Why is climate science political?

[Toddsterpatriot]

When challenged, tuck tail, and run. A reasonable position for someone with nothing to fight with.

You're challenging me about the EPA's claim?

What you are supposed to do, ToddQueer, is put the correct page number AND some text, after your link. What you did was put up a link, to a bullshit paper, with a page number 20, leading to the appendix. Then you pasted some shit from a queer porn site, without reference, and now you are a punkass queer, ranting about the EPA, without reference, except you are a punkass queer, who doesn't intend to provide a reference because you are a punk.

You are here for some reason, maybe because you like how Pig Shitz and Wally Fucktard blow off GOP regular professor, Trakar. You neo-cons are long on queer, short on brains, and you are blowing off any proper Republicans, since you are assholes and Pig Shitz, so Trakar has no chance. I wonder when he will finally give up on the GOP, which has been queer, for years!

Not that I'd have anything to do with Democrats, all at once.

You poor girl.
Dispute the EPA numbers all you want. It's funny.

 

[Big Fitz]

You're challenging me about the EPA's claim?

What you are supposed to do, ToddQueer, is put the correct page number AND some text, after your link. What you did was put up a link, to a bullshit paper, with a page number 20, leading to the appendix. Then you pasted some shit from a queer porn site, without reference, and now you are a punkass queer, ranting about the EPA, without reference, except you are a punkass queer, who doesn't intend to provide a reference because you are a punk.

You are here for some reason, maybe because you like how Pig Shitz and Wally Fucktard blow off GOP regular professor, Trakar. You neo-cons are long on queer, short on brains, and you are blowing off any proper Republicans, since you are assholes and Pig Shitz, so Trakar has no chance. I wonder when he will finally give up on the GOP, which has been queer, for years!

Not that I'd have anything to do with Democrats, all at once.

You poor girl.
Dispute the EPA numbers all you want. It's funny.

LOL... thanks for sharing that post. I see a lot of "BWAAA! You pricks won't obey me!!!" in it.

Yep. Still made the right choice now stop quoting booboo. It don't need to be fed anymore.

 

[bobgnote]

Pig Shitz and Turdsterqueer could use the Log Cabin Club message board to get together, but here they are. You guys don't paste any referenced links or text, and you write shit.

Watching Turdsterqueer take Trakar off got disgusting. Trakar is GOP, Shitz and Turdster are Log Cabin bitches, who may have once been Y.R.s, but they got lost, since there's no more Y.R.s. How does Trakar deal with you idiots? He doesn't go to Republican events, or he'd have to meet assholes like you two.

I have been to pub events. Assholes are everywhere. They talk, like Turdster and Shitz write! That won't do.

Is there any reason you post, at an environment thread? Don't you punks like each other? Your asses are on fire, at the same time. I guess typing crap is how you punks actualize your punk dreams.

 

[code1211]

This is simply incorrect.

Even the chart you are using indicates a mean temp average warming from 1600 to 1850 of less than 0.2º C, temps have risen (excluding that last 8 years as per your graph) nearly 5x as much, or approximately 1.0º C.




Again, simply incorrect, the coolest our planet has been is estimated at around minus 50 C in some of the possible snowball events.

To the first point, we disagree on the amount of increase in the periods before and after the cause that you cite as the driving factor in the warming, but we do agree that the warming started before the cause you cite as the driving factor in the warming.

It is not a single warming. We can distinguish between CO2 emitted from short-term sinks by warming temperatures from CO2 emitted by burning fossil-fuels due to the ratio of 12C - 13C isotopes in the resulting atmospheric CO2 component. Biological processes tend to concentrate 13C in their tissues. Being an unstable isotope, when this material is sequestered for tens - hundreds of millions of years, it tends to decay. The remaining carbon is deficient in the normal 13C to 12C ratios. Carbon that is only in surface sinks for a few thousands - hundreds of thousands of years (like the CO2 in the oceans, permafrosts, and other soil sinks) doesn't lose anywhere near as much 13C. They are complex calculations but we can determine to a high degree of accuracy, how much CO2 in the atmosphere is directly attributable to natural sinks, and how much came from burning fossil fuels.

The future, therefore, causes the past.

There is no indication that I am aware of, of any short or long-term global climate warming occurring prior to the trends of anthropogenically emitted CO2 induced warming. There is some indication that masking effects of increased vulcanism aerosols which caused NH regional cooling in an especially tectonically active couple of centuries commonly called the little ice-age, ended and temperatures slowly returned to normal ranges,...but I wouldn't qualify that as a "warming" so much as a return to previous equilibrium states.

