Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?

[flacaltenn]

Our problem here with the friction Asclepias is that there has been no open public debate ALLOWED on the topic. Because "the science was settled" and "the debate is over" and a lot of the SCARY hysterical comments and projections from the GW crowd -- just couldn't stand up in debate.

When debate on a topic like this is purposely suppressed -- it's for a reason.. Next Prez ought to pledge a series of PUBLIC debates in the WHouse with rotating teams of the experts.

 

[Asclepias]

Do you think this is the first time in the planet's history that the climate has went through changes ?

Correct but we have more people, industries, cars, trucks etch. than ever before that produces lots of waste to our environment compared from the last climate change.

It really defies belief that some people dont want to address that fact. Our carbon foot print was negligible the last time this happened but they want to pretend our current carbon footprint is the same.

Thing about CO2 is that it's power wanes exponentially as the concentrations increase. Basic Physics without all the added "magical multipliers" in the GW theory says that you get about 1.1degC/ DOUBLING of the concentration. Pre-Industr. level was about 280ppm -- we're at 400 --- haven't even reached the 1st doubling since the Indust. Age began.. MIGHT reach that by 2040 or so.. THEN the next DOUBLING requires we get to 1120ppm which is TWICE the amount for the same 1.1Deg temp increase. That's not likely by 2100. Especially with technology advances.

So besides the imagined "magic multipliers" that GW theory used to predict 6 or 8degC by 2100 (since revised WAY down) ---- you also have the issue that GW science has SEVERELY overestimated the contributions from man to the observed warming. As witnessed by the lack of appreciable warming for the past 15 to 18 years.

IN FACT --- what we've observed and measured is a LOT closer to the 1.1degC/doubling from basic physics and chemistry -- and no where NEAR the initial hysterical predictions of doom that launched this clown circus of propaganda, fear and public misinformation...

Youre repeating political propaganda instead of objectively thinking. Facts are the earth goes through climate change with or without human intervention. Something tips that off. Its a proven fact that the last climate change was due to excess CO2. Humans are adding plenty of CO2 in the air which may trigger another climate change. This is not a hard one to figure out.

Who told you the last Ice Age was caused by EXCESS CO2?

Humans contribute about 5% of what Mother Nature emits in CO2 every year. And about 1/2 of that is CURRENTLY absorbed by plant life on the surface and by the oceans. That's the magnitude of your "excess" in the natural CO2 cycle.

We've had warming/cooling periods of 50 years or more several times since humans came to be. About every 1000 yrs. The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age in the 1650s to 1750s .. NONE of that was due to CO2 emissions (although the cooling might have been EXTENDED by volcanic activity, it was not the cause.. The Maunder Minimum of the Sun extended the duration of the LIA)

C'mon man -- I don't read propaganda. I think and study the topic. Man emissions of CO2 MIGHT contribute about 1degC/ century to any LARGER and underlying natural cycles that ARE NOT being explored and properly considered.

I never said anything about an ice age. I said last climate change and since we were talking about warming I dont understand where you got the idea I was referring to an ice age?

 

[Asclepias]

Our problem here with the friction Asclepias is that there has been no open public debate ALLOWED on the topic. Because "the science was settled" and "the debate is over" and a lot of the SCARY hysterical comments and projections from the GW crowd -- just couldn't stand up in debate.

When debate on a topic like this is purposely suppressed -- it's for a reason.. Next Prez ought to pledge a series of PUBLIC debates in the WHouse with rotating teams of the experts.

That may be true but having a public debate is not really feasible or necessary. We dont need every supposed meteorologist parading around like an expert. The discussion should be among experts like the ones that are currently doing it. Its a known fact that fossil fuels pollute the earth. Now we know its contributing to warming. There is not much to debate. We should be weaning ourselves of fossil fuels. The hold up is that they have not found a way to make you pay as much as you do now using fossil fuels.

 

[westwall]

I dont understand the republican train of thought to just do nothing until we are in an event that could possibly wipe us out because they "dont believe it". Best case scenario is that we are not causing climate change. That doesnt mean we are not effecting it by pouring more Co2 into the atmosphere. Cons remind me of the people in the Dust Bowl times that didnt want to believe their farming habits were effecting the soil until it was too late.

