More Proof of Global Warming Scam

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:That may have held water a little better if the movement as a whole hadn’t been exposed as being driven by a bunch of data manipulating, cash grabbing megalomaniacs and green product consumerism.
[/quote]

They haven’t been. Put your money where your mouth is and back it up, or admit what is obvious to anyone who didn’t totally sleep through high school science classes: climate change is having very obvious, documented effects (which you totally ignored, by the way).
[/quote]

Documented my own, thank you very much. If you yourself had any actual working knowledge of environmental indicators you would know what my post about the repro and hold over rates meant.

I also have made some very good observations on mycological bloom periods and times which would also be wasted on an idiot like you.

But hey, you get info spoon fed from a blog and people with an agenda of manipulation, so you don’t need any first hand knowledge or experience.

In short, go fuck yourself, you ignorant moron.

42

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Sorry climate change deniers–you lost a long time ago.[/quote]

I don’t think most people deny that the climate changes. We – I hope I can speak for most of us – are skeptical that man has a cause in it. And what’s worse is that the enviro-nazis cannot make up their mind weather it is “warming”, “cooling”, or just “changing”. It seems to me the argument has been stacked against science.

This agenda is purely to empower politicians and take freedom away from individuals – not about “saving the environment”.[/quote]

You’re clueless. Even if you’re skeptical that humans are causing it (which baffles me, considering the insane amount of hydrocarbons and toxic substances we’ve been putting into the environment for over a century–it ought to seem pretty obvious), please explain why. It always amazes me how many people completely malign climate science, yet when asked, have absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt it, and can’t even explain how it works.

“Climate change” actually is a better term for it because, even the globe has been warming overall, and 2010 was the hottest year on record:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/15/noaa-2010-hottest-year-global-warming/

it’s obvious that a system as complex as the entire earth is never going to be homogenous, and some places get cooler temporarily, some see increased rainfall, others see droughts, all while temperature increases in the long-term. Yet even the bare existence of winter is held up as “proof” of the climate change scam by morons who know nothing about science. Even though the increased snowfall they use to poo-poo the theory actually makes complete sense, given the increase in the amount of water evaporated due to higher temperatures earlier in the year.

Even though, without these greenhouse gases, the earth would be too cold to even live on, and would look more like the moon, they couldn’t possibly contribute to warming past a comfortable temperature (I still have never seen a climate skeptic explain this to me).

43

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:Documented my own, thank you very much. If you yourself had any actual working knowledge of environmental indicators you would know what my post about the repro and hold over rates meant.

I also have made some very good observations on mycological bloom periods and times which would also be wasted on an idiot like you.

But hey, you get info spoon fed from a blog and people with an agenda of manipulation, so you don’t need any first hand knowledge or experience.

In short, go fuck yourself, you ignorant moron.
[/quote]

You documented it? Where? The fish population in Pennsylvania? Oh, how comprehensive! I’m glad things are going so well for you! Meanwhile, the rest of the 99.999999999% of the world is having some problems. Moron.

44

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
(I still have never seen a climate skeptic explain this to me).
[/quote]

That is because when no explanation is acceptable, no explanation is needed.

It is not the fault of the explanation.

45

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:Documented my own, thank you very much. If you yourself had any actual working knowledge of environmental indicators you would know what my post about the repro and hold over rates meant.

I also have made some very good observations on mycological bloom periods and times which would also be wasted on an idiot like you.

But hey, you get info spoon fed from a blog and people with an agenda of manipulation, so you don’t need any first hand knowledge or experience.

In short, go fuck yourself, you ignorant moron.
[/quote]

You documented it? Where? The fish population in Pennsylvania? Oh, how comprehensive! I’m glad things are going so well for you! Meanwhile, the rest of the 99.999999999% of the world is having some problems. Moron.

[/quote]

Thank you for more thoroughly proving my point.

46

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
(I still have never seen a climate skeptic explain this to me).
[/quote]

That is because when no explanation is acceptable, no explanation is needed.

It is not the fault of the explanation.
[/quote]

No explanation is acceptable? I haven’t even seen one. That’s the thing, they don’t even try. You just ignore it, like all the other inconvenient stuff that undermines your case.

47

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:Documented my own, thank you very much. If you yourself had any actual working knowledge of environmental indicators you would know what my post about the repro and hold over rates meant.

I also have made some very good observations on mycological bloom periods and times which would also be wasted on an idiot like you.

But hey, you get info spoon fed from a blog and people with an agenda of manipulation, so you don’t need any first hand knowledge or experience.

In short, go fuck yourself, you ignorant moron.
[/quote]

You documented it? Where? The fish population in Pennsylvania? Oh, how comprehensive! I’m glad things are going so well for you! Meanwhile, the rest of the 99.999999999% of the world is having some problems. Moron.

[/quote]

Thank you for more thoroughly proving my point.
[/quote]

Going to clam up now, huh? That’s what I thought. Run along now.

And don’t you worry, I’m sure the fact that you can’t find anything to dispute the data means you’re right. Have a good day.

48

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Sorry climate change deniers–you lost a long time ago.[/quote]

I don’t think most people deny that the climate changes. We – I hope I can speak for most of us – are skeptical that man has a cause in it. And what’s worse is that the enviro-nazis cannot make up their mind weather it is “warming”, “cooling”, or just “changing”. It seems to me the argument has been stacked against science.

This agenda is purely to empower politicians and take freedom away from individuals – not about “saving the environment”.[/quote]

You’re clueless. Even if you’re skeptical that humans are causing it (which baffles me, considering the insane amount of hydrocarbons and toxic substances we’ve been putting into the environment for over a century–it ought to seem pretty obvious), please explain why. It always amazes me how many people completely malign climate science, yet when asked, have absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt it, and can’t even explain how it works.
[/quote]

Humans do not create a larger carbon footprint than the earth itself does.