Revise the statement to include only the last 65 million years. The recent times in our climate's temperature are more cool right now compared to any period in the last 65 million years.

Revise the statement to indicate the cool period as meaning the last 3-4 million years, and I'd agree that we were cooler than any other period over the last 65 My. Currently, however, we have left those cool times behind. We are already hotter than anytime in the last few million years., and at the pace we are going, will surpass PETM records next century.

Link?

This link disagrees with your assertion:
File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

This one, too:
File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Both show that we are significantly cooler today and not just be a degree or two.

 

[code1211]

This is simply incorrect.

Even the chart you are using indicates a mean temp average warming from 1600 to 1850 of less than 0.2º C, temps have risen (excluding that last 8 years as per your graph) nearly 5x as much, or approximately 1.0º C.




Again, simply incorrect, the coolest our planet has been is estimated at around minus 50 C in some of the possible snowball events.

To the first point, we disagree on the amount of increase in the periods before and after the cause that you cite as the driving factor in the warming, but we do agree that the warming started before the cause you cite as the driving factor in the warming.

It is not a single warming. We can distinguish between CO2 emitted from short-term sinks by warming temperatures from CO2 emitted by burning fossil-fuels due to the ratio of 12C - 13C isotopes in the resulting atmospheric CO2 component. Biological processes tend to concentrate 13C in their tissues. Being an unstable isotope, when this material is sequestered for tens - hundreds of millions of years, it tends to decay. The remaining carbon is deficient in the normal 13C to 12C ratios. Carbon that is only in surface sinks for a few thousands - hundreds of thousands of years (like the CO2 in the oceans, permafrosts, and other soil sinks) doesn't lose anywhere near as much 13C. They are complex calculations but we can determine to a high degree of accuracy, how much CO2 in the atmosphere is directly attributable to natural sinks, and how much came from burning fossil fuels.

I didn't see the part about the temperature not increasing until the Industrial Revolution started.

If the warming started before the Industrial Revolution, it started before the Industrial revolution. If this is true and it certainly is, then the cause cannot be the cause that you rely on.

Why do you resist this obvious conclusion?

 

[code1211]

We currently use fossil fuels for most transportation work, this does not mean that it is the only method possible to accomplish these tasks. If you believe that it is the only method of accomplishing these tasks and if we stopped using fossil fuels we would not accomplish farming, harvesting, packaging, processing, transportation and distribution, you are either delusional, or simply being disingenuous.

Fossil fuels are used in every step of the process and power the vehicles and machines that do the work.

While it may not be the only method method available, it is the method that has allowed the vast increase in the world's population. That increase is due in large part to the ability of the race to feed itself.

Note in the link that the world's population increases as the use of the combustion engine spreads worldwide.

Please recall that half of the land vehicles used by the Nazis to invade France were drawn by horses.

File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

none of which supports your implied correlation that if we stop using fossil fuels we have no other option but to cease the activities that we currently use fossil fuels to support. We didn't live huddled in the dark every night because we stopped using whale oil to fuel our lanterns.

That's true. The use of Whale oil was replaced by the use of fossil fuels, the electronic revolution, gas driven generators, coal fired turbines and the implementation of plastics as a by product of the use of Fossil Fuels.

The explosion in population did not occur until more food was available and it became available as the result of the use of the fossil fuel driven technologies of the 20th Century.

Sometime in the future, but certainly not today, there might be technologies that make Fossil Fuels obsolete. You will know when that occurs because people will speak of Fossil Fuels then as we speak of Whale Oil today.

Again, why do you resist such an obvious conlusion?

 

[code1211]

Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.

Wait til the moaning that follows the leaching of the Mercury from the new lights into our ground water and food.

 

[code1211]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate and what conditions they are dependent upon, I wouldn't comment on that hyperpartisan propaganda piece much at all.

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

What cost do you feel is a reasonable cost?

 

[Old Rocks]

Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.

Wait til the moaning that follows the leaching of the Mercury from the new lights into our ground water and food.

LOL. Code, old boy, you know damned well that the coal fired plants put far more mercury into our environment than the flourescents have or ever will. And the LEDs don't have mercury in them. More misdirection on your part to cover for the damage that the use of fossil fuels is doing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Until you provide a valid and verifiable reference indicating that those numbers are even ball-park accurate

Feel free to ask the EPA about their estimate. Let me know what they say. Thanks!

