global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

This is actually one issue where everyone is wrong.

The right is never more hilarious as when a cold spell or snowstorm comes around, and they start chirping "some global warming!" like a group of parrots. It seems impossibly stupid that they could have such a limited understanding of the issue.

As far as those on the left who push for new emissions standards & other mandates: first, there is no way to ever conclusively prove that man contributes significantly to the warming we are seeing. Second, even if we could prove that, none of the measures being proposed, or even measures that would be 10x more extreme, would make an iota of difference.


Exactly correct. It's ridiculous to piont to weather events and make claims of "proof" of climate changes. We can only make assertions about the climate from extended records and statistical analysis of said records.

The rate of warming has not correlated to increases in CO2 the way climate alarmists predicted. That can be said.

New information about water vapor and the forcing it provides in varying levels of humidity has also cut into the CO2 forcing attributed to humans.

New models will be built.

Cern CLOUD experiments are due to take place very soon. Hopefully they will have conclusive results and be able to determine if cosmic rays affect water vapor as hypothesized.

The debate is just getting started.

One thing is clear. The IPCC is worthless. How many more ridiculous sources can be tolerated? These guys have been making shit up basically.
 
Seriously girls, the only real debate about global warming/climate change is about blaming man for any change....no one seriously claims there is no such thing as climate change...we've talked about the changes that took place over the last 10,000 years or so....so stop mis-stating the subject of debate.....its not about snowstorms or heat waves....

Actually, it's about man's artificial contribution to the natural conditions and patterns of the Earth's environment. It takes a LOT of denial to look at the the increase in global deforestation urbanization, industrialization in the last century alone and then claim that mankind's contribution to climate change is negligible at best.

Oh, and men and women of intelligence discuss this matter. Thought you should know.
 
Originally Posted by bravo
Seriously girls, the only real debate about global warming/climate change is about blaming man for any change....no one seriously claims there is no such thing as climate change...we've talked about the changes that took place over the last 10,000 years or so....so stop mis-stating the subject of debate.....its not about snowstorms or heat waves....

I know, I know...but that still won't stop me from making jokes every time a snowstorm interferes with some GW conference...or snickering when some radio DJ makes a joke similar to it. It's just funny. :)

Did you read the information provided in the link of the first post?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
With the recent spate of intense snowstorms around the country (with the nation's capital currently in the spotlight)....the global warming deniers once again erroneously trumpet that these type of storms are PROOF that "global warming" doesn't exist. Thing is, increasing severe climate changes of all kinds is actually PART of the global warming phenomena...deniers just ASSUME that Warming is just like you turning up the heat in your house. That's not quite how it works.

Here's a site where a gentleman takes the time to put together the links that give a better explanation of what's going on.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/1...en-predicting/


Is fake data and a conspiracy to suppress dissent part of the global warming phenomenon?

No. And if you have legal proof of such (not your opinion, supposition and conjecture), then please supply it for a SPECIFIC case.

That being said, did you actually READ the material provided in the link? If so, what Specifically did you find to be "fake" or part of a "conspiracy"?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
With the recent spate of intense snowstorms around the country (with the nation's capital currently in the spotlight)....the global warming deniers once again erroneously trumpet that these type of storms are PROOF that "global warming" doesn't exist. Thing is, increasing severe climate changes of all kinds is actually PART of the global warming phenomena...deniers just ASSUME that Warming is just like you turning up the heat in your house. That's not quite how it works.

Here's a site where a gentleman takes the time to put together the links that give a better explanation of what's going on.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/1...en-predicting/

Please. The Deniers use the fact that the data was "massaged", wasn't "hacked", and is being found inaccurate by more and more scientists to say, "You've been caught."

It isn't that there are snow storms, it's the fact that they lied that hurts the climate change message.

What you are doing is trying to directly link one particular accusation of fraudulent practice leveled at ONE group as the rule of thumb for ALL the material provided in the link.....and THAT is totally erroneous on your part.

Since (to my knowledge)there has been no RULING that EVERY SCIENTIST and scientific group are guilty of the charge, and that group in question has NOT been found "guilty", your assertion falls flat.

Now, that being said, what is in the material presented in the link can you logically and/or factually prove wrong?
 
Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911

8 Dec 08 – A study by Gilbert Compo and Prashant Sardeshmukh of the University of Colorado and NOAA, and presented in the scientific journal Climate Dynamics, maintains that all of the greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere by humans over the last 46 years haven't affected land temperatures at all.

