One more time -- Global Warming

[mvscal]

For example...why are you avoiding the basic fact that the Big Money in this issue is to be made in opposing and discrediting the acknowledgment of Climate Change and all it entails and demands?

Probably because it isn't a fact. The Big Money is in pimping Climate Alarmism and, of course, phony solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Dinsdale]

'just remember that ALL of the reputable science community acknowledges the fact that it's a very real problem which needs to be addressed globally.

Except of course the ones that don't.

one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy... [climate change policy] is about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth”

And who (still) holds most of the world's wealth?


So, a few very wealthy elitist have essentaially declared war on the USA, and some of you are lapping this up?

Sounds like you need a fucking bullet in your fucking face, traitors.

[LTS TRN 2]

And now you completely avoid the plain question and start hissing about an "elitist conspiracy"?

This is pure Limpdickian blather in all its demented squalor.


The oil companies are the richest and most rapacious of all corporate entities in the world--and they want to keep it that way. They want that foul polluting shale to maintain their guzzling profits. They really don't care about the planet at all. And that's traitorous.

The ONLY opposition to the acknowledgment of Climate Change is sponsored by the oil and mining entities. They fund a steady stream of log-jamming disputes which are tedious at best and willfully ignorant of the basic facts. Much like niggling lawyers hired to exhaust a legal opponent.

So who's that non-Christer denialist in the house or senate?

[mvscal]

Felchco, if you are truly concered about carbon dioxide "pollution," you should do the right thing and blow your head off with a shotgun. Think of all the CO2 you would not emit.

You can do it, Felchy. Save the planet...blow your head off.

[Dinsdale]

And now you completely avoid the plain question and start hissing about an "elitist conspiracy"?

No, that IS the question.

Why would you fall for such an obvious, End Times ruse?

The oil companies are the richest and most rapacious of all corporate entities in the world--and they want to keep it that way.

The Chicago Climate Exchange, run by a billionaire who believes he has the right to dictate where you live, sayswhat?

The same Maurice Strong who scored a cool mil off of Sadam in the oil-for-food scam, which he rolled into an oil company... THAT HE OWNS.

The same Maurice Strong (canadian, not American) that used US government grants for startup "environmental companies," which he then used his insider-info to dump the stocks of to make a killing?

The same Chicago Climate Exchange that Obama himself has a vested interest in (talk about the fox guarding the henhouse).

The same Chicago Climate Exchange that Goldman-Sachs invested heavily in?

They want that foul polluting shale to maintain their guzzling profits. They really don't care about the planet at all. And that's traitorous.

Making them different from your boy Strong... how, exactly?

The ONLY opposition to the acknowledgment of Climate Change is sponsored by the oil and mining entities.

Yet another laughable, easily disproved lie that doesn't merit discussion.

So who's that non-Christer denialist in the house or senate?

Why the fuck do I care about some corrupt jackass with no knowledge of the science, regardless where they stand on the issue?


But keep preaching about the End Times, while calling everyone else a "Christer" -- it's some amusing shit.

[Dinsdale]

Felchco, if you are truly concered about carbon dioxide "pollution," you should do the right thing and blow your head off with a shotgun. Think of all the CO2 you would not emit.

You can do it, Felchy. Save the planet...blow your head off.

Or at least unplug that computer made from CO2 producing plastic. Know how much coal-fired electricity it takes to run the internet? You'd think he'd put his money where his mouth is and unplug it.

[Dinsdale]

When are you going to come up with an alternative source of fuel which can replace the 20 million barrels of oil we use every day?

Got anything?

Wanna hear a great funny?

The Oregon legislature just decreed that the Boardman coal fired plant MUST shut down by 2020. Boardman provides about half (or more) of Oregon's electricity (and a decent amount of california's during summer months).

You'd think that with such lofty environmental goal, that someone... anyone might have possibly considered where the replacement power is going to come from.

Nope.

Get this -- they figure that faced with a complete shutdown of the state's industry and ridiculously high energy rates, that the greenies will magically figure it out within 10 years (I'm sure the old-new governor's soon-to-be live-in girlfriend in the Governer's Mansion is all over it -- she's already used her connections to fleece Oregon's taxpayers for millions).


