Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Algores pilot wrote:

Where?
Look at the charts... does it look familiar to the silly AGW charts to you?

It shouldn't, because it isn't.

It should because Global Warming/Cooling is due to the Sun, not SUV's Greenfreak.

Wrong. See http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_argumen... to see the REAL charts that show how DIFFERENT insolation and temperature REALLY are.

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you've pulled a "MattJ", inserting text within the "quote" of what I supposedly said. Sure, I know it's an easily made mistake. Matt declined to correct, or even acknowledge, the more egregious instance he created. Wonder what YOU will do.

Because I did no such thing. You are a liar.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Because I did no such thing. You are a liar.

I showed you the post, as posted, plus a link to it. I went out of my way to show you what happened. You DID NOT address it. The onus is now I you. I need do nothing further to help you find it and respond.

If you looked at it, YOU are the liar; if you did not, YOU are dishonest.

Correction

the sentence should read, "The onus is now [ON] you."

Pachelbel wrote:

<quoted text>
I showed you the post, as posted, plus a link to it. I went out of my way to show you what happened.

When did you do this? In http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin... # you did no such thing. You made a scurrilous accusation with NOTHING to back it up.

I have a good enough memory to know that I never did any such thing.

We see you still can't smell it, butt hole.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>Still unable to spell crapola, I see. <quoted text>Earth will not suffer "death" for approximately another 5 billion years.
Within 90 years, a lot more that 7 billion people will have died.
Where's the problem?

Just have to say to the pseudo-scientists posting here, you are full of it. You apparently can't read or mentally process the scientific literature.

Humans have and are changing the earth. The next global extinction of thousands of species will not be due to an asteroid, it will be due to humans. End result -- our own extinction as global warming increases, humans proliferate to 10-15 billion, species go extinct, humans face starvation and plague. Ultimately, humanity dies because of our stupidity. Checkmate.

End the denial, you morons.

Da Man wrote:

Just have to say to the pseudo-scientists posting here, you are full of it. You apparently can't read or mentally process the scientific literature.
Humans have and are changing the earth. The next global extinction of thousands of species will not be due to an asteroid, it will be due to humans. End result -- our own extinction as global warming increases, humans proliferate to 10-15 billion, species go extinct, humans face starvation and plague. Ultimately, humanity dies because of our stupidity. Checkmate.
End the denial, you morons.

There hasn't been single species extinction, let alone thousands. This is fantasy stuff, not the real world you see out your window. Go for a walk and look at the climate, is it collapsing? You can see the bones of ancient glaciers in your ponds and lakes, the carvings of glacial advance and retreat on hills and valleys. Wind, rain and snow carve the living sculpture of our world, not imaginary CO2 catastrophe.

Pseudo science cannot be experimentally verified, like climate mitigation.

Da Man:

(sigh) Stop drinking the kool aide. No one here suggests that the science shouldn't be CONTINUED.

But the fact is, the science isn't SETTLED, and no one should be running around demanding that economies of the world should take detrimental steps to harm themselves in the name of AGW.

Besides, the science CAN'T even prove which came first, the chicken or the egg.

Does changing global temperatures CAUSE the rise in CO2, or does the CO2 CAUSE the temperature change.

If they can't even define the CAUSALITY, cause and effect, then they have NO business running around making such silly demands on people of our nation or other nations.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
There hasn't been single species extinction, let alone thousands. This is fantasy stuff, not the real world you see out your window. Go for a walk and look at the climate, is it collapsing? You can see the bones of ancient glaciers in your ponds and lakes, the carvings of glacial advance and retreat on hills and valleys. Wind, rain and snow carve the living sculpture of our world, not imaginary CO2 catastrophe.
Pseudo science cannot be experimentally verified, like climate mitigation.

Polly wants an experiment!!

Polly wants an experiment!!

