IPCC Part II

Darla said:
Superfreak anyone who can ask that question is a fucking moron and not worth discussing the problem with. I have been trying to decide who is more immoral, you or Onceler. I mean, he doesn't deny the problem or its effects. (as far as I know). And he shrugs (dear grandchildren; oh well, too bad, so sad, shrug) in the face of it. You deny the looming changes and their effects.

I guess taken at face value, he'd have to be the more evil one. But I don't really take you at face value. I highly doubt you believe the shit you post about this. I think you're just as immoral as he is. I think you know. Sorry, you are not quite that dumb. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

yes, given the fact that the models have been consistently wrong... I don't trust the fear mongering projections.

How many years have to go by without their predictions coming true before you start to question them???

Do you actually look at the data or just listen to the fear mongers and parrot what they say?
 
What "borders on evil" to me is someone who is willing to sacrifice many working class jobs for some pie in the sky idea that we can "stop global warming"...when the link in the OP says that EVEN IF AMERICA WENT COLD TURKEY TODAY, China would make up for that in 4 years.

So, experts - how will our gargantuan effort to revolutionize affect the atmosphere? Explain it to me, idiots.
 
Darla said:
Superfreak anyone who can ask that question is a fucking moron and not worth discussing the problem with. I have been trying to decide who is more immoral, you or Onceler. I mean, he doesn't deny the problem or its effects. (as far as I know). And he shrugs (dear grandchildren; oh well, too bad, so sad, shrug) in the face of it. You deny the looming changes and their effects.

I guess taken at face value, he'd have to be the more evil one. But I don't really take you at face value. I highly doubt you believe the shit you post about this. I think you're just as immoral as he is. I think you know. Sorry, you are not quite that dumb. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Tell me exactly what you think our getting off carbon will do for my grandchildren, if China's growth totally overshadows that within 4 years time?

Please be scientific in your answer.
 
Thing1 said:
Tell me exactly what you think our getting off carbon will do for my grandchildren, if China's growth totally overshadows that within 4 years time?

Please be scientific in your answer.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on whether or not you believe that CO2 is driving 'climate change'. If it is, then a reduction (by anyone) would naturally cause total volume to be less than it otherwise would be. If would not matter if other people increase as they will likely do so regardless of what we do. So our reduction would thus cause the increase to be less than it otherwise would be.

That said, given that CO2 has risen for the past 16 years, yet temps have not, it is hard to justify the belief that CO2 is driving warmer temps.
 
Superfreak said:
I think it depends on whether or not you believe that CO2 is driving 'climate change'. If it is, then a reduction (by anyone) would naturally cause total volume to be less than it otherwise would be. If would not matter if other people increase as they will likely do so regardless of what we do. So our reduction would thus cause the increase to be less than it otherwise would be.

That said, given that CO2 has risen for the past 16 years, yet temps have not, it is hard to justify the belief that CO2 is driving warmer temps.
Click to expand...

Even if one accepts AGW 100% - and for me, I don't think it's proveable one way or the other - it doesn't matter what we do, at all. The level of CO2 will go up.
 
Superfreak said:
I think it depends on whether or not you believe that CO2 is driving 'climate change'. If it is, then a reduction (by anyone) would naturally cause total volume to be less than it otherwise would be. If would not matter if other people increase as they will likely do so regardless of what we do. So our reduction would thus cause the increase to be less than it otherwise would be.

That said, given that CO2 has risen for the past 16 years, yet temps have not, it is hard to justify the belief that CO2 is driving warmer temps.
Click to expand...

There you go. DUH.

You see, SF has half of it, Onceler the other half. So what you have here is a case of two half -wits who only need to be rejoined in order to form an entire wit.
 
Superfreak said:
I think it depends on whether or not you believe that CO2 is driving 'climate change'. If it is, then a reduction (by anyone) would naturally cause total volume to be less than it otherwise would be. If would not matter if other people increase as they will likely do so regardless of what we do. So our reduction would thus cause the increase to be less than it otherwise would be.

That said, given that CO2 has risen for the past 16 years, yet temps have not, it is hard to justify the belief that CO2 is driving warmer temps.
Click to expand...

The earth has a given ability to absorb x amount of carbon, between the arboreal forests and the oceans. Eventually both of these carbon "sinks" will reach their saturation point.
That is when the greenhouse effect kicks into overdrive. Man has no way of knowing what the saturation point is. Especially you, Simplefreak, and your butt-buddy Thing.
 
Oh, the grandchildren!

Still waiting on some details. Can anyone explain how our efforts will make a difference in climate change - and this is fully accepting of the concept of AGW - if China's growth overshadows that in 4 years?
 
Rune said:
The earth has a given ability to absorb x amount of carbon, between the arboreal forests and the oceans. Eventually both of these carbon "sinks" will reach their saturation point.
That is when the greenhouse effect kicks into overdrive. Man has no way of knowing what the saturation point is. Especially you, Simplefreak, and your butt-buddy Thing.
Click to expand...

LOL... so your answer is 'trust me, eventually it will happen even though I just said we have no way of knowing what (if any) the saturation point is?

You realize that the CO2 is also released by the oceans as well? That has been the case since the dawn of time. Which to you fear mongers is around 1880.
 
Thing1 said:
Oh, the grandchildren!

Still waiting on some details. Can anyone explain how our efforts will make a difference in climate change - and this is fully accepting of the concept of AGW - if China's growth overshadows that in 4 years?
Click to expand...


You're basically asking how less carbon dioxide emissions would be better than more carbon dioxide emiisions. That's fucking stupid.
 
Rune said:
The earth has a given ability to absorb x amount of carbon, between the arboreal forests and the oceans. Eventually both of these carbon "sinks" will reach their saturation point.
That is when the greenhouse effect kicks into overdrive. Man has no way of knowing what the saturation point is. Especially you, Simplefreak, and your butt-buddy Thing.
Click to expand...

Another note Rune... tell us... if CO2 was driving temp changes in the 90's... how is it that we are not at saturation levels all of the sudden since 1998? Why the cessation of temp rising? Why would the oceans suddenly absorb more since 1998 vs. prior to it?
 
Dungheap said:
You're basically asking how less carbon dioxide emissions would be better than more carbon dioxide emiisions. That's fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

You think it will affect global warming if we get rid of emissions, but our atmosphere stays the same or gets worse because of China & other countries?

How inane do you think that might be?
 
Superfreak said:
Another note Rune... tell us... if CO2 was driving temp changes in the 90's... how is it that we are not at saturation levels all of the sudden since 1998? Why the cessation of temp rising? Why would the oceans suddenly absorb more since 1998 vs. prior to it?
Click to expand...

Actually you have not proven that temperatures are not rising. It is another distortion, nothing more, so the basis of your argument is garbage, nothing, zero.
 
China is leading the world in clean energy policies, they are cleaning up emissions and implimenting green. Their citizens are taking pollution and global warming seriously.

I wish we were as serious about the problem.
 
Rana said:
China is leading the world in clean energy policies, they are cleaning up emissions and implimenting green. Their citizens are taking pollution and global warming seriously.

I wish we were as serious about the problem.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING, we have a winner folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top