The only one confused, and dangerously so, is you.

that's a weird thing to say because a second ago you were butthurt when you were confused about me insulting you. so you dodge and deflect by claiming I am dangerously confused.

Again, fill us all in **********, which of my posts, all backed up with references, are confusing to you?

Is it the links to referenced support I provide? Or is it the fact you can't support you silly *we can fix it* comment with any scientific corroboration?

This thread is pure gold. I wish i could share all the posts with people i went to school with. This would seriously scare them.

Inconvenient Truth about Ethics:

The question now remains how long it will take before majority population segments in America and the rest of the world realize, as Australia now finally does, that they have been duped by unaffordable and unreliable climate benefit-premised ?green energy? promotions. For example, perhaps recall when then Vice President and presidential candidate Gore cast a tie-breaking 1994 Senate vote in favor of ethanol mandates.

Speaking in 2010 at a green energy business conference in Athens, Gore admitted: ?It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol.? Reuters quoted him saying in retrospect, ?First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.? Gore then explained: ?One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa [the first-in-the-nation caucuses state] because I was about to run for president.?

what do people you went to school with have to do with a thread about al gore the shister on gfy?

I've got an Cal alumni reunion coming up, maybe I gather up a contact list and bookmark this thread for them

True or not the most shocking thing about all this is people who spend a majority of their days on the internet arguing against 99% of the scientists on Earth. Oh, but Al Gore is paying off every scientist and researcher on every corner of the planet. :1orglaugh

Must be a strange feeling knowing this is what your life has come to.

There is no proof that the climate needs fixing and no proven methodology for fixing it even if we had to. What an arrogant load of rubbish suggesting that humans have to "fix" something that has been occurring naturally for billions of years.

You always talk about "facts" but always fail to present any. Theories are not facts. Evidence in support of non-factual theories is not fact. Propaganda is not fact. Calling something a fact does not make it a fact. Stop abusing the word already.


Wow, thanks for the lesson. I feel so informed now.

If you believe that Venus is valid for comparison to Earth then why not Mars where the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is also 95%?

Venus is not a valid model for comparing to the Earth in any way shape or form. Period. It doesn't matter if it is called a "twin" or if it is similar size. All of it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of current conditions on Earth so stop trying to use CO2 on Venus as a case for cutting CO2 on Earth.




.

I've never argued against it.

What I've attempted to do here (and many times before) is point out that the debate serously curbs behavior. By creating the argument, it politically polarized things which is completely counter to fostering change.

The other thing that I've done (elsewhere) about what you state is point out how dangerous it is to exclaim "the science is settled on global warming". Science is never settled, that's not the point of science and the scientific method. To continue to learn about matters is the cornerstone of science. No where in the scientific method does it state that science is settled if x number of "scientists" agree on something.

"99% of the scientists on Earth".

Another made up "fact" used as pure propaganda.




.

Yes! And when Al Gore and other people making insane profit off of "climate change" start following that list of bullshit that is out there for peasants like us to do...just let me know.

In the meantime, he has now accumulated over 200 million dollars in wealth since leaving office (all thanks to "climate change"), he lives in a very UN-green mansion with a giant carbon footprint, he rides in big gas-guzzling/CO2 emitting limousines, and he flies in a PRIVATE "earth killing" jet as he makes his way around the world collecting money from believers like some kind of evangelist preacher putting on a carny show.

Yeah Mark...why don't you explain why Al Gore is living like a king while you and I are expected to live without all that comfort and drive electric cars?

Why are you such a cheerleader for the rich ruling class and have no empathy for normal people?

I went to a school where they specialize in this sort of thing. Namely the environment.
You carry on. I am not going to bother posting any arguments. I am just enjoying the show.

I gave up trying to pull ostriches out of the sand about five years ago. I really do enjoy all the Science talk here though. Opinions and other facterammos..lol

I don't claim to be a scientist or anywhere close but I do know enough to know that your entire argument is based on junk science. My position still stands. We would be much better off with higher CO2 levels.

right on! So did I. Cal's science department is ranked 3rd in the nation, the environmental science program within it is well-distinguished.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...78462813553136

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

the science is settled that all the gfy libs just went:

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...oding-head.gif


:1orglaugh

But thats the thing, it hasn't been occurring for billions of years. The rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is very recent.

