Human Caused Global Warming

[westwall]

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

And That is the issue in a nut shell... That simple observation of the past lays the warmists hype waste.. WOW we just did science...!

Billy_Bob,
You shouldn't be so quick to gloat. Just look at my reply to westwall.

What's so special about your reply? You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades. You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.

 

[cultsmasher]

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

Lets do history. History says every claim you have made that increased temperatures will cause...didn't. Game, set, match.

westwall,
The debate between Crick and Billy_Bob aside, I have to say again that we could possibly be facing changes that have never happened before. Is it really worth the risk? Also, there are graphs that say all types of things. But Billy_Bob showed one that charted both temperatures and CO2 levels. Across the whole chart, temperatures led the way. But these days, CO2 is leading the way. That's something different. On another chart I was looking at it showed that methane release was also going up. Which as you probably know is an even worse greenhouse gas. I don't think we can yet call this dangerous game.

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

westwall,
First of all, nobody wants to turn our economic system upside down. So what's going on with all the scientists who agree that human caused global warming is real. Are they just stupid? Well if I was to make such an assumption about them or you being so, I'm afraid it would be you.

That things have been a little warmer in the past is true. And as far as I know, nothing bad really happened. But that's not to say it couldn't. Especially when CO2 levels seem to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. And where CO2 goes, temperatures and methane release are sure to follow. But as I keep having to say, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then there are things like melting glacers and desertification to consider. As things are now, there is a huge lake drying up in Africa. Causing the Darfur food war. There is another thing to consider with the past CO2 and global temperatures. It wasn't humans causing it. What the earth might naturally do is one thing. But what's our excuse.

Also, from what I was able to find out, China alone is starting a new coal fired power plant between two a week and one every ten days. You also bring up the Holocene thermal maxium. Which was after the last ice age. Well this may just be a savage talking, but how much methane do you think could have built up under a sheet of ice. Etc. All in all, I just can't see your silver lining.

Those same scientists claimed that another ice age was impending in the 1970's too. They are shysters looking for government handouts and the only way you get government handouts is by presenting scary scenarios.

Glacier loss began with the end of the Little Ice Age. 90% of the glacier loss was BEFORE 1900. Desertification is a perennial thing but parts of the Sahara are actually greening again or hadn't you heard?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

The Darfur food war is caused by government corruption as are 99% of sub Saharan Africa's problems.

And all of this is merely window dressing for the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures. Trace gasses simply don't have the power that the faithful claim they do. The Earths atmospheric engine is far more powerful than any climatologist can imagine and is far far more capable of dealing with anything we pathetic humans are capable of doing.

Progressives like you love to claim that you really don't want to harm the economies of the world and I can't figure out if you're just ignorant or lying. The cost to do "something" which even your high priests stipulate might not work (and their goal is merely to lower the global average temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....conveniently after they are long dead after having robbed you blind) is a mere 76 TRILLION dollars.

Who gets that money? Politicians, third world dictators, bankers, scientists of course, Big Oil, industrialists, and of course a few hundred thousand workers will make some decent money while they are putting up this new "green" infrastructure, and not one penny is actually earmarked for pollution control.

You can come back to me when you actually know something more than the talking points you've been given.

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption. It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food. You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine. But the effect humans are having are all around. They are too numerous to go into. If you refuse to see it, that's up to you. You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see. If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.

As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive. Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand. There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better. One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees. Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition. Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres. Etc. times zillions.

You then bring up the cost of doing something. But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing. Then you bring up what the "high priests" say. Well I'm not them. I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better. Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while. Which is even more reason to do something.

Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies. But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry. You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.

 

[cultsmasher]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

Dude, you understand you come off condescending. Perhaps why you get the responses you get. Why behave this way. You want a make this about quality of posts, fine post something of quality and stop with all the condescension.

jc456,
As far as I know, I'm not being condescending. Though if I have any attitude, it comes from the responses I get from my avatar. But waking people up to a better reality makes it necessary.

 

[westwall]

Lets do history. History says every claim you have made that increased temperatures will cause...didn't. Game, set, match.

westwall,
The debate between Crick and Billy_Bob aside, I have to say again that we could possibly be facing changes that have never happened before. Is it really worth the risk? Also, there are graphs that say all types of things. But Billy_Bob showed one that charted both temperatures and CO2 levels. Across the whole chart, temperatures led the way. But these days, CO2 is leading the way. That's something different. On another chart I was looking at it showed that methane release was also going up. Which as you probably know is an even worse greenhouse gas. I don't think we can yet call this dangerous game.

