Do republicans realize how alone they are on the issue of global warming?

[konradv]

I do think it is overstated, but I do believe we are contributing to climate change.
You know what else did, back in the day? Volcanoes. Those things aren't so active anymore. But 7 billion people are very active.

humans are contributing to pollution and depleting resources. Humans are not changing the climate of the planet.

The where is the CO2 coming from? You're pretty quick with the proclamations, not so much with coherent answers to important questions.

 

[konradv]

CO2 Science

What it means
In light of their several findings and the analogous results of several other scientific teams, Crawfurd et al. conclude in the final sentence of their paper that "if all diatoms respond in a similar fashion to T. pseudonana, acidification of this magnitude in the future ocean may have little effect on diatom productivity."

100% acceptance of any study that backs your position, but 0% acceptance of any that doesn't! You do realize the real answer lies somewhere in between, don't you? It's this kind of slanted reasoning that makes me laugh whenever someone calls AGW a religion. If anything, deniers demand adherence to principle that would rival any religious zealot.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who says we're not doing anything? That's just your version of the "***** and moan". Doing something doesn't have to mean elimination, it can just mean cutting back. Haven't you heard the jeers about people driving their hybrids or bringing their own bags to grocery stores? You can't have it both ways and sound rational, you know.

Oh please..Do you really think that "hey look at what I'm doing" style over substance is doing a God damned thing to form an additional ice crystal in the Arctic Ocean?
Your hybrid cars...HA!..What the hell do you think makes the batteries? How much in fossil fuels are required to create them. And what happens to the batteries once the expiration date has passed?...
We reuse lots of stuff. We don't run around screeching about the sky falling.
You people want to stop me from using my vehicles to conduct business.

***** and moan, ***** and moan. As I've said, it's rarely about the science for the deniers. They couldn't care less.

Oh but it IS about the science. You people believe the world in going to catch fire. So you buy your hybrid cars, and carry your silly shopping bags to the grocery store. Big deal.

 

[DGS49]

Anytime someone says that the "science is settled," I look for a liberal arts degree.

Never fails.

 

[thereisnospoon]

See? They have no facts to back them up so they result in personal attacks that border on stupidity times infinity.

You can see here from the post above, he ignores science, facts and proof and chooses to go at the personally. Not only personally but his requirements are insane. He believes that if you drive a car and use electricity that you don't "really care" about global warming. Next he'll require anyone complaining about air and water quality to stop breathing and drinking water

Hey..Whatever it takes to get you people to follow up or shut up.
In other words, you believe. So walk the walk. Stop telling others what you believe they should do. Lead the way to enacting a solution to the problem YOU say exists.
Failing that, you are hot air.
Now, scientifically, there is ZERO empirical evidence that global warming/climate change/climate irregularity is caused by human activity.

What part of believing in Global warming says anything about no electricity and no cars? ...I'll wait

"Believing"..Thanks for making my point. You people have a belief. That's all.
End of that story.
As far as your use of these and other items, NO, you don't. If you do then you are a hypocrite because you are contributing to what you are complaining about.
You don't get to have it both ways.
So, if you 'believe' in this stuff, you must surrender use of all of the products which you 'believe' are contributing what you believe is occurring. Simple.

 

[konradv]

Oh please..Do you really think that "hey look at what I'm doing" style over substance is doing a God damned thing to form an additional ice crystal in the Arctic Ocean?
Your hybrid cars...HA!..What the hell do you think makes the batteries? How much in fossil fuels are required to create them. And what happens to the batteries once the expiration date has passed?...
We reuse lots of stuff. We don't run around screeching about the sky falling.
You people want to stop me from using my vehicles to conduct business.

***** and moan, ***** and moan. As I've said, it's rarely about the science for the deniers. They couldn't care less.

Oh but it IS about the science. You people believe the world in going to catch fire. So you buy your hybrid cars, and carry your silly shopping bags to the grocery store. Big deal.

It is a big deal. You claimed that people were only giving lip service and not doing anything. Don't try and tap dance away from that assertion now by moving the goalposts and saying anything that's done is no big deal. That's just being sneaky and hypocritical.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Wow a thread on global warming. Never seen this before.