......

"A role for natural causes of at least some of the recent oceanic warming should not be ruled out."

Here's the problem when you post stuff you found from a rightwing blog in the hopes you can pass your bullshit off.

Somebody who is literate in science might actually go to a the actual website from the actual institute that did the study, and prove that you are misleading.

you've been lied to by the climate denialists....routinely and repeatedly. If you want to get getting your "science" information from rightwing blogs, fine. You also were easily fooled into supporting the bogus Iraq War.

I'm not as easily fooled, or as scientifically illiterate as you.

“This paper does not dispute that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the climate to change. However, it does show that the mechanisms of land warming may be different than commonly believed,” said study co-author Prashant Sardeshmukh.

http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press...orWarming.html

Well Done! Once again, an honestly inquiring mind, a familiarity with the subject matter and some decent research dismantles the deniers house of cards.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the flat earth fearmongers like Cypress refuse to admit that there is a scandal.
They refuse to admit that the data does not back up their claims.

They refuse to admit that their 'global warming (I mean climate change) champions' lied to them.

They refuse to admit their champions have tried repeatedly to suppress opposing views.

they refuse to admit their 'champions' believe in HIDING their data rather than allowing anyone to actually review it.

They refuse to admit their 'champions' destroy data that supposedly supports their view because it was 'too hard to store'.

They simply believe that if they shout it long enough people will believe them.

Unfortunately for them, the truth is now coming to light. More and more scientists are disputing what the frauds like Mann and Hansen have been propagating for decades. Because you see... if the government is behind the funding of these idiots, well then... it must be true... because the governments of the world would never lie to us... right?

So NO... the fearmongers do not back pedal... they just keep yelling.... THE WORLD IS FLAT

Essentially, you just avoid the FACT that Cypress provided UNDENIABLE PROOF that the source USFreedom uses DOES NOT support his or your assertions.

Once again, the one case you keep referring to has YET to be officially ruled as you say...and it's ONLY ONE GROUP involved in decades of research by scientist all over the world.
 
crapman strikes again....rain forests have come and gone just like deserts have come and gone and seas and oceans have come and gone and ice caps and glaziers have come and gone on this planet over the course of millions of years.....with nary a gas guzzling SUV in sight....we're doomed....

It's astounding how utterly proud you are of your own ignorance! To make these broad generalizations as if they are bonafide validation of your denial of facts speaks volumes of just how intellectually bankrupt you are (I hope you're just putting me on). Here einstein...a primer for your education. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Brazil celebrates 45% reduction in Amazon deforestation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/brazil-amazon-deforestation-climate-change-copenhagen

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1220-amazon.html
 
You're going to hell, its 6,000 years old if you have any respect for the bible.

I've never heard any Christian I know, claim the universe is 6000 years old. Not saying there aren't some out there, but I've never met one. I also know several theologians and biblical history scholars, and none of them interpret anything in the Bible about the Earth being only 6000 years old. So apparently, your source of information is incorrect.

30% in 100 years? Is that something that might associate with the fact that man has industrialized more than ever, in the history of the world, in the last 100 years?

It might, if we hadn't ever seen CO2 levels this high, but we have. Botanists say that most plant life on Earth evolved in a much richer concentration of CO2, and up until about the past 10,000 years, were actually 'starving' for carbon dioxide. Now, I don't think there was much industrialization going on back when plants evolved, but if you have some evidence to suggest that was the cause, I am all ears!

Come on, to claim that man is not contributing to the carbon buildup that is going on is to plug your ears. Not the first time for you, not the third, or 150th, but still, if you don't think that the industrialization at the scale that its been going for generations and the scale at which it is accelerating is causing any climate problems at all, then what's the point? You're just taking the polar opposite, and looking like a jackass in the process.

I don't know that man-made CO2 is causing "climate problems" as you claim. I do know that every living mammal to ever inhabit the earth for all of history, produced CO2 and released it into the atmosphere, you are doing that very thing right this moment as you read this post. It is impossible for mammals to avoid this, as they process O2 into CO2 to live. I also know that plant life requires CO2 to live, it process it into O2. Whether man-made CO2 has an effect on climate, I don't know, and neither do you. Even IF that were the case, you don't know that reducing it will reverse the effects or change an inevitable outcome. You want to spend trillions of dollars which doesn't belong to you, in order to do something that may not even be necessary, and I oppose that... I think our money can be better used for other purposes. No fingers in the ears, not ignoring what you have to say, I just disagree with your assessment because there is no basis for it.

