Al Gore: ?Polar ice cap could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years.? - Page 7 - GoFuckYourself.com

dyna mo · 10-16-2014, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

how did climate change become a partisan issue?

peoples sense of self importance around here is so revealing it's not funny. If you can keep your property and block clean of pollution and garbage you've just done as much good as you are ever going to do for the environment and this planet. Plant a tree or two and you are leading the pack, anything beyond that you are just jerking off because you have no control over anything beyond that... and none of us ever will.

it's so easy to do and add in that a major way to make a difference re: carbon is to not buy new cars.

this is why it's truly nutty that gfyers are arguing about carbon, telling others how wrong they are, while buying new chevy volts. that's bizzarro!

Dvae · 10-16-2014, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's so easy to do and add in that a major way to make a difference re: carbon is to not buy new cars.

this is why it's truly nutty that gfyers are arguing about carbon, telling others how wrong they are, while buying new chevy volts. that's bizzarro!

I think an apology is in order for all the Volt drivers here on GFY.
We know it runs on "free non-polluting electricity"

MK Ultra · 10-16-2014, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's so easy to do and add in that a major way to make a difference re: carbon is to not buy new cars.

this is why it's truly nutty that gfyers are arguing about carbon, telling others how wrong they are, while buying new chevy volts. that's bizzarro!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

I think an apology is in order for all the Volt drivers here on GFY.
We know it runs on "free non-polluting electricity"

2MuchMark · 10-16-2014, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Mark I don't "hate" Al Gore. I think he's smart. And he has more scientific data in front of him than you and Crockett will EVER see. He has the money and the power to know what is really going on.

Of course. When I speak about these things, I am only like you - a citizen who considers himself to be well informed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm just saying to you...IF it's true, then why is his response to it just a way to make himself a billionaire?

I'd disagree. He made the movie which I thought was excellent, and really opened my eyes. If we take him at his word, he became concerned about what he learned and shared it with the world via a movie. As far as everything else he is doing where he might profit from the Greening of America, I have no problem with this either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

And Pres. Obama has even more data and resources at his disposal. Is he mobilizing the country? No.

Well let's be honest. He's got alot of other things to do, and he has a congress that won't help him. Plus, he can't put in sweeping changes "just like that". He would meet opposition along the way. And besides all of that, he would have to give some heavy polluters time to make the changes they need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

And by the way, when I say "the US is creating more CO2"...I'm talking about the Federal Govt. and the military.

True but again, lets be honest. Some machines can't be efficient with pollution controls. For example, I'm pretty sure Tanks and other war machines don't have anything on them at all that reduces performance. Earth Movers and other big trucks must use Diesel, and maybe pollute more, because they need the strength to do what they do. As I've said before, "Green" can't replace everything - and we don't need it to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Also on your comment about the EPA. Yes, the EPA DID it's job.
But now it is overreaching and actually creating LAW and calling it "regulations". That is unconstitutional. Only Congress can pass federal law.

The EPA is mandated, by law, to keep the air and water of the US clean. It has a legal contract with the government to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The EPA does need to be abolished. Like every other bureaucracy it has grown over it's limit and now exists mainly to feed itself and continue to get funding.

NooooOOOooooo way...!! Dude you are way off on this one. The EPA is extremely important. Without the EPA your country would go apeshit and air quality would get that lovely China-brown color within months. The "Abolish the EPA" noise is far-right noise dressed as a "Job killer". Please man don't vote for anyone who wants to abolish the EPA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

It needs to be shut down and a smaller more efficient organization put in it's place. It's obsolete. This isn't 1970. It's 2014. And the EPA is causing more harm to our country than any "good" it may be doing in this day and age.

Like what? What harm is the EPA doing?

2MuchMark · 10-16-2014, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

As long as it's a Democrat making the money right?

If it's the Koch brothers or anyone not affiliated with the Democrat party in the U.S., then they are obviously greedy bastards who don't care.

No, not true. If the Koch brothers adopted green policies that would be fantastic. If they stopped taking subsidies and stopped the BS, that would be even better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

So guys like Al Gore...it's okay for them to make billions of dollars while the planet is supposedly dying?

Already answered this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You see...that's where you show that you aren't able to look at this with an unbiased view.

I disagree with you here Robbie. I am not the one bringing up Al Gore all the time, you are. Why not forget Al Gore completely since you have an issue with him, and talk about the core issues instead? I saw his movie and liked what I saw but it doesn't mean I'm a Gore fan by any means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You tend to dismiss any wrong from one Team (the Dems) and attack fervently every wrong of the other "team" (Republicans)

No not true. While I'm no republican, GW Bush did a couple of good things, as did Ronnie, etc. I'm trying to leave politics out of this conversation with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm telling you...they are both of the same cloth. Interested in nothing but power and money.

Ok, fine - now - forget Al Gore already... lets boil the issues down to scientific cause and effect. No politics. Agreed?

2MuchMark · 10-16-2014, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's so easy to do and add in that a major way to make a difference re: carbon is to not buy new cars.

this is why it's truly nutty that gfyers are arguing about carbon, telling others how wrong they are, while buying new chevy volts. that's bizzarro!

I do not tell others they are wrong about the choices they make - I complain about republican lawmakers who seem to dismiss science. I also argue the points. If someone says something interesting (like Robby) I will take the time to Google things before posting a reply.

Threads like this are fun and informative because I look at each one as a challenge. If someone says "This is happening and here's why", I'll Google it, read about it, and try to learn it. And whenever anyone proves me wrong (which happens often I would add), I am humbled by it.

You on the other hand, just toss in the same old crap into these endless GFY conversations because its all you care to do.

I talk alot about reducing pollution, saving energy and trying to be a little more green. I sold my Camaro because I hated it, and hated the cost of gas, and hated the oil companies's and their apperent disrespect for their customers and the environment. Had I not done it I would be a hypocrite, and an unhappy one.

Today, I enjoy getting data from my car and trying to squeeze every electron out of the battery to get where I want to go. It's fun to me. And it also happens to be a nice car that I am much happier with than I was with my Camaro.

