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

Hey Sparky, can you find one (1) single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature?

It’s definitely true that CO2 has increased in the past, especially in the glacial/interglacial periods. During this period of time, CO2 has increased and decreased by 100ppm, from roughly 180-330ppm. These increases occurred over a 400,000 year period. This was roughly 5,000-20,000 years depending on the glacial cycle.

However, with that being said, Sparky, we’ve seen an increase of 100ppm in 150 years. Click here to look at the comparison between slow glacial termination vs the industrial revolution.

When scientists analyzed the isotopes of the carbon/oxygen atoms comprising the atmospheric CO2, which is similar to carbon dating, they determined a human fingerprint of sorts. They discovered old carbon which is a result of fossil fuel deposits, then combined with newer oxygen found in the air nowadays. The present and continued combustion of hydrocarbons is definitely the source of increasing CO2 levels.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Hey Sparky, can you find one (1) single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature?

It’s definitely true that CO2 has increased in the past, especially in the glacial/interglacial periods. During this period of time, CO2 has increased and decreased by 100ppm, from roughly 180-330ppm. These increases occurred over a 400,000 year period. This was roughly 5,000-20,000 years depending on the glacial cycle.

However, with that being said, Sparky, we’ve seen an increase of 100ppm in 150 years. Click here to look at the comparison between slow glacial termination vs the industrial revolution.

When scientists analyzed the isotopes of the carbon/oxygen atoms comprising the atmospheric CO2, which is similar to carbon dating, they determined a human fingerprint of sorts. They discovered old carbon which is a result of fossil fuel deposits, then combined with newer oxygen found in the air nowadays. The present and continued combustion of hydrocarbons is definitely the source of increasing CO2 levels.

...and yet, even after asking for years, no one has ever posted one single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Kimura]

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.

There is a consensus among the scientific community no matter how much you keep saying there isn't. Sure, theories and viewpoints may differ and conflict, we're dealing with a minuscule minority. For example, if we require absolute consensus and unanimity before we're confident, we can't be sure the moon isn't made of cheese either or that the earth may indeed be flat.

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.

If we look at the temperatures during the 1990s, for example, you’ll see a sharp decrease in 1992, 1993 and 1994. This was the resuly of massive ejections into our stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo. It doesn’t mean that CO2 went on vacation and stopped affecting global temperatures.

This is similar to the cooling we found the 1940s and 1950s. The CO2 warming was affected by other factors, such as aerosol and other human particulates. We saw a decrease in these types of emission in the 1960s and 1970s due to improved regulations and technology, but the CO2 footprint started to increase again.

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.

There's research being done on every country on earth by every major scientific institution and academy of science.

In science, all that matters is the balance and preponderance of evidence, and theories give us an explanation of evidence. Scientists, where applicable, make predictions and create experiments to confirm, deny or change their theories. They change theories as new information is available.

In the case of AGW, there is a theory, which was developed well over 100 years ago based of the laws of physics. It’s consistent with a plethora of data and observations. It’s supported by climate models which can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.

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.

But we do, I just posted why the volcano and natural warming theories you posted aren't correct. Please read over the idea, stop categorically ignoring the assembled research.

In order to identify this alleged natural cycle, a mechanism needs to be identified. If you can’t find this anomaly, there isn't a change in global energy balance. We have a changing balance, whether natural or not, so we must determine this mysterious cause.

Also, those that adopt this cyclical/natural warming explanation better come up with a reason why a 35% increase in the second most critical greenhouse goes doesn't affect global temperature in any capacity. Theory predicts that temperatures will increase given a rise in the greenhouse effect.

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.

Um....no it's not.

CO2 is plant food

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who's going to be the first to post the temperature per 10PPM of CO2 change measurements from 280 to 400?

Anyone?

What do the experiments show for a temperature drop if we drop CO2 from 400 back to 360PPM?

Anyone?

Bueller?

 

[mamooth]

Frank, hush. The grownups are trying to talk.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, hush. The grownups are trying to talk.

The "grown ups" could just post the experiments. I mean, that is, if they existed and showed the vicious CO2 molecule pummeling temperature and whipping it into a frenzy with only an additional 120PPM

 

[Boss]

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.

There is a consensus among the scientific community no matter how much you keep saying there isn't. Sure, theories and viewpoints may differ and conflict, we're dealing with a minuscule minority. For example, if we require absolute consensus and unanimity before we're confident, we can't be sure the moon isn't made of cheese either or that the earth may indeed be flat.

