ADVERTISEMENT

Climate crisis strikes again

We probably aren't the main cause, I do think we are accelerating it though.
Please stop.

What is (are) the other main cause(s)?

As I have repeatedly explained, in one very important sense it really doesn't matter if humans are causing it. You put out the fire in your house even if you didn't start it. Knowing that you started it (and how) may be useful for deciding how to fight it. But it's irrelevant to deciding that you have problem that needs to be addressed.
 
This is a puzzling claim since his movie's message was that Global Warming is real, it's caused by man, and unless we start taking the necessary steps to address this problem, it will wind up biting us in the ass later on. There is nothing dishonest in that message.
Welcome to the delusional denier world of Lone Clone.
 
Please stop.

What is (are) the other main cause(s)?

As I have repeatedly explained, in one very important sense it really doesn't matter if humans are causing it. You put out the fire in your house even if you didn't start it. Knowing that you started it (and how) may be useful for deciding how to fight it. But it's irrelevant to deciding that you have problem that needs to be addressed.
But you and your ilk don't want to put out the fire. To the extent you've even recognized the need to do something about it, you've advocated the equivalent of peeing on it. Meanwhile, you want to force all the neighbors to take out their gas and electric service and replace all the combustibles in their homes with metal, in case some of those things might start a fire later.
 
This is a puzzling claim since his movie's message was that Global Warming is real, it's caused by man, and unless we start taking the necessary steps to address this problem, it will wind up biting us in the ass later on. There is nothing dishonest in that message.
It isn't puzzling to anyone who understands English. If I make a movie saying murder is bad, and support my argument by claiming you killed Parser, that's dishonest, nyet?
 
where is the handicapped FSU guy that used to post on here alot that does work in this field? He came out a year or so ago on here and admitted that man isn't the culprit to CC as originally thought. He admitted it. He admitted that "scientists" were manipulating the data.

The big concern is ocean acidification.
 
But you and your ilk don't want to put out the fire. To the extent you've even recognized the need to do something about it, you've advocated the equivalent of peeing on it. Meanwhile, you want to force all the neighbors to take out their gas and electric service and replace all the combustibles in their homes with metal, in case some of those things might start a fire later.
Nicely done, LC. You managed to skip through all the steps I outlined for deniers becoming believers and instantly jumped to last step which is, "Blame the libs." I bow down to your artful skill.
 
The GW topic became too political too quickly when the carbon tax idea came about. I dont disagree that humans affect mother nature...we cause smog so we sure the hell can cause issues on a larger scale. The problem is the solution. Can we do anything about it? The whole world has to be involved and that wont happen. The carbon tax was a liberal wet dream to take money from corporations and give it to others. Money and politicas got involved and ruined the discussion.
I think there is a lot of truth to this.

I don't know one single person opposed to conservation and clean air/water. None. Neither do any of the crazy leftists that told us 30 we would be in an ice age for the last 15-20 years

bottom line is, the climate WILL change.

I recently saw a bunch of glaciers first hand and all but one of them are growing. the polar ice caps are growing.

The left is all about control and pushing their agenda. sorry if I refuse to bankrupt our country in order to promote their agenda.
 
I believe that the climate would change with or without us, however, we are accelerating it. I am all for the environment, whether CC is real or not. I'm not a typical conservative/libertarian/democrat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whatsup12579er
Nicely done, LC. You managed to skip through all the steps I outlined for deniers becoming believers and instantly jumped to last step which is, "Blame the libs." I bow down to your artful skill.
You aren't a serious person, and neither are Dewey and Louie. I'm not blaming liberals for climate change. I'm blaming the extremists for undermining their message. As you know, I'm sure.
 
It isn't puzzling to anyone who understands English. If I make a movie saying murder is bad, and support my argument by claiming you killed Parser, that's dishonest, nyet?
Now you've got me even more confused, LC.

If the detectives said that I murdered Parser, the evidence pointed to me murdering Parser, and the expert witnesses said that I murdered Parser, why would you still claim that he died of natural causes?
 
Now you've got me even more confused, LC.

If the detectives said that I murdered Parser, the evidence pointed to me murdering Parser, and the expert witnesses said that I murdered Parser, why would you still claim that he died of natural causes?
I didn't say he died of natural causes, The problem with your theory is that he isn't dead.
 
You aren't a serious person, and neither are Dewey and Louie. I'm not blaming liberals for climate change. I'm blaming the extremists for undermining their message. As you know, I'm sure.
Sure, you're not blaming Libs. You've only framed your entire argument around the claim that one of the most visible mainstream Democrats in the past two decades is somehow an extremist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Please stop.

What is (are) the other main cause(s)?

As I have repeatedly explained, in one very important sense it really doesn't matter if humans are causing it. You put out the fire in your house even if you didn't start it. Knowing that you started it (and how) may be useful for deciding how to fight it. But it's irrelevant to deciding that you have problem that needs to be addressed.

Mother Nature? How else would you explain previous ice ages and the warm periods inbetween?