 

[konradv]

Anytime someone says that the "science is settled," I look for a liberal arts degree.

Never fails.

I agree. The deniers love to latch on to that particular quote, while routinely proving they don't have the vaguest understanding of the science or how scientific inquiry works.

 

[bripat9643]

CO2 Science

What it means
In light of their several findings and the analogous results of several other scientific teams, Crawfurd et al. conclude in the final sentence of their paper that "if all diatoms respond in a similar fashion to T. pseudonana, acidification of this magnitude in the future ocean may have little effect on diatom productivity."

100% acceptance of any study that backs your position, but 0% acceptance of any that doesn't! You do realize the real answer lies somewhere in between, don't you? It's this kind of slanted reasoning that makes me laugh whenever someone calls AGW a religion. If anything, deniers demand adherence to principle that would rival any religious zealot.

So if one guy says the purple spaghetti monster exists and another says it doesn't, then the truth lies somewhere in between?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

CO2 Science

What it means
In light of their several findings and the analogous results of several other scientific teams, Crawfurd et al. conclude in the final sentence of their paper that "if all diatoms respond in a similar fashion to T. pseudonana, acidification of this magnitude in the future ocean may have little effect on diatom productivity."

100% acceptance of any study that backs your position, but 0% acceptance of any that doesn't! You do realize the real answer lies somewhere in between, don't you? It's this kind of slanted reasoning that makes me laugh whenever someone calls AGW a religion. If anything, deniers demand adherence to principle that would rival any religious zealot.

Are you retarded?

The mainstream Peer pressure reviewed scientific community agree with these findings. Along with a 20 year "stall" in temperature increases. The models are wrong. Period. Ocean acidification is completely overblown, the same as temperature increases and the effects. You people just keep on saying that its real and find any excuse possible to continue your belief in failed scientific models.

No temp increases in 20 years while CO2 emissions skyrocket. Check
Marginal, if not completely irrelevant ocean acidification due to carbon sink. Check
Observation deviating from computer models across the board. Check

Don't get mad because your belief system predictions are falling apart to real world observations. You're gullible.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's why the media and governments continue to push anything they can as Goebbel's Warming.

Rain? AGW
Snow? AGW
Wind? AGW
Drought? AGW
Warm day? AGW
Cold day? AGW

It's a load of pure bullshit and only the most gullible retards are buying it.

 

[konradv]

CO2 Science

What it means
In light of their several findings and the analogous results of several other scientific teams, Crawfurd et al. conclude in the final sentence of their paper that "if all diatoms respond in a similar fashion to T. pseudonana, acidification of this magnitude in the future ocean may have little effect on diatom productivity."

100% acceptance of any study that backs your position, but 0% acceptance of any that doesn't! You do realize the real answer lies somewhere in between, don't you? It's this kind of slanted reasoning that makes me laugh whenever someone calls AGW a religion. If anything, deniers demand adherence to principle that would rival any religious zealot.

Are you retarded?

The mainstream Peer pressure reviewed scientific community agree with these findings. Along with a 20 year "stall" in temperature increases. The models are wrong. Period. Ocean acidification is completely overblown, the same as temperature increases and the effects. You people just keep on saying that its real and find any excuse possible to continue your belief in failed scientific models.

No temp increases in 20 years while CO2 emissions skyrocket. Check
Marginal, if not completely irrelevant ocean acidification due to carbon sink. Check
Observation deviating from computer models across the board. Check

Don't get mad because your belief system predictions are falling apart to real world observations. You're gullible.

Natural climate cycles perfectly explain a stall. CO2 levels have been going up, but to call them skyrocketing is just hyperbole to bolster your position. What you need to explain is by what mechanism would added trapped energy be dissipated and not contribute to warming should CO2 continue to rise and the current climate cycle reverses itself.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?

IT was YOU!!!! and I quote

me:Says the guy that thinks humans impact the Earth more than the sun or moon or earth itself.....

YOU:Who said that? Show me anywhere the "humans impact more than..." argument.

I just busted that ass....quit talking out of both sides of your mouth....I will crush you!!!!!!!!

