So the senate declared that we don't have the same consistent weather every day. Duh...
Only lemmings believe the spin. Why don't you actually read what the resolution (tucked in another bill) said.
So the senate declared that we don't have the same consistent weather every day. Duh...
Only lemmings believe the spin. Why don't you actually read what the resolution (tucked in another bill) said.
I read the resolutions. They reference climate change, not weather. And there was reference to human contributions to the changes. The fact that Republican senators supported this is very telling. The tides are turning.
real scientist wrote:
Phoqu ewe wrote:Why do people continue to post/say/recite in any manner the same tired nonsense? Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide. The quantity that it releases can be estimated fairly accurately. The rate at which it causes the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to raise can be estimated. The effect of that (small percentage) increase on global average temperatures can be estimated. Back of the envelope calculations would show you that this predicts a noticeable effect of human industry on global average temperature.
Bullcrap, bullcrap, bullcrap. You're a gullible twat, a swindler, a below-average-intelligent person, and most probably a liberal.
The back of the envelope calculations show that there is no way humans, or for that matter natural catastrophes, can significantly raise the global average temperature. And this was the scientific consensus until around 1990. Around that time, the hoaxers invented the feedback model which assumed that for every ounce of CO2 that humans let out there would be a "feedback effect" (just like when you put a mic close to a loudspeaker) that would amplify the effect of that single ounce of CO2 into several tons. So the scientific basis for the global warming hoax is this alleged "greenhouse effect" young people have been indoctrinated with.
Let me get this straight: There is no way the minuscule amount of CO2 humans let out can cause a global warming effect by itself. To explain anthropogenic warming you need to assume that CO2 causes what we physicists call a "runaway effect", which means that a small initial energy input leads to a huge energy release after a series of amplifications. Such processes are extremely rare in nature. They do happen though. An atomic bomb is a runaway process, and you also have runaway processes in stars and black holes and so on. However, that the Earth's climate is an unstable process is so far fetched and unlikely that only extremely ideologically biased unscientific dumb@sses would agree.
And you, my friend, are one of those dumb@sses.
And you, my friend, are not a real scientist.
A real scientist who disagreed with the overwhelming opinion of the experts would publish convincing evidence for his point of view in a peer-reviewed journal. If his evidence and arguments were indeed convincing he would become quite famous and well respected (and probably wealthy).
In short, a real scientist wouldn't be saying "It's all a hoax" on LetsRun.com. That's for conspiracy buffs, not scientists.
Lopio wrote:
It's not about breathing, Binks. Google "Greenhouse Effect" and come back when you've educated yourself.
Another clown whose only information of a subject comes from Googling.
As a matter of fact, carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and as the geological record shows, that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times.
Twenty million years ago, vast regions of what are today frozen polar deserts in the Arctic and Antarctic were forests, inhabited by vibrant communities of animal life.
The atmosphere then contained 2,000 parts per million carbon dioxide, more than five times the 380 parts per million that is does today.
Today these regions are close to dead, made uninhabitable by the failure of the wild biosphere to maintain sufficient levels of atmospheric CO2.
For ‘real-er scientist:’
This PFD download with reference to the falsified IPCC figures on global warming might be of interest:
“Then, the total warming we shall cause by consuming all remaining
recoverable reserves will be little more than 2.2 K, and not
the 12 K imagined by IPCC on the RCP 8.5 scenario. If so,
the case for any intervention to mitigate CO2 emissions has
not necessarily been made: for the 2.2 K equilibrium
warming we project would take place only over many
hundreds of years. Also, the disbenefits of more extreme
heat may well be at least matched by the benefits of less
extreme cold. It is no accident that 90 % of the world’s
living species thrive in the warm, wet tropics, while only
1 % live at the cold, dry poles.”
http://wmbriggs.com/public/Monckton.et.al.pdfSo, what about the need for more sun protection?
What about what was referred to previously as the eroding ozone layer?
What about the erratic weather patterns, like hurricanes in New England three of the last five years, and world-wide tsunami's at an alarming rate ?
Does it tell anyone anything about the recent changes that places like Charlotte NC, Atlanta, Houston, TX. All have been getting snow and ice storms more often than ever? And, if this is not so new, then why do all these places say on interviews, that they do not have plows or salt trucks? Wouldn't they be prepared?
The temperature patterns are changing. Going south for the winter might give you a chance to get away from 12" and 18" snowfalls every 10 days. But, anymore, it does not guarantee getting away from cold weather.
The Monckton et al. paper has been widely debunked by scientists across the world.
One of the main problems is that an overly simple model is not desirable in this case. The differences between AR4 and AR5 are significant and represent an aggregation of the advances that have been made in scientific understanding.
Binks wrote:
Lopio wrote:It's not about breathing, Binks. Google "Greenhouse Effect" and come back when you've educated yourself.
