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.

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

http://i.imgur.com/7Yf34c3.gif




.

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.

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. :thumbsup

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.

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.



.:2 cents:


.

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. :(

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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.

say whaaa? :helpme

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

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

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.

http://media0.giphy.com/media/11uArCoB4fkRcQ/giphy.gif

This thread can now be closed.

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.

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...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png

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/

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.

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.

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..

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:
http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/01/Sunspot_Numbers.png

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 am immortal. I am immoral.

I am IMMORATOMAL.

Seen!

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 :thumbsup

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.