We can't stop global warming
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
- Status
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So again you refuse to answer the question????
Tell me genius... when you refuse to look at the data provided... how is that believing in science? Seems much more like putting your hands over your ears, closing your eyes and humming so that your precious little consensus can remain pure. Damn that pesky data. Damn it all to hell.
The very clear trend over the past 20 years is warming. The very clear trend over the past 10 years is warming. Don't take my word for you ludicrous, head-in-the-sand ignoramous....take a look at the effects, which are undeniable:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19463513/
To randomly take one anomoly of a year - 2007- and draw the kind of far-reaching conclusions that you seem so comfortable with, and think that a friggin' anomoly should "make us all question" the validity of literally a mountain of data, is laughable in the field of science. You have argued repeatedly that 1 down year gives great pause to the idea that we are experiencing any kind of "trend," as though any climate scientist worth his or her salary thinks that "warming" means a steady quarter-degree rise in temperature year-after-year, so over each 10 year period we should be able to draw a smooth, uinterrupted line that ascends without interruption from the start point to the end point.
God, but you're a simpleton....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Oh, gee golly that hurts...you called me a simpleton. When it is painfully obvious that your reading comprehension skills suck.
I restate my earlier post....
"I have not stated that global warming doesn't exist. I have agreed with you that the past ten years have been some of the warmest on record. "
"Again, this doesn't mean that significant warming didn't occur during the 1990s. It just means they have stabilized over the past ten years and we should be asking ourselves WHY?"
You are obviously intent upon creating your little strawman so that you can continue to ignore the question.
Again, I am not "randomly taking one year" out of the data. I am using the most recent years data and looking back at the preceding ten year time frame. What the fuck is so hard about that to understand? You turned right around and talk about "over the past twenty years" .... that is also another acceptable time frame that would not be considered random. Yet for some reason you think choosing the past ten year time frame is.... I wonder why?
AGAIN.... yes, global warming has occured over the past twenty years. Most significantly in the 1990s. The warm temperatures have caused the average temperatures over the past ten years to be some of the warmest on record. BUT the point you continue to ignore is that while they are the warmest on record... they are no longer showing signs of the rapid increases... they are also showing that they have stablized....
Yet you continue to bury your head in the sand, shouting consensus and hoping that pesky little data set goes away. All the while creating one strawman after another to try to twist what I am saying into some sort of denial of global warming. Yeah, you are a true believer in science.
1) There are already strict laws on the books pertaining to “pollution”, aka particulate matter, sulfer compounds, soot. Unless you recognize CO2 emissions as a threat to health and human welfare because of it’s greenhouse properties, there’s no way to craft policy or law to deal with it.
2) Hydrocarbon fuels will be the dominant form of energy for decades to come. We’re far, far away from having zero emission sources of energy play a major role in our energy consumption.
3) As such, for the next few decades, the goal is to manage CO2 emissions (not eliminate them), while making progress towards zero emissions sources. And by managing them, we’re talking about mitigating it’s effects through conservation, efficiency, and sequestration. Again, this requires a conscious effort to recognize what CO2 does to the atmosphere.
4) Any public policy pertaining to climate change, not only has to deal with sources of CO2. But also with sinks of CO2. It’s not a one-way closed system, it is an open cycle. Sound energy policy that addresses climate change has to address the CO2 sinks, as well as its sources. That would include national and global policies towards deforestation, rainforest and coral health, and general health of oceanic systems. Yet again, this requires an explicit recognition of the greenhouse properties of CO2 on the atmosphere.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Now, just because it will be fun, lets take a closer look at the above.
1) We have covered your strawman with regards to the "randomly picking one year" or calling that an anomoly.
2) Show me once where I argued that 1 down year gives "pause" or anything of the such. I have not once brought up a one year period. That is your idiotic strawman.
"as though any climate scientist worth his or her salary thinks that "warming" means a steady quarter-degree rise in temperature year-after-year, so over each 10 year period we should be able to draw a smooth, uinterrupted line that ascends without interruption from the start point to the end point."
Now this is the best strawman yet.... where have I ever stated anything remotely close to that?
yes, a trendline is linear and thus by definition a straight line, but that does not mean that all data points fall upon the line you idiot. When you change time frames it also will change the trends. The trend over the past twenty years is warming. The trend over the past ten has been warm temperatures.... but they have been stable. (meaning that over the past DECADE the temperatures are on average where they were ten years ago)
DO YOU DISPUTE THAT LORAX? Or are you just going to avoid answering it again so that you can create another strawman?
ARE TEMPERATURES ON AVERAGE THE SAME IN 2007 AS THEY WERE A DECADE EARLIER IN 1998?
uscitizen
Villified User
Quote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon168.htm
The oil industry-funded ecoalarmists like Al Gore scream for drastic cutbacks in the use of oil, arguing that man-generated carbon fuel emissions are causing global warming and that, in fifty to one hundred years, greenhouse gases will convert Planet Earth into a global atrium. At that time, the core planetary temperature will begin to rise dramatically, melting the polar caps and raising sea levels to such a degree that sea level Florida will become Venice-under-the-sea and several island nations around the world will become 21st century Atlantises.