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

westwall,
First of all, nobody wants to turn our economic system upside down. So what's going on with all the scientists who agree that human caused global warming is real. Are they just stupid? Well if I was to make such an assumption about them or you being so, I'm afraid it would be you.

That things have been a little warmer in the past is true. And as far as I know, nothing bad really happened. But that's not to say it couldn't. Especially when CO2 levels seem to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. And where CO2 goes, temperatures and methane release are sure to follow. But as I keep having to say, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then there are things like melting glacers and desertification to consider. As things are now, there is a huge lake drying up in Africa. Causing the Darfur food war. There is another thing to consider with the past CO2 and global temperatures. It wasn't humans causing it. What the earth might naturally do is one thing. But what's our excuse.

Also, from what I was able to find out, China alone is starting a new coal fired power plant between two a week and one every ten days. You also bring up the Holocene thermal maxium. Which was after the last ice age. Well this may just be a savage talking, but how much methane do you think could have built up under a sheet of ice. Etc. All in all, I just can't see your silver lining.

Those same scientists claimed that another ice age was impending in the 1970's too. They are shysters looking for government handouts and the only way you get government handouts is by presenting scary scenarios.

Glacier loss began with the end of the Little Ice Age. 90% of the glacier loss was BEFORE 1900. Desertification is a perennial thing but parts of the Sahara are actually greening again or hadn't you heard?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

The Darfur food war is caused by government corruption as are 99% of sub Saharan Africa's problems.

And all of this is merely window dressing for the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures. Trace gasses simply don't have the power that the faithful claim they do. The Earths atmospheric engine is far more powerful than any climatologist can imagine and is far far more capable of dealing with anything we pathetic humans are capable of doing.

Progressives like you love to claim that you really don't want to harm the economies of the world and I can't figure out if you're just ignorant or lying. The cost to do "something" which even your high priests stipulate might not work (and their goal is merely to lower the global average temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....conveniently after they are long dead after having robbed you blind) is a mere 76 TRILLION dollars.

Who gets that money? Politicians, third world dictators, bankers, scientists of course, Big Oil, industrialists, and of course a few hundred thousand workers will make some decent money while they are putting up this new "green" infrastructure, and not one penny is actually earmarked for pollution control.

You can come back to me when you actually know something more than the talking points you've been given.

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption. It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food. You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine. But the effect humans are having are all around. They are too numerous to go into. If you refuse to see it, that's up to you. You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see. If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.

As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive. Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand. There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better. One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees. Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition. Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres. Etc. times zillions.

You then bring up the cost of doing something. But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing. Then you bring up what the "high priests" say. Well I'm not them. I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better. Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while. Which is even more reason to do something.

Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies. But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry. You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.

Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900. Learn something.

The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world. How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.

 

[cultsmasher]

Since 1750. Since the steam engine. Since the automobile. Since electrification. You could use a history lesson.

Prior to the beginning of the present ice age...atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm and an ice age started....doesn't say much for your belief that CO2 causes warming.

SSDD,
From what I read, what caused the last ice age didn't have anything to do with CO2. It had to do with the formation of the Isthmus of Panama.

We don't have any idea what caused the last ice age or the one before that or the one before that...nor do we know what caused the ice ages to end...it is all guessing. What we do know is that atmospheric CO2 has been in excess of 7000ppm here on earth and it didn't trigger any sort of runaway greenhouse effect causing anything like the sort of warming being claimed by warmers today...we know that in the past, the earth has fallen into ice ages with atmospheric CO2 over 4500ppm, and again with atmospheric CO2 over 4000ppm and again with atmospheric CO2 over 2000ppm and the last ice age..the one the earth has been exiting for a good long time now began with atmospheric CO2 over 1000ppm.

Relative to earth history, the atmosphere of the earth is positively starved for CO2 at its present levels. It is doubtful that CO2 has anything at all to do with climate other than it increases as it warms due mainly to outgassing by warming waters and it decreases as it cools due to the fact that cooler water can hold more CO2...

