Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Who is funding those GOP denialists? Those who have the most to lose of course.

Denialist? Denying what? Climate change? No one denies that you clown.

Heh - Obama signs lots of executive orders. Why not one to save the world?

Did someone order a bucket of fail? Tony just brought one to the forum!

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Heh - Obama signs lots of executive orders. Why not one to save the world?

Just when I think you've hit rock bottom, your stupidity and ignorance manages to find new depths.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Heh - Obama signs lots of executive orders. Why not one to save the world?

Just when I think you've hit rock bottom, your stupidity and ignorance manages to find new depths.

not much of a sense of humour these Opologists, heh? What's wrong, hotshot, caught a dose of taking yourself too seriously at private school?



Anyway, please post up more off topic pictures. Perhaps you can go to obamariders.com and copy something from there?

Is tony boy relevant to this thread.. or anything?

The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial

All movements that reject an overwhelming scientific consensus show 5 inevitable characteristics. They celebrate fake experts, cherry pick the data, argue using misrepresentation and logical fallacies, indulge in conspiracy theories, and demand impossible expectations of what research can deliver.
These characteristics are seen in the movements that deny the scientific consensus on vaccination, HIV and AIDS and the link between smoking and cancer. They are also abundantly evident in the movement that denies the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Industry and conservative groups have been attacking scientific consensus for decades. As far back as 1991, Western Fuels Association launched a $510,000 campaign to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)" in the public perception. A memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republican politicians to "continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." In a recent analysis of syndicated conservative opinion pieces spanning 2007 to 2010, the most popular myth was “there is no consensus”.
While opponents of climate action have persistently sought to manufacture doubt, the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming has grown so robust, it now manifests itself in a number of ways. Scientific organisations of many types and nationalities endorse the consensus. Several surveys of the climate science community measure overwhelming agreement. A 2004 analysis of peer-reviewed research found zero papers rejecting the consensus.


Complete article: The 5 characteristics of global warming consensus denial


Funny innit that the most vocal head-in-the-sand denialist on this forum also believes that AIDS is some kind of eugenicist conspiracy...

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Can you tell me what the correct temperature of the earth is, and why there was an ice age, and when the earth temp will peak again and we will fall back into an ice age?

How many more time do you want to repeat the same stupid questions, answered comprehensively by many posters throughout this whole thread? Isn't it obvious that the best temperature for the world is one that keeps the land as large as possible, and the oceans as small as possible? We live on land.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

AIDS is some kind of eugenicist conspiracy.

Quote me saying that. You can't because I didn't.

I did however say that it was most likely a biological weapon developed by the states, tested on unimportant darkies and it got loose.

but yet again, what does this have to do with the thread. Can not add anything to the discussion apart from your Cut And Paste Antics, so you go to your usual "Ohh you're a loonIe" routine.

How original.

Relevant to the thread?



It is a common trait with those who believe the hype (mostly because if fills a void in their shallow iLives) that they have no real argument. They think they are blinding people with science and "proving" stuff but the simple fact is, the climate heats up and then is cools down. As it heats up, ice melts and the sea gets slightly warmer. As that happens all the trapped Co2 they bleat on about is released into the air - a lot more than man could ever make. But its OK, because the Earth will cool again. the shame is we have a group of greedy khunts profiting from this natural change, the bailiffs enforcing the payments to them are khunts like tony troll with their obedient belief to the the media.

What feeling of emptiness are you trying to fill, tony? What has left the void in your life that you feel the need to fill it with Obama shite and climate change? After all, it's not as if you seriously believe in climate change because if you did, with your combustion engine hobby, youd be the biggest friggin hypacrite to lecture people on Co2 emissions and climate scam.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

How many more time do you want to repeat the same stupid questions, answered comprehensively by many posters throughout this whole thread? Isn't it obvious that the best temperature for the world is one that keeps the land as large as possible, and the oceans as small as possible? We live on land.

You sir are a fool. I am not arrogant enough to ask what is best for man kind. I ask what is the correct temperature for the earth itself.

What are you, king kanut, thinking you can hold back the tide of NATURAL climate change as the ice melts from the last mini ice age?