Wasn't the progressive proclaimed apocalypse already supposed to have happened according to the prophet Al Gore?... Or has that now been postponed until next century?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I dont know. However werent we supposed to have flying cars by now as well? You miss the point. What if you skeptics are wrong and could have done something about it? Will the fact that the estimate was off make you feel any better as you die?

Let's assume that something could be done about it. The warmist solution is to de-industrialize and spend 76 trillion of the worlds dollars to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe. For 76 trillion dollars you can mitigate pretty much anything that is supposed to happen, and not suffer the death and destruction of de-industrialization.

And, more to the point, no one has provided any evidence that warmer is worse. The historical record is replete with factual data that shows a warmer world is a better world.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont understand the republican train of thought to just do nothing until we are in an event that could possibly wipe us out because they "dont believe it". Best case scenario is that we are not causing climate change. That doesnt mean we are not effecting it by pouring more Co2 into the atmosphere. Cons remind me of the people in the Dust Bowl times that didnt want to believe their farming habits were effecting the soil until it was too late.

Wasn't the progressive proclaimed apocalypse already supposed to have happened according to the prophet Al Gore?... Or has that now been postponed until next century?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I dont know. However werent we supposed to have flying cars by now as well? You miss the point. What if you skeptics are wrong and could have done something about it? Will the fact that the estimate was off make you feel any better as you die?

Let's assume that something could be done about it. The warmist solution is to de-industrialize and spend 76 trillion of the worlds dollars to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe. For 76 trillion dollars you can mitigate pretty much anything that is supposed to happen, and not suffer the death and destruction of de-industrialization.

And, more to the point, no one has provided any evidence that warmer is worse. The historical record is replete with factual data that shows a warmer world is a better world.

Youre getting caught up on the seemingly insignificance of a degree or 2. Think of it like this. If your child was running a fever and it went up another degree would it worry you or would you laugh it off?

 

[flacaltenn]

Correct but we have more people, industries, cars, trucks etch. than ever before that produces lots of waste to our environment compared from the last climate change.

It really defies belief that some people dont want to address that fact. Our carbon foot print was negligible the last time this happened but they want to pretend our current carbon footprint is the same.

Thing about CO2 is that it's power wanes exponentially as the concentrations increase. Basic Physics without all the added "magical multipliers" in the GW theory says that you get about 1.1degC/ DOUBLING of the concentration. Pre-Industr. level was about 280ppm -- we're at 400 --- haven't even reached the 1st doubling since the Indust. Age began.. MIGHT reach that by 2040 or so.. THEN the next DOUBLING requires we get to 1120ppm which is TWICE the amount for the same 1.1Deg temp increase. That's not likely by 2100. Especially with technology advances.

So besides the imagined "magic multipliers" that GW theory used to predict 6 or 8degC by 2100 (since revised WAY down) ---- you also have the issue that GW science has SEVERELY overestimated the contributions from man to the observed warming. As witnessed by the lack of appreciable warming for the past 15 to 18 years.

IN FACT --- what we've observed and measured is a LOT closer to the 1.1degC/doubling from basic physics and chemistry -- and no where NEAR the initial hysterical predictions of doom that launched this clown circus of propaganda, fear and public misinformation...

Youre repeating political propaganda instead of objectively thinking. Facts are the earth goes through climate change with or without human intervention. Something tips that off. Its a proven fact that the last climate change was due to excess CO2. Humans are adding plenty of CO2 in the air which may trigger another climate change. This is not a hard one to figure out.

Who told you the last Ice Age was caused by EXCESS CO2?

Humans contribute about 5% of what Mother Nature emits in CO2 every year. And about 1/2 of that is CURRENTLY absorbed by plant life on the surface and by the oceans. That's the magnitude of your "excess" in the natural CO2 cycle.

We've had warming/cooling periods of 50 years or more several times since humans came to be. About every 1000 yrs. The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age in the 1650s to 1750s .. NONE of that was due to CO2 emissions (although the cooling might have been EXTENDED by volcanic activity, it was not the cause.. The Maunder Minimum of the Sun extended the duration of the LIA)

C'mon man -- I don't read propaganda. I think and study the topic. Man emissions of CO2 MIGHT contribute about 1degC/ century to any LARGER and underlying natural cycles that ARE NOT being explored and properly considered.

I never said anything about an ice age. I said last climate change and since we were talking about warming I dont understand where you got the idea I was referring to an ice age?

What was the "last climate event" that you were referring to then?