Another clown whose only information of a subject comes from Googling.
Actually I was reading scientific papers on this topic long before Google became a reality. You should try reading more. Perhaps then you wouldn't sound so misinformed.
The Limey Binks thinks he knows more than 98% of the U.S. Senate. Yeah, right!
In other news, the U.S. Senate declared:
"We landed on the moon and its not a hoax."
foo wrote:
In other news, the U.S. Senate declared:
"We landed on the moon and its not a hoax."
No, they didn't.
Monkey Man wrote:
Blind Lemon Chicken wrote:Last month, ninety-eight senators voted to pass a resolution declaring that “climate change is real and not a hoax.” (Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi was the lone no vote.)
No one can deny the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence. The tide has turned and Republican representatives are admitting to the obvious in an effort to seem less ridiculous to the voters.
Agreed. The right used to be the predominate naysayers, but that honor now belongs to the nutjob conspiracy theorists. Rational, objective thinkers are unanimous in their belief that this is not a hoax.
real scientist wrote:
Bullcrap, bullcrap, bullcrap. You're a gullible twat, a swindler, a below-average-intelligent person, and most probably a liberal.
The back of the envelope calculations show that there is no way humans, or for that matter natural catastrophes, can significantly raise the global average temperature. And this was the scientific consensus until around 1990. Around that time, the hoaxers invented the feedback model which assumed that for every ounce of CO2 that humans let out there would be a "feedback effect" (just like when you put a mic close to a loudspeaker) that would amplify the effect of that single ounce of CO2 into several tons. So the scientific basis for the global warming hoax is this alleged "greenhouse effect" young people have been indoctrinated with.
Let me get this straight: There is no way the minuscule amount of CO2 humans let out can cause a global warming effect by itself. To explain anthropogenic warming you need to assume that CO2 causes what we physicists call a "runaway effect", which means that a small initial energy input leads to a huge energy release after a series of amplifications. Such processes are extremely rare in nature. They do happen though. An atomic bomb is a runaway process, and you also have runaway processes in stars and black holes and so on. However, that the Earth's climate is an unstable process is so far fetched and unlikely that only extremely ideologically biased unscientific dumb@sses would agree.
And you, my friend, are one of those dumb@sses.
1.5/10, just for effort. The ranting alone raised global [CO2] detectably.
Restrepo wrote:
Agreed. The right used to be the predominate naysayers, but that honor now belongs to the nutjob conspiracy theorists. Rational, objective thinkers are unanimous in their belief that this is not a hoax.
You said it. I guess this thread is reconfirmation that LRC has quite a few people even slower to catch on to reality than the US congress. It must be hard work to stay that f*&(*ing stupid.
We are the same people that harnessed fire, tamed the oceans, journeyed to the moon and back, electronically connected the world and created the atomic bomb and you think we can't figure out why the temperature goes up and what will happen when it does. Go back to the sandbox kiddo, the real men are talking.
Smarterthanthou wrote:
We are the same people that harnessed fire, tamed the oceans, journeyed to the moon and back, electronically connected the world and created the atomic bomb and you think we can't figure out why the temperature goes up and what will happen when it does. Go back to the sandbox kiddo, the real men are talking.
Please point out where I wrote anything about temperature changes and their effects.
Tamed the oceans?
holy moly wrote:
Restrepo wrote:Agreed. The right used to be the predominate naysayers, but that honor now belongs to the nutjob conspiracy theorists. Rational, objective thinkers are unanimous in their belief that this is not a hoax.
You said it. I guess this thread is reconfirmation that LRC has quite a few people even slower to catch on to reality than the US congress. It must be hard work to stay that f*&(*ing stupid.
Not quite a few. There are very few true idiots here; they just post often and constantly switch handles.
And for laughs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsgThere is no debate on this topic, just political rhetoric. Over 95% of climate scientists are confident that humans are the main cause to global warming. The only reason this number is not 100% is scientific error and money from right winged groups to have scientists oppose what over 95% of them believe. A better use of time and resources would be passing some bipartisan legislation to address this serious problem instead of pretending that there is a debate on this topic by presenting the two viewpoints on the news and start talking about how we are going to correct what we have done.
Hurdy gurdy man wrote:
Yes, it's politics, but still well played by Obama and the Dems.
+1
Polly P wrote:
Do yourself a favor and compare the amount of CO2 exhaled by all of the animals - not just humans - of the Earth with the amount produced by a relatively small number of fossil fuel burners. Then come back here and apologize, libtard.
Thank you for implicitly confirming that Global Warming is a fact.
Randy Oldman wrote:
Thank you for implicitly confirming that Global Warming is a fact.
Yeah, I guess Polly P didn't quite do the math on carbon cycles!