Human Caused Global Warming

[jc456]

No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.

idb,
As I said before, follow the money. Where do scientists and governments get their money. From the companies that pollute. So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.

Since the global warming hoax began...and governments began to put regulations in place to address the supposed warming...what has happened to energy prices? During the recent deep recession, which sector has continued to make record profits?...due in part to increased energy costs due to regulation?....Libs suck at economics...energy companies stand to make more as a result of the energy crisis.....how sweet is it for energy companies that the very people who hate them most are the ones leading the way on the hoax that makes them all the richer?

SSDD,
What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable. But that isn't the point. The point is that human caused global warming is a reality. Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it. And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.

And me thinks you're loco!!!!!!

jc456,
Get back to me when you have a real claim about human caused global warming to make.

ditto fool!

 

[Vigilante]

OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!

Vigilante,
We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to. The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency. For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour. There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FRICTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

 

[jc456]

OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!

Vigilante,
We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to. The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency. For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour. There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FROCTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

This dudes been running himself ragged trying to convince himself of something. He's failed.

 

[cultsmasher]

OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!

Vigilante,
We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to. The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency. For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour. There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FROCTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

Vigilante,
Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc. From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced. But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years. Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.

 

[Vigilante]

OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!

Vigilante,
We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to. The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency. For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour. There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FROCTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

Vigilante,
Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc. From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced. But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years. Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.

There is a time, when the COST of things OUTWEIGHTS it's usefulness, a car as described would NOT be consumer friendly!

 

[Wyld Kard]

No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.

idb,
As I said before, follow the money. Where do scientists and governments get their money. From the companies that pollute. So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.

Since the global warming hoax began...and governments began to put regulations in place to address the supposed warming...what has happened to energy prices? During the recent deep recession, which sector has continued to make record profits?...due in part to increased energy costs due to regulation?....Libs suck at economics...energy companies stand to make more as a result of the energy crisis.....how sweet is it for energy companies that the very people who hate them most are the ones leading the way on the hoax that makes them all the richer?

SSDD,
What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable. But that isn't the point. The point is that human caused global warming is a reality. Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it. And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.

The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

 

[cultsmasher]

OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!

Vigilante,
We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to. The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency. For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour. There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FROCTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

Vigilante,
Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc. From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced. But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years. Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.

There is a time, when the COST of things OUTWEIGHTS it's usefulness, a car as described would NOT be consumer friendly!

Vigilante,
Why not. I'm not talking about building a tank. Also, how old do you think gold would have to be before it no longer looks like gold. I'm not sure there is a time limit with it. As for stainless steel, it is also rust proof. I'm not sure there is a time limit on it either.

 

[Vigilante]

OH SHIT.... The WORKER BEES and TERMINALLY STUPID gave away the REAL AGENDA at the NYC "RED IS GREEN' climate rally!!!!!

Vigilante,
We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to. The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency. For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour. There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FROCTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

Vigilante,
Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc. From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced. But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years. Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.

There is a time, when the COST of things OUTWEIGHTS it's usefulness, a car as described would NOT be consumer friendly!

Vigilante,
Why not. I'm not talking about building a tank. Also, how old do you think gold would have to be before it no longer looks like gold. I'm not sure there is a time limit with it. As for stainless steel, it is also rust proof. I'm not sure there is a time limit on it either.

Since you are talking about a car, you haven't taken into consideration outside forces which damage and destroy....accidents, human contact, vandalism, etc.

 

[cultsmasher]

idb,
As I said before, follow the money. Where do scientists and governments get their money. From the companies that pollute. So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.

Since the global warming hoax began...and governments began to put regulations in place to address the supposed warming...what has happened to energy prices? During the recent deep recession, which sector has continued to make record profits?...due in part to increased energy costs due to regulation?....Libs suck at economics...energy companies stand to make more as a result of the energy crisis.....how sweet is it for energy companies that the very people who hate them most are the ones leading the way on the hoax that makes them all the richer?

SSDD,
What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable. But that isn't the point. The point is that human caused global warming is a reality. Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it. And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.