You can't fathom this for some reason, so you just toss in an insult to me, then pat yourself on your back. Big man Dyna Mo.

But since you brought it up: The Chevy Camaro costs about 9 tonnes of CO2e to build. The gasoline it comsumes over time is the biggest contributor to CO2 as well as other damage to the environment. 8,887 grams of CO2 / gallon of gasoline =8.887 × 10-3 metric tons CO2/gallon of gasoline.

As I said earlier, I have driven 4515 Kilometers since June, or 2805 Miles, or about 701 Miles per month. This translates into 6.60342 Tons of CO2 per year. After about this time next year, the purchase of my Volt would have paid for itself in Carbon emissions.

Also, your insult to me would be moot to anyone who made an electric car as their first purchase, or replaced their gas car with electric after it had been totalled in an accident.

So, do you want to insult me for upgrading my car? Sure, if that's all you can do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

I think an apology is in order for all the Volt drivers here on GFY.
We know it runs on "free non-polluting electricity"

Hmmm... just about. Our electricity comes from Hydro, which is a renewable source of energy. And it's also cheap - it costs me only $1.18 worth of electricity for every 70 kilometres. So far I have driven 4515 kilometres at a total cost of $64.50. If this had been my Camaro, the cost would have been $80.00 per 350 Kilometers, or a total cost of $1032.00.

Sources: Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator

Robbie · 10-16-2014, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I am not the one bringing up Al Gore all the time, you are. Why not forget Al Gore completely

Ok, fine - now - forget Al Gore already... lets boil the issues down to scientific cause and effect. No politics. Agreed?

Mark sometimes I have to wonder about you.

I didn't "bring up Al Gore"

You are in a thread entitled: " Al Gore: ?Polar ice cap could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years.?"

I'm simply on topic.
I have no idea what you think you're replying to. But reading some of the other things you posted in that reply, you're all over the map and not focused.

crockett · 10-20-2014, 07:09 PM

Global Warming is such a farce.. Damn that Al Gore..

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-is-...ear-on-record/

Quote:

The first nine months of 2014 have a global average temperature of 58.72 degrees (14.78 degrees Celsius), tying with 1998 for the warmest first nine months on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"It's pretty likely" that 2014 will break the record for hottest year, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden.

That silly Al Gore still fooling all the scientists..

Robbie · 10-20-2014, 08:26 PM

I kinda wondered what the fuss is about.

So I just googled global temp over the last century.

Here is what I found: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years

It's risen 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880

Yep, there's a reason to panic alright. No wonder Al Gore is riding in big SUV's and flying on private jets from his HUGE carbon footprint mansion to HUGE carbon footprint 5 star hotels as he goes around the globe making billions by scaring people.

One and a half degrees in 100 years. Wow. I don't know how we have been able to withstand that kind of intense heat...

Robbie · 10-20-2014, 08:31 PM

crockett · 10-20-2014, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Leave it to Robbie to find the most obscure religious nut job to use as his proof that everyone else is wrong..

I know this wont breakthrough your know it all Robbie logic.. but this is the guy that made your pretty little chart..

https://www.facebook.com/weatherprophecy

He's a real biblical climatologist.. Hell I'm sold because obviously he gets his info from God..

I know, I know this guy is legit and the rest of us are all wrong..

Better yet here is someone that has already debunked your new heroes..

http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/201...andy-mann.html

Really, Robbie if you even would of spent 2 mins researching your graph before posting you would of seen this..

I'm secretly waiting to see if you try to talk circles and try to defend your position biased on this religious quack pot, or if you will pretend to ignore it and deflect to something new. Lord knows you wont admit you were wrong and just tossed out shit to prove your position with out actually reading or researching it. This just shows you will believe anything, as long as it says what you want to hear.

Robbie · 10-20-2014, 09:07 PM

crockett, I have no idea who that guy is. I just googled for a history of the Earth's temps.

I don't give a damn about who the guy is. The question is...is the graph accurate? Or is it false?

Can you show me a graph of the earth's actual global temps over the last few thousand years?

I'd like to see it. I didn't go out of my way to find any "religious nut". Why would I? I think anybody who believes in religion is a "nut". lol

Educate me. Show me a graph of actual global temperatures and let's see how wrong that guy is.

Also, in the post above that one, I posted the actual amount that global temp has risen in 100 years. 1 and one-half degrees total.
You are posting that CBS is reporting this is the hottest in recorded history. And yet everything I see when I look up global temperature says otherwise.

Show me the stats. I'd like to look at them too.

crockett · 10-21-2014, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

crockett, I have no idea who that guy is. I just googled for a history of the Earth's temps.

I don't give a damn about who the guy is. The question is...is the graph accurate? Or is it false?

Can you show me a graph of the earth's actual global temps over the last few thousand years?

I'd like to see it. I didn't go out of my way to find any "religious nut". Why would I? I think anybody who believes in religion is a "nut". lol

Educate me. Show me a graph of actual global temperatures and let's see how wrong that guy is.

Also, in the post above that one, I posted the actual amount that global temp has risen in 100 years. 1 and one-half degrees total.
You are posting that CBS is reporting this is the hottest in recorded history. And yet everything I see when I look up global temperature says otherwise.

Show me the stats. I'd like to look at them too.

Robbie, yes it does matter. The guy basis his global stats by what he thinks the bible tells him. It's a joke and shows that you will just pick anything that shows what you want to see.

The fact is you will not pick to death anything you disagree with, like Al Gore for example, when I've shown you actual scientific data from NOHAA for example in other past topics you always explain it away with your theories.. Yet you are willing to just accept a graph from some religious nut job with out even verifying it as fact.

The simple fact is you constantly ignore published scientific data as hearsay and Al Gore brain washing because you don't agree with it. Yet you willingly accept this kind of stuff with out even checking on it and post it as if it were fact.

Also as far as the amount of change.. That 1 and a half degrees in a "global average" that means in some places it's more and that "more" is in the Arctic as the temperature has risen by nearly double what the global average is and it will continue to rise at a faster rate than the rest of the Earth.

