Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.

[DC_DEEP]

Two points, JQ: for the 5th time, please learn to use the quote tags. It's so easy, even a liberal can do it.

Also, please answer the question.

Oh, and you do realize that you ARE the original poster, right?

 

[B_JQblonde]

I

I I do not go out looking for scientific articles to support my claim. I don't need to. .

YOu said it all with that quote ,brutha. Yeah, you're liberal all right.

 

[B_JQblonde]

The dramatic increase in hurricane activity, for me, is yet further proof - not because there is massive scientific evidence to support it, but because i can see the results for myself.

quote]

well it just so happens there aint massive scientific evidence to support that.

"

A consensus of 125 of the world’s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones."

Pop quiz.
who said that?

A> Me
B> the World Meterologic Organization

 

[B_JQblonde]

Two points, JQ: for the 5th time, please learn to use the quote tags. It's so easy, even a liberal can do it.

Also, please answer the question.

Oh, and you do realize that you ARE the original poster, right?

I think you should go read the post again < the one where you asked the question>, wipe the egg off your face,and come back with an apology for your rudeness. :tongue:

 

[HotBulge]

Notice how the OP continues to be all flame and asserts no facts.

We're still waiting for those facts to support your claim that global warming is not a significant effect.

 

[joyboytoy79]

YOu said it all with that quote ,brutha. Yeah, you're liberal all right.

Sir, you better read my post again. You also better read what you said about us liberals earlier... you know, the part about how we go out looking for scientific studies to back our claims and ignore the ones that don't. I think you may just find that you've reclassified liberals too many times for any one classification to stick.

BTW, i can mangle quotes too... see?

YOu said it all with that quote ,brutha. Yeah, you're

right.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Notice how the OP continues to be all flame and asserts no facts.

We're still waiting for those facts to support your claim that global warming is not a significant effect.

WhA ? Huh? Please tell me where I posted that and I'll respond.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Fact: automobile emissions produce CO2. Fact: CO2 is very soluble in H2O. Fact: When CO2 is dissolved in H20, it lowers the pH. Fact: lowering the pH of the world's oceans is a really really bad idea. Regardless of whether or not it contributes to global warming, JQ, do you refute any of the facts I outlined above?

quote]

{Deniro} ME? You talking to me?
Uh...I think you you should address those issues to the original poster snookems.

Two points, JQ: for the 5th time, please learn to use the quote tags. It's so easy, even a liberal can do it.

Also, please answer the question.

Oh, and you do realize that you ARE the original poster, right?

I think you should go read the post agin < the one where you asked the question>, wioe the egg off your face,and come back with an apology for your rudeness. :tongue:

Alright, I did re-read the post. You still did not answer that question. You still told me not to address you, but to address the original poster. You are the original poster. You didn't answer that question, either. Now, wipe the egg off your face, learn to use the quote tags (it's so easy, even a liberal can do it) and answer both of those questions I posed.

 

[B_JQblonde]

Are you some kind of moderator here or something ? You get very mad-mad's when I fuck those quote thingeys up.

Does the site owner have to pay some kind of fine when posters do that ?

 

[Rikter8]

I have not read or seen an Inconvenient truth by Al Gore.

What I do know is from observations that I have seen on the news, read in magazines on how billions of tons of ice are continually breaking off, in record sizes, and depths...and drifting out to sea.

Taking with it animals and leaving them stranded only to die.

What do ice cubes do? They Cool the surrounding Liquid.
So...if you've got a gazillion ton iceberg drifting into a warm ocean current....what happens to that current? It slows or stops.

Oops...now you have slowed ocean current.... now sea life doesnt move as fast.
Creatures migrate elsewhere until the cool passes, or they die off.
The Eco system is changed.. Now you have system imbalance.
Another iceberg follows the same pattern and result.... over and over..

On the coasts, the water level continues to rise, and Louisiana (being the bowl that it is), will be swamped again. Including florida, etc

It really is sickening how the republican party has absolutely no regard to the world they are occupying, other than the bank they get their cash from.
It is true that this world goes in cycles, and we may be seeing one now.
But don'cha think we should be taking better care of the world we live in so that we, and our children can live a half way decent life??

 

[HotBulge]

No, JQBlonde only thinks that we should cue the Barney the Dinosaur theme song when we stop to consider our children's future.

It is true that this world goes in cycles, and we may be seeing one now.
But don'cha think we should be taking better care of the world we live in so that we, and our children can live a half way decent life??

 

[JustAsking]

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.
​

 

[dong20]

A consensus of 125 of the world&#8217;s leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones.

Assuming you mean the WMO/IWTC Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change (Nov 2006) I've read both the summary and the fuller paper (Warning PDFs). You are correct there is no overall consenus. There are some interesting sections (Paras 13, 17 and 18) though but in general much fence sitting.

But that's not my point. The thing that amuses me about your reasoning is that you evidently consider and cite that lack of consensus as an argument or evidence against climate change, yet at the same time denying those who believe the 'scam' based on other evidence the right to use it as an argument for climate change.

If it was a truly neutral statement (though I believe in reality it's really not) it can be neither, so that would be an illogical position for anyone to take if they wanted to be open minded. To be fair, it would be illogical from the 'pro' angle also. My point is that taking this report in isolation you seem to conclude that absence of evidence= evidence of absence. In this context that's not a tenable position.

Scientists in general tend to be conservative (not in a politcal sense) climatologists are no exception, hence their recitence to make firm statements, also as I've said, climate models are imprecise. However that very caution should make you stop and think:

a) Why some are speaking out.

and

b) Unwillingness on the part of many to make definitive statements one way or another should give one pause for thought.

They can't agree it is, therefore, it isn't? It doesn't necessarily follow. If they're not sure, how can you be?