You can continue to foolishly argue that science has defied itself by drawing a conclusion and stating a fact, or you can grow the fuck up and understand science can't ever do this because it can't. Conclusions and consensus are made by man, not science. There is no such thing as "consensus and absolute consensus" ...you either have consensus or you don't. Now you are admitting that you don't have "absolute" consensus, but that's okay somehow.

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.

If we look at the temperatures during the 1990s, for example, you’ll see a sharp decrease in 1992, 1993 and 1994. This was the resuly of massive ejections into our stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo. It doesn’t mean that CO2 went on vacation and stopped affecting global temperatures.

This is similar to the cooling we found the 1940s and 1950s. The CO2 warming was affected by other factors, such as aerosol and other human particulates. We saw a decrease in these types of emission in the 1960s and 1970s due to improved regulations and technology, but the CO2 footprint started to increase again.

Yes, Mt. Pinatubo caused more global climate change than man has caused in the past 200 years, and the earth is still spinning on it's axis, the sun still rises every morning. All the ice didn't melt and flood coastal lands. It had no significant impact on man or the environment.

And why in the hell are you now trying to blame aerosol on affecting CO2 levels? Aerosol was supposedly affecting the OZONE layer, not CO2. And it turned out, the ozone layer wasn't really being affected by aerosols. We had the same nutcase "scientists" bleating the same doom and gloom, insisting that government fuck capitalists in the ass over spray cans because, if we don't... oh my, oh dear, we're not going to have any more ozone layer! Everybody is going to die! So we went out there and spent billions of dollars refining new technologies, redesigning productions, trashing product, rendering less expensive processes obsolete, so that we could "save the planet" from the ozone crisis. Turns out, the ozone naturally dissipates at the poles and has always had a hole there. There was never a crisis.

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.

There's research being done on every country on earth by every major scientific institution and academy of science.

In science, all that matters is the balance and preponderance of evidence, and theories give us an explanation of evidence. Scientists, where applicable, make predictions and create experiments to confirm, deny or change their theories. They change theories as new information is available.

No, in science, what matters is the next question, the next test, the next observation. What does not matter to science is conclusions. What you are trying to do is say conclusions ARE part of science and if we conclude something wrongly we can change it tomorrow. But that's not a conclusion. When you conclude something, it's permanent. It means there is nothing else to add, nothing will be found tomorrow, all the facts are in, the debate is over. Conclusion have consequences. Things are changed based on the conclusion. Further evaluation doesn't happen because something has been concluded. With a conclusion, science has no role.

In the case of AGW, there is a theory, which was developed well over 100 years ago based of the laws of physics. It’s consistent with a plethora of data and observations. It’s supported by climate models which can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.

Again... Global temperature has risen a whopping one degree in the last century! Whether man has contributed to that or not is irrelevant because it's such an insignificant amount. But hey... let's freak out about all kinds of things man is doing... like, we're using up fossil fuels! No more dinosaurs are dying, so eventually it will be all gone. That's going to happen long before capitalists melt the North Pole. Population growth is booming due to medicines enabling man to live longer, eventually we will run out of room to put people... all the statistics show an increase in population every stinking year. We can't wait until the stack up on each other because some of the land has to be used to produce resources for the population, so the overcrowding will happen abruptly as we discover there is no longer enough land to sustain our needs. What's being done about that? It will be a problem long before you see Manhattan sink into the Hudson.

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.

But we do, I just posted why the volcano and natural warming theories you posted aren't correct. Please read over the idea, stop categorically ignoring the assembled research.

Again... Volcanoes change our climate dramatically and abruptly. Your data confirms that, and shows 3 years of climate change which happened due to a volcano. Now in this case the temperatures cooled but that is because a volcano releases ash which blocks the sun. Our factories and stuff aren't producing much ash and debris anymore, so the release of CO2 doesn't block the sun. If the warmness gets to be too bad, maybe capitalists can come up with some "healthy" way to release smog and cause global cooling to happen? //tongueincheek

In order to identify this alleged natural cycle, a mechanism needs to be identified. If you can’t find this anomaly, there isn't a change in global energy balance. We have a changing balance, whether natural or not, so we must determine this mysterious cause.

Also, those that adopt this cyclical/natural warming explanation better come up with a reason why a 35% increase in the second most critical greenhouse goes doesn't affect global temperature in any capacity. Theory predicts that temperatures will increase given a rise in the greenhouse effect.

