T1B

Can't handle the truth eh fatty?

Moving Sale wrote:

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

How is that post relevant to this discussion?

The term "Carbon Footprint" has a different meaning for you doesn't it? It's a small element on the Periodic Table.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald

not a climate scientist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

not a climate scientist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

unknown, but probably not a climate scientist

“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine

a defunct magazine

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt

not a climate scientist

“[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine

a magazine

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

not a climate scientist

It's scary that most of mankind puts all their trust in these dumbasses.

i've never heard of any of these sources with the exception of newsweek and life, but i can assure you no knowledgeable person puts any trust in this sort of non-sense.....the effects of climate change will take a long time to fully manifest themselves, long after I'm gone.....

No, not climate scientists, but not just piss soaked incoherent bums. 40 years ago, global cooling was the worry among alleged smart folks. They based it on a short term cooling trend, just as today's supposed experts base warming on another short trend, which seems to have stalled.

If the warming trend and all its hockey stick graph BS is so fukking solid, how did the 1970 scientists miss it? Were they stupid or just ignorant to recently discovered data?

As for the population bomb problems, I do believe it is real. The timetables set by folks in the 60s were obviously off, but, we really do need to give this topic some thought.

Felix wrote:i've never heard of any of these sources with the exception of newsweek and life, but i can assure you no knowledgeable person puts any trust in this sort of non-sense.....the effects of climate change will take a long time to fully manifest themselves, long after I'm gone.....

Those are all quotes from the first Earth Day in 1970. Hysterical doom criers in the Environmental movement have been wrong from the beginning. The simply go from one discarded bullshit theory to another.

The only constant is their desire for control and hatred of their own species. It's a religious cult and a dangerous one.

The IPCC has a bunch of "climate scientists," and every one of their predictions failed, too.

YHKYOA

Dinsdale wrote:The IPCC has a bunch of "climate scientists," and every one of their predictions failed, too.

YHKYOA

I thought you said they were all Psychologists.

Moving Sale wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:The IPCC has a bunch of "climate scientists," and every one of their predictions failed, too.

YHKYOA

I thought you said they were all Psychologists.

You thought wrong.

Dinsdale wrote:Dr Richard Lindzen has forgotten more about climate science than the entire IPCC will ever know. But he got paid to speak by an oil company, so that disqualifies his knowledge, right?

And why are MOST of the "scientists" on the IPCC psychologists?

So what did you mean by this? Is it the difference between me using the word all and you using the word most? This is from page one btw.

Moving Sale wrote:Is it the difference between me using the word all and you using the word most?

Most people use these words all day long.

Do you really not know what they mean?

Sometimes I forget what a twat you are which is why I asked what you meant. I had thought you had said all, but indeed you said most. So for the second time in one thread, could you please post a link? Take your time and dig a ditch if you need a few bucks. I'm in no great hurry.

Papa Willie wrote:Felix - Here are a few stories to keep you busy:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... rmism.html

I waded through a few of the articles I could (most require purchasing the archived story) but didn't find any scientific documentation in any that I could read......the authors quoted somebody who knew somebody that knew somebody that was a janitor at some geological lab....not exactly what I call compelling documentation.....

look it's no skin off my nose if you don't want to acknowledge the scientific evidence.....those who want to believe there is no such thing as anthropomorphic climate change are entitled to believe whatever they want.....convince yourselves of whatever you want, but I choose to rely on the scientific evidence I've seen.....

Sudden Sam wrote:

Language warning. NSFW.

damn, that's funny......

Felix wrote:I choose to rely on the scientific evidence I've seen.....

And what "scientific evidence" is there to separate natural variability from human activity? Go ahead and lay out the percentages.

mvscal wrote:
And what "scientific evidence" is there to separate natural variability from human activity? Go ahead and lay out the percentages.

these are the types of questions deniers typically ask "tell us exactly how much human activity has influenced climate change"
you know it's impossible to quantify a number like that......it's like me asking you to prove that the earths increasing temperatures are strictly a product of natural fluctuations and variability in the earths temperature......

Felix wrote: these are the types of questions deniers typically ask "tell us exactly how much human activity has influenced climate change"

Seems to be a logical question when you assert that human beings are having a disastrous impact on climate.

you know it's impossible to quantify a number like that......

In other words, you have absolutely no idea let alone any evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate at all.

You may go now.

mvscal wrote:
Seems to be a logical question when you assert that human beings are having a disastrous impact on climate.

I said the burning of fossil fuels was impacting our climate based on the data I've seen....you want some type of quantification of a number you know can't be quantified......then conclude that because I can't give you a specific number it must not exist....tough to argue with that kind of inane logic.....

In other words, you have absolutely no idea let alone any evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate at all.

You may go now.

then lets hear you're explanation for why the temperature on earth is increasing....oh and I want specific numbers and your proof that the increases are solely a product of natural variability.....knock yourself out....

Felix wrote:then lets hear you're explanation for why the temperature on earth is increasing....

Because that's what it has been doing off and on for the last 10,000 years. There is no such thing as a stable climate. It gets warmer. It gets colder. The only thing it never does is stay the same.

It's not up to me to prove a negative. You claim that humans are disrupting the climate yet you can't quantify to what extent. Not only that, you don't even seem to think that it is important that you be able to do so. You think that we would should blindly push ahead with economically damaging remedies to something that might not even be a problem. That makes you an idiot.

Skepticism is a fundamental part of the scientific process and you label skeptics as "deniers." That makes you a religious fanatic as well as an idiot.

mvscal wrote:

Because that's what it has been doing off and on for the last 10,000 years. There is no such thing as a stable climate. It gets warmer. It gets colder. The only thing it never does is stay the same.

It's not up to me to prove a negative. You claim that humans are disrupting the climate yet you can't quantify to what extent. Not only that, you don't even seem to think that it is important that you be able to do so. You think that we would should blindly push ahead with economically damaging remedies to something that might not even be a problem.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative you fucking gene splice.....you've asserted that man has no influence on the earths climate....that is a hypothesis.....now you need to demonstrate how you support that hypothesis....and sorry, "the temperature changes" doesn't suffice.....I've provided graphs which demonstrate the temperature increases coincided with the Industrial revolution....there's an overwhelming number of scientific papers written on how the industrial revolution has affected the atmospheric conditions on earth.....you on the other hand have supported your hypothesis with nothing more than "because I say so"....sorry, I'm going to need something a little more substantive than that.....

cue the link to wattsup website where everything on that website has been proven wrong time after time after time......

Felix wrote:you've asserted that man has no influence on the earths climate.....

Ah, no. YOU claim that humans are disrupting the climate. I'm simply asking you to what extent are humans disrupting the climate and what is your methodology for separating human activity from natural variability. Those are questions that must have definitive answers if you ever intend to prove that humans are having a catastrophic impact on the climate.

If you can't answer those questions, then you can't say that humans have any effect on the climate.

mvscal wrote:I'm simply asking you to what extent are humans disrupting the climate and what is your methodology for separating human activity from natural variability. Those are questions that must have definitive answers if you ever intend to prove that humans are having a catastrophic impact on the climate.

If you can't answer those questions, then you can't say that humans have any effect on the climate.

This.


Felix,

You are the one saying that humans are having an effect on the temperature of the planet. It isn't unreasonable for others to then demand that you PROVE your position. You have provided evidence to support your claim, but you haven't come close to proving anything. Furthermore, it is fine for you and even scientists to form an opinion on why, but you have to recognize that without proof it is only an opinion.

The scary part is you and others want to act upon evidence and opinion instead of first proving your position. That is what scares me. Where does that line of thinking stop? I hope you never find yourself in a Jury box.

mvscal wrote:
what is your methodology for separating human activity from natural variability.

substantial increases in greenhouse gasses such as nitrous oxide (which only is produced naturally with lightning strikes), chlorofluorocarbons, which don't occur naturally, substantial increases in methane, which does occur naturally but the levels of this greenhouse gas have increased at an alarming rate.....these increases can be linked directly to mans activities because these gasses didn't exist at the levels they currently exist at prior to the industrial revolution....

pure coincidence I'm sure......

88 wrote:On one hand, he states that the science of climate change is settled

this is a bald faced lie.....hence my support for continuing research.....the only people that think the science is settled are those that argue that man has no influence on the climate......

Felix wrote:substantial increases in greenhouse gasses such as nitrous oxide (which only is produced naturally with lightning strikes), chlorofluorocarbons, which don't occur naturally,

These gasses barely even rate as trace gasses. Their impact on climate isn't even measurable.

substantial increases in methane, which does occur naturally but the levels of this greenhouse gas have increased at an alarming rate.....these increases can be linked directly to mans activities because these gasses didn't exist at the levels they currently exist at prior to the industrial revolution....

A. Define 'substantial.'

B. Correlation does not equal causation. It does equal an ancient logical fallacy, though. (cum hoc ergo propter hoc)

C. Methane is consumed by human activity.

But we do have a clue why we should stop using FF. CO2-O3-CO and whatnot.

Felix wrote:substantial increases in greenhouse gasses such as nitrous oxide (which only is produced naturally with lightning strikes), chlorofluorocarbons, which don't occur naturally, substantial increases in methane, which does occur naturally but the levels of this greenhouse gas have increased at an alarming rate.....these increases can be linked directly to mans activities because these gasses didn't exist at the levels they currently exist at prior to the industrial revolution....

How exactly were scientists in the 1700s measuring nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons and methane in parts per million, prior to the industrial revolution?


That's right they weren't.


So what are you basing these numbers on then? Scientists today studying ice core samples? We don't have enough data to know exactly how accurate ice core data might be.

When those actual air measurements in ppm are found from the 1760s we can compare them to todays ice cores. Or in 300 years we can take an ice core and see how each layer corresponds to year by year actual air measurements and then we will have an idea. Today it is just a best guess.

Moving Sale wrote:But we do have a clue why we should stop using FF. CO2-O3-CO and whatnot.

None of those are reasons to stop using fossil fuels.

Left Seater wrote:When those actual air measurements in ppm are found from the 1760s we can compare them to todays ice cores. Or in 300 years we can take an ice core and see how each layer corresponds to year by year actual air measurements and then we will have an idea. Today it is just a best guess.

Rack.

I have wondered this same thing.

We have been taking accurate measuerments of things for maybe 100 years, some things a litte longer. Anything before that is pretty much SWAGs. Not so sure about the S part of that acronym.

What we do know, is that the climate changes. The general long term trend over say 10,000 years appears to be warming. It also appears that civilization has prospered during warming trends and got buttfukked in the mouf, when it cooled.

There is a reason to curb FF use. It is the fact that they are getting more expensive/difficult to find. As this trend continues it will make economic sense to develop other fuels. What we do not need is the feds artificially doing this and picking their buddies to reap the benefits.

smackaholic wrote:

Left Seater wrote:When those actual air measurements in ppm are found from the 1760s we can compare them to todays ice cores. Or in 300 years we can take an ice core and see how each layer corresponds to year by year actual air measurements and then we will have an idea. Today it is just a best guess.

Rack.

I have wondered this same thing.

We have been taking accurate measuerments of things for maybe 100 years, some things a litte longer. Anything before that is pretty much SWAGs. Not so sure about the S part of that acronym.

What we do know, is that the climate changes. The general long term trend over say 10,000 years appears to be warming. It also appears that civilization has prospered during warming trends and got buttfukked in the mouf, when it cooled.

It was only a matter of time before one of the piss soaked incoherent bums weighed in. Thank you.

No, but it is a very strong argument for using vaporizers and edibles.

Moving Sale wrote:No, but it is a very strong argument for using vaporizers and edibles.

I see. A viable alternative. What viable alternative is there for hydrocarbon fuels?

Your fat ass could walk to the store.

mvscal wrote: These gasses barely even rate as trace gasses. Their impact on climate isn't even measurable.

yes insignificant...that's why they write scientific research papers on nitrous oxide, because it has no effect whatsoever......
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/1801/ ... 1-2014.pdf
oh, it does.....

A. Define 'substantial.'

Correlation does not equal causation

that's true, unless you can demonstrate that the correlation and causation are in fact interrelated, which in the case of greenhouse gas emissions is really easy to demonstrate.......when you start increasing all forms of greenhouse gasses, it's going to trap more heat.....or do you want to argue against basic science now?

Methane is consumed by human activity.

really? so how do we consume the methane produced from farm animals, from land fills, from the loss associated with transporting natural gas? how do we "consume" that methane?

Rack 88.

My goodness 88, God would not be at all happy with this scenario. Poptart is his #1 supporter and fan.

Also, a small portion of the Asian community might be confused.

88 wrote: The science is settled. Poptarts must be banned, cold bullshit must be consumed, you know, to protect the children and all.

So no more district taco? Booooooo!

No Willers, it's Denialism =Corporate profits....

Your half-assed parroting of tired and repetitious Koch bile is done...just shut up...


WW

Papa Willie wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/skept ... ng-report/

Yup. Global Warming = marketing.

I wonder if we could find an opposing viewpoint on Daily Kos?

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:But we do have a clue why we should stop using FF. CO2-O3-CO and whatnot.

None of those are reasons to stop using fossil fuels.

No, this is the reason to stop using fossil fuels, you malignant spore..

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No Willers, it's Denialism =Corporate profits....

Your half-assed parroting of tired and repetitious Koch bile is done...just shut up...


WW

How would that work, you brain-dead, moronic, butter-fucking lump of shit?

What, are you drunk this early in the day? Look, get this on one bounce...Corporations look to make tremendous profit by denying Climate Change dangers by avoiding the costs of cleaning up their acts. Why do you suppose the Koch brothers are investing hundreds of millions in relentless droning propaganda to Deny --and attack the EPA?

First, the figures are obviously bloated. But even so, what can you prove? That investing in the future technologies is stupid or corrupt? Can you present any actual evidence of his dishonesty? And what about those milky white Beijing skies? What..are you in some denial?