? All I saw was "BOO HOO!"

Yeah...LOL....everyone has noticed how you go into denial every time your idiotic drivel gets debunked and your sorry butt gets kicked to the curb, again. You are such a troll.

But the trolls are winning.........


And look who's kicked to the curb???


Extreme Global Warming Seen Further Away than Previously Thought: Scientific American

 

[RollingThunder]

I'm sorry dude did you say something? All I saw was "BOO HOO!"

Yeah...LOL....everyone has noticed how you go into denial every time your idiotic drivel gets debunked and your sorry butt gets kicked to the curb, again. You are such a troll.

But the trolls are winning.........

Not exactly. You denier cult trolls are just too retarded to comprehend what is happening so your notions of what the "game" is that you imagine that you're "winning" are delusional fantasies. In reality, you've already "lost" everything, including your minds. The reality of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes and the dangers they pose to our world and our civilization are well established scientifically and are the greatest challenge the human race has ever faced. The rational, intelligent adults of the world are attempting to deal with this situation. Your little astroturfed cult of reality denial and its gullible duped retards who've been bamboozled into falling for the fossil fuel industry propaganda are doomed by the unfolding reality of climate change to slide down the poop-chute of history into well deserved ignominy.

And look who's kicked to the curb???

Extreme Global Warming Seen Further Away than Previously Thought: Scientific American

You got kicked to the curb, GigafAil, just like always.....and, as usual, you're too out of touch with reality to see that.

The article you cite is good news, if it's true, but scientific opinion is still quite divided on the conclusions of that particular study. Did you even read it or did just do your usual C&P from some denier blog without bothering to actually read what you're citing. Like you got busted for doing on that other thread recently.

Extreme Global Warming Seen Further Away than Previously Thought: Scientific American
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
(excerpts)

OSLO (Reuters) - Extreme global warming is less likely in coming decades after a slowdown in the pace of temperature rises so far this century, an international team of scientists said on Sunday. Warming is still on track, however, to breach a goal set by governments around the world of limiting the increase in temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, unless tough action is taken to limit rising greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of global warming has slowed after strong rises in the 1980s and 1990s, even though all the 10 warmest years since reliable records began in the 1850s have been since 1998. Examining recent temperatures, the experts said that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere above pre-industrial times - possible by mid-century on current trends - would push up temperatures by between 0.9 and 2.0 degrees Celsius (1.6 and 3.6F). That is below estimates made by the U.N. panel of climate scientists in 2007, of a rise of between 1 and 3 degrees Celsius (1.8-5.4F) as the immediate response to a doubling of carbon concentrations, known as the transient climate response. The U.N. panel also estimated that a doubling of carbon dioxide, after accounting for melting of ice and absorption by the oceans that it would cause over hundreds of years, would eventually lead to a temperature rise of between 2 and 4.5 C (3.6-8.1F). Findings in the new study, by experts in Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Switzerland and Norway, broadly matched that range for the long-term response.

The oceans appear to be taking up more heat in recent years, masking a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that passed 400 parts per million this month for the first time in human history, up 40 percent from pre-industrial levels. Professor Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich, one of the authors, said that the lower numbers for coming decades were welcome. But "we are still looking at warming well over the two degree goal that countries have agreed upon if current emission trends continue," he said. Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 Celsius (1.4F) since the Industrial Revolution and two degrees C is widely viewed as a threshold to dangerous changes such as more floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels. "The oceans are sequestering heat more rapidly than expected over the last decade," said Professor Steven Sherwood of the University of New South Wales in Australia, who was not involved in the study. "By assuming that this behavior will continue, (the scientists) calculate that the climate will warm about 20 percent more slowly than previously expected, although over the long term it may be just as bad, since eventually the ocean will stop taking up heat." He said findings "need to be taken with a large grain of salt" because of uncertainties about the oceans.


******

 

[skookerasbil]

The operative word in any of these links is "uncertainty" and "uncertainties".

It is driving all policy decisions!!!! >>>> Is Europe Giving Up on ?Green? Energy? | Power Line


Nobody is hysterical about these bomb thrower predictions except nutter-ass bozo's like you and a few score hordes of internet k00ks.


The only reason I stick around this forum is to make that crystal clear to the curious who wander into this message board forum!!!


And I DOMINATE!!!!!!