More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[westwall]

so you think we should prepare for total annihilation from a giant platinum or ice space conglomerate?
now climate change is beginning to sound less silly in juxtaposition! lol

its a matter of allowing mankind to spew more co2 or not. you don't want dirty liberal hands on your laws to restrict pollution. but you don't want economic downturns either? addressing climate change in the short term may be costly but over the long term it will save money (likely preventing serious economic downturn) as well as certain species for extinction.

i guess these things are not worth short term money. i don't buy your logic and you won't either in 3 decades.

The world is a system that has survived quite well for the vast majority of its life. Warmth has never been a problem. Cold has. If you wish to see a time when the planet is suffering just look at the paleo record, cold kills and warmth doesn't. The last time the planet was really warm (during the PETM) the flora and fauna bloomed. Most of the major species of mammals were evolved during the PETM.

Now look at the history of asteroid strikes. ONE of them hit (that we know of) and almost eliminated life on this planet. Mankind is the first species on this planet capable of doing something about that.

And you fools would rather whistle Dixie.

This was a small one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTmwbhyNBtA]Meteorite hits Russia impact Video Collections of meteorite explosions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

That's NOT what the science is saying.. There IS no CONCLUSIVE evidence

...not founded in reality.

You use some science-type language using words like science, evidence, reality. But most of this is dispersed between a network of opinion and an attempt to stretch your beliefs into reality.

What you disagree with is less science and more a desire to be right. As I've said plenty before, you are here to commandeer discussion through apocrypha style denial. Your language gives it away every post. Let me illustrate below with 3 quotes.



I have been saying that about you and now you reverse it. Why did it take you so long to engage in the same tactics your pals do?The same pals who think there is CATEGORICALLY NO evidence that man has ANYTHING to do with nature or carbon dioxide.

It'c clear you prefer the fraudulent Oregon Petition to the IPCC fourth assessment that notes not 50%. not 75%, not even 95%, its a whopping 97-98% of peer reviewed scientists across the globe (unlike yourself and these message boards which you often fail to back up your sources like I show below).

I think any percentage beyond 80% should DEFINITELY capture your attention and CANNOT, scientifically be refuted by merely disagreeing. That's because you and your buddy westwall claim science as your own but then CHUCK OUT the WHOLE scientific method: good science is only good science when it is repeatable and undergoes a jury of its peers. Your science is a bunch of old data and fudged sets that don't stand up to modern scientific scrutiny.

I thought we had bonded

I think your sexy too. But as far as your beliefs, they are about as appealing as hog shit from a factory farm. Only people with ulterior motives support your view and write politicized books, not quality science. If you can't admit the probability is outrageously stacked against you then there is no hope for compromise. You can SAY all you want about what you think but the majority of professors and science researchers say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you conclude.

What you WILL FIND -- is science saying that IF WE REACH 3 or 4degC anomaly, then these changes will happen.

Support this view. Links or something..
I don't think this is what science is saying will kill them. Warmer water isn't a bad thing for coral. Warm water allows for coral to thrive. Plus the water does not imbibe the same ratio of warmth or uv rays as the land surface so if land warms by 3C then the water may differ, more or less.

It's the acidification that comes that the Oceans absorb (57% of carbon.) THIS ACIDIFIES the water and the coral.

So if you can accept air measurements with sources are at currently ~398ppm (and was 280ppm pre-industry), and most science predicts this is going to get worse (whether or not we think mankind has a role), then I think it's quote obvious WE ARE GOING TO LOOSE ALL CORAL AND MARINE LIFE THAT DEPENDS ON IT.

You think it has nothing to do with our activity but clearly you are turning a blind eye to explaining the 36 billion tons of co2 we released just last year alone! This is what acidifies the Ocean and is already threatening coral as we speak.

Ok -- so screw the bonding. You're misinformed on EVERY point above.. And i'm certainly not gonna educate you on what YOUR AGW theory says about the future. CLEARLY, there is no respectable science pointing to INDIVIDUAL weather events and blaming them on AGW TODAY.. ALL of their crystal-balling in the journal papers is about THE FUTURE. No links. You go fetch..