What? I said show me where I made the "humans impact the earth more than..." argument and you didn't. So that makes you victorious?

huh? Give this kid some play-doh before he hurts himself

That is the entire basis of the climate change bullshit. That humans are allegedly causing it to occur. Now you are backing away from that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You're an ignorant troll.

Wrong on both counts.

But it's good to see you still have your sense of humor.

A crack about a meth lab certainly sounds trollish to me, lets call it 1 and 1.

You can call it whatever you like. You'd still be wrong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This entire issue of the Earth's climate relative to human activity is nothing more than a political tool to further an agenda.

 

[konradv]

That's why the media and governments continue to push anything they can as Goebbel's Warming.

Rain? AGW
Snow? AGW
Wind? AGW
Drought? AGW
Warm day? AGW
Cold day? AGW

It's a load of pure bullshit and only the most gullible retards are buying it.

I buy that adding CO2 to the atmosphere adds to the amount of IR trapped and re-emitted back towards earth. In light of the Law of Conservation of Energy, how would that not tend to increase temps? It's simple logic that no amount of snide remarks begins to answer, much less debunk.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

100% acceptance of any study that backs your position, but 0% acceptance of any that doesn't! You do realize the real answer lies somewhere in between, don't you? It's this kind of slanted reasoning that makes me laugh whenever someone calls AGW a religion. If anything, deniers demand adherence to principle that would rival any religious zealot.

Are you retarded?

The mainstream Peer pressure reviewed scientific community agree with these findings. Along with a 20 year "stall" in temperature increases. The models are wrong. Period. Ocean acidification is completely overblown, the same as temperature increases and the effects. You people just keep on saying that its real and find any excuse possible to continue your belief in failed scientific models.

No temp increases in 20 years while CO2 emissions skyrocket. Check
Marginal, if not completely irrelevant ocean acidification due to carbon sink. Check
Observation deviating from computer models across the board. Check

Don't get mad because your belief system predictions are falling apart to real world observations. You're gullible.

Natural climate cycles perfectly explain a stall. CO2 levels have been going up, but to call them skyrocketing is just hyperbole to bolster your position. What you need to explain is by what mechanism would added trapped energy be dissipated and not contribute to warming should CO2 continue to rise and the current climate cycle reverses itself.

Grasping for straws, I see.

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by 2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years," said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics at the University of Sussex in England.

Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first showed in the 1890s how man-made carbon dioxide, from coal for instance, traps heat in the atmosphere. Many of the exact effects are still unknown.

Greenhouse gas emissions have hit repeated record highs with annual growth of about 3 percent in most of the decade to 2010, partly powered by rises in China and India. World emissions were 75 percent higher in 2010 than in 1970, UN data show.

 

[konradv]

Wrong on both counts.

But it's good to see you still have your sense of humor.

A crack about a meth lab certainly sounds trollish to me, lets call it 1 and 1.

You can call it whatever you like. You'd still be wrong.

Fine we'll agree to disagree, but a crack about a meth lab adds zero to the discussion of AGW. Just more proof that the deniers are all about the politics, having already conceded the scientific debate.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And I dont need to explain anything. I'm not the one running around talking about the sky is falling if we dont redistribute the wealth of the world. Remember, its not about environmental policy, it's about economic/government policies according to the ICPP.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey..Whatever it takes to get you people to follow up or shut up.
In other words, you believe. So walk the walk. Stop telling others what you believe they should do. Lead the way to enacting a solution to the problem YOU say exists.
Failing that, you are hot air.
Now, scientifically, there is ZERO empirical evidence that global warming/climate change/climate irregularity is caused by human activity.

What part of believing in Global warming says anything about no electricity and no cars? ...I'll wait

"Believing"..Thanks for making my point. You people have a belief. That's all.
End of that story.
As far as your use of these and other items, NO, you don't. If you do then you are a hypocrite because you are contributing to what you are complaining about.
You don't get to have it both ways.
So, if you 'believe' in this stuff, you must surrender use of all of the products which you 'believe' are contributing what you believe is occurring. Simple.

Sure I do, I get to have it as many ways I want, you're not the rule maker. What does electricity and driving have to do with Global Warming....again, I'll wait.

Where is it? You raised your hands claimed victory and never produced anything? You cant find it?