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

What cost do you feel is a reasonable cost?

Lets see. A reasonable cost might be several orders of magnitude less than what the continued use of fossil fuels is going to cost in the not too distant future. According to Swiss Re and Munich Re we are already seeing major costs associated with global warming.

 

[Oddball]

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

What cost do you feel is a reasonable cost?

Lets see. A reasonable cost might be several orders of magnitude less than what the continued use of fossil fuels is going to cost in the not too distant future. According to Swiss Re and Munich Re we are already seeing major costs associated with global warming.

Could you be just a teeeeeeeny bit more vague?

 

[bobgnote]

To the first point, we disagree on the amount of increase in the periods before and after the cause that you cite as the driving factor in the warming, but we do agree that the warming started before the cause you cite as the driving factor in the warming.

It is not a single warming. We can distinguish between CO2 emitted from short-term sinks by warming temperatures from CO2 emitted by burning fossil-fuels due to the ratio of 12C - 13C isotopes in the resulting atmospheric CO2 component. Biological processes tend to concentrate 13C in their tissues. Being an unstable isotope, when this material is sequestered for tens - hundreds of millions of years, it tends to decay. The remaining carbon is deficient in the normal 13C to 12C ratios. Carbon that is only in surface sinks for a few thousands - hundreds of thousands of years (like the CO2 in the oceans, permafrosts, and other soil sinks) doesn't lose anywhere near as much 13C. They are complex calculations but we can determine to a high degree of accuracy, how much CO2 in the atmosphere is directly attributable to natural sinks, and how much came from burning fossil fuels.

There is no indication that I am aware of, of any short or long-term global climate warming occurring prior to the trends of anthropogenically emitted CO2 induced warming. There is some indication that masking effects of increased vulcanism aerosols which caused NH regional cooling in an especially tectonically active couple of centuries commonly called the little ice-age, ended and temperatures slowly returned to normal ranges,...but I wouldn't qualify that as a "warming" so much as a return to previous equilibrium states.

Revise the statement to include only the last 65 million years. The recent times in our climate's temperature are more cool right now compared to any period in the last 65 million years.

Revise the statement to indicate the cool period as meaning the last 3-4 million years, and I'd agree that we were cooler than any other period over the last 65 My. Currently, however, we have left those cool times behind. We are already hotter than anytime in the last few million years., and at the pace we are going, will surpass PETM records next century.

Link?

This link disagrees with your assertion:
File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

This one, too:
File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Both show that we are significantly cooler today and not just be a degree or two.

CodePunk, you are an idiot, without doubt. Take a look at the 56 m.y.a. peak, which is the PETM, to which Trakar refers.

What Trakar has said in the past (from my memory) is we are at 10x the rate of CO2 emissions, relative to the PETM. Trakar again refers to the PETM, as the event we will surpass, which I can assure you relates to warming, acidification, SLR, and accelerated response, of those factors. Trakar clearly mentions carbon, asshole.

Your graphs don't plot carbon, next to the temperature, so what are you trying to prove, you idiot? You have nothing, which relates to what Trakar said, then or now.

Meanwhile, the Koch Bros. apparently got tired of their fellow pubs being not as smart, as Trakar is. So they funded a study:

Muller: Warming Real, “We will be in agreement” with Human Cause « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

It seems the wingpunks likely got past the GOP's Trakar, to bug Dave and Charley, with their idiocy, so in between cleaning up wingpunk-piddle with Brawny towels, they advocated relief from drug laws and partly funded the above study. I don't know how Trakar and the Kochs can stand the neo-con wingpunks, going around, but you guys are entitled, to choose your company.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is not a single warming. We can distinguish between CO2 emitted from short-term sinks by warming temperatures from CO2 emitted by burning fossil-fuels due to the ratio of 12C - 13C isotopes in the resulting atmospheric CO2 component. Biological processes tend to concentrate 13C in their tissues. Being an unstable isotope, when this material is sequestered for tens - hundreds of millions of years, it tends to decay. The remaining carbon is deficient in the normal 13C to 12C ratios. Carbon that is only in surface sinks for a few thousands - hundreds of thousands of years (like the CO2 in the oceans, permafrosts, and other soil sinks) doesn't lose anywhere near as much 13C. They are complex calculations but we can determine to a high degree of accuracy, how much CO2 in the atmosphere is directly attributable to natural sinks, and how much came from burning fossil fuels.

