It's hard to ignore the truth when on one side of the argument there are actual scientist saying something, but on the other side of the argument all the naysayers are political, and big business groups with a actual agenda.

I find it very odd that these political groups and big business are directly linked with IRS data showing the funding on the denial front, yet you guys whom swing right ignore it.Yet believe there is some great conspiracy on the side of actual scientist whom have no money to be made or political goal.

So I'm asking if you guys are so sure of your self, proof it. I just proved the links to big oil with deniers. So do the same prove that scientist whom support global warming are in some giant conspiracy..

You guys just repeat bullshit that never has any proof and you ignore actual proof that shows you are wrong. That is the dumbing down of America and I'm tired of seeing it. I'm not going to compromise with willful ignorance.

Perhaps you should just read this article:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...78462813553136

The entire MYTH that most scientists agree on mankind causing climate change is pretty much based on the opinions of 79 scientists who were surveyed.

You really do fall for anything that you read on leftist propaganda don't you?

You have spent the last couple of posts insulting me and several others and suggesting that YOU are somehow smarter than I am.

I don't think so. And many of the things you have typed have led me to believe that you are the perfect mark for the leftist machine: You seem gullible, naive, and ready to believe whatever you are told without even looking for or listening to dissenting viewpoints.

You have been shown over and over in this discussion that the world goes through climate change on it's own. You have seen graphs showing CO2 levels and Earth temps throughout history and can see with your own two eyes that it had no effect. I have told you that new data has made all the computer models from 10 years ago obsolete.

And with all of that...you STILL parrot the tired old bullshit being put out by green energy cronies of the administration.

And the whole time you do that...you accuse me and others of listening to "Fox News" for our information.

No Crockett...some of us have the ability to use our brains. Some of us have the ability to do things like simply google up: scientists who do not believe in man made climate change

You have mental blinders on and refuse to see ANYTHING that goes against what you have been conditioned to believe.

It's frustrating to me that you are not alone. Too many people who are easily influenced, like you, are helping to ruin our country.

So I give you a research paper with real stats that can be confirmed if you would pull your head from your ass and actually read it and for your proof you give me a opinion piece on a website...

You then claim the whole thing is just made up by 79 scientist and we are supposed to believe that just about every scientist in the world decided to go along with what ever these 79 scientist said..

So lets think about this real hard.. like it was a 9/11 conspiracy..

Does it sound realistic to you that 97% of the world's scientists have all agreed to follow these mysterious 79 scientist blindly, for no apparent reason other than to make Al Gore rich..

Or that they actually have as most of us have seen and produced scientific data that backs up their claims?

Meanwhile on the denial side of the argument the only proof is the argument that CO2 has been high in the past.. However what you seem to not be able to understand, is when CO2 was high it was during times of massive volcanic eruptions and life was extinct as we know it.

Have you seen many super volcanoes going off lately Robbie? Have yo seen any rapid influx of volcano activity which would correspond with the rapid increase of CO2. No? of course not, so I guess it must be because of cow farts right?

Hey look here on NASA.gov http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus they even offer up sources. However the number is 97% of scientist not 79 individuals..

Still you can not offer up any actual source to show that there is a massive conspiracy to fool everyone into giving all their money to Al Gore.

Yet, on the denial side it's been shown time and time again, that everything links right back to big oil and friends.

I'm sick of playing games of being politically correct and I'm sick of watching my country be turned into a idiocracy by the right wing. Every time you guys start preaching your made up Fox facts about global warming I'm going to hound you on it, because you have no evidence or scientific study to back anything up, just political talking heads whom bow to big oil.

Crockett... Pres. Obama himself quoted that bullshit 97% figure that his team got from that survey of 79 scientists.

Use your brain. Think for yourself for once.

I even showed you that your exalted and loveable and NEVER greedy scientists told Pres. Nixon back in 1970 that the entire east coast would be underwater by the year 2000.

And then a few years later...those same scientists claimed that we were going into an Ice Age!

If you had been old enough at that time in the 1970's, I believe you would be telling all the "deniers" that they were so dumb for not believing it then.

Can't you see this is another money grab?

And fuck you about "Fox News". You keep insulting me personally? It shows how fucking dumb you really are.

You can't answer my questions about the graphs you have been shown. You can't explain how on Earth the infallible scientists could have been SO wrong in the 1970's.
You REFUSE to acknowledge that the computer models from the late 1990's/early 2000's are completely WRONG because they did not take into account what the ocean is doing by absorbing all the CO2.

Basically you are turning a blind eye to everything that doesn't go along with your spoon-fed extreme-leftist bullshit.

