If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Canada.com)   Good news: Climate change isn't going to kill us all. Bad news: Ocean acidification caused by climate change is going to kill us all   (canada.com) divider line 330
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6499 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2011 at 4:47 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-13 11:52:52 AM

No Such Agency: Ocean acidification happens in cycles. If you look at extinct creatures, some have shells and some don't. This is because over time, the ocean becomes more and less acidic. Species adapt to these changes, naturally, or they would go extinct, each time. To suggest that human carbon emissions are capable of fundamentally altering the entire global climate and the oceans all at once is academic arrogance at best, and some kind of crypto-centrist economic agenda at worst.
how'd I do?


-1 Although you nailed the message, it lacks the verbiage. There is something missing without the profusion of words of little or obscure content.

-1 All text bold is out of style but it could have been in colored text.

-1 Oh, and charts. Needs more charts.

+1 For beating the people you are mocking

8/10
 
2011-09-13 11:53:07 AM
 
2011-09-13 11:56:43 AM

Diarrhea Anne Frank: BurnShrike: Diarrhea Anne Frank: He's a paid shill. He used to be known as nicksteel until he was found out. As an aside, he claimed the name "nick steel" came not from the gay pornstar, but was the name of "a friend of his that died in Iraq" - that should give you an idea of how low this turd sinks, and the level of f*ckery he'll employ.

Well that makes a bit more sense. I've never added someone to my ignore list yet, but he might be my first.

Got any links to his f*ckery and/or the discovery? For entertainment purposes, of course.

This Link (new window) is to the "name of a friend who died in the military" one (I was wrong, he didn't say Iraq, just "military"), as for the discovery, I don't have a heap of time but this (new window) was an undoing and contains a couple of links to his dickotry, and this (new window) has him caught out being an alt.


Actually those last two links are basically to the same thing, but this one is also good: Link (new window).
 
2011-09-13 01:15:19 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: BurnShrike: Got any links to his f*ckery and/or the discovery? For entertainment purposes, of course.


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his: (new window)


You have outdone me, and I tip my bonnet to you. At least I contributed the military friend thing. Right? Right? Guys? I'm going to reward myself with a weary sigh and three minutes of contemplating a potted flower.
 
2011-09-13 01:17:52 PM

HAMMERTOE: Mankind will not survive. Survival requires evolution and adaptation, neither of which are particularly strong characteristics of the human species.


Humans can't adapt? You're kidding, right?

Adapting is one of the things we do best.

fireclown: Mister Peejay: You might want to check the ashes-to-ashes environmental costs of that thing. Unless you plan on driving it a half million miles, it's worse for the environment than a Hummer.

That's dust to dust. It was put together by a marketing company (CNW research), and riddled with the worst sort of BS and outright lies. The original paper is discredited, and redacted in 2007.


What paper is that? I'm just speaking of people in the industry who shake their heads at having to design cars that are much less environmentally friendly to produce and decommission.
 
2011-09-13 01:28:36 PM
Doubtless this thread will go generally to hell in a handbasket soon.
 
2011-09-13 01:41:37 PM
Very interesting. Thanks for all the links.

Now that I know he's a professional douche-bag, it would be a disservice to humanity for me to put him on ignore. If we ignore him, then someone coming along later might not realize what he's doing and get the wrong impression of the facts. It's only by correcting his misinformation and outright lies that we can move ahead as an intelligent species.

Thanks for the links again, and I'll make sure to try especially hard to counter his idiocy.
 
2011-09-13 02:21:11 PM

safetycap: chuckufarlie:
so the fictional problem is going to kill the fictional problem???

WARNING!
Dunning-Kruger effect is in FULL FORCE

[i651.photobucket.com image 350x267]


Holy crap, that explains so much.

You can't enlighten the unconscious.
 
2011-09-13 02:28:30 PM
As a note: apparently pointing out the thread shiatter will summon the thread editors. I stopped doing so for this particular thread shiatter as a result. As I said in one such: deliberately obtuse liars irritate me.

In regards to the article, old news is old.
 
