climate change.

[SkAoUt]

quoted for posterity.

 

[kbate]

fuck you!

i win i win, i win i win i win i win i win

:emoticon:

 

[dolf]

quoted for posterity.

i win i win, i win i win i win i win i win

:emoticon:

no prize.

 

[kbate]

no prize.

you used to be fun.

 

[thør]

you used to be fun.

It's not her best day.....

 

[dolf]

you used to be fun.

lies and damned lies.

 

[Ishmael]

It's not her best day.....

First time I've seen someone bitch about a thread that they started. *chuckle*

Ishmael

 

[removed121614]

The humans certainly have a impact on the climate. In fact, we can make it raining even in a desert with some arrangements. We can blow a big hydrogen bomb and the climate will change in a few seconds.

There's no debate needed for this. For an example, the over usage of CFC have lead to the depletion in the ozone layer and thus it makes our atmosphere hotter and worse.

 

[kbate]

The humans certainly have a impact on the climate. In fact, we can make it raining even in a desert with some arrangements. We can blow a big hydrogen bomb and the climate will change in a few seconds.

There's no debate needed for this. For an example, the over usage of CFC have lead to the depletion in the ozone layer and thus it makes our atmosphere hotter and worse.

But what is truly important is that you have a tiny penis, too small even for Neci.

 

[removed121614]

But what is truly important is that you have a tiny penis, too small even for Neci.

It's all ok. I have heard that you like tiny penis. So, I love my tiny one.

 

[toubab]

The rocks that make up the earth do not care about what the destructive colonies of ants known as humans do on the merest crust of the earth. The ball in its orbit, the sun with its cycles will heat and cool as it pleases. If and only if we have some kind of impact on that with HUGE increases in one of the least present gases, it will at some point reassert it self. Whether humans survive is of no importance to the rocks.

The law of conservation of matter says that all those carbon atoms have to go somewhere. They were not always buried in the earth. They got there by being bonded into carbon chains out of the atmosphere into plant life that died or was eaten by something that died and rotted.

All of the above takes eons. We will not see any catastophic changes the youngest litster lives to be 100. Arguing about it another 30 years is pointless. All that is going to happen is those that see this for what it is will say we are fine, the sky has not and will not fall, and the other side will say...but it will...just not this year, but next for sure!!!

If we hit another iceage we could not possible warm the earth sufficiently with Co2,

IF we hit another ice age? Is there really any doubt we will?

 

[doctor_insanus]

kbitch wants to fist my arse

Well... it's warm in there.

I'm assuming!

 

[Que Va]

IF we hit another ice age? Is there really any doubt we will?

I don't want to alarm the alarmists unnecessarily until after they get done mourning the loss of the polar bears.

 

[toubab]

I don't want to alarm the alarmists unnecessarily until after they get done mourning the loss of the polar bears.

They understand polar bears about as well as they understand climate change.

 

[richard_daily]

...that's what the scientists call it, btw.

it's real. it's an indisputable fact and, frankly, anyone who denies climate change is too dim to be allowed out of the house without a responsible adult to mind them.

behold!

of course it's fucking changing, it has always fucking changed.

the ONLY issue up for debate is whether or not human activity is having an impact on the rate or direction of change. that's it. so saying that today it rain/snowed/farted is completely, totally and utterly fucking irrelevant to the debate, so please stop pretending it to be otherwise.

p.s. idiots!

This is SUCH bullshit. EVERYONE knows that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that "dinosaur" bones are just angel bones put on earth to test our faith...

Get a brain morans!

 

[Libsam]

There's now a tire on fire in my driveway in honor of this thread.

BUT YOU FUCKERS BETTER NOT DO THAT, ONLY I CAN!!!

 

[Ishmael]

IF we hit another ice age? Is there really any doubt we will?

On the subject of ice ages. There is an article in WND that is an interesting read.

New data backs 'ice age' prediction

Needless to say there are going to be some folks that attack the source (WND) as opposed to doing any research of their own. But the WND article links to a paper published in Nature. A peer reviewed paper.

It's the Sun

That information coupled with other known facts, such as we are at a Milankovitch maximum deviation from solar proximity and we are at, or very near, the peak of the most recent inter-glacial maximum, suggest that there is some validity to the notion that we're going to be cooling off.

The article suggests that this cooling will occur regardless of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It would do well to remember that "Snowball Earth" occurred when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 10 - 25% (Paleo-climatologists are still arguing over the exact number but 10% is regarded as the minimum). Our current atmospheric CO2 concentration is approx. 390 parts per million, or .039%.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

WND

L.O.L.

 

[Que Va]

On the subject of ice ages. There is an article in WND that is an interesting read.

New data backs 'ice age' prediction

Needless to say there are going to be some folks that attack the source (WND) as opposed to doing any research of their own. But the WND article links to a paper published in Nature. A peer reviewed paper. :)

It's the Sun

That information coupled with other known facts, such as we are at a Milankovitch maximum deviation from solar proximity and we are at, or very near, the peak of the most recent inter-glacial maximum, suggest that there is some validity to the notion that we're going to be cooling off.

The article suggests that this cooling will occur regardless of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. It would do well to remember that "Snowball Earth" occurred when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 10 - 25% (Paleo-climatologists are still arguing over the exact number but 10% is regarded as the minimum). Our current atmospheric CO2 concentration is approx. 390 parts per million, or .039%.

Ishmael

You think?

~WND~ L.O.L.

Oh, imagine that.

 

[Ishmael]

You think?



Oh, imagine that.

I didn't have to imagine anything, it was an odds on bet.

Ishmael

 

[Saint Peter]

“The global temperature of the Earth has begun its decrease without limits on the volume of greenhouse gas emissions by industrial developed countries,” he wrote. “Therefore, the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol aimed to rescue the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off at least 150 years.”

Yeah.

Nice ending you got there.

 

[Ishmael]

Yeah.

Nice ending you got there.

Well, let's start with the fact that as far as the US is concerned the Kyoto protocol is already in the garbage can, and it's unlikely to fished out anytime soon.

But I hope you realize that the WMD article was merely a device to get the fish to bite. Kinda like chumming. The real meat is in the Nature paper.

Ishmael

 

[Que Va]

I didn't have to imagine anything, it was an odds on bet.

Ishmael

On the surface I don't find fault with those weary of sources. I am not going to click on a Salon or Slate link to see which article that I probably previously scanned and dismissed they are referencing.

In this case, you acknowledged the bias of the site, and not only let them know that the reporting was based on a scientific study and provided the link to that study so they needn't sully their eyeballs at all.

Still- a derisive sniff.

Why is it that the "we love science" crowd is never interested in reading scientific extracts, just the summaries on Salon?

"Science" is code for "I'm smarter than you because I am a liberal and some conservative types do not believe in evolutionary change...so THERE!"

Either they are so remarkably disinterested and unread on the subjects they spout about, or they DO know that none of these projected catastrophes can possibly occur in their lifetimes and just want the "science" angle to make themselves feel smart and cudgel their "enemies."

 

[Saint Peter]

Well, let's start with the fact that as far as the US is concerned the Kyoto protocol is already in the garbage can, and it's unlikely to fished out anytime soon.

But I hope you realize that the WMD article was merely a device to get the fish to bite. Kinda like chumming. The real meat is in the Nature paper.

Ishmael

I gave you NOAA. Respectable science.

Your meat is limp.

 

[Que Va]

I gave you NOAA. Respectable science.

Your meat is limp.

NOAA is a huge organization with some actual scientists and some political appointees. To suggest that everything stamped with their good science seal of approval has some remarkable imprimatur of verity is not the case.

NOAA has been caught manipulating data sets. Someone there is agenda driven..

That said, I wouldn't dismiss their findings out of hand. I will read them and anyone else with a critical eye. Does this stand up to reason or not? If it does not stand up to reason do their authors acknowledge the issues that a reasonable person would raise, or do they gloss over it?

Is it a paper on what they have measured (assuming they haven't fudged it) or is it a paper filled with conjecture, hypothesis, and projections based on variables that are assigned static rather than dynamic indicators?

I have a friend with multiple science degrees. He buys the crap that conservatives are anti-science and "don't believe in 'climate change'" I then point out specific things that liberals say like today in a thread "Co2 is toxic" I haven't run that one by him but I am certain he will say what I said which is, that is in no way the cause for alarm here. No one is predicting co2 levels that would make human habitation of the planet even remotely problematic.

It isn't climate change that is the the thing being argued about. It is the hyperbole and hysteria on the left about stuff that is not at all supported by even the papers they cite.