Global Warming aka Atheism's Wrong Turn

[Bern80]

I believe them, yes. I don't see very many reasons not to believe them, and generally the folks I see disbelieving them I suspect of ulterior political motives. Its not convenient to believe it. Its not nice. But I'm not interested in the aesthetic values of my beliefs, I'm interested in the truth of them.

And that is the debate I would rather have then the ones we usually digress into:

Reasons why the man-made theory should be questioned (some of you've seen):

1) We know it has been hotter in human history. That, all by itself, should tell us we should maybe spend some time figuring if that is what's happening.

2) This one is a little different and that is, SO WHAT? As I mentioned before Greenland was named Greenland for a reason. When the Vikings discovered it in about 1200 there was no glacier covering it and potatoes were farmed across much of it (which is starting to happen again). Believe it or not a lot of good can come from this warming trend, specifically longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes. I tried to make the case before that most things on the universe have a pattern or cycle to them. Things die and things are born. Species become extinct and are replaced by new ones which eventually die and are replaced by new ones again. Ocean levels of risen and fallen. glaciers have advanced and receeded. So why are we some so certain that dooms day is approaching when what we are seeing now has happened thousands of times before throughout Earth's history?

My 'theory' on that to follow.

 

[Vintij]

And that is the debate I would rather have then the ones we usually digress into:

Reasons why the man-made theory should be questioned (some of you've seen):

1) We know it has been hotter in human history. That, all by itself, should tell us we should maybe spend some time figuring if that is what's happening.

2) This one is a little different and that is, SO WHAT? As I mentioned before Greenland was named Greenland for a reason. When the Vikings discovered it in about 1200 there was no glacier covering it and potatoes were farmed across much of it (which is starting to happen again). Believe it or not a lot of good can come from this warming trend, specifically longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes. I tried to make the case before that most things on the universe have a pattern or cycle to them. Things die and things are born. Species become extinct and are replaced by new ones which eventually die and are replaced by new ones again. Ocean levels of risen and fallen. glaciers have advanced and receeded. So why are we some so certain that dooms day is approaching when what we are seeing now has happened thousands of times before throughout Earth's history?

My 'theory' on that to follow.

Stupid most ignorant thing you can ever say.

Yes climate change has been going on for billions of years and we have recorded data of about the last 100,000 years from ice drilling. But to say that we should not be concerned with the current warming trend is just plain stupid.

Oceans hold salt, salt is heavy.....alot heavier than fresh water. The bottom of the ocean holds the most salt, the atlantic current is a worldwide current of warm salt water from the atlantic through to the pacific. Ice caps are made of fresh water, fresh water dilutes salt water. When fresh water dillutes salt water it rises from the bottom of the sea slightly altering the current and warming the ocean. Warm oceans create hurricanes.

The last natural warming trend, took 60,000 years to get back to normal you idiot. And this was with natural volcanic activity during a period when the earth had a very thin atmosphere and nearly no troposhpere. Think about this for a second, if it took the earth 60,000 years to heal itself with no atmosphere, how long will it take for someone like you to realize that temperature data aligns perfectly with the industrial revolution, meaning how on earth are we suppose to know what the planet will do naturally to heal itself if it has never encountered anything like the industrial revolution?

Besides, It was the sea plants that saved the planet countless times, and other microscopic organisms that helped consume the carbon in the air through diffusion (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A15752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

What you dont get is, when these organisms have to work extra hard to save us from ourselves......that is an indication that there is to much carbon in the air. How can these organisms survive in dilluted ocean water?

Easy solution to global warming is to fertalize the ocean with millions of species of microscopic carbon eating organism's.

But still, to say that it is not a big deal is complete ignorance and anyone who says global warming is not a problem or it does not exist, needs to take themselves to a childrens message board, or walk themselves to the top of the building they are in, and jump off. Do us all a favor and learn ANYTHING about ANYTHING before you talk about it.

If only more people knew how plant life, and microscopic brainless organisms are saving us from our own destruction.

Seriously, you people need to ******* die already. Not specifically you, but people like you who think the earth is a giant playground that we can do whatever we want to with no consequences.

