No time to quarrel: Kerry warns of climate 'tragedy'

[Freewill]

The following is a quote from Kerry, is it just me or does this not make a lick of sense?

"The Paris pact, he added, would not be "the silver bullet that eliminates this threat but I think everyone here can agree that we certainly won't eliminate it without an agreement," added Kerry."

So, will the agreement solve a problem or not? If not then why bother at all?

Maybe I am just being a conspriacy theory nut but it seems to me that the whole goal is control over all of the world's economy. Also it is being used to bring America down and third world countries up to some sort of standard the left wing has set.

No time to quarrel Kerry warns of climate tragedy - Yahoo News

"I know the discussions can be tense and decisions are difficult and I know how angry some people are about the predicament they've been put in by big nations that have benefited from industrialization for a long period of time," Kerry said

The developed nations who are responsible for most of the problem are asking the undeveloped nations to make the big cuts while they do practically nothing. And Kerry questions why they are pissed?

America is doing nothing? Shutting our industrial base under Obama is nothing?

This graph seems to indicate by plan or not we are doing something:

 

[Stephanie]

People like Kerry is all for shutting down our jobs here at home all for the sake of the G-ds of, climate

don't believe for one second they give a damn if you have employment folks

John Kerry is the biggest joke who has done NOTHING outstanding but be a career politician

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. What do you call a War Criminal scumbag in the Obama Administration?

A. SecState

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The best way to combat Global Warming is to export the AGWCult to India, China and Russia

 

[FJO]

Given that wind is now cheaper as a power source than dirty coal, and solar is within a half cent a kilowatt of dirty coal, and still coming down, looks to me like clean energy is the way to go because of economics. Add in the emergence of grid scale batteries, and both are energy 24/7. So, what looks to be costly is continueing to use fossil fuels.

You are confused.

There is no "clean" energy that can compete with fossil fuels on any large scale. Wind is not even close and there is usually a 20-30 year payback on solar for the best locations and that is only if there is average sunlight.

There is no wind farm or solar array in the world that can compete with fossil fuels without massive government subsidies. The only way that these environmental wacko "clean" energy sources become viable to the end user is if you factor in the government subsidies, which are always false economics.

The free market always determines the economics and the great majority of the energy in the world is generated by fossil fuels. If it was cheaper to go with solar or wind then the marketplace would make the transition. We don't need the filthy government interfering with market economics. The government screws it up enough as we saw with Solyndra.

Maybe one of these days alternative energy can compete with fossil fuels but we are not even close nowadays.

When I will be able go have wind mills, solar panels or batteries on my car that deliver me as reliably to my destination and allow me to replace the spent energy source as conveniently as refilling my tank with gasoline, maybe then I will start believing in Al Gore and John Kerry.
Until then anything these two foist on the world in just stupid nonsense coming out of the mouths of failed presidential candidates who are either gigolo or pseudo scientists or taking pride of being both.

 

[Flash]

LOL I am a retired Environmental Engineer. I spent 30 years cleaning up pollution so your little statement about "people like me are killing the planet" isn't as accurate as you think it is. I have abated more pollution in my career than ten thousand Environmental Wackos will see in their lifetimes.

After retiring I also taught a few college level courses in Environmental Science and while not an expert on Climate Change by a long shot I am a little more better read and more knowledgeable on the subject than most people.

In my classes I taught that humans have affected the biosphere in many ways and have polluted the earth in many ways but changing the climate significantly through CO2 emissions is not one of them because the data does not support that claim.

I have debated this crap many times in Internet discussion boards (many times to great depth) and no matter how much data I provide the Moonbats will never accept it. It is like an obsession or a religion to them and they refuse to listen to the facts. I don't even bother to get into Google Wars with the Moonbats over this subject anymore because these idiots will ignore the data and that they don't want to hear.

Most of the Environmental Wackos that believe in this climate change scam also voted for Obama thinking he was going to do a good job as President so you know they are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier therefore I am not surprised that they get it wrong.

You've made a claim, which is what I'm more interested in. Let's debate. What do you have?

No insults, no changing the topic, just debate, backed up with evidence, with a proper argument, all of that which hardly happens on here.

You didn't bother to read all the post, did you?.

