XNXX Adult Forum Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure
 Forum rules Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

05-26-2012, 11:54 AM   #801
tenguy
Reasoned voice of XNXX

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Middle Tennessee
Age: 75
Posts: 26,962

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kimiko In a word, hogwash. It's clear to anyone with an objective bone in his or her body that the deniers...those who wish to maintain the status quo in terms of the world's dependence on fossil fuels...are the ones primarily motivated by profit. It's very easy to follow the money trail, and it ALWAYS leads back to the oil, gas and coal industries. Furthermore, large-scale, RAPID changes in the earth's climate are NOT typical. Yes, you have the occasional large volcanic eruption...but the kinds of changes people cite (ice ages, warming periods, etc.) happen over thousands, or even millions, of years.
Hogwash? Hardly.

What is hoge=wash is the holier-than-thou attitude of folks who think that the way to "educate" the un-washed, is to browbeat them with arrogance.

What I attempted to point out to you is that the science is not as cut and dried as you like to paint it. Personally, I have no problem understanding the major impact that man's wanton disregard has had on the earth's ecology. However, I also have no problem understanding the reluctance of many to blindly accept the remedies that seem to make it "them against us" and give the biggest violators a pass on making the sacrifices. Skepticism of this idiotic approach has even begun to seep into the current round of climate talks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/e...-un/55210410/1

What you seem to be missing is that the current climate change has been occurring for thousands of years. Climate changes have never stopped occurring in the history of the planet.
__________________
"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off."
- Gloria Steinem

05-26-2012, 08:24 PM   #802
Kimiko
Porn Star

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central California
Posts: 43,097

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tenguy Hogwash? Hardly. What is hoge=wash is the holier-than-thou attitude of folks who think that the way to "educate" the un-washed, is to browbeat them with arrogance. What I attempted to point out to you is that the science is not as cut and dried as you like to paint it. Personally, I have no problem understanding the major impact that man's wanton disregard has had on the earth's ecology. However, I also have no problem understanding the reluctance of many to blindly accept the remedies that seem to make it "them against us" and give the biggest violators a pass on making the sacrifices. Skepticism of this idiotic approach has even begun to seep into the current round of climate talks.
That's simply a diversionary tactic, and a convenient excuse for doing nothing. "Well, THEY'RE not doing enough, so why should we?"

Nobody is proposing a "them against us" solution. But taking action against climate change inevitably involves a considerable change to the status quo, and there will always be winners and losers. If I'm in the oil and gas industry, I'm probably going to be one of the losers...but I've been winning bigtime for decades.

Quote:
 What you seem to be missing is that the current climate change has been occurring for thousands of years. Climate changes have never stopped occurring in the history of the planet.
Yes, but as I said, RAPID change, of the kind we've been experiencing over the past 100 years, is extremely rare. The kind of change you're talking about is associated with a much, MUCH longer time frame. And since the current changes are associated with human activity, we have a moral obligation to address it.

As for my so-called holier-than-thou attitude, pot, meet kettle. You never seem to grow weary of trying to lecture me on this subject, or any other subject.

Last edited by Kimiko; 05-26-2012 at 08:26 PM.

05-26-2012, 09:00 PM   #803
thinskin
Porn Star

Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,600

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tenguy What you seem to be missing is that the current climate change has been occurring for thousands of years. Climate changes have never stopped occurring in the history of the planet.
I have posted this point so many times I am beginning to sound like a broken record. The rate and magnitude of recent ocean acidification is unique in terms of the historical data that we have available.

In the past the ocean phytoplankton, which are as much the lungs of the planet as the rain forest, was able to buffer the changes in CO2. It becomes obvious when you realise that the most abundant enzyme on planet earth is rubisco.

Thinskin

05-26-2012, 09:52 PM   #804
tenguy
Reasoned voice of XNXX

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Middle Tennessee
Age: 75
Posts: 26,962

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kimiko That's simply a diversionary tactic, and a convenient excuse for doing nothing. "Well, THEY'RE not doing enough, so why should we?" Nobody is proposing a "them against us" solution. But taking action against climate change inevitably involves a considerable change to the status quo, and there will always be winners and losers. If I'm in the oil and gas industry, I'm probably going to be one of the losers...but I've been winning bigtime for decades. Yes, but as I said, RAPID change, of the kind we've been experiencing over the past 100 years, is extremely rare. The kind of change you're talking about is associated with a much, MUCH longer time frame. And since the current changes are associated with human activity, we have a moral obligation to address it. As for my so-called holier-than-thou attitude, pot, meet kettle. You never seem to grow weary of trying to lecture me on this subject, or any other subject.
I only lecture you to enlighten you. Consider it my contribution to your continued education.

The earth has experienced much more rapid changes than what we are presently seeing. It is likely to experience such rapid change again.