2011-09-13 02:44:50 PM

Zafler: As a note: apparently pointing out the thread shiatter will summon the thread editors. I stopped doing so for this particular thread shiatter as a result. As I said in one such: deliberately obtuse liars irritate me.

In regards to the article, old news is old.


how do you live with yourself? You must irritate yourself all day long?
 
2011-09-13 02:46:31 PM

Diarrhea Anne Frank: hypnoticus ceratophrys: BurnShrike: Got any links to his f*ckery and/or the discovery? For entertainment purposes, of course.


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his: (new window)

You have outdone me, and I tip my bonnet to you. At least I contributed the military friend thing. Right? Right? Guys? I'm going to reward myself with a weary sigh and three minutes of contemplating a potted flower.


a life form with the same IQ as yours
 
2011-09-13 02:48:21 PM

chuckufarlie: a life form with the same IQ as yours


I'm glad to see you're not above just flinging shiat like the other monkeys.
 
2011-09-13 02:51:40 PM
chuckufarlie: Diarrhea Anne Frank: hypnoticus ceratophrys: BurnShrike: Got any links to his f*ckery and/or the discovery? For entertainment purposes, of course.


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his: (new window)

You have outdone me, and I tip my bonnet to you. At least I contributed the military friend thing. Right? Right? Guys? I'm going to reward myself with a weary sigh and three minutes of contemplating a potted flower.

a life form with the same IQ as yours


Oh, this is delicious. Utterly delicious.

I hereby rank you in the same venue as FLYNAVY. I will be sure to reference this any time you decide to post the same debunked tripe over and over again.
 
2011-09-13 03:13:20 PM

Mister Peejay: Oznog: Why do I drive a hybrid, then? Somebody tell me?

I'm SAVING the Earth. Therefore, the Earth is saved. By me. So don't piss me off, or I may just let all you ungrateful humans DIAF.

You might want to check the ashes-to-ashes environmental costs of that thing. Unless you plan on driving it a half million miles, it's worse for the environment than a Hummer.

/my goal is to get rid of all that evil, evil gasoline
/by burning it


CITATION NEEDED

And no, not one from a fossil fuel astroturf site, either.
 
2011-09-13 03:22:37 PM

Diarrhea Anne Frank: BurnShrike: chuckufarlie: BurnShrike: chuckufarlie: I cannot believe that people are still pushing this crap. How many times do they have to kill this thing before it finally dies?

Don't worry. The greenhouse gasses and ocean acidification will kill it.

so the fictional problem is going to kill the fictional problem???

Not a deep thinker, are you????

Except that climate change *is* occurring. So is the acidification of the ocean. Plants and animal species are dying off at levels unheard of except during times of global catastrophe. And you're clinging to your stupid idea that nothing is wrong.

Not a thinker, are you????

You know, I really wish I could brush you off as just a troll. I can respect a troll, but your blatant refusal to look at evidence and outright denial of things *we know are occurring* makes you worse than just stupid. You're ignorant, proud of it, and refuse to educate yourself. The English language does not have a word to describe your level of idiocy. You are actively harming the human race by being alive. May the invisible deity of your choice have mercy on your soul.

He's a paid shill. He used to be known as nicksteel until he was found out. As an aside, he claimed the name "nick steel" came not from the gay pornstar, but was the name of "a friend of his that died in Iraq" - that should give you an idea of how low this turd sinks, and the level of f*ckery he'll employ.


Are you really stupid enough to believe that anybody could get paid to come here and point out your lies?

Well, you believe in AGW so maybe you are that stupid. I did use that name but I forgot my password at work and came up with this ID. Why does that bother you?

As for my friend, unless you can prove me wrong I would strongly suggest that you STFU. He was a friend of my from high school. He WAS real and you ARE an asshole.
 
2011-09-13 03:23:50 PM

BurnShrike: chuckufarlie: BurnShrike: chuckufarlie: I cannot believe that people are still pushing this crap. How many times do they have to kill this thing before it finally dies?

Don't worry. The greenhouse gasses and ocean acidification will kill it.

so the fictional problem is going to kill the fictional problem???