Anyone who talked of spending a few bucks on scrubbers to clean up the old coal plant was politically assassinated, so that was out.


But they do have a secondary plan in case the Electricity Fairy doesn't show up on time -- they're going to run a really, really long extension cord from Wyoming, in the hopes that the wind will blow 24/7 there... and no, I'm not joking.


Sad, when engineers/architects have come up with super-efficient, low environmental impact hydro projects that can be used on small mountain streams (that we have a shitload of here), at least one of which has been successfully deployed in the last decade.

[Moving Sale]

Google.com should provide you with a few hundred thousand.

So you can't provide one simple link that you think backs up you statements. Got it.

Another false statement -- Peter Jones said there was no warming. He's the same guy who said they need to "hide the decline."

AGAIN which is it. No warming or a decline?

I know brains aren't your strong suit, but why would he feel the need to "hide the decline" (his exact words) if there was no decline.

I take it you won't be providing a link for this either.

Another false statement -- I never said the graph shows a 13 year decline.

I would say that a 13+ year nosedive in temperature might be an indication of "climate."

Who is lying?

The observed data shows a very clear decline starting around 1997.

Provided in the first post -- NASA'a(sic) observed data is in red -- see how that line drops like a rock?

You do realize you can't even read your own damn graph right?

Link to where I said "oil sucks"?

You said that you were not pro-pollution and that you think alternative are good and that you are only opposed to junk science. That sounds an awful lot like you think oil sucks so I'll give you another chance. Just what the fuck is your position on the use of oil?

[Moving Sale]

When are you going to come up with an alternative source of fuel which can replace the 20 million barrels of oil we use every day?

Got anything?

I have lots of stuff. I have even provided you with a list of the ways we can energy for sources other than oil but you have gone black and you will never go back so I'm not going to waste my time going over it again for your dumb ass.

[mvscal]

When are you going to come up with an alternative source of fuel which can replace the 20 million barrels of oil we use every day?

Got anything?

I have lots of stuff. I have even provided you with a list of the ways we can energy for sources other than oil but you have gone black and you will never go back so I'm not going to waste my time going over it again for your dumb ass.

You don't have jackmotherfuckingshit and everybody knows it. There is absolutely nothing that can replace oil now or in the foreseeable future.

Come up with the energy equivalent of 20 million barrels per day or shut the fuck up and deal with it, fuckpuddle.

[Dinsdale]

An awesome blast from the past:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html


In the last week, 634 snowfall records were broken in the US alone.


How'd that "0.2 degree rise per decade" thing work out (although I liked the hedging of the bet towards then end of the article -- just in case someone revisited their tripe 10 years later).

[LTS TRN 2]

Yo Dins...reality check..



Look, your Limpdick blather is noted. But the reality of the planet's health reveal you to be a pathetic cowardly fraud--just like Rusp.


Why do you dutifully parrot the gaseous hog? Are you making millions being a shameless whore for rapacious corporate slime? What's your excuse for being such a pathetic fake weasel? The science does not support you--and you most clearly run like a punk when this is offered--and the religious argument has never supported anyone. So...? What the fuck is your excuse?

[Dinsdale]

What the fuck is your excuse?

I'm only interested in science -- which supports "your side" as complete hogwash.


And I'm not a corporate whore, like you obviously are -- what other excuse could there be for endorsing falsified junk science to steal from the poor to give to the extremely rich?


What's funny, puppet -- your hero Strong was a laughingstock, until a noted conservative, Maggie Thatcher used him as a pawn to try and bust up the coal/oil unions. He really took the ball and ran with it, though -- sidled up to Goldman Sachs, Obama, his own oil company, and made a senator from Tennessee his personal spokesman (who in turn offered Hansen many, many millions if he could come up with something... anything to support Strong's side).


And BTW -- rather than spouting the party line... maybe research which side the oil comapnies have given more money to -- the "heretics," or the IPCC. You might be surprised at what you'll find. The bigger voice the IPCC has, the quicker their demise... funny shit.