I have given up trying to educate the global warming fanatics that I run across on the internet. They have no intentions of accepting the reality of the facts. I have done that too many times in the last few years and nothing has ever been accomplished by a Google War on the subject. It is always a waste of time and effort. I use to have a list of all the references describing the bad science and I would post the information and it would be ignored. I doubt you would be any different. You Environmental Wackos are simply too closed minded to understand the flaws in the models or the bad assumptions in the greenhouse chemistry no matter what evidence is produced. You sure as hell don't want to accept the scam identified in Climategate I and II and the reality that the people that have been pushing this scam have purposely altered the data.

I will be teaching a course in Environmental Science at a Florida university in the Spring. If you are interested in learning about the subject in the proper setting then PM me and I will give you the details and you can sign up for the course and we can discuss it in class.

If you don't want to do that then continue with your ignorance. I really don't care if you believe in the scam or not. I am not going to waste my time trying to educate another uneducatable Liberal. I have been there and done that and bought the T shirt.

The sad thing is that this scam about AGW is directing American economic policy and it driven by ignorance and the money that Environmental Wacko idiots give the filthy Democrat Party. We are a stupid country, aren't we?

 

[frigidweirdo]

LOL I am a retired Environmental Engineer. I spent 30 years cleaning up pollution so your little statement about "people like me are killing the planet" isn't as accurate as you think it is. I have abated more pollution in my career than ten thousand Environmental Wackos will see in their lifetimes.

After retiring I also taught a few college level courses in Environmental Science and while not an expert on Climate Change by a long shot I am a little more better read and more knowledgeable on the subject than most people.

In my classes I taught that humans have affected the biosphere in many ways and have polluted the earth in many ways but changing the climate significantly through CO2 emissions is not one of them because the data does not support that claim.

I have debated this crap many times in Internet discussion boards (many times to great depth) and no matter how much data I provide the Moonbats will never accept it. It is like an obsession or a religion to them and they refuse to listen to the facts. I don't even bother to get into Google Wars with the Moonbats over this subject anymore because these idiots will ignore the data and that they don't want to hear.

Most of the Environmental Wackos that believe in this climate change scam also voted for Obama thinking he was going to do a good job as President so you know they are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier therefore I am not surprised that they get it wrong.

You've made a claim, which is what I'm more interested in. Let's debate. What do you have?

No insults, no changing the topic, just debate, backed up with evidence, with a proper argument, all of that which hardly happens on here.

You didn't bother to read all the post, did you?.

I have given up trying to educate the global warming fanatics that I run across on the internet. They have no intentions of accepting the reality of the facts. I have done that too many times in the last few years and nothing has ever been accomplished by a Google War on the subject. It is always a waste of time and effort. I use to have a list of all the references describing the bad science and I would post the information and it would be ignored. I doubt you would be any different. You Environmental Wackos are simply too closed minded to understand the flaws in the models or the bad assumptions in the greenhouse chemistry no matter what evidence is produced. You sure as hell don't want to accept the scam identified in Climategate I and II and the reality that the people that have been pushing this scam have purposely altered the data.

I will be teaching a course in Environmental Science at a Florida university in the Spring. If you are interested in learning about the subject in the proper setting then PM me and I will give you the details and you can sign up for the course and we can discuss it in class.

If you don't want to do that then continue with your ignorance. I really don't care if you believe in the scam or not. I am not going to waste my time trying to educate another uneducatable Liberal. I have been there and done that and bought the T shirt.

The sad thing is that this scam about AGW is directing American economic policy and it driven by ignorance and the money that Environmental Wacko idiots give the filthy Democrat Party. We are a stupid country, aren't we?

Well done. I know best and I come on a debate forum, but I won't debate because no one listens. Then why are you here?

You say it's a scam, because SOME people have been presenting "evidence" that has been diddled. Does that mean all the data has been diddled? Does that mean nothing is valid?

Also, I've looked for myself. This isn't me reading what other people have written, it's me looking at the facts that are out there and coming to a conclusion that there is something bad happening.

 

[Redfish]

LOL I am a retired Environmental Engineer. I spent 30 years cleaning up pollution so your little statement about "people like me are killing the planet" isn't as accurate as you think it is. I have abated more pollution in my career than ten thousand Environmental Wackos will see in their lifetimes.

After retiring I also taught a few college level courses in Environmental Science and while not an expert on Climate Change by a long shot I am a little more better read and more knowledgeable on the subject than most people.