Not a deep thinker, are you????

Except that climate change *is* occurring. So is the acidification of the ocean. Plants and animal species are dying off at levels unheard of except during times of global catastrophe. And you're clinging to your stupid idea that nothing is wrong.

Not a thinker, are you????

You know, I really wish I could brush you off as just a troll. I can respect a troll, but your blatant refusal to look at evidence and outright denial of things *we know are occurring* makes you worse than just stupid. You're ignorant, proud of it, and refuse to educate yourself. The English language does not have a word to describe your level of idiocy. You are actively harming the human race by being alive. May the invisible deity of your choice have mercy on your soul.


WHAT EVIDENCE??

WHAT IS OCCURRING??

There is no evidence and you cannot prove that anything that has happened is because of AGW.
 
2011-09-13 03:25:38 PM

hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: Diarrhea Anne Frank: hypnoticus ceratophrys: BurnShrike: Got any links to his f*ckery and/or the discovery? For entertainment purposes, of course.


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his: (new window)

You have outdone me, and I tip my bonnet to you. At least I contributed the military friend thing. Right? Right? Guys? I'm going to reward myself with a weary sigh and three minutes of contemplating a potted flower.

a life form with the same IQ as yours

Oh, this is delicious. Utterly delicious.

I hereby rank you in the same venue as FLYNAVY. I will be sure to reference this any time you decide to post the same debunked tripe over and over again.


DEBUNKED??? Nothing has been debunked accept for the credibility of the CRU and the IPCC reports. Unless you think that it is acceptable to get info from blogs and pamphlets to use in a "scientific" report.
 
2011-09-13 03:26:23 PM

BurnShrike: chuckufarlie: a life form with the same IQ as yours

I'm glad to see you're not above just flinging shiat like the other monkeys.


you are flinging lies, I don't see a difference.
 
2011-09-13 03:28:22 PM

chuckufarlie: BurnShrike: chuckufarlie: a life form with the same IQ as yours

I'm glad to see you're not above just flinging shiat like the other monkeys.

you are flinging lies, I don't see a difference.


Which is why you're such a wretched specimen.
 
2011-09-13 03:30:39 PM

hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.


Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.
 
2011-09-13 03:33:27 PM

chuckufarlie: Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.


Lots?
Link (new window)

Keep up that denial.
 
2011-09-13 03:54:32 PM

BurnShrike: chuckufarlie: Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Lots?
Link (new window)

Keep up that denial.


you link to WIKIpedia as if that is a legit source? No wonder you believe in AWG.

BTW, that link shows lots of scientists who do disagree.
 
2011-09-13 04:00:18 PM

BurnShrike: Lots?
Link (new window)


Two non-wiki sources:

PNAS (new window)

Science (new window)
 
2011-09-13 04:13:47 PM
chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.


Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.
 
2011-09-13 04:15:34 PM
chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: Diarrhea Anne Frank: hypnoticus ceratophrys: BurnShrike: Got any links to his f*ckery and/or the discovery? For entertainment purposes, of course.


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his: (new window)

You have outdone me, and I tip my bonnet to you. At least I contributed the military friend thing. Right? Right? Guys? I'm going to reward myself with a weary sigh and three minutes of contemplating a potted flower.

a life form with the same IQ as yours

Oh, this is delicious. Utterly delicious.

I hereby rank you in the same venue as FLYNAVY. I will be sure to reference this any time you decide to post the same debunked tripe over and over again.

DEBUNKED??? Nothing has been debunked accept for the credibility of the CRU and the IPCC reports. Unless you think that it is acceptable to get info from blogs and pamphlets to use in a "scientific" report.


Yes. It's a vast reaching, multinational conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of individual scientists and oversight body members that have hidden the blanket fabrication and manipulation of data. Why isn't it clear to everyone! WHY WONT THE SHEEPLE LISTEN!
 
2011-09-13 05:01:40 PM

hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: Diarrhea Anne Frank: hypnoticus ceratophrys: BurnShrike: Got any links to his f*ckery and/or the discovery? For entertainment purposes, of course.


