When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?

[Kimura]

Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.
Every bit of credible data shows the median temperature average has risen 1 degree over the past 100 years. There are literally dozens of things which can explain this nominal increase without jumping to the conclusion man is causing it.

We're looking at 0.8 degree Celsius since about 1880-ish. Since 1975, for example, two-thirds of warming has occurred at or around 0.15-.20 degrees celsius per decade.

A global change of one degree is important because it takes massive quantities of heat to warm land, oceans, the atmosphere, etc. All is took was a one to two degree change to sent the planet into the Little Ice Age. A five degree drop resulted in the vast majority of North America under a copious amounts of ice 20,000 years ago.

One degree in 100 years. That's what we have, whether or not man is causing it. In the past 18 years, we've not had warming, it has been getting cooler. If it continues on the current trend, we won't be having a 1 degree increase for the century. There are dozens of factors other than the greenhouse ceiling. There is the Sun and sunspot activity. There are volcanic eruptions. Solar flares. Not to mention all the assorted cyclical climate patterns we have on Earth.

The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick.

Actually, they didn't. In the 1960s and 70s, I vividly recall being warned we were heading into the next ice age. In the 80s, the "crisis" was the ozone layer, because they observed a hole in it at the poles. As it turned out, man wasn't blowing a hole in the ozone layer, it just naturally doesn't form at the poles and the "hole" is normal. Of course this was after the 'chicken little' policies of the day had cost capitalists billions of dollars reformulating products and updating production.

It's undoubtedly true there were some predictions about an ice age in the 1970s, but those warnings compared to today are night and day. There was tiny amount of scientific speculation based on glacial cycles and some of slight cooling that occurred as result of air pollution blocking sunlight. We didn't have copious amounts of data or papers being published back them. We had no UN commissions, no institutions, etc. You could have found more of a consensus on a sighting of Lindbergh baby.

Today, there's a scientific consensus, supported by national academies and the major scientific institutions around the world, including the CIA and US military, which all get behind the assembled data that temperature is increasing, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary, and it will only get worse until we decrease emissions. I really don't understand why this causes cognitive dissonance among certain ideological segments of our population. It's not even a big deal, it can be dealt with.

Hogwash. You're now citing "UN commissions" as if they are some kind of scientific authority. These are diplomats, not scientists. Same with the CIA or military. No one is "getting behind" global warming anymore. It's dead. It's cognitive dissonance to continue insisting man is causing some catastrophic overheating. It's just not happening.

It's silly to even think man is capable of emitting too much CO2. If you took all the human-made emissions from all of history, and all human-made emissions man of the future will create for the next 100k years, you will have approximately the equivalent to ONE major volcanic eruption. Now, we have a major volcanic eruption about once every decade. This has been happening forever. With a single volcanic eruption, there is more CO2 dispersed than man has produced since the Industrial Revolution.

personally think the problem is fundamentalist wackos. Whenever you abandon God and adopt a religious faith in science, there are problems society can't deal with. Like people believing everything science theorizes as absolute truth and gospel. Because this becomes their convicted faith, they can't seem to understand that science is often times wrong about things. When science replaces God, science becomes infallible and perfect.

Science doesn't require faith or belief, quite the contrary. Since deals with and studies natural phenomena in the observable universe, so it cannot confirm or deny the existence of God if that makes sense. I think about half of scientists claim a religious affiliation of some sort.

People tend to get confused when a scientist says he/she believes in X or Y hypothesis or theory. What they mean is that he/she accepts X or Y idea, that he/she thinks said scientific idea is the most accurate bases on the evidence. Scientific ideas are accepted and rejected based on the assembled evidence for them or again them. Belief, faith, dogma, etc. aren't part of the scientific method in any capacity.

Oh you need to talk with Joe then, he just told me that Evolution disproves the God of Abraham. And you need to check your own self as well, here you are presenting science to support your INSISTENCE there is man made global warming. So if science doesn't require faith and belief, why do you have so much faith and belief in this science? Can't it be wrong?

If we are going to say that science isn't a belief, dogma, faith, etc. We must admit that science does not 'conclude things as fact.' Because as soon as science has done this, there is no more science, there is only faith and belief in your conclusion. You see, it is MAN who concludes things as fact.' This is based on faith and belief in the science. But the science never concludes.

The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.

I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.