You have a nice day crockett. I've tried to have a sensible discussion with you and not ridicule you as 12clicks does.

But apparently that's the only way to talk to you. You're like talking to a fencepost.

Robbie how is it you are so hyper critical about things like these so called 79 scientist, when it's pretty obvious way more than 79 scientist agree that man has speed up global warming.

Yet you totally ignore all the points I made about big oil being linked to funding your precious deniers. You nit pick and cherry pick everything possible to try to make your point, yet you totally turn a blind to the 700lbs gorilla in the room, which is the entire argument from the denial standpoint is bought and paid for by big oil and friends.

It just goes right over your head and you speak of blinders yet you never take yours off.

BTW who gives a shit about what Obama said.. It's what scientist say that matters. Global warming is not a political issue, it's a issue about survival of the human species. Obama is only a policy maker that can help steer the ship..

Get over the political aspect and your I hate everything Obama does, because it's Obama..

crockett, I don't "hate" Obama. He's a bureaucrat who like all of them is super busy making money for his associates.

Of course the oil companies have scientists. And so do the green energy guys.

Put YOUR politics aside for a minute.

Explain the graphs I showed you.
Explain the NEW data on the ocean absorbing the CO2 which NEGATES the old computer models that bureaucrats are using to buy and sell "carbon credits" for huge money.

Stop trying to make everything political and use your fucking brain.

So I guess it's just completely random that scientist paid by big oil decide there is no global warming?

That's your only comment on the matter that big oil and co have spent billions of dollars trying to push the denial agenda and just so happens that scientists on their payroll seem to be the only ones whom don't believe man has anything to do with it.

Yet you see nothing at all wrong with this? No questions pop in to your head about perhaps they have a conflict of interests..

Yet you have no questions at all that the rest of the scientists not paid by big oil all have it wrong..

So you have no answers. And the scientist who I first heard that ALL that data is negated by the new data showing the ocean absorbing the co2 was a LIBERAL non-oil scientist on the Bill Maher show.

You're such a tool.

Now answer just ONE of my questions: What about the historical graphs? They mean nothing huh?
All that counts are scientist's opinions who work under govt. grants and funded by liberal think tanks.
Everything else doesn't count in your world.

You are a real piece of work crockett. lol

I gotta get out of this conversation. I'm talking to a fencepost.

You don't care about answers unless everyone blindly agrees with you. You never change your view no matter what evidence is presented. All you ever do is nit pick little parts of arguments and ignore anything that proves you wrong.

Anyone with half a brain would understand that it's pretty odd that the only scientists whom say that man has no effect on Global warming all happened to be paid by the polluters.

Yet I'm the fence post because I refuse to blindly go along with what you say And question the fact that the only ones denying it are getting paid to do so.. You have no logical explanation for why the rest of the scientist in the world disagree with big oil pay rolled scientist..

You never have any critical thought about anything that goes along your already decided view point.. Everyone one else is always wrong but you.

So you still haven't addressed anything I've put forward.

And you accuse me of not having critical thought and having a "decided point of view"?

Brother you just described yourself. You just can't see it.

Tries to look smart, fails miserably yet again. Don't you get tired of playing the fool lady?

That's bullshit. Sure there may be scientists getting paid by oil companies but there are many scientists who are climate realists that are not getting any money from oil companies.

The climate alarmist movement is using typical leftist tactics to stifle opposition - they shout down their opponents, use smear tactics, propaganda and outright lies. Next they will be sending people to gulags.

The only climate "deniers" are the alarmists because they deny reality, they deny actual facts and they outright fabricate "data" to suit their agenda.

The bullshit-laden climate alarmists have been standing on the street corner wearing their "the end is near" signs for decades now. None of their doomsday predictions have come true and none of them are close to coming true. It's all bullshit.

Wake up and realize that you are being lied to and manipulated.

Already driving pure electric now. The Zip cars are an interesting idea though...I have a friend who signed up and so far loves it.

Completely, Completely, wrong. You could not be further from the truth.



Quebec has its problems but has alot going for it too.

Alberta is Canada's Texas. It is rich in oil and tar sands. Most of Canada is still fairly green when it comes to Energy, and despite the minor skirmish, much of the untouched land is still owned by Natives who care more about the environment than anything else. For sure its a struggle and hopefully big oil can be kept in check, the way it should be.


"WE" means you and me. And others. Not Vendzilla. He smells like feet.