This is all stuff that is easy to find.. NOHAA has global records since the 1800s global records were taken. EPA and various scientific groups have global tempeture further back from studies of ice cores and so forth.. It's all out there and not hard to find and it's been posted before but you always ignore it.

sperbonzo · 10-21-2014, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Robbie, yes it does matter. The guy basis his global stats by what he thinks the bible tells him. It's a joke and shows that you will just pick anything that shows what you want to see.

The fact is you will not pick to death anything you disagree with, like Al Gore for example, when I've shown you actual scientific data from NOHAA for example in other past topics you always explain it away with your theories.. Yet you are willing to just accept a graph from some religious nut job with out even verifying it as fact.

The simple fact is you constantly ignore published scientific data as hearsay and Al Gore brain washing because you don't agree with it. Yet you willingly accept this kind of stuff with out even checking on it and post it as if it were fact.

Also as far as the amount of change.. That 1 and a half degrees in a "global average" that means in some places it's more and that "more" is in the Arctic as the temperature has risen by nearly double what the global average is and it will continue to rise at a faster rate than the rest of the Earth.

This is all stuff that is easy to find.. NOHAA has global records since the 1800s global records were taken. EPA and various scientific groups have global tempeture further back from studies of ice cores and so forth.. It's all out there and not hard to find and it's been posted before but you always ignore it.

Here are some graphs from non nut jobs....

EonBlue · 10-21-2014, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Hmmm... just about. Our electricity comes from Hydro, which is a renewable source of energy. And it's also cheap - it costs me only $1.18 worth of electricity for every 70 kilometres. So far I have driven 4515 kilometres at a total cost of $64.50. If this had been my Camaro, the cost would have been $80.00 per 350 Kilometers, or a total cost of $1032.00.

Sorry, you don't get off that easy.

Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed

Quote:

Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. Proposed changes to the way countries' climate budgets are calculated aim to take greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs into account, but some experts worry that they will not go far enough.

The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case," he says.

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. "But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about."

You are accelerating global warming and killing the planet while smugly driving around in your hydroelectric powered vehicle.

Clearly you must stop driving any type of vehicle. We all must. It is the only way to prevent the planet from bursting into a giant ball of flame. How many more of these "hottest year on record" must we be forced to endure? Who will think of the children?

.

dyna mo · 10-21-2014, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I do not tell others they are wrong about the choices they make - I complain about republican lawmakers who seem to dismiss science. I also argue the points. If someone says something interesting (like Robby) I will take the time to Google things before posting a reply.

Threads like this are fun and informative because I look at each one as a challenge. If someone says "This is happening and here's why", I'll Google it, read about it, and try to learn it. And whenever anyone proves me wrong (which happens often I would add), I am humbled by it.

You on the other hand, just toss in the same old crap into these endless GFY conversations because its all you care to do.

I talk alot about reducing pollution, saving energy and trying to be a little more green. I sold my Camaro because I hated it, and hated the cost of gas, and hated the oil companies's and their apperent disrespect for their customers and the environment. Had I not done it I would be a hypocrite, and an unhappy one.

Today, I enjoy getting data from my car and trying to squeeze every electron out of the battery to get where I want to go. It's fun to me. And it also happens to be a nice car that I am much happier with than I was with my Camaro.

You can't fathom this for some reason, so you just toss in an insult to me, then pat yourself on your back. Big man Dyna Mo.

But since you brought it up: The Chevy Camaro costs about 9 tonnes of CO2e to build. The gasoline it comsumes over time is the biggest contributor to CO2 as well as other damage to the environment. 8,887 grams of CO2 / gallon of gasoline =8.887 × 10-3 metric tons CO2/gallon of gasoline.

As I said earlier, I have driven 4515 Kilometers since June, or 2805 Miles, or about 701 Miles per month. This translates into 6.60342 Tons of CO2 per year. After about this time next year, the purchase of my Volt would have paid for itself in Carbon emissions.

Also, your insult to me would be moot to anyone who made an electric car as their first purchase, or replaced their gas car with electric after it had been totalled in an accident.

So, do you want to insult me for upgrading my car? Sure, if that's all you can do...

Hmmm... just about. Our electricity comes from Hydro, which is a renewable source of energy. And it's also cheap - it costs me only $1.18 worth of electricity for every 70 kilometres. So far I have driven 4515 kilometres at a total cost of $64.50. If this had been my Camaro, the cost would have been $80.00 per 350 Kilometers, or a total cost of $1032.00.

Sources: Carbon dioxide emission footprint calculator and offset estimator

did you practice all that in the mirror first?

I didn't insult you **********, you're the one the got insulted over my pointing out a simple fact- you run around here pointing your finger at others for their carbon footprint while you buy 2 brand new cars in a couple years dumping 30+ fucking tons of carbon on the rest of us.

and lol at you patting yourself on the back now for googling shit when just a few posts ago you were lambasting the rest of us for googling when you say google is responsible for dispensing bullshit infos.

not sure who you are trying to bullshit with your bullshit about being humble. if you had 1 fucking iota of humility you'd stop posting your biased fingerpointing bullshit.

and you are also bullshitting yourself, not me, about your fucking volt paying for itself in carbon emissions, you completely fail to understand that 20 tons of carbon you dumped on the rest of us was just the manufacturing costs of carbon. wait till your fucking batteries need to be disposed too..then add some more ********** pollution to the world.

you= problem, not even part of the solution.

slapass · 10-21-2014, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

ah fuck it, let me rub your idiot nose in it now instead:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/octob.../#.VDvXRhbtC-I

"""""The cold waters of Earth?s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005""""

You lack intelligence.

"Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details.""

slapass · 10-21-2014, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Mark the air is cleaner now than at any time in the last 100 years.

The military just today released more CO2 AND real pollution into the air than every car in the U.S. combined.

The only person "stuck" in a way of thinking is you. You keep presenting "facts" that simply aren't accurate and acting like it's "okay" for the govt. to continue to do exactly what you are claiming is "bad" for citizens to do.

Look, either CO2 is "bad" or it isn't. Either global warming is caused by man and is the biggest thing facing mankind...or it isn't.

