Global Warming Update

[frigidweirdo]

Did you happen to notice the Y scale on your charts? its in tenths of a degree. TENTHS OF A DEGREE.

And...... what's your point?

That you are so ignorant that you believe that anyone can measure the average temperature of the entire planet to the tenth of a degree

So your point is that you can't measure the global temperature?

 

[Edgetho]

Since the 2005 hysterics from the experts, the US has experienced the quietest period on record for hurricanes.

Anyone who looks at global warming in terms of the last 10 years is going to find whatever they hell they want to find.

The warming/cooling cycle lasts for 100,000 years, and you're talking 10 years. Give me strength.

When did the last Ice Age end?

Can you answer that without googling it? **** no, you can't.

Think we might be heating up right on cue after an Ice Age?

One other thing.... Know why there were so many HUGE animals, dinosaurs, etc during certain periods of the Earth's cycle?

Of course you don't.

It was because of the Oxygen rich atmosphere. Those huge insects and animals couldn't live in today's atmoshere.

Know what else? You don't remember but there was a time when people were scared shitless about the encroaching deserts.

Not any more. The amount of CO2 in the air is causing plant life to absolutely BOOM.

There are very few famines anymore because of it. Plant life is growing like crazy because of the plentiful amounts of CO2 in the air. Harvests are setting records every year.

The Earth changes. All the time.

What's causing it? Sometimes the Earth may tilt a little bit on its axis (yes it does), sometimes the Gulf Stream or another major ocean current moves a little bit one way or another. Sometimes the Oceans release more of this or that into the atmosphere. Which, BTW, we have NO clue what's really going on at the ocean floor. None. Two Thirds of the World is covered by water and we have little to no idea what's going on under it but you ******* geniuses want to declare an end to the discussion.

**** you. **** you.

If the tiniest insect on Earth farts, it affects the Earth's ecology somewhat. So there's no doubt that Man's activity is affecting Earth's atmosphere and climate. No doubt.

But when we ask retards like you the very simple question of "How Much?" You're speechless.

Tell you what else..... One of the reasons I despise dimocrap scum.....

Ever notice... There's no debate in North Korea either.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Right, now explain to us how that actions of humans changed the climate 100,000 years ago.

Right now go back and read what I wrote.

Climate change is natural. There is a 100,000 year cycle, temperatures rise and then they drop. Perfectly natural.

We should, in theory, but in the drop zone right now, it should be getting colder and a lot colder.

Problem is we're not getting colder, we're getting a little warmer. There's more CO2 and other such gases which make the greenhouse effect. Or are you denying the greenhouse effect? Generally this is accepted. We know it's happening.

What we also know is when we mess with the planet, it has bad consequences.

Mao ZeDong decided to kill the birds, they were eating the crops. What they then found out was the birds were also eating the insects that then ate the crops more than the birds.

What we're doing with pollution is going to cause problems we won't be able to reverse so easily.

 

[Edgetho]

And...... what's your point?

That you are so ignorant that you believe that anyone can measure the average temperature of the entire planet to the tenth of a degree

So your point is that you can't measure the global temperature?

Not when lying scum-sucking dimocraps keep tampering with readings

NOAA Blowing Away All Records For Data Tampering In 2014
Posted on April 26, 2014

NOAA is adjusting Illinois temperatures upwards by three degrees in 2014. That makes a total of six degrees data tampering since 1895.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/

 

[frigidweirdo]

Since the 2005 hysterics from the experts, the US has experienced the quietest period on record for hurricanes.

Anyone who looks at global warming in terms of the last 10 years is going to find whatever they hell they want to find.

The warming/cooling cycle lasts for 100,000 years, and you're talking 10 years. Give me strength.

When did the last Ice Age end?

Can you answer that without googling it? **** no, you can't.

Think we might be heating up right on cue after an Ice Age?

One other thing.... Know why there were so many HUGE animals, dinosaurs, etc during certain periods of the Earth's cycle?

Of course you don't.

It was because of the Oxygen rich atmosphere. Those huge insects and animals couldn't live in today's atmoshere.

Know what else? You don't remember but there was a time when people were scared shitless about the encroaching deserts.

Not any more. The amount of CO2 in the air is causing plant life to absolutely BOOM.