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account: (new window)


This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his: (new window)

You have outdone me, and I tip my bonnet to you. At least I contributed the military friend thing. Right? Right? Guys? I'm going to reward myself with a weary sigh and three minutes of contemplating a potted flower.

a life form with the same IQ as yours

Oh, this is delicious. Utterly delicious.

I hereby rank you in the same venue as FLYNAVY. I will be sure to reference this any time you decide to post the same debunked tripe over and over again.

DEBUNKED??? Nothing has been debunked accept for the credibility of the CRU and the IPCC reports. Unless you think that it is acceptable to get info from blogs and pamphlets to use in a "scientific" report.

Yes. It's a vast reaching, multinational conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of individual scientists and oversight body members that have hidden the blanket fabrication and manipulation of data. Why isn't it clear to everyone! WHY WONT THE SHEEPLE LISTEN!


now why do you go straight to a conspiracy? Is that how you try to deflect the truth. The truth that there is no great consensus. Not that science is based on majority rule anyway.
 
2011-09-13 05:37:57 PM

hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.


Here a hint for you morons who believe everything that you read, especially at websites like the one you linked to.

There are lots of QUALIFIED scientists who work in the field that do not agree with your pet theory. Some of them have even testified before Congress. Some of them are so QUALIFIED that they actually worked on the initial research conducted at the requested of the UN.

That really must hurt!!!
 
2011-09-13 08:00:13 PM

chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.

Here a hint for you morons who believe everything that you read, especially at websites like the one you linked to.

There are lots of QUALIFIED scientists who work in the field that do not agree with your pet theory. Some of them have even testified before Congress. Some of them are so QUALIFIED that they actually worked on the initial research conducted at the requested of the UN.

That really must hurt!!!


Surely you can name some of these people, you ignorant tool.
 
2011-09-13 08:09:00 PM
chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.

Here a hint for you morons who believe everything that you read, especially at websites like the one you linked to.

There are lots of QUALIFIED scientists who work in the field that do not agree with your pet theory. Some of them have even testified before Congress. Some of them are so QUALIFIED that they actually worked on the initial research conducted at the requested of the UN.

That really must hurt!!!


And the names of these scientists, credentials, and research published?
 
2011-09-13 08:43:43 PM
Baryogenesis:
Actually, I'm morbidly curious to see which path the deniers take on this one. Most of them don't argue that humans aren't adding CO2 to the atmosphere so they'll probably go with the "it's not enough to have a noticeable effect" route. Then again, they could come out of left field with something like, "Who cares if the marine ecosystem is threatened? We live on LAND."

I'd go with "If what you say is true, why didn't the marine ecology collapse back when the carbon dioxide level was twenty TIMES what it is now?

/ Maybe you should let people speak for themselves, rather than make comments on your mental masturbation.


www.hjackson.org
We're on to you, you know...
 
2011-09-13 08:54:26 PM
chuckufarlie:
I cannot believe that people are still pushing this crap. How many times do they have to kill this thing before it finally dies?

Well, THIS time, we're all going to be secret DOUBLE probation killed. It's worse than it has ever been before. By a lot! I mean, you are SO going to suffer. Everyone will be killed at least three times.

bigjournalism.com
 
2011-09-13 09:00:09 PM
Space_Poet:
And both you guys are missing the point entirely. People act like a 1-2 degree average temperature rise is nothing to worry about, they couldn't be more wrong, in fact all it would take for the run-away effects to start happening is about a 4-5 degree overall average change (in the span of a century).

Runaway is a characteristic of a positive feedback system. The GHE is a negative feedback system, and CANNOT "run away" at any level of carbon dioxide mankind could produce.

/ Your knickers, untwist them.
 
2011-09-13 09:08:01 PM
GeneralJim: Space_Poet: And both you guys are missing the point entirely. People act like a 1-2 degree average temperature rise is nothing to worry about, they couldn't be more wrong, in fact all it would take for the run-away effects to start happening is about a 4-5 degree overall average change (in the span of a century).
Runaway is a characteristic of a positive feedback system. The GHE is a negative feedback system, and CANNOT "run away" at any level of carbon dioxide mankind could produce.