In my classes I taught that humans have affected the biosphere in many ways and have polluted the earth in many ways but changing the climate significantly through CO2 emissions is not one of them because the data does not support that claim.

I have debated this crap many times in Internet discussion boards (many times to great depth) and no matter how much data I provide the Moonbats will never accept it. It is like an obsession or a religion to them and they refuse to listen to the facts. I don't even bother to get into Google Wars with the Moonbats over this subject anymore because these idiots will ignore the data and that they don't want to hear.

Most of the Environmental Wackos that believe in this climate change scam also voted for Obama thinking he was going to do a good job as President so you know they are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandelier therefore I am not surprised that they get it wrong.

You've made a claim, which is what I'm more interested in. Let's debate. What do you have?

No insults, no changing the topic, just debate, backed up with evidence, with a proper argument, all of that which hardly happens on here.

You didn't bother to read all the post, did you?.

I have given up trying to educate the global warming fanatics that I run across on the internet. They have no intentions of accepting the reality of the facts. I have done that too many times in the last few years and nothing has ever been accomplished by a Google War on the subject. It is always a waste of time and effort. I use to have a list of all the references describing the bad science and I would post the information and it would be ignored. I doubt you would be any different. You Environmental Wackos are simply too closed minded to understand the flaws in the models or the bad assumptions in the greenhouse chemistry no matter what evidence is produced. You sure as hell don't want to accept the scam identified in Climategate I and II and the reality that the people that have been pushing this scam have purposely altered the data.

I will be teaching a course in Environmental Science at a Florida university in the Spring. If you are interested in learning about the subject in the proper setting then PM me and I will give you the details and you can sign up for the course and we can discuss it in class.

If you don't want to do that then continue with your ignorance. I really don't care if you believe in the scam or not. I am not going to waste my time trying to educate another uneducatable Liberal. I have been there and done that and bought the T shirt.

The sad thing is that this scam about AGW is directing American economic policy and it driven by ignorance and the money that Environmental Wacko idiots give the filthy Democrat Party. We are a stupid country, aren't we?

Well done. I know best and I come on a debate forum, but I won't debate because no one listens. Then why are you here?

his point is valid. Talking to an empty head accomplishes nothing.

you choose to believe the AGW lies. you are free to be stupid.

 

[FJO]

John Kerry walks into a bar and the bartender says "so why the long face?"

John Kerry walk down the street and tells a man he meets that he is Jesus Christ. When the man expresses doubts Kerry says: Let me prove it and takes the man's arm and leads him thru a door which has happens to be the door go a pub.

The bartender sees Kerry and exclaimes: "Jesus Christ, you're back AGAIN! !"

 

[Flash]

He is actually starting to make Hillary's time as Sect of State look mildly decent.

They both are/were terrible Secretaries of State but fit right in to Obama's failed and incompetent foreign policy.

Failed? I would say failed. He has more international support than Bush ever had. He's made America look slightly more human again. How he's done it while bombing Libya, and sanctions against Iran and Venezuela (wait, all are OPEC) I don't know, but he's done it. Even China prefers Obama with the tension that exists now, to Bush.

I love it when the Libtards try to blame Obama's failures on Bush. That is the only thing they have.

Obama has the love of the American haters around the world because he has bad mouthed the US and they like that.

However, Obama has lost a tremendous amount of respect of the US from adversaries around the world and both that idiot Clinton and that clown Kerry have contributed to that decline with their incompetence and convoluted foreign policies. Just ask Putin if you don't believe me.

Kerry has got it wrong on almost everything in his life and it is not surprising that he also got this AWG scam wrong. Can you imagine what it would be like to be one of these morons that voted for him as President in 2004? That kind of stupidity is mind boggling, isn't it? Almost as stupid as voting for Gore but still not on the level of stupidity as voting for Obama.

When we elect idiots like Obama as President we get idiots for Secretary of State.

 

[frigidweirdo]

his point is valid. Talking to an empty head accomplishes nothing.

you choose to believe the AGW lies. you are free to be stupid.

Oh, and aren't there lots of those on this message board? Am I one of them?

Is insulting going to help your case? What "lies" exactly do I believe. Come on, if you're telling me what I'm thinking, then back it up. Otherwise don't bother making claims you can't back up.

 

[Redfish]

his point is valid. Talking to an empty head accomplishes nothing.

you choose to believe the AGW lies. you are free to be stupid.

Oh, and aren't there lots of those on this message board? Am I one of them?