Also, there has been work done to reconstruct the solar irradiance record over the past hundred years. We haven't seen an increase in solar irradiance sice 1940. Most of this work was carried out by the Max Place Institute. The reconstruction does demonstrate an increase over the first part of the century from 1900-1940. It's still not enough to explain all the warming from those years, though. You can view this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperatures, and the variations the have contributed to climate change thus far.

There is a scientific consensus among the leading science academies. The science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have arrived at a consensus. We also have the US military which views climate change as the greatest national security threat facing the country. There also a ton of other American and international science academies and institutions.


Here:


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[chikenwing]

And how? The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?

How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment

Your republican congressman engaging a scientist below. And you wonder why America scores low in math and science, wonder no more.




"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

]\Only a dishonest ass would compare ether party to the Taliban,but then look who they are trying to inject fear into,their voting base. The, by far the most successful thing the left has done is demonize the right,low information voters eat it up like candy.

 

[chikenwing]

And how? The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?

How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment

Your republican congressman engaging a scientist below. And you wonder why America scores low in math and science, wonder no more.




"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

People like this one bitch when others call them on the settled science shlick.

One simple question,why haven't a single modeled climate claim been true? Not one projected event has happened not one. So when others ask why, we are labeled deniers and ignorant,when that label falls squarely on people that think is settled science..

 

[mamooth]

One simple question,why haven't a single modeled climate claim been true?

Models have been remarkably accurate across the board on many topics.

You also don't seem to know what the term "settled science" refers to. Deniers should understand that their failure to understand certain concepts does not invalidate those concepts.

Pop quiz: If nearly the whole planet says you're wrong about something, what's the most likely explanation?
A. You made a mistake
B. The whole world is plotting a vast secret socialist conspiracy against you.

(Those not consumed with narcissism and paranoia tend to answer "A")

 

[Uncensored2008]

Republicans became stupid when they started turning to Comedy Central for their news....

 

[Uncensored2008]

The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.

Of course you do. You're a Communist - you HATE science and only subscribe to absolute faith.

Those who engage in serious research are HERETICS who must never question.

I think a debate regarding how to go about solving the problem is reasonable. There are various interests who should have a say.....so there will be differences of opinion.

But....if you are still discussing the very existence of the problem as though it is debatable.......you are wasting everyone's time.

Of course you do - you're an inbred hick who looks to others to tell you what you think - lacking any intellect of your own.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.

Of course you do. You're a Communist - you HATE science and only subscribe to absolute faith.

Those who engage in serious research are HERETICS who must never question.

I think a debate regarding how to go about solving the problem is reasonable. There are various interests who should have a say.....so there will be differences of opinion.

But....if you are still discussing the very existence of the problem as though it is debatable.......you are wasting everyone's time.

Of course you do - you're an inbred hick who looks to others to tell you what you think - lacking any intellect of your own.

Great post! Was it difficult for you?

You said:

I'm a communist. Not even close to being accurate.

I hate science. I did in 8th grade......but it was temporary. I hated any class that I didn't ace. I was insecure that way.

I'm an inbred hick. Nope. I'm a mutt and have seen more of the world than most.

I look to others to tell me what to think. Wrong again. And that is what pisses you off the most. You have trouble with original thought and you despise those who don't.

I re-issue my challenge to you. We ask each other questions....any questions...any subject. The only rule is that no lies are allowed. Total honesty. Let's see who gives up first.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Great post! Was it difficult for you?

No, it was rather simple - I looked at an uneducated and ignorant fool, spewing stupidity on the interwebz and went from there,

You said:

I'm a communist. Not even close to being accurate.

I hate science. I did in 8th grade......but it was temporary. I hated any class that I didn't ace. I was insecure that way.

So outside of P.E., you had a hell of a time in school....

I'm an inbred hick. Nope. I'm a mutt and have seen more of the world than most.

Sure Cletus..

I look to others to tell me what to think. Wrong again. And that is what pisses you off the most. You have trouble with original thought and you despise those who don't.

I re-issue my challenge to you. We ask each other questions....any questions...any subject. The only rule is that no lies are allowed. Total honesty. Let's see who gives up first.

Okay - do you really think science is belief that abhors questioning assumptions?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope. Never said any such thing.

Please make your next question a little less schizo. Thanks.

My question to you. Have you ever posted a comment that you later learned was untrue....and never retracted the comment?