No question on the moral obligation of mankind to reverse the process, BUT, I stop being so generous with my sacrifices when I witness wholesale disregard for the problem by the number one and number two offenders.

Even if the US went total on eliminating greenhouse gasses, Asia is increasing at a rate that renders us very unimportant in the problem. That is when we look at who is pumping the most tonnage into the atmosphere.

However, we as a nation and the European community, consume the bulk of the products being produced by the culprits. So it is our quest for cheap goods and creature comforts that really has caused the problem, you seem to be sidestepping that little fact.
__________________
"The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off."
- Gloria Steinem

05-27-2012, 02:01 PM   #805
Whitey44
Porn Star

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bible Belt
Age: 50
Posts: 20,246

Quote:
 Originally Posted by tenguy I only lecture you to enlighten you. Consider it my contribution to your continued education. The earth has experienced much more rapid changes than what we are presently seeing. It is likely to experience such rapid change again. No question on the moral obligation of mankind to reverse the process, BUT, I stop being so generous with my sacrifices when I witness wholesale disregard for the problem by the number one and number two offenders. Even if the US went total on eliminating greenhouse gasses, Asia is increasing at a rate that renders us very unimportant in the problem. That is when we look at who is pumping the most tonnage into the atmosphere. However, we as a nation and the European community, consume the bulk of the products being produced by the culprits. So it is our quest for cheap goods and creature comforts that really has caused the problem, you seem to be sidestepping that little fact.
Actually, to speak of Asians, although China has now surpassed the USA, it has professed that it wishes to control it's emissions. As for the rest of Asia, thwey are also consuming fossil burning products like airplanes and cars as well. We are not alone in ctreating the problems.

I don't have time to get into it now. But, mabey later...

05-27-2012, 07:40 PM   #806
swingerj
Sex Machine

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 602

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Whitey44 although China has now surpassed the USA, it has professed that it wishes to control it's emissions.
And I am sure they are taking great strides toward doing something about it as well just like they are taking steps toward ensuring their people have access to basic human rights, don't have a one child policy, have an uncensored media, people are free to protest without fear of being jailed, are not manipulating their own currency, are not helping Iran build a nuclear reactor, have not stolen technology from the US to build an F-22 stealth fighter of their own, do not regularly try to hack into the US government, etc, etc.

Yep, I am SURE they "WISH" to reduce their CO2 emissions...right after they take care of everything else first. China will not do anything to improve the environment unless there is something big in it for them. This is the same country that is trying t9 build a dam and flood an area the size of singapore and just telling the people to get the fuck out or die. The Chinese government does not care what anyone thinks about them and will only cut there emissions IF it will not effect their economy. Period.
__________________
Living life to the emptiest...

My Stories
The Sisters Game - Part 1 - How it all Started
The Sisters Game - Part 2 - A Date with an Angel

 05-27-2012, 10:19 PM #807 jedisaurus Amateur   Join Date: May 2011 Location: chicago Posts: 52 The difference between earlier global coolings and warmings, is that they took thousands of years to complete, whereas the same conditions have been reached within one hundred years, since the industrial revolution. If you look at all of the climactic changes over the last hundred years, some are natural processes, some are far too fast and global to be anything but man-made. Plus, if you ask any real scientist, they will all tell you the same thing: the most drastic change has occurred recently, and most of those changes can be traced to human interference/influences. Its kind of like the evolution issue unfortunately, some still want to be in their little bubble. No, the world is not going to end, but one thing that prehistory has taught us is that when change comes, its the animals at the top of the food chain that go extinct first (ex: dinosaurs, mammoths, ancient whales, mega-beasts, etc). So there's a lesson.
 05-31-2012, 07:24 PM #809 McDick Porn Star   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 1,129 If the lying libs actually believed any of the horseshit they try to sell to their retarded constituants about the carbon dioxide/global warming hoax, they wouldn't do this. Barack Obama flies his Chicago based barber out to the Whitehouse every ten to fourteen days for a haircut. CARBON FOOTPRINT OF BARACK OBAMA'S HAIRCUTS: 6.38 tons of CARBON DIOXIDE every year. http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-oba...very-two-weeks
 06-02-2012, 06:25 PM #810 Whitey44 Porn Star     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bible Belt Age: 50 Posts: 20,246 I think the basis for the deniers rejection of the clarity and logic of science is that the economic costs of reducing carbon emissions are high. This is what makes global warming/climate change so unpallitable for them. Unfortunatley, doing nothing to change our behaviours now will probably result in even higher economic losses, in the long run... I say that as a scientist. Not as a political groupie. Last edited by Whitey44; 06-02-2012 at 06:27 PM.
 06-03-2012, 07:30 AM #811 grig314 Porn Star     Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: So Cal Posts: 1,163 What the hell does the public know anyhow? They let our leaders murder 100,000+ Iraqi civilians because these babies sucking on their mommies' tits "could be dangerous to US safety." This public pays no attention to facts that take more than a smidgeon of energy to dig out. If we don't reverse this global warming it will end us, but the rich businessmen don't want the public to know because it ends their making money off u.
06-03-2012, 11:10 AM   #812
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by grig314 They let our leaders murder 100,000+ Iraqi civilians because these babies sucking on their mommies' tits "could be dangerous to US safety." This public pays no attention to facts that take more than a smidgeon of energy to dig out. If we don't reverse this global warming it will end us, but the rich businessmen don't want the public to know because it ends their making money off u.
You do realize that if there were no humans on Earth, the planet would still be going through these natural climate changes.
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-03-2012, 01:01 PM   #813
Distant Lover
Master of Facts