Is insulting going to help your case? What "lies" exactly do I believe. Come on, if you're telling me what I'm thinking, then back it up. Otherwise don't bother making claims you can't back up.

do you believe in man made climate change? yes or no. If yes, then you believe a lie.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I love it when the Libtards try to blame Obama's failures on Bush. That is the only thing they have.

Obama has the love of the American haters around the world because he has bad mouthed the US and they like that.

However, Obama has lost a tremendous amount of respect of the US from adversaries around the world and both that idiot Clinton and that clown Kerry have contributed to that decline with their incompetence and convoluted foreign policies. Just ask Putin if you don't believe me.

Kerry has got it wrong on almost everything in his life and it is not surprising that he also got this AWG scam wrong. Can you imagine what it would be like to be one of these morons that voted for him as President in 2004? That kind of stupidity is mind boggling, isn't it? Almost as stupid as voting for Gore but still not on the level of stupidity as voting for Obama.

When we elect idiots like Obama as President we get idiots for Secretary of State.

Obama has bad mouthed the US? When?

No, Obama lost a huge amount of respect at home for being a Democrat. Bush lost a lot for being Republican. Partisan politics.

So you can see that maybe 10% of Republicans had an intense dislike for Obama when he started in office. Bush similarly has divided opinion from day one.

Obama, internationally has support. From Putin? No, Putin didn't like America in the 1980s, the 1990s, the 2000s and he doesn't like America now. He's a Nationalist and wants his nation to be the best (whatever that means). He's playing a game with the US to gain support at home. Usually it doesn't work out. I met a guy in St Petersburg whose brother was killed in the war with Georgia, not a happy man. Not much has changed other than the Ukraine is far more important for energy resources than Georgia or Chechnya has ever been.

You keep calling them idiots, and you keep not providing evidence for them being idiots.

 

[frigidweirdo]

his point is valid. Talking to an empty head accomplishes nothing.

you choose to believe the AGW lies. you are free to be stupid.

Oh, and aren't there lots of those on this message board? Am I one of them?

Is insulting going to help your case? What "lies" exactly do I believe. Come on, if you're telling me what I'm thinking, then back it up. Otherwise don't bother making claims you can't back up.

do you believe in man made climate change? yes or no. If yes, then you believe a lie.

Why? Why is believing that the climate is different from what the natural temperature should be a lie?

You've made the statement, now back it up or shut up.

 

[Redfish]

his point is valid. Talking to an empty head accomplishes nothing.

you choose to believe the AGW lies. you are free to be stupid.

Oh, and aren't there lots of those on this message board? Am I one of them?

Is insulting going to help your case? What "lies" exactly do I believe. Come on, if you're telling me what I'm thinking, then back it up. Otherwise don't bother making claims you can't back up.

do you believe in man made climate change? yes or no. If yes, then you believe a lie.

Why? Why is believing that the climate is different from what the natural temperature should be a lie?

You've made the statement, now back it up or shut up.

OK, how did the acts of humans cause the climate changes that occured millions of years ago?

The climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years after man leaves it.

there is no such thing as "natural temperature". The sun's variations coupled with the tilt of the planet on its axis cause climate change, not some soccer mom driving an SUV.

 

[frigidweirdo]

OK, how did the acts of humans cause the climate changes that occured millions of years ago?

First. You seem to be under the impression that there is either natural climate change or man made climate change, not both.

Natural climate change happens for a lot of reasons. Solar radiation, plate tectonics, Volcanic eruptions, things like this.

However at present we're not seeing an increase in these.

Here's sunspot activity in red, there is a decrease which would have a negative impact on warming.

Major volcanic eruptions are on the slide too.

As for plate tectonics, the Earth seems to be stabilising much more. Temperatures have been quite consistent within the last 400,000 years.

Here you can see, more or less, a 100,000 year cycle of warming and cooling, there are mini events as the Earth cools, then it flares up, gets much warmer and then goes down again over the next 100,00 years or so. Where we are now looks like the peak has happened and we should be getting colder. We're not.

So while natural climate change has always been happening, and in recent times it has become more stable, I would expect, right now, to be seeing temperatures cooling, and cooling quite dramatically too. Here's the point I'm seeing. Humans have put stuff into the air which we know is a greenhouse gas, we know, more or less, what it does, but we keep putting it there.

