When was the last time CO2 levels were as high as today?

[Toronado3800]

Co2 is at an ll time high, yet the planet is cooling. Yep, makes perfect sense, to morons.

You globull warming bed wetters are really silly!

a new train of thought. Let's say the earth is entering an ice age. Something that has happened dozens of times in the past and has swung back the other way.

Would you support releasing climate modifying gasses into the atmosphere in an attempt to stop it? Sounds great on the first level. If you follow the climate modification one step further what kind of super warm "recover" will the plant have?

At the very least, does anyone here disagree with the effects of greenhouse gasses? Being self centered and ignoring any reasonable experiments in small enclosed environments is akin to putting your head in the sand.

The debate should be if there is something we need to be doing on a nationally competitive scale instead of being worried about the environment or if you have some "I don't care about my descendants" type of logic.

 

[Zander]

Co2 is at an ll time high, yet the planet is cooling. Yep, makes perfect sense, to morons.

You globull warming bed wetters are really silly!

a new train of thought. Let's say the earth is entering an ice age. Something that has happened dozens of times in the past and has swung back the other way.

Would you support releasing climate modifying gasses into the atmosphere in an attempt to stop it? Sounds great on the first level. If you follow the climate modification one step further what kind of super warm "recover" will the plant have?

At the very least, does anyone here disagree with the effects of greenhouse gasses? Being self centered and ignoring any reasonable experiments in small enclosed environments is akin to putting your head in the sand.

The debate should be if there is something we need to be doing on a nationally competitive scale instead of being worried about the environment or if you have some "I don't care about my descendants" type of logic.

The simple fact is this - the planet goes through cycles, cycles that have nothing to do with "human activities". To pretend otherwise is the height of folly. It has nothing to do with my feeling towards "my descendants".

Got a problem with climate? Give the sun a call......

 

[Oddball]

a new train of thought. Let's say the earth is entering an ice age. Something that has happened dozens of times in the past and has swung back the other way.

Would you support releasing climate modifying gasses into the atmosphere in an attempt to stop it? Sounds great on the first level. If you follow the climate modification one step further what kind of super warm "recover" will the plant have?

No, because I don't believe that mere men can positively control the weather, one way or the other.

At the very least, does anyone here disagree with the effects of greenhouse gasses? Being self centered and ignoring any reasonable experiments in small enclosed environments is akin to putting your head in the sand.

In a closed system, like a bell jar, the evidence is clear. In an open system, with literally millions of organic and inorganic variables, there is no clearly demonstrable evidence....None.

The debate should be if there is something we need to be doing on a nationally competitive scale instead of being worried about the environment or if you have some "I don't care about my descendants" type of logic.

Which presumes that anyone CAN do anything about it and definitively quantify how much.

 

[mdn2000]

Co2 is at an ll time high, yet the planet is cooling. Yep, makes perfect sense, to morons.

You globull warming bed wetters are really silly!

a new train of thought. Let's say the earth is entering an ice age. Something that has happened dozens of times in the past and has swung back the other way.

Would you support releasing climate modifying gasses into the atmosphere in an attempt to stop it? Sounds great on the first level. If you follow the climate modification one step further what kind of super warm "recover" will the plant have?

At the very least, does anyone here disagree with the effects of greenhouse gasses? Being self centered and ignoring any reasonable experiments in small enclosed environments is akin to putting your head in the sand.

The debate should be if there is something we need to be doing on a nationally competitive scale instead of being worried about the environment or if you have some "I don't care about my descendants" type of logic.

So here we go again, another environut accusing the opposite side of being what the Liberal/Marxist/Environut is., self centered and ignoring the facts, literally putting their heads in the sand.

The debate should be, bullshit, the liberal/marxist/environuts are defining what the debate is? There should be no debate, the facts are simple and clear, ignored by the environuts. So this user is accusing me of not caring for my children.