/ Your knickers, untwist them.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/positive-feedback-runaway-warming-adv a nced.htm

Unlike the simple example of positive feedback we learned in high school, the increase from every round of feedback gets smaller and smaller, in the case of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It is a significant factor in the overall warming, but it does NOT lead to a "runaway" trajectory for temperature.

GeneralJim: chuckufarlie: I cannot believe that people are still pushing this crap. How many times do they have to kill this thing before it finally dies?
Well, THIS time, we're all going to be secret DOUBLE probation killed. It's worse than it has ever been before. By a lot! I mean, you are SO going to suffer. Everyone will be killed at least three times.

[bigjournalism.com image 393x260]


Wow. I'm suprised you didn't put a Your Mom joke in that masturbatory circle jerk of a post there.
 
2011-09-13 09:23:20 PM

GeneralJim: Baryogenesis: Actually, I'm morbidly curious to see which path the deniers take on this one. Most of them don't argue that humans aren't adding CO2 to the atmosphere so they'll probably go with the "it's not enough to have a noticeable effect" route. Then again, they could come out of left field with something like, "Who cares if the marine ecosystem is threatened? We live on LAND."
I'd go with "If what you say is true, why didn't the marine ecology collapse back when the carbon dioxide level was twenty TIMES what it is now?


Because you dont know how to read?

For starters read that, then move on to some actual peer reviewed papers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
 
2011-09-13 09:33:43 PM
Everything is going to kill us all cuz we die easily.

We are also resilient-rising, like a Phoenix from the ashes.

Almost unkillable, like bugs.

We be but beasties of earth...

So acidify, baby.
 
2011-09-13 09:43:22 PM
hardinparamedic:
Actually, Skeptical Science in general does a good job at debunking Climate Change Denialists.

Not as good a job as the planet is doing of debunking Climate Change. CERN's recent findings about how cosmic rays enhance cloud formation is the final nail in AGW's coffin. Hence the move to incitement of panic over ocean acidification. AGW met the needs of some political groups so well, that if the carbon dioxide is not going to be warming the planet dangerously (and it is not) SOMETHING else about carbon dioxide simply HAS to be panic-inducing, for the twenty years it takes to prove it wrong, conclusively. It looks like this might be it.
www.thenationalpatriot.com
 
2011-09-13 09:51:38 PM

GeneralJim: hardinparamedic: Actually, Skeptical Science in general does a good job at debunking Climate Change Denialists.
Not as good a job as the planet is doing of debunking Climate Change. CERN's recent findings about how cosmic rays enhance cloud formation is the final nail in AGW's coffin. Hence the move to incitement of panic over ocean acidification. AGW met the needs of some political groups so well, that if the carbon dioxide is not going to be warming the planet dangerously (and it is not) SOMETHING else about carbon dioxide simply HAS to be panic-inducing, for the twenty years it takes to prove it wrong, conclusively. It looks like this might be it.
[www.thenationalpatriot.com image 180x280]


Atleast you arent claiming the world is cooling anymore.

It only took a couple years to convince you of that, next you will accept that humans are contributing, then you will say it wasnt exactly like the models said, then you will drop the argument all together and disappear into the internet void.
 
2011-09-13 10:07:48 PM
BurnShrike:
You know, I really wish I could brush you off as just a troll. I can respect a troll, but your blatant refusal to look at evidence and outright denial of things *we know are occurring* makes you worse than just stupid. You're ignorant, proud of it, and refuse to educate yourself. The English language does not have a word to describe your level of idiocy. You are actively harming the human race by being alive. May the invisible deity of your choice have mercy on your soul.

Actually, YOU fit this profile better. Some things we KNOW are occurring:

- The climate is not behaving as the models predicted.

- The null hypothesis (temperature does not change) has smaller error than the AGW models.

- A few scientists have been repeatedly caught manipulating data.

- The U.N. says that the purpose of climate regulation is wealth redistribution.

- The estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide in the GCMs are WAY high.