For instance -- your assertion that coral LOVE thermal immersion into 3degC WARMER water, but it's the CO2 that's gonna kill them --- BS.. Water that warm is INCAPABLE of accumulating enough CO2 to make it go acidic enough to matter to the coral. And you'll find that temperature IS as important to coral propagation and health as acidity.. Recent papers show that SOME corals are not in waters acidic enough to thrive..

Pointing to events TODAY and claiming the population is CURRENTLY violating the planet is witchdoctory.. Claiming FUTURE damage if the process continues is weak science.

Here's how science works. You assert -- then you prove.. I don't have to do jack.. Give me ONE journal article that says that any PARTICULAR WEATHER EVENT in the news is because of AGW.. JUST ONE.. And we'll discuss.. OK WitchDoc? No Ice.. I don't do ice..

 

[gnarlylove]

You refuse to acknowledge the obvious trends. co2 levels ppm going back to pre-industrial times indicate a rise since the 60s. What has happened then? Pop. almost tripled since then. we also have produced and consumed more fossil fuels than ever releasing that famous greenhouse gas: co2. It's not a hard correlation to note unless it strictly contradicts your beliefs, which is clearly evident. When I offer demonstrations of the booming industry of snow creation, you say that has nothing to do with climate change. "You don't do ice" I didn't understand you set standards of what's evidence and what isn't. Since it goes against your believes, you can say "I don't count that." Your scientific attitude of "I don't need to do shit, the onus is on you" is clear dismal of your burden: you don't think the climate has anything to do with man. Why? because you think it doesn't make it so. Mere disagreement is no argument.

Again, no support for your papers regarding dissension, just a nominal reference that is intentionally vague so I can't hunt your research down that doesn't exist. Let me offer some more than nominal references:

Temperature-induced mass coral bleaching causing mortality on a wide geographic scale started when atmospheric CO(2) levels exceeded approximately 320 ppm. When CO(2) levels reached approximately 340 ppm, sporadic but highly destructive mass bleaching occurred in most reefs world-wide, often associated with El Niño events. Recovery was dependent on the vulnerability of individual reef areas and on the reef's previous history and resilience. At today's level of approximately 387 ppm, allowing a lag-time of 10 years for sea temperatures to respond, most reefs world-wide are committed to an irreversible decline. Mass bleaching will in future become annual, departing from the 4 to 7 years return-time of El Niño events. Bleaching will be exacerbated by the effects of degraded water-quality and increased severe weather events. In addition, the progressive onset of ocean acidification will cause reduction of coral growth and retardation of the growth of high magnesium calcite-secreting coralline algae. If CO(2) levels are allowed to reach 450 ppm (due to occur by 2030-2040 at the current rates), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from multiple synergies arising from mass bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts. Damage to shallow reef communities will become extensive with consequent reduction of biodiversity followed by extinctions.

Also, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg - ScienceWatch.com

One of the major outcomes of the paper is the conclusion—convincingly, we would argue—that increasing carbon dioxide levels above 450 ppm will cause coral-dominated reef ecosystems to disappear. Synthesizing the available science and coming to this conclusion (i.e., 450 ppm is the absolute upper limit for stabilization) has not been done in a single place before.

Don't forget,

CO2 uptake is likely to induce aragonite undersaturation when atmospheric CO2 levels reach ≈450 ppm. Under the IPCC IS92a scenario, Southern Ocean wintertime aragonite undersaturation is projected to occur by the year 2030 and no later than 2038. Some prominent calcifying plankton, in particular the Pteropod species Limacina helicina, have important veliger larval development during winter and will have to experience detrimental carbonate conditions much earlier than previously thought, with possible deleterious flow-on impacts for the wider Southern Ocean marine ecosystem. Our results highlight the critical importance of understanding seasonal carbon dynamics within all calcifying marine ecosystems such as continental shelves and coral reefs, because natural variability may potentially hasten the onset of future ocean acidification.