So tell me, what is the best temperature for the planet. Not the people. The Planet.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Isn't it obvious that the best temperature for the world is one that keeps the land as large as possible, and the oceans as small as possible? We live on land.

Agree , and the best way to get a larger land mass is to warm the world up , that would open Greenland back up { abandoned after the earth cooled in 1500 }, also huge tracts of arable land in Northern Russia would be viable for crops , same as Canada-at the moment most people live within a 100 miles of the USA border.

The oceans might rise , but that's all good , the fresh clean melt water will help clean the oceans up , Also the new coastlines would be interesting , Many nice islands would form .
A few little islands would sink , in the Pacific , but only for a while , as Coral would have more room to grow too, and would form new islands .

The more i think About a warmer world the more I like it !

Why should we freeze in the North , while the 3'RD world has sunshine all year ?

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

Things they are a changing. Bring on the change I say! Was getting boring with all that repetitive winter/summer winter/summer shit over and over again.

Climate change? Definitely. Global warming? I dont think so. Could just as well be how an Ice Age starts. But one thing is for sure lot's o people making lot o money from it either way.

I posted this graph before.



Note that the last 3 or 4 warm periods were not of any lenght, the temperature peaked, and dropped again almost immediately. This one has been lasting for 10,000 years. An ice age can't start now with the greenhouse gases elevated to levels not seen for 4 million years. What is happening is receding glaciers, less ice cover on the Arctic ocean, thawing permafrost soil in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska. That doesn't look like ice age.

This ice age started just under 3 million years ago because greenhouse gases were on an all-time low, Antartica froze over lowering the sea levels, the land bridge between North and South America closed diverting ocean currents, amongst them the Gulf stream to the cold North Atlantic, bringing lots of precipitation as building material for glaciers to a region that had been far drier before. Much like Antartica which has little precipitation.

The cold periods in this ice age began every time when the Milankovich cycles conspired, the earth further away from the sun, plus a different tilt of the axis with less sunshine on the Northern Hemisphere. These cycles have been around since the birth of earth, but there was no other ice age for at least 260 million years before this last one. Greenhouse gases always prevented them.

Our emissions increased the greenhouse gas effect by 2% so far, and that's more difference than the Milankovich cycles do to the climate.

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Isn't it obvious that the best temperature for the world is one that keeps the land as large as possible, and the oceans as small as possible? We live on land.

Agree , and the best way to get a larger land mass is to warm the world up , that would open Greenland back up { abandoned after the earth cooled in 1500 }, also huge tracts of arable land in Northern Russia would be viable for crops , same as Canada-at the moment most people live within a 100 miles of the USA border.

The oceans might rise , but that's all good , the fresh clean melt water will help clean the oceans up , Also the new coastlines would be interesting , Many nice islands would form .
A few little islands would sink , in the Pacific , but only for a while , as Coral would have more room to grow too, and would form new islands .

The more i think About a warmer world the more I like it !

Why should we freeze in the North , while the 3'RD world has sunshine all year ?

Because we have space in the North which is truly ours, squaremiles upon squaremiles of being on your own, land we don't have to share with bushmen or Thais because they just can't exist there. Screw sunshine, heat sucks. Why do you think nearly all people along the equator remained stone age until the era of colonization?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Heh - Obama signs lots of executive orders. Why not one to save the world?

GHWB 166 /4 = 41.5
CLINTON 364 /8 = 45.5
DUBYA 291 /8 = 36.4
OBAMA 154 /4.5 = 34.2

You were saying?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

What are you, king kanut, thinking you can hold back the tide of NATURAL climate change as the ice melts from the last mini ice age?

Canute was making the point that kings cannot hold back the tides, your point is therefore totally irrelevant in any discussion of climate change.

You are doing a good job of making BM look like frigging Aristotle. So congrats I guess.

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Isn't it obvious that the best temperature for the world is one that keeps the land as large as possible, and the oceans as small as possible? We live on land.

Agree , and the best way to get a larger land mass is to warm the world up , that would open Greenland back up { abandoned after the earth cooled in 1500 }, also huge tracts of arable land in Northern Russia would be viable for crops , same as Canada-at the moment most people live within a 100 miles of the USA border.

