Working to cope with climate change

[bobgnote]

I just love the "pay us or you wll die" approach.

Quack, quack, duck. Got a reference, for instance, to the way regulations and taxes will charge you, without solving any accelerating warming or acidification?

Or are you quacking, at me, without reference to any of that entire quote? Dive in.

 

[flacaltenn]

And all this bandying of credits and regulation is a spank-job, without immediate re-greening. Regulations and credits are for Al Gore and his little lords of skepticism to spank on.

While the spank is moving in a perfect circle, the CO2 has made more carbonic acid, and more ocean species are dying.

THat makes no sense.

THat actually was one of Bob's most eloquent posts. And totally void of any fucktards.

 

[flacaltenn]

It sure does matter what the source is. Nature is following some type of cycle, which means WE adapt, not change the Earth. Nothing exists in a factual manner to demonstrate its manmade.

What are you disputing is man made? The amount of CO2 emitted by man is more than enough to account for the recent upward trend in atmopsheric CO2 levels.

Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming.

Keep in mind that MAN stuffs about 30GTons of CO2 into the sky. The earth stuffs 770GTons into the air in the same year. But the earth also SUCKS about 790Gtons back into it.

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory. That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

 

[flacaltenn]

And all this bandying of credits and regulation is a spank-job, without immediate re-greening. Regulations and credits are for Al Gore and his little lords of skepticism to spank on.

While the spank is moving in a perfect circle, the CO2 has made more carbonic acid, and more ocean species are dying.

THat makes no sense.

Al Gore refused to support legal pot, his whole time in any office and thereafter. The prison industry has a carbon footprint, the petroleum industry has a carbon footprint, and to remove any part of their footprint and to get biomass from hemp would be a win.

Regulations like Kyoto and Clean Air Act and credit schemes are just a lot of circle-jerk media, for media geeks like Gore and his adversary, fake-'Lord' Monckton, and for little people attracted by their media, and other people like us to bandy about, on our way to hell, if we will not immediately adjourn, to re-greening media, including biomass for fuels, food, and durable goods, and for aggressive control, of desertified or polluted areas on land and at sea.

Al Gore's circus simply blocks re-greening, while nuclear power licks its chops, at all the DDs in traffic. Any compromise media, like credits and regulations blocks re-greening, by diversion. Does this help? Having fun arguing with the fuck-tard skeptics, today?

Wow -- either the sock is out of character or the weed is running out..

 

[saveliberty]

It basically falls back on a closed system theory, which doesn't exist in reality.

 

[bobgnote]

Wow -- either the sock is out of character or the weed is running out..

Let's see, whose sock would I be, where a load of wingnuts are flying low? You assholes are each others' socks, with your heads up each others asses, just like my foot-laundry.

 

[bobgnote]

Nobody here that I know is denying CO2 is increasing. MOST of who you call deniers acknowledge there is a century of relative warming.

Keep in mind that MAN stuffs about 30GTons of CO2 into the sky. The earth stuffs 770GTons into the air in the same year. But the earth also SUCKS about 790Gtons back into it.

What we are convince of is that we don't have a complete GreenHouse theory. That there are holes that need to be filled because of experiments and observations that don't confirm equations and predictions of the warmers. And we (I'm not speaking for everyone, but generally) are APPALLED by the obvious failure of the models and the FRAUD and political shananigans that have been disclosed..

You just keep believing we're the nuts...

I keep believing you're a fuck-tard wingnut, who keeps flying low, with his wingnut pals.

You never post a link, so we can compare irrelevant studies. Part of that CO2 going back into the Earth ends up as carbonic acid, so if your study is correct, the difference in CO2 you cite as 'SUCK'ed back into the Earth ends up as carbonic acid, which is what I keep telling the smart people is the main problem, for us to attack.

I also keep telling the stupid wingnut-posses about this, but fucktard wingnuts won't post a link, which would get Old Rocks to post again, since he will go check out a wingnut-link and rebut any geek wingnut, who will go for it. But wingnuts like to hear in detail, all about how they suck, so that is my job, to tell wingnuts, how their lips seal, without posting a damn link, among them.

Whether CO2 is man-made or natural is severally irrelevant, except to stupid wingnuts, since that CO2-cycle is affected by years of human stewardship, which affects the outcome. Who needs chickenshit criteria, without carbonic acid exchange data?

Wingnut fucktardies, that's who!

If we don't attack the CO2-outcomes, natural or man-made, as long as they are current, we go to hell, in a hand-basket. The oceanic food chain goes, first, as it is doing, and then shit happens, to us on land. But wingnuts like to fly around garbage, take it in, and put it back out. GIGO should be the handle, of some wingnut, at this thread. Tards!

Your CO2 recital is just more hockey puck, dodging the stick, which is always about to game your puck, right into the goal, of re-greening, when you tards are tired of being tardy all the time.

 

[Trakar]

Is it climate change or global warming faither?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was established in 1987 to review the scientifc evidence and understandings regarding the issue of global warming.

Climate change is the process, a gradual warming of the globe is the symptom we are realizing in the modern climate change.

There is no room for faith in this issue. The science is based on facts, observations and interconnected science understandings that involve most fields of natural science.



that is your unsupported and irrational conspircay theory

None of your theories prove man is the cause of anything. Just long standing cycles that existed before man.

These are simply your false and flawed misunderstandings and arrogant ignorances on display.

IPCC, redistributing wealth through climate policy since 1987

You'll have to talk to Reagan about that, it was his idea.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists. They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.

 

[bobgnote]

The CO2 measured in the Arctic has passed the 'safe' 350 ppm level, all the way, to 400 ppm:

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

Before the industrial age, CO2 was at 275 ppm. How's that for a link, wingnutskis and wingnazis?

 

[saveliberty]

The CO2 measured in the Arctic has passed the 'safe' 350 ppm level, all the way, to 400 ppm:

Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone - CSMonitor.com

Before the industrial age, CO2 was at 275 ppm. How's that for a link, wingnutskis and wingnazis?

From your source:

"These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

I thought you said the carbon dioxide stayed in the oceans bobgnote.

 

[saveliberty]

Gonna have a further meltdown on us bob? Careful you'll cause global warming.

 

[Trakar]

LOL! So I guess Entergy Corp is an EnviroMaxist organization as well! Tell me genius how wealth gets redistributed through climate change?

Cap & Trade.

Biggest securities fraud in over a century. Literally giving well connected looters license to sell nothing at an enormous price. Goldman Sachs (major contributor to Obama) can sell you indulgences (carbon credits) which allow you to sin (manufacture goods) with the blessing of the church. You can resell the indulgences, giving a fee to the issuing agency.

Like all religions, AGW is ultimately about stealing as much money as possible before getting caught. All fraud boils down to money - global warming is a prime example.

Cap & Trade is largely ineffectual with regards to CO2 and climate issues, at the least, in my consideration; I advocate for direct carbon taxes and would prefer the tax be on the front end of the resource recovery end of the industry. It is easier to impose, fairly assess, and collect, meanwhile, if integrated with scheduled increases it accomplishes the goals of reducing emissions and funding alternative energy research and infrastructure along with a gradual program of adaptation to climate changes. If combined with a national energy bank it gives a means of dealing with local, state and federal climate/energy bonds and personal and corporate loans as well. But that is my personal preference.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists. They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.

And as usual, you are full of shit. Flap yap and no links.

AGW Observer

 

[Trakar]

It's far more reasonable to suppose that some advanced civilization took part of the Earth's crust and built the Moon than to believe that burning fossil fuels are warming the Earth and causing rising acidic oceans to eat coastlines

Only to the gullible and arrogantly ignorant.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists. They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.

And as usual, you are full of shit. Flap yap and no links.

AGW Observer

So you link AGW???

 

[Old Rocks]

Real articles from real scientists that have been published in peer reviewed journals. A whole concept that you are completely ignorant of.

 

[saveliberty]

Yes, well that was back in 1987, when climatologists were still viewed as scientists. They since have ignored about every rule and procedure in the scientific method.

And as usual, you are full of shit. Flap yap and no links.

AGW Observer

The author thinks we will be here in 5000 years. Sort of screws you on the near term end times.

 

[Trakar]

The part about 'papist wingnut' really got you going. You refer to Scientology, you drop 'cult' re AGW, I suppose, and you are suspected of a kind of baptism. Have you learned to fuck yourself, for Jesus? Have you learned to bend over, for Father Horn-dog? What's your religion, if it isn't from St.Wingnut's miserable catechism? Screw you, for not posting even one link, while taking up half a page, with your huffing and puffing.

You sure do like to elaborately segment quotes, but you fail to offer any links, to event or study reports. Phil Jones is not a bad reference, but you merely rant, since you are really fucking stupid. So quote in quote in quote and make farty replies, asshole.

I, personally, am Roman Catholic. The Church and the Pope understand AGW and have been trying to encourage good stewardship of the planet. It does no good to try and alienate and demonize any large group that is doing what they can to inform and guide people to a proper understanding of science and social/community responsibility.

"Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N." (2006) - Commit to sustainable development, fight global warming, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

"Global warming threatens world’s security, existence, Vatican tells U.N." (2007) - Global warming threatens world’s security, existence, Vatican tells U.N. - International - Catholic Online

"Catholic Church Goes Green To Counter Global Warming" (2011) - Catholic Church Goes Green To Counter Global Warming | KPBS.org

SAN DIEGO — The Pope reached across the aisle of all denominations and all nations to address the issues of global warming.

In a statement on the Vatican website, Pope Benedict XVI made a bold “call to action” for “all people in all nations.”

We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink, as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.

The bold remarks came after the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) presented new evidence on climate change to the Vatican.

PAS is an elite group of 80 scientists with various religious backgrounds from around the world...rest of this article at title link

"Will the Vatican’s declaration on global warming have an impact on the overall climate debate?" (2011) - Will the Vatican

The Pontifical Academy of Science, the Vatican’s non-denominational science panel, has declared that global action on climate change must be undertaken in order to avoid “serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases…” These warnings are part of a report entitled “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene.” The report was released along with a public address. The statement urges,

“all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.” [Read the entire statement]
...
rest of this article at title link

 

[Old Rocks]

There are many evangelicals that have looked at the problem objectively and decided that we are not acting as good stewards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Because there are a bunch of the GOP 'Conservatives' denying all of the science that has presented the evidence for AGW, does not mean that the real conservatives are doing the same. We should not stereotype groups of people, that is what the 'Conservatives' wish to do, to politisize this issue completely. It is an issue involving scientific evidence, of which 99%+ says that we are creating a huge problem for our children and grandchildren.