- The IPCC has committed fraud by publishing propaganda, and labeling it peer-reviewed science.


 
2011-09-13 10:14:44 PM

hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.

Here a hint for you morons who believe everything that you read, especially at websites like the one you linked to.

There are lots of QUALIFIED scientists who work in the field that do not agree with your pet theory. Some of them have even testified before Congress. Some of them are so QUALIFIED that they actually worked on the initial research conducted at the requested of the UN.

That really must hurt!!!

And the names of these scientists, credentials, and research published?


SInce a lot of information would be too much for you, I will start with just one. John R. Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was part of the group that worked on the original IPCC report. He was not happy with the way the IPCC changed the report to make it (in their words) more politically acceptable. He has testified before Congress, telling them that the proposed solutions to the "problem" would have a very small impact of the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I suggest that you do some research of your own into this man and his opinions. He has published so you can read some of his work if you are interested.

Once I am convinced that you have done the proper amount of research, I will give you a few more names.
 
2011-09-13 10:15:26 PM
Ctrl-Alt-Del:
It's like predicting the sun will rise in the east.

Yes, JUST like that -- WRONG. The Earth rotates on its axis, the sun doesn't rise. But, before people knew better, they thought the sun traveled from east to west during the day. And, before they knew better, scientists hypothesized that adding a bit more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would make the planet warm up considerably. But, now we know that the warming caused by adding carbon dioxide is freaking TINY. So, yes, JUST like that.
 
2011-09-13 10:26:09 PM

GeneralJim: CERN's recent findings about how cosmic rays enhance cloud formation is the final nail in AGW's coffin.


"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," lead author Jasper Kirkby.

No downward trend in GCR flux to account for the recent warming:

i55.tinypic.com

In fact all solar trends- including those necessary for the cosmic ray claims to be correct- are either flat or in the opposite direction necessary to be driving the recent warming[1][2][3][4]. Large GCR fluxes in the geologic record show no corresponding climatic change[5]. And of course we simply show the other signatures of enhanced greenhouse vs. some other kind of warming.

GeneralJim: The climate is not behaving as the models predicted.


i55.tinypic.com

Etc., etc.

[1] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2007): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society: A. 463, 2447- 2460, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880.
[2] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2008): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society: A, 464, 1367-1385, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.0347.
[3] Benestad, R.E., and G.A. Schmidt (2009): Solar trends and global warming. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.
[4] Gray, L. J., et al. (2010): Solar Influences on Climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282.
[5] Muscheler, R., et al. (2005): Geomagnetic field intensity during the last 60,000 years based on 10Be and 36Cl from the Summit ice cores and 14C. Quaternary Science Reviews, 24, 16-17, 1849-1860, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.01.012.
 
2011-09-13 10:28:35 PM

guyinjeep16: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.

Here a hint for you morons who believe everything that you read, especially at websites like the one you linked to.

There are lots of QUALIFIED scientists who work in the field that do not agree with your pet theory. Some of them have even testified before Congress. Some of them are so QUALIFIED that they actually worked on the initial research conducted at the requested of the UN.

That really must hurt!!!

Surely you can name some of these people, you ignorant tool.


Sure I can. But why don't you know their names. It seems that you would want to understand the argument of the people who oppose your foolishness.

Now that I think of it, have you even looked into the people who support your foolishness? Have you done any independent work to see what data is behind all of this hype? Are you aware that when they tell you that (pick a year) was the warmest on record that the record only goes back to 1850? And that even that data is suspect because there were only a few places recording temperatures in 1850 or even in 1875. Are you aware that all of the data prior to 1850 is proxy data? That means they extrapolated temperature data by counting tree rings. That also means that your side has no idea when the temperature started its rapid climb of less than one degree. If we do not know when it started, we can not state what started the increase. Do you know that throughout history, all records show that CO2 increased trailed temperature increases?

In short, there is not enough data to determine what is happening or why it is happening. There is this one little possibility but we all know that it is insane to even consider it but have you heard of something called an Ice Age?
 
2011-09-13 10:29:42 PM

GeneralJim: Yes, JUST like that -- WRONG. The Earth rotates on its axis, the sun doesn't rise.


