[quote]John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Wow you are one stupid mother fucker, They are higher temps then today, Thats why you never hear the alarmist talking about it because it proves they are retarded hacks. Read up on it you then come talk to me. [/quote]
DOOD!
You’re still just making shit up.
Your stupidity is hilarious though.
I’ll assume those who don’t believe in unicorns also don’t talk about unicorns because it would prove they are retarded hacks?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Sure they can. Thing is- my idea of people who know what they are talking about are the ones that BB quoted. Global warming alarmists idea of people who know what they are talking about is Al Gore, Woody from Cheers, and a bunch of hippie who use the “I feel” perspective way too freakin much, and mistake it for fact.
[/quote]
Oh gawd…just so stupid, I’m pretty sure “alarmists” refer to this thing called “science”, but yes reduce it down to right-wing punching bags…
[quote]100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Sure they can. Thing is- my idea of people who know what they are talking about are the ones that BB quoted. Global warming alarmists idea of people who know what they are talking about is Al Gore, Woody from Cheers, and a bunch of hippie who use the “I feel” perspective way too freakin much, and mistake it for fact.
Oh gawd…just so stupid, I’m pretty sure “alarmists” refer to this thing called “science”, but yes reduce it down to right-wing punching bags…
[/quote]
What is this “science” you speak of? Forming an opinion then finding questionable evidence to support it?
Or is it effect based on the implication of cause?
Maybe it is the conservative in me that requires direct proof of cause and effect.
[quote]100meters wrote:
John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Wow you are one stupid mother fucker, They are higher temps then today, Thats why you never hear the alarmist talking about it because it proves they are retarded hacks. Read up on it you then come talk to me.
DOOD!
You’re still just making shit up.
Your stupidity is hilarious though.
I’ll assume those who don’t believe in unicorns also don’t talk about unicorns because it would prove they are retarded hacks?
[/quote]
Dude your a retard, do some research on this subject then come speak to me, The only reason why I’m not nailing you with many sources is because I know once you finally get your head out of your ass and do some research you will be able to form your own opinion.
Now once you do that you would find out that your God(Al gore) is wrong on many things and you will probably feel like a jackass, but its ok I forgive you.
[quote]John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Wow you are one stupid mother fucker, They are higher temps then today, Thats why you never hear the alarmist talking about it because it proves they are retarded hacks. Read up on it you then come talk to me.
DOOD!
You’re still just making shit up.
Your stupidity is hilarious though.
I’ll assume those who don’t believe in unicorns also don’t talk about unicorns because it would prove they are retarded hacks?
Dude your a retard, do some research on this subject then come speak to me, The only reason why I’m not nailing you with many sources is because I know once you finally get your head out of your ass and do some research you will be able to form your own opinion.
Now once you do that you would find out that your God(Al gore) is wrong on many things and you will probably feel like a jackass, but its ok I forgive you.[/quote]
Good.
Freaking.
Lord.
There is no global reconstruction showing the MWP to be warmer than today, not that it would EVEN MATTER, but still, my god! what aren’t you getting here?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Sure they can. Thing is- my idea of people who know what they are talking about are the ones that BB quoted. Global warming alarmists idea of people who know what they are talking about is Al Gore, Woody from Cheers, and a bunch of hippie who use the “I feel” perspective way too freakin much, and mistake it for fact.
Oh gawd…just so stupid, I’m pretty sure “alarmists” refer to this thing called “science”, but yes reduce it down to right-wing punching bags…
What is this “science” you speak of? Forming an opinion then finding questionable evidence to support it?
Or is it effect based on the implication of cause?
Maybe it is the conservative in me that requires direct proof of cause and effect.
[/quote]
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
What is this “science” you speak of? Forming an opinion then finding questionable evidence to support it? [/quote]
Well, the majority of scientists seem to agree that something is going on, and that our lifestyle is likely to be responsible for it.
When survival of the specie is at stake, I kinda lower my standards. The 100% proof you’re looking for doesn’t exist. It’s not math we’re dealing with here.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
What is this “science” you speak of? Forming an opinion then finding questionable evidence to support it?
Well, the majority of scientists seem to agree that something is going on, and that our lifestyle is likely to be responsible for it.
…
Actually they use the term plausible, not likely.[/quote]
Actually they use the term “very likely”, meaning more than 90%.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
What is this “science” you speak of? Forming an opinion then finding questionable evidence to support it?
Well, the majority of scientists seem to agree that something is going on, and that our lifestyle is likely to be responsible for it.
