TWO more Global Warming issues

[Billy_Bob]

This is a lie as you know you have not addressed the two questions I asked:

Can I call it? I sure can.

I gave you long explanations for one of your questions, knowing full well you'd run in response. You didn't disappoint.

I'm done with you now, being you've worked so hard to prove my point about the cowardice and dishonesty of deniers. There's clearly no point in wasting time engaging you as if you were an honest human.

Have fun being laughed at by the entire planet for the rest of your life. I hope the emotional affirmation you get from your fellow cultists here will make the years of humiliation bearable.

Interpretation of Alarmist double speak: I have no facts... All it can do is denigrate and use Alyinski tactics on those who prove it wrong. Despite its obvious and glaring epic failure its logic is to claim victory through deceit and go on acting as if it won.

Why Don't you MAN UP little kitten and supply the answers to your statements?

 

[nat4900]

THE OWNEROUS IS ON YOU TO PROVE. You made the statements you provide the facts to support them.

Using far left wing talking points sites such as think progress is a fools errand as almost 100% of what they print is fabrication or extreme exaggeration.

ON to your fabrications/exaggerations... The 800,000 leak was contained and cleaned up just as the 63,000 gallon leak was. Had you read the IEA reports you would have noted the spills had minimal impact on the surroundings and wildlife. They were 100% cleaned up and mitigated.

Had you read the IEA reports and not the made up drivel from Think Progress you would also know that semi accidents and breaches of tankers of oils and gas far out weigh the sums. (because they are limited to 10,000-20,000 gallon potentials they are classified differently) Its funny how you alarmist tell only half the truth and expect others to ferret out your lies or hope we dont and allow the lies to stand.

...and THAT is why it is really "a fool's errand" to ever cite anything to right wingers and closeted tea baggers....... like you....

The question raised by you and a fellow nitwit was about WHICH mode of transporting oil caused the most damage......rail or pipeline......
The A-political Eskimos. Haidas, Inuits, etc. have a different take on what pipeline spillages cause to the environment....but YOU "think" that you know better.

As I stated before I don't give a crap about what you and your fellow nay-sayers spew.

 

[nat4900]

For right wing, tea baggers the WHOLE scientific community throughout the world is "wrong"......they rather rely on the "noted" scientists like Hannity Limbaugh and Beck to tell them what they should think. Fuck them.

 

[nat4900]

Have fun being laughed at by the entire planet for the rest of your life. I hope the emotional affirmation you get from your fellow cultists here will make the years of humiliation bearable.

You know, debating with idiots is a waste of cyberspace....Don't bother; ultimately they're worthless souls and partisan hacks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie as you know you have not addressed the two questions I asked:

Can I call it? I sure can.
I gave you long explanations for one of your questions, knowing full well you'd run in response. You didn't disappoint.

I asked for something that was not inference and induction.
You delivered inference and induction.
And so, you did not answer either of my my questions.
You know it.
I know it.
Everyone knows it

I'm done with you now

Wait... you're tucking tail and running away from someone who understands that you cannot prove your position?
No surprise - it happens all the time.

You're a zealot, nothing more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

.

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

 

[nat4900]

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

There must be a false assumption among right wingers (like you) that others are on here to "service" your demands to educate you......a worthless task since your biases have you stuck on stupid and NO amount of proof can ever fix stupid..

 

[mamooth]

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Why?

That is, why do you think your question makes sense? Did you consider that your questions get ignored because they're so damn stupid?

Now, if you'd like, I could post some estimates of what you ask. But then you'd just snivel something about how it doesn't count because it's a model, followed by you pissing yourself and running again, so what's the point? Everybody already knows you always run.

If you want to start repairing your reputation, quit with the evasions and state a point directly, like I always do.

And by the way, those in my stalkers club usually end up self-destructing in some highly amusing manner. If that's your goal, I'll let you know who to send the application to.

 

[jc456]

Are all the right wingers on this forum 12 years old?

A normal human, when given the choice between "there's a global socialist plot against me" and "Maybe I messed up", will choose the latter. However, deniers are very different from normal people. Denialism is purely a conspiracy cult now, so they actually will rant at length about the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot against them.

