Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLz..... The whole "the climate changed is the past" argument.
Are you denying that Earth's climate is cyclical?
Are you denying that Earth moves through a Pre-Glacial Period into a lengthy Glacial Period, before proceeding into the Post-Glacial Period and then a very short-term Inter-Glacial Period?
Are you denying that the Medieval Warming Period took place?
Are you denying that temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period never exceeded the maximum global average temperatures during any of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Those are all irrefutable facts.
State what you believe should be the average global temperature during this Inter-Glacial Period and use science to justify your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Your graph is as bogus as your cartoon...
Proof Surrogate Substituting a distracting comment for a real proof.
Just out of curiosity, which calender does the Church of Climate Change use?
Just wondering because you all keep cherry-picking your dates....
and everytime someone on these threads introduces actual scientific evidence you two (you and seabass (a Canadian)) bash, deny, dismisss, and attack...and act holier than thou, like only you are correct....you both are known trolls
I'm not holier than anyone, but I do think I'm more articulate than you, at least.
And yes, I think I'm correct. I wouldn't actually believe something if I didn't think it was correct.
I have posted more facts on this thread than ANYONE on the denier side. The comments about Christy on the IPCC TAR, comments about what climate change could potentially mean, etc. You ignored them either because it all goes over your head, or because you're lazy.
Speaking of trolls (which is laughable considering this entire forum is one ongoing troll), most of the deniers who post on these threads do nothing but insist that anyone who believes in AGW is so stupid and so irrational that they are basically a lower form of life. Either that, or they are so evil and so manipulative that they're propagating a global hoax in order to steal money from hardworking Americans... but obviously they're not smart enough to outwit someone such as yourself, who may or may not have a high school education and definitely doesn't have a large capacity for critical thought.
I mean, come on-- the whole point of this forum is for conservatives to bash liberals and vice versa. And you of all people are in no position to complain about the quality of posts made by others, even if your egomania prevents you from seeing that.
In order for that to be true, I would have had to have defended China, which I didn't do.
It doesn't matter if you defended China or not.
The point is that you are applying a double-standard, which doesn't require defense of anything.
CO2 emissions are either harmful, or they are not, and it doesn't matter where they originate on this Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
The rest of your post is the usual weirdness that for unknown reasons includes diagrams, strawmen galore, aggressive ignorance of organic building materials, lies and conspiracy. It's pretty obvious that you're not as bright as you think you are... or you're just so eager to post all of this BS that you didn't actually stop to think if it truly applies.
Organic building materials? Like what, cow dung?
Economics applies to everything, including building materials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
We can always switch back to asphalt, tar, tar paper and bitumen, uh, which will increase the demand for oil and increase CO2 levels.
Or, we can deforest the Earth and use lumber.
Or, we can not pave the roads at all, and have massive dust clouds everywhere.
What would your building-material-of-choice be?
Plastic?
Oh, that's not made from oil, on no, not at all.
The Plastics Fairy provides that in exchange for a sacrificial offering and a weird dance.
Was the question too difficult for you to answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
That graph has no name on it, but it was actually made by the notorious denier John Christy (of Roy Spencer and John Christy fame), and is the product of deliberate mistakes.
Show, don't tell.
If it is the "product of deliberate mistakes" as you claim, then show us, don't tell us.
Many of us already knew that AGW is all about politics, not science. Now, the AGW leeches are telling the truth;
--------------
Pascoe Sabado from Corporate Europe Observatory: “We have to accept that climate change is not about the climate; it is about the economy. Climate change is about system change.”
Linking to ever changing web sites, where the topic you linked to is buried deep on the page, or not even displayed any more, makes trying to comment particularly tough to do
Linking to ever changing web sites, where the topic you linked to is buried deep on the page, or not even displayed any more, makes trying to comment particularly tough to do
I'm not holier than anyone, but I do think I'm more articulate than you, at least.
And yes, I think I'm correct. I wouldn't actually believe something if I didn't think it was correct.
I have posted more facts on this thread than ANYONE on the denier side. The comments about Christy on the IPCC TAR, comments about what climate change could potentially mean, etc. You ignored them either because it all goes over your head, or because you're lazy.
