ADVERTISEMENT

Should Obama prosecute climate change skeptics

Are you trolling, misinformed, or simply making things up? 2014 was the warmest year on record (NASA concluded the same) and 2015 will almost certainly break that record.

I'm not trolling, misinformed, or making things up. So your positive that 2014 was the warmest year ever in the history of this planet. And you've got historical measurements that have been gathered in precisely the same manner and using the same methodologies since the beginning, right? How exactly does one go about measuring the temperature of the planet when there is so many different places with different temperatures at different times? I'm sure I should just trust you. No wait, I should trust some government scientist that would lose his job if he concluded nothing was wrong.

I could find a scientist and a graph for you that shows there has been no significant warming trend for the last 20 years. But, then you would say that it was from a conservative hack that had an agenda. Blah, blah, blah.

All I care about is prove to me that man is destroying the planet like you say, and you can fix it. Until I hear that, nothing else matters. Sorry the data isn't there. All these theories have proven wrong. We as human beings must be willing to admit, we arent that bright. We don't have a complete understanding of how everything works. There's too many variables. You can drive yourself crazy trying to come up with theories and taking readings all you want. But, brother, lose the guilt, don't be afraid, human beings will populate this planet until either a nuke or meteor blows it up. If we are causing the planet to warm a little bit, so be it. But thats not what its about, I know. You need to feel like your saving the planet. You probably need a cause to make you think your life is worthwhile. I get it. Just dont push your guilt on me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerMadness
Really, now on this one don't waste your time. He's an insipid, mentally challenged syncophant. He spouts off buzzwords he listened to on Rush, Breitbart, freerepublic or whatever other ultra conservative trash websites/radio broadcasts the kids are listening to these days.

Mocking derision or slience are the only two useful responses.


Ah, such a qaz/alinsky response. Call the other guy stupid/crazy/mentally deranged. Don't challenge your beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerMadness
I'm not trolling, misinformed, or making things up. So your positive that 2014 was the warmest year ever in the history of this planet. And you've got historical measurements that have been gathered in precisely the same manner and using the same methodologies since the beginning, right? How exactly does one go about measuring the temperature of the planet when there is so many different places with different temperatures at different times? I'm sure I should just trust you. No wait, I should trust some government scientist that would lose his job if he concluded nothing was wrong.

I could find a scientist and a graph for you that shows there has been no significant warming trend for the last 20 years. But, then you would say that it was from a conservative hack that had an agenda. Blah, blah, blah.

All I care about is prove to me that man is destroying the planet like you say, and you can fix it. Until I hear that, nothing else matters. Sorry the data isn't there. All these theories have proven wrong. We as human beings must be willing to admit, we arent that bright. We don't have a complete understanding of how everything works. There's too many variables. You can drive yourself crazy trying to come up with theories and taking readings all you want. But, brother, lose the guilt, don't be afraid, human beings will populate this planet until either a nuke or meteor blows it up. If we are causing the planet to warm a little bit, so be it. But thats not what its about, I know. You need to feel like your saving the planet. You probably need a cause to make you think your life is worthwhile. I get it. Just dont push your guilt on me.

To sum up:

-You don't trust any scientific organization
-You are purposefully unaware of various fingerprints pointing toward a warming planet
-You think the findings of one nameless "scientist" is on par with NASA, NOAA, or the National Academy of Science
-Even when the data is provided to you through reputable sources, you refuse to acknowledge it.
-You think we need "complete understanding" of a system before making any conclusions
-You think science deals in "proof"

Qaz is right, you are deserving of only mocking derision or silence. I prefer the latter.
 
I'm not trolling, misinformed, or making things up. So your positive that 2014 was the warmest year ever in the history of this planet. And you've got historical measurements that have been gathered in precisely the same manner and using the same methodologies since the beginning, right? How exactly does one go about measuring the temperature of the planet when there is so many different places with different temperatures at different times? I'm sure I should just trust you. No wait, I should trust some government scientist that would lose his job if he concluded nothing was wrong.

I could find a scientist and a graph for you that shows there has been no significant warming trend for the last 20 years. But, then you would say that it was from a conservative hack that had an agenda. Blah, blah, blah.

All I care about is prove to me that man is destroying the planet like you say, and you can fix it. Until I hear that, nothing else matters. Sorry the data isn't there. All these theories have proven wrong. We as human beings must be willing to admit, we arent that bright. We don't have a complete understanding of how everything works. There's too many variables. You can drive yourself crazy trying to come up with theories and taking readings all you want. But, brother, lose the guilt, don't be afraid, human beings will populate this planet until either a nuke or meteor blows it up. If we are causing the planet to warm a little bit, so be it. But thats not what its about, I know. You need to feel like your saving the planet. You probably need a cause to make you think your life is worthwhile. I get it. Just dont push your guilt on me.

You sound like the second highest ranking member of the House Energy Committee.