We knew we were destroying the ozone with CFCs and we stopped producing them. Are you denying we had a big impact there? The loss of the ozone layer can help with an increase in temperatures.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is no where near as strong as others, but it's the time it spends in the atmosphere that is the problem.

Methane is 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas after 20 years in the atmosphere, but after 500 it is only 7.6 times stronger. So you pump a lot of methane in the atmosphere and the effects will be less strong in the future than if you pump 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere which in the immediate future won't be a problem, but after a while the build up WILL be a problem.

The climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years after man leaves it.

there is no such thing as "natural temperature". The sun's variations coupled with the tilt of the planet on its axis cause climate change, not some soccer mom driving an SUV.

Yes, I'm not saying the climate won't change. This isn't the debate, and if you think it is then you're going to have problems.

There is such a thing as "natural temperature", it's like there is a natural tropic of Capricorn and Cancer. They move as the Earth changes position, doesn't mean it's not natural where it is. Natural being the effects it has based on what it should do if left alone. We can't be 100% sure of what the temperature should be. However it's not the issue.

The issue is one of a change that is going to happen that A) we can't control and B) will cause serious problems for humans and other species on the planet.

So we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know it helps to trap heat in. We know temperatures and CO2 go hand in hand, which comes first it doesn't necessarily matter. We also know that CO2 stays a long time. Now, if you put sand on top of sand it usually spreads out. When it can't spread out any more it starts to rise. If we put too much in and it changes what is supposed to happen and temperatures go through the roof. Then what? We don't know. But I really don't want to risk it being the sort of thing you wouldn't want to live through.

 

[Flash]

Why? Why is believing that the climate is different from what the natural temperature should be a lie?

You've made the statement, now back it up or shut up.

":What the temperature should be"?????

Nobody knows what the temperature should be because there is no real baseline anywhere close to the margin of error that would incorporate the effects of man.

For instance, prior to about the 1970s about half the world wide temperature data was collected at American and European universities located in or near big cities. The Southern hemisphere was vastly under reported as were Siberia and other places. We have no idea what the world wide temperature was prior to the industrial age and we only have very recent data to what it is now.

Ice cores and tree ring data are very inaccurate to the degree that it needs to be in order to make assumption about man made climate change. Even when it is used the Environmental wackos cherry pick the data in order to further their scam as we saw in the Al Gore hockey stick graph.

The assumption on this AWG scam is that Man is putting too much CO2 in the air from burning of fossil fuels and CO2 is a greenhouse gas so therefore Man is changing the climate. By the way, this all based upon computer models and not observed data.

The reality is much different. For instance, we know that in historical times the CO2 levels have been higher and the earth cooler and we know that there have been times when the CO2 levels have been lower and the temperature higher. In fact there is significant and credible data (always ignored by the Environmental wackos) that CO2 levels lags changes in temperatures.

As mentioned above we don't really don't have a good baseline because until about the 1990s there has been no real effort to establish one. However, even when we do try to establish a baseline we have seen from the revelations of Climategate I and II that the scientist have manipulated the measurements.

The third thing is that none of the predictions that the wackos have made have really come to to pass. The earth has actually been cooler the last 15 years and it looks like that trend will continue.for awhile. Ice sheets are growing and while there are regional warming we don't see it planet wide. These silly computer models that the scam was based on never were validated.

There is certainly not enough real proof of AGW to warrant major changes in the economy of the US or any other country. Only the Ted Kaczyynski's of the world and the Environmental Wacko scammers want to do that.

There is a lot of proof that Humans are ******* up this planet. We are effecting the bioshere in a major way. for instance, every year worldwide we deforest an area about the size of both North and South Carolina combined. This is year after year. We are really screwing up the oceans. There are many things we are doing but affecting the climate by burning fossil fuels is not one of them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

":What the temperature should be"?????

Nobody knows what the temperature should be because there is no real baseline anywhere close to the margin of error that would incorporate the effects of man.

For instance, prior to about the 1970s about half the world wide temperature data was collected at American and European universities located in or near big cities. The Southern hemisphere was vastly under reported as were Siberia and other places. We have no idea what the world wide temperature was prior to the industrial age and we only have very recent data to what it is now.

Ice cores and tree ring data are very inaccurate to the degree that it needs to be in order to make assumption about man made climate change. Even when it is used the Environmental wackos cherry pick the data in order to further their scam as we saw in the Al Gore hockey stick graph.