Actually, Yes by law..! "The EPA Is Essentially Required To Regulate Carbon Emissions By Law", and, "The Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming regulations on greenhouse gas emissions will provide legally required protection for the health and welfare of Americans at a cheap cost, while allowing states flexibility" http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ion-sta/199516


That's right! Thanks to the EPA. Over the years the EPA has done things like force the removal of lead from Gasoline http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage....d+Gas+Phaseout, reduced acid rain, air pollution and even skin cancer & cataracts : http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/40th_highlights.html

Your kids can breathe thanks to the EPA, and some industries with help from politicians are trying to take this away from you.

No one is saying that it needs to be replaced. The world can never be without coal and oil, everyone knows that. What people are saying is that the pollution it creates needs to be reduced. Who said remove or replace coal?

12clicks, I don't hate America or Americans. Your country is beautiful and your people are friendly. You guys have a shitload of accomplishments and without you, Canada might not even be here. You are completely missing my point and filing me away in a place I do not belong.

Controlling pollution does not weaken the coal industry or the American economy in any way. What you are hearing or reading about this is pure propeganda from the coal industry, nothing more. Controlling pollution BOOSTS the economy, helps keep air and water clean for today and future generations, and makes the place a nicer place to live.

And since you mention Nuclear: The USA has over 100 Nuclear power plants that produced almost 800 Billion kWh in 2013, over 19% total electric output. 6 New reactors will be online by 2020. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Co...Nuclear-Power/

I know this bit of info will get me shot, but here you go:

Deaths by Nuclear energy compared with other causes:

Coal = 24 people x 57 TWh x 2 years = 2,736 deaths, plus 25,000 serious ailments
Gas = 3 x 58 x 2 = 348 deaths, plus 3,400 serious ailments
Oil = 19.2 x 9 x 2 = 342 deaths, plus 2,900 serious ailments
Total EXTRA fossil deaths = 2,736 + 348 + 342 = 3,426, plus 31,300 serious ailments

Nuclear = 0.052 x (57 + 58 + 9) x 2 = 13 deaths, plus 54 serious ailments

http://theenergycollective.com/wille...d-other-causes

Peace.

You didn't address anything I brought up. You completely ignored the fact that deniers are getting paid to deny. This should be a end to the discussion to be honest because there is no scientific proof that actually makes sense on your side of the argument.

Your entire basis of man not adding to global warming is because the earth has cycles and CO2 levels have been high before. No one has ever argued that the earth doesn't have cycles, what we are arguing is that fossil fuels and pollution are drastically speeding up the process and putting the entire human race survival at risk. Not to mention all the other living creatures that share the planet with us.

Meanwhile, I mentioned the fact that in the past CO2 levels were high due to volcanic eruptions which caused a naturally occurring greenhouse effect. I then asked you do you see any extreme volcanic activity that would cause the rise of CO2 as it has risen in the last 50 years?

Did the CO2 just magically appear? So yes I did respond to your CO2 comment you just didn't bother to answer back and you still ignore the fact that there is no real science that supports the deniers. It's all just paid for propaganda by big oil.

oh yea using smear tactics, propaganda and out right lies.. all things clearly above the Right wing.. Obviously just a leftist tactic..

**********, the real world- you should come here and check it out sometime. holler when you get here, I'll give you a tour.

How many deaths for solar & wind power.. :winkwink:

Here Robbie, I'll make a deal with you.. Show me a scientific paper from the denial side which supports the theory that man is not causing global warming to speed up.

I want to see the actual science that supports your claims. Not BS opinion pieces from news sites, but actual real science.

I would find it myself self, but I've tried. Everything I find online about denial of man having any affect on global warming is just a wash of political talking points. I've found no real scientific papers just the same talking points that get thrown around endlessly that cherry pick specific data and fail to look at the big picture.

Show me the science and prove me wrong, that we have nothing to worry about.

counting birds and toads?

Only if we get to count all the birds and toads killed by oil spills, coal ash dumping and of course radioactive waste to be fair. :winkwink:

we gotta count em all- everything gets a say.

Here you go genius:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...arbon-dioxide/

As I ALREADY TOLD YOU BEFORE: I saw a big time climate scientist literally shock Bill Maher when he told him this on his show.
Bill had him on thinking the guy was going to join him in a round of doom-and-gloom revelry over "climate change" and how dumb "tea-baggers" are.

It's usually funny stuff at the very beginning of the show when he gets a guest and they fry the right wing together.

But Bill was stopped in his tracks when the guy revealed that the ocean and the plankton are eating up the excess CO2 faster than EVER before. And this was from a very liberal and very well respected scientist (according to Bill Maher's intro of him)

And that destroyed all the computer models that the "scientific papers" that YOU keep quoting are based on.

