T1B

War Wagon wrote: You've gone from global warming activist to doubting Thomas now that 88 has impolitely smacked you for 27 rounds.

Here's a suggestion: Go peddle your tripe elsewhere, nobody is buying it.

Buying it? No one's buying or selling anything. There's just this getting stuffed up yer ass! Or what?

88 wrote:you can look through ...additional junkets to nice resorts for conferences and other hand-wringing.

You love oil and the people that profit from it. We get it. Now post something worthwhile for a change.

i'm going to spread this thread across my lawn and watch it grow green

Bizzarofelice wrote:i'm going to spread this thread across my lawn and watch it grow green

That might help. I'm no scientist and haven't read many studies but I imagine the de-forestation and over development cutting down the number of plants able to consume CO2 has had an impact.

We need more CO2 eaters.

And cars that run on gas and corn extracted from poop.


YES WE CAN

but this is human excrement.

excrement from herbivores would be acceptable, but carnivore excrement could contain pathogens and viruseseses. Should be composted before spreading across the lawn to watch it gro green.

Bizzarofelice wrote:but this is human excrement.

excrement from herbivores would be acceptable, but carnivore excrement could contain pathogens and viruseseses. Should be composted before spreading across the lawn to watch it gro green.

Good call.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

That looks like the cover to Houses of the Holy... without naked chicks.

close enough

Tom In VA wrote: And cars that run on horse and/or bullshit

YES WE CAN

sifting through the piles of horseshit and bullshit that exist in washington DC today would be enough power our country through the 28th century

War Wagon wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

That looks like the cover to Houses of the Holy... without naked chicks.

No, wags, it's like Oklahoma in the 1930's after tedious dimwit Denialists thought it was fine to plow ahead with shortsighted obliviousness to basic environmental consciousness.

Now...can you say "desertification"? I know it's a big word, and you're a little slow, but it refers to a critical situation across the globe that's getting worse because stupid and easily herded dummies like you are blindered from basic facts by the likes of the Koch brothers and their highly financed Denial Machine.

Okay? I know you're feeling a little poopy from all the high-fructose lard food that you pump through your gasping system, but try to wake up and pay attention. Because there will be No Quarter if you don't :wink:

"News that must get through..."

So the dune coons are responsible for the Sahara Desert?

BSmack wrote:The fact remains that global temps were the highest last year of any year on record. Period.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -year.html

So Earth is only 130 years old?! pops'll pissed that the Book got it wrong....

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, wags, it's like Oklahoma in the 1930's after tedious dimwit Denialists thought it was fine to plow ahead with shortsighted obliviousness to basic environmental consciousness.

there were global warming denialists back in the 1930's????

who fucking knew
(try and figure out why your statement above is patently stupid)

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:The fact remains that global temps were the highest last year of any year on record. Period.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... -year.html

So Earth is only 130 years old?! pops'll pissed that the Book got it wrong....

i think "on record" is the qualifier here....we've only been instrumentally measuring and recording temperatures since about the mid 17th century (although educated "guesses" probably go back as long as humans have been walking around)...

only since the mid 1800's have these measurements been with reliable scientific instruments

Felix wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No, wags, it's like Oklahoma in the 1930's after tedious dimwit Denialists thought it was fine to plow ahead with shortsighted obliviousness to basic environmental consciousness.

there were global warming denialists back in the 1930's????

No, just ignorant blustering morons who presumed that mankind was unable to severely affect the ecosystem. Got it?

The agenda for farming those areas was based on a irresponsibly optimistic view of the planet as a breadbasket to be reaped as we see fit. Sort of like the Romans as they deforested the Northern coasts of Africa causing desertification which remains to this day.

WW

so, the romans created the sahara?

news to me.

Not the whole Sahara, you simplistic idiot, just the permanently ruined Northern coast of modern Libya and Algeria. No one's suggesting that deserts aren't natural, only that we are drastically increasing them--especially areas that we humans want and need to be fertile and viable--and that we actually can stop this process and even reverse it. Gee..doesn't that blow your little mind? But first wind-up cowards like you need to acknowledge what's happening, stop the tedious stalling denials, and get the fuck in the game.

Right now you and all the deniers--including those actually making money through rampant pollution--are not even in the discussion. You're just a boring speed bump.

And this thread is done.

Felix wrote:i think "on record" is the qualifier here....we've only been instrumentally measuring and recording temperatures since about the mid 17th century (although educated "guesses" probably go back as long as humans have been walking around)...

only since the mid 1800's have these measurements been with reliable scientific instruments

Thank you, O Master of the Oblivious. I think I eliptically made that point only about 19 pages ago.

I don’t suppose a bit of cipherin’ will make you feel any worse about the ass-kicking you just managed to give yourself.

Using conservative figures, let’s say the earth is 4 Billion years old. And keeping with conservative estimates, let’s say “modern” man is 100,000 year old. Which means our species has inhabited this rock for roughly 0.0025% of its existence.

Now, let’s take a look at your “instrumental” measures, and generously say that we’ve been able to accurately track the earth’s temperatures for 130 years. Never mind that figures from Nepal or Bangladesh might be a bit sketchy… That measure of yours spans all of 0.13% of OUR existence – or just 0.0000000325% of that of the Earth’s.

And you’re trying to tell us that science has empirically proven (:meds:) that mankind is solely responsible for the fluctuations within the earth’s temperature gradient, just because a bunch of propeller-heads incented by government cheese have said so?

Simply. Ponderous.[/dins]

I’ll ask you again: How do you know how hot or cool this planet ever was? How do you know how hot or cool this planet is supposed to be?

all the sales reps and warehouse clerks who populate this message board understand science better than scientists

Depends on who's scientists you choose to believe, Biz.

Well, THAT, and a bit of Common Sense...

Truman wrote: Common Sense...

ie shit you can't explain but sounds correct to your limited capacity

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Truman wrote: Common Sense...

ie shit you can't explain but sounds correct to your limited capacity

Zactly. Like that “beam me up” stuff on Star Trek (how’d they do that shit?), or canned Spam (ham and pork shoulder? Who knew?)

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Not the whole Sahara, you simplistic idiot, just the permanently ruined Northern coast of modern Libya and Algeria. No one's suggesting that deserts aren't natural, only that we are drastically increasing them--especially areas that we humans want and need to be fertile and viable--and that we actually can stop this process and even reverse it. Gee..doesn't that blow your little mind? But first wind-up cowards like you need to acknowledge what's happening, stop the tedious stalling denials, and get the fuck in the game.

Right now you and all the deniers--including those actually making money through rampant pollution--are not even in the discussion. You're just a boring speed bump.

And this thread is done.

Sounds to me like they need to hire the zionazis living just up the coast who have been pretty damn successful at cultivating their little strip of sand. But, nahhhh, it's a lot easier for the current sandkneegrow dwellers there to sit around and bitch about how some evil white euros fukked it up two mellenia ago.

smackaholic wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Not the whole Sahara, you simplistic idiot, just the permanently ruined Northern coast of modern Libya and Algeria. No one's suggesting that deserts aren't natural, only that we are drastically increasing them--especially areas that we humans want and need to be fertile and viable--and that we actually can stop this process and even reverse it. Gee..doesn't that blow your little mind? But first wind-up cowards like you need to acknowledge what's happening, stop the tedious stalling denials, and get the fuck in the game.

Right now you and all the deniers--including those actually making money through rampant pollution--are not even in the discussion. You're just a boring speed bump.

And this thread is done.

Sounds to me like they need to hire the zionazis living just up the coast who have been pretty damn successful at cultivating their little strip of sand. But, nahhhh, it's a lot easier for the current sandkneegrow dwellers there to sit around and bitch about how some evil white euros fukked it up two mellenia ago.

One other thing.

Ever see that satellite pic of the island of hispanola? you can tell the haiti side from the dominican side because the haiti side is barren.

Wasn't aware them fukkin roman lumberjacks made it that far.

Moving Sale wrote: You love oil and the people that profit from it. We get it. Now post something worthwhile for a change.

When you're in lockstep with LTS, you might wanna rethink your position.


You must be one seriously shit-ass lawyer -- there's no possible way imaginable that bullshit like this wouldn't get you laughed out of a courtroom.


What does the "burning oil is bad" concept have to do with the accuracy of an emerging field of science?

Data is either accurate or it isn't. Theories and hypotheses are either accurate or not.

How exactly does "burning oil is bad" have any fucking bearing whatsoever on whether or not A) the data, or B) the theories and hypotheses are accurate or not?

Wait, that was a rhetorical question -- what I actually meant to say was "shut the fuck up, you blithering fucking idiot."


Dude, an 8th grade social studies class could hold a mock court, and the pimply face D&D nerd would have laughed at you while you just flunked the class.

smackaholic wrote: Sounds to me like they need to hire the zionazis living just up the coast who have been pretty damn successful at cultivating their little strip of sand. But, nahhhh, it's a lot easier for the current sandkneegrow dwellers there to sit around and bitch about how some evil white euros fukked it up two mellenia ago.

Entirely wrong. The artificial race state known as Israel has in fact caused tremendous damage to the area's delicate ecosystem. You may have noticed that they gave up on the "make the desert bloom" nonsense. Why? Because to their horror they realized that they were very quickly draining the aquifers. They import almost all of their food. And now that they are desperately ramping up the process of desalinization of sea water--in fact they're leading the way--they're faced with another mounting dilemma--gigantic piles of toxic residue. Of course they've long been simply commandeering Palestinian property with wells--and just saying fuck you to the owners, as well as international law. But that's what outlaw nations do.

As for Haiti, this is a simple example of what not to do.

What's your point again? Oh, that somehow Libya might repair its coasts? Are you that fucking stupid? We haven't--and can't--repair Oklahoma, and that was only seventy years ago. You're pretty dim on environmental issues, we notice.

Dinsdale wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: You love oil and the people that profit from it. We get it. Now post something worthwhile for a change.

When you're in lockstep with LTS, you might wanna rethink your position.


You must be one seriously shit-ass lawyer -- there's no possible way imaginable that bullshit like this wouldn't get you laughed out of a courtroom.


What does the "burning oil is bad" concept have to do with the accuracy of an emerging field of science?

Data is either accurate or it isn't. Theories and hypotheses are either accurate or not.

How exactly does "burning oil is bad" have any fucking bearing whatsoever on whether or not A) the data, or B) the theories and hypotheses are accurate or not?

Wait, that was a rhetorical question -- what I actually meant to say was "shut the fuck up, you blithering fucking idiot."


Dude, an 8th grade social studies class could hold a mock court, and the pimply face D&D nerd would have laughed at you while you just flunked the class.

Dins....you're in lock step with GLENN BACK, you pathetic hack. How dare you even show your name after standing shoulder to shoulder with the demented Mormon cry baby nut job? Seriously, how can you think you have any credibility on anything when you've based your mealy denialism on a Glenn Beck conspiracy rant about George Soros?
Just sit down and shut up.

Truman wrote:
Thank you, O Master of the Oblivious. I think I eliptically made that point only about 19 pages ago.

I don’t suppose a bit of cipherin’ will make you feel any worse about the ass-kicking you just managed to give yourself.

sorry dude, I just usually scroll wheel through your responses, so my bad

Using conservative figures, let’s say the earth is 4 Billion years old. And keeping with conservative estimates, let’s say “modern” man is 100,000 year old. Which means our species has inhabited this rock for roughly 0.0025% of its existence.

Now, let’s take a look at your “instrumental” measures, and generously say that we’ve been able to accurately track the earth’s temperatures for 130 years. Never mind that figures from Nepal or Bangladesh might be a bit sketchy… That measure of yours spans all of 0.13% of OUR existence – or just 0.0000000325% of that of the Earth’s.

And you’re trying to tell us that science has empirically proven (:meds:) that mankind is solely responsible for the fluctuations within the earth’s temperature gradient, just because a bunch of propeller-heads incented by government cheese have said so?

wherein have I ever said that science has "proven" human activities are contributing to global warming....all I've ever said is that based on the evidence I've seen, I fall on the side of the proponents of AGW....

How do you know how hot or cool this planet is supposed to be?

and I'll answer it for the second time, the same way I answered it the first time....when did I ever offer an opinion on what temperature the earth is "supposed" to be? all I've said is the earth is warming, and it appears from the evidence I've read that man may have some role in that warming.......

where do come up with this shit?

Felix wrote: and I'll answer it for the second time, the same way I answered it the first time....when did I ever offer an opinion on what temperature the earth is "supposed" to be? all I've said is the earth is warming, and it appears from the evidence I've read that man may have some role in that warming.......

and other evidence, the concrete, non smooved historical type says the earf temps fluctuated much more dramatically prior to our heaving boatloads of carbon into the sky.

Felix wrote:

Truman wrote:How do you know how hot or cool this planet is supposed to be?

and I'll answer it for the second time, the same way I answered it the first time....when did I ever offer an opinion on what temperature the earth is "supposed" to be? all I've said is the earth is warming, and it appears from the evidence I've read that man may have some role in that warming.......

where do come up with this shit?

Answering a question with a question is not an answer, Felix. So I'll answer it for you: You can't, and neither can the High Priests of your Fraud Religion.

"Where do come up with this shit?" Really?

You offer up graphs and links under the guise of evidence proving AGW, and then sputter with indignation when anyone dares question their accuracy and/or legitimacy, and look to escape derision (from a SmackBoard, no less) by pathetically bleating "I never said... I never said... I never said..." whenever anyone connects you to the fallacies of these arguments.

But then again, I'm not the one bent on taking a whipsaw to the same branch I crawled out on vociferously defending the theories of a whole host of environmental fakes and political hacks, either.

A better question would be why do you believe the shit in the first place?

Why? Because the scientific bodies which have determined that Climate Change is very real are the most reputable such bodies in the world. While the Denialist "expert" panels are verified to have been funded by the Koch brothers. Okay? It's pretty clear. And you've nothing to dispute this--except the usual childish catcalls and smears, which is what the Tea Baggers are all about in the first place. So..? :doh:

Truman wrote: A better question would be why do you believe the shit in the first place?

Do oil companies pay you to act stupid or does it come naturally?
Name one good thing about oil addiction or STFU you stupid silly fuckbowl.

Papa Willie wrote:Can somebody lock this fucking thread? I promise - I will NEVER start another fake global warming thread again.

No you don't. The next time it is warm on a winter morning or cool on a summer eve you will squeal with glee and think "you know what will really get Al Gore's goat..."

smackaholic wrote:and other evidence, the concrete, non smooved historical type says the earf temps fluctuated much more dramatically prior to our heaving boatloads of carbon into the sky.

and I've noted repeatedly; there are lots of factors that drive the earths climate, but two of the most important are;
1) solar irradiance
2) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

with the solar irradiance being the biggest

I always laugh when some denialist (not skeptic, because skeptics don't purport to KNOW) spouts off that "there were higher CO2 levels in our atmosphere" yet fail to acknowledge that at the same time, the solar irradiance was substanatively less when CO2 levels were higher.....

88 wrote:I've learned something new here. I am a Skeptic, but not a Denialist. Since there seems to be some agreement that the science of AGW is not settled, how are people who sign on to the AGW agenda to be classified? Believers, Lemmings and/or Dupes?

people like me that believe based on the evidence are proponents-people like al gore are classified as "opportunists", the others that "know" are referred to as "pocket change" for the "opportunists"

People like you listen to right-wing radio hacks and regurgitate the sour gas that's pumped into your feeble lobes.

Your so-called evidence has been clearly shown to have been directly sponsored by the Koch brothers denial machine. And of Murdoch and his phony FOX News has helped out as well. You are a tedious idiot with who doesn't dare step out from your cat-call sand box. Pathetic.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:People like you listen to right-wing radio hacks and regurgitate the sour gas that's pumped into your feeble lobes.

Your so-called evidence has been clearly shown to have been directly sponsored by the Koch brothers denial machine. And of Murdoch and his phony FOX News has helped out as well. You are a tedious idiot with who doesn't dare step out from your cat-call sand box. Pathetic.

holy shit, I'm being attacked by both sides.....

I must be on to something here.....

Felix wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:People like you listen to right-wing radio hacks and regurgitate the sour gas that's pumped into your feeble lobes.

Your so-called evidence has been clearly shown to have been directly sponsored by the Koch brothers denial machine. And of Murdoch and his phony FOX News has helped out as well. You are a tedious idiot with who doesn't dare step out from your cat-call sand box. Pathetic.

holy shit, I'm being attacked by both sides.....

I must be on to something here.....

relax felix. TiVO knibbles at EVERYBODY'S ankles.

You only have to worry if he sides with you....on anything.

Sorry Fellix, my bad. I hardly have time to read the crap these butt-parrots belch. Like Dick Cheney, I mistook you for a bird.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Not the whole Sahara, you simplistic idiot, just the permanently ruined Northern coast of modern Libya and Algeria.

Link?

Papa Willie wrote:Color me fascinated with people like LTSuck for completely ignoring the fact of how much money Algore has made off of this scam.

how much money has he made, and what "scam" are we talking about?