So, don't waste your time trying to sway deniers with logic. They weren't reasoned into their positions, so they can't be reasoned out of their positions.

If you want to change the mind of a denier, you have to think like a denier. They are purely emotion-driven creatures, so you have to play to their emotions. Give them a virtual treat every time they wander towards a thought that isn't completely crazy. When they make a virtual mess, give them a scolding and rub their nose in it. Train them like a puppy, but understand they're much bigger and less intelligent, so that training them to behave will be both mentally and physically exhausting.

Well maybe when nobody has any evidence of anything people are skeptical that might be. right?

 

[jc456]

Huh? This is the level of mentality which represents the "science is settled" position.

Dingbat........what I'm referring to is the relatively short period of time since MAN made an entrance on this planet and the variations that occurred PRIOR to that doesn't really matter since we were not around.....but NOW we are and those 'natural changes" are exacerbated by our own man-made pollution....so, NOW IT MATTERS if we wish to survive.

So do you know how the earth was supposed to mature itself? You have those blueprints?

 

[westwall]

(BTW, the powers that be have previously decided to move other threads on this VERY important issue to other forums....as if this issue is not "political"...)

Anyway, there are 2 important sub-issues on global warming that are seldom adequately debated....

The first is that most right wingers "think" that global warming is a farce precipitated on us...a farce that would have drastic economic consequences....as if there are not many, many jobs that would be created by curbing the pollutants that we spew all over our planet's environment...........What is often stated by these folks is that global warming is a repetitious trend and that it has happened over the billions of years of earth's existence. Even IF this were true.....what these nitwits fail to recognize is that MAN is now populating the planet and that whatever may have happenend in the millenia prior to man's existence does NOT matter....what matters is that man is heading to exstinction if nothing is done.....

The second issue is how climate change will have drastic impact on new wars and struggles throughout our planet....Weather DOES impact on wars...from D-Day landings to when and where we would drop our bombs on Japan.

The fact remains that, for example, as the Sahara desert grows, hundred of thousands of people will try to migrate to where life can be supported and if anyone tries to stop such migration, wars erupt. We should remember that the civil war that is currently raging in Syria was ALSO prompted by their drought situation.

Obma is correct.....global warming, if left unchecked, will be a main cause for many more world-wide struggles.

I guess you didn't get the memo...the Sahara is greening again. Shocking I know, but them's the facts. When you make such a catastrophic error, in the OP, it renders everything else you claim pretty much ignorable.



"The first and the most well known mechanism was proposed in the mid 1970s by Otterman and Charney and often referred to the “Charney hypothesis”, by which albedo increases, due to overgrazing and cultivation, leads to a general cooling of the land surface and thereby reductions of evapotranspiration and of surface air convergence, leading to reductions of cloudiness and rainfall. This chain of effects was hypothesized to cause a positive feed back loop responsible for the persistent drought in the Sahel. Model studies using the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation model (GCM) suggested that albedo changes from 14% to 35% over all continents’ desert areas would sharply reduce clouds and rainfall. These results were, however, contested by Ripley, claiming that the model did not adequately treat the role of evapotranspiration in regulating surface temperature and also that the albedo changes assumed were much larger than might be supported by observations. According to Ripley, regions with higher albedo are generally hotter than their surroundings due to the lower rate of evapotranspiration, a conclusion supported by a study using the NCAR GCM. The Otterman-Charney mechanism was further questioned based on studies in the Sonoran Desert in Mexico, claiming that denuding the soil may have completely opposite thermal and climatic effects".


Greening of the Sahel

 

[Ernie S.]

encourage you to investigate the methods of John Cook's survey which led to this 97% figure.

Well, I haven't relied on Cook's survey.....My more objective source is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..which is a UN sponsored panel.

Oh goody! Have you read their emails?

Tell me guy. Suppose there is a murder and during the trial, we find that the prosecutor and the lead detective have exchanged emails discussing planting evidence to support the case against the accused.

Let's put you in the judge's chair up front. Would you elect to continue the trial or would you remove the prosecutor and all evidence gathered by the detective?