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In my home.
Posts: 28,339

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CS natureboy You do realize that if there were no humans on Earth, the planet would still be going through these natural climate changes.
Not as quickly though.

06-03-2012, 04:43 PM   #814
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Oklahoma Recorded Hottest Summer Ever Last Year, Experts Say

Quote:
 TULSA, Okla. (AP) — Oklahoma and Texas have argued for years about which has the best college football team, whose oil fields produce better crude, even where the state border should run. But in a hot, sticky dispute that no one wants to win, Oklahoma just reclaimed its crown. After recalculating data from last year, the nation's climatologists are declaring that Oklahoma suffered through the hottest summer ever recorded in the U.S. last year — not Texas as initially announced last fall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1564197.html
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-03-2012, 10:31 PM   #815
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Distant Lover Not as quickly though.
You, nor anyone else can prove that.
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-03-2012, 10:41 PM   #816
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Beach Communities Moving Inward: Some Beach Towns Are Eyeing Retreat From Sea As Conditions Change With Global Warming

Quote:
 LOS ANGELES -- Years of ferocious storms have threatened to gnaw away the western tip of a popular beachfront park two hours drive north of Los Angeles. Instead of building a 500-foot-long wooden defense next to the pier to tame the tide, the latest thinking is to flee. Work is under way to gauge the toll of ripping up parking lots on the highly eroded west end of Goleta Beach County Park and moving a scenic bike path and buried utility lines inland away from lapping waves. Up and down the California coast, some communities are deciding it's not worth trying to wall off the encroaching ocean. Until recently, the thought of bowing to nature was almost unheard of. But after futile attempts to curb coastal erosion – a problem expected to grow worse with rising seas fueled by global warming – there is growing acknowledgment that the sea is relentless and any line drawn in the sand is likely to eventually wash over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1565122.html
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-04-2012, 12:57 AM   #818
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
Let's get real for a minute here.

NASA Climate ‘Skeptics’ Respond With Science! Just Kidding

Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...-just-kidding/
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-05-2012, 04:43 AM   #819
Whitey44
Porn Star

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bible Belt
Age: 50
Posts: 20,246

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CS natureboy You do realize that if there were no humans on Earth, the planet would still be going through these natural climate changes.
Ignorance is bliss, right?

06-05-2012, 04:48 AM   #820
Whitey44
Porn Star

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bible Belt
Age: 50
Posts: 20,246

Quote:
As though being an astronaut, a mangaer, button pusher, or engineer qualifies a person to make statements about climate change... Climatologists have the ultimate say on climate change.

06-11-2012, 09:04 PM   #821
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Human-Induced Ocean Warming Study Addresses The 'Dominant Role' Of People