Belching megatons of pollution into the air every single day is going to affect our enviornment and out climate. Why has this become a political football? Because of morons on the left who want to regulate everything, and reactionist sub morons on the right who allow them the elicit knee-jerk reactions from retards like you!!!

Now we've jumped to "pollution" and not carbon dioxide! And it is ME who is having 'knee jerk reactions' here? Carbon dioxide is a natural element, a part of nature, one of the more abundant natural elements in the universe. For you to consider it "pollution" is just a flat out fraudulent lie, but what else can we expect from your bunch of fanatics?

You have no basis in science to support your view. It doesn't exist anymore, the information you relied on was found to be fraudulent. Yet you want to maintain your argument without any factual basis for it, or science back it up. Perhaps you should consider forming a Church? Because that is what you now have with this movement, a FAITH!
 
It's astounding how utterly proud you are of your own ignorance! To make these broad generalizations as if they are bonafide validation of your denial of facts speaks volumes of just how intellectually bankrupt you are (I hope you're just putting me on). Here einstein...a primer for your education. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Brazil celebrates 45% reduction in Amazon deforestation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/brazil-amazon-deforestation-climate-change-copenhagen

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1220-amazon.html

Your links have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with my post...
other than you head, you have no point.
 
Exactly correct. It's ridiculous to piont to weather events and make claims of "proof" of climate changes. We can only make assertions about the climate from extended records and statistical analysis of said records.

The rate of warming has not correlated to increases in CO2 the way climate alarmists predicted. That can be said.

New information about water vapor and the forcing it provides in varying levels of humidity has also cut into the CO2 forcing attributed to humans.

New models will be built.

Cern CLOUD experiments are due to take place very soon. Hopefully they will have conclusive results and be able to determine if cosmic rays affect water vapor as hypothesized.

The debate is just getting started.

One thing is clear. The IPCC is worthless. How many more ridiculous sources can be tolerated? These guys have been making shit up basically.

You make a LOT of declarative statements as if there is NO contrary evidence. Essentially, you're just IGNORING the information given in the link of the opening post. And you keep trotting out the myopic viewpoint on CO2 that ignores at least 2 centuries of global deforestation, urbanization, industrialzation. That just doesn't make sense.
 
Good post Dix....I'm sure you get some response to it...and I'm just as sure the response will not address anything you've posted....
probably some links to some left wing nonsense that don't know the hoax has been exposed and the 'debate' is over for now....
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
It's astounding how utterly proud you are of your own ignorance! To make these broad generalizations as if they are bonafide validation of your denial of facts speaks volumes of just how intellectually bankrupt you are (I hope you're just putting me on). Here einstein...a primer for your education. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Brazil celebrates 45% reduction in Amazon deforestation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...nge-copenhagen

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1220-amazon.html

Your links have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with my post...
other than you head, you have no point.

You're a liar.....as the chronology of the posts shows, YOU made a specific statement about the forests and the oceans and such...as if mankind has had NO impact on the natural order of things. I provided facts that prove you wrong. Period. So stamp your little feet, lie, whine, deny, insult....do everything BUT honestly address the issues and responses. It makes no difference, you can't erase the posts.
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=600667&postcount=48"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again![/ame]
 
Sorry, but it's the oil business lobby that promotes the very viewpoint you have of ANY environmental scientist that dares to point out the flaws of "staying the course" with regards to our energy needs.

Case in point....the oil industry screamed bloody murder for YEARS when they were told to just clean up their acts regarding environmental impact. The Exxon Valdez disaster could have been avoided HAD EXXON MERELY INSTALLED ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT AND/OR PAID LOCAL CITIZENS TO MAN AN OBSERVATION POST IN THE AREA. Corporations went to court saying, "oh yeah, well PROVE that it was emissions from my plant that contributed to killing that lake with acid rain, and THEN I'll apply cleaner emission standards".

Yes, you have had controversy over 1 (ONE) group of scientist and their information (the jury is STILL out on that, despite all the supposition and conjecture and foregone conclusions).

The "drill baby drill" attitude isn't cutting it, because if we as a nation CONTINUE ON THE SAME PATH of energy consumption, even the fabled Anwar drilling would result in less supply than the amount of years, damage to the area and time/money to extract the oil.