There are very few famines anymore because of it. Plant life is growing like crazy because of the plentiful amounts of CO2 in the air. Harvests are setting records every year.

The Earth changes. All the time.

What's causing it? Sometimes the Earth may tilt a little bit on its axis (yes it does), sometimes the Gulf Stream or another major moves a little bit one way or another. Sometimes the Oceans release more of this or that into the atmosphere. Which, BTW, we have NO clue what's really going on at the ocean floor. None. Two Thirds of the World is covered by water and we have little to no idea what's going on under it but you ******* geniuses want to declare an end to the discussion.

**** you. **** you.

If the tiniest insect on Earth farts, it affects the Earth's ecology somewhat. So there's no doubt that Man's activity is affecting Earth's atmosphere and climate. No doubt.

But when we ask retards like you the very simple question of "How Much?" You're speechless.

Tell you what else..... One of the reasons I despise dimocrap scum.....

Ever notice... There's no debate in North Korea either.

Er.....

You know, I've lived in various countries, and there has been major desertification problems in some of these countries, and in other countries. For example China:

Desertification and Land Degradation in China

"China has some of the most serious desertification in the world. More than 27 per cent, or 2.5 million square kilometres of the country comprises desert. Just 7 per cent of land in China feeds the Chinese population, which equates to approximately a quarter of the world's population. China's phenomenal economic growth over the last ten years has extracted a serious environmental toll. According to the China State Forestry Administration, the desert areas are still expanding by between 2460 and 10,400km2 per year. Up to 400 million people are at risk of desertification in China – the affected area could cover as much as 3.317 million km2 – 34.6 per cent of the total land area. Much of it is happening on the edge of the settled area, which suggests that human activities are largely to blame."

Drought and Desertification in Spain

"The Sahara is about to leap across the Mediterranean. According to the Spanish government one third of the country is in immediate danger of turning into desert. 'Costing the Earth' investigates the causes and weighs up the competing solutions. "

I really don't need google to tell me this sort of stuff, I've seen it happen with my own eyes.

As for your claim about oxygen rich dinosaurs, my knowledge tells me that they had massive levels of CO2.

Okay, now let's go prove this.

Well here's a 400,000 year chart, to show that CO2 has generally gone up and down, just as warming and cooling have gone up and down. generally hand in hand.

Carbon Dioxide Levels in the Jurassic Period | eHow

"This number [today's level of CO2] is historically low compared to the Jurassic Period."

As you can see from this chart, the earth has become LESS CO2 orientated.

But the one thing you're right about is that the dinosaurs probably wouldn't have been able to live in our climate and with our levels of CO2.
The other point is, will WE be able to live with the levels if CO2 we're going to end up with?

I doubt it. So we're basically committing suicide. And for what? For money we won't be able to use.

**** you. **** you.

Great argument, your IQ level must be going through the roof right now.

Basically, you're putting a few stats together and trying to claim a massive picture, but you're not making a decent claim that is based on logic. You're just throwing stuff at me and hoping something sticks.

Come off it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That you are so ignorant that you believe that anyone can measure the average temperature of the entire planet to the tenth of a degree

So your point is that you can't measure the global temperature?

Not when lying scum-sucking dimocraps keep tampering with readings

NOAA Blowing Away All Records For Data Tampering In 2014
Posted on April 26, 2014

NOAA is adjusting Illinois temperatures upwards by three degrees in 2014. That makes a total of six degrees data tampering since 1895.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/

Are we talking GLOBAL WARMING or are we talking Illinois warming?

Hmm......

As I said, you're throwing stuff and hoping it sticks. It doesn't.

 

[Edgetho]

idiot

You quibble like a little *****.

If you change ENOUGH of those little readings, guess what?

You're a quibbling ***** and not worth my time.

You can declare victory if you wish. As in your real life however, you'll be the only one that believes it

 

[frigidweirdo]

idiot

Nice argument.

You quibble like a little *****.

Wondeful argument

If you change ENOUGH of those little readings, guess what?

You're a quibbling ***** and not worth my time.

You can declare victory if you wish. As in your real life however, you'll be the only one that believes it

Listen, if you want to debate this, we will debate. If you want to insult, to just throw rubbish at people, and if you can't take criticism of the data you're presenting, then what do you have?
You have nothing more than people fighting. I don't come on here to fight, I come on here to debate.

So what will it be? You want to hang out with the monkeys and stick your finger in your bum or you want to use your brain?

As for "declare victory", it's a debate, you don't win, you present your argument, you might change someone's opinion, or they might change your opinion, or they might just ignore you and swear at you.

 

[Pete7469]

I guess dimocraps believe that social issues and made-up science coupled with agitprop can either win or prevent them from getting devastated in November's elections.

Because they're hitting the scare machine awful hard these days.

Kinda pathetic when that's all you got, huh?

This is what passes for 'thought' in today's dimocrap scum circles.....

pMSDNC Host Chris Hayes: Ending The Use Of Fossil Fuel Is Like Ending Slavery


See, the only reason we are using fossil fuels according to Chris Hayes (writing in The Nation, not blathering on pMSDNC) is because the one-percent are making so much money from them, kind of like the rich did in the 19th century from owning salves.

Tim Cavanaugh writing at NRO took the time to read this nonsense so we don't have to and finds one potential problem (which it turns out isn't actually a problem from...a certain perspective) with Hayes' idea, it would kill a lot of people.

There are many more moderate suggestions than Hayes’s on the carbon-cap continuum. But his goofy idea makes clear that all of these involve some diminution in human life: less health, less longevity, fewer opportunities to pursue happiness. At some level that translates into fewer people — a consummation many warmists might devoutly wish, though few would admit that. (As green panics go, overpopulation is long over; global warming is merely on its way out.)

Lefties really don't like people. Certainly not "the wrong kind" and are happy to devise ways to shuffle the undesirables off the planet. From Nazi Germany, to Soviet Russia and Mao's China, whenever the hard-left gets control of state sanctioned violence, the death toll is enormous.

Eliminating carbon based fuel by fiat (as opposed to true technological innovation that makes economic sense) is simply a friendlier way to bring about the inevitable leftists end-game.

Edge: dimocraps suck

Lets not get too emboldened. I'm confident these helminthes are facing a political upheaval, but I fear complacency. There could be some key offices left to them if turn out isn't maximized.

 

[Mustang]

NOT ONE of the globalwarmingistas has refuted my question as to how come 12.5% of the earth's land mass that WAS NOT included for over 50 years in temperature recording data wouldn't skew the data higher?

Or why did 600 NOAA stations near temperature distorting sources were removed.
Or why there should be ANY trust in data that excludes 12.5% of the earth's land mass.

Where are you globalwarming evangelists explaining that simple question?

I am constantly amazed NOT at the idiots like the globalwarmingistas.. because they are idiots but at common sense people who
don't ask these idiots .. how come 12.5% of the landmass wasn't included and why are most temperature recording stations located near heat sources?
These same globalwarmingistas are also great Obamacare phony number of 46 million uninsured believers.
And again I excuse their idiocy but common sense folks regarding the phony 46 million still repeat that number ... do these
common sense people not know 10 million of the 46 million are NOT citizens? 14 million simply need register BEFORE ACA with medicaid!
And why are 18 million that don't need (under 34) can afford (make over $50k) but don't want insurance!
That means there were ONLY 4 million that truly need insurance!

It's not a zero-sum game.

I don't know if you understand the concept of "zero-sum game" which is "in game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which a participant's gain of utility is exactly balanced by the losses of the utility of the other participant"..
What in my comments had anything to do with one participant gain at the loss of another participant?
My comments had NOTHING to do with "zero-sum game" and you just put that comment for show... but what that comment did was "show"
your ignorance of the concept especially using in context of my comments!
NOT one globalwarmingista can with any degree of confidence tell me that when you say the earth is warming up ..i.e. global warming..
that is true WHEN 12.5% of the land masses had little if any contribution to the averages!
And when NOAA removes 600 stations because they distorted???
And I'm showing you the reality of there never having been 46 million uninsured yet people like you and other globalwarmingnistas keep
ignoring the realities for some cliched, meme, worn out gospel according to Gore and Obama!

You mention 12.5% of the land mass as if the temperatures in other places could somehow balance out the record if the temperatures in those places were less than normal. That's what I meant by it not being a zero sum game. The point is that the PLANET is getting warmer. That means that, generally speaking, the ENTIRE planet is warming. That includes land masses, the oceans (which drive the weather of the planet), and all latitudes, longitudes, and altitudes. There may very well be individual places on certain days that may be colder or cooler due to changing weather patterns. There may even be areas that experience a temporary decrease in temperature due to changing weather patterns. A good example of that might be England which is generally warmer than its latitude would indicate because of the Gulf Stream. But if the greater amount of cold fresh water that's being dumped into the North Atlantic due to the melting Greenland ice manages to interrupt that pattern at some point, Europe could experience cooler or even colder weather than historically. But that won't change the fact that the oceans are generally warming even if cold water is being emptied into it around the poles.

 

[Antares]

HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

We'll let you chew on this one for awhile.


Stephen E. Schwartz

Senior Scientist

Stephen Schwartz is a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and principal investigator in the Department of Energy Atmospheric System Research Program. His research centers on the influences of energy related emissions on climate, with a focus on the role of atmospheric aerosols.

In his research at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Schwartz developed methods to describe the rate of reactions in clouds that lead to production of acid rain. Schwartz's research exerted a major influence on the drafting of the acid deposition section of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Subsequently his work focused on atmospheric aerosols, which influence a variety of atmospheric processes, from precipitation to climate change. More recently Schwartz has been examining climate change using whole-Earth energy balance models.

Clearly a hack working for a Laboratory working in conjunction with the Dept of energy....

 

[Redfish]

Right, now explain to us how that actions of humans changed the climate 100,000 years ago.

Right now go back and read what I wrote.

Climate change is natural. There is a 100,000 year cycle, temperatures rise and then they drop. Perfectly natural.

We should, in theory, but in the drop zone right now, it should be getting colder and a lot colder.

Problem is we're not getting colder, we're getting a little warmer. There's more CO2 and other such gases which make the greenhouse effect. Or are you denying the greenhouse effect? Generally this is accepted. We know it's happening.

What we also know is when we mess with the planet, it has bad consequences.

Mao ZeDong decided to kill the birds, they were eating the crops. What they then found out was the birds were also eating the insects that then ate the crops more than the birds.

What we're doing with pollution is going to cause problems we won't be able to reverse so easily.

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere. thats less than half of one percent. CO2 is not destroying the earth. Plants love it, they need it to survive. Its a naturally occuring gas.

A slight rise is not going to cause the oceans to boil, relax. Pollution is bad, pollution is NOT causing climate change to the entire planet.

 

[Redfish]

And...... what's your point?

That you are so ignorant that you believe that anyone can measure the average temperature of the entire planet to the tenth of a degree

So your point is that you can't measure the global temperature?

Do you think it can be accurately measured to a tenth of a degree?

 

[Redfish]

HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

We'll let you chew on this one for awhile.


Stephen E. Schwartz

Senior Scientist

Stephen Schwartz is a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and principal investigator in the Department of Energy Atmospheric System Research Program. His research centers on the influences of energy related emissions on climate, with a focus on the role of atmospheric aerosols.

In his research at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Schwartz developed methods to describe the rate of reactions in clouds that lead to production of acid rain. Schwartz's research exerted a major influence on the drafting of the acid deposition section of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Subsequently his work focused on atmospheric aerosols, which influence a variety of atmospheric processes, from precipitation to climate change. More recently Schwartz has been examining climate change using whole-Earth energy balance models.

Clearly a hack working for a Laboratory working in conjunction with the Dept of energy....

have a chew on this:

Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller

 

[Antares]

HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

We'll let you chew on this one for awhile.


Stephen E. Schwartz

Senior Scientist

Stephen Schwartz is a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory and principal investigator in the Department of Energy Atmospheric System Research Program. His research centers on the influences of energy related emissions on climate, with a focus on the role of atmospheric aerosols.

In his research at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Schwartz developed methods to describe the rate of reactions in clouds that lead to production of acid rain. Schwartz's research exerted a major influence on the drafting of the acid deposition section of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Subsequently his work focused on atmospheric aerosols, which influence a variety of atmospheric processes, from precipitation to climate change. More recently Schwartz has been examining climate change using whole-Earth energy balance models.

Clearly a hack working for a Laboratory working in conjunction with the Dept of energy....

have a chew on this:

Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller

Pssst, that study....by a prominent Dept of Energy Scientist debunks anthropogenic climate change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere. thats less than half of one percent. CO2 is not destroying the earth. Plants love it, they need it to survive. Its a naturally occuring gas.

A slight rise is not going to cause the oceans to boil, relax. Pollution is bad, pollution is NOT causing climate change to the entire planet.

Do you know the difference between, say, CO2 and Water vapour or methane?

Methane is actually a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It's 72 times stronger over a 20 year period, however CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer. Over a 500 year period it is only 25% stronger. But there's far more CO2 than methane in the atmosphere.

Water vapor makes up most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but there isn't much in the way of change in water vapor. So there isn't a change.

The change is the amount of CO2, Methane and other gases that we're pumping into the air.

Yes, CO2 isn't necessarily bad. As I've shown, in the past CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. But, the change there is a problem for 2 reasons.
The first is we can't survive if CO2 levels go higher.
Second, we don't know the effects of what we are doing will have on the planet in the future.

Pollution is bad. Check out China's cancer rates. They suffer 1/4 of all known cancer, and yet they have 1/7 of the population. Why? Their cities are pollution hellholes.

You say only a slight rise.

This is what is happening. The 100,000 year cycle that has been going on for at least 400,000 years has seen a very steady rise and fall in CO2 levels. The planet is becoming far more stable the older it gets. But CO2 levels have increased from a max of 300ppmv to over 400 and rising. That's an increase of 1/4 over and above what we believe to the be natural limit at this point.
What happens with this?

Like I've said before, we should be experiencing a dramatic cooling of the earth, quite naturally, we're not. We're seeing an increase in temperatures.

But the more CO2 we pump out, (china is still trying to get more resources) the bigger problems we could potentially see.

What happens when India and China hit the red colors? We're doomed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

have a chew on this:

Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[1][2] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative[3][4] political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010. In late 2012, it was reported that the site had quadrupled its page view and total audience and had become profitable without ever buying an advertisement for itself.

Also, the ice is up 50% from 2012. Oh my God, shock horror.

This short term use of statistics in a localised area is simply not going to cut anything. It doesn't mean anything to me.

Look at the charts. No chart shows up, up, up, up. It shows up and down and up and down with an increase of things or a decrease of things over a sustained area.

People who read this trash and get taken in by people who clearly have one goal, and that's to deny man made global warming to increase profits.

Have you been bought?

 

[Mustang]

Right, now explain to us how that actions of humans changed the climate 100,000 years ago.

Right now go back and read what I wrote.

Climate change is natural. There is a 100,000 year cycle, temperatures rise and then they drop. Perfectly natural.

We should, in theory, but in the drop zone right now, it should be getting colder and a lot colder.

Problem is we're not getting colder, we're getting a little warmer. There's more CO2 and other such gases which make the greenhouse effect. Or are you denying the greenhouse effect? Generally this is accepted. We know it's happening.

What we also know is when we mess with the planet, it has bad consequences.

Mao ZeDong decided to kill the birds, they were eating the crops. What they then found out was the birds were also eating the insects that then ate the crops more than the birds.

What we're doing with pollution is going to cause problems we won't be able to reverse so easily.

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere. thats less than half of one percent. CO2 is not destroying the earth. Plants love it, they need it to survive. Its a naturally occuring gas.

A slight rise is not going to cause the oceans to boil, relax. Pollution is bad, pollution is NOT causing climate change to the entire planet.

You have a difficult time incorporating new information, don't you?

I understand that CO2 is about .04% of the Earth's atmosphere. The relatively small amount combined with the huge effect it has doesn't minimize its importance; it attests to its power since the planet would be a ball of ice without greenhouse gases to warm it sufficiently in order to support both plant and animal life. Consequently, even a modest increase in the number (say 1%) is serious business because it would represent a 25% increase (from .04% to .05%).

It also happens to be a fact that humans have been interfering with the so-called natural carbon cycle over the last 100 plus years by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere 24/7 from carbon-based fossil fuels that we've dug out of the ground from carbon sinks that have held them for millions of years in order to satisfy a massive increase in the world population that's been spreading technology and industry to ever further reaches of the planet. Hell, the industrialization of China in the last 30 years alone has put God knows how many more millions of cars on the road. When you combine that factoid with the fact that China has been building power plants that are continuously churning out CO2 to serve a population that is 4 times the population of this country, the trend is clear. Since this is all happening while most Americans are sleeping, you can get a sense that humans are burning the candle at more than just two ends because the planet is like a giant factory with different time zones acting as shift workers who keep the CO2 churning out of chimney's and tail pipes every minute of every day. Deforestation only serves to aggravate the problem by removing temporary sinks that previously pulled CO2 out of the air.

 

[Redfish]

Right now go back and read what I wrote.

Climate change is natural. There is a 100,000 year cycle, temperatures rise and then they drop. Perfectly natural.

We should, in theory, but in the drop zone right now, it should be getting colder and a lot colder.

Problem is we're not getting colder, we're getting a little warmer. There's more CO2 and other such gases which make the greenhouse effect. Or are you denying the greenhouse effect? Generally this is accepted. We know it's happening.

What we also know is when we mess with the planet, it has bad consequences.

Mao ZeDong decided to kill the birds, they were eating the crops. What they then found out was the birds were also eating the insects that then ate the crops more than the birds.

What we're doing with pollution is going to cause problems we won't be able to reverse so easily.

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere. thats less than half of one percent. CO2 is not destroying the earth. Plants love it, they need it to survive. Its a naturally occuring gas.

A slight rise is not going to cause the oceans to boil, relax. Pollution is bad, pollution is NOT causing climate change to the entire planet.

You have a difficult time incorporating new information, don't you.

I understand that CO2 is about .04% of the Earth's atmosphere. The relatively small amount combined with the huge effect it has doesn't minimize its importance; it attests to its power since the planet would be a ball of ice without greenhouse gases to warm it sufficiently in order to support both plant and animal life. Consequently, even a modest increase in the number (say 1%) is serious business because it would represent a 25% increase (from .04% to .05%).

It also happens to be a fact that humans have been interfering with the so-called natural carbon cycle over the last 100 plus years by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere 24/7 from carbon-based fossil fuels that we've dug out of the ground from carbon sinks that have held them for millions of years in order to satisfy a massive increase in the world population that's been spreading technology and industry to ever further reaches of the planet. Hell, the industrialization of China in the last 30 years alone has put God knows how many more millions of cars on the road. When you combine that factoid with the fact that China has been building power plants that are continuously churning out CO2 to serve a population that is 4 times the population of this country. Since this is all happening while most Americans are sleeping, you can get a sense that humans are burning the candle at more than just two ends because the planet is like a giant factory with different time zones acting as shift workers who keep the CO2 churning out of chimney's and tail pipes every minute of every day. Deforestation only serves to aggravate the problem by removing temporary sinks that previously pulled CO2 out of the air.

OK,just for drill, lets assume that you are frigid are correct and that man is destroying the planet by living on it. What would you have mankind do? What specifically do you on the left want the people on earth to do? how do you plan to force them to do it? and what impact will it have on the world's economic system? How do you propose to provide fuel for to house, clothe, and feed the people of earth?

Its fine to cry wolf, but unless you have a plan to kill the wolf, we will just have to live with him.

But, having said that, I think you are full of shit.

 

[Redfish]

have a chew on this:

Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Daily Caller is a politically conservative[1][2] news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative[3][4] political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010. In late 2012, it was reported that the site had quadrupled its page view and total audience and had become profitable without ever buying an advertisement for itself.

Also, the ice is up 50% from 2012. Oh my God, shock horror.

This short term use of statistics in a localised area is simply not going to cut anything. It doesn't mean anything to me.

Look at the charts. No chart shows up, up, up, up. It shows up and down and up and down with an increase of things or a decrease of things over a sustained area.

People who read this trash and get taken in by people who clearly have one goal, and that's to deny man made global warming to increase profits.

Have you been bought?

and HOLY SHIT, the temp is up 1/2 of a degree in the last 100 years. Holy shit---------we are all going to boil in seawater by August