…
Actually they use the term plausible, not likely.
Actually they use the term “very likely”, meaning more than 90%.
That is the rigged executive summary of the IPCC report. The IPCC is well known for rewriting the actual scientists conclusions after the scientists go home.
I was referring to the report presented to the Senate (I think it was earlier this year) that clearly stated it was plausible yet all the major media misreported that it claimed it was very likely and was a slam dunk.
We went over all this months ago and the links to the false media reports and the real report and you ignored them. You are not worth bothering going through all that again as I do not have all the links handy.
You still have not explained to me why you think slowing our emissions without actually stopping them will turn this thing around.
An interesting piece by Bjorn Lomborg from Sunday’s Washington Post:
Excerpt:
[i] According to the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change’s health effects, global warming will actually save lives. It’s estimated that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million fewer people will die from cold.
The Kyoto Protocol, with its drastic emissions cuts, is not a sensible way to stop people from dying in future heat waves. At a much lower cost, urban designers and politicians could lower temperatures more effectively by planting trees, adding water features and reducing the amount of asphalt in at-risk cities. Estimates show that this could reduce the peak temperatures in cities by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
Global warming will claim lives in another way: by increasing the number of people at risk of catching malaria by about 3 percent over this century. According to scientific models, implementing the Kyoto Protocol for the rest of this century would reduce the malaria risk by just 0.2 percent...[F]or every dollar we spend saving one person through policies like the Kyoto Protocol, we could save 36,000 through direct intervention.
...Environmentalists point out that magnificent creatures such as polar bears will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts. Kyoto would save just one bear a year. Yet every year, hunters kill 300 to 500 polar bears, according to the World Conservation Union. Outlawing this slaughter would be cheap and easy �?? and much more effective than a worldwide pact on carbon emissions.
Wherever you look, the inescapable conclusion is the same: Reducing carbon emissions is not the best way to help the world. I don't point this out merely to be contrarian. We do need to fix global warming in the long run. But I'm frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won't achieve it.[/i]
[quote]100meters wrote:
John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
John S. wrote:
100meters wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I’d like to here how we reversed the ice age and destroyed the glaciers with our industrialized society that didn’t exist at that time. Or maybe we do have warming and cooling microcycles cycles that are part of much larger cycles, that we have very little to no control over.
Maybe geological time scales are just a bit too big for the Now generation.
And maybe people who know what they’re talking about are able to take this all into consideration.
Wow you are one stupid mother fucker, They are higher temps then today, Thats why you never hear the alarmist talking about it because it proves they are retarded hacks. Read up on it you then come talk to me.
DOOD!
You’re still just making shit up.
Your stupidity is hilarious though.
I’ll assume those who don’t believe in unicorns also don’t talk about unicorns because it would prove they are retarded hacks?
Dude your a retard, do some research on this subject then come speak to me, The only reason why I’m not nailing you with many sources is because I know once you finally get your head out of your ass and do some research you will be able to form your own opinion.
Now once you do that you would find out that your God(Al gore) is wrong on many things and you will probably feel like a jackass, but its ok I forgive you.
Good.
Freaking.
Lord.
There is no global reconstruction showing the MWP to be warmer than today, not that it would EVEN MATTER, but still, my god! what aren’t you getting here?[/quote]
Well you just showed exactly why you do not want to look it up. You think it does not matter but in fact it proves everything. since it was warmer then today, it proves that this is a natural cycle, By the way take a look at what the science was saying 40 years ago, guess some people just can’t admit they don’t know shit.(you and the scientists) please take some time to learn about shit before you go claiming the end of the world. I think your a smart person just at the moment saying some really stupid shit.
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government�??s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that it was �??not possible�?? to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant�??s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government�??s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that it was �??not possible�?? to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government�??s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant�??s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
[/quote]
Of course more to the point and inconveniently left out here:
“He added that the key arguments in the documentary - “that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences” - are supported by scientific opinion.”
“Supported by scientific opinion” – that’s a ringing endorsement… He probably could have even said “a majority of scientific opinion” - but maybe he didn’t want to get too far into conjecture…
100meters wrote:
Of course more to the point and inconveniently left out here:
“He added that the key arguments in the documentary - “that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences” - are supported by scientific opinion.”
“Supported by scientific opinion” – that’s a ringing endorsement… He probably could have even said “a majority of scientific opinion” - but maybe he didn’t want to get too far into conjecture…[/quote]
Yes. Al Gore is a liar but opinions support the notion of global warming.