 

[Boss]

The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.

I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.

Also, there has been work done to reconstruct the solar irradiance record over the past hundred years. We haven't seen an increase in solar irradiance sice 1940. Most of this work was carried out by the Max Place Institute. The reconstruction does demonstrate an increase over the first part of the century from 1900-1940. It's still not enough to explain all the warming from those years, though. You can view this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperatures, and the variations the have contributed to climate change thus far.

There is a scientific consensus among the leading science academies. The science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have arrived at a consensus. We also have the US military which views climate change as the greatest national security threat facing the country. There also a ton of other American and international science academies and institutions.


Here:


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Okay, here is an important lesson for you today: Whenever you are saying "it's a consensus here, it's a consensus there..." What you are really trying to say is "our minds are made up." In other words, "we have abandoned science in favor of our belief in the consensus." No need for further scientific evaluation, we've all observed any relevant science and reached a conclusion. It doesn't matter if I point out flaws in your arguments, present other relative scientific data, or talk until I am blue in the face, you've made up your mind.

You see, the instant you uttered the words "it's a consensus," you've abandoned science and adopted a faith. Science is useless to a consensus. Of course, I doubt seriously that you know every individual of every agency you listed and can vouch for what they personally believe. So the truth of the matter is, there is certainly NOT a consensus. But the important thing is, you believe there is a consensus, that everyone has made up their mind and all the science data is in. Now you've adopted a faith, much like a religious fanatic.

I will point out again, for you and all the people who've "reached consensus" on this, man-made global warming is no more of a "problem" than natural global warming. In fact, the things that nature sometimes does makes human activity pale in comparison. One major volcanic eruption dumps into our atmosphere, more debris and ash, more carbon dioxide, methane and sulfur, than man has produced in all of human history. The ocean, just in it's natural processes of what it does, emits more carbon dioxide than man millions of times over each year. So if CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem, mother nature is a far worse culprit than man.

 

[LoneLaugher]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

 

[RKMBrown]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

ROFL that's so funny.

 

[Stephanie]

the name calling with this bunch in the cult of Globull warming is showing they are losing with the people of the country...
as is this disgusting party called the, Democrat/progressive/commie party of the United States

they got Taliban and stupid in this one, now they're dragging up RACIST and the Tea party again

Even the elected asses from the progressive party has taken to calling the people he suppose to represent, racist

Subject: Terrifying From: John Lewis <[email protected] >
Date: September 27, 2014 8:58:29 AM EDT
To: Drew

Barack Obama’s election was one of the proudest days of my life.
I felt like I had spent decades fighting for that moment…and in many ways I had.
But now 6 years later, Republicans are trying once again to tear the President down. And quite frankly, it terrifies me what they could do if they grow their Tea Party Majority in this election.
That’s why I need your help. That’s why I need you to answer President Obama’s call-to-action right now. I’m not ready to give up on his last 2 years in office. And you shouldn’t be either.
The most critical deadline of the election is in 3 days. Can I count on you right now?

FROM:
Dem Rep. John Lewis Says He 8217 s 8220 Terrified 8221 Racist Tea Party Will Tear Obama Down 8230 Weasel Zippers

You can't disagree with them without being called something dumb like, DENIER, birthers, Taliban, etc

I hope the people are tired of it.

 

[chikenwing]

One simple question,why haven't a single modeled climate claim been true?

Models have been remarkably accurate across the board on many topics.

You also don't seem to know what the term "settled science" refers to. Deniers should understand that their failure to understand certain concepts does not invalidate those concepts.

Pop quiz: If nearly the whole planet says you're wrong about something, what's the most likely explanation?
A. You made a mistake
B. The whole world is plotting a vast secret socialist conspiracy against you.

(Those not consumed with narcissism and paranoia tend to answer "A")

Really ?? please supply a list a accurate climate models,you must have hundreds ready to go?

 

[Kimura]

The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.

I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.

Also, there has been work done to reconstruct the solar irradiance record over the past hundred years. We haven't seen an increase in solar irradiance sice 1940. Most of this work was carried out by the Max Place Institute. The reconstruction does demonstrate an increase over the first part of the century from 1900-1940. It's still not enough to explain all the warming from those years, though. You can view this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperatures, and the variations the have contributed to climate change thus far.