Apparently, Al Gore uses it to make money on "carbon trading" and the Federal Govt. of the United States has followed suit with "carbon tax".
And meanwhile the U.S. does NOTHING to stop CO2 emissions and instead are the greatest contributor to them.

How in the hell does that make me a "50's era" thinking person? I'm just pointing out the real world to you.
You seem to be ignoring that and instead going with what I believe is a false narrative from a political party and the scientists that receive money and funding from the individuals and companies that profit from alarmists rhetoric.

If there is REALLY a problem...then let me know when something is being done by the govt. that doesn't have anything to do with profit.

I cannot believe that your whole argument is based on the fact that big govt will save you if their is an issue.

Sort of sums up what is up with older folks in America today.

slapass · 10-21-2014, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Here are some graphs from non nut jobs....

You might not understand the idea behind global warming. It is based on humans releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere then it can deal with in a reasonable time frame. This CO2 is trapping heat. Humans have only been doing this for a few hundred years at best/worst. so getting a few million years of data is not really significant of anything.

sperbonzo · 10-21-2014, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

You might not understand the idea behind global warming. It is based on humans releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere then it can deal with in a reasonable time frame. This CO2 is trapping heat. Humans have only been doing this for a few hundred years at best/worst. so getting a few million years of data is not really significant of anything.

I understand the idea perfectly. But what you might not understand is that the earth has warmed and cooled many many times over it's life, and it will continue to do so whether we dump CO2 into the atmosphere or not. The warming and cooling over the last 15,000 years alone is FAR more extreme than anything that we have gone through, and there were no SUV's driving around back then.

Carefully note the first graph:

Do you notice all of those MUCH more extreme changes over the last few thousand years that had nothing to do with Human CO2 emissions?

The only thing we should be focused on is dealing with the inevitable climate change and adapting to it's affects, because we can't stop it. If we were all forced to stop producing CO2 tomorrow, (and after the subsequent destruction of most of the wealth on the planet and the starvation of billions), the climate would KEEP ON CHANGING, and doing things that reduce wealth and the ability to produce new technology will actually hurt our chances of adapting and surviving those changes.

Robbie · 10-21-2014, 10:10 AM

This debate is mind boggling to me.

No matter what you show an alarmist, they will just say: "My 'science' is better than your science" and pretend that guys like Al Gore aren't doing this strictly for money.

Doesn't matter what historical graphs say.

If you show them that the last decade has shown no signs of "global warming", they tell you that 10 years is not enough for "science"
Then when you show them a hundred years that have produced a one and a half degree change...they ignore that.
Then if you show them a thousand years or a few million years...they THEN say that it's based on too large of a time period.

I've never seen people so hellbent on believing shit without question.

And no slapass...I think you're not stupid enough to think that I believe big govt. was going to "save" me from anything as you said in one of your posts above.

I'm assuming you were just trolling on that and you are smart enough to understand that IF any of this were true...then "yes" the govt.'s around the world would be acting on it (like our govt. did in WW2 when we had a REAL threat facing us).

Instead, our federal govt. today bombed the fuck out of several countries and ran up a carbon footprint in one day that is astronomical in size.
I'll ask you...does that sound like the govt. is worried about "man made climate change"?

I say "no".

And when I see them profiting off of it...that's what tells me this is a money making proposition.

12clicks · 10-21-2014, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Here are some graphs from non nut jobs....

How dare you confuse the rabble with facts! They have Volts to plug in!

EonBlue · 10-21-2014, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2014-is-...ear-on-record/

Quote:

The first nine months of 2014 have a global average temperature of 58.72 degrees (14.78 degrees Celsius), tying with 1998 for the warmest first nine months on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
"It's pretty likely" that 2014 will break the record for hottest year, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden.

.

slapass · 10-21-2014, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I understand the idea perfectly. But what you might not understand is that the earth has warmed and cooled many many times over it's life, and it will continue to do so whether we dump CO2 into the atmosphere or not. The warming and cooling over the last 15,000 years alone is FAR more extreme than anything that we have gone through, and there were no SUV's driving around back then.

Carefully note the first graph:

Do you notice all of those MUCH more extreme changes over the last few thousand years that had nothing to do with Human CO2 emissions?

The only thing we should be focused on is dealing with the inevitable climate change and adapting to it's affects, because we can't stop it. If we were all forced to stop producing CO2 tomorrow, (and after the subsequent destruction of most of the wealth on the planet and the starvation of billions), the climate would KEEP ON CHANGING, and doing things that reduce wealth and the ability to produce new technology will actually hurt our chances of adapting and surviving those changes.

And did you notice the rate of change? 15k years would give us some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

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

Just notice the rate of change on the graph over the last decade or two. Sulfer counteracts CO2 and we are no longer pumping it into the atmosphere at the same rate. I unlike Robbie am not thinking the govt will save us. Honestly I don't even worry about this. i am more then likely dead by the time any serious shit happens. It just seems crappy to dump it on my kids. It also seems really weird to deny it.

Jel · 10-21-2014, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

I unlike Robbie am not thinking the govt will save us.

.....Honestly I don't even worry about this. i am more then likely dead by the time any serious shit happens. It just seems crappy to dump it on my kids. It also seems really weird to deny it.

way to misquote (well, just make up something about) someone.

In the same spirit, I'll be sure to post in other threads on this subject how you don't care about any of this stuff as you'll be dead by the time any serious shit happens.

2MuchMark · 10-21-2014, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

peoples sense of self importance around here is so revealing it's not funny. If you can keep your property and block clean of pollution and garbage you've just done as much good as you are ever going to do for the environment and this planet. Plant a tree or two and you are leading the pack, anything beyond that you are just jerking off because you have no control over anything beyond that... and none of us ever will.

I'd disagree. Planting a tree or two is a great start and I myself plan to do just that next spring. But you have more power than that. You can choose where you get your energy from. You can join groups and demand that those energy companies conform to pollution control laws. You effect change with your vote, how much energy you consume, and even with the food you buy. Car pooling, taking the bus, or even riding your bike all help to make a difference too.

sperbonzo · 10-21-2014, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

It just seems crappy to dump it on my kids. It also seems really weird to deny it.