Speaking of trolls (which is laughable considering this entire forum is one ongoing troll), most of the deniers who post on these threads do nothing but insist that anyone who believes in AGW is so stupid and so irrational that they are basically a lower form of life. Either that, or they are so evil and so manipulative that they're propagating a global hoax in order to steal money from hardworking Americans... but obviously they're not smart enough to outwit someone such as yourself, who may or may not have a high school education and definitely doesn't have a large capacity for critical thought.
I mean, come on-- the whole point of this forum is for conservatives to bash liberals and vice versa. And you of all people are in no position to complain about the quality of posts made by others, even if your egomania prevents you from seeing that.
C'mon... All you do is attack and snipe at 'deniers' all smug that we're going to 'pay the price'.
It's just a conspiracy that divides and bilks the well-intentioned, those folks who usually need a cause and have nothing better to do but rally adherents to join the fray. Sure, there's lots of support from the rich as they can always use the distraction and new/larger markets.
As for business? Look at all the changes and money involved in retro-fitting older buildings and required in newer construction. How else could real estate be taken at so highly an over-valued price if not for the conspiracy to get people to demand all these amenities? Is it a good thing? I think it can be but most of it is just vanity made to give the smug something to feel proud about as they go shopping for a life-elevating experience.
And that is what a 'believer' in CC/GW theory is all about- feeling responsible while feeding the gluttons vainly proving how responsible they are, lost as they are in the forest of choices that confer a sensible heart made just with conjured data streams- streams polluted by greed.
Place all the faith you like in any color you like- it's just another conspiracy wrapped around money that happens to be correct if you've picked the winner. Who wants to lose?
Are you denying that Earth moves through a Pre-Glacial Period into a lengthy Glacial Period, before proceeding into the Post-Glacial Period and then a very short-term Inter-Glacial Period?
Are you denying that the Medieval Warming Period took place?
Are you denying that temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period never exceeded the maximum global average temperatures during any of the eight previous Inter-Glacial Periods?
Those are all irrefutable facts.
State what you believe should be the average global temperature during this Inter-Glacial Period and use science to justify your claims.
I don't deny any of that, except it doesn't prove what you are trying to make it prove. You got the facts right, but you aren't using them correctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
CO2 emissions are either harmful, or they are not, and it doesn't matter where they originate on this Earth.
Mircea
CO2 emissions, along with the other greenhouse gases and particulate matter that are emitted from fossil fuels are harmful when they exceed the level that they can be processed without tilting the balance. The thousands of gigatons of greenhouse gases we have emitted since the start of the industrial revolution took tens to hundreds of millions of years to form and become locked underground as energy; we released them in a couple of hundred years. This is causing whatever natural climate cycle to become affected by the spike in greenhouse gases and deforestation. You can think of it like the planet has become more geologically active and is emitting progressively more greenhouse gases and particulate matter over the last two hundred years or so.
The point is that you are applying a double-standard, which doesn't require defense of anything.
CO2 emissions are either harmful, or they are not, and it doesn't matter where they originate on this Earth.
The fact that I didn't defend China means I'm not apply not a double standard. You are just posting these BS fallacy definitions without even reading them thoroughly.
any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, especially an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women.
If I had said 'the US needs to curtail its emissions but China does not', THAT would be a double standard. I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING OF THE KIND. I was saying that whether China or the US is the worse polluter doesn't matter-- because yes, emissions are bad no matter where they come from. They BOTH need to take action, and debating about who is worse is meaningless since if either one took decisive action it would be a positive thing. So, no double standard.
But it's interesting that you're now saying CO2 emissions are harmful when on the other thread you seemed to think they were inconsequential. When did this radical sea change in your attitude appear? I would imagine it was right around the time the argument began to appeal to your irrational nationalistic mindset.
and everytime someone on these threads introduces actual scientific evidence you two (you and seabass (a Canadian)) bash, deny, dismisss, and attack...and act holier than thou, like only you are correct....you both are known trolls
Denialists don't introduce scientific evidence. They introduce cranks declaring scientific evidence to be fraudulent. Then they whine when we ask them to support their claims. Then they act like they weren't proven wrong and the whole cycle starts again a few days later.
I guess we should just pretend denialist blogs are scientific journals for the sake of your feelings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