There is a scientific consensus among the leading science academies. The science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have arrived at a consensus. We also have the US military which views climate change as the greatest national security threat facing the country. There also a ton of other American and international science academies and institutions.


Here:


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Okay, here is an important lesson for you today: Whenever you are saying "it's a consensus here, it's a consensus there..." What you are really trying to say is "our minds are made up." In other words, "we have abandoned science in favor of our belief in the consensus." No need for further scientific evaluation, we've all observed any relevant science and reached a conclusion. It doesn't matter if I point out flaws in your arguments, present other relative scientific data, or talk until I am blue in the face, you've made up your mind.

You see, the instant you uttered the words "it's a consensus," you've abandoned science and adopted a faith. Science is useless to a consensus. Of course, I doubt seriously that you know every individual of every agency you listed and can vouch for what they personally believe. So the truth of the matter is, there is certainly NOT a consensus. But the important thing is, you believe there is a consensus, that everyone has made up their mind and all the science data is in. Now you've adopted a faith, much like a religious fanatic.

I will point out again, for you and all the people who've "reached consensus" on this, man-made global warming is no more of a "problem" than natural global warming. In fact, the things that nature sometimes does makes human activity pale in comparison. One major volcanic eruption dumps into our atmosphere, more debris and ash, more carbon dioxide, methane and sulfur, than man has produced in all of human history. The ocean, just in it's natural processes of what it does, emits more carbon dioxide than man millions of times over each year. So if CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem, mother nature is a far worse culprit than man.

Obviously, there are a host of yet to be resolved problems being actively debated and studied within climate science. However, if you read the research papers and items being put out, the debates revolve around subjects such as outgoing longwave radiation within the atmosphere differing from satellite measurements, the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds, etc.

There aren’t any scientists in the science community debating whether or not changes in the composition of CO2 alter warming effects, or if our current warming trend falls outside of the range of natural or cyclical, or whether sea levels have increased over the past one hundred years.

This where there is a scientific consensus.

We know:

a) The result of an increase in CO2 is a direct result of burning fossil fuels.

b) If CO2 continues to increase over the next hundred years, warming will increase.

c) The climate is changing and undergoing a warming trend beyond what scientists have determined as an acceptable range of natural variability.

d) The most pronounced factor of observable warming is an increasing level of greenhouse gas CO2.

Besides the national academies of most OECD countries, the following institutions deals with ocean/earth, climate and atmospheric sciences. If you think there is some conspiracy or they aren't doing the proper research, I suggest you contact them directly.


a) NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

b) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

c) National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

d) State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

e) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

f) Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

g) American Geophysical Union (AGU)

h) American Institute of Physics (AIP)

i) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

j) American Meteorological Society (AMS)

k) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


Also, your statement regarding volcanoes is categorically false. It's incorrect and couldn't possibly be correct given the CO2 record from all the sampling stations located around the world. If this myth was correct, and individual volcanic eruptions were responsible for all human emissions (and hence a rise in CO2 levels), all the CO2 records would be full of massive spikes, one for each eruption more or less. The records demonstrate a regular and linear trend.

 

[Boss]

The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.

I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.

Also, there has been work done to reconstruct the solar irradiance record over the past hundred years. We haven't seen an increase in solar irradiance sice 1940. Most of this work was carried out by the Max Place Institute. The reconstruction does demonstrate an increase over the first part of the century from 1900-1940. It's still not enough to explain all the warming from those years, though. You can view this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperatures, and the variations the have contributed to climate change thus far.

There is a scientific consensus among the leading science academies. The science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have arrived at a consensus. We also have the US military which views climate change as the greatest national security threat facing the country. There also a ton of other American and international science academies and institutions.


Here:


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Okay, here is an important lesson for you today: Whenever you are saying "it's a consensus here, it's a consensus there..." What you are really trying to say is "our minds are made up." In other words, "we have abandoned science in favor of our belief in the consensus." No need for further scientific evaluation, we've all observed any relevant science and reached a conclusion. It doesn't matter if I point out flaws in your arguments, present other relative scientific data, or talk until I am blue in the face, you've made up your mind.

You see, the instant you uttered the words "it's a consensus," you've abandoned science and adopted a faith. Science is useless to a consensus. Of course, I doubt seriously that you know every individual of every agency you listed and can vouch for what they personally believe. So the truth of the matter is, there is certainly NOT a consensus. But the important thing is, you believe there is a consensus, that everyone has made up their mind and all the science data is in. Now you've adopted a faith, much like a religious fanatic.