Quote:
 Despite the onslaught of politicians attempting to project an air of question around man-made climate change, studies continue to emerge proving the connection between human actions and our changing environment. The most recent study, published in Nature Climate Change, finds an "anthropogenic fingerprint" (human influence) on our warming oceans. The study, "Human-Induced Global Ocean Warming On Multidecadal Timescales," was conducted by researchers in the U.S., Australia, Japan and India. Based on observations of rising upper-ocean temperatures, the researchers used improved estimates of ocean temperatures to examine the causes of our warming ocean. According to a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory press release, the study shows that over the past 50 years, observed ocean warming is explained only when greenhouse gas increases are included in the models. Lead author and LLNL climate scientist Peter Gleckler said in the press release, "The bottom line is that this study substantially strengthens the conclusion that most of the observed global ocean warming over the past 50 years is attributable to human activities." Gleckler added, "Although we performed a series of tests to account for the impact of various uncertainties, we found no evidence that simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas can be explained by natural climate variability alone. Humans have played a dominant role." Report co-author Dr. John Church explained to Australia's ABC News AM that "Natural variability could only explain 10 percent, or thereabouts, of the observed change." Oceanography expert Nathan Bindoff told the news organization, "This paper's important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we're virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily." He added, "We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That's it." The recent ocean warming study has been released on the heels of other disturbing climate change reports. Arctic monitoring stations are now measuring over 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a disturbing milestone that far surpasses the 350 ppm mark that many scientists consider the threshold separating safe from dangerous. Researchers recently warned in Nature that the world is heading toward a tipping point of disastrous consequences driven by human-led increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperatures:"The plausibility of a planetary-scale ‘tipping point’ highlights the need to improve biological forecasting by detecting early warning signs of critical transitions on global as well as local scales, and by detecting feedbacks that promote such transitions. It is also necessary to address root causes of how humans are forcing biological changes."Despite the ominous findings, some politicians are still attempting to project an element of doubt on issues surrounding human-induced climate change. A Virginia lawmaker recently fought to omit mentions of "climate change" and "sea level rise" from a coastal flooding study, telling the BBC, "The jury's still out" on whether humans contribute to global warming. Despite his claim, studies such as the recent ocean warming one are turning in a pretty clear verdict.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1586532.html
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-11-2012, 11:00 PM   #822
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Whitey44 Ignorance is bliss, right?
Is that what you say to yourself when you look in the mirror?
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-11-2012, 11:04 PM   #823
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CS natureboy Is that what you say to yourself when you look in the mirror?
Is that something you say after you've heard other people repeat it enough, parrot?
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-11-2012, 11:17 PM   #824
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stumbler Is that something you say after you've heard other people repeat it enough, parrot?
Oh stumbler, you don't have the brains God gave a bag of dirt. How many times a day do you say the word "parrot"?

I tell ya what. I'll try being nicer, if you'll try being smarter.

OK?

LMAO
__________________
step inside, walk this way

 06-11-2012, 11:33 PM #825 richief The Curly Wurly Man     Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Running through the mind of a Dark Haired Beauty. Age: 52 Posts: 26,469 Is this argument still going? The biggest mistake the pro CC lobby made was allowing it to be called global warming in the first place, they should have jumped all over that and told the media that it was not a case of the world getting warmer but of, for want of an alternative, climate change. I have witnessed no cataclysmic change on where I live getting any warmer, if anything it is getting colder, but I guess "Global Chilling" does not hit the spot does it. Mid summer approaches and for the last fortnight Ihave seen nothing but rain clouds, the Royal Pageant did not get a ray of sunshine, thus disproving "Deu et Mon Droit". Global warming I could take as I am pissed off with global wetting. __________________
06-12-2012, 12:53 AM   #826
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CS natureboy Oh stumbler, you don't have the brains God gave a bag of dirt. How many times a day do you say the word "parrot"? I tell ya what. I'll try being nicer, if you'll try being smarter. OK? LMAO
Just about every time I see you post. Or think it at least.
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-12-2012, 12:58 AM   #827
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
 Originally Posted by richief Is this argument still going? The biggest mistake the pro CC lobby made was allowing it to be called global warming in the first place, they should have jumped all over that and told the media that it was not a case of the world getting warmer but of, for want of an alternative, climate change. I have witnessed no cataclysmic change on where I live getting any warmer, if anything it is getting colder, but I guess "Global Chilling" does not hit the spot does it. Mid summer approaches and for the last fortnight Ihave seen nothing but rain clouds, the Royal Pageant did not get a ray of sunshine, thus disproving "Deu et Mon Droit". Global warming I could take as I am pissed off with global wetting.
You know if we look back we will find it was not the scientists that called it global warming and instead were even then saying that our planet seemed to be warming globally and if that was the case it had significant impacts on the climate and therefore human existence.

It was the media et. al. that dubbed the whole phenomenon "global warming" as short hand for all that scientific stuff and it was only later that scientists could finally correct the mistake and refer to it as climate change.
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-12-2012, 01:26 AM   #828
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stumbler You know if we look back we will find it was not the scientists that called it global warming and instead were even then saying that our planet seemed to be warming globally and if that was the case it had significant impacts on the climate and therefore human existence. It was the media et. al. that dubbed the whole phenomenon "global warming" as short hand for all that scientific stuff and it was only later that scientists could finally correct the mistake and refer to it as climate change.
Liar.... If we look back we will find scientist said the Earth was getting cooler.

The facts about the 1970′s Global Cooling scare

The propaganda campaign to create hysteria about global warming required altering the public memory about both science and history. Both have been successful, disturbingly so.
For the former, putting the well-developed science about the Little Ice Age down the memory hole. The public must have a false image of the world’s climate as stable, so the two century warming could be attributed to late 20th century industrialization.
The latter required erasing from public memory the global cooling scare of the 1970′s. That required amnesia about well-documented history. For example see this typical strawman argument (refutation of an exaggerated version): “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus“, Thomas C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Flect, American Meteorological Society, September 2008.
The success of this project should disturb us, perhaps foreshadowing even more ambitious manipulations in the future (as the global warming hysteria built upon the “nuclear winter” propaganda).