How is this?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ima...gure1-2014.png

From http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...emissions.html





There is a big difference. The average surface pressure on Mars is only 600 Pascals. Earth's is a little over 100,000 Pascals, or about 150 times greater than the pressure on Mars.

Mars has less than .98 mole fraction (a way of expressing the composition of a mixture with a dimensionless quantity) CO2, compared to 0.0004 on earth. The concentration of CO2 in Mars atmosphere is over 2,000 times higher than Earth. In other words, Mars is cooler because the pressure is less.


Okee Dokee.

More BS. Not even junk science there just plain old misinformation.. CO2 levels have jumped up and down throughout history and will continue to do so.

Me either. I am no scientist. However I like to read about science in various magazines in print and in online, and try to watch as much science based TV as I can. When I was a kid my toys were things like Electronic Project kits, chemistry sets, etc. I used to have a Telescope too. It was a weak one but still made looking at the moon really interesting. One of my favourite books is a textbook called "The Emperors New Mind Concerning Computers, Minds and The Laws of Physics" by Roger Penrose. Hopelessly complicated and impossible for me to understand, I still read it a couple of times. I just really like science. Call me nerd, its ok.

Honestly man, I'm sure you're wrong, or whoever said this is wrong. This isn't junk science.

Co2 is "plant food" sure, but people who claim that more CO2 is better fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.

In other words, plants suck CO2 out of the air: Good. A warmer client though means less plants to suck that CO2 up, so more CO2 remains in the atmosphere, warming things up even more, causing more plants to disappear, etc etc.

Sure, but:

http://static.skepticalscience.com/i...0000_years.gif

Try to imagine things on a different time scale. The planet and its atmosphere will always fluctuate thanks to all kinds of forces both internal and external and happen over millions of years of course.

But the changes that are happening now, can have serious impact on you, your children and your grandchildren. What does it hurt to take steps today that can reduce the effect? And maybe just as importantly, who out there would have an interest in you NOT taking those steps?

Peace.

Try to imagine things on a different time scale. :1orglaugh http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...historical.png


http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...-10000-new.png

oh, and my graph is footnoted. not like the other make believe graph above it.

Hi 12Clicks,

Am I wrong, or does my graph agree with yours?

Climate change hasn't been happening on Earth for billions of years? Wow. That's new.

And no the rise of CO2 is not very recent. CO2 concentration is currently near the lowest it has ever been on the planet. 400 PPM is still far closer to 0 than the 1000's of PPM that CO2 has been at for most of the Earth's history. Based on paleoclimate the Earth actually appears to be in a CO2 deficit.

Also keep in mind that photosynthesis stops at around 150 PPM.


Awesome. Now you understand the effect of pressure on temperature. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is 92 times greater than here on Earth. So to use your logic from above - Venus is warmer because the pressure is higher.

That intense pressure and the fact that Venus doesn't have a magnetic field are just a couple of the reasons why Venus makes a poor comparison for Earth.


Plants respond very positively to increased CO2. They grow faster, they grow bigger and they spread more.

Tropical rainforests are some of the warmest places on the planet. Some deserts are some of the coldest places on the planet. Temperature is not a major determining factor of whether an area is arid or not. Precipitation is.

Then there is this:

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2



.

I was watching the History Channel and they were showing that the Sahara Desert was once a lush tundra.

It changed into a desert very abruptly around 5,500 years ago.

I'm gonna guess that Mark Prince and Crockett would have us believe that was also caused by man. lol

The whole thing is a fucking scam. The alarmist scientists have been wrong at every turn. And yet the sheep still believe. It's like some kind of religious fervor.

History be damned. It has gotten a tenth of a degree or so warmer over the past 200 years so this MUST be man-made and MUST be "fixed" (fixed=Selling carbon credits and funneling money through b.s. corps like Solyndra)

I'm not in this thread to argue about viewpoints. Just hoping to lighten the mood a bit, since I'd much rather be laughing than crying when the world ends.

http://i.imgur.com/G8lJBww.jpg


:)

http://www.weather.com/news/science/...nsidc-20141008

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/fi...extn_hires.png

in other news, the antarctic is losing so much ice, it is causing dips in gravity:

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...gravity-dips-0

Rigth! Let's not use facts. Let's continue to use our impression of what we like to be true...

:disgust

You were alive for ozone. For USA water quality. Acid rain. Chernobyl. Come on not all of these made up.