The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

 

[jc456]

Since the global warming hoax began...and governments began to put regulations in place to address the supposed warming...what has happened to energy prices? During the recent deep recession, which sector has continued to make record profits?...due in part to increased energy costs due to regulation?....Libs suck at economics...energy companies stand to make more as a result of the energy crisis.....how sweet is it for energy companies that the very people who hate them most are the ones leading the way on the hoax that makes them all the richer?

SSDD,
What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable. But that isn't the point. The point is that human caused global warming is a reality. Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it. And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.

The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

and that is that CO2 follows temperature. And I challenge you to find a causation of the opposite direction.

 

[Vigilante]

Why doesn’t the temperature rise at the same rate that CO2 increases?
The amount of CO2 is increasing all the time - we just passed a landmark 400 parts per million concentration of atmospheric CO2, up from around 280ppm before the industrial revolution. That’s a 42.8% increase.
A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.
There are several reasons why. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect. The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time.
As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science, if you’ll forgive the pun - the last IPCC report (AR4) described the likely range as between 2 and 4.5 degrees C, for double the amount of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels.
So far, the average global temperature has gone up by about 0.8 degrees C (1.4 F).
"According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)…the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade."
Source: NASA Earth Observatory
The speed of the increase is worth noting too. Unfortunately, as this quote from NASA demonstrates, anthropogenic climate change is happening very quickly compared to changes that occurred in the past (text emboldened for emphasis):

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
Source: NASA Earth Observatory​

 

[cultsmasher]

Vigilante,
We have the ability to build cars that could last for a thousand years if we wanted to. The reason we don't come even close to that is because our whole economic system revolves around waste and inefficiency. For a small hint of that, you should look at the operations of a landfill for about an hour. There is no way we can have an effect on climate change without there being a change in the system that creates it.

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FROCTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

Vigilante,
Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc. From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced. But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years. Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.

There is a time, when the COST of things OUTWEIGHTS it's usefulness, a car as described would NOT be consumer friendly!

Vigilante,
Why not. I'm not talking about building a tank. Also, how old do you think gold would have to be before it no longer looks like gold. I'm not sure there is a time limit with it. As for stainless steel, it is also rust proof. I'm not sure there is a time limit on it either.

Since you are talking about a car, you haven't taken into consideration outside forces which damage and destroy....accidents, human contact, vandalism, etc.

Vigilante,
Of course I didn't take those things into account. Except for human contact. Upholstery would be one of the parts that would probably need replacing from time to time. As would rubber tires. What I was saying was we could build a car to last that long without outside forces wreaking havoc on it.

 

[Vigilante]

NO, we DON'T have the ability to build a car that would last 1000 years! Simple FROCTION would wear out most of the parts, and WEATHER would do the rest of the job!

Vigilante,
Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc. From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced. But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years. Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.

There is a time, when the COST of things OUTWEIGHTS it's usefulness, a car as described would NOT be consumer friendly!

Vigilante,
Why not. I'm not talking about building a tank. Also, how old do you think gold would have to be before it no longer looks like gold. I'm not sure there is a time limit with it. As for stainless steel, it is also rust proof. I'm not sure there is a time limit on it either.

Since you are talking about a car, you haven't taken into consideration outside forces which damage and destroy....accidents, human contact, vandalism, etc.

Vigilante,
Of course I didn't take those things into account. Except for human contact. Upholstery would be one of the parts that would probably need replacing from time to time. As would rubber tires. What I was saying was we could build a car to last that long without outside forces wreaking havoc on it.

Then it would be completely USELESS to man!

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable. But that isn't the point. The point is that human caused global warming is a reality. Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it. And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.

The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

and that is that CO2 follows temperature. And I challenge you to find a causation of the opposite direction.

jc456,
If CO2 followed temperatures in the past, it stands to reason that temperatures would follow CO2. If you want me to go back to 6th grade and prove that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect, I'm afraid I'm not willing to go there.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Since the global warming hoax began...and governments began to put regulations in place to address the supposed warming...what has happened to energy prices? During the recent deep recession, which sector has continued to make record profits?...due in part to increased energy costs due to regulation?....Libs suck at economics...energy companies stand to make more as a result of the energy crisis.....how sweet is it for energy companies that the very people who hate them most are the ones leading the way on the hoax that makes them all the richer?