BTW -- the "scientific consensus" the IPCC rolled out to impose a global tax consisted of 77 scientists, about 60 of which have absolutely no education or experience in atmospheric sciences. But at least "97%" of them agreed that it was a done-deal, and the taxation needed to begin tomorrow.


This is a FACT.


Why does "your side" have to tell so many lies, when the other side actually wants to talk about scientific principles, and get the data out there for everyone to see?

[Dr_Phibes]

I know fuck all about global warming, but I've always assumed that condensation (snow/rain) comes from water vapour=/=evaporation. That and the Arctic ice seems to be breaking up and vanishing at a horrifying speed. Things like this shouldn't happen when the planet is 'cooling'.
Call warming a fraud if you like, don't say things are getting colder, you'll just look a cunt.

[mvscal]

That and the Arctic ice seems to be breaking up and vanishing at a horrifying speed.

That is a process of negative Arctic Oscillation which makes it relatively warmer in the Arctic and results in colder winters on the east coast and northern Europe.

It has jack shit to do with global warming.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/030310.html

Meanwhile, Antarctic ice is accumulating at a higher rate than we've seen since 1979.

[Dinsdale]

That is a process of negative Arctic Oscillation which makes it relatively warmer in the Arctic and results in colder winters on the east coast and northern Europe.

Which Kepler laid the groundwork for about 400 years ago... working by candlelight.

Solar forcing is not constant. The sun's radiation is not constant. Combine the two, and whadda'ya know... you get some swings.

[Mace]

I hope you guys get this figured out soon because there are a number of us old guys who will be at room temperature sooner than most of you and I'd kinda like to know if I should be buried in a suit and sweater or a golf polo and shorts.

[Moving Sale]

An awesome blast from the past:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html


In the last week, 634 snowfall records were broken in the US alone.


How'd that "0.2 degree rise per decade" thing work out (although I liked the hedging of the bet towards then end of the article -- just in case someone revisited their tripe 10 years later).

Nice white flag you horrid twat.


88,
It would be nice if you could link us up. Thanks.
Oh and a quick question what is your take on whether using oil at the rate we are using it is 'good' or 'bad?'

[Moving Sale]

Would you care to tell us how that is relevant to the topic at hand?

[mvscal]

The stone cold fact that the climate has changed suddenly and dramatically in the past without an industrialized human civilization is quite germane to the discussion of climate change today.

The fact of the matter is that climate does nothing other than change. There is no such thing as stable climate. There never has been and never will be. The idea that if only we modify our behavior in some ways and give trillions of dollars to 3rd world dirteaters that we will somehow stabilize the climate is one of the most brazen lies in recorded history. That it is accepted without question by mindless fucktards such yourself is a monument to the abysmal failure of public education.

[LTS TRN 2]

What inane gibberish!

This really is the Limpdickian circle jerk. Pathetic hysterical nonsense spun by fools and stooges.

Here's what's really occurring..



Your tedious scrotum swings are an embarrassment

[Moving Sale]

http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/glob ... 3-decades/

That link doesn't even begin to show "that the only scientists who have had any success in predicting the changes in climate that we have observed to date have used models that do not rely on carbon dioxide or other human emissions, but instead rely predominantly on solar variations." You did read it right?

It is a non-issue.

Pollution is a non issue? The inefficiency of fossil fuels is a non issue? The importation of fossil fuels is a non issue? (We might have it but we still import way too much) Oil spills and fires are a non issue? Its cost is a non issue? The size and scope of oil companies reach is a non issue? You are one stupid silly fuck.

Breakthroughs will certainly occur in the next 100 years that will make oil less important than it is today.

Your attitude is not helping.

mvskkkal,
Are you even capable of making an argument that is not a strawman?

And this is a flat out lie.
"That it is accepted without question by mindless fucktards such yourself is a monument to the abysmal failure of public education."
Show me where I have accepted it without question.

[Mace]

It appears to me that the University of Phoenix should shitcan their law school.

[Moving Sale]

Why would that be you goat fucking tard?

[Dinsdale]

I know fuck all about global warming, but I've always assumed that condensation (snow/rain) comes from water vapour=/=evaporation.

Pretty much -- except you need an influx of cold air from somewhere to put the water vapor through a phase change.

That and the Arctic ice seems to be breaking up and vanishing at a horrifying speed.

It was... back when the sun was kicking like a mule. Now that it's not, Arctic ice is expanding, and Antarctic ice is at a 30+ year high.

Things like this shouldn't happen when the planet is 'cooling'.

They're not, and it is.

Call warming a fraud if you like

I don't recall ever hearing anyone say anything like that. There was certainly warming -- which ended over a decade ago.

It's the people who are falsely claiming non-existent concrete knowledge of the causation and who falsify data for person enrichment who are the frauds.

say things are getting colder, you'll just look a cunt.

You DO realize that even the cunts trying to bilk the poor with their offset-trading also say things are getting colder, right?


All you need to know about global warming -- George Soros and Maurice Strong and Goldman Sachs are all about it. Nuff said?

[Dr_Phibes]

While I am a scientist, I'm not the type who knows anything about icebergs and things like that. That takes a specialist.

It seems like you've got to take sides in a debate like this, you're either a corporate whore or a preaching, self righteous, hippie. Fuck them, let them fight it out, I don't care. We'll lose in the end and nothing gets changed, they're two sides of the same coin.

I did take the liberty of looking through the link Mv posted and it was interesting, I''ve always avoided the subject, but it was a good time. It's loaded with articles by scientists from all sorts of organisations, equipped with satellites and all sorts of weird devices, talking about ice disappearing, on every corner of the earth, he's full of shit.
The Arctic is shrinking at alarming levels, the West Antarctic is losing mass at an even faster rate and the East Antarctic is losing mass as-well, though more slowly. There are all sorts of reasons given; warmer winds, increased speeds, the collapse of ice shelves and the introduction of warm water streams into traditional, cold weather platforms.

Look through it, it's not political and if you can figure out whether a 22% loss of mass owing to dustbowl wind conditions is owing to carbon emissions, knock yourself out - because I haven't got a clue.

[Dinsdale]

Look through it, it's not political

NSIDC scientists provide Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis, with partial support from NASA.

You mean NASA, who has been caught falsifying data and whose head has taken "hush money" from George Soros?


While the article itself has good info, it doesn't really get too deep into terrestrial precession, Kepler's Laws, and a bunch of other shit which are the factors in the oscillations.

And what's fucked is that the "scientists" know this -- but it's counterproductive in their quest for their 15 minutes, and the cayshe that comes with it.


If you want an interesting read, and have some time to kill, try this --

http://www.ecoworld.com/atmosphere/atmo ... tions.html

Written by the guy many consider to be the most knowledgeable climate scientist who ever lived, and it has relevance to all scientific fields in the current era. Explains how things got to where they are now.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not saying this proves global warming or anything of the sort, but . . .

Today, here in the land of the ice and snow, the high temperature was 55 degrees.

Just so's ya know, 50+ degree days in the land of the ice and snow between November 1 and April 30 are only slightly more common than are snowstorms in San Diego in the middle of July. And when the temperature does get above 50 degrees in that time frame, about 90% of the time (probably a conservative estimate) it hapens very close to either the very beginning or the very end of that timeframe.

50+ degree days on December 31 simply don't happen in the land of the ice and snow. As a general rule, anyways.

[Onions]

Not saying this proves global warming or anything of the sort, but . . .

Today, here in the land of the ice and snow, the high temperature was 55 degrees.

Just so's ya know, 50+ degree days in the land of the ice and snow between November 1 and April 30 are only slightly more common than are snowstorms in San Diego in the middle of July. And when the temperature does get above 50 degrees in that time frame, about 90% of the time (probably a conservative estimate) it hapens very close to either the very beginning or the very end of that timeframe.

50+ degree days on December 31 simply don't happen in the land of the ice and snow. As a general rule, anyways.

fukken RACK. it was over 50 degrees in the northeast today

[smackaholic]

Not saying this proves global warming or anything of the sort, but . . .

Today, here in the land of the ice and snow, the high temperature was 55 degrees.

Just so's ya know, 50+ degree days in the land of the ice and snow between November 1 and April 30 are only slightly more common than are snowstorms in San Diego in the middle of July. And when the temperature does get above 50 degrees in that time frame, about 90% of the time (probably a conservative estimate) it hapens very close to either the very beginning or the very end of that timeframe.

50+ degree days on December 31 simply don't happen in the land of the ice and snow. As a general rule, anyways.

fukken RACK. it was over 50 degrees in the northeast today

sorry terry, but, you are a fukking dumbass. 50+ degrees in the winter in the northeast are fairly regular. what is not regular is extended periods of them. about 25 years ago, at about this time of year (I was home for christmas leave) we had a 70 degree day. THAT was akin to snowstorms in SD. I went skiing that day at killington. it was in the 50s on the mountain.

whatever happened to the usual libtard claim that weather is not climate? a unseasonally warm day or two, which is what 50 degrees is in these parts is just weather.

[Dinsdale]

whatever happened to the usual libtard claim that weather is not climate? a unseasonally warm day or two, which is what 50 degrees is in these parts is just weather.

It's the beauty of the side that has all the money (and is asking for more) -- unseasonably warm days are irrefutable prrof of man-made global warming, unseasonably cold days are met with "weather is not climate."

If it's warm -- it's AGW

If it's cold -- AGW

Heavy rain -- AGW

Less-than-average rain -- AGW

Snow and record cold -- AGW

Hurricanes -- AGW

No hurricanes -- AGW

Big expansion of sea ice -- AGW

Receding sea ice -- AGW


And a few clicks of the mouse reveals that TiC is talking out his ass -- since his current temp isn't even in the same area code of their record high.

[smackaholic]

And a few clicks of the mouse reveals that TiC is talking out his ass -- since his current temp isn't even in the same area code of their record high.

yup, mid fities is what we in the northeast refer to as a really nice day, or a really fukked up day if your the dude in charge of keeping the local ski slopes in decent day. not even remotely close to "snowstorm in SD in july" or whatever sort of wildass statement it was that he made.

so, when can we expect the shoreline of greenland to warm up enough to turn green like it was seven or eight hundred years ago when the vikings settled it?

[Dinsdale]

yup, mid fities is what we in the northeast refer to as a really nice day, or a really fukked up day if your the dude in charge of keeping the local ski slopes in decent day.

A little more consistent around here -- add a couple of degrees to mid-50's, and it's a "record high."

But it's been well-below average highs for the last few days (averages about 45, low 50's is a "cooker," 20's is "dear god it's cold").

so, when can we expect the shoreline of greenland to warm up enough to turn green like it was seven or eight hundred years ago when the vikings settled it?

You mean when they used to grow Bordeaux grapes and make wine out of it in England?

You must be referring to the period that the IPCC/CRU actually conspired to LIE about to promote their agenda, since weather patterns we saw in the 90's (since they're LYING about the 2000's, and have been caught red-handed doing so) are nothing new, and aren't even "severe" historically.

[LTS TRN 2]

What is this utterly inane crap you spew like a fire hydrant, Dins? Where did you come up with this tedious and bizarre "conspiracy" of some "liberal" billionaires attempting to swindle "the public"?

You offer nothing whatsoever to support any such idea and yet you just keep on jabbering some nonsense to the effect that...??...there's really no man-made problem with the earth's ecosystem? Really? And the fact that half of Australia is under water, and India is suddenly freezing, deserts are rapidly spreading, and fresh water is being drained from aquifers and rivers. And much much more. All of this is just some natural cycle?

Your so-called experts are straight up oil company whores and you can't refute this. The Christers in congress are the ones leading the the Denialist movement--and are also total corporate whores--and evidence all of this is clear and unrefuted.

You've got nothing but the standard Rusp Limpdick blather that smears and lies real loud and repetitively. Damn you are fucked up!

[smackaholic]

You offer nothing whatsoever to support any such idea and yet you just keep on jabbering some nonsense to the effect that...??...there's really no man-made problem with the earth's ecosystem? Really? And the fact that half of Australia is under water, and India is suddenly freezing, deserts are rapidly spreading, and fresh water is being drained from aquifers and rivers. And much much more. All of this is just some natural cycle?

This paragraph is gotta be at least 8th degree black belt KYOA-kwon-do.

half of Australia under water?

deserts rapidly spreading?

fresh water drained from aquifers and rivers?

so what is it corky, are we drying out or drowning?

how's about an explanation for huge documented climatic swings in europe and the north atlantic, 700 years before dick cheney drew up the plans for his hurricane machine.

or maybe the mini ice age that peaked in the early 1800s?

[LTS TRN 2]

There's no record of anything similar to what's occurring now. Obviously there have been major incidents--like comets hitting the earth, major volcanoes, etc. But this is a systemic and clear progression of measurable effects and definable causes.

And don't get confused with too much rain--or spreading deserts, etc. Severe instability of weather patterns is the most basic effect of Climate Change as per our effect on it through mass industrialization.



Here's Spain turning into a desert. Now how much denial can you maintain...and why?

[War Wagon]

All of this is just some natural cycle?

Why yes, that's clear.

What I find hilarious is that some people think that humans could possibly affect the climate, either for good or bad.

[smackaholic]

There's no record of anything similar to what's occurring now. Obviously there have been major incidents--like comets hitting the earth, major volcanoes, etc. But this is a systemic and clear progression of measurable effects and definable causes.

I just gave you an example of something far more extreme than what's allegedly occuring now. you just chose to ignore it. ANd your "definable causes" is a fukking joke.

And don't get confused with too much rain--or spreading deserts, etc. Severe instability of weather patterns is the most basic effect of Climate Change as per our effect on it through mass industrialization.

"Severe instability" has been around way longer than the industrial revolution, dumbfukk. And not just in exanples of weather, but, examples of climate. I am still waiting on an explanation for multiple ice ages and warm periods.



[spain]Here's Spain turning into a desert. Now how much denial can you maintain...and why?

so, spain is having themselves a dust bowl? good for them. we got over ours. i suspect they'll do the same.

[LTS TRN 2]

That's purely idiotic. We already have altered the earth's delicate ecosystem in a variety of ways. Don't you think that clear-cutting forests have caused huge and spreading deserts? Don't you suppose that increased deserts change the climate?

Do you suppose China was always like this?


Or this?


Of course not. It's a completely modern phenomena--and getting worse everywhere. And when you factor in the disappearing ozone layer--and consider how the earth could very easily become a wet hell like Venus--or a baked rock like Mars--or for that matter how the rising acidity of the oceans--completely caused by man--can have tremendous effects on the planet...well....you've got nothing to support your childish denial--and everything to prove you dead wrong.

Yours is really the basic religious view based on totally bunk dogma.

Wake the fuck up

[LTS TRN 2]

There's no record of anything similar to what's occurring now. Obviously there have been major incidents--like comets hitting the earth, major volcanoes, etc. But this is a systemic and clear progression of measurable effects and definable causes.

I just gave you an example of something far more extreme than what's allegedly occuring now. you just chose to ignore it. ANd your "definable causes" is a fukking joke.

And don't get confused with too much rain--or spreading deserts, etc. Severe instability of weather patterns is the most basic effect of Climate Change as per our effect on it through mass industrialization.

"Severe instability" has been around way longer than the industrial revolution, dumbfukk. And not just in exanples of weather, but, examples of climate. I am still waiting on an explanation for multiple ice ages and warm periods.



[spain]Here's Spain turning into a desert. Now how much denial can you maintain...and why?

so, spain is having themselves a dust bowl? good for them. we got over ours. i suspect they'll do the same.

You pathetic idiot--our dust bowl was ENTIRELY MANMADE!!! Don't you get it? It wasn't a "natural cycle" at all--and much of that land has NEVER been recovered. The situations in Spain, Africa, China, etc. are much worse. You are unbelievably stupid.