A REAL threat to the planet.

[mamooth]

Cuccinelli lost the election in Virginia largely because of his witch hunt against Dr. Mann.

Suck on that, denialists. Your Stalinist tactics now exact a price. They caused you to lose that election, and they're going to keep causing you to lose elections, because the nation now largely thinks you're a bunch of dishonest kooks.

 

[flacaltenn]

Cuccinelli lost the election in Virginia largely because of his witch hunt against Dr. Mann.

Suck on that, denialists. Your Stalinist tactics now exact a price. They caused you to lose that election, and they're going to keep causing you to lose elections, because the nation now largely thinks you're a bunch of dishonest kooks.

You can "believe" that theory if it makes you happy.. But most of the voters in Virginia couldn't tell you what Dr Mann does for a living. Cuccinelli had a long list of baggage.
And the Libertarian at 7% took about 5 times the margin of victory.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're babbling.

AGW is real. A huge majority of the world's experts accept it. GHGs are a far larger source of warming than the utterly trivial TSI. This ongoing effort to suggest it's not by finding periods of high temperatures in the past is just disinformational bullshit and if you've got an ounce of intelligence you'll accept that. If you've got an ounce of moral fiber, you'll reject the strategy.

You can continue to misrepresent my position --- if it makes YOU better... ((I'm trying to soothe all you suckers this morning)).. YOU NEED that misinformation that temperatures have never spiked during man's existence on this planet. It's the CORE of your assertions that this is UNPRECENDENTED and STUNNING..

But it's based on evidence that LESS THAN 30% of climate scientists think is adequate. THAT should move you to tears considering how much YOU DEPEND on polling and consensus..

We dont NEED proxy studies for THIS evidence of impact threats. But it's gonna continue to languish because there is no policy or financial gain attached to finding and neutralizing asteroids.

CNN did a piece on this yesterday. Quoting new evidence that significant impacts are probably a decadal event. Just a matter of time before parts of Lisbon or Philadelphia become the "polar bear" argument that gets traction for the cause.

 

[Abraham3]

Assume for a second that 97% of active climate scientists are correct in their assertion that the primary cause of the warming we've undergone is human GHG emissions. What, then, does it matter what the Earth may have undergone in the distant past? The human species and, more importantly, current human infrastructure, have NOT undergone any such event. The MWP might have been global and it might have been as warm as we are now but human population was a small fraction of its current number and, besides, we're just getting started. Do you see ANY sign that GHG emissions are being curbed? What do you think the temperature anomaly will be in 300 years? 6C? 12C? 20C? At some point, probably in the middle age of our children, it will become undeniably obvious to everyone on the planet that we have fucked ourselves quite royally and there won't be jack shit to be done about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Assume for a second that 97% of active climate scientists are correct in their assertion that the primary cause of the warming we've undergone is human GHG emissions. What, then, does it matter what the Earth may have undergone in the distant past? The human species and, more importantly, current human infrastructure, have NOT undergone any such event. The MWP might have been global and it might have been as warm as we are now but human population was a small fraction of its current number and, besides, we're just getting started. Do you see ANY sign that GHG emissions are being curbed? What do you think the temperature anomaly will be in 300 years? 6C? 12C? 20C? At some point, probably in the middle age of our children, it will become undeniably obvious to everyone on the planet that we have fucked ourselves quite royally and there won't be jack shit to be done about it.

Be glad to discuss that in the APPROPRIATE thread.. Not ALL threads in this forum are ABOUT CO2 theories.

Haven't "fucked (anything) quite royally".. As other threads about nuclear power have demonstrated this week on this forum --- we have a SOLUTION to your nightmare at hand. It's just that you and the other prostelytizers are not scaring folks enough with your doomy prophesies MORE than they are scared by the technology of nuclear power..

I want to discuss the OP..

 

[Abraham3]

I suggest you reread the lead post in this thread. Westwall made two points: the threat of asteroid strike may be higher and AGW is bullshit. I am not derailing anything. And this seems an odd time for your to take an odd position. I can't say I've EVER seen you complain about discussion going off topic. Why now?