Asked what scientific evidence would persuade her that climate change was a threat, she replied - "I don't think you will see me being persuaded."

Marsha Blackburn (R), Tennessee

Bonus points, denies evolution is occurring as well.

Ignore Pope on climate, says Republican Marsha Blackburn

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34342808
 
Ah, such a qaz/alinsky response. Call the other guy stupid/crazy/mentally deranged. Don't challenge your beliefs.

BOOM! 9.5 You used the magic "Alinsky" which instantly add 1.5 pts to your total.
 
To sum up:

-You don't trust any scientific organization
-You are purposefully unaware of various fingerprints pointing toward a warming planet
-You think the findings of one nameless "scientist" is on par with NASA, NOAA, or the National Academy of Science
-Even when the data is provided to you through reputable sources, you refuse to acknowledge it.
-You think we need "complete understanding" of a system before making any conclusions
-You think science deals in "proof"

Qaz is right, you are deserving of only mocking derision or silence. I prefer the latter.

Mocking derision is more fun though.
 
To sum up:

-You don't trust any scientific organization
-You are purposefully unaware of various fingerprints pointing toward a warming planet
-You think the findings of one nameless "scientist" is on par with NASA, NOAA, or the National Academy of Science
-Even when the data is provided to you through reputable sources, you refuse to acknowledge it.
-You think we need "complete understanding" of a system before making any conclusions
-You think science deals in "proof"

Qaz is right, you are deserving of only mocking derision or silence. I prefer the latter.

I don't trust scientific organizations with a political agenda. Which, unfortunately, is most of em nowadays.

I am very aware that there are various fingerprints that point to a warming planet. But, so what, I could find various fingerprints that pointed to a cooling planet. Again, the climate always changes, that's what climates do. Prove that man is causing it and that its going to be catastrophic. Sorry, but you can't do that, not even close. When you're only looking for one thing, you will always be able to find things to justify it. Where is your skepticism? Where is any skepticism on the enviros side?

Again, even those great agencies, filled with some very smart people I'm sure, are corrupted by politics. If you don't believe that, sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've seen all the data, trust me I've looked at this from multiple viewpoints. There is nothing there that is indicative of anything. I don't get bogged down by data to the point I can't see the forest for the trees.

We don't need "complete" understanding, but we arent even close. Determinations are being made with only a couple hundred years of even somewhat reliable data about a climate that has been changing for billions of years. Sorry, I'm not dumb enough to think that's significant.

I dont know what to say to somebody that doesnt think science should deal in "proof" Theories are different than reality. Just because you can make a theory doesnt make you a scientist.

I understand it's easier to stay in your bubble than to talk rationally with people like me, but that should tell you something about you not me. Ignore me, mock me all you like. Unlike you sensitive types it doesnt bother me much. I care more about being right than being accepted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerMadness
BOOM! 9.5 You used the magic "Alinsky" which instantly add 1.5 pts to your total.


You're like a broken record, and not even a good one. I'm rhetorically kicking your butt all up and down this thread, and you come back with the same lame shit. Sad.
 
You're like a broken record, and not even a good one. I'm rhetorically kicking your butt all up and down this thread, and you come back with the same lame shit. Sad.

LMAO. Trump would be proud.
 
LMAO. Trump would be proud.

picard_clapping.gif
 
Apparently 20 pro climate change scientists wrote a letter the President Obama urging him to use the RICO laws to fine and jail climate change skeptics. Do you think this ia an appropriate prosecution or is it violating free speech? Do you believe in free speech anymore? Is free speech obsolete? http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-alarmists-obama-use-rico-laws-jail-skeptics/


So they are saying that on Earth plants require CO2 to breathe, and then those plants take that CO2 to produce oxygen and that is a crime against humanity? The real reality is this planet used to be many times hotter than it is today many tens of thousands of years ago without any ice caps during the dinosaur era and they know for a fact the world has been through several ice ages and mini ice ages. And these quacks get on TV and tell us that despite that a person is crazy for thinking the sun has an effect on climate change. In fact these same con artists paid by private foundations to put out fake science say oh yah we had an ice age, so what, that was magic. Ignore that... and pay Al Gore money while he buys beach house mansions simultaneously in the same location he says is going to be under water a decade ago.

In order to have a global government they needed to have a global reason. Terrorism was used to scare the public into submission into a state of primal fear as they call it. Where we are dominated, not just controlled by their rulers. Global warming was used to be the reason to have a global tax and control the economies of the world through philosophies aimed at restricting the public from resources they are entitled to while surrendering those resources to a global elite, who will use them to build an off world system while the rest of us live in squaller. It couldn't be anything like that though. Let's not be extreme though. Punish those who don't believe in their occult god. Global Warming is Gaia worship.