SSDD,
It is true that there is much that science doesn't know about the past. There is even more that I don't know. No doubt looking at correlations between earth's climate and things like orbital position or axial position would be interesting. I'm just telling you what I read. But the fact of what humans are doing having an effect on the earth is as plain as the nose on your face. As far as what gasses the sea can hold and at what temperature goes, the Permian extinction shows that such things can have a very negative effect.

 

[cultsmasher]

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

And That is the issue in a nut shell... That simple observation of the past lays the warmists hype waste.. WOW we just did science...!

Billy_Bob,
You shouldn't be so quick to gloat. Just look at my reply to westwall.

What's so special about your reply? You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades. You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.

westwall,
Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing. But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food. It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.

 

[westwall]

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

And That is the issue in a nut shell... That simple observation of the past lays the warmists hype waste.. WOW we just did science...!

Billy_Bob,
You shouldn't be so quick to gloat. Just look at my reply to westwall.

What's so special about your reply? You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades. You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.

westwall,
Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing. But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food. It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.

Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself. Crack a book or three.

 

[cultsmasher]

westwall,
The debate between Crick and Billy_Bob aside, I have to say again that we could possibly be facing changes that have never happened before. Is it really worth the risk? Also, there are graphs that say all types of things. But Billy_Bob showed one that charted both temperatures and CO2 levels. Across the whole chart, temperatures led the way. But these days, CO2 is leading the way. That's something different. On another chart I was looking at it showed that methane release was also going up. Which as you probably know is an even worse greenhouse gas. I don't think we can yet call this dangerous game.

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

westwall,
First of all, nobody wants to turn our economic system upside down. So what's going on with all the scientists who agree that human caused global warming is real. Are they just stupid? Well if I was to make such an assumption about them or you being so, I'm afraid it would be you.

That things have been a little warmer in the past is true. And as far as I know, nothing bad really happened. But that's not to say it couldn't. Especially when CO2 levels seem to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. And where CO2 goes, temperatures and methane release are sure to follow. But as I keep having to say, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then there are things like melting glacers and desertification to consider. As things are now, there is a huge lake drying up in Africa. Causing the Darfur food war. There is another thing to consider with the past CO2 and global temperatures. It wasn't humans causing it. What the earth might naturally do is one thing. But what's our excuse.

Also, from what I was able to find out, China alone is starting a new coal fired power plant between two a week and one every ten days. You also bring up the Holocene thermal maxium. Which was after the last ice age. Well this may just be a savage talking, but how much methane do you think could have built up under a sheet of ice. Etc. All in all, I just can't see your silver lining.

Those same scientists claimed that another ice age was impending in the 1970's too. They are shysters looking for government handouts and the only way you get government handouts is by presenting scary scenarios.

Glacier loss began with the end of the Little Ice Age. 90% of the glacier loss was BEFORE 1900. Desertification is a perennial thing but parts of the Sahara are actually greening again or hadn't you heard?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

The Darfur food war is caused by government corruption as are 99% of sub Saharan Africa's problems.

And all of this is merely window dressing for the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures. Trace gasses simply don't have the power that the faithful claim they do. The Earths atmospheric engine is far more powerful than any climatologist can imagine and is far far more capable of dealing with anything we pathetic humans are capable of doing.

Progressives like you love to claim that you really don't want to harm the economies of the world and I can't figure out if you're just ignorant or lying. The cost to do "something" which even your high priests stipulate might not work (and their goal is merely to lower the global average temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....conveniently after they are long dead after having robbed you blind) is a mere 76 TRILLION dollars.

Who gets that money? Politicians, third world dictators, bankers, scientists of course, Big Oil, industrialists, and of course a few hundred thousand workers will make some decent money while they are putting up this new "green" infrastructure, and not one penny is actually earmarked for pollution control.

You can come back to me when you actually know something more than the talking points you've been given.

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption. It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food. You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine. But the effect humans are having are all around. They are too numerous to go into. If you refuse to see it, that's up to you. You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see. If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.

As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive. Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand. There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better. One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees. Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition. Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres. Etc. times zillions.

You then bring up the cost of doing something. But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing. Then you bring up what the "high priests" say. Well I'm not them. I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better. Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while. Which is even more reason to do something.

Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies. But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry. You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.

Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900. Learn something.

The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world. How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.

westwall,
Apparently in the area you chose to display, there has been a good amount of glacer melt since before 1900. But I'm not seeing the 90% you claim. Though if you want to take in the amount of glacer loss since the end of the ice age, now you're talking. One of the problems here is that you can come up with a graph that can show just about anything. But from everything I have seen, human caused global warming is, if anything, acclerating the loss of glacers. That's what really matters.