Plenty of qualified skeptics to field a DOZEN public debates.. What do you care if the political activist warmer scientists like Mann and Hansen and Trenberth clean their clocks and embarrass them??

It's this political precept that you DON'T debate when you're AHEAD. You only debate when you are behind that keeps this from happening..

 

[flacaltenn]

I dont understand the republican train of thought to just do nothing until we are in an event that could possibly wipe us out because they "dont believe it". Best case scenario is that we are not causing climate change. That doesnt mean we are not effecting it by pouring more Co2 into the atmosphere. Cons remind me of the people in the Dust Bowl times that didnt want to believe their farming habits were effecting the soil until it was too late.

Wasn't the progressive proclaimed apocalypse already supposed to have happened according to the prophet Al Gore?... Or has that now been postponed until next century?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I dont know. However werent we supposed to have flying cars by now as well? You miss the point. What if you skeptics are wrong and could have done something about it? Will the fact that the estimate was off make you feel any better as you die?

Let's assume that something could be done about it. The warmist solution is to de-industrialize and spend 76 trillion of the worlds dollars to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe. For 76 trillion dollars you can mitigate pretty much anything that is supposed to happen, and not suffer the death and destruction of de-industrialization.

And, more to the point, no one has provided any evidence that warmer is worse. The historical record is replete with factual data that shows a warmer world is a better world.

Youre getting caught up on the seemingly insignificance of a degree or 2. Think of it like this. If your child was running a fever and it went up another degree would it worry you or would you laugh it off?

Pretty much what a thunderstorm or tornado would do with a 1 deg change in both the surface temper. and air temper. aloft to match. It would laugh it off..

 

[Asclepias]

I dont understand the republican train of thought to just do nothing until we are in an event that could possibly wipe us out because they "dont believe it". Best case scenario is that we are not causing climate change. That doesnt mean we are not effecting it by pouring more Co2 into the atmosphere. Cons remind me of the people in the Dust Bowl times that didnt want to believe their farming habits were effecting the soil until it was too late.

Wasn't the progressive proclaimed apocalypse already supposed to have happened according to the prophet Al Gore?... Or has that now been postponed until next century?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I dont know. However werent we supposed to have flying cars by now as well? You miss the point. What if you skeptics are wrong and could have done something about it? Will the fact that the estimate was off make you feel any better as you die?

Let's assume that something could be done about it. The warmist solution is to de-industrialize and spend 76 trillion of the worlds dollars to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe. For 76 trillion dollars you can mitigate pretty much anything that is supposed to happen, and not suffer the death and destruction of de-industrialization.

And, more to the point, no one has provided any evidence that warmer is worse. The historical record is replete with factual data that shows a warmer world is a better world.

Youre getting caught up on the seemingly insignificance of a degree or 2. Think of it like this. If your child was running a fever and it went up another degree would it worry you or would you laugh it off?

Pretty much what a thunderstorm or tornado would do with a 1 deg change in both the surface temper. and air temper. aloft to match. It would laugh it off..

That makes sense. If you wouldnt be worried about a childs temperature going up then I can see why this is not a big deal to you.

 

[Asclepias]

It really defies belief that some people dont want to address that fact. Our carbon foot print was negligible the last time this happened but they want to pretend our current carbon footprint is the same.

Thing about CO2 is that it's power wanes exponentially as the concentrations increase. Basic Physics without all the added "magical multipliers" in the GW theory says that you get about 1.1degC/ DOUBLING of the concentration. Pre-Industr. level was about 280ppm -- we're at 400 --- haven't even reached the 1st doubling since the Indust. Age began.. MIGHT reach that by 2040 or so.. THEN the next DOUBLING requires we get to 1120ppm which is TWICE the amount for the same 1.1Deg temp increase. That's not likely by 2100. Especially with technology advances.

So besides the imagined "magic multipliers" that GW theory used to predict 6 or 8degC by 2100 (since revised WAY down) ---- you also have the issue that GW science has SEVERELY overestimated the contributions from man to the observed warming. As witnessed by the lack of appreciable warming for the past 15 to 18 years.

IN FACT --- what we've observed and measured is a LOT closer to the 1.1degC/doubling from basic physics and chemistry -- and no where NEAR the initial hysterical predictions of doom that launched this clown circus of propaganda, fear and public misinformation...