Imagine how dumb these people must think the public is. CO2 = life. But CO2 is bad for plants haha. Can you imagine the insanity of that when God actually made plants to need CO2 to live and produce oxygen? HAHA THE INSANITY OF THESE PEOPLE. If I were a Satan worshiper and I wanted to think of the biggest insult to the creator I could possibly find, that would be getting the public to believe the one thing all life needs to have in order to exist is bad. CO2. Without it ALL plants die. All plants die well you do the math there "scientists".
irrigation-photosynthesis.gif
 
Last edited:
SC you are correct. They can't answer those questions. But I want to add to what you were saying in that it isn't just that, as though it is some kind of mishap. This is fraud what they are engaging in. Most of the scientists that are paid to deliver false science for this agenda are paid a lot of money from Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation especially, Bill Gates Foundation, Clinton Foundation, etc. These people pay these scientists to say that. They are on the take. At Penn State they got caught red handed when their emails were hacked. The scientists were deliberately sabotaging real science that went against their fraud. They even had assassination funds for repetitional assassination of scientists that did report the actual facts.

But you are correct. The Earth is not warming and even if it was it certainly isn't because of Carbon Dioxide. I can't think of a more Satanic way to enslave the whole world and every living thing on it than to tax life itself. And their proposals would easily wipe out 2 billion people, especially in the 3rd world. They will tax farmers for harvesting the animals people will eat because they take a dump and breathe. It is an extermination formula to attack Carbon Dioxide. They might as well put up a Hitler gas chamber and say walk in because the sun is going to give you skin cancer and to protect the public they need to go into a special government chamber because that is more believable than telling everyone CO2 is evil. Humans need oxygen. To get oxygen there must be Carbon Dioxide. Plants must have Carbon Dioxide to live. So these occultists have crafted a public that is so ignorant and dumb that they can't even understand how life on plant Earth even works at a 1st grade level and then humiliate both life and humanity in the process by creating a system where they can make people pay a tax for merely being alive. And then tell you it is Carbon Dioxide that is bad for the environment when all life on Earth must have it to live. Plants must have it to live. Plants produce oxygen and to do that must have CO2.

THEY ONLY WANT TO TAX CARBON DIOXIDE BECAUSE IT IS THE ONE THING EVERYONE PRODUCES. THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE TO THE OLIGARCHY FOR THEIR LIFE. HOW ELSE DOES A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT GET TO TAX EVERYONE.

But why are they doing this? The reason is the globalists need to form a new way to govern planet in order to restrict the resources from the public, bring the world under a medieval feudalist model, impoverish people to enslave them, and eventually rid the population for their world view. To do that they must get the world to pay a carbon tax to a world government. Then they can have that world government regulate the world economy with that tax in the same way the Federal Reserve illegally taxes your income. Making everyone pay that income tax is slavery. And making the whole world pay them a carbon tax is the same thing on a global scale. That is their formula. Without this carbon tax there can be no one world government. How else would you get the entire world to surrender their fortunes and way of life other than to tell them the world is going to end. And how obvious is it a fraud when they say it is carbon dioxide, the most important gas on Earth. Without it you cannot have oxygen on this planet. That is what is so absolutely AMAZING about their claims other than the fact that record ice caps existed last winter and record snowfall in the US in much of the country as God throws it in their faces.

Do people in here understand that they are trying to tell you what plants need to breathe in order to create oxygen that humans must breathe in order to live is evil? At a 1st grade level. We are talking 1st grade science here and most people don't even know what CO2 even is and still call it the devil.
light-and-photosynthesis.png
 
Last edited:
SC you are correct. They can't answer those questions. But I want to add to what you were saying in that it isn't just that, as though it is some kind of mishap. This is fraud what they are engaging in. Most of the scientists that are paid to deliver false science for this agenda are paid a lot of money from Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation especially, Bill Gates Foundation, Clinton Foundation, etc. These people pay these scientists to say that. They are on the take. At Penn State they got caught red handed when their emails were hacked. The scientists were deliberately sabotaging real science that went against their fraud. They even had assassination funds for repetitional assassination of scientists that did report the actual facts.

But you are correct. The Earth is not warming and even if it was it certainly isn't because of Carbon Dioxide. I can't think of a more Satanic way to enslave the whole world and every living thing on it than to tax life itself. And their proposals would easily wipe out 2 billion people, especially in the 3rd world. They will tax farmers for harvesting the animals people will eat because they take a dump and breathe. It is an extermination formula to attack Carbon Dioxide. They might as well put up a Hitler gas chamber and say walk in because the sun is going to give you skin cancer and to protect the public they need to go into a special government chamber because that is more believable than telling everyone CO2 is evil. Humans need oxygen. To get oxygen there must be Carbon Dioxide. Plants must have Carbon Dioxide to live. So these occultists have crafted a public that is so ignorant and dumb that they can't even understand how life on plant Earth even works at a 1st grade level and then humiliate both life and humanity in the process by creating a system where they can make people pay a tax for merely being alive. And then tell you it is Carbon Dioxide that is bad for the environment when all life on Earth must have it to live. Plants must have it to live. Plants produce oxygen and to do that must have CO2.