This website has retrieved some of this lost history from the memory hole.
The latest expose from the 1970′s is the re-discovery of this report about global cooling: “A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems”, CIA, August 1974 — Posted at Climate Monitory. It’s a discussion of the effect if our global climate returns to the conditions of the last 400 years (the little ice age).
The success of these efforts to manipulate history should disturb us. It was easy. After all, sheep have poor memories.

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2.../07/cooling-4/
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-12-2012, 02:37 AM   #829
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
You remain one of the most hilarious brainwashed squawking parrots on this forum Natural Boy. I have covered this a dozen times because I was actually there in those days reading about the impending Ice Age which according to geological records should have been happening or at least we were due for an Ice Age.

And then a whole bunch of scientists began to run tests and disagreed. Their research showed the planet was actually warming not cooling. And then they wondered why? And that lead to CO2 and other green hose gases. Then they said the planet was warming from our CO2 and that would result in climate change which brings us full circle to your brainwashed propaganda.
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-12-2012, 05:59 PM   #830
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Climate Change Will Boost Wildfires Across North America And Europe, Scientists Report

Quote:
 WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - Climate change will make U.S. western wildfires, like those now raging in parts of Colorado and New Mexico, more frequent over the next 30 years, researchers reported on Tuesday. More broadly, almost all of North America and most of Europe will see wildfires more often by the year 2100, the scientists wrote in the journal Ecosphere, a publication of the Ecological Society of America. Using satellite-based fire records and 16 different climate change models, the international team of researchers found that while wildfires will increase in many temperate zones due to rising temperatures, fire risk may actually decrease around the Equator, especially in tropical rainforests, because of increased rainfall. "In the long run, we found what most fear - increasing fire activity across large areas of the planet," lead author Max Moritz of the University of California-Berkeley. "But the speed and extent to which some of these changes may happen is surprising. These abrupt changes in fire patterns not only affects people's livelihoods, but also they add stress to native plants and animals that are already struggling to adapt to habitat loss," Moritz said in a statement. Co-author Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University said this study gives a unique global perspective on recent fire patterns and their relationship to climate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1588741.html
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-12-2012, 06:41 PM   #831
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stumbler Climate Change Will Boost Wildfires Across North America And Europe, Scientists Report http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1588741.html
Bahhahahahahahahah, just more stupid left wing dooms day propaganda from stumbler the King of stupid.

So how many more hurricanes did they say this fake man made global shit would cause?

Looks like they were wrong again!
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-12-2012, 06:43 PM   #832
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stumbler You remain one of the most hilarious brainwashed squawking parrots on this forum Natural Boy. I have covered this a dozen times because I was actually there in those days reading about the impending Ice Age which according to geological records should have been happening or at least we were due for an Ice Age. And then a whole bunch of scientists began to run tests and disagreed. Their research showed the planet was actually warming not cooling. And then they wondered why? And that lead to CO2 and other green hose gases. Then they said the planet was warming from our CO2 and that would result in climate change which brings us full circle to your brainwashed propaganda.
And then they got paid to say man made global warming was real.

Wake up you brain dead fool.....
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-12-2012, 06:55 PM   #833
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CS natureboy And then they got paid to say man made global warming was real. Wake up you brain dead fool.....
Actually I'm the one that can see you hysterical brainwashed parrot. And I'm not the only one pointing out your level of woeful ignorance and stupidity. You're one of the most gullible fools I've ever seen on this forum.
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-12-2012, 07:04 PM   #834
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stumbler Actually I'm the one that can see you hysterical brainwashed parrot. And I'm not the only one pointing out your level of woeful ignorance and stupidity. You're one of the most gullible fools I've ever seen on this forum.
Bahahahah!!!! The fact that you keep repeating yourself only proves how stupid and senile you really are.

Perhaps it's time for another trip to the mental hospital? At the tax payers expense of course. Because you are a worthless no job lazy piece of welfare shit.
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-12-2012, 07:13 PM   #835
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Let me demonstrate once again why anyone using the argument that we shouldn't believe the scientists now because in the 70's they were predicting an ice age is a brainwashed parroting fool.

The global cooling myth

Quote:
 Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

Quote:
 The skeptic argument... Ice age predicted in the 70s "[M]any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice) What the science says... Select a level... Basic Intermediate The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970. At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects. By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember. The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-...s-in-1970s.htm
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-12-2012, 07:41 PM   #837
richief
The Curly Wurly Man

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Running through the mind of a Dark Haired Beauty.
Age: 52
Posts: 26,469

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stumbler You know if we look back we will find it was not the scientists that called it global warming and instead were even then saying that our planet seemed to be warming globally and if that was the case it had significant impacts on the climate and therefore human existence. It was the media et. al. that dubbed the whole phenomenon "global warming" as short hand for all that scientific stuff and it was only later that scientists could finally correct the mistake and refer to it as climate change.
I'm sure I stated it was the media that coined the phrase "global warming".