As usual the morons who have been manipulated by the meedia are doing most of the posting. Try to think for a minute instead of repeating what you hear on mainstream media. The earth is over four billion years old.It has gone through countless warming and cooling trends. Semi-accurate weather records only go back a couple hundred years at most. So the weather records we have are like looking at your medical records for the last five minutes instead of for your lifetime.Co2 emissions have only really been increasing for seventy five years more or less. If you looked at Co2 emissions on a graph they would look something like this / increasing steadily over time. Yet global temps over the same time go up one year go down another. If Co2 actually had a relationship to temperature wouldn't temp look like this / too ?? But global temp goes up one year down the next. A more plausible explanation of temperature variations would be solar activity... that's right the sun. But all the morons that believe as gospel anything the media espouses are the ones driving the debate.

Please take your meds and then walk around outside. Why are so many people so stupid?

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
There hasn't been single species extinction, let alone thousands. This is fantasy stuff, not the real world you see out your window. Go for a walk and look at the climate, is it collapsing? You can see the bones of ancient glaciers in your ponds and lakes, the carvings of glacial advance and retreat on hills and valleys. Wind, rain and snow carve the living sculpture of our world, not imaginary CO2 catastrophe.
Pseudo science cannot be experimentally verified, like climate mitigation.

The longer that cretins like you wait, the sooner we all die.

No One Important wrote:

Da Man:
(sigh) Stop drinking the kool aide. No one here suggests that the science shouldn't be CONTINUED.
But the fact is, the science isn't SETTLED, and no one should be running around demanding that economies of the world should take detrimental steps to harm themselves in the name of AGW.
Besides, the science CAN'T even prove which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Does changing global temperatures CAUSE the rise in CO2, or does the CO2 CAUSE the temperature change.
If they can't even define the CAUSALITY, cause and effect, then they have NO business running around making such silly demands on people of our nation or other nations.

Obama bin Biden wrote:

As usual the morons who have been manipulated by the meedia are doing most of the posting. Try to think for a minute instead of repeating what you hear on mainstream media. The earth is over four billion years old.It has gone through countless warming and cooling trends. Semi-accurate weather records only go back a couple hundred years at most. So the weather records we have are like looking at your medical records for the last five minutes instead of for your lifetime.Co2 emissions have only really been increasing for seventy five years more or less. If you looked at Co2 emissions on a graph they would look something like this / increasing steadily over time. Yet global temps over the same time go up one year go down another. If Co2 actually had a relationship to temperature wouldn't temp look like this / too ?? But global temp goes up one year down the next. A more plausible explanation of temperature variations would be solar activity... that's right the sun. But all the morons that believe as gospel anything the media espouses are the ones driving the debate.

The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activit...

The usual drivers of natural climate change have shown little to no warming trend since the 70's.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-chang...

If we look at the temperature record over the past several decades, we see that even in a long term warming trend, there are short periods of cooling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperatu...

I re-read your post and I am astounded that you state humans have not been responsible for a single extinction. What the hell are you talking about??? Just do a google or bing search and you will see how stupid you are at this moment in your life. You still have time to not be an idiot.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
There hasn't been single species extinction, let alone thousands. This is fantasy stuff, not the real world you see out your window. Go for a walk and look at the climate, is it collapsing? You can see the bones of ancient glaciers in your ponds and lakes, the carvings of glacial advance and retreat on hills and valleys. Wind, rain and snow carve the living sculpture of our world, not imaginary CO2 catastrophe.
Pseudo science cannot be experimentally verified, like climate mitigation.

Da Man wrote:

Please take your meds and then walk around outside. Why are so many people so stupid?
<quoted text>

Well, as I've said, I have a Dawn Redwood in my yard.

It's the great great grand daddy of the coastal redwoods in California.

It is called a "living fossil."

Why? Well, it was thought to have been extinct until 1942 when a stand of them was found growing in China.

Why were they thought to have been extinct?

Well, the metasequoia was around millions and millions of years ago. Fossil remains were found. But even MORE interesting....