 

[gnarlylove]

You need to show the correlation between population growth, fossil fuel use and temperature data as well as greater number of reports of disasters worldwide have no causal relationship. That something else is leading to increased ppm of co2 or that the earth is warming due to natural processes that do not involve mankind's release of co2. Highly dubious work. I'd call it witchdoctory but you already took that...or rather I'd never use such obvious red herrings in my argument. Admit it! Calling attention to red herring comparisons is half your game! You always spout out unnecessary relationships that do not further or denigrate any argument. They are cute and distractive comparisons meant to rile up your chimp friends and by god it works! Too bad. Any real critical thinker knows this is just irrelevant and a waste of space. I don't know how many times I've had to call out such wasted tactics without any benefit...i guess I just wasted my own post on this drivel. Never again?

There is an undeniably strong correlation between human activity the past century and climate changes. You need to show why these two have nothing to do with each other.

 

[polarbear]

Any real critical thinker knows this is just irrelevant and a waste of space. I don't know how many times I've had to call out such wasted tactics without any benefit...i guess I just wasted my own post on this drivel. Never again?

You consider yourself a "critical thinker"?
After posting this nonsense :

i don't know what the hell you are saying about the IPCC but their range is between 2.4C (lowest estimate) and 6.2C (highest) by the end of the century. so we can expect a happy medium of 3.x, and these 2300 envrio biologists give us this exact anticipation.

Since you are too stupid to find what the IPCC did predict for 2100 in the AR5 pdf I`ll show it to you again:

2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5,

Global mean temperatures will continue to rise over the 21st
century if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue unabated.
Under the assumptions of the concentration-driven RCPs, global
mean surface temperatures for 2081–2100, relative to 1986–2005 will
likely1 be in the 5 to 95% range of the CMIP5 models; 0.3°C to 1.7°C
(RCP2.6), 1.1°C to 2.6°C (RCP4.5), Global temperatures averaged over the period 2081–2100
2100 are projected to likely exceed 1.5°C above 1850-1900 for RCP4.5,
RCP6.0 (high confidence),

And this "conservative estimate" your source picked out was RCP8, the most exaggerated scenario which assumes 1250 ppm CO2 .
Btw, this is the link to AR5:
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
What made you figure that renaming the link to "I encourage you to actually read the IPCC's fifth assessment." would fool anyone not to notice how stupid you are. It`s a link to AR4.
How could your "critical thinking" have missed this:
Your sensational study was published:
666 BioScience • August 2013 / Vol. 63 No. 8 AIBS BioScience Current Issue | About BioScience

And AR5:
WG I: The Physical Science Basis – 30 September 2013, Summary for Policymakers published 27 September 2013.

So which "science basis" did these "experts" with a "self assessed excellent knowledge" use ?
Since you have no idea I`ll tell you...it`s entirely based on all that crap Bernstein published in 2007
.. when he and the rest of the IPCC cluster **** was still in total denial that the temp- increase had already stalled for 10 years.

Google it and then you`ll know why that idiotic study based it on that.
And what does your "critical thinking" tell you about that?

which here means that the 2008 impact
factor measures the average number of citations in 2006 and
2007 for articles published in 2005.
Our list of published environmental biologists included
15,479 corresponding authors. We chose a census survey
approach, sending e-mail invitations to all 15,479, inviting
them to participate in a Web-based survey. The corresponding
author is the scientist designated to represent that article
(e.g., the senior scientist or research director) and should
therefore be knowledgeable in the subject matter. By eliminating
other authors, we minimized the risk that the sampling
frame would include scientists whose contributions may have been minimal

That`s from the original pdf your phony source quoted. They never mentioned the other 13150 biologists they picked who declined to answer.
And phrase it like this:

We surveyed 2329 environmental biologists and found that greater expertise is associated with projections of greater climatic change and more severe consequences.

That`s only 15 % who stated that they agreed, while the other 85 % did`nt want to have anything to do with this fear mongering fodder "study" and declined.