THEY ONLY WANT TO TAX CARBON DIOXIDE BECAUSE IT IS THE ONE THING EVERYONE PRODUCES. THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE TO THE OLIGARCHY FOR THEIR LIFE. HOW ELSE DOES A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT GET TO TAX EVERYONE.

But why are they doing this? The reason is the globalists need to form a new way to govern planet in order to restrict the resources from the public, bring the world under a medieval feudalist model, impoverish people to enslave them, and eventually rid the population for their world view. To do that they must get the world to pay a carbon tax to a world government. Then they can have that world government regulate the world economy with that tax in the same way the Federal Reserve illegally taxes your income. Making everyone pay that income tax is slavery. And making the whole world pay them a carbon tax is the same thing on a global scale. That is their formula. Without this carbon tax there can be no one world government. How else would you get the entire world to surrender their fortunes and way of life other than to tell them the world is going to end. And how obvious is it a fraud when they say it is carbon dioxide, the most important gas on Earth. Without it you cannot have oxygen on this planet. That is what is so absolutely AMAZING about their claims other than the fact that record ice caps existed last winter and record snowfall in the US in much of the country as God throws it in their faces.

Do people in here understand that they are trying to tell you what plants need to breathe on order to create oxygen that humans must breathe in order to live is evil? At a 1st grade level. We are talking 1st grade science here and most people don't even know what CO2 even is and still call it the devil.
light-and-photosynthesis.png


If this board wasn't unreadable before, you've succeeded in throwing it over the edge with your long-winded gibberish. Congrats.
 
If this board wasn't unreadable before, you've succeeded in throwing it over the edge with your long-winded gibberish. Congrats.

Is it then that God is a fool, or there is no God, and or coupled with the fact that plants aren't supposed to breathe CO2? Which is it? The climate lickers begging to be slaves like people living on Mars in the movie Total Recall can't have it both ways. To have oxygen then you must have CO2. It's not that these people are idiots it is they are so dumb they can't even understand 1st grade science class with crayon colors and photosynthesis. Those are the people telling everyone to hand over the cash or else.

photosynthesis-24418002.jpg




LOOK AT HOW DUMB THESE PEOPLE TAKE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FOR. LOOK AT THESE PEOPLE LIKE BILL GATES SNIVEL AT THE FOOLISH MASSES.
bill-gates-businessman-quote-almost-every-way-we-make-electricity-today-except-for.jpg


They think the America public is such a slave lashed slob moron that even when the slaves exhale after they breathe in oxygen well they need to pay for it.

Cartoon-EPA-Rules-on-Exhaling.jpg
 
Last edited:
If this board wasn't unreadable before, you've succeeded in throwing it over the edge with your long-winded gibberish. Congrats.


You know, I read everything he wrote, and while I may not agree with the extent that he takes some of it, I could still have a reasonable argument with him about it. But here you are of all people saying he is long winded after some of the diatribes you have written. I would go point by point asking questions about everything you wrote, but all you can respond with is snark. Why do you always expect people to read and understand what your saying but can never try to understand and reasonably rebut what other's say? Is it because you don't understand what they are saying? I know you will say it's beneath you and you've already done it so many times and your tired of doing it again, but humor me, act like we are reasonable people, but misinformed. Tell us how we're wrong, instead of just saying we're stupid and here's what the scientist's say. In your own words without any linked articles or graphs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerMadness
You know, I read everything he wrote, and while I may not agree with the extent that he takes some of it, I could still have a reasonable argument with him about it. But here you are of all people saying he is long winded after some of the diatribes you have written. I would go point by point asking questions about everything you wrote, but all you can respond with is snark. Why do you always expect people to read and understand what your saying but can never try to understand and reasonably rebut what other's say? Is it because you don't understand what they are saying? I know you will say it's beneath you and you've already done it so many times and your tired of doing it again, but humor me, act like we are reasonable people, but misinformed. Tell us how we're wrong, instead of just saying we're stupid and here's what the scientist's say. In your own words without any linked articles or graphs.

Diatribes? Who were you before the forum change?

You've already made it clear that it doesn't matter to you what the science says, ergo what's the point of me attempting to explain it?

IF you have an honest question, ASK and I'll attempt an answer.
 
Diatribes? Who were you before the forum change?

You've already made it clear that it doesn't matter to you what the science says, ergo what's the point of me attempting to explain it?

IF you have an honest question, ASK and I'll attempt an answer.


Does this plant have a smiley face when it is breathing in the CO2 that it needs to produce oxygen that all living animals need on the entire planet? It sounds to me that if these libs wanted to help the environment then CO2 would be quite a desirable thing for life on Earth as well as oxygen. But it seems they want to hurt those things. Isn't that something.
contentItem-4013179-25268074-qsr02vq2fzzgs-or.jpg
 
Diatribes? Who were you before the forum change?

