Why we should listen to the 97%

[flacaltenn]

In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.

The whole "Global Warming" fantasy goes off the rails at the very beginning looking for stupid single numbers to describe Climate Change..

 

[PMZ]

In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.

The whole "Global Warming" fantasy goes off the rails at the very beginning looking for stupid single numbers to describe Climate Change..

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

 

[PMZ]

Science really has one goal. Enabling progress.

Liberal progress=spending tens of trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

We're stuck with the CO2 levels that we have now for 100s of years. In fact the positive feedbacks are doing their thing so if we stopped FF dumping tomorrow, the atmospheric GHG concentrations would continue to escalate for decades.

No reduction possible.

We will have to be on sustainable energy someday. FF are limited.

The only question is, what transition will be the minimum cost between energy costs and AGW costs.

We're working on the science of that. Your working on the politics to avoid any responsibility for the future.

We just aren't going to follow your have assed political non solution.

That's funny, all of your proposals consist of poor people remaining poor, returning humanity back to the bronze age (except for the rich of course), killing off billions of undesirables, and installing a totalitarian world government. How exactly does that help the world?

Bizarre. We have science. You have politics. You don't want science, we don't want politics. You are searching for a political solution, we are searching for facts.

The world cannot afford to do nothing. You can't imagine a solution so doing nothing is your recommendation. You simply ignore the end of fossil fuels. What then, is answered by "punt".

Not anywhere near good enough.

 

[westwall]

We're stuck with the CO2 levels that we have now for 100s of years. In fact the positive feedbacks are doing their thing so if we stopped FF dumping tomorrow, the atmospheric GHG concentrations would continue to escalate for decades.

No reduction possible.

We will have to be on sustainable energy someday. FF are limited.

The only question is, what transition will be the minimum cost between energy costs and AGW costs.

We're working on the science of that. Your working on the politics to avoid any responsibility for the future.

We just aren't going to follow your have assed political non solution.

That's funny, all of your proposals consist of poor people remaining poor, returning humanity back to the bronze age (except for the rich of course), killing off billions of undesirables, and installing a totalitarian world government. How exactly does that help the world?

Bizarre. We have science. You have politics. You don't want science, we don't want politics. You are searching for a political solution, we are searching for facts.

The world cannot afford to do nothing. You can't imagine a solution so doing nothing is your recommendation. You simply ignore the end of fossil fuels. What then, is answered by "punt".

Not anywhere near good enough.

\




You don't have shit silly person. ALL you have is propaganda and blind (really blind as it turns out) faith. You clowns are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church fruitcakes.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Toddbot says that the temperature at the beginning of the Carboniferous period, with all of the CO2 in the atmosphere that we are returning from fossil fuels today, was the same as today.

No I didn't, not once. Why do you lie?

Thanks for the link. Where did it say the Carboniferous was "inhospitable to life"?

West Virginia today is mostly an erosional plateau carved up into steep ridges and narrow valleys, but 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous Period, it was part of a vast equatorial coastal swamp extending many hundreds of miles and barely rising above sea level. This steamy, tropical quagmire served as the nursery for Earth's first primitive forests, comprised of giant lycopods, ferns, and seed ferns.

North America was located along Earth's equator then, courtesy of the forces of continental drift. The hot and humid climate of the Middle Carboniferous Period was accompanied by an explosion of terrestrial plant life.

Not there. It sounds like life thrived during this time.

Let me know if you ever find a link that backs up your idiotic claim. Thanks!

Interesting Toddster. I had not read up on West Virginia though we did live there for a brief time. But New Mexico is a fascinating study in the paleontological record. We now live on high desert terrain, extremely dry and arid interspersed with confer forested mountains that barely exist in this dry climate. We have less surface water than any of the 50 states with normal rainfall about 8 inches per year over desert terrain Humidity normally stays under 15%--often under 10%--we have all four seasons with summer temperatures normally ranging between 90 and 100 degrees all over the state except in the highest terrain.

What was it like over 300 million years ago?

During the Carboniferous period, New Mexico was an archipelago of islands rising from the shallow, warm seaways. On land, lush vegetation grew in areas of dense forests and swamps, while clams, brachiopods, and other organisms inhabited the sea floor. Humidity was high with near constant temperatures probably in the 80's farenheit.

And then when the climate shifted yet again, in the Early Permian, the climate became drier. The broad river floodplains were replaced by dune fields and a shallow, hypersaline sea. When more normal marine conditions returned during the Middle Permian, the huge reef at El Capitan in southeastern New Mexico developed.

Climate change has been occuring on Planet Earth since there has been a Planet Earth and nothng, and I do mean nothing, we puny humans are capable of doing is likely to change that in any way.

Absolutely right except for the fact that 7B energy hungry humans are recreating past climates by restoring that ancient atmosphere.

During the Carboniferous period there wasn't one human here. Therefore we hadn't built civilization yet.

How many different climates do you think we can adapt to when each one requires a different civilization?

Or, are you thinking that humanity is dispensable.

I'm thinking humankind has survived extreme floods, extreme drought, a hotter Planet Earth, cold periods, and ice ages. There is a no reason to believe that humankind could not survive the lush climate and conditions of the Carboniferous period if we somehow DID re-create the climate of that time. Just because humans hadn't yet evolved does not mean they could not survive a climate as great as that was. As far as plants and animals are concerned, overall they do better during warmer periods than they do colder ones.

I am also acknowledging REAL science, and not manufactured science that supports the most idiotic concepts of global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The surest way for the Warmers to end the debate is to show us in a lab how an 800ppm atmosphere of CO2 will raise temperature by 3 degrees

That would convince me

 

[daveman]

Conservatives don't want science. They want denial. Why? That way they can push the responsibility off on others. Future generations. Other countries. They want cheap energy for themselves. Expensive energy and mitigation of the problems they create on others.

Time to boot them out of Congress, never allow them back into the Whitehouse, out of governor's mansions. They are a blight on America.

Boy, you're not even old enough to buy beer.

Grow up, kid. People disagree with each other. Wishing the government would eliminate those who disagree with you is not a sign of maturity.

It is, however, a sign of progressivism -- the political philosophy of petulant children.

Old man, the question is how did you get old without learning anything?

I learned a couple of things you haven't:

1. The scientific method.

2. Not to blindly trust anyone on this earth.

 

[daveman]

Science really has one goal. Enabling progress.

Liberal progress=spending tens of trillions of dollars to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

We're stuck with the CO2 levels that we have now for 100s of years. In fact the positive feedbacks are doing their thing so if we stopped FF dumping tomorrow, the atmospheric GHG concentrations would continue to escalate for decades.

No reduction possible.

We will have to be on sustainable energy someday. FF are limited.

The only question is, what transition will be the minimum cost between energy costs and AGW costs.

We're working on the science of that. Your working on the politics to avoid any responsibility for the future.

We just aren't going to follow your have assed political non solution.

That's funny, all of your proposals consist of poor people remaining poor, returning humanity back to the bronze age (except for the rich of course), killing off billions of undesirables, and installing a totalitarian world government. How exactly does that help the world?

It helps the world a great deal...if by "world", you mean "progressive elite ruling class".

The REALLY funny part? The child PMS thinks he's one of them.

 

[daveman]

In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.

The whole "Global Warming" fantasy goes off the rails at the very beginning looking for stupid single numbers to describe Climate Change..

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

 

[Abraham3]

In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.

The whole "Global Warming" fantasy goes off the rails at the very beginning looking for stupid single numbers to describe Climate Change..

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

 

[westwall]

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

So you are yet another one of the idiots who think a one degree rise is somehow meaningful. What is the difference in average temperature from Tierra Del Fuego and the Gobi Desert? People and animals live in both places.

And, for the record, your little whiney last sentence sounds like something my 7 year old daughter would say when she isn't allowed a treat.

 

[Snookie]

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

So you are yet another one of the idiots who think a one degree rise is somehow meaningful. What is the difference in average temperature from Tierra Del Fuego and the Gobi Desert? People and animals live in both places.

And, for the record, your little whiney last sentence sounds like something my 7 year old daughter would say when she isn't allowed a treat.

Why is it necessary to hurl insults? The poster did not insult you.

Now, please be mannerly and cordial, please. I might even give you a cookie if you behave.

 

[PMZ]

In fact -- the Earth GLOBALLY doesn't have just one climate.

The whole "Global Warming" fantasy goes off the rails at the very beginning looking for stupid single numbers to describe Climate Change..

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

There is none.

However the lowest cost climactic future for mankind is the continuation of the one that civilization adapted to.

 

[PMZ]

That's funny, all of your proposals consist of poor people remaining poor, returning humanity back to the bronze age (except for the rich of course), killing off billions of undesirables, and installing a totalitarian world government. How exactly does that help the world?

Bizarre. We have science. You have politics. You don't want science, we don't want politics. You are searching for a political solution, we are searching for facts.

The world cannot afford to do nothing. You can't imagine a solution so doing nothing is your recommendation. You simply ignore the end of fossil fuels. What then, is answered by "punt".

Not anywhere near good enough.

\




You don't have shit silly person. ALL you have is propaganda and blind (really blind as it turns out) faith. You clowns are worse than the Westboro Baptist Church fruitcakes.

The factual basis for this rant is?

 

[PMZ]

Interesting Toddster. I had not read up on West Virginia though we did live there for a brief time. But New Mexico is a fascinating study in the paleontological record. We now live on high desert terrain, extremely dry and arid interspersed with confer forested mountains that barely exist in this dry climate. We have less surface water than any of the 50 states with normal rainfall about 8 inches per year over desert terrain Humidity normally stays under 15%--often under 10%--we have all four seasons with summer temperatures normally ranging between 90 and 100 degrees all over the state except in the highest terrain.

What was it like over 300 million years ago?

During the Carboniferous period, New Mexico was an archipelago of islands rising from the shallow, warm seaways. On land, lush vegetation grew in areas of dense forests and swamps, while clams, brachiopods, and other organisms inhabited the sea floor. Humidity was high with near constant temperatures probably in the 80's farenheit.

And then when the climate shifted yet again, in the Early Permian, the climate became drier. The broad river floodplains were replaced by dune fields and a shallow, hypersaline sea. When more normal marine conditions returned during the Middle Permian, the huge reef at El Capitan in southeastern New Mexico developed.

Climate change has been occuring on Planet Earth since there has been a Planet Earth and nothng, and I do mean nothing, we puny humans are capable of doing is likely to change that in any way.

Absolutely right except for the fact that 7B energy hungry humans are recreating past climates by restoring that ancient atmosphere.

During the Carboniferous period there wasn't one human here. Therefore we hadn't built civilization yet.

How many different climates do you think we can adapt to when each one requires a different civilization?

Or, are you thinking that humanity is dispensable.

I'm thinking humankind has survived extreme floods, extreme drought, a hotter Planet Earth, cold periods, and ice ages. There is a no reason to believe that humankind could not survive the lush climate and conditions of the Carboniferous period if we somehow DID re-create the climate of that time. Just because humans hadn't yet evolved does not mean they could not survive a climate as great as that was. As far as plants and animals are concerned, overall they do better during warmer periods than they do colder ones.

I am also acknowledging REAL science, and not manufactured science that supports the most idiotic concepts of global warming.

You don't get to vote for science that gives answers that support what you wish was true as real science. Science is real when it's done expertly and objectively. There is no better example of that than the IPCC.

That's why they have to work in your shit storm of political dirty tricks.

And they do. And they will.

While that giant flushing sound is your movement swirling in the bowl.

 

[PMZ]

Now, what you're left with, is to redefine climate as weather. That will confuse them.

No, it won't. Climate is climate. Climate is the long term, global average of weather. It is what's impacted by the increase is atmospheric GHG concentration. It is what burning more fossil fuels changes. It's what makes sea levels change and rain fall patterns to modify.

You can't define it away.

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

You hit the nail on the head.

Functional ignorance of the human race. Taking advantage of that is conservative media's business plan. And the reality of it is the foundation of their downfall.

 

[Snookie]

The surest way for the Warmers to end the debate is to show us in a lab how an 800ppm atmosphere of CO2 will raise temperature by 3 degrees

That would convince me

There are too many variable to do such an experiment in a lab.

 

[PMZ]

What is the ideal temperature for the planet?

Let's try a process of elimination.

It's not a million C.

It's not 0 Kelvin.

Must be something in between.

The effort to stop AGW is not an effort to get to some ideal temperature. YOUR effort to imply that warmer might be better is disingenuous, dangerous and incredibly uncaring for the lives and welfare of our children.

You KNOW that 2,3 or 5 C added temperature over a century's time will be devastating in the extreme.

And thanks to the functional ignorance of the human race and the efforts of you and yours, we'll get to find out first hand.

So you are yet another one of the idiots who think a one degree rise is somehow meaningful. What is the difference in average temperature from Tierra Del Fuego and the Gobi Desert? People and animals live in both places.

And, for the record, your little whiney last sentence sounds like something my 7 year old daughter would say when she isn't allowed a treat.

And you are one of those idiots who think that a 12 degree change is benign.

We plainly can't afford that kind of problem avoidance.

 

[PMZ]

The surest way for the Warmers to end the debate is to show us in a lab how an 800ppm atmosphere of CO2 will raise temperature by 3 degrees

That would convince me

Educated people have math to model science. Do you think that the first nuclear bomb went off in a testube?
Science and math reveal the certainty of AGW and it's consequences, unaffordable climate change.

If you want to understand that you first need suitable education.

 

[freedombecki]

I'm sure that there's a point to your post. Perhaps the point is to distract people from the problem that you are saddled with. Being in a science debate with no science. A tough place to be.

You lost the debate long ago but as knowing that would require learning you never will.

America was once fooled by your politics but no more. We just can't afford your nonsense.

Keep advocating for standing still, doing nothing, knowing nothing. That’s all anybody expects of your kind.

We're moving on.

Not with my money you're not moving on, madam.

In fact, we are. At least for the government responsibilities. As for all of the private investors pursuing the opportunity of future energy, you can opt out if you want.

You want us to follow the most expensive path. We employ science to determine the optimum path. You employ politics to try to impose your ignorance on us.

You have already lost.

If the government decides against the majority of the people, the people can do something about it. Keep up your pocket-picking of people who don't want or need your thefts, and you will see people putting evil thieves where they belong, behind bars with armed guards ensuring your comfortable stay. And if you took too much money through your piggish greed, lies, and graft, how are we the people going to take care of the thieves like you? Guess you'll go on a diet. Bid farewell to laughing your butt off on how easy it was for you to abuse the middle class and taking away their life's earnings for arrogance' sake. You have only painted me as a loser to conceal what you will lose if I do not cooperate with your help-yourself-to-my-life-savings schemes. It's my money and you cannot have it. I already paid plenty of taxes on it. You can't have any more.