We can't stop global warming

DigitalDave said:
Well, yeah, that's kind of obvious. Trendlines are linear. Points might be all over the place but the actual 'trendline' would stay linear. You answers would be better met with 'I don't know why this decade hasn't shown a net gain in warming. It could be a that we hit a peak, or it just isn't progressing as quickly as it did last decade.' Meeting questions like that with resistance is where it becomes childish.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Many if not most scientists earn their money fairly close to the top of the military industrial complex money pyramid. The elitist in them or direct threat can compel them to invent lies, fallacious computer models etc. Everything is for sale. they're even monetizing the atmosphere.

The co2 lie sets the stage to tax us all just to breathe.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Why do you choose to be a brainwashed ignorant idiot?
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding. Anyone who views the issue from an ideological perspective - at either end of the spectrum - is an ideological idiot. Those who try and understand the science are patently not ideological idiots.
 
uscitizen said:
I am an idiot because I try to follow the majority of the scientific experts opinions. Of course :)
Click to expand...


I'm going to start a thread on the medical science of neurosurgery, and see if superfreak chimes in to proclaim himself qualified to comment on neuroscience.
 
SF is a believer in the new realms of Political Science. And the inquisition for those who disagree with the politics of "science".
 
Cypress said:
I'm going to start a thread on the medical science of neurosurgery, and see if superfreak chimes in to proclaim himself qualified to comment on neuroscience.
Click to expand...

Gets you thinking; if SF actually needed surgery, would he want a doctor who agreed with the consensus on a procedure, or would he go with the renegade who had a new theory about an "anesthesia-free" procedure, and was able to show SF a chart from past patients where they were pain-free before the surgery and pain-free after the surgery, so you could draw a staight line between the 2 periods and conclude that the pain was really "flat" as a result, so no worries?
 
Onceler said:
Gets you thinking; if SF actually needed surgery, would he want a doctor who agreed with the consensus on a procedure, or would he go with the renegade who had a new theory about an "anesthesia-free" procedure, and was able to show SF a chart from past patients where they were pain-free before the surgery and pain-free after the surgery, so you could draw a staight line between the 2 periods and conclude that the pain was really "flat" as a result, so no worries?
Click to expand...


LOL

No, climate science is the only field in science where superfreak feels free to blow off the expert opinion of the overwhelming, vast majority of researchers.

Obviously, he does it for political reasons.

If 11 out of 12 neurosurgeouns told superfreak that he had a brain tumour, and one told him he had a clean bill of health, I think superfreak would be going with the majority opinion.
 
Wow... look at the children.... embarrassed so they continue creating their little strawmen.... No crows coming round you boys.

I note yet again, that you morons cannot address the facts. You instead stamp your feet and cry... but hey, at least you have each other to cry with.

Just so that you are all aware... anyone can see that you are failing completely to address any of the facts before you.... simply because you cannot comprehend the very simple fact that the data is against you.... that no scientist in his/her right mind would try to argue with the data from Goddard showing that temperatures have not increased on average over the past decade....

Yet here you idiots are... continuing to act like juveniles and refuse to look at the data. Refusing to comprehend that we are actually about 90-95% in agreement. Refusing to comprehend that the data from Goddard does NOT mean that man is not effecting global temperatures, while that could be true... it could also be true that something else is offsetting the increase of man with a corresponding decrease.

But that is beyond your ability to comprehend isn't it boys? Because you simply are not capable of thinking for yourselves. How completely pathetic of you.
 
Cypress said:
LOL

No, climate science is the only field in science where superfreak feels free to blow off the expert opinion of the overwhelming, vast majority of researchers.

Obviously, he does it for political reasons.

If 11 out of 12 neurosurgeouns told superfreak that he had a brain tumour, and one told him he had a clean bill of health, I think superfreak would be going with the majority opinion.
Click to expand...


Again you fucking moron..... why do continue to cower in fear of answering this.....

I note you still haven't addressed this Cypress....

Great.... show me any one scientist that would dispute anything I have stated....

1) Global warming has occured over the past 50 years.

2) The period in the 90's saw a dramatic increase to record temperatures.

3) From 1998-2007 we saw the warmest decade on record as those record temperatures were maintained.

4) 2005 was the warmest year on record druing that warmest decade on record.

There... are you still with me? Good.

Now.... find one that will disagree that average global temperatures in 1998 and 2007 were the same.

Nope... can't do that either can you?

Tell us all Cypress.... why do you fear answering the above? Why don't you show us all these experts I am supposedly blowing off????

Oh but thats right... because it doesn't fit into your fantasy world..... does it Gumby?
 
Cypress said:
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.


NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!! WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG THAT THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE PEOPLE WHO'VE CORRUPTED IT, HAVE BEEN PUSHING THE SCIENCE TO MEET THEIR AGENDA, WHICH YOU JUST DECRIBED.

GOD DAMN YOU'RE A RETARD

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.

CO2 EFFECTS ARE OVERSTATED DUE TO MODEL ERRORS SPECIFICALLY THE MODELS ASSUME AN INFINITE ATMOSPHERE... RIDICULOUS!!

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.


BLAH BLAH BLAH


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.
Click to expand...

CONSENSUS!!!!
 
o

i prefer to refer to the problem as global weather change

human nature being what it is, i too do not expect mankind to change its ways until it is forced too

however, consider what will happen to the world's albeto as the sea level rises, but then it will also diminish as the ice melts and the square miles of ice diminish

watch for food and water wars as both become shorter in supply

for now, watch for cooler winters and warmer summers and serious changes in the habits and habitats of fish
 
DonQuixote said:
o

i prefer to refer to the problem as global weather change

human nature being what it is, i too do not expect mankind to change its ways until it is forced too

however, consider what will happen to the world's albeto as the sea level rises, but then it will also diminish as the ice melts and the square miles of ice diminish

watch for food and water wars as both become shorter in supply

for now, watch for cooler winters and warmer summers and serious changes in the habits and habitats of fish
Click to expand...

You need to educate yourself to achieve a better informed worldview. Manmade global warming is a convenient lie.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You need to educate yourself to achieve a better informed worldview. Manmade global warming is a convenient lie.
Click to expand...

convenient for whom

add methane and co2 to a system irradiated by sunlight and guess what - temperatures rise


sea level and global average temperatures have risen over the last century - why - an increase in solar radiation does account for all of it - so what else is causing it or at least adding to the problem - for us that is - nature could care less and apparently, neither does god
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top