I'm not denying that it's happening, however I don't think that humans are causing it, AND I think that the driving forces behind the "climate change" movement do NOT have our kids best interests at heart. What they are after is control. Planet wide and total control. Under the guise of "saving" us from our selves, (i.e anthropomorphic global warming), they will try take over control of every aspect of our lives, markets associations, movements and business. I will teach my child to be fiercely protective of his freedom, and not buy into the BS of giving government more and more control in order to "save him" from something that has been happening forever on earth.

.

.

Robbie · 10-21-2014, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I'd disagree. Planting a tree or two is a great start and I myself plan to do just that next spring. But you have more power than that. You can choose where you get your energy from. You can join groups and demand that those energy companies conform to pollution control laws. You effect change with your vote, how much energy you consume, and even with the food you buy. Car pooling, taking the bus, or even riding your bike all help to make a difference too.

And then the US govt. will blow that all away in one hour with giant military carriers in the ocean flying jet fighters and drones to bomb the fuck out of a few countries today.
Meanwhile...the very politicians and scientists who are profiting off of alarmist's rhetoric are NOT planting trees, are consuming MORE energy, are NOT riding bicycles, and ARE riding around in limousines, SUV's, and private jets.

That's the part you keep glossing over a bit in your replies.

In one breath we are supposed to believe that what these people are saying is 100% the TRUTH.
In the next breath we are supposed to discount what they are actually DOING.

You know Mark, some old sayings are based on universal truths.
You ever hear the saying that someone: "Talks the talk , but doesn't walk the walk" or
"Do as I say, not as I do"?

That's what's bothering me. They are telling you one thing...but doing the exact opposite for themselves.

2MuchMark · 10-21-2014, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

did you practice all that in the mirror first?

I didn't insult you **********, you're the one the got insulted over my pointing out a simple fact- you run around here pointing your finger at others for their carbon footprint while you buy 2 brand new cars in a couple years dumping 30+ fucking tons of carbon on the rest of us.

Lol! You really can't read at all, and once again, you just threw the same insult. You really need to excersize you brain cells more. Maybe dismissing the suffering of suffocating animals as you like to do is turning your brain to pablum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

and lol at you patting yourself on the back now for googling shit when just a few posts ago you were lambasting the rest of us for googling when you say google is responsible for dispensing bullshit infos.

Unlike you, I like to get information from different sources. However unlike you, I will always trust sources such as Nasa and Noaa, because, you know, science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

not sure who you are trying to bullshit with your bullshit about being humble. if you had 1 fucking iota of humility you'd stop posting your biased fingerpointing bullshit.

Lol! Easy who you call biased... thats a new word for you I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

and you are also bullshitting yourself, not me, about your fucking volt paying for itself in carbon emissions, you completely fail to understand that 20 tons of carbon you dumped on the rest of us was just the manufacturing costs of carbon. wait till your fucking batteries need to be disposed too..then add some more ********** pollution to the world.

You are so ignorant. By selling my previous car, I prevented the sale of a new one. Climate Impact: 0. By getting around on electricity instead of gas, my impact on the environment is less. But again Dynamo don't try too hard to understand this - you might hurt yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you= problem, not even part of the solution.

You spread disinformation, and think nothing of oil spills that choke the lives out of animals and sea life. You're a pathetic example of the real problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Sorry, you don't get off that easy.

Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed

Wow that's actually... pretty scary. GREAT Argument. I will have to read more about this.

(See Dynamo? EonBlue is a great example of someone doing some research to make a point / counterpoint. Try that next time instead of jerking off to drowning animal videos.

Jel · 10-21-2014, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

By selling my previous car, I prevented the sale of a new one.

say whaaa?

PAR · 10-21-2014, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

You might not understand the idea behind global warming. It is based on humans releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere then it can deal with in a reasonable time frame. This CO2 is trapping heat. Humans have only been doing this for a few hundred years at best/worst. so getting a few million years of data is not really significant of anything.

For everyone posting CO2 vs temp graphs can one of you explain the following.

If all the CO2 released yearly adds up to 779 gigatons (100%)
And Man creates 29 gigatons of CO2, (3.7%)
Leaving 750 gigatons produced by other means then those caused by man. (96.3%)

Knowing this how can the graphs showing a CO2 increase account for the jump in CO2 being 3-5 times greater than the amount of CO2 possibly created by man.
If we allow that the raw data is correct from the samples.
Forgetting that the plan is to only reduce man made CO2 by less than 10%...
Would this not mean that even a plan to reduced man made CO2 by 100% would have little to no impact?
Is the math/software/programming used to produce the graph wrong?
Thoughts?

I'll skip past issues with any CO2 data from Mauna Loa Hawaii (most current data on CO@) and my thoughts that this would be like measuring the air temp of a room by putting a thermometer inside a roaring fire place.
*Volcanos being the largest global source of CO2 and Mauna Loa being the worlds largest active volcano on the planet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa

2MuchMark · 10-21-2014, 01:27 PM

And another thing, asshole :

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

wait till your fucking batteries need to be disposed too..then add some more ********** pollution to the world.

Batteries are made from rare earth elements. Mining for thousands of tons of rare earth elements a year does not compare with mining for billions of tons of coal a year. From an environmental and health perspective, the amount of heavy metals, like mercury, uranium and thorium, emitted from burning coal in the U.S. alone exceeds by a thousand times the total amount of lithium and rare earth elements mined in the entire world.

You can read the entire report here: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...13/mcs2013.pdf

Next, the batteries in electric cars can be recycled. In fact, 98% of the materials in batteries can be recovered (vs glass at 38% for example). And since electric car batteries are made up of cells, many cells still hold a charge and can be used as (surprise!) batteries. Before they ever get to a recycling center, these batteries are used to prop up the grid, especially alongside energy sources that may not be quite as steady, like wind or solar power. The batteries can store power to help the flow of electricity stay on an even keel rather than ebb and flow with the weather.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news...-gets-a-boost/

Now stop being such a fucking clown and shut the fuck up. Use your quiet time to do some a readin' and some a-lernin' and impress your kin-folk first before trying to impress anyone here again.