The assumption on this AWG scam is that Man is putting too much CO2 in the air from burning of fossil fuels and CO2 is a greenhouse gas so therefore Man is changing the climate. By the way, this all based upon computer models and not observed data.

The reality is much different. For instance, we know that in historical times the CO2 levels have been higher and the earth cooler and we know that there have been times when the CO2 levels have been lower and the temperature higher. In fact there is significant and credible data (always ignored by the Environmental wackos) that CO2 levels lags changes in temperatures.

As mentioned above we don't really don't have a good baseline because until about the 1990s there has been no real effort to establish one. However, even when we do try to establish a baseline we have seen from the revelations of Climategate I and II that the scientist have manipulated the measurements.

The third thing is that none of the predictions that the wackos have made have really come to to pass. The earth has actually been cooler the last 15 years and it looks like that trend will continue.for awhile. Ice sheets are growing and while there are regional warming we don't see it planet wide. These silly computer models that the scam was based on never were validated.

There is certainly not enough real proof of AGW to warrant major changes in the economy of the US or any other country. Only the Ted Kaczyynski's of the world and the Environmental Wacko scammers want to do that.

There is a lot of proof that Humans are ******* up this planet. We are effecting the bioshere in a major way. for instance, every year worldwide we deforest an area about the size of both North and South Carolina combined. This is year after year. We are really screwing up the oceans. There are many things we are doing but affecting the climate by burning fossil fuels is not one of them.

So here's the think. Evidence isn't so easy to come by. We don't have solid evidence that we know is 100% true. So it's so easy to knock any evidence.
Does this mean that we're not in for serious problems? No it doesn't.

But you're talking about data that has come from sources not totally accurate, and yet you are relying on the same data.

As I said, it doesn't matter whether CO2 lags temperature rises or not. I can't really see it one way or another what actually happens. I think it's quite complex, an interplay between CO2, temperature rises and many other things.

However we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Yes, the Earth is cooling to a certain extent, naturally, as I have predicted it should be. You say ice sheets are growing, I'm finding that actually there's contradictory evidence. People are so willing to pick up on one thing that says one thing and ignore another that says the other.
People are looking for the simple black and white. It's either getting colder which means this and this happen, or it's getting warmer therefore the opposite must happen in every single case. As if the world is so easy to understand. It's not.

BBC News - Greenland ice sheet losses double

'A new assessment from Europe's CryoSat spacecraft shows Greenland to be losing about 375 cu km of ice each year."

"Greenland is experiencing the biggest reductions in elevation currently, losing about 375 cu km a year "

"In Antarctica, the annual volume loss is about 128 cu km per year (plus or minus 83 cu km per year).'

"
Big glaciers here, such as Thwaites and Pine Island, are thinning and retreating at a rapid rate.

Some thickening is seen also, such as in Dronning Maud Land, where colossal snowfalls have been reported. But this accumulation does not offset the losses occurring in West Antarctica."

So the same report is talking about thickening and thinning, but at the same time, overall, a thinning.

However overall temperatures are much higher than they were in the 1990s. A drop in temperatures doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening, variations in temperature happen all the time. Even a cooling period can see a period of warming and the other way around.

Is this what is happening?

Again, you seem to be basing things on "not enough proof", rather than it's not actually happening.

Here's the deal. How much of a gamble are you prepared to take that your "not enough proof" is actually going to be "nothing's happening"?

It's like saying there isn't enough proof that the Russians are behind the situation in the Ukraine.

 

[Flash]

[

As I said, it doesn't matter whether CO2 lags temperature rises or not.

Oh really? That is kind of like a biggie.

You don't understand the science very much. I always get this shit when trying to discuss this subject with ignorant Moonbats. That is why I don't like to waste my time.

You obviously don't have a clue but for the benefit of other people reading this I am going to walk you through it.

If CO2 is n effective greenhouse gas then temperature would always lag the rise in CO2 emissions, duh. However, historical evidence from several eras doesn't prove that. For instance, during the Medieval Warming Period the earth was warmer than it is today but yet the CO2 levels were lower.

If CO2 has a minimal effect then you would see a dissociation between the correlation which we have cataloged in several time periods on earth. At one time the earth was literally covered with ice and the CO2 levels were ten times what they are now.

One on the major flaw of this scam is the proclamation that since there has been a rise in CO2 levels since the industrial age there is a direct correlation with temperature rise. Al Gore and his suck buddies even put out a graph to show that correlation. The only problem is that the data on temperature rise was cherry picked and data from other eras were ignored. We saw from Climategate that the so called experts manipulated the temperature data to make it fit the correlation. The correlation ain't worth shit.

In theory CO2 should act as a greenhouse gas and incomplete computer models with flawed input data will show it but the reality is that is not the case in real life. The chemistry in the atmosphere is much more complex than the computer model shows and that is why none of the doomsday predictions that the Environmental Wackos made have not come to pass.

Just go on believing this scam. You can sit around in your mother's basement wearing your flannel pajamas, masturbating to pictures of Obama and sipping your cup of chocolate and fearing the earth is burning up all you want. You don't understand the science and you don't want to understand it. I am not going to waste my time with you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

As I said, it doesn't matter whether CO2 lags temperature rises or not.

Oh really? That is kind of like a biggie.

You don't understand the science very much. I always get this shit when trying to discuss this subject with ignorant Moonbats. That is why I don't like to waste my time.

You obviously don't have a clue but for the benefit of other people reading this I am going to walk you through it.

If CO2 is n effective greenhouse gas then temperature would always lag the rise in CO2 emissions, duh. However, historical evidence from several eras doesn't prove that. For instance, during the Medieval Warming Period the earth was warmer than it is today but yet the CO2 levels were lower.

If CO2 has a minimal effect then you would see a dissociation between the correlation which we have cataloged in several time periods on earth. At one time the earth was literally covered with ice and the CO2 levels were ten times what they are now.

One on the major flaw of this scam is the proclamation that since there has been a rise in CO2 levels since the industrial age there is a direct correlation with temperature rise. Al Gore and his suck buddies even put out a graph to show that correlation. The only problem is that the data on temperature rise was cherry picked and data from other eras were ignored. We saw from Climategate that the so called experts manipulated the temperature data to make it fit the correlation. The correlation ain't worth shit.

In theory CO2 should act as a greenhouse gas and incomplete computer models with flawed input data will show it but the reality is that is not the case in real life. The chemistry in the atmosphere is much more complex than the computer model shows and that is why none of the doomsday predictions that the Environmental Wackos made have not come to pass.

Just go on believing this scam. You can sit around in your mother's basement wearing your flannel pajamas, masturbating to pictures of Obama and sipping your cup of chocolate and fearing the earth is burning up all you want. You don't understand the science and you don't want to understand it. I am not going to waste my time with you.

A few points.

The first is you're using the stats you claimed were bull before.

Second you're saying the doomsday hasn't arrived that people are saying will happen. When did they say it would happen? Already? I don't think most people said the world would have been destroyed by now.

Thirdly, I'm not saying there is a direct correlation with CO2 and temperatures. Why? Because like you said it's quite a complex matter.
Now, as far as I understand it, CO2 is a long term greenhouse gas. After 500 years it is only 7 times less powerful than methane, compared to 70 times less powerful after 20 years. Tetrafluoromethane is actually worse than CO2 but is being pumped into the air in less quantities.
Now, if we're looking at CO2 levels over a 500 year period where will be at?

This is one reading from one place. It's evidence, it doesn't tell the whole story, but I'm using it as an example.

So from 1958 when they first started doing the readings CO2 levels have increased by about 33% of the original level. That's in 56 years. How much of that do you think is naturally produced CO2 being released into the air?

Ice core measurements and direct measurements as a whole seem to be a bit less. 315 in 1958 maybe to 370 in 2000 which is similar to the previous chart. So we're seeing a rise in CO2 levels.

Based on what has been happening in the relative stability of the last 400,000 years, we're seeing levels which a far larger than we've ever experienced. The worry here is what will the impact be after 500 years or more when this CO2 isn't leaving the atmosphere and it is being added to continuously.

But the funniest thing of all, you keep saying you won't waste time with someone who "doesn't understand science", but then most people who understand science don't tend to agree with you. Sounds like a MAJOR cop out to me. You haven't provided evidence for a single thing. You claim stats are wrong then you use those stats. Then you tell me, with no evidence to back it up, that's I'm believing a myth. If it's a myth, then it should be quite simple for you to make a point. So it is?

You only seem to preach to the converted and anyone who disagrees is either an idiot or doesn't understand and you won't bother with anyone like that.