There are alternatives...but people are selfish and greedy.

wow... you created a nice little strawman there.... you quite apparently did not read a word I wrote.

Try again.

Then try to answer these...

1) Do we have ANY control over environmental regulations for oil rigs/drills etc... in foreign countries? If so... how does that control compared to the same apparatus HERE in the US (or off our coasts)?

2) IF we were to drill here, does it keep the JOBS here in the US? Does it keep the money HERE in the US?

3) IF we allow the oil companies to drill our own reserves, do we or do we not control the percentage of the sale we receive in tax revenues?

4) WHERE in anything that I have written on the topic did I ever mention 'staying the course'??????

You see, your problem is hacks like you don't actually STOP and THINK about the problems and thus are incapable of coming to logical steps to correct said problems. Instead, you blindly follow a bunch of fear mongering flat earthers because they tell you 'big oil is bad... trust us no matter what shit we try to feed you'
 
What you are doing is trying to directly link one particular accusation of fraudulent practice leveled at ONE group as the rule of thumb for ALL the material provided in the link.....and THAT is totally erroneous on your part.

Since (to my knowledge)there has been no RULING that EVERY SCIENTIST and scientific group are guilty of the charge, and that group in question has NOT been found "guilty", your assertion falls flat.

Now, that being said, what is in the material presented in the link can you logically and/or factually prove wrong?

actually, it is not leveled at 'just one group' but several.

Obviously the email scandal points to the collaboration between many different groups to suppress opposing views.

The IPCC has come out twice in the last month to admit their report contained assessments based on bullshit and not on SCIENCE.

Hansen at Goddard also fights every FOIA request he gets.

So pretending it is only 'one' group is absurd.

Even if it were 'just one'... it is ONE of the THREE main sources the fear mongers use to support their flat earth theories.
 
You're a liar.....as the chronology of the posts shows, YOU made a specific statement about the forests and the oceans and such...as if mankind has had NO impact on the natural order of things. I provided facts that prove you wrong. Period. So stamp your little feet, lie, whine, deny, insult....do everything BUT honestly address the issues and responses. It makes no difference, you can't erase the posts.
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - global warming naysayers miss the point...again!

Yeah,yeah...its ok......I'm starting to realize you're not big on reading comprehension.....

Thought I'd BOLD and UNDERLINE the pertinent part to help you....
Maybe its a little over your head..

Originally Posted by bravo
crapman strikes again....rain forests have come and gone just like deserts have come and gone and seas and oceans have come and gone and ice caps and glaziers have come and gone on this planet over the course of millions of years.....with nary a gas guzzling SUV in sight....we're doomed....
 
Essentially, you just avoid the FACT that Cypress provided UNDENIABLE PROOF that the source USFreedom uses DOES NOT support his or your assertions.

Once again, the one case you keep referring to has YET to be officially ruled as you say...and it's ONLY ONE GROUP involved in decades of research by scientist all over the world.

1) Nothing I stated had anything to do with USFreedoms source...

2) once again you pretend it is just ONE organization coming under scrutiny. It is NOT just one. You would know this if you actually paid attention to the issue.
 
1) Nothing I stated had anything to do with USFreedoms source...

2) once again you pretend it is just ONE organization coming under scrutiny. It is NOT just one. You would know this if you actually paid attention to the issue.

Watch it Super.....next TC will declare grass really is green and point out you're a willfully ignorant neocon and you need to read his links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated.....its kinda standard procedure for him/it.
 
Watch it Super.....next TC will declare grass really is green and point out you're a willfully ignorant neocon and you need to read his links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated.....its kinda standard procedure for him/it.

You forgot the thing about "reviewing the chronology of the posts" ...that's important too!

So many times, I, like others, will naturally read the thread in arbitrarily random order, so I guess I must miss out on TC's brilliance. But he says, reading the thread in 'chronological order' is pertinent to understanding his idiocy. I guess that's why I can't ever make sense out of it?
 
Because I read ALL the available material, pro and con, and then come to a rational and logical conclusion. Also, I don't use an incorrect prediction that's over 30 years old and has LONG since been proven wrong by the current environmental scientists (as it was disagreed by others 30 years ago) as a final determiner.

And if your conclusion is incorrect, then what??
 
Back
Top