SSDD,
What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable. But that isn't the point. The point is that human caused global warming is a reality. Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it. And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.

The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

I went my browser and found this instead.

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes

 

[Wyld Kard]

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

and that is that CO2 follows temperature. And I challenge you to find a causation of the opposite direction.

jc456,
If CO2 followed temperatures in the past, it stands to reason that temperatures would follow CO2. If you want me to go back to 6th grade and prove that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect, I'm afraid I'm not willing to go there.

So in other words, you are NOT willing to back-up your bullshit claims with some "undeniable real proof".

Is that right?

 

[cultsmasher]

Vigilante,
Apparently you don't have much understanding of metallurgy, ceramics, etc. From time to time, some parts might need to be replaced. But if we really wanted to, we could probably build a car that could last 10,000 years. Admittedly, it would probably be really really expensive.

There is a time, when the COST of things OUTWEIGHTS it's usefulness, a car as described would NOT be consumer friendly!

Vigilante,
Why not. I'm not talking about building a tank. Also, how old do you think gold would have to be before it no longer looks like gold. I'm not sure there is a time limit with it. As for stainless steel, it is also rust proof. I'm not sure there is a time limit on it either.

Since you are talking about a car, you haven't taken into consideration outside forces which damage and destroy....accidents, human contact, vandalism, etc.

Vigilante,
Of course I didn't take those things into account. Except for human contact. Upholstery would be one of the parts that would probably need replacing from time to time. As would rubber tires. What I was saying was we could build a car to last that long without outside forces wreaking havoc on it.

Then it would be completely USELESS to man!

Vigilante,
No. It would be the same as any other car. It would just be made out of materials that could last that long. Maybe if the owner of such a car and their descendants were careful and lucky, it would. I can remember cars being built that were basically made to be disposable. The Chevrolet Chevette comes to mind.

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
What regulations may do to energy prices is debatable. But that isn't the point. The point is that human caused global warming is a reality. Unfortunately those who cause it will be the last ones to suffer from it. And for many, when things get really bad, they can look forward to going to heaven and being herded around by Jesus.

The point is that human caused global warming is a reality.

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

I went my browser and found this instead.

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes

wildcard,
I said to bring up graphs. Not some article in Forbs.

 

[cultsmasher]

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

and that is that CO2 follows temperature. And I challenge you to find a causation of the opposite direction.

jc456,
If CO2 followed temperatures in the past, it stands to reason that temperatures would follow CO2. If you want me to go back to 6th grade and prove that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect, I'm afraid I'm not willing to go there.

So in other words, you are NOT willing to back-up your bullshit claims with some "undeniable proof".

Is that right?

wildcard,
I am not that computer literate. Others are able to bring up images from the web and paste them on their replies. I don't know how to do it. If I could, then you would see it for yourself. Before denying it for whatever denier cultist logic.

 

[Wyld Kard]

Is the sky falling too, chicken little?

wildcard,
You think it's better to be sorry than safe. I get it. But according to something I saw recently on PBS, CO2 it going up faster than it has in the past 800,000 years. And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. You may be willing to let that take us where it will. But I'm not. Nor would any thinking person.

And wherever CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow.

Wrong.

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

Try again.

wildcard,
Go to your browser and bring up graphs that show both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures throughout history. You will find plenty of them that show a correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures.

I went my browser and found this instead.

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit - Forbes

wildcard,
I said to bring up graphs. Not some article in Forbs.

I don't take orders.

You want graphs? Bring them up yourself, or have someone help you.

Make some attempt at backing-up the bullshit that YOU claim with some "undeniable real proof".

What's the matter, does that article from Forbes goes against the bullshit lies and misinformation about global warming that you faithfully believe in and accept without question?