All this user has done is stated his/her opinion, provided no facts, accused us of being what we are not, and ignored post after post that is not opinion but fact.

The conservatives have cleaned up the USA, it began with the Nixon administration, before Nixon the USA was literally a toxic waste dump. All the Democrats did is move the polluters to China, Clinton really was instrumental.

More opinion, no facts, the post I am responding to is literally stating, "lets pretend".

Global Liberal/Marxist/Environut wants us to "pretend" and "imagine". That is the facts they present, opinion, pretending, and imagination.

I know, you read the headline in Scientific America but did not read the article, dont tell me you will post an article but not the report and we can imagine from there.

Not one fact presented.

You know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is simple theory, its not fact, its literally impossible to measure the entire atmosphere, its based on a tiny fraction of the actual air we breath,

Remember when Old Crock or Chrissy posted an article describing a report of CO2 levels rising, and when I followed the link it was CO2 levels taken next to a volcano, now that is science

 

[Toronado3800]

The simple fact is this - the planet goes through cycles, cycles that have nothing to do with "human activities". To pretend otherwise is the height of folly. It has nothing to do with my feeling towards "my descendants".

Yes it does go through cycles. A little of this, a little of that and we're cycling. I just don't want to tip it.

In a closed system, like a bell jar, the evidence is clear. In an open system, with literally millions of organic and inorganic variables, there is no clearly demonstrable evidence....None.

Dude I also agree computer and direct experiments are not 100% conclusive. It seems to be a further leap of logic to assume the results in a larger context will be different than the similar.

Once again I don't know how much an effect we've had on the environment. I know if we suddenly had a need to make the earth warmer greenhouse type gasses would be my first choice.

I did just find this though

From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased 31 percent; U.S. emissions of this greenhouse gas rose 3.7 percent.

http:
//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto_3
3.7% isn't very bad for 11 years! This does give me optimism that we can curb our pollution w/o tanking the economy directly because of it.

 

[Toronado3800]

The simple fact is this - the planet goes through cycles, cycles that have nothing to do with "human activities". To pretend otherwise is the height of folly. It has nothing to do with my feeling towards "my descendants".

Yes it does go through cycles. A little of this, a little of that and we're cycling. I just don't want to tip it.

In a closed system, like a bell jar, the evidence is clear. In an open system, with literally millions of organic and inorganic variables, there is no clearly demonstrable evidence....None.

Dude I also agree computer and direct experiments are not 100% conclusive. It seems to be a further leap of logic to assume the results in a larger context will be different than the similar.

Once again I don't know how much an effect we've had on the environment. I know if we suddenly had a need to make the earth warmer greenhouse type gasses would be my first choice.

I did just find this though

From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased 31 percent; U.S. emissions of this greenhouse gas rose 3.7 percent.

http:
//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto_3
3.7% isn't very bad for 11 years! This does give me optimism that we can curb our pollution w/o tanking the economy directly because of it.

 

[mdn2000]

Dude I also agree computer and direct experiments are not 100% conclusive. It seems to be a further leap of logic to assume the results in a larger context will be different than the similar

this should read;

Computer and direct experiments are not conclusive and require millions of manipulations of the data and formulas feed into the computer.

This is fact, as taken directly from one of OLD CROCKS sources in one of these threads, it will take awhile to find the thread because OLD CROCK hides is gross errors by starting dozens of new threads on the same subject.

If our side of the debate was smart we would ignore the endless new threads and keep the relevant threads of the same subject going. We let the environuts win because they are paid to work the internet, they are paid never to allow anyone that disagrees the last word.

3.7% isn't very bad for 11 years! This does give me optimism that we can curb our pollution w/o tanking the economy directly because of it.

Yet we did just that and are making the problem worst by subsidizing wind mills, moving companies to china for larger profits and to circumvent the USA's enviromental laws, by endless lawsuits that drive up the costs of doing business in the USA, by forcing a weak expensive energy source such as windmills on the american public.

Curb our pollution, we have already curbed our pollution dramatically, most likely we curbed pollution in the last 25 years by over 100,000%. Lake Erie in the 1970,s was dead, no fish, today it has fish. Cities were black with exhaust pollution, catalytic converters and cleaner gas and deisel formulas have changed that, Dow Chemicial and Owen Cornings would dump toxic waste directly into rivers, not no more. Rivers would catch on fire, steel plants belched millions of tons shit into the air, all gone.

In the USA we have cleaned and conserved, to suggest otherwise is just a gross ignorance.

Now we are letting these heavy industry polluters off the hook forcing and allowing them to pollute the hell out of China.

At that they are polluting at a faster rate, makiing a wind mill or solar panel requires massive amounts of energy every year, trillions of BTU's is required, a short time ago we did not government mandate windmills but in the last eight years-

From 1997 to 2008, world carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased

carbon dioxide has increased at almost the exact rate green energy is mandated.

 

[Oddball]

Dude I also agree computer and direct experiments are not 100% conclusive. It seems to be a further leap of logic to assume the results in a larger context will be different than the similar.

They're not even 1% conclusive, because computer models can only work the given problem with the data available to it from imperfect people....If you program 1+1=5, you're going to get that answer continuously.

Once again I don't know how much an effect we've had on the environment. I know if we suddenly had a need to make the earth warmer greenhouse type gasses would be my first choice.

If you don't know how much an effect it would have, then your opinion on what gasses you'd choose to affect change in the worldwide climate is immaterial.

 

[Toronado3800]

If you don't know how much an effect it would have, then your opinion on what gasses you'd choose to affect change in the worldwide climate is immaterial.

In my opinion that's false logic. The kind of thinking that would get everyone with advanced small cell lung cancer out of chemotherapy treatment.

We let the environuts win because they are paid to work the internet, they are paid never to allow anyone that disagrees the last word.

lol. No I'm paid to do everything from haul mattresses to keep our computers working.

I do agree the world wide environmental costs of products produced overseas are greater than the costs of products produced in the U.S. I've often considered an environmental tariff a reasonable idea.

 

[Oddball]

If you don't know how much an effect it would have, then your opinion on what gasses you'd choose to affect change in the worldwide climate is immaterial.

In my opinion that's false logic. The kind of thinking that would get everyone with advanced small cell lung cancer out of chemotherapy treatment.

Talk about false logic! You can't even prove that CO2 in the context of a dynamic and evolving ecosystem is a clear and unambiguous threat, let alone is anywhere near analogous to a cancer cell.

 

[mdn2000]

If you don't know how much an effect it would have, then your opinion on what gasses you'd choose to affect change in the worldwide climate is immaterial.

In my opinion that's false logic. The kind of thinking that would get everyone with advanced small cell lung cancer out of chemotherapy treatment.

We let the environuts win because they are paid to work the internet, they are paid never to allow anyone that disagrees the last word.

lol. No I'm paid to do everything from haul mattresses to keep our computers working.

I do agree the world wide environmental costs of products produced overseas are greater than the costs of products produced in the U.S. I've often considered an environmental tariff a reasonable idea.

That last comment of mine was not directed at you, it may not even be true on this board, but it may, how do we know.

As far as your opinion as to false logic, you inadvertently showed your opinion to be false logic, comparing small cell lung cancer to gasses in the atmosphere is an extreme leap. It is in fact, false logic.

 

[Si modo]

Still not a single independent analysis based on the actual science. Aaaaaargh!


Grrrrrrrrr.

 

[Old Rocks]

Co2 is at an ll time high, yet the planet is cooling. Yep, makes perfect sense, to morons.

You globull warming bed wetters are really silly!

a new train of thought. Let's say the earth is entering an ice age. Something that has happened dozens of times in the past and has swung back the other way.

Would you support releasing climate modifying gasses into the atmosphere in an attempt to stop it? Sounds great on the first level. If you follow the climate modification one step further what kind of super warm "recover" will the plant have?

At the very least, does anyone here disagree with the effects of greenhouse gasses? Being self centered and ignoring any reasonable experiments in small enclosed environments is akin to putting your head in the sand.

The debate should be if there is something we need to be doing on a nationally competitive scale instead of being worried about the environment or if you have some "I don't care about my descendants" type of logic.

The simple fact is this - the planet goes through cycles, cycles that have nothing to do with "human activities". To pretend otherwise is the height of folly. It has nothing to do with my feeling towards "my descendants".

Got a problem with climate? Give the sun a call......

Simply wrong on all levels.

When there were naturally caused rapid increases in GHGs, there were ecological disasters and extinction events. Why should we expect, simply because we are the cause of the rapid increase in GHGs, that the physics of the universe will let us off?

Through the work of paleo-climatologists, we are rapidly gathering evidence that the kind of increase that we are creating right now can only lead to a disaster, one that will cause a rapid decrease in almost all species numbers, driving many into extinction.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you don't know how much an effect it would have, then your opinion on what gasses you'd choose to affect change in the worldwide climate is immaterial.

In my opinion that's false logic. The kind of thinking that would get everyone with advanced small cell lung cancer out of chemotherapy treatment.

We let the environuts win because they are paid to work the internet, they are paid never to allow anyone that disagrees the last word.

lol. No I'm paid to do everything from haul mattresses to keep our computers working.

I do agree the world wide environmental costs of products produced overseas are greater than the costs of products produced in the U.S. I've often considered an environmental tariff a reasonable idea.

Absolutely!

 

[Old Rocks]

Still not a single independent analysis based on the actual science. Aaaaaargh!


Grrrrrrrrr.

Analysis of what? If you really want an analysis, look at the publications of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

[Si modo]

Still not a single independent analysis based on the actual science. Aaaaaargh!


Grrrrrrrrr.

Analysis of what? If you really want an analysis, look at the publications of the National Academy of Sciences.

Then link to them. Link to only peer-reviewed research. Don't parrot. Think for yourself. As I said, I have yet to see an independent analysis of the actual science. If you're going to play at science, at least learn some fundamental rules of the game.

 

[Toronado3800]

Si modo, I read a seemingly independent article on potential changes in U.S. railroad Intermodal traffic due to a decrease in artic ice.

Its wishful thinking that the same gasses which are known to increase temperature in the fish tank don't do the same in the larger world wide experiment.

Maybe its human nature, not to want to circulate dollars around the economy to purchase cleaner electricity or a cleaner automobile. Then compiled with the natural urge to want to believe you're not hurting your children its easy to not want to believe.

 

[Si modo]

Si modo, I read a seemingly independent article on potential changes in U.S. railroad Intermodal traffic due to a decrease in artic ice.

Its wishful thinking that the same gasses which are known to increase temperature in the fish tank don't do the same in the larger world wide experiment.

Maybe its human nature, not to want to circulate dollars around the economy to purchase cleaner electricity or a cleaner automobile. Then compiled with the natural urge to want to believe you're not hurting your children its easy to not want to believe.

Unless your idea of a "seemingly independent article" is peer-reviewed, I don't really give a crap what you read.

No fucking offense.

 

[Oddball]

Its wishful thinking that the same gasses which are known to increase temperature in the fish tank don't do the same in the larger world wide experiment.

It's sheer kookiness to compare a closed and controlled environment like a fish tank with a constantly evolving global ecosystem.

When you can get a bell jar large enough to contain an entire planet, you gimmie a call.

 

[mdn2000]

All these press releases, articles, publications, and reports are fraud. Pure and simple, its not wonder the scientists of the IPCC are anonymous, if we knew their names than we would no them as frauds.

Old Crock has been posting fraudulent articles and old crocks ideas are based on falsified data.

Debate is over. Lets see if people still argue, if they do we will know them as true fools.