Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It should, but you're not bright enough to recognize it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.Well... THAT really put me in MY place.
If AGW is as catastrophic as you all claim, and your proposed "solution" will mitigate only a small part of the effects, then the only thing you're after is political power and government control over individual lives.
One thing is undeniable for everybody. We will run out of fossil fuels.
Before that, as various FFs deplete, we have to define and construct a completely new, and sustainable energy infrastructure. I'm thinking that, like the building of our present system, will take 100-200 years.
What do you think?
His graph would, too, if it weren't compressed to represent 300,000 years.
I do accept that for most of the Earth's history, increased CO2 has been a result of temperature increase rather than a cause. However, work last year by Jeremy Shakun (of Marcott and Shakun fame) showed that in many instances during the Holocene, increasing CO2 levels caused substantially MORE warming than the initial effect which triggered their own release. However, that was not the point.
During the 19th, 20th and 21st century, the correlation between CO2 level and global heat content has been exceptionally tight and through it all, CO2 levels have led.
The 300,000 year scale has nothing to do with any point I am trying to make. If you're interested, CO2 levels are now at values they have not reached in over 800,000 years.
Wow. I was right. You really DO expect people to just take your word for it.Woo-woo, Dave can R E A D.I challenge your source. I much prefer ImageShack over Tinypic.
Wait -- you didn't really think we were just going to take your word that these graphs are accurate, did you?
You DID?
You really know no lower bound, do you. Tell you what: fuck off asshole.
That depends on the quality of your source, doesn't it?I just finished reading a post in which Abraham responded to a comment by posting a graph. After realizing the person he was talking to was taking visual cues from a picture and ignoring the information in the graph...
I believe that's me you're talking about.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...rming-over-the-past-20-years.html#post7831617
The information in his graph is meaningless. No source, no citations, nothing but numbers and lines that ANYONE could have simply made up.
You can accept it as valid, but you'd be taking it on faith.
And that's the problem with AGW: The science doesn't back it up, so it has to be taken on faith.
So, when I give you the source for those data, you're going to admit you were wrong and apologize for being such a top-notch dickhead all this time. Right?
Possibly. Wind and solar simply can't provide the kind of power we need to replace fossil fuels. And they're useless for transportation purposes.It should, but you're not bright enough to recognize it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.Well... THAT really put me in MY place.
If AGW is as catastrophic as you all claim, and your proposed "solution" will mitigate only a small part of the effects, then the only thing you're after is political power and government control over individual lives.
One thing is undeniable for everybody. We will run out of fossil fuels.
Before that, as various FFs deplete, we have to define and construct a completely new, and sustainable energy infrastructure. I'm thinking that, like the building of our present system, will take 100-200 years.
What do you think?
Possibly. Wind and solar simply can't provide the kind of power we need to replace fossil fuels. And they're useless for transportation purposes.It should, but you're not bright enough to recognize it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.
If AGW is as catastrophic as you all claim, and your proposed "solution" will mitigate only a small part of the effects, then the only thing you're after is political power and government control over individual lives.
One thing is undeniable for everybody. We will run out of fossil fuels.
Before that, as various FFs deplete, we have to define and construct a completely new, and sustainable energy infrastructure. I'm thinking that, like the building of our present system, will take 100-200 years.
What do you think?
The right wing thinks 75% of scientists have no integrity.
Possibly. Wind and solar simply can't provide the kind of power we need to replace fossil fuels. And they're useless for transportation purposes.It should, but you're not bright enough to recognize it, nor honest enough to acknowledge it.
If AGW is as catastrophic as you all claim, and your proposed "solution" will mitigate only a small part of the effects, then the only thing you're after is political power and government control over individual lives.
One thing is undeniable for everybody. We will run out of fossil fuels.
Before that, as various FFs deplete, we have to define and construct a completely new, and sustainable energy infrastructure. I'm thinking that, like the building of our present system, will take 100-200 years.
What do you think?
Who knows? We have no way of knowing, really, how much remains in the ground.Possibly. Wind and solar simply can't provide the kind of power we need to replace fossil fuels. And they're useless for transportation purposes.One thing is undeniable for everybody. We will run out of fossil fuels.
Before that, as various FFs deplete, we have to define and construct a completely new, and sustainable energy infrastructure. I'm thinking that, like the building of our present system, will take 100-200 years.
What do you think?
I think that you are agreeing that it will probably or possibly take all the years left of our FF reserves to build a replacement system. Right?
