Any Any Global Warming Denialists Still Crawling Around?

[LTS TRN 2]

The first list of eminent scientists--none in the actual field of study--is interesting in that they're all at least eighty years old. Edward Teller tells us all we need know of their probable political bent, if not their financial situation. Obviously they're being reimbursed for their participation, etc. The second "liberal" is a fraud on a total bullshit Denialist site no doubt sponsored by some oil company. Got any eminent oceanologists ready to Deny the changing acidity of the seas? :wink:

[LTS TRN 2]

Frankly, that's a straight up Rove/Goebbels LIE. And you can't begin to present ANY sort of basis for Gore somehow making hundreds of millions of dollars..on what?...wind farms? Solar panels?

Are you fucking nuts? Or just a Limpdick stooge? Oh yeah...

And, we notice you can't approach the actual issue. Just the usual playground taunts and smears. Like Glen Beck, eh? He's one of your heroes? :wink:

[Sirfindafold]

Gore somehow making hundreds of millions of dollars..on what?...wind farms? Solar panels?

Isn't it from some kind of carbon credit pyramid scam?

Anyway, dude has saved huge bucks on hookers when he's got stooges like LTS TRN, Goober and KC Scott sucking his dick for free.

[BSmack]

In 2000, Al Gore was worth $800k. Today, some are thinking he's worth as much as a half a billion dollars.

Does that shed any light on the situation?

It tells me that the top 1% of the income bracket has been doing REALLY well.

[mvscal]

Frankly, that's a straight up Rove/Goebbels LIE. And you can't begin to present ANY sort of basis for Gore somehow making hundreds of millions of dollars..on what?...

He made a good chunk of it on Google stock, but most of his scratch comes from peddling hysterical propaganda to witless tool bags such as yourself. Of course, he is building up to the real killing which will be cap and trade legislation which will make him a billionaire at the expense of bucketheads like you.

[Sirfindafold]

Anyway, dude has saved huge bucks on hookers when he's got stooges like LTS TRN, Goober and KC Scott sucking his dick for free.

Hey dumbfuck - go find ANY post where I've said anything about global warming - other than it's total fucking bullshit

Hey KC Stooge, no where in my post do I mention your pitiful ass and global warming. I did mention that a few hand-wringing blowhard liberals in here suck the dick of the mother of all hand-wringing blowhard liberals; your hero - Albert Arnold "Al" Gore Jr.

deal with it.

[LTS TRN 2]

Frankly, that's a straight up Rove/Goebbels LIE. And you can't begin to present ANY sort of basis for Gore somehow making hundreds of millions of dollars..on what?...wind farms? Solar panels?

Are you fucking nuts? Or just a Limpdick stooge? Oh yeah...

And, we notice you can't approach the actual issue. Just the usual playground taunts and smears. Like Glen Beck, eh? He's one of your heroes? :wink:

Movies. Books.

And oh yeah - he's got stock in probably ANYTHING that goes "green" or requires "green" implementation. For somebody who thinks he's so smart, you're about as naive as a clam-fucked frog trying to discuss physics.

That's all you've got? And you clowns actually believe the gibberish you're spewing?

In fact, there is no legitimate debate about the reality of Climate Change and the various critical problems thus entailed. The only resistance to this basic reality is the huffing and puffing of gas bag corporate whores like Limpdick and Glenn Beck. The kook fringe who base their Denial on religious grounds are beneath comment. The so-called "Climategate scandal" has been dismissed-a standard Rovian/Goebbels type smear.

As for those hoping to make big money on the issue, these of course are the oil companies.

Wake the fuck up!

[LTS TRN 2]

Gore is proceeding on grounds of basic decency and commitment to the public good. He's not perfect but he's infinitely more noble and heroic than the entire consortium of oil company whores and "neo-liberal" kleptocrats.

As for the critical damage to our ecosystem, obviously this has occurred in the last century--and is increasing exponentially with the development of China and India, etc. There is no point in desperately weaving abstruse models of prehistorical cycles, etc. The fact of the internal combustion engine--the mass production of greenhouse gases, etc.--the changing acidicy of the oceans--all of this is part and parcel of our industrial legacy. And the resistance to changing this model is based on nothing more than rapacious greed and moral abdication.

WW

[trev]

I did not read this thread, but San Diego is having the coolest summer ever.