The other thing is, you were ranting here for over a month how we`ll run out of fossil in about 2 decades.
So how would you get with wind mills and solar to the 1250 ppm CO2 RCP8.5 dooms day scenario after that?
There is no need for us evil oil-industry conspirators to discredit the IPCC, as long as fools like you keep on ranting quoting "studies" about the most ridiculous scenarios, which are those the IPCC wishes today it had never even published.
Please do keep it coming, because it`s amusing and demonstrates best just how retarded you libtards really are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is 280ppm normal?

Can you do any homework on your own? You must have been one of the many kids who was always rushing to finish their homework before class and cheating because they never studied.

It was 280 ppm...in pre-industrial times, and has risen to 392 ppm in 2013 with a daily average at Mauna Loa recording 400 ppm as of 10 May 2013.

You have consistently refused to do anything in the way of research and yet you deny AGW because you think you disagree with it. What is really going on is your severe lack of focus prevents you from understanding these matters thoroughly or doing any reading on them. So you pony-up by skimming through well-funded politically based reports that are eager to support your ignorance.

It was 280 ppm...in pre-industrial times

There were billions of years of "pre-industrial times".
So what makes 280 ppm normal?

 

[gnarlylove]

If we care to read the full study, those who did not respond likely fell into the group of those who responded but did not wish to participate. 170 out of the ~210 or so that declined but replied said they didn't feel like they had much insight to offer. They extrapolate this data for the other 13,000 who never responded. Either you didn't read that part, ignored it or disagree with it. You take your pick but I know there's no convincing you so I won't try.

I've never said we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Just one of the endless examples of how your thinking muddles words to better fit stereotypes and pre-conceived ideas.
Coal is in massive supply, I even have a coal mine on my property. Natural Gas industry is just starting and oil may have only reached its peak recently meaning at least 4+ decades of excessive oil burning. But I'm not even a firm believer that we have reached peak oil. The only fact we know is there is a peak oil, when we cross it is hard to tell.

I've had consistently rational conclusions based on sources most of the time but you "creatively" re-interpret anyone into language you understand: rage, hate, and hype. I am not an alarmist and I don't think the world is going to end even if we totally ignored climate change. At worst it presents serious challenges to be overcome. I challenge you to actually find a post where I speak ih apocalyptic themes. I assure you you will find me decrying such outlandish remarks. However, your narrow canon, your unwavering doctrine cannot tell the difference. Is this because of your choice or can you really not tell the difference? I submit being able to understand reasoned arguments over hype makes your life harder, it requires paying more attention instead of just slurring hate.

I wrote a rather lengthy reply to your post on page 172. But I decided half way though it was a waste of time since you have never demonstrated a willingness to actually understand each other. So I immediately closed the page to stop thinking about your constant attacks founded in free-range hate. I thanked you for the AR5 link and read through various pages and graphs, some 30 eye straining pages of text. I gleaned enough data and info to realize you were over simplifying the report. I refereed to 5 sections with quotes that expands our understanding and significance of the AR5 and with special attention to long term assessments. I have no interest in digging it back up because you aren't interested in anything but snobbery. Taking 1 piece of info and running with it. Just like you all you know about me is I think climate change presents risks and you take this to mean I'm an effeminate stupid dumb ignorant 5th grader who is a major ***.

Life is too short to waste it on refuting hate. No thanks for your continued disrespect synonymous with ego bigotry. Of course you'll creatively interpret this as I am a *****. Fine. Think of me however you want, it has literally no bearing on reality. What you think about me matters as much as the decision to place a period at the end of this sentence

 

[gnarlylove]

So what makes 280 ppm normal?

Sounds like a a a broken record. I bet you ask it again too. It's comical. I don't think you're asking the right question but maybe someday we'll come to understand truly why 280 is preferable to 450. Or why 320 is preferable to 600.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what makes 280 ppm normal?

