Confirmed: No Global Warming for 17 Years and 6 Months

[Felix]

climate change denialists

Why did global warming change into... climate change?

the term climate change encompasses all environmental changes occurring on earth......global warming is simply one aspect of the changes....

[mvscal]

.....in total, there were two articles published that argue against anthropomorphic causation of climate change.....

So what? All it takes is one. Consensus is a meaningless political contrivance. Science doesn't operate on a consensus basis. The overwhelming scientific consensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth. Did that make it true?

the articles don't dispute the FACT that earth temperatures are rising (which you continue to deny),

What I said is that there has been no warming over the last 17 years. The temperatures have been flat. That shouldn't happen if human CO2 emissions were driving warming/change. The fact is that nobody can distinguish any alleged human contribution from natural variability.

[Felix]

So what? All it takes is one. Consensus is a meaningless political contrivance. Science doesn't operate on a consensus basis. The overwhelming scientific consensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth. Did that make it true?

so an article by some flat earth society person should be indicative that maybe the earth isn't round? are you fucking insane?

What I said is that there has been no warming over the last 17 years. The temperatures have been flat. That shouldn't happen if human CO2 emissions were driving warming/change. The fact is that nobody can distinguish any alleged human contribution from natural variability.

why do you use a time frame of 17 years? why not 15, or 10, or 5? looking at it in a compartmentalized manner demonstrates nothing....lets take a look over a little longer time frame



see any pattern there?

[mvscal]

So what? All it takes is one. Consensus is a meaningless political contrivance. Science doesn't operate on a consensus basis. The overwhelming scientific consensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth. Did that make it true?

so an article by some flat earth society person should be indicative that maybe the earth isn't round? are you fucking insane?

Were you attempting to make a point? Or do you still not understand that consensus is totally meaningless in scientific terms?

What I said is that there has been no warming over the last 17 years. The temperatures have been flat. That shouldn't happen if human CO2 emissions were driving warming/change. The fact is that nobody can distinguish any alleged human contribution from natural variability.

why do you use a time frame of 17 years? why not 15, or 10, or 5? looking at it in a compartmentalized manner demonstrates nothing....lets take a look over a little longer time frame



see any pattern there?[/quote]

What I don't see is how much of that pattern (if any) is due to human activity.

[Rooster]

Mvscal is right-- consensus is no standard of accuracy or truth. After all, once upon a time all scientists agreed that the earth is flat to use your example. That is, until one of them disagreed and things eventually changed. Trying to use the flat earth argument is nice attempt at mental ju-jitsu, but historically it'd be 180* out from how you are attempting to spin it. Just sayin'.

[Dinsdale]

okay, so here is the number of articles published in 2013 on climate change and global warming......

Easier to get that kind of "consensus" when you " redefine what the peer-review literature is."

Does your graph reflect the "smoothing" that was used to "hide the decline"?

And it's nice of them to use a starting point on that graph when the earth was particularly cold, then you question why someone is using a 17 year span. What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? To insinuate there's some sort of cherry-picking here is flat out hilarious.

[Dinsdale]

That is, until one of them disagreed and things eventually changed.

Eventually -- after those clinging to the belief used words like "denier"... errr, I mean "heretic." They were ready to execute people to keep their belief system going, and did everything they could to discredit anyone who disagreed with the scientific dogma of the time.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Felix]

If it were up to me, we'd spend almost all of the money we are wasting on trying to determine if we can come up with any plausible justification for confiscating large amounts of wealth and liberty in the name of climate change on identifying and perhaps avoiding annihilation from meteor impacts. But that is just me.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-astronauts ... pacts.html

how much of your wealth have the scientists researching climate change confiscated? how much of your liberty have they taken away from you? provide me examples of how the science of climate change has negatively impacted your life....and don't say wasted tax dollars, otherwise I'll be asking why we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing highly profitable corporations, why we the taxpayers funded wall street fuckwads that crashed our economy all the while making piles of cash and why hasn't anybody been arrested for it.....you should be concerned about the widening chasm between the haves and the have nots.....those are the things you should be upset about, not a few of your tax dollars thrown at investigating whether human burning of fossil fuels is having a negative impact on our environment....

and if you're worried about what the results of an asteroid hitting the earth are, you don't have to worry......a large (say the size of Texas) object hitting the earth at cometary velocity would extinguish all life...life that didn't die instantaneously would be dead within a couple of months, because the resulting cloud of ash would block out the sunlight.....yes, even cockroaches would succumb to such a catastrophic event....our only hope would be sending bruce willis up to drill a hole in the asteroid to blow it up......or......