New "scientific papers" now need to be made using the new data and the new computer models.

The coolest thing about this is that just a couple of years before that...these same scientists were worried that they were going to look stupid again because they saw that the ocean was doing this.

And so a flurry of papers came out apparently (I found them on google) claiming that the ocean was going to slow down.

And of course...just like when they predicted that the East Coast would be underwater by the year 2000 and they predicted that an Ice Age was coming in the late 1970's...they were wrong AGAIN.

They didn't take into account that plankton LOVE CO2 and eat the shit out of it. lol

So Crockett, instead of acting like a jerk.
Can't you just be happy for once? SCIENCE says that this "problem" that never really existed is now solved.

And hell yes...let's go as green as we can. If I had the extra money I'd pick up a Tesla tomorrow. And as soon as solar panel companies stop price gouging...I'll put those on my house too.

But you should open your eyes and realize this is a money grab.
Big polluting companies buying "carbon credits" for hundreds of millions of dollars isn't "saving" the Earth.
It's just making green energy companies rich beyond your dreams.

how can a problem, that never existed, be solved

Richard, I love you man. But goddamn you act like you haven't got a clue in these discussions! lol

It's big business 101.
You create the illusion of a "problem" and then you make bank "solving" it.

It happens all the time.

:1orglaugh That had to be pretty funny to watch.

another way to look at it is you're being sold something.

'there is no problem, but look! we solved it'

odd that you'd only see it in a way that im the idiot. when it's you being run through this 'business 101'..

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/en...gulations.html
"""The Associated Press reports more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants will close and another 36 plants could also be forced to shut down as a result of new EPA rules regulating air pollution."""

http://time.com/2806697/obama-epa-coal-carbon/
"""Coal provides 24-hour ?baseload? power whether or not the sun is shining or the wind is blowing; the U.S. electricity supply barely kept up with demand during the extreme freeze created by last winter?s ?polar vortex,? and a new wave of coal shutdowns could further limit supply.

?Last winter, the grid was pushed to the edge,? says one industry official. ?With these new regulations, it could get pushed over the cliff.?""""

http://watchdog.org/147793/epa-power-plant-rules/
"""EPA regs threaten to close coal-fired power plants, but states push back"""

Robbie.. Oceans do adsorb CO2, this is known. It's estimated at roughly 30% of the carbon Dioxide produced is absorbed by the Ocean. That sounds great right?

Except if you look at the "Big Picture"

I have a word for you to look up.. Ocean Acidification

Read up on Ocean Acidification and tell me if you think it's a good idea to continue polluting the air with excessive CO2 gasses and assuming the Ocean will clean it all up.

This is the problem with everything I read on the denial side of the argument. They use very specific things and cherry pick data but fail to look at the bigger picture or even at very simple things as this example of what happens to the CO2 once the ocean absorbs it.

It doesn't just disappear into the ocean Robbie, it continues to cause problems further down the chain. You have to look at the entire picture to see how bad this is for us.

Now if the plankton are eating it up, then of course that should be studied.. However there is a very big hole in this argument. If the Oceans could readily handle the added CO2.. Why does it continue to increase? Also what about the rest of the excessive CO2 left in the atmosphere that the ocean doesn't absorb. It's left as greenhouse gas and continues to drive global warming.

If the earth was already solving the issue why are the CO2 levels increasing each year?

Richard...come on man.

Nobody "Sold" me anything. I told you where I first heard it. I linked to the science article explaining it.

As for "business 101"...it's obvious if you are paying attention at all.
If you own a giant company making billions of dollars, and you create CO2 emissions as part of your production...you are now in "trouble" with the EPA.

But there may be NO way for you to produce that product without some CO2 emissions.

So the EPA sets up "carbon credits". And they give every industry a certain number of them.

The carbon credit allows your company to put out a certain amount of tons of co2 into the air each year.

But what happens if you put out more?

Well, they made SELLING the carbon credits legal!

Open your eyes.

So if you have a company that produces a product with very little CO2 emissions...you will have a bunch of "extra" carbon credits.

And there is a market for that. Hundreds of millions of dollars being made with "carbon credit" trading.

Now seriously Richard. If you are not up to speed on this subject...please don't derail the thread by making me give you these long explanations. Just do what I do...stay out of it if you aren't up to speed.

You've just successfully deflected me showing crockett why he is dead fucking wrong.

All that says is the tiny plankton consumes more C02 than previously thought, not that its going to balance the planet of excess C02. The article also plainly admits the oceans are warming.