The only problem with Gore's inconvenient truth is that it's pure, unadulterated Chicken Little bunk. Not that global warming isn't real. It is. It just isn't caused by you or me. It's caused by cyclic solar activity combined with planetary greenhouse gases. In other words, blame Mother Nature not people.
Research on the sun's contribution to global warming was reported in the October, 2003 issue of Astronomy & Geophysics magazine. By looking at solar activity over the last 11,000 years, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) astrophysicist, Mark Clilverd, predicted that the sun's contribution to global warming will decrease over the next 100 years. As you will see, what that means is, Al Gore's inconvenient truth is a rather convenient lie.
augmentum ad verecundiam.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon168.htm
The oil industry-funded ecoalarmists like Al Gore scream for drastic cutbacks in the use of oil, arguing that man-generated carbon fuel emissions are causing global warming and that, in fifty to one hundred years, greenhouse gases will convert Planet Earth into a global atrium. At that time, the core planetary temperature will begin to rise dramatically, melting the polar caps and raising sea levels to such a degree that sea level Florida will become Venice-under-the-sea and several island nations around the world will become 21st century Atlantises.
The only problem with Gore's inconvenient truth is that it's pure, unadulterated Chicken Little bunk. Not that global warming isn't real. It is. It just isn't caused by you or me. It's caused by cyclic solar activity combined with planetary greenhouse gases. In other words, blame Mother Nature not people.
Research on the sun's contribution to global warming was reported in the October, 2003 issue of Astronomy & Geophysics magazine. By looking at solar activity over the last 11,000 years, British Antarctic Survey (BAS) astrophysicist, Mark Clilverd, predicted that the sun's contribution to global warming will decrease over the next 100 years. As you will see, what that means is, Al Gore's inconvenient truth is a rather convenient lie.
augmentum ad verecundiam.
I agree with this. While there's a remote chance that the science is all wrong, and CO2 emissions aren't a problem, the fact is we are currently virtually as certain as science is capable of proving, that CO2 emissions are contributing significantly to the warming of the planet.
And I will go one step further than you: superfreaks grandkids will be cursing people like him, who spent 20 years denying that global warming was even happening, and who then went on to drag their feet and minimize the nature of the problem. Possibly, until it was too late.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Ahhh yes, here is gumby again with a strawman. How sweet. You switch to humping Lorax's leg now?
moron.
I can't handle dealing with ignoramus' like Superfreak, and Asshat. Superfreak, there's a reason you have battleborne, tinfoil, and asshat on your side. And, its not a very flattering reason.
Asshat, your scientific lesson for the day is that plants are NOT dependent on anthropogenic emissions of CO2. Plants have been around for 400 million years, and get all the CO2 they need from the natural sources, and natural equilibria.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So you cannot handle someone pointing out data because it interferes with your precious consensus view?
I state that the globe has warmed... especially in the 1990s. That the globes average temperatures have remained at those elevated levels. But point out that they have not increased in the past decade and you get worked into a strawman frenzy?
You are an idiot. Or are you trying to imply that temperatures have increased on average over the past decade?
Which is it Gumby? Are you an idiot? Or are you saying the data from Goddard is wrong?
Thorn
Member
Now we have the reports yesterday and today that (a few of us already knew about this) our water supply contains a plethora of pharmaceutical compounds. This already is affecting the health and wellbeing of fish and wildlife. For those who are less concerned about that, it of course is affecting humans as well. I knew about the unmetabolised estrogen in our water (this whole topic is the focus of a good friend's PhD dissertation) but expected this to be a much larger problem, which it is, when an empirical study was conducted. The results so far are preliminary. What is detected will be only what was anticipated and tested for.
This is just one more source of the negative impact that we as humans have unthinkingly made on the planet. And we will suffer for it.
Thorn
Member
Yep. We're smart enough to manipulate our world in the short run for our convenience, but not wise enough to perceive the far-reaching consequences of those actions.
uscitizen
Villified User
Superfreak: “You are an idiot. Or are you trying to imply that temperatures have increased on average over the past decade?”
***UN-World Meteorological Oranization Press Release***
GENEVA, 13 December, 2007 (WMO) – The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Other remarkable global climatic events recorded so far in 2007 include record-low Arctic sea ice extent, which led to first recorded opening of the Canadian Northwest Passage….
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html
***UN-World Meteorological Oranization Press Release***
GENEVA, 13 December, 2007 (WMO) – The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Other remarkable global climatic events recorded so far in 2007 include record-low Arctic sea ice extent, which led to first recorded opening of the Canadian Northwest Passage….
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_805_en.html
Last edited:
Bai Lan
Let It Rot
And many are elitist enough to use any lie necessary to seize control of the planet's energy. That's what's most qft here.
- Status