Youre repeating political propaganda instead of objectively thinking. Facts are the earth goes through climate change with or without human intervention. Something tips that off. Its a proven fact that the last climate change was due to excess CO2. Humans are adding plenty of CO2 in the air which may trigger another climate change. This is not a hard one to figure out.

Who told you the last Ice Age was caused by EXCESS CO2?

Humans contribute about 5% of what Mother Nature emits in CO2 every year. And about 1/2 of that is CURRENTLY absorbed by plant life on the surface and by the oceans. That's the magnitude of your "excess" in the natural CO2 cycle.

We've had warming/cooling periods of 50 years or more several times since humans came to be. About every 1000 yrs. The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age in the 1650s to 1750s .. NONE of that was due to CO2 emissions (although the cooling might have been EXTENDED by volcanic activity, it was not the cause.. The Maunder Minimum of the Sun extended the duration of the LIA)

C'mon man -- I don't read propaganda. I think and study the topic. Man emissions of CO2 MIGHT contribute about 1degC/ century to any LARGER and underlying natural cycles that ARE NOT being explored and properly considered.

I never said anything about an ice age. I said last climate change and since we were talking about warming I dont understand where you got the idea I was referring to an ice age?

What was the "last climate event" that you were referring to then?

Plenty of qualified skeptics to field a DOZEN public debates.. What do you care if the political activist warmer scientists like Mann and Hansen and Trenberth clean their clocks and embarrass them??

It's this political precept that you DON'T debate when you're AHEAD. You only debate when you are behind that keeps this from happening..

The last period of global warming.

The Last Great Global Warming

 

[flacaltenn]

Thing about CO2 is that it's power wanes exponentially as the concentrations increase. Basic Physics without all the added "magical multipliers" in the GW theory says that you get about 1.1degC/ DOUBLING of the concentration. Pre-Industr. level was about 280ppm -- we're at 400 --- haven't even reached the 1st doubling since the Indust. Age began.. MIGHT reach that by 2040 or so.. THEN the next DOUBLING requires we get to 1120ppm which is TWICE the amount for the same 1.1Deg temp increase. That's not likely by 2100. Especially with technology advances.

So besides the imagined "magic multipliers" that GW theory used to predict 6 or 8degC by 2100 (since revised WAY down) ---- you also have the issue that GW science has SEVERELY overestimated the contributions from man to the observed warming. As witnessed by the lack of appreciable warming for the past 15 to 18 years.

IN FACT --- what we've observed and measured is a LOT closer to the 1.1degC/doubling from basic physics and chemistry -- and no where NEAR the initial hysterical predictions of doom that launched this clown circus of propaganda, fear and public misinformation...

Youre repeating political propaganda instead of objectively thinking. Facts are the earth goes through climate change with or without human intervention. Something tips that off. Its a proven fact that the last climate change was due to excess CO2. Humans are adding plenty of CO2 in the air which may trigger another climate change. This is not a hard one to figure out.

Who told you the last Ice Age was caused by EXCESS CO2?

Humans contribute about 5% of what Mother Nature emits in CO2 every year. And about 1/2 of that is CURRENTLY absorbed by plant life on the surface and by the oceans. That's the magnitude of your "excess" in the natural CO2 cycle.

We've had warming/cooling periods of 50 years or more several times since humans came to be. About every 1000 yrs. The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age in the 1650s to 1750s .. NONE of that was due to CO2 emissions (although the cooling might have been EXTENDED by volcanic activity, it was not the cause.. The Maunder Minimum of the Sun extended the duration of the LIA)

C'mon man -- I don't read propaganda. I think and study the topic. Man emissions of CO2 MIGHT contribute about 1degC/ century to any LARGER and underlying natural cycles that ARE NOT being explored and properly considered.

I never said anything about an ice age. I said last climate change and since we were talking about warming I dont understand where you got the idea I was referring to an ice age?

What was the "last climate event" that you were referring to then?

Plenty of qualified skeptics to field a DOZEN public debates.. What do you care if the political activist warmer scientists like Mann and Hansen and Trenberth clean their clocks and embarrass them??

It's this political precept that you DON'T debate when you're AHEAD. You only debate when you are behind that keeps this from happening..

The last period of global warming.

The Last Great Global Warming

Don't have to skip the 4 Ice Ages and all those climate changes I listed above to go back to 56Mill years ago to find climate change. .. Especially a measly 0.6degC in your lifetime.