 

[Diuretic]

Yep, the news just keeps getting better and better about the environment - NOT!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/acid-sea-threat-to-reefs/2007/12/14/1197568217232.html

 

[Vintij]

this from Mr semantics? Come now you can do better. In 2 connected sentences you just said they know and then said they think they know.... which is it?

More importantly if they KNOW why can they NOT PROVE IT ? If they THINK they know why can they NOT provide us with a theory that has more than the few people they have believing it? A theory so full of holes that laymen can grasp it and throw rocks at it?

And next question Mr. faithful ( last I checked 58 is higher than 42 by the way) why is that at least for 5 years now and possible 9 there has been NO real rise in temperature? If we are in this runaway greenhouse effect why did it stop? If we are causing it what did we do to stop it and if we did stop it, why do we need to do more?

This is shaping up to be JUST like the "we are all gonna FREEZE" scare in the 70's. The difference this time is the whackos have gotten politicians involved. And Big Brother the UN sees a means to scare Countries into being subservient to them.

Again, one of the stupidest and absurd things I have ever read. I leave the message board for a few months, and you people let this type of garbage go around and believe it?

Learn something before you talk about it.

Please learn this, for christ sake.....the tempurature outside your home.....is not an indication of climate change you idiot.

As i said to bern, perhaps you should learn something about ocean current, dilluted salt water, sea weed and other microscopic carbon absorbing organisms, the fresh water in polar ice caps, the weight of salt water versus fresh water, the cause of hurricanes, and everything else under the category of "science"

Or is evidence not enough for you? Perhaps you would like more speculation, or fantasy, perhaps a childrens story?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, one of the stupidest and absurd things I have ever read. I leave the message board for a few months, and you people let this type of garbage go around and believe it?

Learn something before you talk about it.

Please learn this, for christ sake.....the tempurature outside your home.....is not an idication of climate change you idiot.

As i said to bern, perhaps you should learn something about ocean current, dilluted salt water, sea weed and other microscopic carbon absorbing organisms, the fresh water in polar ice caps, the weight of salt water versus fresh water, the cause of hurricanes, and everything else under the category of "science"

Or is evidence not enough for you? Perhaps you would like more speculation, or fantasy, perhaps a childrens story?

SCIENTIFIC evidence provided by "gasp" SCIENTISTS that no increase planet wide has occurred in the last 5 years and some claim since 1998, sure thing you retard , that is not MY temperature. So 42 of 100 scientists say we are causing a warming trend, guess what you moron? That means 58 say we ARE not or do NOT know. As in the MAJORITY. You and Larkinn are idiots.

Go ahead you mental midget, read the report from Bali where it is presented that IN FACT no rise has occurred in the last 5 YEARS. So much for man made runaway global warming.

Now you and Larkinn can start character assassination of those 58 in 100 that do NOT agree we are the problem.

 

[Bern80]

Stupid most ignorant thing you can ever say.

Yes climate change has been going on for billions of years and we have recorded data of about the last 100,000 years from ice drilling. But to say that we should not be concerned with the current warming trend is just plain stupid.

To put those two sentences together without seeing the contradiction in the two is what is stupid.

Oceans hold salt, salt is heavy.....alot heavier than fresh water. The bottom of the ocean holds the most salt, the atlantic current is a worldwide current of warm salt water from the atlantic through to the pacific. Ice caps are made of fresh water, fresh water dilutes salt water. When fresh water dillutes salt water it rises from the bottom of the sea slightly altering the current and warming the ocean. Warm oceans create hurricanes.

Which brings up a great point. One reason people are worried about the current trend has more to do with inconvenience than it does danger to the planet. Yes more hurricanes will be inconvenient, you say we're screwing up mother earth yet it is you who propose we circumvent a natural cycle (if indeed that's what's happening).

The last natural warming trend, took 60,000 years to get back to normal you idiot. And this was with natural volcanic activity during a period when the earth had a very thin atmosphere and nearly no troposhpere. Think about this for a second, if it took the earth 60,000 years to heal itself with no atmosphere, how long will it take for someone like you to realize that temperature data aligns perfectly with the industrial revolution, meaning how on earth are we suppose to know what the planet will do naturally to heal itself if it has never encountered anything like the industrial revolution?

