Science: In Warming World, Critters Run to the Hills

[skookerasbil]

Translation?


Some birds are flying in a different direction so we should go and throw our economy into even further chaos?

How about we double the debt to 32 trillion??

 

[Truthmatters]

You will never be able to compile all the information at once in your brain skooky.

Just give up and go play a video game.

You dont know how those things work either but they do exsist huh?

 

[skookerasbil]

Show you? There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


Our country is in debt up to its eyeballs and we have people like this asshole who want to double it to 32 trillion!!!

How the fcukk do people reach 20 years old and still be so hopelessly duped with this level of idealism?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]



There are just people out there who have no ability to think on the margin, or, as Mr Sowell puts it, "They cant answer the question, 'At what price'?"

 

[skookerasbil]

You will never be able to compile all the information at once in your brain skooky.

Just give up and go play a video game.

You dont know how those things work either but they do exsist huh?

s0n......hate to break it to you, but your side cant win in this argument. It simply cant.........not without civil war. Its that simple. My brain is big enough to know that with 100% certainty. To embark on public policy to eliminate Co2 means the end of the middle class.........the end of civilization as we know it. ( although maybe we can talk people into trading their social security for saving the planet )

Im thinking there are at least 50% of the country who just wont tolerate that s0n..........


Anyway............for my side, its nice to know that the HOUSE is staying red for at least 6 years and likely 10 years.........so I dont have to worry for awhile about nutty-asses fcukking things up even more.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk........yuk...............


GOP could dominate state redistricting - The Hill's Ballot Box


from a blog.................

[BY jason rogers on 08/05/2010 at 03:41
Screw gerrymandering. Let's re-draw all districts back to the way the Founding Fathers' intended. You would see a lot more pragmatism from both parties. No more safe districts in any state, red or blue.
/B]


I say fcukk that........elections have consequesnces. Fcukk the environmentalists!!!!!!!!!


yuk...........yuk...........

 

[wirebender]

[Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence.

There is exactly zero hard, observed repeatable evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. If you believe there is, by all means, stop wringing your hands long enough to bring it here for consideration. Lets see it. I am all ears.

 

[wirebender]

think about the MEANING of the phrase GreenHouse effect?

can you really be this stupid?

Do you think there is some bit of wisdom in that comment? I have thought long and hard about the meaning of the phrase greenhouse effect. Not only that, I have considered the actuality of the greenhouse effect and then applied physical laws and mathematics to the claimed meaning of the phrase. They don't add up.

Perhaps you might like to describe the mechanism by which a trace gas in the atmosphere with no capacity to absorb and retain heat might be responsible for the surface of the earth being able to radiate more than twice the amount of energy that it receives from its only energy source.

 

[rdean]

People choose to believe what they want to believe and all the scientific studies are not going to convince them otherwise. Where science supports one's believe system, science is embraced but when it doesn't science is wrong. For example, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution even thou there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. We may never have enough proof of evolution, but we will certainly have plenty of proof of global warming.

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

Why is it that whenever a right winger points out the fallacy of your positions you just imagine they have no idea what they are talking about if you are a wannabe scientist? Shouldn't you actually study the facts instead of just wishing yourself right?

I think you did a pretty good job of putting that knowledge into words. Thank you.

 

[rdean]

think about the MEANING of the phrase GreenHouse effect?

can you really be this stupid?

Do you think there is some bit of wisdom in that comment? I have thought long and hard about the meaning of the phrase greenhouse effect. Not only that, I have considered the actuality of the greenhouse effect and then applied physical laws and mathematics to the claimed meaning of the phrase. They don't add up.

Perhaps you might like to describe the mechanism by which a trace gas in the atmosphere with no capacity to absorb and retain heat might be responsible for the surface of the earth being able to radiate more than twice the amount of energy that it receives from its only energy source.

Actually, everywhere there is ice (think Antarctic, Greenland and the Arctic), the suns rays and most of their effects are reflected back into the atmosphere. Everywhere there is dark land or dark water, the heat is absorbed and very little is reflected back. When the ice is gone, well, you get the picture.

Just thought I would point that out.

 

[wirebender]

Actually, everywhere there is ice (think Antarctic, Greenland and the Arctic), the suns rays and most of their effects are reflected back into the atmosphere. Everywhere there is dark land or dark water, the heat is absorbed and very little is reflected back. When the ice is gone, well, you get the picture.

If by "get the picture" you mean do I see you rambling on while remaining completely unable to describe a mechanism, supported and predicted by the laws of physics by which the surface of the earth might be able to radiate more than twice the energy it receives from its only energy source, then yes, I get the picture.

Just thought I would point that out.

And you really didn't need to point it out. I already knew that you couldn't actually discuss the topic, and especially describe a mechanism or the physical laws that might or not predict or support a planet's surface being able to radiate more than twice the energy it receives from its only energy source.

But did I really need to point that out?

 

[Flopper]

Astronomers tell us of galaxies thousands of light years from earth and we accept it or just ignore it. It has no effect on our lives so why should we care. Global warming does effect us and threatens our way of life. It's more socially acceptable to deny the facts than it is to deny our descendants a future.

IMHO, we may have passed the point where global warming can be stopped before our environment is destroyed. Scientists can't tell how much greenhouse gases have to be reduced to save the planet. In fact they can't tell us if it actually can be saved. That's not much of a basis to turn the world's economic system upside down.

Just like the addition of MTBE to gasoline proved far more disastrous to the environment then the pollution it was meant to control, the proposed methods for the control of AGW are far worse then the actual "problem". Conservatively, the IPCC projects a cost of a few trillion dollars to possibly reduce the temperature of the globe by one degree in 100 years.

Just imagine what you could do with a few trillion dollars that currently will enrich a few dictators in Africa and a whole bunch of wealthy bankers like those who run Goldman Sachs. Just imagine what that money could do to fix real problems and invent new technologies that will render the current energy systems obsolete.

You trivialize a one degree average change in the temperature of the planet. Just a one degree change in the average could mean a 20 degree colder winter and summer. That's enough to make some areas of the earth uninhabitable. This would be a bargain at a few trillion dollars. Projections of the IPCC are .1degs. Celecius/decade if the greenhouse gases are maintained at the current level which aren't.

 

[Flopper]

People choose to believe what they want to believe and all the scientific studies are not going to convince them otherwise. Where science supports one's believe system, science is embraced but when it doesn't science is wrong. For example, only 4 in 10 believe in evolution even thou there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. We may never have enough proof of evolution, but we will certainly have plenty of proof of global warming.

I suspect we currently have much more proof of evolution. The study of earth's climate is still in it's infancy. "Study" being the operative word. Scientists "study", right wingers "wish and imagine". No study involved.

No, we want real science to be performed with accuracy and honesty, something the AGW crowd have proven to be incapable of. Furthermore implementing "fixes" before all the facts are in leads to environmental disasters on an epic scale. Just look at the history of MTBE added to gasoline. It was an effort to control air pollution and it did a fairly good job of that (though the effect on some members of the public was quite severe). However, it poisoned the ground water all over the state of California. Most of the wells in the Lake Tahoe area are still closed because of MTBE contamination.

So, you see. Your fix was far worse then the problem. Imagine that result on a global scale which is what you folks advocate. Yep, I really want to see what happens when you really screw up the environment.

I fail to see how the reduction in the use of fossil fuels will cause an environmental disaster.

 

[Jroc]

Show you? There are none so blind as he who will not see.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

We've had global warming since the Ice age genius

 

[wirebender]

I fail to see how the reduction in the use of fossil fuels will cause an environmental disaster.

If the wishes of the warmists actually came to pass, the environmental disaster you predict would pale in comparison to the economic disaster that would come to pass.

 

[wirebender]

You trivialize a one degree average change in the temperature of the planet. Just a one degree change in the average could mean a 20 degree colder winter and summer. That's enough to make some areas of the earth uninhabitable. This would be a bargain at a few trillion dollars. Projections of the IPCC are .1degs. Celecius/decade if the greenhouse gases are maintained at the current level which aren't.

Do you have any solid proof that the present average global temperature is at the optimum for life on this planet?

If you knew the first thing about paleohistory, you would know that warm temperatures are far better for life on this planet than the relatively chilly temperatures the climate consists of now. Cold kills far more efficiently than heat.

 

[wirebender]

We've had global warming since the Ice age genius

Stating the obvious seems lost on these guys. They seem completely unable to grasp the fact that the ice has been melting back for 14,000 years now. It has melted back damned near 2,000 miles. For the life of me, I can't see what is upsetting, or surprising about the fact that a trend that is now 14,000 years old is continuing.

 

[Truthmatters]

science deniers using science to try and deny science is pretty funny stuff

 

[Flopper]

Actually, there are none so blind as those who are hopelessly dupted, but never mind.

I see you are posting old rocks' scripture. I have read the whole thing and even checked the links that are imbedded within it. I have asked rocks repeatedly and he remains unable to answer so I will ask you; which part of that drivel do you believe represents any sort of proof that the present temperature is at the optimum for life on earth, or some sort of proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, or that reducing the amount of socalled greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will lower the temperature, or that the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere raise the temperature, or that the greenhouse effect even exists?

Rocks repeatedly posts that bit of sputum but remains unable to point to any part of it that constitutes proof of any of his beliefs. Which part do you beleive represents proof. Just state the paragraph and I will gladly explain how nothing there is proof of anything for you.

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

Feel free to show us evidence that is not tainted and doesn't involve a computer model.

Here are few articles summarizing hundreds of climate and earth science related scientific research projects.

Abrupt climate change
Antarctic Cold Reversal
Antarctic oscillation
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Arctic shrinkage
Atmospheric circulation
Attribution of recent climate change
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage
Broad Spectrum Revolution
Callendar effect
Bio-geoengineering
Catastrophic climate change
Clathrate gun hypothesis
Climate change and agriculture
Climate cycle
Cloud reflectivity enhancement
Cool tropics paradox
Coral bleaching
Dendroclimatology
East Antarctic Ice Sheet
Effects of climate change on marine mammals
Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity
Effects of global warming on Australia
Effects of global warming on India
Global dimming
Greenhouse effect
Holocene Climatic Optimum
Keeling Curve
Long-term effects of global warming
Milankovitch cycles
North Atlantic Deep Water
North Atlantic oscillation
Ocean acidification
Ocean anoxia
Ozone depletion
Pacific decadal oscillation
Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project
Polar amplification
Quasi-biennial oscillation
Radiative forcing
Regional effects of global warming
Retreat of glaciers since 1850
Runaway climate change
Satellite temperature measurements
Sea level rise
Table of Historic and Prehistoric Climate Indicators
Temperature record of the past 1000 years
Temperature record since 1880
Thermohaline circulation
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
World climate research programme

Index of climate change articles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Proof? There is no proof. There is a huge amount of evidence. You won't have enough proof until the end of the century to convince governments to take decisive action. If we were dealing with just a bunch of temperature studies by climatologists, the whole issue could be dismissed but we aren't. We're seeing supporting evidence from oceanologists, botanists, zoologists, geophysicists, and glaciologists from around world. Loss of biodiversity, decline in polar bears, shrinking arctic sea ice, melting glaciers, rise in acidifying of oceans, thinning ice, rising sea levels, coral bleaching, shifting wildlife habitat are just few of hundreds of studies that provide supporting evidence that the climate is rapidly changing.

Of course the opposition will dismiss all the evidence as a great left wing conspiracy. NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, National Academy of Science, 32 national science academies, and 75 out of 79 climate scientists, have got it all wrong.

Feel free to show us evidence that is not tainted and doesn't involve a computer model.

Here are few articles summarizing hundreds of climate and earth science related scientific research projects.

Abrupt climate change
Antarctic Cold Reversal
Antarctic oscillation
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Arctic shrinkage
Atmospheric circulation
Attribution of recent climate change
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage
Broad Spectrum Revolution
Callendar effect
Bio-geoengineering
Catastrophic climate change
Clathrate gun hypothesis
Climate change and agriculture
Climate cycle
Cloud reflectivity enhancement
Cool tropics paradox
Coral bleaching
Dendroclimatology
East Antarctic Ice Sheet
Effects of climate change on marine mammals
Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity
Effects of global warming on Australia
Effects of global warming on India
Global dimming
Greenhouse effect
Holocene Climatic Optimum
Keeling Curve
Long-term effects of global warming
Milankovitch cycles
North Atlantic Deep Water
North Atlantic oscillation
Ocean acidification
Ocean anoxia
Ozone depletion
Pacific decadal oscillation
Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project
Polar amplification
Quasi-biennial oscillation
Radiative forcing
Regional effects of global warming
Retreat of glaciers since 1850
Runaway climate change
Satellite temperature measurements
Sea level rise
Table of Historic and Prehistoric Climate Indicators
Temperature record of the past 1000 years
Temperature record since 1880
Thermohaline circulation
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
World climate research programme

Index of climate change articles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Repeatable lab experiments showing how a 100PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature = 0.

 

[Flopper]

We've had global warming since the Ice age genius

Stating the obvious seems lost on these guys. They seem completely unable to grasp the fact that the ice has been melting back for 14,000 years now. It has melted back damned near 2,000 miles. For the life of me, I can't see what is upsetting, or surprising about the fact that a trend that is now 14,000 years old is continuing.

If you can't see what's so upsetting, you're not paying attention. Thousands of communities worldwide depend on the fresh water from melting glaciers for their domestic use. Some countries depend on the melting water from glaciers for their production of electricity. Agriculture in many nations depends primarily on melting glacier water that flows in their rivers. All this melting water is constantly replaced by fresh snow that compresses into ice over time and will subsequently melt into water. This cycle goes on and on maintaining a perfect balance in the generation of fresh water and size of the glacier.