There is no indication that I am aware of, of any short or long-term global climate warming occurring prior to the trends of anthropogenically emitted CO2 induced warming. There is some indication that masking effects of increased vulcanism aerosols which caused NH regional cooling in an especially tectonically active couple of centuries commonly called the little ice-age, ended and temperatures slowly returned to normal ranges,...but I wouldn't qualify that as a "warming" so much as a return to previous equilibrium states.



Revise the statement to indicate the cool period as meaning the last 3-4 million years, and I'd agree that we were cooler than any other period over the last 65 My. Currently, however, we have left those cool times behind. We are already hotter than anytime in the last few million years., and at the pace we are going, will surpass PETM records next century.

Link?

This link disagrees with your assertion:
File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

This one, too:
File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Both show that we are significantly cooler today and not just be a degree or two.

CodePunk, you are an idiot, without doubt. Take a look at the 56 m.y.a. peak, which is the PETM, to which Trakar refers.

What Trakar has said in the past (from my memory) is we are at 10x the rate of CO2 emissions, relative to the PETM. Trakar again refers to the PETM, as the event we will surpass, which I can assure you relates to warming, acidification, SLR, and accelerated response, of those factors. Trakar clearly mentions carbon, asshole.

Your graphs don't plot carbon, next to the temperature, so what are you trying to prove, you idiot? You have nothing, which relates to what Trakar said, then or now.

Meanwhile, the Koch Bros. apparently got tired of their fellow pubs being not as smart, as Trakar is. So they funded a study:

Muller: Warming Real, “We will be in agreement” with Human Cause « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

It seems the wingpunks likely got past the GOP's Trakar, to bug Dave and Charley, with their idiocy, so in between cleaning up wingpunk-piddle with Brawny towels, they advocated relief from drug laws and partly funded the above study. I don't know how Trakar and the Kochs can stand the neo-con wingpunks, going around, but you guys are entitled, to choose your company.

but..................

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey wire........this will be the next thing blamed on global warming...........


5 Extremely Rare Orange Lobsters Discovered At Mansfield Restaurant « CBS Boston

 

[bobgnote]

Suckassbil, your boy/girlfriend Wienerbitch is having trouble convincing anybody he's a bitchin' scientist, so he isn't posting as much. Post some more smilies and tweak-pictures; see if bitch is attracted to you. If you weren't a fucktard, you might have something a zombie hermaphrodite would want, but you are so stupid, you come in dead last, right behind Oddball, in thread I.Q.

Wienerbitch isn't any smarter, than Oddball, but bitch isn't as connected, to the USMB.

You aren't anything but a tweaking, queer-cheerleader, but if you think of a way for your hermaphrodite wingpunk to bullshit us, into thinking us he's some kind of talent in the lab, Wienerbitch will come back over here, more. I guess when you find out how the Koch Brothers funded a study, which found out global warming science is valid, you will spam us up some smilies, go out, and suck a cock or two.

 

[skookerasbil]

Suckassbil, your boy/girlfriend Wienerbitch is having trouble convincing anybody he's a bitchin' scientist, so he isn't posting as much. Post some more smilies and tweak-pictures; see if bitch is attracted to you. If you weren't a fucktard, you might have something a zombie hermaphrodite would want, but you are so stupid, you come in dead last, right behind Oddball, in thread I.Q.

Wienerbitch isn't any smarter, than Oddball, but bitch isn't as connected, to the USMB.

You aren't anything but a tweaking, queer-cheerleader, but if you think of a way for your hermaphrodite wingpunk to bullshit us, into thinking us he's some kind of talent in the lab, Wienerbitch will come back over here, more. I guess when you find out how the Koch Brothers funded a study, which found out global warming science is valid, you will spam us up some smilies, go out, and suck a cock or two.

 

[code1211]

Had some of the people on this board lived at that time, they, indeed, would be huddled in the dark for lack of whale oil today. You ought to hear their groaning, pissing, and moaning about small flourescents and LED lights.

Wait til the moaning that follows the leaching of the Mercury from the new lights into our ground water and food.

LOL. Code, old boy, you know damned well that the coal fired plants put far more mercury into our environment than the flourescents have or ever will. And the LEDs don't have mercury in them. More misdirection on your part to cover for the damage that the use of fossil fuels is doing.