Except for that darn ice age in the 1300 of course. A link please to you interpretion of chronological events.

Besides, It was the sea plants that saved the planet countless times, and other microscopic organisms that helped consume the carbon in the air through diffusion (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A15752C1A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

What you dont get is, when these organisms have to work extra hard to save us from ourselves......that is an indication that there is to much carbon in the air. How can these organisms survive in dilluted ocean water?

what evidence is there that they are workign 'extra hard'?

But still, to say that it is not a big deal is complete ignorance and anyone who says global warming is not a problem or it does not exist, needs to take themselves to a childrens message board, or walk themselves to the top of the building they are in, and jump off. Do us all a favor and learn ANYTHING about ANYTHING before you talk about it.

You would also need to reducate yourself on the benefits warmer temperatures (warmer than now) have provided civilizations in teh past (and are starting to again).

If only more people knew how plant life, and microscopic brainless organisms are saving us from our own destruction.

Clearly the words of a reasonable individual

Seriously, you people need to ******* die already. Not specifically you, but people like you who think the earth is a giant playground that we can do whatever we want to with no consequences.

You people but not me. got it. I don't think the work is a playground. Do you need the assumption speech as well? We do need to be mindful of the environment. I do think we need to find out if we have actually caused this or can (or should attempt to) control something that has happened hindreds of times before by government mandating that we completely upheave our economy.

 

[Vintij]

SCIENTIFIC evidence provided by "gasp" SCIENTISTS that no increase planet wide has occurred in the last 5 years and some claim since 1998, sure thing you retard , that is not MY temperature. So 42 of 100 scientists say we are causing a warming trend, guess what you moron? That means 58 say we ARE not or do NOT know. As in the MAJORITY. You and Larkinn are idiots.

Go ahead you mental midget, read the report from Bali where it is presented that IN FACT no rise has occurred in the last 5 YEARS. So much for man made runaway global warming.

Now you and Larkinn can start character assassination of those 58 in 100 that do NOT agree we are the problem.

"Greenland was once green you idiot" -larkin


Apparently Im dealing with someone with below average intelligence. I will not go further with you larkin. This quote has to be the single most uneducated quote I have ever read. You know what else? Oxygen used to be hydrogen? Also, proteins used to be amino acids. Jesus christ your stupider than I thought.




As for retired, well why should I debate you? Please give me one good reason why I should actually listen to someone who puts his entire (or lack there of) scientific confidence in ONE consensus result. You sound like some kind of jesus freak, you know with the whole life devoted to one book.

Ill entertain you by asking for more than one study or consensus on the number you proposed. But not with 100 scientists, (considering there are over 400,000 practicing scientists. Not that it matters how many there are, what matters is the actual evidence. Stop looking for articles on what scientists believe, and start looking at the actual research and judge for yourself. Not that you ever made a single decision based on reason in your whole life.

Show me retired. show me a study that stands up to the evidence that convinced me in the first place. Show me a consensus and ill show you evidence. show me evidence and Ill show you peer reviewed evidence. Show me peer reviewed evidence and Ill show you twice as many.

You cant fool me. You cant go around speaking for the scientific community if you yourself know nothing about climate change, or science in general!


Seriously I know way to much about the memetical evolution of you people, and your so called "belief"

For the record "belief" is just speculation. While evidence is well, NOT speculation. Its grounds for a theory. Not that you give word theory the respect it deserves. You choose a fictional book, you choose speculation, you choose fantasy, you choose ignorance. That is your choice, do not insult the scientific community for your mistakes.

 

[Vintij]

To put those two sentences together without seeing the contradiction in the two is what is stupid.



Which brings up a great point. One reason people are worried about the current trend has more to do with inconvenience than it does danger to the planet. Yes more hurricanes will be inconvenient, you say we're screwing up mother earth yet it is you who propose we circumvent a natural cycle (if indeed that's what's happening).



Except for that darn ice age in the 1300 of course. A link please to you interpretion of chronological events.



what evidence is there that they are workign 'extra hard'?



You would also need to reducate yourself on the benefits warmer temperatures (warmer than now) have provided civilizations in teh past (and are starting to again).



Clearly the words of a reasonable individual



You people but not me. got it. I don't think the work is a playground. Do you need the assumption speech as well? We do need to be mindful of the environment. I do think we need to find out if we have actually caused this or can (or should attempt to) control something that has happened hindreds of times before by government mandating that we completely upheave our economy.

Ok larkin here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


there is your 1300 ice age. It was actually called the "little ice age". Not that it matters because it was "NATURAL"....The industrial revolution has never happend before you moron. The industrial revolution is something we call "not natural". What I was trying to explain to you is that earth does go through natrual climate change, but it has never ever gone through an "UN natrual" climate change. Do you think that we are naturally part of this great big convenient industrial revolution cycle of climate change and ocean dillution? Wow, you need to think again.

Things that occure naturally like an ice age, take thousands of years to get back to normal. Things that occur unaturally like an industrial revolution, and anthropogenic global warming......are different, WE DONT KNOW FOR HOW LONG OR WHAT EFFECT THEY COULD HAVE!!!!!

Your ignorance is under the assumption that we are in a natural warming trend, well thats great and all but how do you explain the graph above? How do you explain the perfect symmetry with the timeline of the industrial revolution? How do you explain the higher content of fresh water in the north atlantic? How do you explain the diminishing number of microscoping carbon absorbing oranisms in the ocean? Please explain.

The job of a scientist, is not to take polls like politicians. Its to get the attention of people like you.....to stop doing the things you are doing before it becomes a REAL problem.

Here is a simple explanation of the carbon cycle
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html


And here is what Im talking about
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/gases_lecture_new.html


Read the paragraph on ocean and terrestrial carbon


If you dont want to here is a quote

"Physical processes include the movement of carbon by ocean circulation from one location to another. Meteorologists and oceanographers call this process advection. Differences in temperature and salt content (salinity), in addition to the driving force of the wind and rotation of the earth, lead to bulk transport of carbon within and between major ocean basins"

Thats called "advection"


"Another physical process is the diffusive mixing of water from one vertical level to another. Carbon dioxide dissolved in surface water is in equilibrium with CO2 in the atmosphere because of efficient mixing in the ocean surface water"

Thats called diffusion

Both are leading causes of the transportation of warmer water from the north to the south. Resulting in warmer ocean tempurature in a very efficient way.

Its not the tempurature outside your home that matters, its the tempurature of the ocean you ******* morons.

Warm oceans equals more severe hurricanes, flooding, Tsunami, severe ocean life extinction, severe inbalance of the ocean life cycle, which equals destruction and extinction. Do you know how to reverse this process, do you have evidence from the past of how long it took for the earth to reverse this process itself? No you dont, because its "un-natural".


And just for the record, below it explains a "natural" warming cycle.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zP...ts=OoG5Fh0km1&sig=oofwPc6dhCw4nTRzkcgdaF7I2pg



So retired, yes.....a "few hurricanes" do matter. Along with everything else.

 

[Bern80]

Ok larkin here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


there is your 1300 ice age. It was actually called the "little ice age". Not that it matters because it was "NATURAL"....The industrial revolution has never happend before you moron. The industrial revolution is something we call "not natural". What I was trying to explain to you is that earth does go through natrual climate change, but it has never ever gone through an "UN natrual" climate change. Do you think that we are naturally part of this great big convenient industrial revolution cycle of climate change and ocean dillution? Wow, you need to think again.

Things that occure naturally like an ice age, take thousands of years to get back to normal. Things that occur unaturally like an industrial revolution, and anthropogenic global warming......are different, WE DONT KNOW FOR HOW LONG OR WHAT EFFECT THEY COULD HAVE!!!!!