Where you born stupid?

The sun rises based on our perspective on the planet, you do understand the term Sunrise, dont you?

Holy shiat I cant believe Im arguing with someone so blatantly stupid.

/But at least you arent claiming the planet is cooling anymore.
 
2011-09-13 10:31:11 PM

chuckufarlie: guyinjeep16: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.

Here a hint for you morons who believe everything that you read, especially at websites like the one you linked to.

There are lots of QUALIFIED scientists who work in the field that do not agree with your pet theory. Some of them have even testified before Congress. Some of them are so QUALIFIED that they actually worked on the initial research conducted at the requested of the UN.

That really must hurt!!!

Surely you can name some of these people, you ignorant tool.

Sure I can. But why don't you know their names. It seems that you would want to understand the argument of the people who oppose your foolishness.

Now that I think of it, have you even looked into the people who support your foolishness? Have you done any independent work to see what data is behind all of this hype? Are you aware that when they tell you that (pick a year) was the warmest on record that the record only goes back to 1850? And that even that data is suspect because there were only a few places recording temperatures in 1850 or even in 1875. Are you aware that all of the data prior to 1850 is proxy data? That means they extrapolated temperature data by counting tree rings. That also means that your side has no idea when the temperature started its rapid climb of less than one degree. If we do not know when it started, we can not state what started the increase. Do you know that throughout history, all records show that CO2 increased trailed temperature increases?

In short, there is not enough data to determine what is happening or why it is happening. There is this one little possibility but we all know that it is insane to even consider it but have you heard of something called an Ice Age?


No, you cant.

Thanks for playing.
 
2011-09-13 10:37:48 PM

Jon Snow: GeneralJim: CERN's recent findings about how cosmic rays enhance cloud formation is the final nail in AGW's coffin.

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," lead author Jasper Kirkby.

No downward trend in GCR flux to account for the recent warming:

[i55.tinypic.com image 591x470]

In fact all solar trends- including those necessary for the cosmic ray claims to be correct- are either flat or in the opposite direction necessary to be driving the recent warming[1][2][3][4]. Large GCR fluxes in the geologic record show no corresponding climatic change[5]. And of course we simply show the other signatures of enhanced greenhouse vs. some other kind of warming.

GeneralJim: The climate is not behaving as the models predicted.

[i55.tinypic.com image 320x267]

Etc., etc.

[1] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2007): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proceedings of the Royal Society: A. 463, 2447- 2460, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880.
[2] Lockwood, M., and C. Fröhlich (2008): Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society: A, 464, 1367-1385, doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.0347.
[3] Benestad, R.E., and G.A. Schmidt (2009): Solar trends and global warming. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114, D14101, doi:10.1029/2008JD011639.
[4] Gray, L. J., et al. (2010): Solar Influences on Climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282.
[5] Muscheler, R., et al. (2005): Geomagnetic field intensity during the last 60,000 years based on 10Be and 36Cl from the Summit ice cores and 14C. Quaternary Science Reviews, 24, 16-17, 1849-1860, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.01.012.


The report from CERN explained that the increase in temperature was natural. Of course all of your warmers immediately attacked that report even though not one of you has an education even close to that of the people who worked on the CERN project.

The problem with you argument is that the head of CERN stated that no further comments would be forthcoming because the AGW argument was too political. What does that statement tell you?? And just for once in your life, do not be willfully ignorant when answering.
 
2011-09-13 10:43:55 PM

guyinjeep16: chuckufarlie: guyinjeep16: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: hardinparamedic: chuckufarlie: The Envoy: chuckufarlie: Space_Poet: Flash_NYC: 2-3 degrees? Reference or retract.

Retracted, it's about 1.5 degrees F. I was trying to make a point, it's almost unfathomable for people to understand what a measly degree of average temperature movement can really do.

almost nothing.

Except kill off a large percentage of the planet's biomass and one of the key cornerstones of marine food webs. Sounds trifling to me too.

that is absolute nonsense

Science says otherwise. Of course, given your posting history in this thread, I doubt unless God and Jesus themselves came down from upon high for the second coming, and told you himself it was occuring I doubt you'd believe it.

Given your posting history, I doubt you'd believe even then.

Scientists say otherwise, not science. And lots of scientists do not agree so who are you to say which group is correct.

Um. Let me fix that for you:

A small subset of scientists who's training and experience in climate science makes them qualified to comment and research matters of climate and climate change say this, however - and this is key here - the data that has been obtained does not support their position

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-i n termediate.htm

Here's a hint for you denialist guys: Medical Doctors, while skilled and experienced in biological sciences and practical application thereof, are not qualified to comment as "experts" on Global Warming or the lack thereof.

Here a hint for you morons who believe everything that you read, especially at websites like the one you linked to.

There are lots of QUALIFIED scientists who work in the field that do not agree with your pet theory. Some of them have even testified before Congress. Some of them are so QUALIFIED that they actually worked on the initial research conducted at the requested of the UN.

That really must hurt!!!

Surely you can name some of these people, you ignorant tool.

Sure I can. But why don't you know their names. It seems that you would want to understand the argument of the people who oppose your foolishness.

Now that I think of it, have you even looked into the people who support your foolishness? Have you done any independent work to see what data is behind all of this hype? Are you aware that when they tell you that (pick a year) was the warmest on record that the record only goes back to 1850? And that even that data is suspect because there were only a few places recording temperatures in 1850 or even in 1875. Are you aware that all of the data prior to 1850 is proxy data? That means they extrapolated temperature data by counting tree rings. That also means that your side has no idea when the temperature started its rapid climb of less than one degree. If we do not know when it started, we can not state what started the increase. Do you know that throughout history, all records show that CO2 increased trailed temperature increases?

In short, there is not enough data to determine what is happening or why it is happening. There is this one little possibility but we all know that it is insane to even consider it but have you heard of something called an Ice Age?

No, you cant.

Thanks for playing.


It always amuses me when one of your warmers ducks a question. Your type does it all the time. Did you even read what I wrote? I doubt if you did. It would have been a waste of your time because you do not understand the position you support at a level high enough to actually discuss it. Somebody told you something that "sounded right" so you jumped on board. That is how 99% of the warmers have acted. The average warmer enters a battle of wits totally unarmed.
 
2011-09-13 10:47:53 PM

guyinjeep16: GeneralJim: Yes, JUST like that -- WRONG. The Earth rotates on its axis, the sun doesn't rise.

Where you born stupid?

The sun rises based on our perspective on the planet, you do understand the term Sunrise, dont you?

Holy shiat I cant believe Im arguing with someone so blatantly stupid.

/But at least you arent claiming the planet is cooling anymore.


However, from a scientific stance, the sun does not rise. After all, this is a discussion about science and there you talking stupid.

Science is not about perspective, it is about facts.
 
2011-09-13 10:53:10 PM
Sunrise is a term used by humans when sunlight reaches the a given location.

Do you understand what sunrise is yet? Or do you need more?

Have that list of names yet?
 
2011-09-13 10:59:16 PM

chuckufarlie: guyinjeep16: GeneralJim: Yes, JUST like that -- WRONG. The Earth rotates on its axis, the sun doesn't rise.

Where you born stupid?

The sun rises based on our perspective on the planet, you do understand the term Sunrise, dont you?

Holy shiat I cant believe Im arguing with someone so blatantly stupid.

/But at least you arent claiming the planet is cooling anymore.

However, from a scientific stance, the sun does not rise. After all, this is a discussion about science and there you talking stupid.

Science is not about perspective, it is about facts.


The time sunlight hits a certain spot of the earth, is known as sunrise. Its very scientific.
Maybe you need to go back to 6th grade.
 
2011-09-13 11:17:17 PM

nicksteel: The report from CERN explained that the increase in temperature was natural.


No, nicksteel, it said literally nothing about the attribution of climate change whatsoever. The wonderful thing about science, as opposed to climate denialist propaganda, is that no one has to take anyone's word for it. They can see for themselves.
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report