You've already made it clear that it doesn't matter to you what the science says, ergo what's the point of me attempting to explain it?

IF you have an honest question, ASK and I'll attempt an answer.


Ok,

1) How many years of reliable data on weather/temperature do we have?

2) How long has there been a climate on this planet?

3)What percentage of your answer to 2 is your answer to 1? Do you think that is a significant number?

4) How many ppm is CO2 as a portion of our atmosphere? Do you think that number is significant?

Thanks
 
Does this plant have a smiley face when it is breathing in the CO2 that it needs to produce oxygen that all living animals need on the entire planet? It sounds to me that if these libs wanted to help the environment then CO2 would be quite a desirable thing for life on Earth as well as oxygen. But it seems they want to hurt those things. Isn't that something.
contentItem-4013179-25268074-qsr02vq2fzzgs-or.jpg

It is actually helpful that you keep posting this cartoon.

You have a good little system there. It is running smoothly. So, you start to crank one of the dials. More is better right?

Whoops. Have to crank the other dials as well if you want your system to continue to function.

More water. Where does it come from? More nutrients. Where do they come from? Longer light cycle. Where does it come from?

The planet is warming so there are fewer places for plant life to thrive. We are already seeing plant migration. Plants are moving north to put it simply. They are able to thrive in areas that were previously too cold. Same with animals.

The neat thing about this Republican talking point is that you can test it at home! I do everyday in my aquariums. I diffuse co2 into all of my planted tanks. As well as tweak nutrients in the substrate and water column. I can also adjust the light cycle. Heck, some folks have success with a "storm" theory were they cycle the lights off for an hour in the middle of the day to curb algae growth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Honestly, this Republican talking point is so simple it doesn't get used anymore.
 
Last edited:
Ok,

1) How many years of reliable data on weather/temperature do we have?

2) How long has there been a climate on this planet?

3)What percentage of your answer to 2 is your answer to 1? Do you think that is a significant number?

4) How many ppm is CO2 as a portion of our atmosphere? Do you think that number is significant?

Thanks

I'll do this without links like you asked-


1) Instrumental temperature records begin around the mid 1800s. Proxy data from such things as ice cores, tree rings, core sediment, corals, etc. reaches back much further into areas known as "paleoclimate". Ice cores reach back about 800k years & are very accurate representations of what the atmosphere looked like. The error bars increase as you go back in time in 10s of millions of years, but we get a fairly good estimation of global conditions when these proxy measurements are cross referenced with one another.

2) The earth is 4.54B years old, and the concept of climate probably began around the time a primordial atmosphere began to form (over the course of approx 500my). That early atmosphere looks nothing like what is present today.

3) Given proxy measurements, roughly 3.9B years or 90%+. Yes, it is significant.

4) Presently 400ppm and rising by 2-3ppm annually. Yes, that is a significant number because of the importance of CO2 in the climate system and the unprecedented rate at which it is increasing.
 
I'll do this without links like you asked-


1) Instrumental temperature records begin around the mid 1800s. Proxy data from such things as ice cores, tree rings, core sediment, corals, etc. reaches back much further into areas known as "paleoclimate". Ice cores reach back about 800k years & are very accurate representations of what the atmosphere looked like. The error bars increase as you go back in time in 10s of millions of years, but we get a fairly good estimation of global conditions when these proxy measurements are cross referenced with one another.

2) The earth is 4.54B years old, and the concept of climate probably began around the time a primordial atmosphere began to form (over the course of approx 500my). That early atmosphere looks nothing like what is present today.

3) Given proxy measurements, roughly 3.9B years or 90%+. Yes, it is significant.

4) Presently 400ppm and rising by 2-3ppm annually. Yes, that is a significant number because of the importance of CO2 in the climate system and the unprecedented rate at which it is increasing.


Follow-up questions:

How long have humans been around to be affected by climate? What percentage of THAT time do we have climate data?

Have there been climates in the past that would have been absolutely problematic for humans if they'd been around during that time?

How much of the issues involved here deal with the fact that almost half of humans live near the oceans (40% live within 60 miles)?
 
Follow-up questions:

How long have humans been around to be affected by climate? What percentage of THAT time do we have climate data?

Have there been climates in the past that would have been absolutely problematic for humans if they'd been around during that time?

How much of the issues involved here deal with the fact that almost half of humans live near the oceans (40% live within 60 miles)?

I doubt you were asking me, but:

1) Roughly 200k years. We have excellent representation of climate over the course of that time period. 100%

2) Problematic indeed. Major extinction events throughout the geologic record are linked to abrupt climate change. The PETM is most often used as a comparison to what is happening today. The difference is that we're increasing CO2 at about 6x the rate of what happened during the PETM.