Sounds like a a a broken record. I bet you ask it again too. It's comical. I don't think you're asking the right question but maybe someday we'll come to understand truly why 280 is preferable to 450. Or why 320 is preferable to 600.

So 280ppm isn't normal. Maybe you could tell us how long, during the Earth's 4.5 billion year existence, was it 260ppm - 300ppm?

 

[ScienceRocks]

For about the last million years and maybe again 550 million years ago. The rest had higher co2...

 

[gnarlylove]

If ppm were hovering between 200-300 for a million years, I'd say the global environment got pretty good at co-existing peacefully with that amount. The idea that old growth forests became highly adaptive to their environment would mean they also relied on similar ratios of ppm. As it increases today, it would be unusual and they would need to adjust or die. So far, they are adjusting OK. Nature tends to shuns excess, taking only what it needs. We know 450ppm harms coral. We can wonder what ppm will start to decline land systems. Some say its happening today.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If ppm were hovering between 200-300 for a million years, I'd say the global environment got pretty good at co-existing peacefully with that amount. The idea that old growth forests became highly adaptive to their environment would mean they also relied on similar ratios of ppm. As it increases today, it would be unusual and they would need to adjust or die. So far, they are adjusting OK. Nature tends to shuns excess, taking only what it needs. We know 450ppm harms coral. We can wonder what ppm will start to decline land systems. Some say its happening today.

Your theory is that 1 million years, out of 4.5 billion, defines normal.

We know 450ppm harms coral.

How do we know that?

 

[gnarlylove]

I never said it was normal for the whole planet. I need, absolutely need to know why you are totally obsessed with ppm averages since the world began. What do you think that means and how does it effect the fact we are reaching 400ppm globally?

see me post above, #2583. read the 3 sections in quotes and the links are sourced.

 

[westwall]

If we care to read the full study, those who did not respond likely fell into the group of those who responded but did not wish to participate. 170 out of the ~210 or so that declined but replied said they didn't feel like they had much insight to offer. They extrapolate this data for the other 13,000 who never responded. Either you didn't read that part, ignored it or disagree with it. You take your pick but I know there's no convincing you so I won't try.

I've never said we are going to run out of fossil fuels. Just one of the endless examples of how your thinking muddles words to better fit stereotypes and pre-conceived ideas.
Coal is in massive supply, I even have a coal mine on my property. Natural Gas industry is just starting and oil may have only reached its peak recently meaning at least 4+ decades of excessive oil burning. But I'm not even a firm believer that we have reached peak oil. The only fact we know is there is a peak oil, when we cross it is hard to tell.

I've had consistently rational conclusions based on sources most of the time but you "creatively" re-interpret anyone into language you understand: rage, hate, and hype. I am not an alarmist and I don't think the world is going to end even if we totally ignored climate change. At worst it presents serious challenges to be overcome. I challenge you to actually find a post where I speak ih apocalyptic themes. I assure you you will find me decrying such outlandish remarks. However, your narrow canon, your unwavering doctrine cannot tell the difference. Is this because of your choice or can you really not tell the difference? I submit being able to understand reasoned arguments over hype makes your life harder, it requires paying more attention instead of just slurring hate.

I wrote a rather lengthy reply to your post on page 172. But I decided half way though it was a waste of time since you have never demonstrated a willingness to actually understand each other. So I immediately closed the page to stop thinking about your constant attacks founded in free-range hate. I thanked you for the AR5 link and read through various pages and graphs, some 30 eye straining pages of text. I gleaned enough data and info to realize you were over simplifying the report. I refereed to 5 sections with quotes that expands our understanding and significance of the AR5 and with special attention to long term assessments. I have no interest in digging it back up because you aren't interested in anything but snobbery. Taking 1 piece of info and running with it. Just like you all you know about me is I think climate change presents risks and you take this to mean I'm an effeminate stupid dumb ignorant 5th grader who is a major ***.