The ozone layer never disappeared.
Acid rain never amounted to much of anything.
Chernobyl affected it's immediate area (the USA dropping 2 atomic bombs on Japanese cities was a much worse atrocity)

Saying that mankind can destroy the Earth is simply not true. The Earth will destroy mankind in the end.

The rest of this is just companies cashing in on the ego of humans who THINK that we actually can control mother nature.

So if it is all lies, how can you believe that the Sahara used to be forested? You lack logical thinking on this one.

I don't think the debate is about the destruction of the earth but about making it uninhabitable for mankind. I get why most people don't care as the time lines mean we don't really have a horse in this race but I don't get why people feel a need to be obstinate in denying it when almost everything says it is happening. Not sure of the gain in that.

The change in weather is getting pretty obvious.

Acid rain still an issue to today - http://www.dw.de/germany-controversi...ain/a-17239231

Ozone - There was only 3 makers of CPF's world wide which made it an easy thing to change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_d...:Min_ozone.jpg 2007 it was agreed to phase out the last of this stuff over 23 years or so. Even the USA and China agreed.

Mankind seems to be able to effect our environment.

if you look at the organization and studies.. they have been finding more issues with the ozones and not everyone has been so complaint with what should be removed.. its a problem, albeit buried one

I'd post actual questions here if it wasn't for 3 things:
1- I fear that people would just think I'm denying that climate is changing
2- no real debate or conversation is possible (it is GFY after all).
3- it's easier to just read this eating popcorn and laugh...

You're wrong. The Ozone layer was thick enough to protect you and me, but not the antarctic. It thinned out so much it completely disappeared in that part of the world.


Not true. Over the years, scientists, foresters, and others have noted a slowed growth of some forests. Leaves and needles turn brown and fall off when they should be green and healthy. In extreme cases, individual trees or entire areas of the forest simply die off without an obvious reason.

After much analysis, researchers now know that acid rain causes slower growth, injury, or death of forests. Acid rain has been implicated in forest and soil degradation in many areas of the eastern U.S., particularly high elevation forests of the Appalachian Mountains from Maine to Georgia that include areas such as the Shenandoah and Great Smoky Mountain National Parks. Of course, acid rain is not the only cause of such conditions. Other factors contribute to the overall stress of these areas, including air pollutants, insects, disease, drought, or very cold weather. In most cases, in fact, the impacts of acid rain on trees are due to the combined effects of acid rain and these other environmental stressors. After many years of collecting information on the chemistry and biology of forests, researchers are beginning to understand how acid rain works on the forest soil, trees, and other plants.

Comparing the two makes no sense. Nuclear Reactors are not atomic bombs. Reactors are used to generate clean energy, and what happened at Chernobyl was an accident. American on the other hand dropped atomic bombs designed to cause as much damage as possible.

That statement makes no sense. Man can easily make the planet inhabitable for all life long before changes in nature could. Watching the damage we cause to the earth without taking responsibility for it is wrong.

You can't control mother nature, but you can definitely affect it, which is what Man has been doing since the industrial revolution. If the damage isn't brought under control, the world will be a very dirty, very ugly place in no time, and your kids, and your kids kids, will blame you and me for it.

Nah. Post what you think. Accept or deny, it's still good conversation.

I disagree. Conversation and debate are possible. Changing some people's minds is another subject entirely...

Easier sure, but boring if you ask me. Get involved! Everyone on GFY likes to think they know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change (especially me!). So if you think someone has it wrong, by all means say so. It's always good to use links to source material if you can, though it won't make a difference to those who are just too stubborn to click it.

i still can't wrap my head around the fact that some people desperately try to prevent any progress in keeping our environment livable

i remember from my youth how certain industrial areas looked liked when no one cared back then - now that we have filters and catalytic converters and factories are not allowed to pump their waste directly into rivers anymore, nature has recovered. In my youth some rivers were completely dead, now you can even eat the fish again.

how can anyone say the problems before were not manmade and doing something against the pollution is a bad thing?

crazy people here...

Yes we can definitely have an effect on our immediate environment. No argument there.
And I'd love to help by getting a Tesla sports car! Those electric cars are bad ass!

But to suggest that we have anything to do with the "Little Ice Age" period that the Earth is now coming out of and into it's more natural warmer climate is ridiculous.