Of course LED's, to my knowledge, don't have Mercury. Talk about misdirection

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

Do CFLs contain mercury?
CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 4 milligrams (mg). By comparison, older thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury – an amount equal to the mercury in 125 CFLs. Mercury is an essential part of CFLs; it allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. No mercury is released when the bulbs are intact (not broken) or in use.
Most makers of light bulbs have reduced mercury in their fluorescent lighting products. Thanks to technology advances and a commitment from members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the average mercury content in CFLs has dropped at least 20 percent or more in the past several years. Some manufacturers have even made further reductions, dropping mercury content to 1 mg per light bulb.

 

[code1211]

The EPA isn't saying what you (or even the partisan senate rhetoric paper) is saying. I'm still looking for reliable IPCC reference that the cost of effectively addressing climate change is going to be 70+ Trillion dollars over the next 40 years. Which was the original claim to which I requested a cite or reference, and what you offered this link in response to. All your paper says is that the agency’s mobile source rule would probably only have a marginal impact on reducing atmospheric CO2 levels by 2100. There is no valid or legitimate discussion of the EPA's study, independent cost analyses of the rule or really much of anything that is contextually relevent to the discussion into which you inserted your link.

What cost do you feel is a reasonable cost?

Lets see. A reasonable cost might be several orders of magnitude less than what the continued use of fossil fuels is going to cost in the not too distant future. According to Swiss Re and Munich Re we are already seeing major costs associated with global warming.

So is there proof of the connection between global warming and anything? Where is the solid proof that CO2 emissions are the sole cause of warming and where is the proof that there are more weather events there there have been in the past?

There are so many if and but between your theory and the proof that the connection ceases to exist.

 

[code1211]

Link?

This link disagrees with your assertion:
File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

This one, too:
File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Both show that we are significantly cooler today and not just be a degree or two.

CodePunk, you are an idiot, without doubt. Take a look at the 56 m.y.a. peak, which is the PETM, to which Trakar refers.

What Trakar has said in the past (from my memory) is we are at 10x the rate of CO2 emissions, relative to the PETM. Trakar again refers to the PETM, as the event we will surpass, which I can assure you relates to warming, acidification, SLR, and accelerated response, of those factors. Trakar clearly mentions carbon, asshole.

Your graphs don't plot carbon, next to the temperature, so what are you trying to prove, you idiot? You have nothing, which relates to what Trakar said, then or now.

Meanwhile, the Koch Bros. apparently got tired of their fellow pubs being not as smart, as Trakar is. So they funded a study:

Muller: Warming Real, “We will be in agreement” with Human Cause « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

It seems the wingpunks likely got past the GOP's Trakar, to bug Dave and Charley, with their idiocy, so in between cleaning up wingpunk-piddle with Brawny towels, they advocated relief from drug laws and partly funded the above study. I don't know how Trakar and the Kochs can stand the neo-con wingpunks, going around, but you guys are entitled, to choose your company.

but..................

I put ol' bob on ignore, but I'm glad you posted this to show that he's found a method to communicate absent profanity.

 

[skookerasbil]

CodePunk, you are an idiot, without doubt. Take a look at the 56 m.y.a. peak, which is the PETM, to which Trakar refers.

What Trakar has said in the past (from my memory) is we are at 10x the rate of CO2 emissions, relative to the PETM. Trakar again refers to the PETM, as the event we will surpass, which I can assure you relates to warming, acidification, SLR, and accelerated response, of those factors. Trakar clearly mentions carbon, asshole.

Your graphs don't plot carbon, next to the temperature, so what are you trying to prove, you idiot? You have nothing, which relates to what Trakar said, then or now.

Meanwhile, the Koch Bros. apparently got tired of their fellow pubs being not as smart, as Trakar is. So they funded a study:

Muller: Warming Real, “We will be in agreement” with Human Cause « Climate Denial Crock of the Week

It seems the wingpunks likely got past the GOP's Trakar, to bug Dave and Charley, with their idiocy, so in between cleaning up wingpunk-piddle with Brawny towels, they advocated relief from drug laws and partly funded the above study. I don't know how Trakar and the Kochs can stand the neo-con wingpunks, going around, but you guys are entitled, to choose your company.

but..................

I put ol' bob on ignore, but I'm glad you posted this to show that he's found a method to communicate absent profanity.

Ive never placed a single k00k on ignore. This place would suck without them........no, let me rescind that. My life would SUCK without the k00ks on here. Maybe its me but I thrive on assholes making fools of themselves on public forums. Being able to mock the shit out of the mental cases is what makes this place my own personal comedy show!!