 

[flacaltenn]

I suggest you reread the lead post in this thread. Westwall made two points: the threat of asteroid strike may be higher and AGW is bullshit. I am not derailing anything. And this seems an odd time for your to take an odd position. I can't say I've EVER seen you complain about discussion going off topic. Why now?

Because I'm an environmentalist that tired of the silly obsession that CO2 is the biggest AND ONLY threat to the health and well-being of planet?

A couple Tanguskas could wipe your little party right off the media playground.

It's hard to explain to a warmer --- so let me put it in terms you'll understand..
It's like trying to explain to a fundamentalist snake-handling Christian that MAYBE --- JUST MAYBE --- dancing and a beer are NOT the only and the bigger threats to society.

(I do not intentionally offend those of faith.. So any sober, anti-dancing, snake-handlers out there --- This was an emergency use of an analogy)

 

[Abraham3]

I suggest you reread the lead post in this thread. Westwall made two points: the threat of asteroid strike may be higher and AGW is bullshit. I am not derailing anything. And this seems an odd time for your to take an odd position. I can't say I've EVER seen you complain about discussion going off topic. Why now?

Because I'm an environmentalist that tired of the silly obsession that CO2 is the biggest AND ONLY threat to the health and well-being of planet?

That doesn't answer the question: why do you choose this time and place to gripe about going off topic (particularly when I haven't done so)?

A couple Tanguskas could wipe your little party right off the media playground.

Is that some sort of implied threat of violence? Childish twaddle.

It's hard to explain to a warmer --- so let me put it in terms you'll understand..

Shove it.

It's like trying to explain to a fundamentalist snake-handling Christian that MAYBE --- JUST MAYBE --- dancing and a beer are NOT the only and the bigger threats to society.

(I do not intentionally offend those of faith.. So any sober, anti-dancing, snake-handlers out there --- This was an emergency use of an analogy)

So... you have absolutely nothing on any of the topics under discussion here. IMpressive.

 

[mamooth]

But the topic of this thread makes no sense.

It makes an idiot implication that the people of earth can either search for asteroids or address global warming, but not do both.

And it makes a kook claim that warming is beneficial, which is especially laughable now, given that we've just seen the most powerful storm in recorded history.

So, the only thing this thread is useful for is proving the lack of logical thinking ability in those who agree with its premises.

 

[westwall]

But the topic of this thread makes no sense.

It makes an idiot implication that the people of earth can either search for asteroids or address global warming, but not do both.

And it makes a kook claim that warming is beneficial, which is especially laughable now, given that we've just seen the most powerful storm in recorded history.

So, the only thing this thread is useful for is proving the lack of logical thinking ability in those who agree with its premises.

The world has a finite amount of money, something you collectivists seem unable to grasp.
We can either spend loads of cash developing and deploying a asteroid detection/aversion system....OR we can spend that money in an attempt (who's primary unintended ((or is it intended?)) consequence is to REDUCE the economic output of the planet...which will even further reduce the amount of cash available for an asteroid defense system.

As far as the benefit of a warm world we have ample historical evidence to support that assertion. The Romans wrote extensively about their world and so did the medieval scholars. They present more than enough compelling evidence to show that they benefited GREATLY from the warm world they enjoyed. Conversely if you wish to experience a pestilential, famine ridden warring world then look no further than the Dark Ages which enjoyed a cooling period so severe it is called the "6th Century Climate Catastrophe".

So, the only people who seem incapable of carrying on a logical scientifically based discussion are you and yours.

 

[Abraham3]

The world has a finite amount of money, something you collectivists seem unable to grasp.

Finite?!?!? No WAY Dude! Money grows on trees. Marx told us so.

We can either spend loads of cash developing and deploying a asteroid detection/aversion system....OR we can spend that money in an attempt (who's primary unintended ((or is it intended?)) consequence is to REDUCE the economic output of the planet...which will even further reduce the amount of cash available for an asteroid defense system.

Really? Those are our two choices? Is your side of this argument REALLY that lacking in substance?

As far as the benefit of a warm world we have ample historical evidence to support that assertion. The Romans wrote extensively about their world and so did the medieval scholars. They present more than enough compelling evidence to show that they benefited GREATLY from the warm world they enjoyed. Conversely if you wish to experience a pestilential, famine ridden warring world then look no further than the Dark Ages which enjoyed a cooling period so severe it is called the "6th Century Climate Catastrophe".