3) The prospect, and virtual guarantee of significant sea level rise is perhaps the most disruptive aspect of a changing climate to our civilization. I would count the depletion and destruction of the biosphere & biodiversity as perhaps the most important, but sea level rise is more tangible for more people. The prospect of destabilization in critical areas of the world does not paint itself as a positive scenario.
 
I doubt you were asking me, but:

1) Roughly 200k years. We have excellent representation of climate over the course of that time period. 100%

2) Problematic indeed. Major extinction events throughout the geologic record are linked to abrupt climate change. The PETM is most often used as a comparison to what is happening today. The difference is that we're increasing CO2 at about 6x the rate of what happened during the PETM.

3) The prospect, and virtual guarantee of significant sea level rise is perhaps the most disruptive aspect of a changing climate to our civilization. I would count the depletion and destruction of the biosphere & biodiversity as perhaps the most important, but sea level rise is more tangible for more people. The prospect of destabilization in critical areas of the world does not paint itself as a positive scenario.

So what you appear to be saying is:

1. We have recent evidence, in human times, of times when climate change has caused real problems for humans.

2. Climate change that leads to sea level rise can have a real impact on humans today because such a large number of humans live near the oceans.

Why can't those folks simply move inland? What's the big deal with a sea level rise that causes folks to move in a little bit? Haven't coastlines changed all of the time?
 
So what you appear to be saying is:

1. We have recent evidence, in human times, of times when climate change has caused real problems for humans.

2. Climate change that leads to sea level rise can have a real impact on humans today because such a large number of humans live near the oceans.

Why can't those folks simply move inland? What's the big deal with a sea level rise that causes folks to move in a little bit? Haven't coastlines changed all of the time?

Ok, so you guys got this all figured out and the conclusion is the climate changes. Animals will go extinct due to climate change, oceans will rise due to climate change. And humans are responsible for all this because we emit too much CO2 into the atmosphere. I mean, because before humans, everything was so stable. But I digress. And if we humans just stop driving cars, using electricity, and quit being so greedy, it will all turn around and the oceans will recede back to normal, animals will all survive and live under rainbows, and people in poor countries will hold hands and sing kumbayah. Do I got that right?



*Sorry about the snark at the end, I admit it was uncalled for, but I dont understand the ends that you're looking for. Do you really believe we can change the long-term effects of our climate? Do you really think we can compete with the Sun and the oceans which are mostly responsible for our climate?
 
Yes, we absolutely "can compete" if one understands the outsized impact of some chemicals on the atmosphere.

I weigh 200 lbs on a good day. How much Strychnine do I need to ingest to kill me? Or arsenic? Or Plutonium? Tiny tiny amounts relative speaking. Little things can have massively outsized impacts. Small changes can have large changes to a chaotic system like climate. And the changes we are talking about vis-a-vis the planet are small...a few Centigrade annually.

That's nothing to the planet...it means A LOT to human civilization. No one said anything about stopping driving cars or stopping using electricity or any of that hyperbolic BS by the way. But yes curbing the use of fossil fuels and looking for ways to use new energy sources and new ways of using energy that don't add to our carbon footprint .
 
Yes, we absolutely "can compete" if one understands the outsized impact of some chemicals on the atmosphere.

I weigh 200 lbs on a good day. How much Strychnine do I need to ingest to kill me? Or arsenic? Or Plutonium? Tiny tiny amounts relative speaking. Little things can have massively outsized impacts. Small changes can have large changes to a chaotic system like climate. And the changes we are talking about vis-a-vis the planet are small...a few Centigrade annually.

That's nothing to the planet...it means A LOT to human civilization. No one said anything about stopping driving cars or stopping using electricity or any of that hyperbolic BS by the way. But yes curbing the use of fossil fuels and looking for ways to use new energy sources and new ways of using energy that don't add to our carbon footprint .


Did you just compare CO2 to a poison? See this is where you guys lose me, I don't know if you're really that dumb, or just made a bad comparison. But, I've heard that same argument before, and it is such a false comparison. No, CO2 in the atmosphere and how it traps heat and what small changes can mean is nothing like poison in your body.

The question is can small changes in a TRACE gas, cause catastrophic events in an atmosphere. There really is no simple comparison that can be made. The atmosphere and climate are very complex, moreso than we can understand completely, certainly at this point in time. But, even if it does cause catastrophic events, can we be sure we'd be better off trying to solve it or trying to adapt to it? See, very simple questions, no agendas.
 
Did you just compare CO2 to a poison? See this is where you guys lose me, I don't know if you're really that dumb, or just made a bad comparison. But, I've heard that same argument before, and it is such a false comparison. No, CO2 in the atmosphere and how it traps heat and what small changes can mean is nothing like poison in your body.