MK Ultra · 10-21-2014, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I'm not denying that it's happening, however I don't think that humans are causing it, AND I think that the driving forces behind the "climate change" movement do NOT have our kids best interests at heart. What they are after is control. Planet wide and total control. Under the guise of "saving" us from our selves, (i.e anthropomorphic global warming), they will try take over control of every aspect of our lives, markets associations, movements and business. I will teach my child to be fiercely protective of his freedom, and not buy into the BS of giving government more and more control in order to "save him" from something that has been happening forever on earth.

.

.

This thread can now be closed.

dyna mo · 10-21-2014, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

say whaaa?

i know right? that's the exact ********** logic I'm trolling.

i'm thinking of wrapping up on my troll ********** project though, he's certainly in over his head.

crockett · 10-21-2014, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I understand the idea perfectly. But what you might not understand is that the earth has warmed and cooled many many times over it's life, and it will continue to do so whether we dump CO2 into the atmosphere or not. The warming and cooling over the last 15,000 years alone is FAR more extreme than anything that we have gone through, and there were no SUV's driving around back then.

Carefully note the first graph:

Do you notice all of those MUCH more extreme changes over the last few thousand years that had nothing to do with Human CO2 emissions?

The only thing we should be focused on is dealing with the inevitable climate change and adapting to it's affects, because we can't stop it. If we were all forced to stop producing CO2 tomorrow, (and after the subsequent destruction of most of the wealth on the planet and the starvation of billions), the climate would KEEP ON CHANGING, and doing things that reduce wealth and the ability to produce new technology will actually hurt our chances of adapting and surviving those changes.

No one has ever argued that the earth hasn't warmed or cooled. What is argued is that in the past it took thousands of years to do these extreme changes with the few exceptions of massive volcano which changed global temperatures.

What is being argued, is that "we" are the massive volcano as we have replaced a natural phenomenon and caused it to speed up dramatically. That is what "man made climate change means". I don't know why it's so hard for you guys to understand tthat very basic principle.

also btw.. I also found a chart.. it seems a bit different than yours...

dyna mo · 10-21-2014, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

And another thing, asshole :

Batteries are made from rare earth elements. Mining for thousands of tons of rare earth elements a year does not compare with mining for billions of tons of coal a year. From an environmental and health perspective, the amount of heavy metals, like mercury, uranium and thorium, emitted from burning coal in the U.S. alone exceeds by a thousand times the total amount of lithium and rare earth elements mined in the entire world.

You can read the entire report here: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pu...13/mcs2013.pdf

you stupid idiot, there's nothing in that doc re: pollution, or uranium, it states thorium can't be recycled.

on the other hand, here's just 1 article I chose from many that discuss the pollution issues of mining rare earth bullshit, not the least of which is the fact most of it is mined in China, why don't you google Chinese mining and pollution before you commute home in your volt.

keep hi-5in yourself thinking you're helping

28 JAN 2013: REPORT
Boom in Mining Rare Earths Poses Mounting Toxic Risks

The mining of rare earth metals, used in everything from smart phones to wind turbines, has long been dominated by China. But as mining of these key elements spreads to countries like Malaysia and Brazil, scientists warn of the dangers of the toxic and radioactive waste generated by the mines and processing plants.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/boom_in..._ri sks/2614/

Robbie · 10-21-2014, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

What is argued is that in the past it took thousands of years to do these extreme changes with the few exceptions of massive volcano which changed global temperatures.

What is being argued, is that "we" are the massive volcano as we have replaced a natural phenomenon and caused it to speed up dramatically.

We have "warmed up" by one and a half degrees in the last 100 years. That isn't an "extreme change" and it didn't happen almost instantaneously as some climate changes have.

The "Little Ice Age" didn't take "thousands of years" to happen. It happened within a decade and decimated mankind.
The warm up era (when it was much warmer than it is now), helped lead to the Renaissance and the end of the Dark Ages as people were no longer starving and freezing to death.

Come on man, think about it for a second. Really think about it. I know you've made up your mind, but for God's sake....history is right at your fingertips to read about this stuff.

Robbie · 10-21-2014, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

That chart shows anomalies. First you have to decide what was the "norm" for any given period. Which is pretty much something that CAN'T be decided because there is no normal global temperature for all of time.

The fact is..it was warmer in the medieval "warm period" than it is now. And much more land mass was green and could grow crops...including land that is now covered in ice.

crockett · 10-21-2014, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

We have "warmed up" by one and a half degrees in the last 100 years. That isn't an "extreme change" and it didn't happen almost instantaneously as some climate changes have.

The "Little Ice Age" didn't take "thousands of years" to happen. It happened within a decade and decimated mankind.
The warm up era (when it was much warmer than it is now), helped lead to the Renaissance and the end of the Dark Ages as people were no longer starving and freezing to death.

Come on man, think about it for a second. Really think about it. I know you've made up your mind, but for God's sake....history is right at your fingertips to read about this stuff.

The little ice age was brought on by an external event out side of normal warming and cooling. Hence the reason it happened in a short time frame and not thousands of years like a natural cycle. ie like a large volcanic eruption as I mentioned.

Once again in the idea of man made global warming "we" are the external factor..

Robbie · 10-21-2014, 05:00 PM

crockett, I see what you are saying.

I'm arguing that a volcano is "normal" (unfortunately) if there IS any "normal" in the earth.

Scientists believe there were actually 4 pretty big volcanoes around the world that erupted leading to the "little ice age".
Matter of fact they believe the eruptions lasted for FIFTY years.

Not sure what the human lifespan was back then...but I'm guessing nowhere even close to 50 years. So the medieval crockett could have been born, lived his life, and died without ever knowing anything BUT an Earth that didn't have as much sunlight reaching it.
That medieval crockett would have thought that was "normal".

Also take a look at this:

The point I'm making is...there is definitely enough historical evidence to show that nature itself has caused climate change DRASTICALLY at times. At other times it has been a slower process and at other times it has happened at about the rate it does now.