Your ignorance is under the assumption that we are in a natural warming trend, well thats great and all but how do you explain the graph above? How do you explain the perfect symmetry with the timeline of the industrial revolution? How do you explain the higher content of fresh water in the north atlantic? How do you explain the diminishing number of microscoping carbon absorbing oranisms in the ocean? Please explain.

The job of a scientist, is not to take polls like politicians. Its to get the attention of people like you.....to stop doing the things you are doing before it becomes a REAL problem.

Here is a simple explanation of the carbon cycle
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/9r.html


And here is what Im talking about
http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/gases_lecture_new.html


Read the paragraph on ocean and terrestrial carbon


If you dont want to here is a quote

"Physical processes include the movement of carbon by ocean circulation from one location to another. Meteorologists and oceanographers call this process advection. Differences in temperature and salt content (salinity), in addition to the driving force of the wind and rotation of the earth, lead to bulk transport of carbon within and between major ocean basins"

Thats called "advection"


"Another physical process is the diffusive mixing of water from one vertical level to another. Carbon dioxide dissolved in surface water is in equilibrium with CO2 in the atmosphere because of efficient mixing in the ocean surface water"

Thats called diffusion

Both are leading causes of the transportation of warmer water from the north to the south. Resulting in warmer ocean tempurature in a very efficient way.

Its not the tempurature outside your home that matters, its the tempurature of the ocean you ******* morons.

Warm oceans equals more severe hurricanes, flooding, Tsunami, severe ocean life extinction, severe inbalance of the ocean life cycle, which equals destruction and extinction. Do you know how to reverse this process, do you have evidence from the past of how long it took for the earth to reverse this process itself? No you dont, because its "un-natural".


And just for the record, below it explains a "natural" warming cycle.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zP...ts=OoG5Fh0km1&sig=oofwPc6dhCw4nTRzkcgdaF7I2pg



So retired, yes.....a "few hurricanes" do matter. Along with everything else.

Thanks for letting me off the hook. Go get her Larkinn. really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are. Your worse the Larkin. Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it. I here by dub you Edward II.

The obvious contradictions in your own words are alarming. Climate cycles take thousands of years, yet what we have observed in still don't fully understand in just shy of 100 years has caused you to conclude there is some emergency? Again get a little perspective would you. You have to stop thinking in terms of human history (recent human history at that) and think in terms of earth history.

You want to solve this problem? Maybe you guys, you religios fanatics (because current belief in AGW has all the pinnings of a religion) should go kill yoursleves you hypocrit. Affter all you're ******* up mother earth by your very existance.

 

[Diuretic]

Thanks for letting me off the hook. Go get her Larkinn. really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are. Your worse the Larkin. Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it. I here by dub you Edward II.

The obvious contradictions in your own words are alarming. Climate cycles take thousands of years, yet what we have observed in still don't fully understand in just shy of 100 years has caused you to conclude there is some emergency? Again get a little perspective would you. You have to stop thinking in terms of human history (recent human history at that) and think in terms of earth history.

You want to solve this problem? Maybe you guys, you religios fanatics (because current belief in AGW has all the pinnings of a religion) should go kill yoursleves you hypocrit. Affter all you're ******* up mother earth by your very existance.[/QUOTE]

Um, can we all draw straws instead?

 

[Dr Grump]

Thanks for letting me off the hook. Go get her Larkinn. really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are. Your worse the Larkin. Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it. I here by dub you Edward II.

The obvious contradictions in your own words are alarming. Climate cycles take thousands of years, yet what we have observed in still don't fully understand in just shy of 100 years has caused you to conclude there is some emergency? Again get a little perspective would you. You have to stop thinking in terms of human history (recent human history at that) and think in terms of earth history.

You want to solve this problem? Maybe you guys, you religios fanatics (because current belief in AGW has all the pinnings of a religion) should go kill yoursleves you hypocrit. Affter all you're ******* up mother earth by your very existance.

No, what has happened is you have had your arse handed to you on a plate and you don't like it.

Instead of ranting against her/him, destroy her/his points one by one. But you can't do that can you? Didn't think so...

 

[Bern80]

Thanks for letting me off the hook. Go get her Larkinn. really there is no point in attempting to have a ratronale debate seeeing as how irrational you are. Your worse the Larkin. Your feigned disgust at what you think are my views coupled with your lack of perspective and horribly skewed notions to what constitutes reallity has so blinded you from haveing a reasonable conversation it simply isn't worth it. I here by dub you Edward II.

The obvious contradictions in your own words are alarming. Climate cycles take thousands of years, yet what we have observed in still don't fully understand in just shy of 100 years has caused you to conclude there is some emergency? Again get a little perspective would you. You have to stop thinking in terms of human history (recent human history at that) and think in terms of earth history.

You want to solve this problem? Maybe you guys, you religios fanatics (because current belief in AGW has all the pinnings of a religion) should go kill yoursleves you hypocrit. Affter all you're ******* up mother earth by your very existance.[/QUOTE]

Um, can we all draw straws instead?

Don't care. There are all kinds of different 'groups' debating this issue. But debating an environmental whacko like Vintij is pointless. You can't argue against someone's faith. And Vintij's faith is apparently in the notion that we're killing mother Earth.

There are so many elements as to why people beleive what they believe as far as this issue us concerned. Most of it has nothing to do with the science behind it. Though Vintij apparently thinks i beleive teh Earth is my playground and could care less if it's sullied or not, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think we should be stewards of the environment, including me.

I believe as a nation over the past half decade our collective mind set has changed dramatically. I mentioned before the past 100 years is less than a blip in Earth's history. Yet despite teh far more catastrophic NATURAL events that have occurred over countless eons some are so certain that we are dooming the planet. This is a direct result not of scientific evidence but how human nature has changed. I've said it before and will keep saying until somenoe addresses it. WE HAVE BECOME AN INSTANT GRATIFICATION SOCIETY in America.

That mindset has so many ramifications that not only do we need to evaluate the science, we need to evaluate our perspective. Of course we have to conceed we have an impact on all aspects of the environment. Everything on this planet does. It just seems so many look at this moment in time as if it is the beginning of time and nothing we can learn from ever happened before or can explain what we're seeing now. We fear warming, which history has shown has been quite beneficial to societies, and want to cool the Earth when history that that is the real global killer. Not much is gonna survive if everything north of Iowa is under a mile of ice. I think there are alarmists becuase we naturally fear change. It is only in the last few generations of human existance that we have reached this level of global awareness. Despite this exponential increase in ability to access and attainment of knowledge, we have become dumber as a country. Since an event deviates from what we have defined as 'normal' it must be bad, right?

Given our oh so brief existance on this planet relative the history of this planet is to implore governments to sign treaties that would complete upend economies to in hopes of alleviating a)a possible naturally occuring event in which case the environmental whackos need to ask why now do they want to monkey with nature and b)something less than half the scientific community agrees on.

Make no mistake, no rationale person can say we are definitively not predominantly causing the increase in temperature. But how long have really been talking and studying this issue? 30-40 years maybe? And you think we have it figured out? That in this brief period of Earth's existance there is a planetary emergency? Again, perspective people, perspective.

 

[Bern80]

No, what has happened is you have had your arse handed to you on a plate and you don't like it.

Instead of ranting against her/him, destroy her/his points one by one. But you can't do that can you? Didn't think so...

She didn't make any points really. i got a link to the carbon cycle. Good great wonderful. Not sure how it supports AGW really.

So why don't you step up to the plate and provide your points. I promise to attempt to destroy them one by one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Greenland was once green you idiot" -larkin


Apparently Im dealing with someone with below average intelligence. I will not go further with you larkin. This quote has to be the single most uneducated quote I have ever read. You know what else? Oxygen used to be hydrogen? Also, proteins used to be amino acids. Jesus christ your stupider than I thought.




As for retired, well why should I debate you? Please give me one good reason why I should actually listen to someone who puts his entire (or lack there of) scientific confidence in ONE consensus result. You sound like some kind of jesus freak, you know with the whole life devoted to one book.

Ill entertain you by asking for more than one study or consensus on the number you proposed. But not with 100 scientists, (considering there are over 400,000 practicing scientists. Not that it matters how many there are, what matters is the actual evidence. Stop looking for articles on what scientists believe, and start looking at the actual research and judge for yourself. Not that you ever made a single decision based on reason in your whole life.

Show me retired. show me a study that stands up to the evidence that convinced me in the first place. Show me a consensus and ill show you evidence. show me evidence and Ill show you peer reviewed evidence. Show me peer reviewed evidence and Ill show you twice as many.

You cant fool me. You cant go around speaking for the scientific community if you yourself know nothing about climate change, or science in general!


Seriously I know way to much about the memetical evolution of you people, and your so called "belief"

For the record "belief" is just speculation. While evidence is well, NOT speculation. Its grounds for a theory. Not that you give word theory the respect it deserves. You choose a fictional book, you choose speculation, you choose fantasy, you choose ignorance. That is your choice, do not insult the scientific community for your mistakes.

YEt for all that spiel of yours there is NO known man made cause of global warming that can be proven. The supposed front runner of an idea, CO2 does not do as the Scientists that support the theory claim, when one looks back through the history available to us.

Nor can you explain why for at LEAST 5 years now NO global increase has occurred in temperature. You can not explain why ground temperatures went up BUT atmospheric temperatures at higher levels DID not. You can not explain why one single season of no real importance that had 3 high level Hurricanes, none as strong as previous years even, is earth shattering proof of Global warming CAUSED by man. Even IF we believe those hurricanes were caused by global warming, you can NOT link them to any man made effect. And we have had what 3 years of almost NO hurricane activity.... gee so much for that doomsday prediction.

There is no clear science that links man to global warming. Further the only trend anyone was worried about was a 15 to 20 year trend that saw 1/3 of a degree temperature rise. That has not continued. It is JUST like the cooling scare in the 70/80 time frame. A short term blip that has NOT continued and no one can actually link to man.

Further the claim that no such rise has ever occurred in that time frame before is unprovable and most likely totally incorrect.

As for Larkinn, you may want to check your facts, he AGREES in principle with you, dumbshit.

 

[Larkinn]

And that is the debate I would rather have then the ones we usually digress into:

Reasons why the man-made theory should be questioned (some of you've seen):

1) We know it has been hotter in human history. That, all by itself, should tell us we should maybe spend some time figuring if that is what's happening.

Thats a reason to question it? AFAIK nobody has ever provided evidence for global warming by saying "this is the hottest its ever been, therefore we are causing it".

2) This one is a little different and that is, SO WHAT? As I mentioned before Greenland was named Greenland for a reason. When the Vikings discovered it in about 1200 there was no glacier covering it and potatoes were farmed across much of it (which is starting to happen again). Believe it or not a lot of good can come from this warming trend, specifically longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitudes. I tried to make the case before that most things on the universe have a pattern or cycle to them. Things die and things are born. Species become extinct and are replaced by new ones which eventually die and are replaced by new ones again. Ocean levels of risen and fallen. glaciers have advanced and receeded. So why are we some so certain that dooms day is approaching when what we are seeing now has happened thousands of times before throughout Earth's history?

Are you aware of the amount of infrastructure we have in low lying places? Are you aware of the populated islands around the world which will be under sea level if the sea continues rising? Its already happened. So we get what...a longer growing seasons and the ability to grow crops at higher latitutudes. Even if that were the case, please tell me how many crops would we need to grow to even out the economic impact of washing away Manhattan?

Besides that there is worry that it will set off a chain reaction. We simply don't know what will happen. Maybe you'd like to play russian roulette with our species survival, but I'd really rather not.

 

[Larkinn]

SCIENTIFIC evidence provided by "gasp" SCIENTISTS that no increase planet wide has occurred in the last 5 years and some claim since 1998, sure thing you retard , that is not MY temperature.

Have a link to this? You made this claim and I already cited the opposite. Where are you getting your numbers from?

So 42 of 100 scientists say we are causing a warming trend, guess what you moron? That means 58 say we ARE not or do NOT know. As in the MAJORITY. You and Larkinn are idiots.