The bigger issue with that is though, as these tiny planktons use more C02 they multiply faster and take up the food source of larger plankton which causes a host of even worse problems....

"If the tiny plankton blooms, it consumes the nutrients that are normally also available to larger plankton species," explains Ulf Riebesell, a professor of biological oceanography at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany and head of the experimental team. This could mean the larger plankton run short of food.

Large plankton play an important role in carbon export to the deep ocean, but in a system dominated by the so-called pico- and nanoplankton, less carbon is transported out of surface waters. "This may cause the oceans to absorb less CO2 in the future," says Riebesell.

The potential imbalance in the plankton food web may have an even bigger climate impact. Large plankton are also important producers of a climate-cooling gas called dimethyl sulphide, which stimulates cloud-formation over the oceans. Less dimethyl sulphide means more sunlight reaches Earth's surface, adding to the greenhouse effect. "These important services of the ocean may thus be significantly affected by acidification."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0913085756.htm

Already looked that up. It was part of my answer to you. There were a flurry of papers (as I said) trying to push that out there.

Turns out the plankton solved that too.

Dude...nature and the Earth are bigger than mankind. I'm sure if we simultaneously blew up every nuclear weapon on Earth that maybe THEN we could really affect the future of the planet.

But until the govt. stops the carbon credit market, the Pres. stops leaving a carbon footprint bigger than the total of some small towns, the military stops putting out more CO2 than some small countries, and the Feds use federal money to put solar panels on everyone's homes INSTEAD of bailing out banks....then that should tell you just how "seriously" the govt. even takes this bullshit.

It's all about making money. I see no sense of "urgency" from our govt over this.
Just a bunch of talk (which ironically contributes CO2 lol) and proposals that take place 20 or 30 years from now.

I don't know the answer to that.

What I do know is that nature always seems to adapt. And that the history of scientists making these "climate change" predictions over the last 40 years has shown them to be wrong each time as nature changed and corrected itself.

I'm not a scientist. And I've wasted enough time looking shit up today.

But look at my post above at the end where I question what the govt. is actually DOING.

I think that says it all.

you have successfully deflected yourself. i was merely asking how this wonderful scientist/salesperson/person.. was able to solve a problem that didn't exist.

i fully agree with you and everyone that the carbon trading is a crock of shit.

Agreed, nature does have a way of adapting. The bottom line is this, no one knows for sure what the outcome all this is, there is simply to many variables at play. But I think we can all agree that temperatures are rising along with C02 and methane levels, how that plays out in the future is anyones guess. Personally I don't think its a good thing, nor do I think the planet is immune from changing to the point humans are no longer able to exist on it.

Big picture you say? Looking at the "big picture" requires looking at things on geologic time scales and not just the past 100 years like the alarmists do.

As for your "ocean acidification" alarm-ism:

The Myth of ?Acidification? of Oceans

Ok, lets just go along and say that all the CO2 absorbed by the Ocean is eaten up by plankton and doing this causes no other ill effects to the oceans. Highly unlikely IMO but lets just go with it for arguments sake.

Meaning CO2 issues in the ocean are solved. What about the added CO2 in the atmosphere? The oceans don't suck it all up and the larger percentage of what is created stays in the atmosphere as greenhouse gas, which continues to drive global warming. What about that problem?

Here is my problem Robbie..

If your side is right, the worst case, is we waste a bunch of money.

If my side of the argument is right and we don't try to do anything.. We all die.

What is the bigger risk? Do nothing, waste some money or end all life on this planet?

But it's not driving global warming. The temperature has not been rising along with CO2. It has been flat for almost 18 years. That fact has invalidated 20 years worth of climate models.

Ok I'll bite..

So your article claims that CO2 is good for the oceans as it encourages plant growth. Once again on the surface, this sounds great. Yet it isn't.

The author of that article is very much right, the added CO2 does increase plant growth.. Unlucky for us, is the fact that the plant growth that is increasing is algae. Alge is over running the oceans at an alarming rate. Killing coral reefs and other plant life around the world, when it blooms it also kills fish.

Does that sound good for us?

Also you mention we have to look at Geological time lines. Ok.. that's fine and dandy but we aren't dealing with geological time lines. the CO2 levels are rapidly increasing and have done so since the industrial revolution as we have added more and more pollution into the skys. We have speed up the rate that normally would have taken thousands of years to achieve.

It doesn't matter what happens over 5 thousand years when a super volcano randomly blows up and throws all the levels out of whack. We are that super volcano..