Life is too short to waste it on refuting hate. No thanks for your continued disrespect synonymous with ego bigotry. Of course you'll creatively interpret this as I am a *****. Fine. Think of me however you want, it has literally no bearing on reality. What you think about me matters as much as the decision to place a period at the end of this sentence

ONE study. Big deal. I have 5 billion years of Earths history backing me up. I suggest you look at some of that history and then get back to us.

 

[westwall]

If ppm were hovering between 200-300 for a million years, I'd say the global environment got pretty good at co-existing peacefully with that amount. The idea that old growth forests became highly adaptive to their environment would mean they also relied on similar ratios of ppm. As it increases today, it would be unusual and they would need to adjust or die. So far, they are adjusting OK. Nature tends to shuns excess, taking only what it needs. We know 450ppm harms coral. We can wonder what ppm will start to decline land systems. Some say its happening today.

We do? Show us. The experiments tell us something completely different.....

"However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams"


Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said it was normal for the whole planet. I need, absolutely need to know why you are totally obsessed with ppm averages since the world began. What do you think that means and how does it effect the fact we are reaching 400ppm globally?

see me post above, #2583. read the 3 sections in quotes and the links are sourced.

I never said it was normal for the whole planet.

Really?

"co2 is and is not pollution. for humans, its natural to expel. for plants, it natural to absorb (then give off upon decay). at normal levels like 280ppm, it hardly drives the climate. at 400ppm like we are reaching today"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-skeptics-are-winning-171.html#post8545597

I guess you meant it was normal for something other than the whole planet?

I need, absolutely need to know why you are totally obsessed with ppm averages since the world began.

Because ppm averages since the world began show the idiocy of your claim.

 

[SSDD]

If ppm were hovering between 200-300 for a million years, I'd say the global environment got pretty good at co-existing peacefully with that amount. The idea that old growth forests became highly adaptive to their environment would mean they also relied on similar ratios of ppm. As it increases today, it would be unusual and they would need to adjust or die. So far, they are adjusting OK. Nature tends to shuns excess, taking only what it needs. We know 450ppm harms coral. We can wonder what ppm will start to decline land systems. Some say its happening today.

For the past million years, the earth has been in an ice age. Do you think ice age conditions are normal for the earth?

Let me ask you something gnarly, have you ever taken a look at earth's climate history, or is what modern climate science has told you pretty much the extent of your knowledge?

Here, lets take a look at what the temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have looked like since the cambrian period, some 550 million years ago.



The first thing that jumps out at me is the fact that ALL 34 current animal phyla came into existence during the Cambrian period when CO2 levels were between 4,000 and 7000ppm. If you accept evolution, then you must accept that survival at that level of CO2 is encoded into the DNA of all animal life on earth. How do you explain that the most prolific period on earth with regard to animal life happened when atmospheric levels of CO2 were above 4000ppm?

The strongest argument to be made is that life exploded as it did precisely because of the high levels of CO2. Compared to the periods in earth history when life on earth was blooming, the atmosphere today is starved for CO2. Which again, takes us back to the fact that the earth is currently clawing its way out of an ice age. Are you aware that cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans? Do you know about outgassing when water warms? You seem to be concerned about CO2 harming corals, but at present the earth's oceans are a net source of CO2 for the atmosphere, not a net sink. That means that more CO2 is escaping the oceans than is being absorbed by them and as the warming continues...and the warming will continue in the long term because the earth is exiting an ice age, not because we invented the internal combustion engine.

If the claim of climate science that CO2 is a pollutant and will start to degrade life on earth if concentrations exceed 350ppm, explain how life on earth came into being at levels orders of magnitude higher. How can you believe that CO2 is harmful when the entire history of earth has shown that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial to life on earth?

Take a good honest (if you are capable) look at the chart above, and tell me what it tells you about the "normal" temperature of the planet, and what the "normal" levels of atmospheric CO2 have been. Then tell me what, exactly you are worried about and more importanly, why you fear exiting the present ice age when it is beyond argument that cold is far more detrimental to life on earth than warmth?