The question is can small changes in a TRACE gas, cause catastrophic events in an atmosphere. There really is no simple comparison that can be made. The atmosphere and climate are very complex, moreso than we can understand completely, certainly at this point in time. But, even if it does cause catastrophic events, can we be sure we'd be better off trying to solve it or trying to adapt to it? See, very simple questions, no agendas.

SMH if all you can take from that comparison is CO2 = poison.
 
It is actually helpful that you keep posting this cartoon.

You have a good little system there. It is running smoothly. So, you start to crank one of the dials. More is better right?

Whoops. Have to crank the other dials as well if you want your system to continue to function.

More water. Where does it come from? More nutrients. Where do they come from? Longer light cycle. Where does it come from?

The planet is warming so there are fewer places for plant life to thrive. We are already seeing plant migration. Plants are moving north to put it simply. They are able to thrive in areas that were previously too cold. Same with animals.

The neat thing about this Republican talking point is that you can test it at home! I do everyday in my aquariums. I diffuse co2 into all of my planted tanks. As well as tweak nutrients in the substrate and water column. I can also adjust the light cycle. Heck, some folks have success with a "storm" theory were they cycle the lights off for an hour in the middle of the day to curb algae growth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Honestly, this Republican talking point is so simple it doesn't get used anymore.

Actually, the planet warming gives you MORE arable land, not less, unless you expect the tropical rainforests to become deserts. Since you say "We are already seeing plant migration.", are you also seeing rainforests becoming incompatible with maintaining plant-life?

You've got to love the scientific method. There is NO doubt, that your little aquarium is a perfect reflection of the Earth's Ecosystem. Keep believing.

BTW, I wish the Republicans would use talking points, but that's a Democratic thing. When you watch the Sunday morning political talk shows, virtually every Democrat says the same things using exactly the same words, which gives even the most outrageous lies a ring of truth. Whereas the Republicans may address the same topics in the same manner, but they word their comments differently, which dilutes the message. The Democrats are far superior in marching in lock-step.
 
I'll do this without links like you asked-


1) Instrumental temperature records begin around the mid 1800s. Proxy data from such things as ice cores, tree rings, core sediment, corals, etc. reaches back much further into areas known as "paleoclimate". Ice cores reach back about 800k years & are very accurate representations of what the atmosphere looked like. The error bars increase as you go back in time in 10s of millions of years, but we get a fairly good estimation of global conditions when these proxy measurements are cross referenced with one another.

2) The earth is 4.54B years old, and the concept of climate probably began around the time a primordial atmosphere began to form (over the course of approx 500my). That early atmosphere looks nothing like what is present today.

3) Given proxy measurements, roughly 3.9B years or 90%+. Yes, it is significant.

4) Presently 400ppm and rising by 2-3ppm annually. Yes, that is a significant number because of the importance of CO2 in the climate system and the unprecedented rate at which it is increasing.

Regarding item 4), How long have there been accurate measurements of the CO2 content in the atmosphere? Where are the measurements of CO2 taken on the planet and with what frequency?
 
Actually, the planet warming gives you MORE arable land, not less, unless you expect the tropical rainforests to become deserts. Since you say "We are already seeing plant migration.", are you also seeing rainforests becoming incompatible with maintaining plant-life?

You've got to love the scientific method. There is NO doubt, that your little aquarium is a perfect reflection of the Earth's Ecosystem. Keep believing.

BTW, I wish the Republicans would use talking points, but that's a Democratic thing. When you watch the Sunday morning political talk shows, virtually every Democrat says the same things using exactly the same words, which gives even the most outrageous lies a ring of truth. Whereas the Republicans may address the same topics in the same manner, but they word their comments differently, which dilutes the message. The Democrats are far superior in marching in lock-step.

WOW.

You didn't address anything in my post. You either can't grasp the science or you are a simple man.

Everything else...WOW.

You are so...simple. You and SC blow my mind. Not because you are denialists...it is the complete distortion coupled with a firm stance.

How did you become this cartoon?

Complete insults, I get that. But, there comes a point where discussion is pointless.
 
Last edited:
Regarding item 4), How long have there been accurate measurements of the CO2 content in the atmosphere? Where are the measurements of CO2 taken on the planet and with what frequency?

This is a perfect example.

You have no idea how measurements are taken but you know they are wrong.

It is like SC asking about temp readings with no knowledge of stations, floats, sat readings, etc...

You fellows have no idea what is actually going on, not with the climate, but with the science.

That doesn't stop you from repeating a talking point, though.

Are you embarrassed? Even a little bit?
 
Have you read any of the research behind plant migration?

Nope, it's nowhere near the top of my reading list. I suspect that virtually NO ONE on here has read any plant migration research either.

It doesn't take a lot of research to figure out, that if previously frozen turf thaws, plants will eventually grow there. Add a little extra CO2 and those plants will be happy as clams....vbg
 
Regarding item 4), How long have there been accurate measurements of the CO2 content in the atmosphere? Where are the measurements of CO2 taken on the planet and with what frequency?