There is not an "alleged natural cycle" any more than there is an "alleged planet" or an "alleged nature." We have a planet, we have nature, and we have natural cycles of the planet's nature. We constantly have changing energy balances, day in an day out. In fact, I bet there are not two days in the history of the planet where energy balances were the same across the board. Things are in a constant state of change. That's one of the remarkable aspects of our miraculous planet.

The "Greenhouse Effect" is a good thing. Without it, there would be no life on Earth and we'd be like Mars. Okay, here's an idea, let's send capitalists to Mars and let them "pollute" the atmosphere with CO2, so Mars can get some greenhouse effect going? Then we'll send you warmers to Mars to tell the Martians how they need to do something about global warming!

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.

Um....no it's not.

CO2 is plant food

Blah Blah Blah... more of the same tripe. Your little blog post about CO2 being plant food is totally hilarious. A great example of spinning the PR in your favor. Basically it says, yeah... okay, so CO2 is plant food and they do thrive on it, BUT... conditions have to be right and they won't be if we don't solve global warming! LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republican Party began to go to hell when they began to discover that they could effectively ignore minorities and women and labor and gays, and various other groups,

and still prosper politically by putting together a mostly white mostly Christian conservative coalition.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Republican Party began to go to hell when they began to discover that they could effectively ignore minorities and women and labor and gays, and various other groups,

and still prosper politically by putting together a mostly white mostly Christian conservative coalition.

bullshit you POS racist ass

 

[mamooth]

You can continue to foolishly argue that science has defied itself by drawing a conclusion and stating a fact, or you can grow the fuck up and understand science can't ever do this because it can't.

According to your very peculiar way of defining things, since that there is no absolute consensus that the earth is round, we therefore don't know for certain the earth is round. That's why nobody pays attention to your very peculiar way of defining things.

Yes, Mt. Pinatubo caused more global climate change than man has caused in the past 200 years,

You're still badly detached from reality on the topic of volcanoes.

And why in the hell are you now trying to blame aerosol on affecting CO2 levels? Aerosol was supposedly affecting the OZONE layer, not CO2.

That's funny. You clearly have no idea what "aerosol" means. You seem to think a can of hairspray represents "aerosols".

And it turned out, the ozone layer wasn't really being affected by aerosols.

Yes, yes, your fringe political cult has a whole pack of realty-defying conspiracy theories which the cultists are commanded to parrot. Global warming denial is one, ozone depletion theory denial is another. I'm sure you'll also tell us how DDT is harmless, since that's another required cult belief.

Again... Global temperature has risen a whopping one degree in the last century! Whether man has contributed to that or not is irrelevant because it's such an insignificant amount.

Let me introduce you to a concept called "the future". Those possessing common sense will try to prevent bad things from happening in the future. Those without common sense will jump off a building and say, as they're going down "No problems yet!".

But hey... let's freak out about all kinds of things man is doing...

You're implying that addressing one problem makes it impossible to address any other problems. That's another failure of logic and common sense on your part.

There is not an "alleged natural cycle" any more than there is an "alleged planet" or an "alleged nature." We have a planet, we have nature, and we have natural cycles of the planet's nature.

Now you're waving your hands about madly as you fling out red herrings.

Natural cycles have causes. We know what those causes are. Those natural cycles are now trying to force earth into a slow cooldown. Instead, we're seeing fast warming, because humans are overriding those natural cycles.

We measure the changing heat balance of the earth. We measure outgoing IR radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. We measure downward IR backradiation going up. Those are smoking guns. Global warming theory explains such observations perfectly, and is the only theory that explains it. If you have a "natural cause" that explains it, I suggest you publish and collect your Nobel Prize.

We constantly have changing energy balances, day in an day out. In fact, I bet there are not two days in the history of the planet where energy balances were the same across the board. Things are in a constant state of change. That's one of the remarkable aspects of our miraculous planet

"I refuse to believe people are smart enough to measure and understand these things!" fallacy. You refusing to believe it doesn't change anything.

The "Greenhouse Effect" is a good thing. Without it, there would be no life on Earth and we'd be like Mars. Okay, here's an idea, let's send capitalists to Mars and let them "pollute" the atmosphere with CO2, so Mars can get some greenhouse effect going? Then we'll send you warmers to Mars to tell the Martians how they need to do something about global warming!

And a wish to banish your political enemies, check. There's a definite streak of Stalinism present in your cult.