“Climate science” is not science. Thermodynamics is; and yes it’s too complex to accurately measure.

By formal education I am a physicist so even though I have not been in an actual lab in a few years I feel knowledgeable enough to know when politicians are trying to hoodwink the populous about something of which they have NO working knowledge.

49

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Humans do not create a larger carbon footprint than the earth itself does.

“Climate science” is not science. Thermodynamics is; and yes it’s too complex to accurately measure.

By formal education I am a physicist so even though I have not been in an actual lab in a few years I feel knowledgeable enough to know when politicians are trying to hoodwink the populous about something of which they have NO working knowledge.[/quote]

Well, we don’t have to create a larger carbon footprint than the earth for our effect to be significant. It’s also not simply direct addition of carbon to the atmostphere, but also things like deforestation which reduce the ability of the environment to cope with increased emissions.

50

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Humans do not create a larger carbon footprint than the earth itself does.

“Climate science” is not science. Thermodynamics is; and yes it’s too complex to accurately measure.

By formal education I am a physicist so even though I have not been in an actual lab in a few years I feel knowledgeable enough to know when politicians are trying to hoodwink the populous about something of which they have NO working knowledge.[/quote]

Well, we don’t have to create a larger carbon footprint than the earth for our effect to be significant. It’s also not simply direct addition of carbon to the atmostphere, but also things like deforestation which reduce the ability of the environment to cope with increased emissions.
[/quote]

The human carbon footprint is INSIGNIFICANT when compared to the amount put out by seismic activity. We are talking greater than 4 orders or magnitude here.

edited

51

How many years have humans been around versus the number of years the Earth has been around, nuff said. We have been keeping track of temps for how many years? Maybe 150 years or so? Earth is maybe roughly 4.5 billion years old, and we as a society have the nerve to claim we can realistically and accurately measure the climate patterns of the Earth given the astronomically small number of years we have been recording temps ?!

Ryan…please.

52

And really, temperature doesn’t mean anything to the planet.

Human beings and other creatures might have problems but the planet doesn’t give a rip about them.

53

Noooooo, Lifticus!

The planet loves people who love it. Thats why people better buy green renewable (insert trendy marketing buzz word here) products.

54

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Humans do not create a larger carbon footprint than the earth itself does.

“Climate science” is not science. Thermodynamics is; and yes it’s too complex to accurately measure.

By formal education I am a physicist so even though I have not been in an actual lab in a few years I feel knowledgeable enough to know when politicians are trying to hoodwink the populous about something of which they have NO working knowledge.[/quote]

Well, we don’t have to create a larger carbon footprint than the earth for our effect to be significant. It’s also not simply direct addition of carbon to the atmostphere, but also things like deforestation which reduce the ability of the environment to cope with increased emissions.
[/quote]

The human carbon footprint is INSIGNIFICANT when compared to the amount put out by seismic activity. We are talking greater than 4 orders or magnitude here.

edited[/quote]

“The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year â?? much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.”

55

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
How many years have humans been around versus the number of years the Earth has been around, nuff said. We have been keeping track of temps for how many years? Maybe 150 years or so? Earth is maybe roughly 4.5 billion years old, and we as a society have the nerve to claim we can realistically and accurately measure the climate patterns of the Earth given the astronomically small number of years we have been recording temps ?!

Ryan…please.[/quote]

Yeah, good point! Take that geologists, you bastards!

56

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Humans do not create a larger carbon footprint than the earth itself does.

“Climate science” is not science. Thermodynamics is; and yes it’s too complex to accurately measure.

By formal education I am a physicist so even though I have not been in an actual lab in a few years I feel knowledgeable enough to know when politicians are trying to hoodwink the populous about something of which they have NO working knowledge.[/quote]

Well, we don’t have to create a larger carbon footprint than the earth for our effect to be significant. It’s also not simply direct addition of carbon to the atmostphere, but also things like deforestation which reduce the ability of the environment to cope with increased emissions.
[/quote]

The human carbon footprint is INSIGNIFICANT when compared to the amount put out by seismic activity. We are talking greater than 4 orders or magnitude here.

edited[/quote]

“The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year â?? much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm[/quote]

This is unsubstantiated by science. There is no reason to believe the miniscule ratio of human emissions compared to the earth’s emissions cannot be reabsorbed by the earth.

Sorry, I refuse to be afraid of my own shadow. Nice try.

57

The carbon cycle is unsubstantiated by science? There you go.

This is why you’re such a joke–you put a good varnish on it, but as soon as someone comes along with actual evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you simply clam up and “refuse to belive.” That’s fine, but if that’s the case, you don’t get to criticize me.

You need to go to church with that shit, not scientific debates.

58

Green movement say we need to more renewable, sustainable energy. Fair enough. Oil won’t last, coal provides lots of pollution, gas is finite. Fission is years away so the logical conclusion is nuclear power to cover the interim while we research othher sources, right? I mean apart from Chernobyl which was imperfectly manned it’s gone pretty well across the world. Well the greens are against that too. Not only are they hiking our prices, they’re preventing us from implementing an alternative

As for climate change itself, the climate has changed many times over billions of years. It’s volatile. spewing carbon into the air quicker than it can be trapped and stored while deforestation is taking place as well probably won’t help matters

59

Not all “greens” are against nuclear energy. I think it’s a pretty good idea, only problem is it’s expensive to put into place and there aren’t enough nuclear engineers to go around right now.

60

Gas prices will be obscene in a few years, all thanx to Ryan’s ilk.