The oceans might rise , but that's all good , the fresh clean melt water will help clean the oceans up , Also the new coastlines would be interesting , Many nice islands would form .
A few little islands would sink , in the Pacific , but only for a while , as Coral would have more room to grow too, and would form new islands .

The more i think About a warmer world the more I like it !

Why should we freeze in the North , while the 3'RD world has sunshine all year ?

^ You're just taking the piss. No one can really be that stupid.

You think the fact that CO2 levels in our atmosphere have passed 400ppm is natural?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the global average level of CO2 was about 280 ppm.

At the end of the last Ice Age sea levels were about 220 meters lower than today and the North Sea was dry land.

The last time the Earth's CO2 level was 400 ppm, some 3 million years ago, the Arctic was ice-free and sea level was some 25 meters (82 feet) higher than it is today.

Think about that. The majority of the world's population lives on the coast. Most just a meter or two above sea level. The planet is warming and the polar ice is melting. You can argue about how fast or how slow the warming and melting is occurring, but no one is denying that temperatures are on the rise and the ice is melting.

So yeah, you can blame it on the sun and do nothing if you like, but the fact is WE did this and our children and grandchildren are going to pay for it.


Screwed by climate change: 10 cities that will be hardest hit

I would have to agree with "Takeovers" that we are already well past the point where we can completely eliminate the effects of anthropogenic global warming. In fact we're experiencing the effects already.

Here's a sobering article on which US cities will be hardest hit by global warming-


Screwed by climate change: 10 cities that will be hardest hit | Grist

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

So yeah, you can blame it on the sun and do nothing if you like

I aint blaming anyone, as I like warming.
I hate ice even in drinks

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

At the end of the last Ice Age sea levels were about 220 meters lower than today and the North Sea was dry land.

I know my ancestors walked across it , and worked hard for 10,000 years to make Britain a lovey and prosperous libertarian Island.
Now sadly turned into a shithole due to 3rd world scum and political correct clowns.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

the Arctic was ice-free and sea level was some 25 meters (82 feet) higher than it is today.

Think about that

I have thought about it and I like the idea.
As I said the clean water will wash the oceans ,
the fish can live in the flooded building and replenish their stocks .

Maybe the 3rd world should think about breeding less.
And the western governments stop the importation of manufactured goods from Asian.
that's whats causing the dirty pollution ruining the world .

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

the ice is melting

even in your worst case scenario , it not t going to melt very fast , we have plenty of time to cope.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

anthropogenic global warming. In fact we're experiencing the effects already.

Where ?
Certainly not here in Britain, nearly at the summer solstice and
15 max
7 min - celsius

End of the ice age ?
Bring it on next week , I hope a meteor hits and melts all the ice , at least it will stop the fags taking over the world , and the 3rd world breeding factory swamping us .

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Canute was making the point that kings cannot hold back the tides, your point is therefore totally irrelevant in any discussion of climate change.

You are a confused man aren't you. My point is exactly that this muppet thinks that they can stop the natural warming of the world just as kanut thought he could stop the waves lapping in. How can you misunderstand so much? Could it be that you are desperate to score some petty points, being deliberately obtuse but in reality showing yourself to be a tad dim?

Quim is Kanut - thinks that taxing man kind to oblivion and allowing the bankers to trade credits will stop the natural warming of the earth.
Quim by name....

Originally Posted by S Landreth

So who's paying the price for all these global warming impacts?

me !
I had to put the heating on again tonight ,
please, please , can we try
500 parts-per-million , so i can switch the fucker off
that's beer money its burning .

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Last year’s historic drought hit the U.S. agriculture industry hard, and major losses in feed crops have driven the price of beef to record highs. And prices are expected to climb if the dry weather in the Midwest and Great Plains continues.

Good !
Another benefit of global warming
people should eat way less meat , beef ? not even good for you anymore .

so what caused the 1930's dust bowl ?

How come they are called the Great Plains , might it be because they were always too dry to become the Great Forests ?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

And a short video on zombie theories: One of the nation's leading climate scientists explains how he goes about knocking down the "zombie theories" that plague our discussions about climate change. What is a zombie theory? Says Shepherd: "It's one of those theories that scientists have refuted or disproven time and time again, but they live on like zombies in the blogs and on the radio stations."