I will point out again, for you and all the people who've "reached consensus" on this, man-made global warming is no more of a "problem" than natural global warming. In fact, the things that nature sometimes does makes human activity pale in comparison. One major volcanic eruption dumps into our atmosphere, more debris and ash, more carbon dioxide, methane and sulfur, than man has produced in all of human history. The ocean, just in it's natural processes of what it does, emits more carbon dioxide than man millions of times over each year. So if CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem, mother nature is a far worse culprit than man.

Obviously, there are a host of yet to be resolved problems being actively debated and studied within climate science. However, if you read the research papers and items being put out, the debates revolve around subjects such as outgoing longwave radiation within the atmosphere differing from satellite measurements, the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds, etc.

There aren’t any scientists in the science community debating whether or not changes in the composition of CO2 alter warming effects, or if our current warming trend falls outside of the range of natural or cyclical, or whether sea levels have increased over the past one hundred years.

This where there is a scientific consensus.

But there still isn't a consensus. All of those things are highly debatable. We may have information to suggest something might be true, that is not a consensus conclusion. Science doesn't form consensus or make conclusions, that's what man does with science data. Science keeps asking questions and exploring possibilities to predict probability.

We know:

a) The result of an increase in CO2 is a direct result of burning fossil fuels.

b) If CO2 continues to increase over the next hundred years, warming will increase.

c) The climate is changing and undergoing a warming trend beyond what scientists have determined as an acceptable range of natural variability.

d) The most pronounced factor of observable warming is an increasing level of greenhouse gas CO2.

But we simply don't KNOW any of this. (a) An increase in overall global CO2 might be the result of natural phenomenon humans have no control over. (b) There is no parallel between increasing CO2 and temperature. Over the past 600 years, (c) CO2 levels have increased consistently while our average temperatures have fluctuated to extremes. The current warming trend, we are not even certain is a trend. Over the past 18 years, we've had a cooling trend. (d) Again, CO2 levels have been steadily increasing the past 18 years and there has been a cooling trend. The most pronounced greenhouse gas is water vapor. We don't see initiatives aimed at decreasing human emissions of water vapor because it's a) not something we can practically do, and b) it doesn't give liberals a means to grab power from capitalists.

Besides the national academies of most OECD countries, the following institutions deals with ocean/earth, climate and atmospheric sciences. If you think there is some conspiracy or they aren't doing the proper research, I suggest you contact them directly.

Look, I can't debate there is a lot of money and political power behind AGW. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars go to fund research grants, pay for studies to be done, etc. You don't find many welfare recipients who feel the government should cut social entitlements... so when you cite these institutions who happen to have an opinion favorable to continuing their gravy train, it's not surprising.

Also, your statement regarding volcanoes is categorically false. It's incorrect and couldn't possibly be correct given the CO2 record from all the sampling stations located around the world. If this myth was correct, and individual volcanic eruptions were responsible for all human emissions (and hence a rise in CO2 levels), all the CO2 records would be full of massive spikes, one for each eruption more or less. The records demonstrate a regular and linear trend.

Well, that's if nothing were working on the CO2 in nature, but CO2 is part of the natural cycle. Much of the CO2 is absorbed by plant life and the oceans, some of it dissipates out into space. The average global temperature does indeed show major spikes following every major volcanic eruption. Such eruptions in the past have plunged our planet into "years without summer" and even caused mass extinction events. But you know what DIDN'T happen? The sky didn't fall... the end never came... there was no doomsday.

Our remarkable planet is fully capable of handling any extreme. Our ecosystem is self-cleaning. More CO2 simply means more healthy and vibrant plant life. This increases oxygen levels, which is good for oxygen-breathers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gullible Warming....LOLz

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Whenever the GOP falls from power, the far right raises its serpent head with dripping fang and strikes the mainstream of the party, infecting it with venomous hate.

The far right reactionaries always act this way: nothing new.

Fuck off, Fakey.

You and Rove get your walking papers after the midterms

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know it's the opposite.

Your time is almost at an end.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

the DeStarkifiction of the Republican continues unabated.

Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul are rising stars while Christ, Rove and Starkey move further to their Axis of Weasels home base in the DNC