This is an argument just like US politics, it is far to polarised to participate in apart from a little fun know and again.
__________________

06-14-2012, 12:37 AM   #838
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
The Natural Boy Parrot is exposed as a gullible fool again.

Fritz Vahrenholt - Duped on Climate Change

Quote:
 German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt is co-author (along with geologist Sebastian Lüning) of a book expressing "skepticism" regarding the human contribution to global warming, which predictably has been trumpeted by the usual climate denial enablers. Why should we particularly care what Vahrenholt thinks about climate science? That is something of a mystery - he has a PhD in chemistry and has worked in the energy sector for Shell Oil and wind turbine maker RePower. Vahrenholt and Lüning both currently work for RWE Innogy, Germany's second-largest energy company (Vahrenholt as a manager, Lüning as a scientist in its oil and gas division). Vahrenholt admits he has no expertise in climate science, but apparently his status as "Germany’s Top Environmentalist" (a title which Vahrenholt appears to have been awarded just recently by anti-climate think tanks and denialists) and his climate "skepticism" are sufficient for some people to take his climate claims seriously. In an interview with Der Spiegel, Vahrenholt discusses why he chose to write a book rather than attempting to conduct and publish scientific research. SPIEGEL: You make concrete statements on how much human activity contributes to climatic events and how much of a role natural factors play. Why don't you publish your prognoses in a professional journal? Vahrenholt: Because I don't engage in my own climate research. Besides, I don't have a supercomputer in my basement. For the most part, my co-author, geologist Sebastian Lüning, and I merely summarize what scientists have published in professional journals -- just as the IPCC does. However, as we will soon see, the difference between Vahrenholt and the IPCC is that the latter accurately summarizes the body scientific literature, while the former misrepresents his sources and only listens to a few select "skeptic" scientists. Misrepresenting the IPCC In the interview, Vahrenholt makes a statement about the IPCC which reveals that he simply has not done his research. "The long version of the IPCC report does mention natural causes of climate change, like the sun and oscillating ocean currents. But they no longer appear in the summary for politicians. They were simply edited out." Vahrenholt refers to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The following quotes are taken directly from the SPM, which Vahrenholt claims has edited out all mention of natural causes of climate change. The first quote is the first sentence in the SPM. * "The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, observed climate change, climate processes and attribution, and estimates of projected future climate change." * "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface properties alter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing, which is used to compare how a range of human and natural factors drive warming or cooling influences on global climate." * "Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30] W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the TAR." * "It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records." * "The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone." There are more such examples. Then there's Figures SPM.2 and SPM.4: Figure SPM.2: Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other important agents and mechanisms, together with the typical geographical extent (spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU). The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. These require summing asymmetric uncertainty estimates from the component terms, and cannot be obtained by simple addition. Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature. The range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. Figure SPM.4 - Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906 to 2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for 1901–1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings. Clearly the SPM explicitly discusses natural contributions to global warming, and explains that according to the body of scientific evidence, their contribution to the observed warming is small. Frankly if Vahrenholt can't even accurately read the 18-page SPM, it's exceptionally difficult to take him seriously. His subsequent comments in the interview reveal that he has been very selective about what scientific research he chooses to accept. Misrepresenting Global Warming Early in the interview, Vahrenholt repeats a myth which has become increasingly popular amongst climate contrarians. "It hasn't gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that." Of course our first answer must point out that Vahrenholt's assertion is false. Over the past 14 years, the average global surface temperature has warmed approximately 0.13°C, according to data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. And of course surface air warming only represents a very small percentage of global warming, which has continued uninterrupted: Figure 1: Global heat content, data from Church et al 2011. And of course there's the fact that the odd timeframe choice of 14 years conveniently begins at the peak of the strongest El Niño in a century (a.k.a. cherrypicking of short-term data). This cherrypicking is illustrated by The Escalator, which was used by German newspaper Die Zeit to debunk this myth from Vahrenholt's book (Figure 2). Figure 2: Die Zeit use of The Escalator We should note that while we are flattered that Die Zeit has described Skeptical Science as "an internet platform close to the IPCC" in their figure caption, we are in no way affiliated with the IPCC. The second answer to Vahrenholt's concern about the dampened surface warming over the past decade or so involves the fact that virtually every non-greenhouse gas effect acted in the cooling direction over that period. Human aerosol emissions increased, blocking more sunlight. Heat accumulated in the deep oceans. The solar cycle went into an extended minimum. There were a number of strong La Niña events. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) showed that when we filter out the latter two effects and that of volcanic activity, the warming of surface temperatures has not even slowed (Figure 2). Figure 2: Average temperature changes recorded by 5 teams of scientists: 2 working on satellites (University of Alabama, Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems) and 3 working with thermometers and ship/buoy measurements (UK Hadley Centre & Climate Research Unit, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the US National Climatic Data Centre. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) statistical methods have been used to 'take out' the effects of volcanic eruptions, Pacific Ocean cycles and the Sun. Blaming the Sun Like David Archibald, Vahrenholt exaggerates the solar influence on global temperature. "In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This "large solar maximum," as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2." In the second half of the 20th century, solar activity was also flat. Vahrenholt does not seem to understand that the climate responds to increasing solar activity, not flat solar activity, even if at a relatively high level. It's true that solar activity increased leading up to the mid-20th century, which contributed to the warming observed from about 1910 to 1940. However, total solar irradiance (TSI) increased by less than 2 Watts per square meter (W/m2) leading up to 1940 (i.e. see Vieira 2011 and Jones 2012, with more recent reconstructions showing a smaller TSI increase of generally less than 1 W/m2 during this period). We can estimate the equilibrium temperature response to this TSI increase by multiplying the radiative forcing by the climate sensitivity parameter (λ). $\small \Delta T_{solar} = \lambda \Delta F = \lambda \times 0.7 \times \Delta (TSI)/4 = 0.175 \times \lambda \times \Delta (TSI)$ The solar radiative forcing for a 2 W/m2 increase in TSI is just 0.35 W/m2, compared to the ~1.6 W/m2 radiative forcing from increased CO2. These radiative forcings will cause an equilibrium surface warming of approximately 0.3°C and 1.3°C, respectively. So no, the increase in solar activity has not contributed nearly as much to global warming as the CO2 increase. Blaming Ocean Cycles and Galactic Cosmic Rays When confronted with the flat TSI trend over the past ~60 years by the Der Spiegel interviewer (who did a nice job challenging Vahrenholt's many myths throughout the interview), Vahrenholt invoked ocean cycles and galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) to explain the observed global warming. "There are two effects: the declining solar activity, as well as the fluctuations in ocean currents, such as the 60-year Pacific oscillation, which was in a positive warm phase from 1977 to 2000 and, since 2000, has led to cooling as a result of its decline. Their contribution to the change in temperature has also been wrongly attributed to CO2. Most of all, however, the last sunspot cycle was weaker than the one before it. This is why the sun's magnetic field has continued to weaken since 2000. As a result, this magnetic field doesn't shield us against cosmic radiation quite as well, which in turn leads to stronger cloud formation and, therefore, cooling. What else has to happen before the IPCC at least mentions these relationships in its reports?" Once again Vahrenholt has misrepresented the IPCC report, which does discuss GCRs (i.e. here and here) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (i.e. here and here). The IPCC report correctly notes that the body of scientific research has shown that GCRs have little if any effect on cloud cover and thus global temperature, and even if they did, like TSI, solar magnetic field strength has remained steady over the past ~60 years (as has GCR flux on Earth). Oceanic oscillations are just that - oscillations switching between positive and negative states, moving heat around between the oceans and atmosphere. Since both oceans and atmosphere are warming, it must be due to an external forcing, not an internal oscillation. Vahrenholt Misrepresents Kirkby and CERN The following exchange between Vahrenholt and the Der Spiegel interviewer is very representative of the interview as a whole. Vahrenholt: It's more than that. The Cloud Experiment, headed by physicist Jasper Kirkby, has been underway at the CERN particle research center near Geneva since 2006. The initial results of tests conducted in a chamber in which the earth's atmosphere was simulated showed that cosmic particles do indeed lead to the formation of aerosol particles for clouds. SPIEGEL: But the aerosols demonstrated in the Cloud Experiment are much too small. They would have to grow before they could actually serve as condensation germs for clouds. Whether this happens in nature is still an open question. You present this as a fact. Vahrenholt: You will find many correlations between cloud cover and cosmic radiation in the book. I'd like to know why the IPCC doesn't thoroughly examine this mechanism. My guess is that the answer to this question would jeopardize the entire foundation of the IPCC predictions. Vahrenholt misrepresents the scientific evidence, in this case Kirkby and CERN's results, which Kirkby himself states "says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step." The interviewer catches Vahrenholt in this misrepresentation, and Vahrenholt responds by claiming some research exists which supports his myth, and that the IPCC is ignoring it. In reality, the IPCC has discussed the issue in great detail, as demonstrated above. Vahrenholt is Indeed Duped In short, we end the way we began, wondering why anybody takes Vahrenholt's comments on the climate seriously. Not only does he lack expertise in the subject, but he clearly has not done his research, and misrepresents most of the sources he references. Toward the end of the interview, Vahrenholt provides a comment which Der Spiegel used in the title of the article: "...I feel duped." Indeed Vahrenholt has been duped, by his own shoddy research, and has also duped many of his readers in the process.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/frit...te-change.html
__________________
Collect Different Days

