Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
His idiocy provides a venue for repeated and increasingly more refined restatements of the truth.
scared?: al gore bails on copenhagen
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
His idiocy provides a venue for repeated and increasingly more refined restatements of the truth.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
When the truth is on your side, anger doesn't occur. Im just a pass through for reality itself.
Arguing with creationsits and AGW LIARS is like shooting fish in a barrell.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
good trolling water...
If the sexual frustration gets to overwhelming for you... try Louisa if Rosie is tired.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
A valid point.... do continue on then...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The truth of intelligent design and AGW conspiracy theories?
It's dead. It is OVAH.
Dumb argument, anyway. First, AGW cannot be proven, either way; it simply cannot. I don't know what findings you are talking about that conclusively link man to climate change. There is nothing conclusive, at all.
Second, even if man was SOLELY responsible for climate change, we'd have to go cold turkey on everything right now in order to improve the trend a century from now. And, if you look at the science, it probably doesn't even matter at that point, anyway (once things go for awhile, "natural" triggers kick in, and even more natural CO2 gets released, exacerbating the cycle). And we can't go cold turkey; even the most stringent measures they are proposing are weak.
Third, you're insane if you think this doesn't land a death blow to the AGW proponents. Perception is everything in politics.
Fourth, there are incredibly good economic & national security arguments for accelerating the development of domestic, renewable sources of energy. Unlike AGW, these can be proven and argued with concrete facts.
Give it up. AGW is fool's gold politically; it's something only extreme partisans will hang onto. It's reminiscent of the WMD fools on the right.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
AGW is happening whether or not conspiracy theorists like you choose to accept, whether the government chooses to listen to the scientists and fight it, or chooses to listen to the conspiracy theorists and claps its hands over its ears to ignore the overwhelming evidence in favor of AGW.
Speaking of clapping your hands over your ears...
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If you say that there is no evidence for global warming, you clearly have done absolutely no research on the subject, and you aren't worth debating.
I don't say that. The globe is warming. There is no conclusive, concrete evidence that ties man to it - at all.
You're pissed at me, but it's your stubborn attitude that will set back the green movement. Like I said, there are great - much better - arguments to be made for domestic renewables re: national security & economics. But you idiots will stick with AGW & shoot down everything.
Truly, it pisses me off.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[20][C] The major greenhouse gases are [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor"]water vapor[/ame], which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide"]carbon dioxide[/ame] (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane"]methane[/ame] (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent[[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability"]not in citation given[/ame]]; and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone"]ozone[/ame] (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[21][22] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing"]considered separately[/ame] from water vapor and other gases.
Human activity since the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution"]Industrial Revolution[/ame] has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing"]radiative forcing[/ame] from CO2, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane"]methane[/ame], tropospheric [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone"]ozone[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFC"]CFCs[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide"]nitrous oxide[/ame]. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[23] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core"]ice cores[/ame].[24] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.[25] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel"]Fossil fuel[/ame] burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation"]deforestation[/ame].[26]
CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology"]sociological[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology"]technological[/ame], and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios"]Special Report on Emissions Scenarios[/ame] gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100.[27] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal"]coal[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands"]tar sands[/ame] or [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate"]methane clathrates[/ame] are extensively exploited.[28]
Excellent point. Much like religion, don't you think?
Abundantly true
This is definitely a political death blow. Some will try to keep the perception going...they have made it their life.
This is the part of your post that makes me want to stand and applaud. This is the "common ground" that we all (our politicians) need to be looking for. This is where something can get accomplished for the good of all. Alternate/renewable engergy could be a boon for our economy and definitely a step towards making us a more secure nation.
Got to laugh at the way you put this......and it is absolutely correct as well. Great post Lorax.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Greenhouse gas levels higher than at any point in 20 million years. Happens to correlate, as predicted, with much higher temperatures. Yep, nothing going on. Nothing to see here. Absolutely no evidence.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If telling the truth must kill the green movement, then we must continue to do so. We must continue to fight the forces of darkness and ignorance, at any cost, by any means necessary.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[20][C] The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent[not in citation given]; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[21][22] Clouds also affect the radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so are considered separately from water vapor and other gases.
Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[23] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[24] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values this high were last seen about 20 million years ago.[25] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, particularly deforestation.[26]
CO2 concentrations are continuing to rise due to burning of fossil fuels and land-use change. The future rate of rise will depend on uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments. Accordingly, the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios gives a wide range of future CO2 scenarios, ranging from 541 to 970 ppm by the year 2100.[27] Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.[28]
This is a typical cherrypicked argument for AGW. It ignores evidence of other, more natural evidence for warming, and the fact that hey, we might not even be warming anymore, and that it was actually just reported this week that we might be in for a 10-20 year period of cooling.
Not to bring up WMD's again, but it's the kind of evidence stacking that was used to make the argument for war. They took what supported it, and ignored evidence to the contrary.
It undermines the ends you want to achieve at this point (most of which we probably share), but have at it...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Maybe I would trust Onceler more if he'd given me an analysis of the evidence rather than a political analysis.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
No other source creates enough heating to account for the heating due to the massive amounts of extra CO2 we have in the atmosphere, CO2 levels we have not seen for 20 million years. And the CO2 levels 20 million years ago came gradually and naturally, not rapidly like this. This is unprecedented in natural history.
We have an unusually cold El Nina and an unusually long sunspot minimum. The earth will continue to warm, just not as fast. It's sort of like what happened in the 70's.
What evidence to the contrary?
Whatever, conspiracy theorist.
I don't care if you trust me, or if the left sees me as a "friend." Half of this argument is political, because the stuff that actually matters - you know, going green & all that - relies on POLITICS.
I don't dismiss the IDEA of AGW; I dismiss that it is proveable in any way. All AGWers have is coincidence - the timing of the industrial revolution. But they ignore the frequency of warming periods in the past, the fact that we might actually start cooling for the next 2 decades, and natural triggers like solar flares & CO2 trapped at the bottom of the ocean and in ice caps, among other factors.
It's a big picture, and no one really talks about it. The Rush crowd focuses only on things like solar flares & volcanoes, and the AGWers focus only on what bolsters their argument. You talk to me about politics, but it's politics that keeps you cherrypicking.
None of it matters; you hate the messenger, but the only message that I have is that it is ovah for AGW, and it is, whether I say it or not.