Global warming biggest science scandal ever

[Freewill]

I wonder if Global Warming will be the primary conversation of all 6 million people living in Assachusetts.

Proving yet again that deniers don't know the difference between weather and climate.

What defines climate? Do you know?

 

[Freewill]

I wonder if Global Warming will be the primary conversation of all 6 million people living in Assachusetts.

Proving yet again that deniers don't know the difference between weather and climate.

Bwahahahaha!

That's another one liberals try.

"Oh, there's a 'difference' between weather and climate."

OH PUHLEASE!

climate
[klahy-mit]
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, astemperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness,and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2.
a region or area characterized by a given climate:
to move to a warm climate.
3.
the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of agroup, period, or place:
a climate of political unrest.
Climate Define Climate at Dictionary.com

Keep digging that hole, libs.

Right, you've provided half of the answer. Now provide the other half (the weather definition), and then explain why every time it snows righttards declare 'global warming? What global warming?'

Sorry, I am not going to be scared just because you an Al Gore are scared. I wouldn't mind it one bit a little warmer. Hand wringing increase the temperature.

 

[orogenicman]

Does anyone here know why there are so few people who actually understand the science of climate change posting here these days? It is because the forum has been taken over by right wing political pundants who don't even understand the very simple fact that weather and climate are not the same thing. Talking to these people is like talking to a creationist with the exception that at least a creationist can justify their ignorance on religious grounds. And at least creationists for the most part don't use foul and/or insulting language when you converse with them. I can accept that even if I think their denial is irrational. I can accept that because their belief in creationism mostly doesn't hurt anyone but themselves. On the other hand, right wing political pundants who are actively denying the science are hurting everyone because every day nothing is done to mitigate CO2 emissions, because every day their activism against science affects all of us and pushes us further and further away from our former leadership role in the sciences, the more at risk is our future and that of our children, and their children. It really does border on criminal behavior, IMHO. But who the hell wants to have a conversation with some one like theowl32, or Flash, people who obviously have nothing to contribute to the conversation, or even at least one of the moderators, who apparently feels it to be their place to shut down the conversation of anyone who disagrees with them? I certainly see no point to it. But perhaps that was their aim in the first place: To shut down all reasonable discussion and claim, in their eyes at least, some sort of victory. Sorry, folks. Alienating people doesn't make one superior to anyone. And considering the fact that the only ones who appear to be taken to task on the forum rules are those who support climate change science, such behavior certainly isn't contributing to the conversation. So what's the point? Anyone? Why even have an environment forum at all?

Translation: "you can't understand the science because you are conservatives and we liberals are just sooooooooooooooooo superior in understand, because we say so!"

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

if the events of Boston this week are the results of Global Warming, then what would Boston/Massachusetts look like if they were hit by global freezing?

 

[orogenicman]

I wonder if Global Warming will be the primary conversation of all 6 million people living in Assachusetts.

Proving yet again that deniers don't know the difference between weather and climate.

What defines climate? Do you know?

Yes, and we've covered this before (over and over, actually), and yet we keep having to explain it. Why is that?

 

[orogenicman]

I wonder if Global Warming will be the primary conversation of all 6 million people living in Assachusetts.

Proving yet again that deniers don't know the difference between weather and climate.

Bwahahahaha!

That's another one liberals try.

"Oh, there's a 'difference' between weather and climate."

OH PUHLEASE!

climate
[klahy-mit]
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, astemperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness,and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2.
a region or area characterized by a given climate:
to move to a warm climate.
3.
the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of agroup, period, or place:
a climate of political unrest.
Climate Define Climate at Dictionary.com

Keep digging that hole, libs.

Right, you've provided half of the answer. Now provide the other half (the weather definition), and then explain why every time it snows righttards declare 'global warming? What global warming?'

Sorry, I am not going to be scared just because you an Al Gore are scared. I wouldn't mind it one bit a little warmer. Hand wringing increase the temperature.

Al Gore? O-M-G! I have never seen a political party have such a hard on for anyone like you people have for Al Gore. News flash. Global warming existed before Al Gore came along. News flash. Global warming exists regardless of your hard on for Al Gore.

 

[orogenicman]

if the events of Boston this week are the results of Global Warming, then what would Boston/Massachusetts look like if they were hit by global freezing?

New York, actually.

 

[Flash]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

There have been at least three periods in the 3500 years where the temperature was higher than today. The CO2 levels were lower in the Medieval Warming period but yet the temperature was higher.