Why then, for God's sake, do you still believe IPCC?

Still no Liberal will touch this...
I bet half y'all still believe bill clinton "didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski."

 

[Ernie S.]

Have fun being laughed at by the entire planet for the rest of your life. I hope the emotional affirmation you get from your fellow cultists here will make the years of humiliation bearable.

You know, debating with idiots is a waste of cyberspace....Don't bother; ultimately they're worthless souls and partisan hacks.

Ad hom is all you have once the integrity of your "scientists" is demolished.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Why?

Because without said adjustment, the graph is meaningless.
So, again:
Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Still waiting for you to tell us what you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years.
It is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.

 

[Ernie S.]

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Why?

Because without said adjustment, the graph is meaningless.
So, again:
Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Still waiting for you to tell us what you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years.
It is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.

I'll help her out....

 

[jc456]

Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Why?

Because without said adjustment, the graph is meaningless.
So, again:
Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

Still waiting for you to tell us what you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years.
It is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.

Somewhere the warmers got some super confidential blueprint from God on how the earth is actually supposed to warm, DOH, they don't believe in god, so who gave it to them?

 

[Treeshepherd]

encourage you to investigate the methods of John Cook's survey which led to this 97% figure.

Well, I haven't relied on Cook's survey.....My more objective source is The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..which is a UN sponsored panel.

Oh goody! Have you read their emails?

Tell me guy. Suppose there is a murder and during the trial, we find that the prosecutor and the lead detective have exchanged emails discussing planting evidence to support the case against the accused.

Let's put you in the judge's chair up front. Would you elect to continue the trial or would you remove the prosecutor and all evidence gathered by the detective?


Why then, for God's sake, do you still believe IPCC?

Still no Liberal will touch this...
I bet half y'all still believe bill clinton "didn't have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski."

I'm not really a tax and spend liberal. I'd say I'm a social liberal and an environmentalist. But, I'm a realist. There's no way you can label the IPCC 'objective'. Their purpose is to recommend policy to governments. While consensus is not important in science, it is essential to politics.

An IPCC report generally begins with an executive directive, such as "Predict the apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to force shit down people's throats". I'm exaggerating, but only slightly. Then you've got one or more working groups of scientists who volunteer to work on the issue. Then you've got economists, political scientists and government representatives who edit the science so that the final report is uniform and non-ambiguous. And, there's some give and take back and forth between the groups, etc..

But, the IPCC is a political organization first and foremost, not a body of pure science.

 

[mamooth]

Because without said adjustment, the graph is meaningless.

You're saying temperature of the earth is meaningless? That's crazy.

So, again:
Please adjust this curve to exclude natural variations in temperature.

No. There's no point. I didn't use that graph for anything except as a decisive refutation of someone's crazy claim that that the temperature of the earth isn't rising, so natural variations are irrelevant. If you want to use that graph for something else, that's your problem. Don't ask me to prove whatever crazy theory you're trying to prove.

Still waiting for you to tell us what you have, other than inference and induction, that supports your claim that the recent 5000 years of cooling would have lasted another 20,000 years.

Given I already did so, with several references, what do you hope to gain by lying outright like that? And why should I type it all again, given that you ran from it the first time?

It is, after all the basis for your assumption that the current (small, if any) current increase in average global temperature is not a natural occurrence.

Since I've pointed out multiple times I make no such assumption, and then specifically listed what does show it's not natural, again, what do you hope to gain by outright lying?

We get already. You can't address what I actually say, so you lie about it. There's no need to keep proving it.

Now, given I've answered all your questions, answer mine. What's your theory of warming that explains all of the observed evidence? You can't just keep complaining about the real science. Eventually, you have to do some science yourself, or everyone just laughs at you for being a mindless cult zombie. Oh wait, we're long past that stage. But go on, give it a try anyways.

 

[Old Rocks]

Integrity of the scientists demolished? LOL. All that has been demolished is your credibility. And what has been established is the fact that you are willfully ignorant.

 

[nat4900]

Since most right wingers will state, "gee, I was cold last January, therefore there CANNOT be any global warming..." debating this issue with them is tantamount to a chess game with one's dog.