In other words...the Earth does what it wants, when it wants.

Do I think that mankind could change things enough to endanger ourselves (not the Earth)?
Yeah.
I think we could have every nation on Earth fire off all their nuclear missiles and fuck shit up really bad.

Do I believe that CO2 emissions are doing anything?
Well, they MIGHT have helped raise the Earth's temp by 1 and 1/2 degrees over the last 100 years.
How much of that 1 and 1/2 degrees is mankind is up for debate. Maybe we caused 50% of that ourselves over what the Earth was going to do anyway? Who knows?
Not one scientist on the face of this Earth can answer that with absolute knowledge.

But let's say mankind DID cause 50% of it. That would be 3/4's of one degree temp change caused by all of mankind.

I don't think that's enough to warrant carbon taxing, carbon trading, and alarmist's trying to change our entire society, culture, and lifestyle while THEY (the leaders of the alarmists) continue to live the same exact way they are telling us NOT to live.

Surely you can see why myself and so many people are skeptical (and rightly so), especially after all the "sky is falling" alarmist's predictions that have turned out to be false in the last few decades.

Jel · 10-21-2014, 05:08 PM

I am immortal. I am immoral.

I am IMMORATOMAL.

Seen!

Jel · 10-21-2014, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

And another thing

In fact, 98% of the materials in batteries can be recovered (vs glass at 38% for example).

All very well, but how much of the time I've spent reading your sandals and brown socks wearing, frothing at the vegan fed beardy mouth while wiping it away with faux-leather elbowed tweed 'sports jacket' cuff, omg-evolution-of-the-earth-is-still-happening drivel, can be recovered?

Roughly?

ps I'm only fucking with you, I don't think you are one of those guys on a gov't induced 'here give the masses 2 teams, and let them argue while we do the important stuff of earning insane cash' non-crusade who think they are independent thinkers but actually aren't at all, at all

slapass · 10-22-2014, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jel

way to misquote (well, just make up something about) someone.

In the same spirit, I'll be sure to post in other threads on this subject how you don't care about any of this stuff as you'll be dead by the time any serious shit happens.

"then "yes" the govt.'s around the world would be acting on it (like our govt. did in WW2 when we had a REAL threat facing us)." That is what Robbie said. How did I misquote that?

And feel free to bring that up. I don't think any of the facts change if I am not passionate about them.

slapass · 10-22-2014, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I'm not denying that it's happening, however I don't think that humans are causing it, AND I think that the driving forces behind the "climate change" movement do NOT have our kids best interests at heart. What they are after is control. Planet wide and total control. Under the guise of "saving" us from our selves, (i.e anthropomorphic global warming), they will try take over control of every aspect of our lives, markets associations, movements and business. I will teach my child to be fiercely protective of his freedom, and not buy into the BS of giving government more and more control in order to "save him" from something that has been happening forever on earth.

.

.

I live in two countries both of which have energy policies but they are not very controlling by my standards so I have yet to experience this. And to be honest it sounds a bit extreme with a big "They" out there.

slapass · 10-22-2014, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

No one has ever argued that the earth hasn't warmed or cooled. What is argued is that in the past it took thousands of years to do these extreme changes with the few exceptions of massive volcano which changed global temperatures.

What is being argued, is that "we" are the massive volcano as we have replaced a natural phenomenon and caused it to speed up dramatically. That is what "man made climate change means". I don't know why it's so hard for you guys to understand tthat very basic principle.

also btw.. I also found a chart.. it seems a bit different than yours...

They won't comment on this chart. Or mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...de_Apr2013.svg

And I suppose in all fairness I need to look up where they get that co2 reading as it has ben brought into question.

slapass · 10-22-2014, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

crockett, I see what you are saying.

I'm arguing that a volcano is "normal" (unfortunately) if there IS any "normal" in the earth.

Scientists believe there were actually 4 pretty big volcanoes around the world that erupted leading to the "little ice age".
Matter of fact they believe the eruptions lasted for FIFTY years.

Not sure what the human lifespan was back then...but I'm guessing nowhere even close to 50 years. So the medieval crockett could have been born, lived his life, and died without ever knowing anything BUT an Earth that didn't have as much sunlight reaching it.
That medieval crockett would have thought that was "normal".

Also take a look at this:

The point I'm making is...there is definitely enough historical evidence to show that nature itself has caused climate change DRASTICALLY at times. At other times it has been a slower process and at other times it has happened at about the rate it does now.

In other words...the Earth does what it wants, when it wants.

Do I think that mankind could change things enough to endanger ourselves (not the Earth)?
Yeah.
I think we could have every nation on Earth fire off all their nuclear missiles and fuck shit up really bad.

Do I believe that CO2 emissions are doing anything?
Well, they MIGHT have helped raise the Earth's temp by 1 and 1/2 degrees over the last 100 years.
How much of that 1 and 1/2 degrees is mankind is up for debate. Maybe we caused 50% of that ourselves over what the Earth was going to do anyway? Who knows?
Not one scientist on the face of this Earth can answer that with absolute knowledge.

But let's say mankind DID cause 50% of it. That would be 3/4's of one degree temp change caused by all of mankind.

I don't think that's enough to warrant carbon taxing, carbon trading, and alarmist's trying to change our entire society, culture, and lifestyle while THEY (the leaders of the alarmists) continue to live the same exact way they are telling us NOT to live.

Surely you can see why myself and so many people are skeptical (and rightly so), especially after all the "sky is falling" alarmist's predictions that have turned out to be false in the last few decades.

I would agree with most of the above. I just think Carbon trading is a non invasive way of addressing the problem.

It allows us to do what you said earlier. I can agree there is an issue and pay a little extra to live the way I want.

But sort of cool to see you come around on this. As I think we both would agree the main reason no one is flying off the handle is, it is not much a threat at the moment. Oceans are rising but it is really slow. In 50 years if we are there to see it, cool but otherwise it is not really an issue for us.

PAR · 10-22-2014, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

No one has ever argued that the earth hasn't warmed or cooled. What is argued is that in the past it took thousands of years to do these extreme changes with the few exceptions of massive volcano which changed global temperatures.