 

[Asclepias]

Youre repeating political propaganda instead of objectively thinking. Facts are the earth goes through climate change with or without human intervention. Something tips that off. Its a proven fact that the last climate change was due to excess CO2. Humans are adding plenty of CO2 in the air which may trigger another climate change. This is not a hard one to figure out.

Who told you the last Ice Age was caused by EXCESS CO2?

Humans contribute about 5% of what Mother Nature emits in CO2 every year. And about 1/2 of that is CURRENTLY absorbed by plant life on the surface and by the oceans. That's the magnitude of your "excess" in the natural CO2 cycle.

We've had warming/cooling periods of 50 years or more several times since humans came to be. About every 1000 yrs. The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age in the 1650s to 1750s .. NONE of that was due to CO2 emissions (although the cooling might have been EXTENDED by volcanic activity, it was not the cause.. The Maunder Minimum of the Sun extended the duration of the LIA)

C'mon man -- I don't read propaganda. I think and study the topic. Man emissions of CO2 MIGHT contribute about 1degC/ century to any LARGER and underlying natural cycles that ARE NOT being explored and properly considered.

I never said anything about an ice age. I said last climate change and since we were talking about warming I dont understand where you got the idea I was referring to an ice age?

What was the "last climate event" that you were referring to then?

Plenty of qualified skeptics to field a DOZEN public debates.. What do you care if the political activist warmer scientists like Mann and Hansen and Trenberth clean their clocks and embarrass them??

It's this political precept that you DON'T debate when you're AHEAD. You only debate when you are behind that keeps this from happening..

The last period of global warming.

The Last Great Global Warming

Don't have to skip the 4 Ice Ages and all those climate changes I listed above to go back to 56Mill years ago to find climate change. .. Especially a measly 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Yeah you do. I was talking about warming not the ice age.

 

[Nosmo King]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

So you majored in science when you were in college?

You know things like physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, geology, biology, anthropology, etc...

Or did you just major at learning to run your mouth off about how stupid you think other people are?

*****CHUCKLE*****

That's you reply? The sum total of what you have to say is this? You could not divine, conceive or concoct a cogent reply?

Should your opinion then matter?

What reply would you have me give since there was no interrogative in your hate filled drivel about conservatives?

Tell us why your opinion should matter since you've dodged the questions I've put forward to you?

Obviously you're nothing more than a pathetic follower of a cult who wouldn't know a nanosecond from a quantum singularity much less a integrated formula from a linear equation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Obviously, eh? Your opinion does not matter as your assumption is too wacky to consider.

 

[westwall]

I dont understand the republican train of thought to just do nothing until we are in an event that could possibly wipe us out because they "dont believe it". Best case scenario is that we are not causing climate change. That doesnt mean we are not effecting it by pouring more Co2 into the atmosphere. Cons remind me of the people in the Dust Bowl times that didnt want to believe their farming habits were effecting the soil until it was too late.

Wasn't the progressive proclaimed apocalypse already supposed to have happened according to the prophet Al Gore?... Or has that now been postponed until next century?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I dont know. However werent we supposed to have flying cars by now as well? You miss the point. What if you skeptics are wrong and could have done something about it? Will the fact that the estimate was off make you feel any better as you die?

Let's assume that something could be done about it. The warmist solution is to de-industrialize and spend 76 trillion of the worlds dollars to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe. For 76 trillion dollars you can mitigate pretty much anything that is supposed to happen, and not suffer the death and destruction of de-industrialization.

And, more to the point, no one has provided any evidence that warmer is worse. The historical record is replete with factual data that shows a warmer world is a better world.

Youre getting caught up on the seemingly insignificance of a degree or 2. Think of it like this. If your child was running a fever and it went up another degree would it worry you or would you laugh it off?

Every day i experience a change in temp of around 30 degree's. I have experienced a net change of over 100 degree's one time out in Death Valley. Other than being uncomfortable I didn't notice.

The same is true of the globe. Go to Brazil, their avg temp is 6 degrees warmer than the USA. They have no trouble growing food or living. In other words a few degree's really doesn't seem to matter in terms of food production. In fact, when it's warmer food production increases.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who told you the last Ice Age was caused by EXCESS CO2?