[Dinsdale]

we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing highly profitable corporations

Link?

And please don't roll out the tired "big oil" shit, since that's an absolute myth.

[poptart]

Why did global warming change into... climate change?

the term climate change encompasses all environmental changes occurring on earth......global warming is simply one aspect of the changes....

You can try answering the question now.

[mvscal]

A school bus sized meteor entering the atmosphere over NYC or some other metropolis would be catastrophic.

We should be so lucky.

[Felix]

we (the taxpayers) are subsidizing highly profitable corporations

Link?

And please don't roll out the tired "big oil" shit, since that's an absolute myth.

how is that a myth? when a company receives dollar for dollar tax credits, that's real fucking money pal.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quig ... 89188.html

GM received $1.7 billion in corporate welfare from 16 different states, but Shell, Ford and Chrysler all received over $1 billion each. Amazon, Microsoft, Prudential, Boeing and casino companies in Colorado and New Jersey received well over $200 million each. The Cato Institute estimates that federal subsidies to corporations cost taxpayers almost $100 billion every year....tax codes reduce corporate taxes to around 15%, when they're actually supposed to be paying about 35%......special tax breaks for hedge fund managers allow them to pay only a 15-percent rate while the people they earned the money for usually pay a 35-percent rate..... taxpayers pay about $243 billion each year in indirect subsidies to the fast food industry because they pay wages so low that taxpayers must put up $243 billion to pay for public benefits for their workers....remember that 13 billion dollar fine JP Morgan paid....well, not so much....the company is allowed to write off a majority of the deal as tax deductible, saving the corporation $4 billion......

you need some more, because there are plenty of them.....weird thing, corporate welfare in this country actually costs more than the welfare the government doles out to the low income earners....

isn't that a fucking hoot.....so you fucking morons keep blaming the poor people for causing all the problems, while remaining oblivious to the real leeches on our society......

[poptart]

Such is our current dilemma.
MANY dumb folks.

The Repugnants want the gov to use power to pursue an agenda to their liking.
The Dims wants the gov to use power to pursue and agenda to their liking.

Those who just want the government to get the hell out -- and balance the friggin' budget, are called racist extremists.

[Felix]

Maybe you haven't noticed, but the remedy prescribed for the AGW catastrophe only certain computer models can see is carbon taxation, the prohibition of the use of certain fuels, materials etc., and wealth transfer payments from the citizens of developed nations to those affected by the (predicted) huge rise in sea levels. If you don't think that will have a negative impact on your life and my life, then you must be posting from Vanuatu.

I'm not getting overly excited, it's just that when somebody makes a statement like yours I'm simply asking for examples of how the economics have directly affected you....I'm not talking about what might happen, I'm talking about how it's affected you as of the day you posted this......

all of the welfare that Obama heaped on his Wall Street buddies and continues to push their way via Paulson, Bernanke and Yellen etc. Maybe your hero's Justice Department would do the country some good if they would stop worrying about a lunatic's cattle roaming around on BLM land near Las Vegas, and perhaps take action against the criminals on Wall Street. Again, what the hell does that have to do with the fraud that is AGW?

he's not my hero, but for you to imply that the catastrophe that was the economic collapse was Obama's fault is disingenuous and you know it....certainly he didn't help things out but the calamity of the economic crash falls on the shoulders of Bush....his buddies are the ones that crashed it and you know it.....

Why? If you have more, does that make me have less? Are we fighting over some finite amount of something? I think not. If you want more, you have the opportunity to get it. And if you get it, what skin is off my nose? None. You shouldn't be concerned about what others have. Worry about yourself, and find contentment and peace.

because I don't think the have not's should be subjugated to the whims of the haves.....and if you think I'm just talking about rich people, I'm not.....the haves collapsed the economy and they will do it again...and people like you are willing to just sit back and watch them rob the American people blind.....that's your money their stealing, just as sure as somebody robbing you at gunpoint and stealing your wallet.....

Who would have thought that having a free mind and the ability to express my thoughts is such a bad thing. Sorry. I guess when it comes to blowing my money, I shouldn't be concerned what Congress does at all.

but you seem to resent the fact that scientists are researching climate change and I don't get it.....why do you resent it so much? and that's a question I'd ask of everybody that thinks this is some wild goose chase.....why are you so adamantly opposed to continuing the research.....from your responses you seem to think that every question has been answered and I can assure you they haven't been.....so would you prefer they simply abandon research on the subject?

A school bus sized meteor entering the atmosphere over NYC or some other metropolis would be catastrophic. And, perhaps that kind of disaster could be prevented if we allocated resources to investigating and mitigating it rather than trying to trump up reasons why our climate models are still good even though their predictions do not match observations.

would you like to know the odds of a highly populated city getting hit by a huge meteor are? infinitesimal relatively speaking.....we're getting hit by shit all the time, fortunately most of it burns up in the atmosphere, but we get hit by space objects on a fairly regular basis....the ones that have hit just aren't significant.....but suppose they did find a giant meteor headed toward New York City.....what would you expect NASA to do about it? shoot some nukes at it? blow it into a bunch of smaller pieces so that we'd have to be worrying about hundreds of large objects hurtling toward earth?

[Felix]

To me, the most amazing thing about felix is that he gets his step-ins twisted into a wad over the thought of the government handing out tax credits, subsidies and other benefits to corporations and the wealthy, but his solution to every problem is to give the government more power.

where did I ever say I wanted to cede power to the government?

why do you keep accusing me of saying things I never said and never implied?

is this some type of "look something shiny" misdirection?

[Moving Sale]

So to summarize:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO is nasty shit
O3 is nasty shit (if not used to clean a pool)
Soot eats ass
Water vapor blows hogs
Burning isooctane produces CO2 CO O3 soot H2OVapor
It's not getting cooler


Ah science

[Smackie Chan]

So to summarize:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO is nasty shit
O3 is nasty shit (if not used to clean a pool)
Soot eats ass
Water vapor blows hogs
Burning isooctane produces CO2 CO O3 soot H2OVapor
It's not getting cooler


Ah science

Seems there are plenty of legitimate, scientifically proven reasons why we as a species should perhaps reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn. So why try to sell the masses on a reason that may not be a reason at all? Probably because it's simple (and of course there's money to be made).

The science should probably work something like this: Hypothesize that Earth has gotten warmer since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, then test the hypothesis using sound scientific methodology. We already know the planet has undergone long periods of warming & cooling without any help from humans. I'm guessing the data would show the planet has warmed, but the tougher trick would be to try to determine if it would have warmed in the absence of humans anyway. If we could determine that the warming occurred during a period when it should have naturally been cooling or remaining stable, a scientifically sound conclusion would probably be that human activity accounted for the change. The next step would be to scientifically determine, "so what?" If the results of the studies showed some sort of catastrophic consequences for mankind or nature, then we should consider spending assloads of $$ to come up with ways to remedy the problem. Seems to me we're a bit premature on that last part since we haven't completed what should have preceded it.

[Felix]

The science should probably work something like this: Hypothesize that Earth has gotten warmer since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, then test the hypothesis using sound scientific methodology. We already know the planet has undergone long periods of warming & cooling without any help from humans. I'm guessing the data would show the planet has warmed, but the tougher trick would be to try to determine if it would have warmed in the absence of humans anyway.

that's exactly what they've done, or tried to determine.....interestingly the people that believe human activity is causing an unusually high amount of warming are continuing to research it and write papers on it, while the people who say it's not occurring produce nothing insofar as hypotheses or scientific research.....hence the use of the graph I showed.....if the anti's are so certain human activity has nothing to do with the hockey stick graph I showed earlier, you'd think they'd be conducting scientific research in an effort to support their theories.....but they don't.....in the face of mounting evidence, they simply cry "that's not enough proof, we want more".....they'll just continue to demand more evidence and there will never be enough evidence to convince them......they'll continue to spout shit like "it's a total waste of money" and "climate scientists are getting rich off this research grant money" and "guys like Al Gore are just interested in cashing in on it"......they seem obsessed with the monetary aspect of it.......

If we could determine that the warming occurred during a period when it should have naturally been cooling or remaining stable, a scientifically sound conclusion would probably be that human activity accounted for the change. The next step would be to scientifically determine, "so what?" If the results of the studies showed some sort of catastrophic consequences for mankind or nature, then we should consider spending assloads of $$ to come up with ways to remedy the problem. Seems to me we're a bit premature on that last part since we haven't completed what should have preceded it.

the problem there is that there is no way to determine if the warming would have occurred naturally, although the dramatic rise in temperatures coincides with the industrial revolution.....but to be honest, unless every industrialized country is on board with changing our behaviors in an effort to see if that has any effect on the temperature, we're pretty much pissing into the wind.....I can't see China decreasing their use of coal, even though they are investing heavily into alternative energy development.....I'd say they are probably 15 years ahead of the US on that front......I'm expecting mvscal to come in here an proclaim the Chinese government is simply pursuing these alternative energy sources so it can make some of the Chinese oligarchs wealthy.....he tends to talk out of his ass on stuff like that a lot....

[smackaholic]

There is a very simple reason to want to use less FFs. We simply aren't growing new ones at a fast enough clip. This used to be a good enough reason to conserve back in the 70s when we thought it was actually cooling the planet.

Someone a few pages back made the connection between the start of the industrial revolution and a corresponding warming trend that started at pertty much the exact same time. If that person gave it the slightest bit of thought, they would realize how monumentally stupid it is. If our ecosystem is really THAT sensitive to our input, well, it ought to be about 500 degrees out there right about now, since we currently pump as much evil CO2 into the atmosphere every day as we likely did in the first 50 or so years of it.

[smackaholic]

I can't see China decreasing their use of coal, even though they are investing heavily into alternative energy development.....I'd say they are probably 15 years ahead of the US on that front......I'm expecting mvscal to come in here an proclaim the Chinese government is simply pursuing these alternative energy sources so it can make some of the Chinese oligarchs wealthy.....he tends to talk out of his ass on stuff like that a lot....

The chinks aren't investing in alternative energy. They are investing in fleecing stupid rich Americans. Can't say I blame them.

[Felix]

If our ecosystem is really THAT sensitive to our input, well, it ought to be about 500 degrees out there right about now, since we currently pump as much evil CO2 into the atmosphere every day as we likely did in the first 50 or so years of it.

the reference to the increase in temperatures was mine......the sentence above demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about science so you should quit while you're behind.....here's a link so you can understand the basic science of CO2 and it's absorption properties....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturat ... effect.htm

[poptart]

you know absolutely nothing

If the admins ever decide to get rid of the current Cul de Smack sig -- I like a ONE BOARD idea with admins that aren't warped faggots, I recommend they go with this current Felix uttering.

Nothing more succinctly summarizes what most people must think as they read offerings lobbed up on this board every day.

[mvscal]

If our ecosystem is really THAT sensitive to our input, well, it ought to be about 500 degrees out there right about now, since we currently pump as much evil CO2 into the atmosphere every day as we likely did in the first 50 or so years of it.

the reference to the increase in temperatures was mine......the sentence above demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about science so you should quit while you're behind.....here's a link so you can understand the basic science of CO2 and it's absorption properties....

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturat ... effect.htm

Myth busted?



Oh...OK.

[mvscal]

.if the anti's are so certain human activity has nothing to do with the hockey stick graph I showed earlier, you'd think they'd be conducting scientific research in an effort to support their theories.....but they don't.....

Why would they be attempting to prove a negative? Yes, you really are a pathetically stupid fucktard.

[smackaholic]

Holy shit! Check out the mental horsepower that runs that website:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

The climate debate is over. The spearfishermen, language students and backpack makers have spoken...

How far did you get?

I could feel the IQ points slip away as I read the CO2 saturation explanation. And I ain't got as many IQ points to spare as you do, 88, so I ejected fairly quickly.

[Dinsdale]

he's not my hero, but for you to imply that the catastrophe that was the economic collapse was Obama's fault is disingenuous and you know it....certainly he didn't help things out but the calamity of the economic crash falls on the shoulders of Bush....his buddies are the ones that crashed it and you know it.....

Did you really just type that? For fucking real?

So, instead of blaming the folks that decided everyone should have a house whether they could afford it or not (a certain president wanted that as his "legacy," and his name wasn't Bush, although he got support from two sets of letters-next-to-names), who then hired a hotshot lawyer/community organizer from Chicago to make everyone a little more equal (since outside private entities should be able to regulate banks, and get very wealthy doing it)...


but instead you blame the guy who used his State Of The Union Speech to scream about the problems with Freddie and Fannie from the mountaintops, years before the crash? A dire warning that a certain party (that is associated with the letter D) laughed off, and ramped up the problem even more?

OK, now I KNOW you're trolling. Man, after keeping up this act for so many years, you threw such a brilliant troll job away by overplaying your hand so badly.


A good troll job is based on statements that can't be definitely verified, not flat out lies, dude.

[Dinsdale]

.if the anti's are so certain human activity has nothing to do with the hockey stick graph I showed earlier, you'd think they'd be conducting scientific research in an effort to support their theories.....but they don't.....

What theories?

Someone proposed a new theory that's been PROVEN wrong. The "hockey stick" was an incorrect theory. No one needs to prove anything beyond that.

"Let's accept a theory that has been wrong every step of the way as fact, and now it's up to you to disprove it!"


In the words of some dude on the internet...

the sentence above demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about science so you should quit while you're behind....

Funny shit.

[Moving Sale]

but instead you blame the guy who used his State Of The Union Speech to scream about the problems with Freddie and Fannie from the mountaintops, years before the crash?

Yes dins Rs have no blame to be heaped on them. You dig ditched for a living and you are also stupid. I wonder if those two facts are connected somehow.

[Moving Sale]

Well just fuck a tree.

http://news.yahoo.com/frigid-winter-bla ... 47112.html

Great post there fatty. You should light a barrel of oil on fire to celebrate.

[Felix]

felix-
Bush was no great steward for the economy, but the blame for the 2008 collapse lays at the feet of William Jefferson Clinton, who put policies into place that inflated the housing market bubble that blew up in the last days of Bush's watch. If you want to blame Bush, and that is fine with me if you have the ability to hang some meat on those bones, identify the policies he championed and implemented during his term that caused the crash.

remember, it was the Republican controlled congress that passed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act under Clinton's watch that effectively did away with the Glass-Stegall Act....Glass_Stegall prevented banks from being all things to all people.....but you're right, the start of the financial crisis occurred under Clinton's watch......but cutting taxes during a plummeting economy was a predictably disastrous decision on Bush's part....Bush's tax cuts and spending increases and his disdain for the pay-as-you-go approach that had brought deficits down in the 1990s brought the return of permanent deficits...his decision to invade Iraq was also problematic for the economy....the administrations estimated costs were grossly understated (they predicted it would cost less than 100 billion) when in fact the cost of that incursion was in the trillions of dollars.....in a recessive economy, the last thing you want to do is start incurring costs for a war....then of course, there were the first of the wall street bailouts.....

What whims are the have-nots subjugated to by the haves? The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, under the control of the Democratic Party, are handing money over to the banksters every single day. It is criminal. But the Justice Department, again under the control of the Democratic Party, takes no action. And who is it that you regard as the vanguard for the have-nots? Please tell me you aren't that stupid. Please.

yep, they're handing out money to the tune of about 55 billion a month and it is criminal.....as far as the "whims of the haves" lobbyists now own both sides of the political spectrum.....dems and reps are equally guilty of enacting legislation that is not designed for the betterment of the people, but to line their own pockets with piles of cash.....vanguards for the have-nots? guys like Alan Grayson.....

I am not opposed to actual research. I am opposed to making tremendous changes based on research that has not yielded sufficient accuracy to justify making the tremendous changes. Your global warming research reminds me of an old joke. Two scientists take a frog into the laboratory and scream at it to Jump! It does, and they measure how far it jumps. 4 feet. They then hack off one of its legs and scream at it to Jump!. It does, but this time only 3 feet. They hack off another leg and scream at it to Jump! It does, but this time only 2 feet. They hack off another leg and scream at it to Jump! And the one-legged mother fucker jumps 1 foot. They then hack off the last leg and scream at it to Jump! Jump! But to no avail. They cannot get it to jump. Thus, they write into their lab notebooks that a legless frog cannot hear.

the only significant change that has occurred is the regulation of coal burning, which is a universally nasty source of energy.....the government wants coal fired plants to be more efficient....it's a relatively easy fix, but expensive.....but coal fired plants are a regulated industry and if they were to approach the local public utilities commission with a request to increase rates based on retrofitting existing plants with gasification technology, I don't think the local PUC's are going to give them a lot of grief over it.....but of course, the plant owners plead poverty......

If a meteor was headed toward NYC, I would stack all of the worthless AGW papers one atop another and hope that the million foot tower of bullshit would deflect the meteor from our planet like a cue stick (or hockey stick?). You say you don't want to cede power to the government, yet you want the government to take action to prevent AGW. How are these two positions reconcilable?

I don't think the government legislating more efficient combustible engines amounts to ceding power to the government....sure it costs a little more but in the end aren't we simply being good stewards of the planet? don't you want to leave this place a little better than when you came into it?

You don't understand it at all. Most scientists agree that there has been, until about 17 years ago, a small warming trend on Earth. The disagreement, which continues in scientific circles today, is how much of that warming is attributable to human activity, and how much is within the normal variability of the climate on Earth.

funny, you say I don't understand it at all yet you're quoting me pretty much verbatim from earlier posts.....I pointed out to Smackie that it's unknowable whether the warming would have occurred naturally, but it's pretty disingenuous of you to simply conclude that we have no impact....again, it's unknown but that's what Climate Science is trying to determine.....

On that point, there is very little agreement among the scientists. No one knows whether the impact caused by humans is significant or insignificant. It could be the equivalent of dropping a grain of salt in a water glass or it could be the equivalent of dropping a billiard ball in a water glass. All observations made to date suggest it is more likely the grain of salt. But those who want to cede more power to government see that billiard ball hurtling toward the water glass 100 years or so from now, you know, after your lifetime and my lifetime has ended.

all observations? really, maybe you can link me up to something that would support that conclusion......

There has not been a dramatic rise in temperatures that coincides with the industrial revolution. The rise in temperature since the 1930's pales in comparison to other temperature rises throughout pre-industrial times. I keep mentioning this to you, and I never get a response. About 22,000 years ago (which is recent in terms of the age of the Earth), there was ice 100' thick where my house presently sits.

I've responded to it numerous times, but apparently you don't or won't understand it.....the earths climate is largely attributable to orbital fluctuations that can and do change the amount of sunlight the earth receives....if the orbit changes a little and the amount of sunlight we receive decrease by a few percent, this will have a major impact on climate systems...the reason the land where your house now sits was covered with ice is because of the 22,000 year cycle of precession of the earths orbit.....now, we suddenly start introducing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere which increases the temperature ever so slightly......permanent ice starts to slowly melt and releases more CO2 into the air, which in turn raises the heat a little more.....now the climate is pretty well regulated by itself, but when you suddenly start introducing more and more CO2 into the air (which the Industrial Revolution did) it's inevitable that the temperature is going to rise....it doesn't need to be a significant rise, but enough to melt more ice and release more CO2 into the air......the concentration of CO2 prevents more of the heat reflected from the surface of the earth to escape back into space, and the upper atmosphere becomes warmer....this is the basic science of the greenhouse gas effect.....

This ice melted, and the glaciers covering almost all of Canada and a large portion of North America, retreated, without any aid from man and the burning of fossil fuels.

no it was aided by the fact that the orbit of the earth changed slightly....you know, for someone that proclaims to know the science, you seem to be leaving out a lot of the factors that affect the earths temperature.....are you doing this purposely, or are you oblivious to it?

It just went away all by itself. And it went away rapidly. The glaciated area we know of as Greenland was covered with grass and was generally "green" just a few thousand years later, when it was settled by peoples from Europe. And then that changed again, all before the industrial revolution. Thus, if we see climate changes like this naturally, what the fuck are we doing worrying about a 0.8°C rise in temperatures over the last 100 years? Your pissing in the wind statement would seem appropriate here.

yes, when you change the amount of sunlight the earth receives slightly, it has a huge effect on the planet.....the 22,000 year precession is exactly the reason why the 100 foot ice sheet that formally covered your house went away.....

[Moving Sale]

Inferior to whom? You fatty? Is that what you are claiming? That I am inferior to a fat stupid hick?

[Moving Sale]

What is the plan for preventing future changes to the Earth's orbit, oh wise one?

How is that post relevant to this discussion?

[Moving Sale]

How am I inferior to a fatty stupid yellow hick?

[Moving Sale]

So you have nothing as usual. Carry on fatty.

[Moving Sale]

Actually you called me a fuckhead and then I called you fatty. Any other lies you would like to post fatty?

[Moving Sale]

But you're a liberal.

Wtf are you talking about now? Pay better attention fatty.

[Moving Sale]

So still no facts from you just a bunch of poo flinging.

[Goober McTuber]

So still no facts from you just a bunch of poo flinging.

shutyomouth = truth in advertising

[Rooster]

<cub reporter with his hand to his ear>
"This just in-- biofuels are worse for the environment than regular gasoline according to a latest study."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... -biofuels/

More proof that the premise that green energy is just another name for giving taxpayer money to campaign bundlers and not based on solid science. Seriously, if our policies can't even get something right as basic as the stuff we pump into our vehicles' gas tanks we have no business extrapolating major financial shifts in our economy based off of spurious and admittedly wildly inaccurate data about AGW.

[Moving Sale]

So still no facts from you just a bunch of poo flinging.

What party do you usually vote for, lil' guy?

American independents. That good enough for you fatty?