Last time Earth hit these CO2 levels there were trees at the South Pole

silly goat fucker, the hoax was the claim that global warming was caused by man

The science is settled; it's caused by man.

Science doesn't care about your beliefs; neither does the climate.


a claim you folks now pretend you never made

So you're bearing false witness again, sinner.

First you say we say global warming is caused by man, then you say we don't say that, then you say we did, then you say we didn't.

You're a fucking fraud, and I see right through you.


.global warming is cyclical.

No it's not.


everyone knows and admits that.

This freak is using "everyone" the same way Trump uses "people are saying".

No one knows that, and no one admits that...you are just lying that they do because you're a liar.
 
Yes, we know reading is hard for you.

How could someone so lazy be expected to read something?

The nerve.

Why would I read anything after I questioned a certain point?

If I f gave you a 30 point paper and my third point was that man is absolutely not responsible for global warming or for the nuclear bomb..... Would you continue reading the rest of myb points as seriously?
 
Superstorm Sandy was enough to convince me that it's too late. The sheer historical size of that storm, when it hit, how it hit, how much damage it caused...all of it were unlike anything mankind has ever seen before.

We are fucked. Even if we cut all carbon emissions tomorrow, we are still fucked. Greed killed mankind. Good riddance.

I will say this.

All of the outcomes from this human-induced greenhouse effect are bad. The remaining important question is just how bad. The choices we make now are going to determine that question.

The Climate Deniers who were squawking that more CO2 will be great for us (we will grow oranges in Alaska!), are the type of people who have no ethical problems indulging in flagrant deception, dishonesty, and have an abiding aversion to reason and integrity.
 
No, it is alarmist bullshit.

No, you're just a fraud who doesn't want to admit you're wrong because doing so would indict everything else you believe.

Basically, if we pull at this thread of yours, the whole fucking sweater of your beliefs unravel.
 
If I f gave you a 30 point paper and my third point was that man is absolutely not responsible for global warming or for the nuclear bomb..... Would you continue reading the rest of myb points as seriously?

1. I wouldn't read anything you gave me.
2. I can't trust anything you gave me.
3. If I gave you a 30 point paper about how fucking dumb you are, would you read it?
 
I will say this.

All of the outcomes from this human-induced greenhouse effect are bad. The remaining important question is just how bad. The choices we make now are going to determine that question.

The Climate Deniers who were squawking that more CO2 will be great for us (we will grow oranges in Alaska!), are the type of people who have no ethical problems indulging in flagrant deception, dishonesty, and have an abiding aversion to reason and integrity.

Anyone who doesn't accept the science is deliberately acting in bad faith, and they should be treated as such.
 
I will say this.

All of the outcomes from this human-induced greenhouse effect are bad. The remaining important question is just how bad. The choices we make now are going to determine that question.

The Climate Deniers who were squawking that more CO2 will be great for us (we will grow oranges in Alaska!), are the type of people who have no ethical problems indulging in flagrant deception, dishonesty, and have an abiding aversion to reason and integrity.

Once again the leg humping rape apologist proves he is one of THOSE people.

The sentence preceding it proves it.
 
Bullshit. We've already been thru two rapid 10 degree changes in the last 200k years.

We've never been through a period of global warming anywhere near this fast. There are two issues the low-IQ set has, which cause them to cite graphs like the one you did:

(1) They can't tell the difference between local warming and global warming, so they'll point to a single site to try to make a point about the globe as a whole.

(2) They have no grasp of timescale, so they'll point to a graph that's so compressed that it's impossible to gauge the speed of warming on a scale relevant to the current period of anthropogenic warming.

As to that latter point, take a look at the graph. In pixel terms, it's about 676 pixels wide, and covers a period of about 425,000 years. So, every single horizontal pixel marks about 629 years. Thus, the entire period of the current instrument record (1880-2019) would take up about 1/5 of one pixel. The industrial era would not even show up on that graph -- disappearing between pixels.

So, take a look at one of those temperature spikes.... say, the most recent one. It runs from abut -8 degrees Celsius to about 2 degrees Celsius over the course of about 13 horizontal pixels. That's about 8,180 years.... a period longer than the whole history of human civilization. So, even in that very rapid period of local warming, we're talking about a warming rate of about 818 years per degree of warming. By comparison, since 1975, warming has been happening at a rate of about 1.5-2 degrees C per century. We're talking about warming currently happening at a pace over a dozen times what you see in the steep parts of your graph.

Of course, that's all obvious at a moment's glance to anyone with a science background, or at least a decent IQ. But it never even occurs to the dummies on the right, who will post graphs like that, imagining foolishly that they support their case. How can one even discuss such matters with people that thick?
 
Last edited:
Yeah... and....

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

Try to focus.
 
We've never been through a period of global warming anywhere near this fast. There are two issues the low-IQ set has, which cause them to cite graphs like the one you did:

(1) They can't tell the difference between local warming and global warming, so they'll point to a single site to try to make a point about the globe as a whole.

(2) They have no grasp of timescale, so they'll point to a graph that's so compressed that it's impossible to gauge the speed of warming on a scale relevant to the current period of anthropogenic warming.

As to that latter point, take a look at the graph. In pixel terms, it's about 676 pixels wide, and covers a period of about 425,000 years. So, every single horizontal pixel marks about 629 years. Thus, the entire period of the current instrument record (1880-2019) would take up about 1/5 of one pixel. The industrial era would not even show up on that graph -- disappearing between pixels.

So, take a look at one of those temperature spikes.... say, the most recent one. It runs from abut -8 degrees Celsius to about 2 degrees Celsius over the course of about 13 horizontal pixels. That's about 8,180 years.... a period longer than the whole history of human civilization. So, even in that very rapid period of local warming, we're talking about a warming rate of about 818 years per degree of warming. By comparison, since 1975, warming has been happening at a rate of about 1.5-2 degrees C per century. We're talking about warming currently happening at a pace over a thousand times what you see in the steep parts of your graph.

Of course, that's all obvious at a moment's glance to anyone with a science background, or at least a decent IQ. But it never even occurs to the dummies on the right, who will post graphs like that, imagining foolishly that they support their case. How can one even discuss such matters with people that thick?

Conservatives know all this; they just act in bad faith because of their egos.

Of course they accept man is responsible...they just don't want to admit it because admitting that would be a tacit admission their judgement isn't as good as they want people to believe.

The con they've been pushing is embedded in their DNA now...so if the con is proven invalid, so are they.
 
I hope the PCCS gets up and running soon, this constant stream of bullshit needs to confronted head on. Anybody that says the science is settled is just a fool and not worthy of serious consideration. There are a huge number of scientists that do not consider the science is settled and here is just one of them!!

https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/28/...emissions-concentration-scenarios/#more-24842

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/24/is-rcp8-5-an-impossible-scenario/

Judith Curry is one of the few genuine scientists embraced by the denialist set, since she's one of the only one who says denialist-friendly stuff. But, if you read what she's actually written, even she's not disputing the basics of the climate change consensus position. She just quibbles about the models and expresses greater uncertainty about the magnitude of the problem.
 
No it's not.

science says "go fish".....
Ice_Age_Temperature.png
 
Cite one scientific peer reviewed study that has that as a conclusion. One.
^^ A disingenuous question, which parrots something you read on a rightwing blog, and I am sure you did not come up with this line of reasoning independently yourself.

To even ask this question comes from either abject ignorance, or an overt embrace of dishonesty and deception.

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4

Abstract

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
 
Back
Top