Humans contribute about 5% of what Mother Nature emits in CO2 every year. And about 1/2 of that is CURRENTLY absorbed by plant life on the surface and by the oceans. That's the magnitude of your "excess" in the natural CO2 cycle.

We've had warming/cooling periods of 50 years or more several times since humans came to be. About every 1000 yrs. The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm period, the Little Ice Age in the 1650s to 1750s .. NONE of that was due to CO2 emissions (although the cooling might have been EXTENDED by volcanic activity, it was not the cause.. The Maunder Minimum of the Sun extended the duration of the LIA)

C'mon man -- I don't read propaganda. I think and study the topic. Man emissions of CO2 MIGHT contribute about 1degC/ century to any LARGER and underlying natural cycles that ARE NOT being explored and properly considered.

I never said anything about an ice age. I said last climate change and since we were talking about warming I dont understand where you got the idea I was referring to an ice age?

What was the "last climate event" that you were referring to then?

Plenty of qualified skeptics to field a DOZEN public debates.. What do you care if the political activist warmer scientists like Mann and Hansen and Trenberth clean their clocks and embarrass them??

It's this political precept that you DON'T debate when you're AHEAD. You only debate when you are behind that keeps this from happening..

The last period of global warming.

The Last Great Global Warming

Don't have to skip the 4 Ice Ages and all those climate changes I listed above to go back to 56Mill years ago to find climate change. .. Especially a measly 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Yeah you do. I was talking about warming not the ice age.

But if you look at the 4 recent Ice Ages, there is a difference of about 12degC between the very long icy periods and the MUCH more narrower "temperature optimums" like the one that man has experienced. Looking at the percentages by time -- these "livable" periods of temperatures are the EXCEPTION to the past climate history. And OURS is already longer than the previous 3 or 4. That "unusual" 12degC warming is the whole reason we're not cave monkeys anymore..

Lots of details about "climate optimums" that have been misreprented by the press and the activists. It's VERY likely that temperatures varied at LEAST a couple degrees during those "warm periods" as well. All WITHOUT SUVs and fossil fuel power generators.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont understand the republican train of thought to just do nothing until we are in an event that could possibly wipe us out because they "dont believe it". Best case scenario is that we are not causing climate change. That doesnt mean we are not effecting it by pouring more Co2 into the atmosphere. Cons remind me of the people in the Dust Bowl times that didnt want to believe their farming habits were effecting the soil until it was too late.

Wasn't the progressive proclaimed apocalypse already supposed to have happened according to the prophet Al Gore?... Or has that now been postponed until next century?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I dont know. However werent we supposed to have flying cars by now as well? You miss the point. What if you skeptics are wrong and could have done something about it? Will the fact that the estimate was off make you feel any better as you die?

Let's assume that something could be done about it. The warmist solution is to de-industrialize and spend 76 trillion of the worlds dollars to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe. For 76 trillion dollars you can mitigate pretty much anything that is supposed to happen, and not suffer the death and destruction of de-industrialization.

And, more to the point, no one has provided any evidence that warmer is worse. The historical record is replete with factual data that shows a warmer world is a better world.

Youre getting caught up on the seemingly insignificance of a degree or 2. Think of it like this. If your child was running a fever and it went up another degree would it worry you or would you laugh it off?

Every day i experience a change in temp of around 30 degree's. I have experienced a net change of over 100 degree's one time out in Death Valley. Other than being uncomfortable I didn't notice.

The same is true of the globe. Go to Brazil, their avg temp is 6 degrees warmer than the USA. They have no trouble growing food or living. In other words a few degree's really doesn't seem to matter in terms of food production. In fact, when it's warmer food production increases.

Thats a logical fallacy called false equivalence. You and the climate have little to nothing in common. You dont dictate weather patterns. You cant make it hotter or colder no matter how hard you try personally. What you are not understanding is that global warming melts the polar caps which causes unpredictable weather patterns.

 

[Asclepias]

I never said anything about an ice age. I said last climate change and since we were talking about warming I dont understand where you got the idea I was referring to an ice age?

What was the "last climate event" that you were referring to then?

Plenty of qualified skeptics to field a DOZEN public debates.. What do you care if the political activist warmer scientists like Mann and Hansen and Trenberth clean their clocks and embarrass them??

It's this political precept that you DON'T debate when you're AHEAD. You only debate when you are behind that keeps this from happening..

The last period of global warming.