The Earth does what it will.

Yes, we can make the air less dirty for ourselves. And we have.
Yes, we can keep things clean by recycling, etc. And we have.

But the whole CO2/humans changing the Earth's temperature in a way that will DESTROY it?

Well, that's chicken little "the sky is falling" bullshit.

Throughout history there have been cries of approaching doomsday. Many times by scientists (who turned out to be dead wrong every time throughout the centuries...and in more modern history as I have pointed out).

Rational people used to call them "crazy".
In today's society we are calling the skeptics crazy!

I can't prove or disprove anything here.

But I can tell you that 30 years ago we were being told everything would already be gone 15 years ago. lol

Come back in 30 years and see for yourself.

Nothing will change. And the same alarmists will still be cashing in on the latest "doomsday".

I haven't seen anyone arguing that.

Pollution is definitely bad. And yes humans DID make that mess and then we cleaned it up.

You're mixing up claims of carbon DESTROYING all of mankind versus cleaning up air pollution and/or stopping dumping poison into a lake.

It's not the same thing or the same scale.

Mark I'm not gonna go through and prove you wrong on every point. It's too time consuming.

I just wish you'd use google and find out stuff for yourself before you post those bullshit statements.

Here ya go:
https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/ns...ctic/ozone.htm

Read and learn.

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/wp-conten...Koch-Exxon.png



Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science

is this post claiming that the ozone hole is natural?

cause it really seems like you posted this article as some sort of 'gotcha'.. when a brief read clearly shows the exact opposite..

btw, the cover of the study you're quoting:

http://i.imgur.com/UGN4Jw0.gif

I look at some of the people posting here. And I know they are intelligent human beings.

But some of the stuff y'all buy into just boggles my mind.

It's like watching people who believe in religion. Otherwise they might be intelligent about every other subject. But they choose to suspend their disbelief when it comes to religion.

Same thing for people who SEE the graphs showing the Earth changing throughout history.
You read the articles from the "greatest" scientists on Earth getting it all wrong in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's with their forecasts for what was going to happen.
You know that the Earth is coming out of a period known as "The Little Ice Age" (basically the Earth has been COLDER than normal for all of our lives and is now just beginning to warm back up to it's normal temp)

And despite all of that...you still believe.

I guess it's just good for a debate and a laugh on GFY.

Don't worry guys, I know how to turn water into ice.

Hey Mark,
Okay I'll play but keep in mind that I said I do not deny that there is change nor that man played a role.

1) When the Ozone was an issue, the world acted fast, when there is a disaster the world bands together.. So why is it that the major solution to Global warming is a Carbon Tax that basically acts like a for profit stock exchange for carbon credits?
One would thing that a global natural disaster would amount to more than a slow moving tax based solution.

2) Remembering basic science from grade school CO2 is a byproduct of many natural causes..
Man - 29 gigatons of CO2
is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year.
If mankind is only looking at reducing man made CO2 by less than 10% say
2 gigatons what net effect will it really have.

3) CO2 as a by-product of the industrial revaluation has drastically elevated, this is a given...
But so have other things that could and do trap heat.
Keep in mind we are only talking about a a small % of global temperature gain.
Why are we not also looking into all possible heat sources.

Large concrete buildings that trap heat and are know to change weather patters around a city, energy efficient homes use concrete slabs to store heat and as heat sources in the winter. Given their abundance what % if any do they play in the temp increase?
Millions of miles of back top that we drive on each day trap heat to the point you can cook an egg on it.
There are more examples.... but nobody talks about them.. All we hear about is CO2...
If you removed all the CO2 that is man made we still have 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year....

Well I think you are dramatizing it. "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" is more about the amount of CO2 being higher then it has ever been in human history. Temperatures on a world scale are rising. If this continues it would have effect on how and where people live. I don't think I have seen anything saying it would kill all of mankind. I would think think that we would produce less CO2 as we died off thus bringing some balance back.

Same site and explains how we have effected the system and what we did about it.

https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/ns.../ozonehole.htm

That's not what Mark was claiming.

He claimed that the ozone layer was completely gone over that area all because of mankind.

Just look at the rate of change versus what we have seen in the past and see if you think it is normal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...Comparison.png

From this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

We are out of the ice age and now warmer then the warm age. Not sure what else to say but I am not sure why you need to hold to this belief system.