 

[SSDD]

I never said it was normal for the whole planet. I need, absolutely need to know why you are totally obsessed with ppm averages since the world began. What do you think that means and how does it effect the fact we are reaching 400ppm globally?

see me post above, #2583. read the 3 sections in quotes and the links are sourced.

I never said it was normal for the whole planet.

Really?

"co2 is and is not pollution. for humans, its natural to expel. for plants, it natural to absorb (then give off upon decay). at normal levels like 280ppm, it hardly drives the climate. at 400ppm like we are reaching today"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-skeptics-are-winning-171.html#post8545597

I guess you meant it was normal for something other than the whole planet?

I need, absolutely need to know why you are totally obsessed with ppm averages since the world began.

Because ppm averages since the world began show the idiocy of your claim.

It's like they have their eyes shut as tightly as they can close them and then covered with duct tape and are clapping their hands over their ears while screaming LA LA LA at the top of their lungs. The whole history of life on earth lays waste, their claims of impending catastrophe and they refuse to see.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I never said it was normal for the whole planet. I need, absolutely need to know why you are totally obsessed with ppm averages since the world began. What do you think that means and how does it effect the fact we are reaching 400ppm globally?

see me post above, #2583. read the 3 sections in quotes and the links are sourced.

I never said it was normal for the whole planet.

Really?

"co2 is and is not pollution. for humans, its natural to expel. for plants, it natural to absorb (then give off upon decay). at normal levels like 280ppm, it hardly drives the climate. at 400ppm like we are reaching today"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...the-skeptics-are-winning-171.html#post8545597

I guess you meant it was normal for something other than the whole planet?

I need, absolutely need to know why you are totally obsessed with ppm averages since the world began.

Because ppm averages since the world began show the idiocy of your claim.

It's like they have their eyes shut as tightly as they can close them and then covered with duct tape and are clapping their hands over their ears while screaming LA LA LA at the top of their lungs. The whole history of life on earth lays waste, their claims of impending catastrophe and they refuse to see.

have you by chance seen the flood of youtubes

by those convinced that the recent snowfall in the south and east

is some sort of conspiracy

check it out for a laugh

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnvhQMxXILI]BLACK SNOW WTF!!!!! - YouTube[/ame]

she says it doesnt melt but there is melted snow in her glass

 

[skookerasbil]

It won't make a ******* bit of difference what we in the USA do about this issue.

Billions of people in China and India and elsewhere, just like a skooker (whatever that is) they could give a flying **** less about what happens to this earth.

Change is gonna come in India an China. All those billions are looking forward to skook approved activity, burning gas and oil.

It's gonna be so great.

But one think I have learned from the likes of a skooker; man can't effect the environment. Which means that when scientists used to say that IF we engaged in a full out nuclear war, that there wouldn't have been no "nuclear winter". Right skooks. Cause man just doesn't have it in him to effect the worlds environment.

And burning vast amounts of carbon is GOOD for us. Skook the kook say so. Gotta be true then. Right skoooker.

Like I always say.......philosophy is gay.


Most people in this world don't gamble on "what ifs". Why? Because they cant afford to do so.

Now.....Zeke here thinks its plausible that 3 billion people are going to be just fine with going back to candles and horse and buggy to save the planet. Be taxed at 60% to 70% rates Take a chance on freezing to death in the bitter cold or dying of heat exhaustion. To dickheads like Zeke who think there should be solutions to every problem, he will live out his days in a perpetual state of misery because most people don't think like the hyper-progressive thinks. Indeed.....most of the people in the world realize that life is about accepting necessary tradeoffs. Not the k00k left.

Luckily for the majority on the planet, the fringe have little impact on the real world as this entire thread has demonstrated about 50X over. And make no mistake.....when you have solar energy providing 0.2% of America's energy after 20 years of bomb throwing.......and advocates are spiking the football, you know you are dealing with people who are real bonafide screwballs.

The AGW crowd is losing.......in epic fashion I might add. There are dozens and dozens of links/graphs/photo's within this thread for skeptics to spike about 4 billion footballs in the face of the k00ks.