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.
I am well over fifty, and have seen the climate change in the last twenty years . To quote Bob Dylan, I don't need the weatherman to tell me which way the wind blows...I notice that the skeptics ( of
global warming) are mostly the youthful folks that seem to only have concern for preserving their financial or political lifestyles. They have no real window of reference here other than their biases and their own limited life experiences.
While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.
William D. Nordhaus
"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive
Und der Katze sagt:
You are aware, are you not, that the polar ice is melting?
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive
these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.
If we are producing it, then prove it. You can't.
A good place to start is this:
The AGW crowd claims that the production of CO2 starting in the Industrial Revolution and continuing through now is the cause of the warming that we currently enjoy.
However, the warming that we currently enjoy started in about 1600 when the cooling of the Little Ice Age ended. 1600 was the bottom of the graphed V of the Little Ice Age temperatures even though that period continued for a while while the warming gathered strength.
About 200 years later, the widespread use of the Steam engine started and with it the Industrial Revolution. It is your assignment to prove that the additional CO2 emissions of 1800 ad caused the warming that started in 1600 ad.
You are free to proceed.
You might also want to address why we re cooler today than we were 8000 years and why we are only 0.7 degrees warmer today than we were 2000 years ago.
For 10,000 years, our climate has moved up and down and today we are dead center in the middle of that range.
If ignorance is the justification for action, then, by all means, describe the actions that we need to take. All actions are justified by this standard.
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive
these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.
If we are producing it, then prove it. You can't.
A good place to start is this:
The AGW crowd claims that the production of CO2 starting in the Industrial Revolution and continuing through now is the cause of the warming that we currently enjoy.
However, the warming that we currently enjoy started in about 1600 when the cooling of the Little Ice Age ended. 1600 was the bottom of the graphed V of the Little Ice Age temperatures even though that period continued for a while while the warming gathered strength.
About 200 years later, the widespread use of the Steam engine started and with it the Industrial Revolution. It is your assignment to prove that the additional CO2 emissions of 1800 ad caused the warming that started in 1600 ad.
You are free to proceed.
You might also want to address why we re cooler today than we were 8000 years and why we are only 0.7 degrees warmer today than we were 2000 years ago.
For 10,000 years, our climate has moved up and down and today we are dead center in the middle of that range.
If ignorance is the justification for action, then, by all means, describe the actions that we need to take. All actions are justified by this standard.
While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.
William D. Nordhaus
"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books
I think you need to address the Conservation of Energy question, first. If CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR and CO2 has been going up, what happens to the extra energy re-emitted back towards earth? I may not be able to definitively prove temps have risen, but given one of the basic principles of science, you MUST show that the energy re-emited towards earth transforms to something other than heat or I win on logic alone.
While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.
William D. Nordhaus
"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books
An economist says so. What a dumbass!
Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home
AMEG Position
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
We declare there now exists an extremely high international security risk* from abrupt and runaway global warming being triggered by the end-summer collapse of Arctic sea ice towards a fraction of the current record and release of huge quantities of methane gas from the seabed. Such global warming would lead at first to worldwide crop failures but ultimately and inexorably to the collapse of civilization as we know it. This colossal threat demands an immediate emergency scale response to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. The latest available data indicates that a sea ice collapse is more than likely by 2015 and even possible this summer (2012). Thus some measures to counter the threat have to be ready within a few months.
The immediacy of this risk is underlined by the discovery of vast areas of continental shelf already in a critical condition as a result of the warming of the Arctic Ocean seabed. Increasingly large quantities of methane are being emitted from the seabed. Moreover there is the possibility of methane held as hydrates or under thawing permafrost being suddenly released in very large quantities due to some disturbance such as an earthquake. The quantities of methane in the continental shelf are so vast that a release of only one or two percent of the methane could lead to the release of the remaining methane in an unstoppable chain reaction. Global warming would spiral upward way beyond the 2 degrees which many scientists consider the safety limit.
Still waiting for:
1. One (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how even an instantaneous .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "Global Warming" and
2. A coherent explanation of how CO2 is both simultaneously exiting the oceans in an imaginary "Feedback Loop" and saturating the oceans thereby causing them to turn "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Thank you.
While some people cling to partisan or ideology driven beliefs, others consider the consequences of sailing to ends of the earth and finding it round and not flat. Discovery opens up a new chapter in human existence.
William D. Nordhaus
"Yale economist rebuts sceptics' arguments, point by point. The earth is getting warmer. Due to carbon dioxide pollution. Humans are responsible. The science is legitimate. It's a bad situation. It's worth taking action."
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong by William D. Nordhaus | The New York Review of Books
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates how a even an instantaneous .01% change, much less one that happens over 150 years as you allege produces ANY of the results you allege?
Can you produce a single laboratory experiment, or even a coherent explanation, that demonstrates how CO2 is simultaneously leaving the ocean in a "Feedback loop" and increasing in the ocean turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive
these are almost irrelevant and highly stupid fucking questions that don't deserve answer, because the presumption here is that if an answer can't be produced, or a lab result shown, then AGW is false... well, that isn't true. A lab result has no absolute bearing on a reality that is so much bigger, and can not be produced in a small lab. We are talking about an organism as incredibly complex as Earth, and its weather system, which is too complex to model in a lab, yet dumbass are asserting that because it is still cold in certain places, AGW must be false... that is just base level idiocy. Either we are, or are not producing this global warming. We don't get to choose, and just because there is the possibility that some are making money off the possibility of this happening, or that some are using fear to get people concerned, doesn't change the objective reality. Godamn it you AGW deniers piss me off. You are as bad as creationists. AGW is real, and our children are going to pay for your fucking arrogance.
Still waiting for:
1. One (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how even an instantaneous .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "Global Warming" and
2. A coherent explanation of how CO2 is both simultaneously exiting the oceans in an imaginary "Feedback Loop" and saturating the oceans thereby causing them to turn "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Thank you.
read the whole thing in order to understand the argument instead of pulling out selected bits out of context
One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming.
Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates."
We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years. -
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily
Still waiting for:
1. One (1) repeatable laboratory experiment that shows how even an instantaneous .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere causes "Global Warming" and
2. A coherent explanation of how CO2 is both simultaneously exiting the oceans in an imaginary "Feedback Loop" and saturating the oceans thereby causing them to turn "acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Thank you.
read the whole thing in order to understand the argument instead of pulling out selected bits out of context
And you can post an experiment or provide an explanation as requested because....?
Ideological conservatives disbelieve claims that fracking can cause earthquakes because the science is not clear?
Ideological conservatives disbelieve the claims about man made contributions to global warming because the science isn't clear?
One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming.
Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates."
We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years. -
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data | TG Daily
Do ideological conservatives believe man made contributions to teh atmosphere have a negative effect? Do they believe that the effect is just not what most scientists say it is?
When do a majority of scientist have more credibility than a small minority of scientists?