You are one confused poster. There was no cool period in the 6th century. The Dark Ages is a loaded term with a variety of definitions, none of which involve climate. The coolest period in the last several thousand years was the LIA from the 14th to the 19th century. And, of course, no one writing during the Roman era, the MWP or the LIA would have been able to describe the effect of differing climate regimes on present day human culture. They didn't have the population or the industry. And, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the temperature change that has taken place in the last 150 years has occurred at a rate not seen in tens of millions of years. No HOMINIDS, much less modern humans, have ever undergone climate change at the pace we are currently experiencing.

So, the only people who seem incapable of carrying on a logical scientifically based discussion are you and yours.

Irony, thy name begins with 'W'.

 

[westwall]

The world has a finite amount of money, something you collectivists seem unable to grasp.

Finite?!?!? No WAY Dude! Money grows on trees. Marx told us so.

We can either spend loads of cash developing and deploying a asteroid detection/aversion system....OR we can spend that money in an attempt (who's primary unintended ((or is it intended?)) consequence is to REDUCE the economic output of the planet...which will even further reduce the amount of cash available for an asteroid defense system.

Really? Those are our two choices? Is your side of this argument REALLY that lacking in substance?

As far as the benefit of a warm world we have ample historical evidence to support that assertion. The Romans wrote extensively about their world and so did the medieval scholars. They present more than enough compelling evidence to show that they benefited GREATLY from the warm world they enjoyed. Conversely if you wish to experience a pestilential, famine ridden warring world then look no further than the Dark Ages which enjoyed a cooling period so severe it is called the "6th Century Climate Catastrophe".

You are one confused poster. There was no cool period in the 6th century. The Dark Ages is a loaded term with a variety of definitions, none of which involve climate. The coolest period in the last several thousand years was the LIA from the 14th to the 19th century. And, of course, no one writing during the Roman era, the MWP or the LIA would have been able to describe the effect of differing climate regimes on present day human culture. They didn't have the population or the industry. And, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the temperature change that has taken place in the last 150 years has occurred at a rate not seen in tens of millions of years. No HOMINIDS, much less modern humans, have ever undergone climate change at the pace we are currently experiencing.

So, the only people who seem incapable of carrying on a logical scientifically based discussion are you and yours.

Irony, thy name begins with 'W'.

Wow, you've NEVER read ANYTHING that doesn't come from your favored propaganda sites have you. Irony? No. Stupidity....... from you... yes.


Sun, climate, hunger, and mass migration

Sun, climate, hunger, and mass migration - Springer

Here's somk wiki, 'cause you're mentally challenged...

The extreme weather events of 535–536 were the most severe and protracted short-term episodes of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years.[1] The event is thought to have been caused by an extensive atmospheric dust veil, possibly resulting from a large volcanic eruption in the tropics,[2] or debris from space impacting the Earth.[3] Its effects were widespread, causing unseasonal weather, crop failures, and famines worldwide.[3]

Extreme weather events of 535?536 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


.D. 536 cooling; volcanism; climate

"[1] New and well-dated evidence of sulphate deposits in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores indicate a substantial and extensive atmospheric acidic dust veil at A.D. 533–534 ± 2 years. This was likely produced by a large explosive, near equatorial volcanic eruption, causing widespread dimming and contributing to the abrupt cooling across much of the Northern Hemisphere known from historical records and tree-ring data to have occurred in A.D. 536. Tree-ring data suggest that this was the most severe and protracted short-term cold episode across the Northern Hemisphere in the last two millennia, even surpassing the severity of the cold period following the Tambora eruption in 1815."


New ice core evidence for a volcanic cause of the A.D. 536 dust veil - Larsen - 2008 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library



Etc. etc. etc. Seriously dude. You need to read a book sometime. Reading your sources is like taking meth, it rots your brain, and you had little enough to begin with.

 

[Abraham3]

So, you're talking about a period of, maybe, two years?

Hey... that's significant.

 

[syrenn]

poof

 

[flacaltenn]

B612 Foundation | B612 Foundation

The B612 project. A way to protect the planet without waiting on the politiciqns to understand the risk. Highlighted by NPR special tonight..

Astronauts Ed Lu and Rusty Schweickart began their decade-long mission to find a way to stop dangerous asteroids from impacting Earth after seeing our fragile blue planet from space. *As engineers and trained space travelers, they knew of the grave dangers of asteroid impacts – all you had to do was look at the craters in the moon.

They knew they could pull together the expert team to protect Earth.

So why not?

Fact is --- that from ground telescopes, we cant see asteroids approaching from sun side. So we are currently blind to almost half of the threats. Totally private venture to save the planet. I heartily approve. Or we could continue to blame political parties for not getting the job done.

 

[Mr. H.]

Tonight, NOVA aired a really good shoo on this topic.

 

[orogenicman]

But the topic of this thread makes no sense.

It makes an idiot implication that the people of earth can either search for asteroids or address global warming, but not do both.

And it makes a kook claim that warming is beneficial, which is especially laughable now, given that we've just seen the most powerful storm in recorded history.

So, the only thing this thread is useful for is proving the lack of logical thinking ability in those who agree with its premises.

The world has a finite amount of money, something you collectivists seem unable to grasp.

Someone should have notified Bush of this fact before he decided to waste a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war.

We can either spend loads of cash developing and deploying a asteroid detection/aversion system....OR we can spend that money in an attempt (who's primary unintended ((or is it intended?)) consequence is to REDUCE the economic output of the planet...which will even further reduce the amount of cash available for an asteroid defense system.

It is not an either/or proposition. We can do both. I would argue that we must do both if we intent to avert catastrophe.

As far as the benefit of a warm world we have ample historical evidence to support that assertion. The Romans wrote extensively about their world and so did the medieval scholars. They present more than enough compelling evidence to show that they benefited GREATLY from the warm world they enjoyed.

It doesn't occur to you that the Apennine Peninsula was greener and wetter during Roman times than today? Gee, I wonder why that is? Do you think it might be because it is warmer and drier there today than it was 2,000 years ago?

Conversely if you wish to experience a pestilential, famine ridden warring world then look no further than the Dark Ages which enjoyed a cooling period so severe it is called the "6th Century Climate Catastrophe".

The dark ages occurred because the collapse of the Roman empire left a power vacuum, resulting in prolonged tribal warfare and religious despotism in the rest of Europe and elsewhere. If it had been hotter and drier (say, like it is today), it could have been worse, since they would have been fighting over fewer resources.

So, the only people who seem incapable of carrying on a logical scientifically based discussion are you and yours.

Next.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I agree with the op on this one

1. Develop our ability to discovery asteroids
2. Develop means to destroy them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey, westwind...How about supporting some decent funding for our space program. That might help us defend our selves from this threat.

 

[Kosh]

But the topic of this thread makes no sense.

It makes an idiot implication that the people of earth can either search for asteroids or address global warming, but not do both.

And it makes a kook claim that warming is beneficial, which is especially laughable now, given that we've just seen the most powerful storm in recorded history.

So, the only thing this thread is useful for is proving the lack of logical thinking ability in those who agree with its premises.

The world has a finite amount of money, something you collectivists seem unable to grasp.

Someone should have notified Bush of this fact before he decided to waste a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war.



It is not an either/or proposition. We can do both. I would argue that we must do both if we intent to avert catastrophe.



It doesn't occur to you that the Apennine Peninsula was greener and wetter during Roman times than today? Gee, I wonder why that is? Do you think it might be because it is warmer and drier there today than it was 2,000 years ago?

Conversely if you wish to experience a pestilential, famine ridden warring world then look no further than the Dark Ages which enjoyed a cooling period so severe it is called the "6th Century Climate Catastrophe".

The dark ages occurred because the collapse of the Roman empire left a power vacuum, resulting in prolonged tribal warfare and religious despotism in the rest of Europe and elsewhere. If it had been hotter and drier (say, like it is today), it could have been worse, since they would have been fighting over fewer resources.

So, the only people who seem incapable of carrying on a logical scientifically based discussion are you and yours.

Next.

And the far left propaganda combined with the AGW propaganda equals FAIL!