06-14-2012, 12:43 AM   #839
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
 Originally Posted by richief I'm sure I stated it was the media that coined the phrase "global warming". This is an argument just like US politics, it is far to polarised to participate in apart from a little fun know and again.
Exactly. The idea that it was first called global warming and then called climate change later only proves that people in the US are much more likely to remember what they heard on the news than what some scientist said.
__________________
Collect Different Days

 06-14-2012, 01:05 AM #840 richief The Curly Wurly Man     Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Running through the mind of a Dark Haired Beauty. Age: 52 Posts: 26,469 The main question is "what is causing CC". Is it totally man made or is it a natural cycle with a little help from us? I personally think that it is a natural event that is being made worse by adding our emissions and the fact that we can now use science to see what is happening unlike the last time the weather got a little funny on us in the early 19th century. Will it make a difference if we reduce our emission levels, I don't know but it would not be a bad thing to do on the fact that people should not have to breather air that can be chewed. Will recycling help, maybe but again it is a good thing to reuse resources if you can. The big question is how do we go forward with electric power, not all places have the fine resources of the Colorado River to produce HE and not all countries have the space for wind and solar farms, also there is the NIMBY effect with these as they are ugly and ruin the views so the rich and famous will always insist they are placed near the poor and powerless. So coal and oil are going to run out leaving a big gap that needs to be filled, do we go all green and hope that wind and sun can supply our needs or do we go atomic and find somewhere to store the spent fuel rods. My vote goes to the nuclear industry because it isn't going to be windy every day and sometimes it is cloudy. __________________
06-15-2012, 05:19 PM   #841
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Report: U.S. Solar Power Shines, Will Increase 75 Percent This Year

Quote:
 A new report on the state of the solar industry in America indicates that despite a global oversupply and a potential trade war with China, the U.S. solar industry had its second-best quarter ever in terms of installations, during the first quarter of 2012. The number of installations, 506 megawatts worth, enough to power just over 350,000 homes, was bested only by the fourth quarter of 2011, which saw a whopping 708 megawatts worth of solar installed. On top of that, the report, drafted by clean-energy market analysis firm GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association and released Tuesday, a trade group, forecasts that total U.S. installed solar power will increase 75 percent his year alone, with 3.3 gigawatts-worth of solar power installed, compared to the 4.4 gigawatts that are currently installed in the country and were added over years of development.

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com...ref=fpnewsfeed
__________________
Collect Different Days

 06-22-2012, 04:40 AM #842 Whitey44 Porn Star     Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Bible Belt Age: 50 Posts: 20,246
06-22-2012, 11:11 AM   #845
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
I think this is proof that it is time for the man made global warming bunch to admit they are lying.

The World is wising up to your lies and phony rigged science.

The only thing "green" about any of this is how much \$\$\$\$\$ these global warming liars are trying to fleece us out of!!!!!!
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-22-2012, 12:02 PM   #846
Whitey44
Porn Star

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bible Belt
Age: 50
Posts: 20,246

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CS natureboy I think this is proof that it is time for the man made global warming bunch to admit they are lying. The World is wising up to your lies and phony rigged science. The only thing "green" about any of this is how much \$\$\$\$\$ these global warming liars are trying to fleece us out of!!!!!!
This is not proof of anything scientific. Economics will always need to be a a part of any solution to the global warming problem in order for it to be sustainable. Otherwise, the profiteers will stick with oil, coal, methane, etc, because it's much easier to not change. Scientists are only the messengers, not the profiteers.

06-22-2012, 12:15 PM   #847
CS natureboy
Porn Star

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,483

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Whitey44 Scientists are only the messengers, not the profiteers.
That may have been true at one time, but not any more. Everything in this World we live in revolves around money.

If you want to find the real truth, just follow the money.

Never has a statement been so true.

This is what defines the values and goals of our way of life today.
__________________
step inside, walk this way

06-22-2012, 12:24 PM   #848
Whitey44
Porn Star

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bible Belt
Age: 50
Posts: 20,246

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CS natureboy That may have been true at one time, but not any more. Everything in this World we live in revolves around money. If you want to find the real truth, just follow the money. Never has a statement been so true. This is what defines the values and goals of our way of life today.
When a scientist begins to make a profit, and some of them do, then he/she becomes an entrepeneur. This is a different path to follow than a scientific one.

06-30-2012, 07:04 PM   #850
stumbler
Porn Star

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rocky Mountains
Age: 61
Posts: 38,516

Quote:
Thanks for posting this. I'd heard of the decision but didn't know all the details and implications.

Its a beautiful example of how science and reason adctually can prevail over false propaganda, and hysteria.

Meanwhile ....

NBC Meteorologist On Record Heat Wave: ‘If We Did Not Have Global Warming, We Wouldn’t See This’

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ldnt-see-this/
__________________
Collect Different Days