If you look closely at the chart you will also see that CO2 levels lag temperature increases meaning CO2 doesn't cause the rise in temperature.

It is you scammers that are denying science, big time.

 

[Freewill]

I wonder if Global Warming will be the primary conversation of all 6 million people living in Assachusetts.

Proving yet again that deniers don't know the difference between weather and climate.

What defines climate? Do you know?

Yes, and we've covered this before (over and over, actually), and yet we keep having to explain it. Why is that?

Do you also drive a dodge?

Weather defines the Climate. So for the climate to change the weather must change.

 

[Freewill]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

There have been at least three periods in the 3500 years where the temperature was higher than today. The CO2 levels were lower in the Medieval Warming period but yet the temperature was higher.

If you look closely at the chart you will also see that CO2 levels lag temperature increases meaning CO2 doesn't cause the rise in temperature.

It is you scammers that are denying science, big time.

The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.

 

[orogenicman]

The land surface temperature adjustments. Oh noes! Those adjustments make the historical warming look bigger!

Next, the sea surface temperature adjustments. Wait ... those adjustments make the historical warming look ... smaller?

Since the oceans are 70% of the earth's surface, when we combine the two, we get ...

So, all the adjustments across the whole earth combine to make the historical warming look _smaller_. And yet another denier conspiracy theory crumbles. And it won't matter. Being that all the deniers here are all deeply stupid and dishonest cultists, they'll run right back to the people who lied to them and beg for more lies, after screaming curses at me for popping their latest delusion bubble.

Nobody has any idea what the land temperature across the earth was in 1880 or 1900 or even 1980. Even nowadays we don't have a real good handle on it.

Well, none of that is true.

Prior to WWII over half the recorded and cataloged temperature data came from universities in American and European cities and do not represent the whole earth by any stretch of the imagination. The Southern hemisphere has always been vastly under reported.

Ever here of proxies?

Satellite data that we use nowadays is historically unreliable because the satellite sensors are not calibrated to determine the temperature precise enough to draw conclusions about man made influences.

According to who?

We just don't have the data to put together charts like that and then come to the conclusion that the rise in temperature is a result of man made activities. That is why in Climategate it was exposed that the climate scientists were making up data to fit their scam model. The real data doesn't support the conclusions.

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? Really? Well, I must say that was as confused as any statement I've ever read from a denier. Care to rephrase the above bullshit statements? I do find it very amusing that the deniers are still trying to suck blood from the "climategate" turnip.

It is being extremely scientifically dishonest to know that data was tampered with and then rely on the data to make conclusions.

It is even more dishonest to make a claim and then provide not one shred of evidence to support it. But you knew this, right?

All we really have is a generalized idea that the earth may be getting warmer but we are not sure of that and we sure as hell do not know if the climate changes are the result of significant man made activities.

A generalized idea that the earth MAY be getting warmer? Even most deniers acknowledge that it is getting warmer. What they disagree on is that it has a significant human made component. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What do YOU think would be the natural result of cutting down so many of the Earth's trees, and releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year (on top of all the other ghgs that we release)? Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere is infinite, and unreactive chemically? Really?

To quote The ***** of Benghazi "what difference does it make?" We are producing more food now than ever before. This climate profile for the earth is supporting about 7 billion people. We are living in a post glacial warming period and it is good.

How long to you believe that can be sustained?

Something the AGW scam artists always forget is that plants love CO2 and thrive in a CO2 rich environment.

It has been shown time and time again that over a certain threshold, even plants are adversely affected by an atmosphere enriched in CO2. Furthermore, global warming predicts that shifts in regional climates will have negative impacts on precipitation, so that some areas will receive more rain, while others will become more drought prone. So while plants may benefit from some increase in CO2, it will do them little good if they are expected to thrive under multiyear drought conditions. You simpletons never look at the overall picture. Why is that?

Of course the scammers always forget to mention that a couple of times in the past the CO2 was ten times higher than today but the earth was covered in ice. I wonder why they forget to mention that?

And you simpletons think that makes a reasonable argument? Really? That, say there was no ice in the cretaceous and yet life thrived? Well, yeah, life did thrive. Live that was evolved to live under those conditions. Do note that 65 million years ago there was a great dying, a mass extinction (there have been several smaller ones since then), as the global climate changed drastically. We are seeing today, a massive increase in the extinction rate. How sustainable is that? Not very, is the answer.

 

[Wyld Kard]

I wonder if Global Warming will be the primary conversation of all 6 million people living in Assachusetts.

Proving yet again that deniers don't know the difference between weather and climate.

Bwahahahaha!

That's another one liberals try.

"Oh, there's a 'difference' between weather and climate."

OH PUHLEASE!

climate
[klahy-mit]
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, astemperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness,and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2.
a region or area characterized by a given climate:
to move to a warm climate.
3.
the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of agroup, period, or place:
a climate of political unrest.
Climate Define Climate at Dictionary.com

Keep digging that hole, libs.

Right, you've provided half of the answer. Now provide the other half (the weather definition), and then explain why every time it snows righttards declare 'global warming? What global warming?'

Sorry, I am not going to be scared just because you an Al Gore are scared. I wouldn't mind it one bit a little warmer. Hand wringing increase the temperature.

Al Gore? O-M-G! I have never seen a political party have such a hard on for anyone like you people have for Al Gore. News flash. Global warming existed before Al Gore came along. News flash. Global warming exists regardless of your hard on for Al Gore.

Global warming exists

Yeah, sure it does.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Global Warming comes after the icecaps melt beyond a certain ecological tipping point.

So yeah, we're not 100% accelerated down that path yet.

The correct term for today is "Climate Change". The wild swings between extreme colds and extreme heat is due to the nature of the specific heat of the water molecule as it phase changes from a solid (ice at the poles) to a liquid (rising ocean levels seen everywhere today along lowlying coastal areas).

Due to the water molecule's relatively high specific heat (the amount of energy any substance needs to phase change from solid-liquid-gas-plasma), as ice melts it draws in enormous energy that would be felt as regional cold snaps that are unusual (like the cold fronts coming down and gripping the East more frequently in Winter). It also causes cooler than normal temperatures in normally hot regions (as has been happening more often now in the South and Southwest at odd times during Summers).

Climate Change is what you should fear. By the time actual significant Global Warming arrives on its heels (as the ice caps continue to melt and our atmosphere changes for the worse.), you'll be more concerned about how everyone is dying from starvation and the massive wars resulting from that chaos to be worried about silly things like semantics.

Try an experiment: put an ice cube on your counter to mimic the ice caps at the polls. Put a little fan blowing across it as it melts (it will melt much faster this way too). Notice the temperature of the air even a bit distant from the ice/fan. A bit cooler, isn't it? That's how Global Warming with ice caps melting feels at first...cooler...oddly...alternating with pockets of warmer and warmer air when that nice coolness isn't blowing your way at that minute..

Enjoy. Because that is exactly what's happening to the planet.

In other Moon Bat words since this global warming bullshit didn't work out like was predicted 20 years ago then the scam is being redefined.

No wonder the Republicans want to curtail Science. Since you don't use it, why bother teaching it. The Predictions are correct but the time frame is wrong. But it's a fact that by 2020, all public markings of the Glacier National Part will be gone. You can't get around that. And it's attributed to global warming of the Artic. You can't change the fact that Polar Bears are on the decline. Not because of urban encroachment but because it's further and further between ice drifts and they can't go where the food is. Forget science, go with reality.

For being a Moonbat Words, reality is reality. So cut the sciences even further in our Education System since you don't use it anyway. Your Handlers don't allow it.

Unsupported by the facts... yet spewed with the fervor of a religious truth... You left wing nut cases are really out there..

 

[orogenicman]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

I am a geologist, actually. You?

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

It already has.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.

How about these, from real sources:

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg

RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene

Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists

CO2 and Temperature Data

Climate Change

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A

 

[Billy_Bob]

The land surface temperature adjustments. Oh noes! Those adjustments make the historical warming look bigger!

Next, the sea surface temperature adjustments. Wait ... those adjustments make the historical warming look ... smaller?

Since the oceans are 70% of the earth's surface, when we combine the two, we get ...

So, all the adjustments across the whole earth combine to make the historical warming look _smaller_. And yet another denier conspiracy theory crumbles. And it won't matter. Being that all the deniers here are all deeply stupid and dishonest cultists, they'll run right back to the people who lied to them and beg for more lies, after screaming curses at me for popping their latest delusion bubble.

Nobody has any idea what the land temperature across the earth was in 1880 or 1900 or even 1980. Even nowadays we don't have a real good handle on it.

Well, none of that is true.

Prior to WWII over half the recorded and cataloged temperature data came from universities in American and European cities and do not represent the whole earth by any stretch of the imagination. The Southern hemisphere has always been vastly under reported.

Ever here of proxies?

Satellite data that we use nowadays is historically unreliable because the satellite sensors are not calibrated to determine the temperature precise enough to draw conclusions about man made influences.

According to who?

We just don't have the data to put together charts like that and then come to the conclusion that the rise in temperature is a result of man made activities. That is why in Climategate it was exposed that the climate scientists were making up data to fit their scam model. The real data doesn't support the conclusions.

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? Really? Well, I must say that was as confused as any statement I've ever read from a denier. Care to rephrase the above bullshit statements? I do find it very amusing that the deniers are still trying to suck blood from the "climategate" turnip.

It is being extremely scientifically dishonest to know that data was tampered with and then rely on the data to make conclusions.

It is even more dishonest to make a claim and then provide not one shred of evidence to support it. But you knew this, right?

All we really have is a generalized idea that the earth may be getting warmer but we are not sure of that and we sure as hell do not know if the climate changes are the result of significant man made activities.

A generalized idea that the earth MAY be getting warmer? Even most deniers acknowledge that it is getting warmer. What they disagree on is that it has a significant human made component. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What do YOU think would be the natural result of cutting down so many of the Earth's trees, and releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year (on top of all the other ghgs that we release)? Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere is infinite, and unreactive chemically? Really?

To quote The ***** of Benghazi "what difference does it make?" We are producing more food now than ever before. This climate profile for the earth is supporting about 7 billion people. We are living in a post glacial warming period and it is good.

How long to you believe that can be sustained?

Something the AGW scam artists always forget is that plants love CO2 and thrive in a CO2 rich environment.

It has been shown time and time again that over a certain threshold, even plants are adversely affected by an atmosphere enriched in CO2. Furthermore, global warming predicts that shifts in regional climates will have negative impacts on precipitation, so that some areas will receive more rain, while others will become more drought prone. So while plants may benefit from some increase in CO2, it will do them little good if they are expected to thrive under multiyear drought conditions. You simpletons never look at the overall picture. Why is that?

Of course the scammers always forget to mention that a couple of times in the past the CO2 was ten times higher than today but the earth was covered in ice. I wonder why they forget to mention that?

And you simpletons think that makes a reasonable argument? Really? That, say there was no ice in the cretaceous and yet life thrived? Well, yeah, life did thrive. Live that was evolved to live under those conditions. Do note that 65 million years ago there was a great dying, a mass extinction (there have been several smaller ones since then), as the global climate changed drastically. We are seeing today, a massive increase in the extinction rate. How sustainable is that? Not very, is the answer.

You have successfully thrown out ever left wing fabrication and lie that can be thrown out. The extinction rate is utterly unchanged. CO2 can not drive climate, it simply can not do it, has been over exaggerated by a factor of 600% in the majority of the IPCC and EPA models. Reality has kicked you in the ass and the earth has shown your dogma a lie.

Empirical evidence shows that CO2 is not adverse to plants up to around 4,000ppm and does not cause mutation until over 9,000ppm. Even the US Navy submarine protocols show that many nuclear subs have extended periods of time where CO2 is well above 4,000ppm and no adverse reactions to the crew are noted. Our Military routinely has levels between 2,000 and 4,000ppm.

The amount of left wing propaganda is stunning.

 

[orogenicman]

I wonder if Global Warming will be the primary conversation of all 6 million people living in Assachusetts.

Proving yet again that deniers don't know the difference between weather and climate.

What defines climate? Do you know?

Yes, and we've covered this before (over and over, actually), and yet we keep having to explain it. Why is that?

Do you also drive a dodge?

Weather defines the Climate. So for the climate to change the weather must change.

Weather over long periods of time defines regional climate. A snow storm in Boston does not define the global climate. Sorry if this disappoints you.

 

[orogenicman]

[

That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?

You scammers don't know much about science.

You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.

Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2

A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.

Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.

There have been at least three periods in the 3500 years where the temperature was higher than today. The CO2 levels were lower in the Medieval Warming period but yet the temperature was higher.

If you look closely at the chart you will also see that CO2 levels lag temperature increases meaning CO2 doesn't cause the rise in temperature.

It is you scammers that are denying science, big time.

The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.

So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.

 

[orogenicman]

The land surface temperature adjustments. Oh noes! Those adjustments make the historical warming look bigger!

Next, the sea surface temperature adjustments. Wait ... those adjustments make the historical warming look ... smaller?

Since the oceans are 70% of the earth's surface, when we combine the two, we get ...

So, all the adjustments across the whole earth combine to make the historical warming look _smaller_. And yet another denier conspiracy theory crumbles. And it won't matter. Being that all the deniers here are all deeply stupid and dishonest cultists, they'll run right back to the people who lied to them and beg for more lies, after screaming curses at me for popping their latest delusion bubble.

Nobody has any idea what the land temperature across the earth was in 1880 or 1900 or even 1980. Even nowadays we don't have a real good handle on it.

Well, none of that is true.

Prior to WWII over half the recorded and cataloged temperature data came from universities in American and European cities and do not represent the whole earth by any stretch of the imagination. The Southern hemisphere has always been vastly under reported.

Ever here of proxies?

Satellite data that we use nowadays is historically unreliable because the satellite sensors are not calibrated to determine the temperature precise enough to draw conclusions about man made influences.

According to who?

We just don't have the data to put together charts like that and then come to the conclusion that the rise in temperature is a result of man made activities. That is why in Climategate it was exposed that the climate scientists were making up data to fit their scam model. The real data doesn't support the conclusions.

Erm, first you say we don't have the data, then you say the data was made up. Then you say the "real" data doesn't support the conclusions? Really? Well, I must say that was as confused as any statement I've ever read from a denier. Care to rephrase the above bullshit statements? I do find it very amusing that the deniers are still trying to suck blood from the "climategate" turnip.

It is being extremely scientifically dishonest to know that data was tampered with and then rely on the data to make conclusions.

It is even more dishonest to make a claim and then provide not one shred of evidence to support it. But you knew this, right?

All we really have is a generalized idea that the earth may be getting warmer but we are not sure of that and we sure as hell do not know if the climate changes are the result of significant man made activities.

A generalized idea that the earth MAY be getting warmer? Even most deniers acknowledge that it is getting warmer. What they disagree on is that it has a significant human made component. But let me ask you a couple of questions. What do YOU think would be the natural result of cutting down so many of the Earth's trees, and releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere ever year (on top of all the other ghgs that we release)? Do you honestly believe that the atmosphere is infinite, and unreactive chemically? Really?

To quote The ***** of Benghazi "what difference does it make?" We are producing more food now than ever before. This climate profile for the earth is supporting about 7 billion people. We are living in a post glacial warming period and it is good.

How long to you believe that can be sustained?

Something the AGW scam artists always forget is that plants love CO2 and thrive in a CO2 rich environment.

It has been shown time and time again that over a certain threshold, even plants are adversely affected by an atmosphere enriched in CO2. Furthermore, global warming predicts that shifts in regional climates will have negative impacts on precipitation, so that some areas will receive more rain, while others will become more drought prone. So while plants may benefit from some increase in CO2, it will do them little good if they are expected to thrive under multiyear drought conditions. You simpletons never look at the overall picture. Why is that?

Of course the scammers always forget to mention that a couple of times in the past the CO2 was ten times higher than today but the earth was covered in ice. I wonder why they forget to mention that?

And you simpletons think that makes a reasonable argument? Really? That, say there was no ice in the cretaceous and yet life thrived? Well, yeah, life did thrive. Live that was evolved to live under those conditions. Do note that 65 million years ago there was a great dying, a mass extinction (there have been several smaller ones since then), as the global climate changed drastically. We are seeing today, a massive increase in the extinction rate. How sustainable is that? Not very, is the answer.

You have successfully thrown out ever left wing fabrication and lie that can be thrown out. The extinction rate is utterly unchanged. CO2 can not drive climate, it simply can not do it, has been over exaggerated by a factor of 600% in the majority of the IPCC and EPA models. Reality has kicked you in the ass and the earth has shown your dogma a lie.

Empirical evidence shows that CO2 is not adverse to plants up to around 4,000ppm and does not cause mutation until over 9,000ppm. Even the US Navy submarine protocols show that many nuclear subs have extended periods of time where CO2 is well above 4,000ppm and no adverse reactions to the crew are noted. Our Military routinely has levels between 2,000 and 4,000ppm.

The amount of left wing propaganda is stunning.

If you believe that science is "left wing propaganda", you are too far gone for any reasonable person to consider having a conversation with you. I cannot say what your chances are of recovering from your condition, but you do have my sympathy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nice job keeping this thread right up on top!!!

Keep it up s0ns!!!

Screw these phony/lying AGW assholes.........public needs to know about the continued levels of ghey from these people.

 

[orogenicman]

Nice job keeping this thread right up on top!!!

Keep it up s0ns!!!

Screw these phony/lying AGW assholes.........public needs to know about the continued levels of ghey from these people.

If you are trying to influence public opinion on this matter, this thread is not where you want to be. You didn't know this?

GHEY!