The Last Great Global Warming

Don't have to skip the 4 Ice Ages and all those climate changes I listed above to go back to 56Mill years ago to find climate change. .. Especially a measly 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Yeah you do. I was talking about warming not the ice age.

But if you look at the 4 recent Ice Ages, there is a difference of about 12degC between the very long icy periods and the MUCH more narrower "temperature optimums" like the one that man has experienced. Looking at the percentages by time -- these "livable" periods of temperatures are the EXCEPTION to the past climate history. And OURS is already longer than the previous 3 or 4. That "unusual" 12degC warming is the whole reason we're not cave monkeys anymore..

Lots of details about "climate optimums" that have been misreprented by the press and the activists. It's VERY likely that temperatures varied at LEAST a couple degrees during those "warm periods" as well. All WITHOUT SUVs and fossil fuel power generators.

We dont know what the cause of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was caused by. Some theories say it came from the ocean if I recall correctly. No matter where it comes from, an accumulation of CO2 will cause an issue. Why put more in the air when we don't know the effects for certain? I dont think waiting until after something occurs is the smartest solution. We should be doing everything we can or think we should to avert it. We can experiment later.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What was the "last climate event" that you were referring to then?

Plenty of qualified skeptics to field a DOZEN public debates.. What do you care if the political activist warmer scientists like Mann and Hansen and Trenberth clean their clocks and embarrass them??

It's this political precept that you DON'T debate when you're AHEAD. You only debate when you are behind that keeps this from happening..

The last period of global warming.

The Last Great Global Warming

Don't have to skip the 4 Ice Ages and all those climate changes I listed above to go back to 56Mill years ago to find climate change. .. Especially a measly 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Yeah you do. I was talking about warming not the ice age.

But if you look at the 4 recent Ice Ages, there is a difference of about 12degC between the very long icy periods and the MUCH more narrower "temperature optimums" like the one that man has experienced. Looking at the percentages by time -- these "livable" periods of temperatures are the EXCEPTION to the past climate history. And OURS is already longer than the previous 3 or 4. That "unusual" 12degC warming is the whole reason we're not cave monkeys anymore..

Lots of details about "climate optimums" that have been misreprented by the press and the activists. It's VERY likely that temperatures varied at LEAST a couple degrees during those "warm periods" as well. All WITHOUT SUVs and fossil fuel power generators.

We dont know what the cause of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was caused by. Some theories say it came from the ocean if I recall correctly. No matter where it comes from, an accumulation of CO2 will cause an issue. Why put more in the air when we don't know the effects for certain? I dont think waiting until after something occurs is the smartest solution. We should be doing everything we can or think we should to avert it. We can experiment later.

Why put more in the air when we don't know the effects for certain?

Because without carbon fuels, our economy and civilization would support billions fewer people.
So why waste $70-$80 trillion, "when we don't know the effects for certain"?

We should be doing everything we can or think we should to avert it.

Excellent idea, 100 more nuke plants would be great!

 

[flacaltenn]

The last period of global warming.

The Last Great Global Warming

Don't have to skip the 4 Ice Ages and all those climate changes I listed above to go back to 56Mill years ago to find climate change. .. Especially a measly 0.6degC in your lifetime.

Yeah you do. I was talking about warming not the ice age.

But if you look at the 4 recent Ice Ages, there is a difference of about 12degC between the very long icy periods and the MUCH more narrower "temperature optimums" like the one that man has experienced. Looking at the percentages by time -- these "livable" periods of temperatures are the EXCEPTION to the past climate history. And OURS is already longer than the previous 3 or 4. That "unusual" 12degC warming is the whole reason we're not cave monkeys anymore..

Lots of details about "climate optimums" that have been misreprented by the press and the activists. It's VERY likely that temperatures varied at LEAST a couple degrees during those "warm periods" as well. All WITHOUT SUVs and fossil fuel power generators.

We dont know what the cause of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was caused by. Some theories say it came from the ocean if I recall correctly. No matter where it comes from, an accumulation of CO2 will cause an issue. Why put more in the air when we don't know the effects for certain? I dont think waiting until after something occurs is the smartest solution. We should be doing everything we can or think we should to avert it. We can experiment later.

Why put more in the air when we don't know the effects for certain?

Because without carbon fuels, our economy and civilization would support billions fewer people.
So why waste $70-$80 trillion, "when we don't know the effects for certain"?