^ Fantastic vid, thanks for sharing. He's spot on and knows his stuff, but I would have to disagree with his assertion that the climate change debate is not a "left right issue". It's quite clear that many conservatives are willing pawns in the denialist scheme.

We've got a few brain dead zombies on this forum who prefer to remain illiterate on this topic. No doubt they'll continue to ignore the science and spout the same denialist nonsense that the Koch brothers feed them.

How do you debate an issue with someone who chooses to be willfully ignorant?

Reckon every time they copy and paste the same denialist bullshit we just re-post Dr Shepherd's video.

He shoots down all of the most common denialist zombie theories:

"Climate Change is Natural"

"It's the sun"

"1998"

"Can't trust the climate models"

"Scientists want money"

"We've been warmer in the past"

"Arrogant to think humans can change the climate"

"It's only a few degrees, what's the big deal?"

Love the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it"

And this one gave me pause:

"Weather is your mood, climate is your personality".

^ Do you think the denialists can wrap their tiny brains around that one?

so let me get this straight then tony lad, you believe that burning fossil fuels etc will cause everyone to die nasty deaths in the future, and yet you wastefully burn fuel in high polluting bikes for fun? You kill future people, for fun?

You either believe it or you don't, tony. Tend to think you would like to believe it as you desperately try and link it to a left v right flag waving exercise, but in your lonely heart....you know it all BS

Originally Posted by pseudolus

so let me get this straight then tony lad, you believe that burning fossil fuels etc will cause everyone to die nasty deaths in the future, and yet you wastefully burn fuel in high polluting bikes for fun? You kill future people, for fun?

You either believe it or you don't, tony. Tend to think you would like to believe it as you desperately try and link it to a left v right flag waving exercise, but in your lonely heart....you know it all BS

^ There ya go with your polarized thinking again. You are unable to see the middle path. I would say, in the grand scheme of things, I do more to help our environment than I do to harm it. That's just the way I was raised and it's a lesson that I'm passing on to my kids. You?

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

but I would have to disagree with his assertion that the climate change debate is not a "left right issue". It's quite clear that many conservatives are willing pawns in the denialist scheme.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

There ya go with your polarized thinking again

LOL you are a dick, tony.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

but I would have to disagree with his assertion that the climate change debate is not a "left right issue". It's quite clear that many conservatives are willing pawns in the denialist scheme.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

There ya go with your polarized thinking again

LOL you are a dick, tony.

And you're an ignorant troll...

You know we got a problem when the NY Times is puzzled over GLOBAL WARMING WITHOUT ANY, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL WARMING.

“The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

It's a real conundrum...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You know we got a problem when the NY Times is puzzled over GLOBAL WARMING WITHOUT ANY, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL WARMING.

“The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

It's a real conundrum...

BM posting shit again I see

Climate Scientists Ring Alarm Bell, NY Times Hits Snooze Button

You can see a summary of the science the climatologists are referring to here: “New Study: When You Account For The Oceans, Global Warming Continues Apace.”

The reality is warming continues unabated and you have to read deep into the Times piece — something that only a small fraction of readers who see the headline will bother doing — to find that that last time there was a “lull” in warming, it was followed by “an extremely rapid warming of the planet.” I suspect that this was once again a pretty reasonable piece of research by the Times reporter that was shoe-horned into a more “newsy” narrative by the editors.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You know we got a problem when the NY Times is puzzled over GLOBAL WARMING WITHOUT ANY, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL WARMING.

“The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

It's a real conundrum...

^ LOL, copy and paste Boontard saw a headline that looked promising but didn't actually read the article.

"the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts. "

Denialists cherry picking the data as always:

" As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.
Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.
"

"We certainly cannot conclude, as some people want to, that carbon dioxide is not actually a greenhouse gas. More than a century of research thoroughly disproves that claim. "

" the real question is where all that heat is going, if not to warm the surface. And a prime suspect is the deep ocean. Our measurements there are not good enough to confirm it absolutely, but a growing body of research suggests this may be an important part of the answer. "

Boontard is an oil guy, right?

As Upton Sinclair put it: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

Far too much pasting here from the sun denialists
some don't even bother adding quotation marks or wraping quote tags around the
trash.