[PSUFAN]

I guess Gore can afford a couple of massages now...maybe Tipper's ice-clogged cunt might warm up too

[Wolfman]

I read somewhere that Peru was having record cold temperatures this winter.
This just in: the earth sometimes warms and sometimes cools. Wow.

[Smackie Chan]

San Diego is having the coolest summer ever.

I walked to Petco Park and back from the Doubletree on Front St this evening, and it might've been the most perfect walking wx ever. Beautiful day. 'Cept for Dodger fan. :doh:

[LTS TRN 2]

Gore is proceeding on grounds of basic decency and commitment to the public good. He's not perfect but he's infinitely more noble and heroic than

You are a blithering dumbfuck.

And lest you scream media bias - note it's from the NY Times you sperm belching retard

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/busin ... 3gore.html

The Worlds first Carbon Billionaire doesn't sound too altrusitic does it, Felcho?

What are you suggesting is inappropriate in Gore putting his money where his mouth is? He's never lobbied for any project or policy, and moreover, the ENTIRE scientific community--except the Edward tellers and similar fossilized paid shills--supports Gore's basic assertions.

The Denialists are nothing more than mantra reciting parrots of such odious gas bags as Rusp Limpdick and the militant Capitalist Christers. WHO ELSE?

Who else have you got pumping you with these idiotic and extremely childish smears and evasions?

WW

[LTS TRN 2]

i have no idea what you're talking about, t-down, but just remember, the ENTIRE scientific community is on my side. Who's on Rusp Limpdick's side in Denial? Well, there's the oil companies and their very deep pockets for all their lobbyists and PR priests and highly paid shills.. And there's the Christer loon faction which astonishingly believes that humanity is somehow incapable of altering the designs of Jehovah or whatever. And ...well, that's it.

That's whom you're sidling up to? That's whom your curling up with for comfort and warmth?

Tell me what to believe, Rusp!!

[Dinsdale]

the ENTIRE scientific community is on my side.

Why do you continue to spout this PROVEN lie?

Matter of fact, the only people who still believe in the AGW nonsense are those whose incomes depend on it.

That bird has flown... deal with it... as the planet continues to COOL, as it's done for over a decade now, despite the Scammers tactics of taking temperature reporting stations in cold climates offline and replacing them with new ones in urban heat bubbles -- a neat ploy that still can't alter the data enough to mask the cooling.

[LTS TRN 2]

I'll see your hand full of paid off hacks and Christers, and I'll raise you on a factor of about eight hundred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change


So...you're Tea Baggers? You know, uptight right wing Christers ready to throw the bums out! Or are you just curled in a fetal position of petulant pouting--hissing that there's no (really) serious environmental crises mounting daily due to rapacious and (typically) short sighted profit mongering by wind up corporatists? Sure, there's still room for you to push your twisted little snout deep into the trough--you can have it all, or most of what's left.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well, 88, when you take a break from goose-stepping around your backyard, try applying your educated open mind to this..

Manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are making our oceans more acidic — and thus threatening corals and shellfish — at a rate unseen in at least 800,000 years, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists reported Thursday.

"Ocean acidification is a growing global problem that will intensify with continued CO2 emissions and has the potential to change marine ecosystems and affect benefits to society," the panel warned in its report for the National Research Council and Congress.

Oceans absorb about a third of manmade CO2, a process that reduces CO2's impact on temperatures but which also decreases the pH of the seas, thus making them more acidic. pH is a measure of how alkaline or acidic something is. A pH of 7 is neutral, while higher numbers are more alkaline and lower numbers are more acidic.

"The average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased by about 0.1 unit — from about 8.2 to 8.1 — since the beginning of the industrial revolution," the scientists said in noting earlier research. Moreover, models project "an additional 0.2-0.3 drop by the end of the century, even under optimistic scenarios," they added.

Concerns about coral

"It is important to note that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is rising too rapidly for natural ... processes to maintain the pH of the ocean," the experts stated. "As a consequence, the average pH of the ocean will continue to decrease as the surface ocean absorbs more atmospheric CO2."

Congress recently passed a law to fund federal research into acidification but the panel said more needs to be done, and more quickly, because specific impacts on specific species are still not well understood.

"Despite the potential for socioeconomic impacts to occur in coral reef systems, aquaculture, fisheries, and other sectors, there is not currently enough information to assess these impacts, much less develop plans to mitigate or adapt to them," the experts wrote.

"A global network of robust and sustained chemical and biological observations will be necessary to establish a baseline and to detect and predict changes attributable to acidification," they added.

Now of course the suggestion of congress passing a law for federal funded research into this mounting crisis might very well short circuit your objective considerations, but once you calm yourself--perhaps by cleaning your hand guns again--you'll perhaps start to wake the fuck up! :wink:

[mvscal]

"The average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased by about 0.1 unit — from about 8.2 to 8.1 — since the beginning of the industrial revolution," the scientists said in noting earlier research.

A blatant, bald faced lie.

[LTS TRN 2]

Don't you believe in the power of fish poop?

http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php ... 8274310691

Sure, but when our faithful finned fellow earthlings are asked to do much more with much less,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVAsL3X7RqM
we see another clear example of how your (non) argument is being surrounded like fucking Custer at Little Big Horn.

"The average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased by about 0.1 unit — from about 8.2 to 8.1 — since the beginning of the industrial revolution," the scientists said in noting earlier research.

A blatant, bald faced lie.

Avi, you're already on record as insisting there's no water shortage crisis in the U.S.--because where can it go? --and really, you have about as much credibility as Nancy Reagan. Go fume.

[smackaholic]

Manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are making our oceans more acidic — and thus threatening corals and shellfish — at a rate unseen in at least 800,000 years, a blue-ribbon panel of scientists reported Thursday.

"Ocean acidification is a growing global problem that will intensify with continued CO2 emissions and has the potential to change marine ecosystems and affect benefits to society," the panel warned in its report for the National Research Council and Congress.

Oceans absorb about a third of manmade CO2, a process that reduces CO2's impact on temperatures but which also decreases the pH of the seas, thus making them more acidic. pH is a measure of how alkaline or acidic something is. A pH of 7 is neutral, while higher numbers are more alkaline and lower numbers are more acidic.

"The average pH of ocean surface waters has decreased by about 0.1 unit — from about 8.2 to 8.1 — since the beginning of the industrial revolution," the scientists said in noting earlier research. Moreover, models project "an additional 0.2-0.3 drop by the end of the century, even under optimistic scenarios," they added.

so, 800,000 years ago it was rising at a higher rate?

why? I am fairly certain dick cheney wasn't around yet.

and the pH has dropped .1 in 200+ years?

are they sure?

could anyone measure it accurately then?

you've already addimtted that prehistorically, it changed at a higher rate. maybe, just maybe gOd gets lazy and forgets to throw chemicals in His pool from time to time. could it be possible that a drop is normal over this time and not necessarily a bad thing.

[Wolfman]

a blue-ribbon panel of scientists reported Thursday
I love how it is always a blue-ribbon panel. Who gives out these blue ribbons? Is there ever a red ribbon panel? How does one get on a blue ribbon panel?

[R-Jack]

I thought they judged pigs at the county fair.

[Wolfman]

And apparently back in the day---even beer !



Beer, pigs, global warming---it's all the same.

[LTS TRN 2]

No, you're recklessly confused.

The "argument" is not in question.

That is, there is no question whatsoever that we--the human species--are very quickly destroying the planet.

It's not a matter of contention.

Part of this dilemma concerns the issue of Global Warming. It's only part. There's also acidification of the seas, desertification of arable land, dwindling sources of fresh water, drastically intensified monocropping on the massively corporatized farm operations, and toxic waste polluting our ground water. And there's a lot more.

But you fetal curled little brats seemed concerned with...well, what? Attacking Al Gore? Liberals? Getting government off our backs? It's like you're a boy scout troop on a Ronald Reagan celebration camping triphttp://achoiceofweapons.blogspot.com/2010/07/really-california-reagan-holiday.html, singing demented little tunes around a dwindling fire--your scoutmaster, Rusp Limpdick, having toddled off and passed out in the woods.

Damnit, Wolfman, 88 says you got the Skoal from Smackie...now give it here...

[mvscal]

That is, there is no question whatsoever that we--the human species--are very quickly destroying the planet.

You don't get out much, do you? What the fuck would you know about "the planet" from your squalid urban cocoon of spent condoms, empty butyl nitrate vials and Chinese take out boxes?

[LTS TRN 2]

Categorical bullshit, SS, on every count. Except that of course I abhor the corporatization of the modern world and its similar undermining of our basic American principles and purpose. From McDonalds cornering the potato farming--for the perverse purpose of maintaining total uniformity in it French fries, to the wholesale lawyered up genetic engineering of basic vegetables and fruits by Monsanto, the profit driven mavens of "neo liberalism" are fucking up the natural and necessary biodiversity much faster than you'd imagine.

Your list of improvements is straight from Glenn Beck's Planet Denial. More trees? Do you have any idea what's going on as far as the clear cutting of rain forests and old growth forests? Obviously not. For some reason you cling to Global Warming as your target for your cheap Rove/Goebbels constant smear attack style. You know perfectly well that the so-called "Climategate scandal" was refuted and dismissed--a careful and big time smear campaign that did its job apparently among the seething Limpdickians like yourself--and yet you continue to blindly plow ahead, insisting that it's just a lie--man can't possibly kill the planet.

Pssssst...there's a whole bunch of ways we can kill it. The delicate atmosphere is as vulnerable as the seas. And are you going to wander off another cliff and suggest we can't kill the seas? Are you an angry armored little idiot? Hmmm..I guess so.

[War Wagon]

Except that of course I abhor the corporatization of the modern world and its similar undermining of our basic American principles and purpose.

I don't know who you are or where you are from, but I'll tell you that you are a caricature of a caricature. Great troll jobs you put up here, but you are a figment of your own imagination.

From your fallout shelter, you have no idea what the basic American principle or purpose is.

You will be frustrated for the rest of what's left of your life trying to convince yourself that you matter and can make a difference.

Eventually, you will stfu and die and nobody will miss you.

Goodnight, now.

[LTS TRN 2]

Yer lying through your teeth, wags. You know exactly who I am and where I'm from. And while you seem to take offense that I would presume to defend America's principles and purpose, we notice you offer nothing to actually dispute--or question--just what these are, or to suggest anything of the sort yourself. You are on record as a Christer, panting for apocalypse and that Happy Day, and that's sad and weird.

SS, the good folks at Bugwood are obviously joined at the hip with the timber industry, and such carefully parsed and knitted snippets and and assertions are a perfect example as any of the robust obliviousness of the corporate agenda. Let's compare this bullet point sales pitch with an actual real life perspective. Notice how the observations of this expert completely render the Bugwood statement ridiculous and hollow:

While standing in a clear-cut a few minutes from my home in Philomath, Oregon, I pondered the role of your new show, "Ax Men." Once a forest, gone are ancient trees, replaced by rows of Douglas Firs replanted to be cut again in a few decades, maybe less. Exotic weeds now grow on eroded soils and a native forest will not regrow in this monoculture farm of trees. I watched "Ax Men" hoping to see an articulate and honest assessment of forestry in Oregon: does a tree farm mimic a forest? Will disease and fire danger increase as we alter the ecological succession of these forests? Do the timber multinationals truly worry themselves with the sustainability of Oregon's rural timber towns? Why cut native forests when "Ax Men" could cut timber grown on private, industrial forest lands targeted for wood production? Should logging even occur on public held forests (state and federal), lands held in trust by taxpayers to filter the air of carbon dioxide, hold medicinal treasures, provide habitat for our nation's endangered species and provide underground reservoirs of the purest water in the nation? After watching three episodes: the answer is a clear-cut no!

Ms. Dubuc, your program has the opportunity to illuminate millions of viewers of the true history of logging here in the Pacific Northwest and you fail to even broach that subject in the most miniscule fashion. Even a greater tragedy is the absence of documented facts about the liquidation of forests here in Pacific Northwest. "Ax Men" celebrates hard work and that is admirable, but by ignoring the word that your own "channel" is prefaced by: history, your viewers are left with the impression that forests are little more than fiber farms and humans can magically grow forests. This is a dangerous and false precedent.



Here's the whole letter
http://www.counterpunch.org/borowski03272008.html


What's your point, again? That the environment is actually fine? Improved, really! And that people insisting otherwise are "liberals" and so forth? You actually wander about in public?

[OCmike]

More trees? Do you have any idea what's going on as far as the clear cutting of rain forests and old growth forests?

No, more trees since the 1800's.

As an example, central and northern CA have effectively been clear cut TWICE. The forests in the middle of the state were cut at the early part of the gold rush to build up San Francisco and surrounding communities and to build ships, ports and docks. The Northern CA forest west of Lake Tahoe, especially in Plumas and Sierra counties, were turned into support timbers for gold mines from 1849 until about 1920 when the only gold left was too expensive to mine.

The forests in Central and Northern CA were logged again in the 30's and 40's to build houses when seemingly everyone and their brother moved out here.

Pretty much the only trees that were alive in the 1800's that are still around today, other than those protected in National or State Parks, are those that couldn't be logged because of where they were located (usually too steep of a slope).

So in my state, not only are there more trees than there were in the 1800's, there are millions more trees than there were in the 1800's.

[Dinsdale]

In my state -- you know, the one with the most trees...

There's likely more trees now than 150 years ago... because we killed off all of those damned Injuns that used to burn them down on a very regular basis to get more berries to grow.

Didn't kill enough of the bastards though, obviously, since they still (illegally) gillnet small creeks, and wipe out entire salmon runs... and the feds do nothing about it.

[LTS TRN 2]

Goddamn those berry barrowing bastards! And stealin' all our salmon, why it makes me want to go stalk a local Tides director!

It's all fuckin' good! Let me just step outside and see how our forestry policies are working out..

Hey, a natural burn, no problem..



All cool

[Mikey]

I really like this part:

There are more trees on Earth today than there were in the 1800's. The air is much, much cleaner now than it was then too.

I'd really like to see how they came up with that statement. The air might be cleaner now in London than it was when the air was toxic with smoke from coal burning and maybe a few other very small specific areas where they burned a lot of wood or coal but I'm pretty sure that, other than that, this statement is not substantiated.

[Mikey]

San Bernardino in 2007



It must have been pretty damn bad in the 1800s.
Those Indians must have been making heap big smoke.



San Gabriel Mountains on a nice summer day:

[LTS TRN 2]

Well, if Rusp Limpdick told SS that the environment is actually better than before, why should we question it....?....oh yeah...







:doh:

[Mikey]

Mikey - I don't know this for sure one way or the other, but is y'all's air cleaner than it was back in the 60's & 70's? I know it was pretty horrible back then. I really don't think it's cleaner now than it was in the 1800's, though. Maybe people just pooted a lot more back then?

Where I live the air is about as clean as it gets. Surrounded by Camp Pendelton on the west out to the ocean, mountains on the north and east and the San Luis Rey River valley on the south we're pretty protected from both LA and San Diego's air quality problems. LA, as you said, prolly has generally cleaner air now than 40 years ago. Mostly because of better controls on cars, trucks and industrial processes. Still some major problems though

Interesting that 88 would use today's supposedly cleaner air, cleaner water and recovering endangered species as an argument against "environmentalism" and regulation. The assumption that things were once worse and that they are now getting better just proves that human activity can and does adversely affect our habitat and that regulation over pollution sources can and does have a beneficial effect.

Things don't get better all by themselves, just because Mother Earth decided to man up and clean her pipes or something.

[LTS TRN 2]

Well of course, Mikey, but you're making sense with clear logic. These guys operate on the Rusp Limpdick system of complete inversion. They just basically reverse everything and then repeat it again and again to lock it in and then they start spouting it with a bellicose attitude and lots of cheap smears. And when they get caught dead to right in an absurd contradiction, they just plow ahead with some new inversion (i.e., "the environment is actually better, thanks mostly to Ronald Reagan, etc...")

One can't hope to persuade them--what's the point?--but they do provide a bit of fun. Like a punching bag. :wink:

[LTS TRN 2]

Willie, stop smoking the Skoal! C'mon, you're closing in on 4,000 fucking posts and you have the basic style and bearing of a fart stain on a bag lady's underwear. Have you really got nothing under the hood? Are you the "before" picture in a charity campaign?

[Mikey]

One can't hope to persuade them--what's the point?--but they do provide a bit of fun. Like a punching bag. :wink:

More like banging your head against the wall.

[Wolfman]

What's the latest? Regulating dust? Amazing.

[Mikey]

What's the latest? Regulating dust? Amazing.

WTF are you babbling about now?

Somebody needs to regulate the bullshit pouring from your piehole.