We should be doing everything we can or think we should to avert it.

Excellent idea, 100 more nuke plants would be great!

Since we all agree to that Toddster -- go ahead and place the order for those nuclear plants.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

When have Conservatives ever embraced science? Science is a sticky wicket for Conservatives. First, Social Conservatives fear and distrust science. Science tells them that Genesis is a myth. We were not put on this planet fully formed like a potted geranium, but just as susceptible to the forces of evolution as any other species.

I remember when asbestos and lead based paint were included on lists of hazardous materials. Comservatives balked at that notion calling the epidemiological studies demonstrating the harm of those substances "junk science". All those Conservatives could,see was the cost of abatement and remediation. They could not appreciate the health benefits, nor conceive of the jobs in engineering, training, personal protective equipment and labor abatement would bring.

And the tradition continues today. All Conservatives think is global climate change is some grand cabal engineered by Liberals to take away their gas guzzlers and close coal electric generation plants.

Pity the Conservative. Seems that they flunked out of science classes and did not do so hot in economics classes either.

So you majored in science when you were in college?

You know things like physics, astronomy, chemistry, mathematics, geology, biology, anthropology, etc...

Or did you just major at learning to run your mouth off about how stupid you think other people are?

*****CHUCKLE*****

That's you reply? The sum total of what you have to say is this? You could not divine, conceive or concoct a cogent reply?

Should your opinion then matter?

What reply would you have me give since there was no interrogative in your hate filled drivel about conservatives?

Tell us why your opinion should matter since you've dodged the questions I've put forward to you?

Obviously you're nothing more than a pathetic follower of a cult who wouldn't know a nanosecond from a quantum singularity much less a integrated formula from a linear equation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Obviously, eh? Your opinion does not matter as your assumption is too wacky to consider.

So that's all you have?

Pathetic rants about how everyone who doesn't agree with your prophets of the apocalypse have opinions that do not matter because you're a 'true believer'?

Do you donate heavily to your lead profit of the apocalypse so he can keep expending more fossil fuels running his private jets and fleet of limousines that throw off more CO2 than a small city?

Perhaps you can be hired by him so you can enjoy the benefits of 'do as I say and don't do as I do' like he does and feel...

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Wasn't the progressive proclaimed apocalypse already supposed to have happened according to the prophet Al Gore?... Or has that now been postponed until next century?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I dont know. However werent we supposed to have flying cars by now as well? You miss the point. What if you skeptics are wrong and could have done something about it? Will the fact that the estimate was off make you feel any better as you die?

Let's assume that something could be done about it. The warmist solution is to de-industrialize and spend 76 trillion of the worlds dollars to lower the global temperature by one degree in 100 years....maybe. For 76 trillion dollars you can mitigate pretty much anything that is supposed to happen, and not suffer the death and destruction of de-industrialization.

And, more to the point, no one has provided any evidence that warmer is worse. The historical record is replete with factual data that shows a warmer world is a better world.

Youre getting caught up on the seemingly insignificance of a degree or 2. Think of it like this. If your child was running a fever and it went up another degree would it worry you or would you laugh it off?

Every day i experience a change in temp of around 30 degree's. I have experienced a net change of over 100 degree's one time out in Death Valley. Other than being uncomfortable I didn't notice.

The same is true of the globe. Go to Brazil, their avg temp is 6 degrees warmer than the USA. They have no trouble growing food or living. In other words a few degree's really doesn't seem to matter in terms of food production. In fact, when it's warmer food production increases.

Thats a logical fallacy called false equivalence. You and the climate have little to nothing in common. You dont dictate weather patterns. You cant make it hotter or colder no matter how hard you try personally. What you are not understanding is that global warming melts the polar caps which causes unpredictable weather patterns.

You mean like the logical fallacy of false equivalency that you're attempting to submit into this discussion by comparing the earth to a child and if either one's temperature is raised by one degree? The two are no where near being the same... But it does make you sound like some proponent of Gaia or the theory of intelligent design... Are you some sort of religious fanatic in disguise pushing your faith on people through government policy? You do realize that there's supposed to be a separation of church and state and that your religious beliefs are not allowed to set government policy?

I've already stated that I can cause the temperature of the earth drop by several degrees world wide for a number of years if you feel this issue is that important.

Do you want to test the my theory? If so there's no reversing it after it's done.

*****CHUCKLE*****