Humans are relatively new to Earth, yet the climate has been changing for 4.6 billion years. How is that possible without humans?

Clarinda is 100% correct. You libs want to put it 100% on human activity and instantly lose all credibility when you do.
 
God, the willful ignorance is simply appalling in this thread as is usual. Such a shame to see so many minds wasted and brainwashed by the wingnut echo chamber for political purposes. And sad for the world and all its organisms as well.
 
God, the willful ignorance is simply appalling in this thread as is usual. Such a shame to see so many minds wasted and brainwashed by the wingnut echo chamber for political purposes. And sad for the world and all its organisms as well.

SOB!!! When did you start using your own words?
 
Maybe you shouldn't be smoking anything and should stop paying attention to the liberal whacko's feeding you BS. The polar ice is growing and so are glaciers.
 
Maybe you shouldn't be smoking anything and should stop paying attention to the liberal whacko's feeding you BS. The polar ice is growing and so are glaciers.

So are polar bears and polar bonds and polar fleece. Science 0, ICU 1.
 
Most people try and post links/citations to their claims, the really smart ones don't. It is incredibly effective.
 
Most people try and post links/citations to their claims, the really smart ones don't. It is incredibly effective.
internets is hard

data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps

2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse

An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea

New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’

The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.

To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...d-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/
 
From the article...

"The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate."
 
130913ice.jpg


I was told by top scientists that these would be gone by now.
 
but yeah, trust the "scientists". they just happen to be mostly hard leftists with massive agendas and have all of their eggs in 1 basket but don't look behind the curtain.
 
Mother Nature? How else would you explain previous ice ages and the warm periods inbetween?

Humans are relatively new to Earth, yet the climate has been changing for 4.6 billion years. How is that possible without humans?

Clarinda is 100% correct. You libs want to put it 100% on human activity and instantly lose all credibility when you do.
Oh great, another poster who can't tell the difference between science and fictional characters.
 
We do have to understand that there are natural changes to the climate. Just look at the last 2000 years. Some of the areas of the middle east had vegetation and now it's sand. That wasn't caused by humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: icu81222
No . . . the crazy thought is that that's somehow an argument against climate change.
again, NO ONE says the climate doesnt' change. of course it does. We just don't want to bankrupt our country with crazy measures that have zero proof that they would reverse or prevent ANYTHING.

Imagine if we had done all of these crazy things libs wanted us to do in the 70's because "5 years from now we'll all be underwater". Then it didn't happen.

Everyone thinks conservation is a good idea. Everyone EVERYONE wants clean air and clean water. We can certainly debate about how to help do that but bankrupting the country and hamstringing us against the rest of the world isn't a rational answer.
 
where is the handicapped FSU guy that used to post on here alot that does work in this field? He came out a year or so ago on here and admitted that man isn't the culprit to CC as originally thought. He admitted it. He admitted that "scientists" were manipulating the data.

The big concern is ocean acidification.
So where is FSU Reid btw? He was the lib with ACTUAL experience in the climate change field that admitted WWJD etc are just crazy alarmists running with bad intel
 
Weird how libs just skip by these as if they weren't even there and keep on with their incoherent ranting.


Weird how deniers ignore that 2012 was the year with the lowest amount of Arctic sea ice on record. Oh, and 2013 was the 5th lowest on record.

BTW, in 2014 it dropped again.
 
where is the handicapped FSU guy that used to post on here alot that does work in this field? He came out a year or so ago on here and admitted that man isn't the culprit to CC as originally thought. He admitted it. He admitted that "scientists" were manipulating the data.

The big concern is ocean acidification.
That's excactly what he said. FSUJREED. He did not admit that scientists were manipulating data. He warned us that OA is perhaps a bigger problem than global warming, and said as much. He went on to say, over and over again, that global warming is contributing, if not the main reason, for OA. You really like to twist things. What is your interest? Why is it so terrible to find cleaner ways to power the earth? Why are you so invested in this "climate has always changed and always will"? I wonder how you can honestly sit there and say that man has nothing to do with this. It boggles the mind.

So, because everyone else is pissing on the sidewalk, why shouldn't we? Well, maybe it becomes manners, and it spreads. China has passed laws to decrease their emissions on their own. The US should do the same, and only ignorance supplies an argument otherwise.
 
Oh great, another poster who can't tell the difference between science and fictional characters.

That's funny. I didn't know that Humans are the only force driving the climate/weather on Earth. Maybe whoever fired up the el nino machine should turn it off since it will bring higher temps? WWJD, could you please have the people that control the wind tone it down a little bit in Iowa? Wind turbines have breaks on them and they stop when it gets too windy which isn't very effective. And while you're at it I would appreciate it if it didn't get too humid this summer. TIA.

How about instead of callling Mother Nature a 'fictional character' you tell me why I am wrong? I think 4.6 billion years worth of data showing changes in the Earth's climate would classify as 'science' to most people.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT