A picture that's worth one thousand stolen E-Mails

ib1yysguy said:
God you're so retarded.

Yes they're records of temperatures. Comparing this century to ice sore samples of air back when man was still in the trees was not the point of the article/scientific finding. The point was that this is the hottest decade since the current warming trend began.

And cyclical patterns can't account for the unprecedented speed at which the earth is presently warming. The SCIENCE shows that what accounts for that is human contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...


Then hoiw do you explain the previous (before mankind) occured and what brought those warming trends to an end.

Are you suggesting that Dinosaurs had an industrial age?? :palm:
 
And the lethally-simpleminded ID edits the article of its most important comment:

Global Research Editor's note

The following article represents an alternative view and analysis of global climate change, which challenges the dominant Global Warming Consensus.

Global Research does not necessarily endorse the proposition of "Global Cooling", nor does it accept at face value the Consensus on Global Warming. Our purpose is to encourage a more balanced debate on the topic of global climate change.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
 
ib1yysguy said:
And cyclical patterns can't account for the unprecedented speed at which the earth is presently warming. The SCIENCE shows that what accounts for that is human contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...

bullshit, look at the charts...if anything, this cycle is slower than normal.....it's embarrassing having to explain this stuff to you....
 
And the shrewish mare ignores the fact that I posted a link to the fucking article...you dumb bitch... :)

christiefan915 said:
And the lethally-simpleminded ID edits the article of its most important comment:

Global Research Editor's note

The following article represents an alternative view and analysis of global climate change, which challenges the dominant Global Warming Consensus.

Global Research does not necessarily endorse the proposition of "Global Cooling", nor does it accept at face value the Consensus on Global Warming. Our purpose is to encourage a more balanced debate on the topic of global climate change.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
Click to expand...
 
Onceler said:
Nah; you know it makes economic & national security sense to accelerate the development of domestics & green tech. But you'll still oppose efforts to do so, because they're "liberal" ideas.

And you'll even try to do some tapdance about how plants want MORE industrial revolution, because they were really hurting before that...
Click to expand...

I know that passing a bunch of meaningless control-freak regulations on business and industry, is NOT going to stimulate anything but DESPAIR! I oppose such measures on THOSE grounds, I don't care what kind of political IDIOT is supporting it! Lindsey Graham included!

There is no tapdance about what plants need and want. Again, this is basic 7th grade science, plants live off carbon dioxide, and actually THRIVE in higher concentrations of it! That IS science, it can't be denied or disputed, it IS the truth! There is no data being concealed, I haven't destroyed any findings, there is no email conspiracy going on, it's just a commonly known fact of botanical science. You can't dispute it, all you can do is mock it and illustrate what a science-illiterate IDIOT you are.
 
"all you can do is mock it and illustrate what a science-illiterate IDIOT you are"

Hey, Dix...what did that ol' cerebral cortex evolve FROM, anyway?

LOL
 
Onceler said:
"all you can do is mock it and illustrate what a science-illiterate IDIOT you are"

Hey, Dix...what did that ol' cerebral cortex evolve FROM, anyway?

LOL
Click to expand...

I don't know, why don't you tell me, you fucking moron? It's another example of your liberal stupidity. Gorillas have a larger cerebral cortex than we do, yet they aren't spiritual creatures... go figure? How did that happen? Unless of course, they are YOUR ancestors... that would explain your profound idiocy!
 
Onceler said:
you know it makes economic & national security sense to accelerate the development of domestics & green tech.
Click to expand...

The quickest way to energy independence is nuclear and domestic reserve development.

Green tech is just the next government sponsored bubble, based on synthetic demand.

These bubbles detached from true organic demand always end poorly.
 
AssHatZombie said:
The quickest way to energy independence is nuclear and domestic reserve development.

Green tech is just the next government sponsored bubble, based on synthetic demand.

These bubbles detached from true organic demand always end poorly.
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to domestic drilling. I'm not as keen on nukes.

Regardless, within a century, the planet will have no choice except to switch to renewable energy sources. It's not even debatable.
 
Yes, the last decade saw global cooling, not warmingDon Easterbrook

The decade of 2000 to 2009 appears to be the warmest one in the modern record, the World Meteorological Organization reported in a new analysis on Tuesday. Does that mean that the past decade hasn't been cooling?

No-of course not. Comparison of the red line in Fig. 1 with pre-1998 decades shows that the past decade is warmer, but the blue line shows cooling during the past decade-although the decade is warmer than previous decades, the climate did cool during the decade.

74966800.png


Figure 1. Atmospheric temperatures 1900 to 2009. The blue line shows global cooling for the past decade; the red line shows the length of the decade.

Thus, the claim that this proves no global cooling during the past decade is totally false. This is a difficult concept for non-scientists (and apparently some scientists!) to grasp. An analogy would be riding a bicycle up a long hill for a century, going over the crest of the hill and coasting downhill for a decade. Even though you have been going downhill for a decade, you are still higher up the hill than previous decades.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Then hoiw do you explain the previous (before mankind) occured and what brought those warming trends to an end.

Are you suggesting that Dinosaurs had an industrial age?? :palm:
Click to expand...

RETARD

Again, it's the SPEED at which the warming is happening. Warming and cooling has happened before, but never this fast. That's a scientific fact. And the speed is what makes it so difficult for life to adapt to. The extra speed is attributed by scientists to the extra greenhouse gas production since the industrial revolution.
 
ib1yysguy said:
God you're so retarded.

Yes they're records of temperatures. Comparing this decade to ice sore samples of air trapped back when man was still in the trees was not the point of the article/scientific finding. The point was that this is the hottest decade since the current warming trend began. (Which, by the way, eviscerates every single idiot who has continually posted some editorial bit from some geologist somewhere trying to claim that this decade has exposed a cooling trend).

And cyclical patterns can't account for the unprecedented speed at which the earth is presently warming.(this is the lie you fucking idiot!!)The SCIENCE shows that what accounts for that is human contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...

It all rests on CO2 forcing being as much as theorized, which we know was done using tree ring proxy data mated to real temps!!

A statistical lie!!


http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/004-038/004-038a.html


EFFECTS OF CO2 ENRICHMENT

Effects on photosynthesis

If increases in atmospheric CO2 were occurring without the possibility of associated changes in climate then, overall, the consequences for agriculture would probably be beneficial. CO2 is vital for photosynthesis, and the evidence is that increases in CO2 concentration would increase the rate of plant growth. Photosynthesis is the net accumulation of carbohydrates formed by the uptake of CO2, so it increases with increasing CO2. A doubling of CO2 may increase the photosynthetic rate by 30 to 100%, depending on other environmental conditions such as temperature and available moisture.[1] More CO2 enters the leaves of plants due to the increased gradient of CO2 between the external atmosphere and the air space inside the leaves. This leads to an increase in the CO2 available to the plant for conversion into carbohydrate.[2] The difference between photosynthetic gain and loss of carbohydrate by respiration is the resultant growth.
 
You what's really funny? They keep refering to 1998 as the warmest year blah blah blah, but they have to be clueless not to understand 1998 is an outlier. It's not significant. And the warming trend we're in is diverging from the alarmist scenario back the the normal interglacial trend you seem to be utterly unaware of.

LOLZ
 
ib1yysguy said:
RETARD

Again, it's the SPEED at which the warming is happening. Warming and cooling has happened before, but never this fast. That's a scientific fact. And the speed is what makes it so difficult for life to adapt to. The extra speed is attributed by scientists to the extra greenhouse gas production since the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...

There was no need to announce yourself, before posting.
Most already consider you to be the Retard.

I like that you used the word "attributed"; because this doesn't meant that they can prove it, it just means that they FEEL that it may be.

Come back to me, when you have something that is definite.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
There was no need to announce yourself, before posting.
Most already consider you to be the Retard.

I like that you used the word "attributed"; because this doesn't meant that they can prove it, it just means that they FEEL that it may be.

Come back to me, when you have something that is definite.
Click to expand...

It is as close definite as science lets us get to being definite about anything, retard. It's a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top