They were remnants found to have been growing millions and millions of years ago in ANCIENT POLAR FORESTS.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyep. There were FORESTS at the poles of the earth millions and millions of years ago. Not ice sheets.

So, unless the AGW alarmists can come up with a fossilized SUV for me from millions of years ago, when we had FORESTS at the poles, you AGW people need to take a step back.

You don't have the right to demand that we deliberately hammer our struggling economy with goofiness about AGW.

And funny thing is, all the AGW people can do is yell "that's stupid" when I point that out.

No one has EVER refuted that with ANYTHING.

The only thing they've done is post more gobldey gook and called me names.

You CANNOT refute these facts.

So people, put some BRAIN matter into these arguments.

Send the AGW alarmists back to their little cubicles with some FACTS that can't be refuted.

No One Important wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, as I've said, I have a Dawn Redwood in my yard.
It's the great great grand daddy of the coastal redwoods in California.
It is called a "living fossil."
Why? Well, it was thought to have been extinct until 1942 when a stand of them was found growing in China.
Why were they thought to have been extinct?
Well, the metasequoia was around millions and millions of years ago. Fossil remains were found. But even MORE interesting....
They were remnants found to have been growing millions and millions of years ago in ANCIENT POLAR FORESTS.
Yyyyyyyyyyyyep. There were FORESTS at the poles of the earth millions and millions of years ago. Not ice sheets.
So, unless the AGW alarmists can come up with a fossilized SUV for me from millions of years ago, when we had FORESTS at the poles, you AGW people need to take a step back.
You don't have the right to demand that we deliberately hammer our struggling economy with goofiness about AGW.
And funny thing is, all the AGW people can do is yell "that's stupid" when I point that out.
No one has EVER refuted that with ANYTHING.
The only thing they've done is post more gobldey gook and called me names.
You CANNOT refute these facts.
So people, put some BRAIN matter into these arguments.
Send the AGW alarmists back to their little cubicles with some FACTS that can't be refuted.

When there were forests at the poles, most of the rest of the world was desert.

Da Man wrote:

I re-read your post and I am astounded that you state humans have not been responsible for a single extinction. What the hell are you talking about??? Just do a google or bing search and you will see how stupid you are at this moment in your life. You still have time to not be an idiot.
<quoted text>

Global warming hasn't caused a single extinction. The subject of this forum is global warming, not habitat loss or overhunting. Humans have killed off all the mega predators on every continent except Africa, where the animals evolved along with man, but global warming hasn't harmed a fly. CO2 is a distraction, overbuilding harms the environment, not your exhalation. You can extinguish a candle with your breath, not a species.

Wake up and stop watching TV. The world around us is sculpted by climate change Maryland lies atop 8,000 feet of sediment at the coast, the Earth pushes upward and the Appalachian Mountains are carved down by wind, snow, ice and rain. You are not living on a static world, there is no climate Eden destroyed by man's fossil fuel use. You can't sit back and say, "This is the way the world should be." and force nature to comply. We adapt to change, we can build a road on a convenient mountain pass but we can't build a mountain range or a valley.

Be realistic, how can you tell if that TV commercial is selling bogus junk or a valuable product? Try a sample, see a demonstration, don't rely on a commercial announcement, do your own research. We have thousands of atmospheric tests of manmade aerosols causing cooling, but not a single test of manmade greenhouse gas and warming. Look at the Keeling Curve of carbon dioxide concentration, it rises every spring and falls each autumn, it's clearly dominated by biological force, not man. The atmosphere is the biggest thing on Earth, climate is the most complicated system, we can’t forecast climate change, let alone cause it.

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
When there were forests at the poles, most of the rest of the world was desert.

Do you have a reference for that assertion?

Here's an interactive map, it allows you to drag your mouse through the map to show continental drift and climate through time.

http://www.scotese.com/paleocli.htm

Countries rejecting climate mitigation:

China
India
Russia
New Zeland
Australia

Please add as found.