Why don't you, in your infinite wisdom, find out how many are saying they don't know and how many are saying we are not. Most are saying we don't know. So of those who subscribe to a theory, global warming being man made is adhered to vastly more than any other.

Go ahead you mental midget, read the report from Bali where it is presented that IN FACT no rise has occurred in the last 5 YEARS. So much for man made runaway global warming.

Care to provide evidence, again?

Now you and Larkinn can start character assassination of those 58 in 100 that do NOT agree we are the problem.

And now you can stop assuming stupid shit. Or not. You might die from reasonableness overload.

 

[Larkinn]

I know really I am irrestible, but when having a conversation with each other that I'm not really a part of, do your best to leave me out. Oh and figure out who you are talking too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Larkinn is so smart he can not read what is posted on this board and what is reported about in the news, yup he is sure a ******* genius.

As for your claim temperatures have risen in the last 5 years, YOU provide raw numbers, not the "adjusted" ones that your lying UN watchdogs play with.

I mean even your non scientific mind should be able to google up some hard numbers from your loved scientific community of whackos. I wait with bated breath for raw data that shows a world wide rise in temperature over the last 5 years.

As for the report it hasn't risen maybe if you could read you might find it on this board somewhere you genius.

Venji voodo man is claiming your the one arguing about Greenland being green once as proof it is natural. I was just pointing out to the retard you did no such thing.

 

[Larkinn]

Larkinn is so smart he can not read what is posted on this board and what is reported about in the news, yup he is sure a ******* genius.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to stay home all day and read the putrid shit that you post. I have other things to do with my life. And I know...it really makes me a moron that instead of posting here I'm getting a Law School degree. Instead of that I should probably drop out so I can read the news and these boards 24/7 so I don't miss anything so you might think I'm not up to par.

Why don't, instead of being a royal fuckhead, you just provide the link. You ***** about how I don't address the issue? Please notice how that when I asked for a link you made it personal. I have numbers saying the exact opposite, which you ignored. Does that make you a lying shitbag? Probably. Did I call you out until you decided to be a ******* retard? No.

As for your claim temperatures have risen in the last 5 years, YOU provide raw numbers, not the "adjusted" ones that your lying UN watchdogs play with.

The EPA is not a "UN watchdog" you moron. I will post it again for you.

The five warmest years over last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.

That is from a US government report put out under the Bush administration.

I mean even your non scientific mind should be able to google up some hard numbers from your loved scientific community of whackos. I wait with bated breath for raw data that shows a world wide rise in temperature over the last 5 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/ann/global.html#Gtemp

The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces in 2006 was +0.54°C (+0.97°F) above average, ranking 5th warmest in the period of record

As for the report it hasn't risen maybe if you could read you might find it on this board somewhere you genius.

Sorry I have better things to do with my time than do your own research for you. Besides the fact that your continued pattern of being a lying shitbag makes me wonder if I would find it at all. You post the evidence for your own claims, jackass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm sorry that I don't have time to stay home all day and read the putrid shit that you post. I have other things to do with my life. And I know...it really makes me a moron that instead of posting here I'm getting a Law School degree. Instead of that I should probably drop out so I can read the news and these boards 24/7 so I don't miss anything so you might think I'm not up to par.

Why don't, instead of being a royal fuckhead, you just provide the link. You ***** about how I don't address the issue? Please notice how that when I asked for a link you made it personal. I have numbers saying the exact opposite, which you ignored. Does that make you a lying shitbag? Probably. Did I call you out until you decided to be a ******* retard? No.



The EPA is not a "UN watchdog" you moron. I will post it again for you.



That is from a US government report put out under the Bush administration.









Sorry I have better things to do with my time than do your own research for you. Besides the fact that your continued pattern of being a lying shitbag makes me wonder if I would find it at all. You post the evidence for your own claims, jackass.

Learn to read and to think mr Einstein. I ask for RAW data, since 1998 at least the supposed rising temperature has all been " adjusted" raw data does not support the supposed increase. That would be why a group of scientists can stand before the Bali Conference with a study showing NO temperature increase in the last 5 years.