Personally, based on your comments so far I think you're just being deliverately obtuse and without any real opinion or grasp of the bigger picture.

 

[Nitrofiend]

Fascinating.
A person makes a statement that maybe Florida might exist in 100 years and maybe it won't, yet I get attacked for being irrational.
SNicker.
Liberals and hypocrisy. Perfect together.

What's a nice 'ole right-winger like yourself doing in a :firedevil: LIBERAL :firedevil: honeycomb like LPSG?

You're not worth seriously rebutting, so I'll just point out that the entire faculty department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at my university just happens to agree with what most of what all of those wacky climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers (all of whom are most definitely evil liberals because they're scientists) have to say on the matter.

Also, don't forget: this is NOT the 70's!!! Atmospheric and oceanic monitoring is no trifle when it comes to today's technology. Have you noticed how forecasts are a hell of a lot more accurate now than they were just 10 years ago? And even 5 years ago? It's a continually evolving field that closely follows each advance in technology. The supercomputers and models in operation today are superior in every way, shape, and form to those in the 1970's.

All data points to this indisputable fact: Earth has warmed signficantly in the past century and is continuing to do so.

Might I suggest you tell me your plans regarding the environment?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Are you some kind of moderator here or something ? You get very mad-mad's when I fuck those quote thingeys up.

Does the site owner have to pay some kind of fine when posters do that ?

I am not any kind or some kind of moderator. I don't get "mad-mad's" [sic] when you fuck them up. It just makes the posts more clear, and it's so easy a liberal could do it. Are you less capable of closing quote tags than your average liberal?

What's a nice 'ole right-winger like yourself doing in a :firedevil: LIBERAL :firedevil: honeycomb like LPSG?

I already asked, JQ refuses to answer.

Why don't you answer my questions, JQ?

 

[B_Hickboy]

Particulary those of the GWA Ringleader Jowls Gore.

Last week , he was skewered for his blatant hypocrisy regarding his ponderous carbon footprint.

This week , The IPPC( left wing and pro AG for sure) made a mockery of some of the THE SEA LEVELS ARE RISING THE SEAL LEVELS ARE RISING" claims made by Jowls in his quackumentary " An Inconvenient Truth" < how's that title for irony-snicker> .

Remember the headlines last summer, spurred by the release of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, warning that massive amounts of Antarctica's ice sheets are melting, threatening to raise sea levels 20 feet worldwide and wipe out Antarctica's Emperor penguins and polar bears? And alarming reports that Greenland's glaciers are shrinking so rapidly that a third of Florida and the lower part of Manhattan could be swept away within the next 200 years?
As it turns out, The long awaited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report summary released early in February threw some badly needed cold water on that over-heated hype. According to the IPCC, based on the work of 2,500 scientists around the globe, Antarctica's ice sheets will "remain too cold for widespread surface melting," and "is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The report summary also says there is no scientific consensus that Greenland's ice caps are melting enough to contribute to increased sea levels.2And while the writers do acknowledge unknowns, including some observed variability and local changes in glaciers in the polar regions that could contribute to future increased sea levels, it states that overall "there is no consensus on their magnitude."[/FONT]​

March of the Lemmings: Media Shuns Climate Change Report's Good News on Sea Levels​

Do you REALLY believe that by taking the extreme opposite opinion you cause things to come into balance? You sure as fuck act like you do.

The science supports global warming. Whatever has caused it, there is a climate shift in progress. The demagogues are trying to scare us into action, granted. But there is MUCH TRUTH in what they say and I believe that if the human race fails to pay heed we are fucked. Maybe not as quickly as some say we are, but we are fucked.

BTW, one of the worst greenhouse pollutants is wood smoke. If people would do things to help cut the use of found fuels in developing countries it would cut greenhouse gases by a fourth, as much as a third. That's a lot of wood. It would also help if people would quit burning the rain forests.

I'm not gonna really get started up on this, but I have a piece of advice for you: You have two ears and one mouth. Maybe you should do twice as much listening as you do talking. OK two pieces of advice. The second: You would do well to communicate in sentences and paragraphs rather than bon mots and sound bites.

You are philosophically weak and you bore me.

 

[D_Garmanswait Glassnads]

Why believe anything science supports? the only thing you can trust is the increase in temperature were all feeling, the less snow were seeing etc. All this means is that the world is getting hotter, it dosn't mean that humans are causing it, it dosn't mean that we are all going to die, it just means we're going to feel warmer.

If the problem was as bad as they make it out to be then governments would slowly work out carbon emmisions without expecting there citizens to pay. The only people who can afford to be GREEN are middle class. It's all about money, no one is going to die. Why trust anyone else? WHY THE FUCK?

 

[DC_DEEP]

Are you some kind of moderator here or something ? You get very mad-mad's when I fuck those quote thingeys up.

Does the site owner have to pay some kind of fine when posters do that ?

Typical jq blonde moments - deflect direct questions with non sequitur answers.

Please answer both of my direct questions in post #66 and my direct question in post #81. None of your non-answers or cute little quips, please, just direct answers.

 

[Nitrofiend]

Why believe anything science supports?

You're right, stop believing in science. Send me a telegram when your computer goes *POOF* into thin air.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Why believe anything science supports? the only thing you can trust is the increase in temperature were all feeling, the less snow were seeing etc. All this means is that the world is getting hotter, it dosn't mean that humans are causing it, it dosn't mean that we are all going to die, it just means we're going to feel warmer.

If the problem was as bad as they make it out to be then governments would slowly work out carbon emmisions without expecting there citizens to pay. The only people who can afford to be GREEN are middle class. It's all about money, no one is going to die. Why trust anyone else? WHY THE FUCK?

There is so much wrong with this post, all I can say is please research the issue - global warming is not just simply having hot weather.