 

[cultsmasher]

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

And That is the issue in a nut shell... That simple observation of the past lays the warmists hype waste.. WOW we just did science...!

Billy_Bob,
You shouldn't be so quick to gloat. Just look at my reply to westwall.

What's so special about your reply? You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades. You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.

westwall,
Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing. But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food. It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.

Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself. Crack a book or three.

westwall,
There is one thing for sure. I wouldn't take your suggestions as to what books to crack.

 

[westwall]

Why? What is different now than back then? The Earth is physically no different now than when it was significantly warmer. Even in the period of time where we have written history it has been far warmer. Not one catastrophe that the progressive socialists claim will happen, ever did. Furthermore, the historical record shows that CO2 rise follows temperature rise so the hysteria about CO2 is just that....hysteria not borne out by fact. Methane is the newest gas to try and panic the savages, but anyone with a brain can look back eight thousand years ago to the Holocene Thermal Maximum and see that even when temps were 5 degrees centigrade warmer than today NOTHING happened.

Well, not nothing. Life prospered. That much is very clear. Life likes it warm. ALL life.

westwall,
First of all, nobody wants to turn our economic system upside down. So what's going on with all the scientists who agree that human caused global warming is real. Are they just stupid? Well if I was to make such an assumption about them or you being so, I'm afraid it would be you.

That things have been a little warmer in the past is true. And as far as I know, nothing bad really happened. But that's not to say it couldn't. Especially when CO2 levels seem to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. And where CO2 goes, temperatures and methane release are sure to follow. But as I keep having to say, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then there are things like melting glacers and desertification to consider. As things are now, there is a huge lake drying up in Africa. Causing the Darfur food war. There is another thing to consider with the past CO2 and global temperatures. It wasn't humans causing it. What the earth might naturally do is one thing. But what's our excuse.

Also, from what I was able to find out, China alone is starting a new coal fired power plant between two a week and one every ten days. You also bring up the Holocene thermal maxium. Which was after the last ice age. Well this may just be a savage talking, but how much methane do you think could have built up under a sheet of ice. Etc. All in all, I just can't see your silver lining.

Those same scientists claimed that another ice age was impending in the 1970's too. They are shysters looking for government handouts and the only way you get government handouts is by presenting scary scenarios.

Glacier loss began with the end of the Little Ice Age. 90% of the glacier loss was BEFORE 1900. Desertification is a perennial thing but parts of the Sahara are actually greening again or hadn't you heard?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

The Darfur food war is caused by government corruption as are 99% of sub Saharan Africa's problems.

And all of this is merely window dressing for the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures. Trace gasses simply don't have the power that the faithful claim they do. The Earths atmospheric engine is far more powerful than any climatologist can imagine and is far far more capable of dealing with anything we pathetic humans are capable of doing.

Progressives like you love to claim that you really don't want to harm the economies of the world and I can't figure out if you're just ignorant or lying. The cost to do "something" which even your high priests stipulate might not work (and their goal is merely to lower the global average temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....conveniently after they are long dead after having robbed you blind) is a mere 76 TRILLION dollars.

Who gets that money? Politicians, third world dictators, bankers, scientists of course, Big Oil, industrialists, and of course a few hundred thousand workers will make some decent money while they are putting up this new "green" infrastructure, and not one penny is actually earmarked for pollution control.

You can come back to me when you actually know something more than the talking points you've been given.

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption. It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food. You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine. But the effect humans are having are all around. They are too numerous to go into. If you refuse to see it, that's up to you. You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see. If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.

As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive. Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand. There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better. One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees. Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition. Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres. Etc. times zillions.

You then bring up the cost of doing something. But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing. Then you bring up what the "high priests" say. Well I'm not them. I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better. Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while. Which is even more reason to do something.

Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies. But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry. You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.

Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900. Learn something.

The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world. How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.

westwall,
Apparently in the area you chose to display, there has been a good amount of glacer melt since before 1900. But I'm not seeing the 90% you claim. Though if you want to take in the amount of glacer loss since the end of the ice age, now you're talking. One of the problems here is that you can come up with a graph that can show just about anything. But from everything I have seen, human caused global warming is, if anything, acclerating the loss of glacers. That's what really matters.

Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left. You truly have no clue do you. Time for you to go away. You are now just embarrassing yourself.

 

[westwall]

And That is the issue in a nut shell... That simple observation of the past lays the warmists hype waste.. WOW we just did science...!

Billy_Bob,
You shouldn't be so quick to gloat. Just look at my reply to westwall.

What's so special about your reply? You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades. You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.

westwall,
Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing. But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food. It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.

Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself. Crack a book or three.

westwall,
There is one thing for sure. I wouldn't take your suggestions as to what books to crack.

Of that I have no doubt. You choose to live in ignorance. Enjoy being a mushroom.

 

[cultsmasher]

Billy_Bob,
You shouldn't be so quick to gloat. Just look at my reply to westwall.

What's so special about your reply? You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades. You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.

westwall,
Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing. But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food. It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.

Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself. Crack a book or three.

westwall,
There is one thing for sure. I wouldn't take your suggestions as to what books to crack.

Of that I have no doubt. You choose to live in ignorance. Enjoy being a mushroom.

westwall,
You can call me a mushroom if you want. I've been called worse. But as long as I can fight idiots like you, there's a chance I won't be a cooked mushroom.

westwall,
First of all, nobody wants to turn our economic system upside down. So what's going on with all the scientists who agree that human caused global warming is real. Are they just stupid? Well if I was to make such an assumption about them or you being so, I'm afraid it would be you.

That things have been a little warmer in the past is true. And as far as I know, nothing bad really happened. But that's not to say it couldn't. Especially when CO2 levels seem to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. And where CO2 goes, temperatures and methane release are sure to follow. But as I keep having to say, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Then there are things like melting glacers and desertification to consider. As things are now, there is a huge lake drying up in Africa. Causing the Darfur food war. There is another thing to consider with the past CO2 and global temperatures. It wasn't humans causing it. What the earth might naturally do is one thing. But what's our excuse.

Also, from what I was able to find out, China alone is starting a new coal fired power plant between two a week and one every ten days. You also bring up the Holocene thermal maxium. Which was after the last ice age. Well this may just be a savage talking, but how much methane do you think could have built up under a sheet of ice. Etc. All in all, I just can't see your silver lining.

Those same scientists claimed that another ice age was impending in the 1970's too. They are shysters looking for government handouts and the only way you get government handouts is by presenting scary scenarios.

Glacier loss began with the end of the Little Ice Age. 90% of the glacier loss was BEFORE 1900. Desertification is a perennial thing but parts of the Sahara are actually greening again or hadn't you heard?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

The Darfur food war is caused by government corruption as are 99% of sub Saharan Africa's problems.

And all of this is merely window dressing for the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures. Trace gasses simply don't have the power that the faithful claim they do. The Earths atmospheric engine is far more powerful than any climatologist can imagine and is far far more capable of dealing with anything we pathetic humans are capable of doing.

Progressives like you love to claim that you really don't want to harm the economies of the world and I can't figure out if you're just ignorant or lying. The cost to do "something" which even your high priests stipulate might not work (and their goal is merely to lower the global average temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....conveniently after they are long dead after having robbed you blind) is a mere 76 TRILLION dollars.

Who gets that money? Politicians, third world dictators, bankers, scientists of course, Big Oil, industrialists, and of course a few hundred thousand workers will make some decent money while they are putting up this new "green" infrastructure, and not one penny is actually earmarked for pollution control.

You can come back to me when you actually know something more than the talking points you've been given.

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption. It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food. You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine. But the effect humans are having are all around. They are too numerous to go into. If you refuse to see it, that's up to you. You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see. If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.

As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive. Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand. There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better. One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees. Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition. Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres. Etc. times zillions.

You then bring up the cost of doing something. But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing. Then you bring up what the "high priests" say. Well I'm not them. I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better. Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while. Which is even more reason to do something.

Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies. But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry. You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.

Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900. Learn something.

The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world. How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.

westwall,
Apparently in the area you chose to display, there has been a good amount of glacer melt since before 1900. But I'm not seeing the 90% you claim. Though if you want to take in the amount of glacer loss since the end of the ice age, now you're talking. One of the problems here is that you can come up with a graph that can show just about anything. But from everything I have seen, human caused global warming is, if anything, acclerating the loss of glacers. That's what really matters.

Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left. You truly have no clue do you. Time for you to go away. You are now just embarrassing yourself.

westwall,
You deniers make me embarrassed to be human.

 

[westwall]

What's so special about your reply? You say the same stupid talking point nonsense that you guys have been spewing for decades. You stated nothing that is factual and in fact made an error (or intentionally lied) in your Darfur claim.

westwall,
Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing. But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food. It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.

Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself. Crack a book or three.

westwall,
There is one thing for sure. I wouldn't take your suggestions as to what books to crack.

Of that I have no doubt. You choose to live in ignorance. Enjoy being a mushroom.

westwall,
You can call me a mushroom if you want. I've been called worse. But as long as I can fight idiots like you, there's a chance I won't be a cooked mushroom.

Those same scientists claimed that another ice age was impending in the 1970's too. They are shysters looking for government handouts and the only way you get government handouts is by presenting scary scenarios.

Glacier loss began with the end of the Little Ice Age. 90% of the glacier loss was BEFORE 1900. Desertification is a perennial thing but parts of the Sahara are actually greening again or hadn't you heard?

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change

The Darfur food war is caused by government corruption as are 99% of sub Saharan Africa's problems.

And all of this is merely window dressing for the fact that CO2 doesn't drive temperatures. Trace gasses simply don't have the power that the faithful claim they do. The Earths atmospheric engine is far more powerful than any climatologist can imagine and is far far more capable of dealing with anything we pathetic humans are capable of doing.

Progressives like you love to claim that you really don't want to harm the economies of the world and I can't figure out if you're just ignorant or lying. The cost to do "something" which even your high priests stipulate might not work (and their goal is merely to lower the global average temperature by ONE degree in 100 years....conveniently after they are long dead after having robbed you blind) is a mere 76 TRILLION dollars.

Who gets that money? Politicians, third world dictators, bankers, scientists of course, Big Oil, industrialists, and of course a few hundred thousand workers will make some decent money while they are putting up this new "green" infrastructure, and not one penny is actually earmarked for pollution control.

You can come back to me when you actually know something more than the talking points you've been given.

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption. It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food. You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine. But the effect humans are having are all around. They are too numerous to go into. If you refuse to see it, that's up to you. You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see. If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.

As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive. Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand. There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better. One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees. Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition. Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres. Etc. times zillions.

You then bring up the cost of doing something. But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing. Then you bring up what the "high priests" say. Well I'm not them. I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better. Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while. Which is even more reason to do something.

Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies. But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry. You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.

Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900. Learn something.

The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world. How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.

westwall,
Apparently in the area you chose to display, there has been a good amount of glacer melt since before 1900. But I'm not seeing the 90% you claim. Though if you want to take in the amount of glacer loss since the end of the ice age, now you're talking. One of the problems here is that you can come up with a graph that can show just about anything. But from everything I have seen, human caused global warming is, if anything, acclerating the loss of glacers. That's what really matters.

Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left. You truly have no clue do you. Time for you to go away. You are now just embarrassing yourself.

westwall,
You deniers make me embarrassed to be human.

Says the asshat sporting the Hitler avi. What a ******* moron. Go away and grow up little troll.

 

[westwall]

westwall,
Maybe I didn't state things exactly right when it came to the whole Darfur thing. But from what I have heard, the whole thing was basically about the lack of food. It wouldn't have been the first time a war was fought over resources.

Instead of overhearing mindless bullshit why don't you do some research for yourself. Crack a book or three.

westwall,
There is one thing for sure. I wouldn't take your suggestions as to what books to crack.

Of that I have no doubt. You choose to live in ignorance. Enjoy being a mushroom.

westwall,
You can call me a mushroom if you want. I've been called worse. But as long as I can fight idiots like you, there's a chance I won't be a cooked mushroom.

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

As for the Darfur conflict, the lack of food wasn't due to corruption. It was due to their lake drying up and a lack of food. You then bring up CO2 and the earth's climate engine. But the effect humans are having are all around. They are too numerous to go into. If you refuse to see it, that's up to you. You may not like it, but it is good to be able to see. If you like comming down hard on those who do, that again is up to you.

As far as progressives saying that they don't want to harm the economies of the world goes, I must not be a progeressive. Because I want to outright destroy economies as they now stand. There is no doubt they need to be replaced with something better. One that doesn't richly reward parasitic bureaucrats like stock traders and insurance company employees. Who don't actually contribute anything tangable toward the human condition. Or one that doesn't cause plastic trash to collect in large oceanic gyres. Etc. times zillions.

You then bring up the cost of doing something. But it is very likely that the cost of doing nothing will be way higher than the cost of doing nothing. Then you bring up what the "high priests" say. Well I'm not them. I can guarantee you that if I was in charge, things would drastically start to change for the better. Though I have heard it said that even if we fixed things, because of the CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, it would still continue to warm for a while. Which is even more reason to do something.

Then one of the things you mention making money out of a green economy is oil companies. But you've lost me in how an oil company could make money out of the destruction of their industry. You can come back to me when you have more than the run of the mill denier drivel.

Here's a map of a bay in Alaska where we have the best record of glacier loss prior to 1900. Learn something.

The rest of what you post is mere talking points with one exception and that is your claim to want to destroy the current economies of the world. How can you make such a claim and then blindly support a program that will do nothing more than make those you claim to hate even more wealthy.

It's hard enough to take you seriously when you use Hitler as your avatar with the name of cult smasher when he was anything but a cult smasher, but then you compound your total lack of credibility by not understanding even the basics of what you claim to support.

You truly are a fool.

westwall,
Apparently in the area you chose to display, there has been a good amount of glacer melt since before 1900. But I'm not seeing the 90% you claim. Though if you want to take in the amount of glacer loss since the end of the ice age, now you're talking. One of the problems here is that you can come up with a graph that can show just about anything. But from everything I have seen, human caused global warming is, if anything, acclerating the loss of glacers. That's what really matters.

Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left. You truly have no clue do you. Time for you to go away. You are now just embarrassing yourself.

westwall,
You deniers make me embarrassed to be human.

Says the asshat sporting the Hitler avi. What a ******* moron. Go away and grow up little troll. And, for the record, you couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left. You truly have no clue do you. Time for you to go away. You are now just embarrassing yourself.

Context is everything... Most alarmists see context as their life span and nothing more. The fact that the earth is at 1 % of glacial ice in-comparison to just one of the 90,000 year glacial cycles is amazing. I believe the amount of melting we have seen in the last 400 years is extremely minor in comparison to the warm ups from a glacial cycle.

 

[westwall]

Compared to the continental glaciers that existed during the ice age there is less than 1 percent of the glacial ice left. You truly have no clue do you. Time for you to go away. You are now just embarrassing yourself.

Context is everything... Most alarmists see context as their life span and nothing more. The fact that the earth is at 1 % of glacial ice in-comparison to just one of the 90,000 year glacial cycles is amazing. I believe the amount of melting we have seen in the last 400 years is extremely minor in comparison to the warm ups from a glacial cycle.

Yep, the extraordinary myopia of these clowns is remarkable. A mere 14,000 years ago, the patch of land I call home, was underneath a mile thick slab of ice. A mere 8,000 years ago the global temperature was 5 degree's C warmer than it is now. Nothing happened.

 

[SSDD]

westwall,
First of all, from what I've heard, we are supposed to be in a period that is heading toward another ice age. Though from another website, they said that right now we are in an ice age. Science is tricky. As far as 90% of glacer loss happening before 1900 goes, you have to be trippin. If glacers were melting at that rate, there wouldn't be any left today. Also, no I haven't heard that the Sahara is greening. Probably because it isn't true. If anything, the Sahara is expanding.

Perhaps if you didn't restrict yourself to warmist wacko propaganda, you might read something that closer resembles the truth. Heading towards another ice age? Where would anyone get a silly idea like that? We are in an ice age and have been in one for quite some time...We are at present in an interglacial period between extensive glaciations but interglacials are short periods in longer ice ages. Here, look at the temperature history of the earth and tell me what you see there that would lead you to think we are heading towards another ice age...in fact, tell me what is there that would make you think warming is not to be expected...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD,
It is true that there is much that science doesn't know about the past. There is even more that I don't know. No doubt looking at correlations between earth's climate and things like orbital position or axial position would be interesting. I'm just telling you what I read. But the fact of what humans are doing having an effect on the earth is as plain as the nose on your face. As far as what gasses the sea can hold and at what temperature goes, the Permian extinction shows that such things can have a very negative effect.

Of course you are...and you are also telling us the nature of your sources...obviously, you only read warmist propaganda....which contains very little truth... Your sources are obviously highly structured to provide what appears to be a very clear picture to people with very limited critical thinking skills....people who need to told explicitly what to think. Here, let me show you an example...

Here is a graph that crick likes to post to show how climate change is melting all of the ice in the arctic...

Terrible huh? Looks awful. Surely this is evidence that things are getting bad. And it would be if it weren't a lie...it is a deliberate effort to fool people who don' t do much thinning for themselves which just happen to be the sort of people who visit those sorts of sites...people who need to be told what to think. Look at that graph and the dismal picture it paints...now look at that graph and use your brain if you can. Look at the bottom of the graph...see the numbers? See where the graph begins? ...1979. Tell me cultsmasher...do you think our knowledge of arctic ice began in 1979? What would make you think for a second that 1979 was a reasonable place to begin a graph showing the growth and retreat of arctic ice?

Well, if you want to make people who don't do much thinking on their own think that the arctic is losing ice at a rate never before seen...and that things are the worst ever up in the arctic, you would want to start your graph at a high point in recent history....and show the decline. Crick, and old rocks and a couple of others show graphs like that a lot to demonstrate that the arctic ice is melting....they either do it out of ignorance (my guess) because they don't do much thinking on their own and visit the same sort of places you visit to be told what to think and to get pretty pictures that seem to prove what they have been told to think...or they are deliberate liars with an agenda and are perfectly willing to misinform people if they think it will move their agenda along.

Being a thinking sort of person who doesn't like being told what to think...I wondered why a graph of arctic ice would start in 1979. I was stationed in the Arctic before 1979 and we certainly had knowledge of the ice pack...ships and submarines were up there all the time so we had a pretty good idea of what the arctic ice looked like at any time...in addition, there were satellites looking at the arctic prior to 1979....so why start a graph at 1979..and only run it out to 2010 rather than show the recovery that has been happening for the past few years?

Here is your answer. See the circle up there....that is where cricks graph starts...just about the highest point in the past half century...if you go back a few years, you will see that the ice coverage was nearly as low in the middle 70s as it is today...before the cyclic recovery began...just like what is happening today.

 

[mamooth]

jc, please end the thread spamming. Nobody likes it, and it's violating board rules.

I'll tell you what, grow some and stop acting like you own this thing or the answer will be no.

Publicly stating your intent to continue spamming and breaking board rules is probably not the best tactic for you to use. I'm just kind of pointing out the obvious there. Not that I'm reporting anyone. I'm just asking a few to start acting like grownups.

I'm quite tired of stating the same thing over and over when you all keep posting garbage.

Then don't do it. "Someone insulted me!" is not a justification for spam posting.

Now, I see SSDD is once more doing that deliberate omitting-of-data-that-contradicts-him thing that he's so well known for. Here are some arctic ice extent records going back further. Back beyond 1979, ice levels are higher, which destroys SSDD's conspiracy theory about how 1979 was cherrypicked because it was some kind of all-time peak.

So why 1979? It was the start of the continuous satellite record for arctic sea ice. But it's not used as the baseline any longer. 1981-2010 is the standard ice baseline now, because it's an even 30 years that lands on decade boundaries. Hence, SSDD's 1979 conspiracy fails on yet another level.

 

[jc456]

jc, please end the thread spamming. Nobody likes it, and it's violating board rules.

I'll tell you what, grow some and stop acting like you own this thing or the answer will be no.

Publicly stating your intent to continue spamming and breaking board rules is probably not the best tactic for you to use. I'm just kind of pointing out the obvious there. Not that I'm reporting anyone. I'm just asking a few to start acting like grownups.

I'm quite tired of stating the same thing over and over when you all keep posting garbage.

Then don't do it. "Someone insulted me!" is not a justification for spam posting.

Now, I see SSDD is once more doing that deliberate omitting-of-data-that-contradicts-him thing that he's so well known for. Here are some arctic ice extent records going back further. Back beyond 1979, ice levels are higher, which destroys SSDD's conspiracy theory about how 1979 was cherrypicked because it was some kind of all-time peak.

So why 1979? It was the start of the continuous satellite record for arctic sea ice. But it's not used as the baseline any longer. 1981-2010 is the standard ice baseline now, because it's an even 30 years that lands on decade boundaries. Hence, SSDD's 1979 conspiracy fails on yet another level.

Still whinning I see