What is being argued, is that "we" are the massive volcano as we have replaced a natural phenomenon and caused it to speed up dramatically. That is what "man made climate change means". I don't know why it's so hard for you guys to understand tthat very basic principle.

also btw.. I also found a chart.. it seems a bit different than yours...

Man made CO2 accounts for what % of the global CO2 produced from all possible sources ?
What do the charts show in the way of CO2 increase?
If it is greater than 100% of that made by man how do you explain this?

How will reducing a small % of the globally small % of CO2 that is made by man solve this problem?

If you don't feel like answering those are can't find sources..

We can move on to Urbanization Bias:
Some links for you, because well Science and peer review and such...

Urbanization Bias I. Is It A Negligible Problem For Global Temperature Estimates?
http://oprj.net/articles/climate-science/28

Urbanization Bias II. An Assessment Of The NASA GISS Urbanization Adjustment Method
http://oprj.net/articles/climate-science/31

Urbanization Bias III. Estimating The Extent Of Bias In The Historical Climatology Network Datasets
http://oprj.net/articles/climate-science/34

Jel · 10-22-2014, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slapass

"then "yes" the govt.'s around the world would be acting on it (like our govt. did in WW2 when we had a REAL threat facing us)." That is what Robbie said. How did I misquote that?

And feel free to bring that up. I don't think any of the facts change if I am not passionate about them.

What I'm saying (and I think this must be down to translation, as iirc English isn't your first language?), this is nothing like him saying he is waiting for the gov't to save him. Not even close.

10-20-2014, 08:26 PM	#309
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I kinda wondered what the fuss is about. So I just googled global temp over the last century. Here is what I found: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years It's risen 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880 Yep, there's a reason to panic alright. No wonder Al Gore is riding in big SUV's and flying on private jets from his HUGE carbon footprint mansion to HUGE carbon footprint 5 star hotels as he goes around the globe making billions by scaring people. One and a half degrees in 100 years. Wow. I don't know how we have been able to withstand that kind of intense heat... __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

10-20-2014, 08:31 PM	#310
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	__________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

10-20-2014, 09:07 PM	#312
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	crockett, I have no idea who that guy is. I just googled for a history of the Earth's temps. I don't give a damn about who the guy is. The question is...is the graph accurate? Or is it false? Can you show me a graph of the earth's actual global temps over the last few thousand years? I'd like to see it. I didn't go out of my way to find any "religious nut". Why would I? I think anybody who believes in religion is a "nut". lol Educate me. Show me a graph of actual global temperatures and let's see how wrong that guy is. Also, in the post above that one, I posted the actual amount that global temp has risen in 100 years. 1 and one-half degrees total. You are posting that CBS is reporting this is the hottest in recorded history. And yet everything I see when I look up global temperature says otherwise. Show me the stats. I'd like to look at them too. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

10-21-2014, 10:10 AM	#321
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	This debate is mind boggling to me. No matter what you show an alarmist, they will just say: "My 'science' is better than your science" and pretend that guys like Al Gore aren't doing this strictly for money. Doesn't matter what historical graphs say. If you show them that the last decade has shown no signs of "global warming", they tell you that 10 years is not enough for "science" Then when you show them a hundred years that have produced a one and a half degree change...they ignore that. Then if you show them a thousand years or a few million years...they THEN say that it's based on too large of a time period. I've never seen people so hellbent on believing shit without question. And no slapass...I think you're not stupid enough to think that I believe big govt. was going to "save" me from anything as you said in one of your posts above. I'm assuming you were just trolling on that and you are smart enough to understand that IF any of this were true...then "yes" the govt.'s around the world would be acting on it (like our govt. did in WW2 when we had a REAL threat facing us). Instead, our federal govt. today bombed the fuck out of several countries and ran up a carbon footprint in one day that is astronomical in size. I'll ask you...does that sound like the govt. is worried about "man made climate change"? I say "no". And when I see them profiting off of it...that's what tells me this is a money making proposition. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

10-21-2014, 05:00 PM	#340
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	crockett, I see what you are saying. I'm arguing that a volcano is "normal" (unfortunately) if there IS any "normal" in the earth. Scientists believe there were actually 4 pretty big volcanoes around the world that erupted leading to the "little ice age". Matter of fact they believe the eruptions lasted for FIFTY years. Not sure what the human lifespan was back then...but I'm guessing nowhere even close to 50 years. So the medieval crockett could have been born, lived his life, and died without ever knowing anything BUT an Earth that didn't have as much sunlight reaching it. That medieval crockett would have thought that was "normal". Also take a look at this: The point I'm making is...there is definitely enough historical evidence to show that nature itself has caused climate change DRASTICALLY at times. At other times it has been a slower process and at other times it has happened at about the rate it does now. In other words...the Earth does what it wants, when it wants. Do I think that mankind could change things enough to endanger ourselves (not the Earth)? Yeah. I think we could have every nation on Earth fire off all their nuclear missiles and fuck shit up really bad. Do I believe that CO2 emissions are doing anything? Well, they MIGHT have helped raise the Earth's temp by 1 and 1/2 degrees over the last 100 years. How much of that 1 and 1/2 degrees is mankind is up for debate. Maybe we caused 50% of that ourselves over what the Earth was going to do anyway? Who knows? Not one scientist on the face of this Earth can answer that with absolute knowledge. But let's say mankind DID cause 50% of it. That would be 3/4's of one degree temp change caused by all of mankind. I don't think that's enough to warrant carbon taxing, carbon trading, and alarmist's trying to change our entire society, culture, and lifestyle while THEY (the leaders of the alarmists) continue to live the same exact way they are telling us NOT to live. Surely you can see why myself and so many people are skeptical (and rightly so), especially after all the "sky is falling" alarmist's predictions that have turned out to be false in the last few decades. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com Last edited by Robbie; 10-21-2014 at 05:02 PM..

10-21-2014, 05:08 PM	#341
Jel Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 6,904	I am immortal. I am immoral. I am IMMORATOMAL. Seen!