CO2 measurements from ice cores reach back over 800,000 years. CO2 measurements are now taken all over the planet, the most noteworthy being the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. All show the same trends in atmospheric co2.

Observations have been taken continuously on Mauna Loa since 1958, and the measurements compose what is known as the keeling curve.

mlo_full_record.png
 
CO2 measurements from ice cores reach back over 800,000 years. CO2 measurements are now taken all over the planet, the most noteworthy being the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. All show the same trends in atmospheric co2.

Observations have been taken continuously on Mauna Loa since 1958, and the measurements compose what is known as the keeling curve.

mlo_full_record.png
Thanks. I was also wondering what effect the increasing population has had on CO2, or is there any way to determine that?
 
Thanks. I was also wondering what effect the increasing population has had on CO2, or is there any way to determine that?

Increasing population would impact co2 mostly through the corresponding increase in the burning of fossil fuels, as well as land-use changes (mainly deforestation).
 
Nope, it's nowhere near the top of my reading list. I suspect that virtually NO ONE on here has read any plant migration research either.

It doesn't take a lot of research to figure out, that if previously frozen turf thaws, plants will eventually grow there. Add a little extra CO2 and those plants will be happy as clams....vbg


I don't read, but I have an opinion.

Thanks Ms. Kardashian.
 
It is actually helpful that you keep posting this cartoon.

You have a good little system there. It is running smoothly. So, you start to crank one of the dials. More is better right?

Whoops. Have to crank the other dials as well if you want your system to continue to function.

More water. Where does it come from? More nutrients. Where do they come from? Longer light cycle. Where does it come from?

The planet is warming so there are fewer places for plant life to thrive. We are already seeing plant migration. Plants are moving north to put it simply. They are able to thrive in areas that were previously too cold. Same with animals.

The neat thing about this Republican talking point is that you can test it at home! I do everyday in my aquariums. I diffuse co2 into all of my planted tanks. As well as tweak nutrients in the substrate and water column. I can also adjust the light cycle. Heck, some folks have success with a "storm" theory were they cycle the lights off for an hour in the middle of the day to curb algae growth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Honestly, this Republican talking point is so simple it doesn't get used anymore.



HAHA.... republican talking point? That is a 1st grade science book. You got to love these people that are so invested in their lies that they now call photosynthesis a conspiracy theory. They are so invested in the lie that all reality is now a conspiracy theory. If you say anything true it is a conspiracy theory because they gotta have their one word government. I was also reading their white papers at Penn State, some of those emails that got hacked. You just finely illustrated one of their tactics is that they take something so incredibly basic and simple and use that fancy word trick to paint over the moronic minds of the public that doesn't even know what CO2 is or H2O. You tell the public is water good and they'll say yes. You tell the public should we ban H2O because it is a toxic chemical and they'll have a law passed tomorrow because they're such nincompoops they can't understand what H2O means. They like to use those fancy words to confuse the moron heads in public dummy classes at all these nelly schools with a simpering slob as a teacher. Without CO2 ALL life on Earth would die. Life cannot exist without CO2. And the government is trying to tell you that it is more evil than Satan. Now there is no sugar coating that or sidestepping here. That is undeniable. They are an occupational organization here to conduit the United States under foreign rule through a world government and their program is to put their world tax over the economy forever, and that will be a tax to breathe. As plants produce oxygen by digesting CO2. CO2 is what plants breathe. Does that register in your brain? The MAGNITUDE of that? What is even more amazing is that it was the United Nations that established CO2 as bad under the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and now they say a global carbon tax paid to them is their proposal. That is how dumb the masses are. If you were going to try and put an atmosphere on Mars the first thing scientists would do is find away to produce carbon dioxide. That is what is so amazing. They say on Earth it is evil, but you read those same authors in some cases, the ones at the Ivy League colleges that are on the take to lie, they write in their academic papers that the key to establishing an atmosphere on Mars is to line the planet with CO2.

photoresp1.jpg


They tell you CO2 is evil while they laugh at you in their Ivy League white papers. It is such an insult to all you dummied up global warming ninnies. Man have they made you their minions.


THEY LAUGH AT YOU GUYS
The same heating effect could be reproduced on Mars by setting up hundreds of these factories. Their sole purpose would be to pump out CFCs, methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

These greenhouse-gas factories would either have to be ferried to Mars or made out of materials already located on Mars, which would take years to process. In order to transport these machines to Mars, they would have to be lightweight and efficient. These greenhouse machines would mimic the natural process of plant photosynthesis, inhaling carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. It would take many years, but the Mars atmosphere would slowly be oxygenated to the point that Mars colonists would need only a breathing-assistance apparatus, and not a pressure suit as worn by astronauts. Photosynthetic bacteria could also be used in place of or in addition to these greenhouse machines.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT