Who still takes global warming seriously?

menopause wrote:

you'd take it as a complement[sic]

Compliment, dear child, "complement" has an entirely different meaning.

Let’s compare AGW fake skeptics’ arguments against climate change to another great human and scientific problem. Cancer.

People have always gotten cancer. It’s natural.

It’s not as bad as it used to be. New drugs are coming along all the time. You can live with cancer. You can adapt to it.

There’s no consensus on what causes cancer or even what it is. For instance, lots of people use or have used tobacco, but not all get cancer. Some people get lung cancers who have never smoked.

Drug and chemotherapy (models) are unreliable and often ineffective. We should not depend on them to cure cancer.

In 1940, scientists predicted cancer would be cured by now. They were wrong. Why do they think they can cure it now?

Doctors only care about money. If doctors and scientists found a cure for cancer, they would be out of a job. So scientists continue to pretend to do research so that they can get grants, and doctors pretend to treat patients with serious cases, even though there is no hope, just so they can keep billing.

There’s no more cancer now than there has been in the past, it’s just reported more. We’ve always had to deal with cancer.

Other animals get cancer. Why do we think we’re so special?

Cancer is good for the earth in general.. If we didn’t have cancer, we probably would have been over-populated centuries ago.

Doctors can’t even cure the common cold. How do they think they can defeat something as powerful as cancer?

Worldwide, 31,000 scientists, doctors, veterinarians, and air conditioning repairmen say that cancer is not a problem.

I don’t have cancer. Why should might hard earned tax dollars go to treatment and research? It’s a government boondoggle.

Cancer treatments are too expensive. People shouldn’t go broke trying to stay alive.

We can’t cure cancer. There are too many causes of it to get rid of them all. It’s too big a problem for the human mind.

We could spend the money wasted on cancer research on better things, like airports and highways.

gcaveman1 wrote:

Let’s compare AGW fake skeptics’ arguments against climate change to another great human and scientific problem. Cancer.
People have always gotten cancer. It’s natural.
It’s not as bad as it used to be. New drugs are coming along all the time. You can live with cancer. You can adapt to it.
There’s no consensus on what causes cancer or even what it is. For instance, lots of people use or have used tobacco, but not all get cancer. Some people get lung cancers who have never smoked.
Drug and chemotherapy (models) are unreliable and often ineffective. We should not depend on them to cure cancer.
In 1940, scientists predicted cancer would be cured by now. They were wrong. Why do they think they can cure it now?
Doctors only care about money. If doctors and scientists found a cure for cancer, they would be out of a job. So scientists continue to pretend to do research so that they can get grants, and doctors pretend to treat patients with serious cases, even though there is no hope, just so they can keep billing.
There’s no more cancer now than there has been in the past, it’s just reported more. We’ve always had to deal with cancer.
Other animals get cancer. Why do we think we’re so special?
Cancer is good for the earth in general.. If we didn’t have cancer, we probably would have been over-populated centuries ago.
Doctors can’t even cure the common cold. How do they think they can defeat something as powerful as cancer?
Worldwide, 31,000 scientists, doctors, veterinarians, and air conditioning repairmen say that cancer is not a problem.
I don’t have cancer. Why should might hard earned tax dollars go to treatment and research? It’s a government boondoggle.
Cancer treatments are too expensive. People shouldn’t go broke trying to stay alive.
We can’t cure cancer. There are too many causes of it to get rid of them all. It’s too big a problem for the human mind.
We could spend the money wasted on cancer research on better things, like airports and highways.

Excellent! Just excellent.

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>Excellent! Just excellent.

Thank you.

Just trying to show the barrenness of their logic. I'm sure there are other comparisons we could make.

By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com

Trying to get beyond the standard scientific disclaimer that no single weather event can be pinned on global warming, government scientists on Tuesday unveiled a new framework: what are the odds of a specific event being impacted by warming?

They tested it on several extreme events in 2011 -- a strong La Nina year -- and, in the case of the record Texas drought, concluded that such severe dry spells are 20 more times likely during a La Nina year today than a La Nina in the 1960s, before greenhouse gas emissions jumped.

"Conditions leading to droughts such as the one that occurred in Texas in 2011 are, at least in the case of temperature, distinctly more probable than they were 40-50 years ago," researchers concluded in a new study.

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>It seems you're one of those deniers who don't understand what the term climate means.So here here's what it means.Scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. so the CO2 numbers today won't appear in the "average" for about 30 years.
<quoted text>You have really made a stupid statement here. CO2 doesn't "cause climate". CO2 levels can cause the climate to change by changing our daily weather. The (actually) CO2 in our atm today, affects weather today which, in turn, over 2 or 3 decades, is used to determine the climate of that period.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Thank you, I shall.

Seriously, is this the best nonsense you could come up with?

If CO2 is going to cause the Earth to heat to levels where life can no longer exist- how do you explain that CO2 levels are even close- not even in the same ball park, hell not even the same solar system- to the high levels they reached prior to the last ice age?

Makes no sense, laws of physics and science do not change, if a+b=c it will always do so. Thus, if CO2 causes warming it would ALWAYS cause warming, thus making the last ice age IMPOSSIBLE!!

Now stop trying to sound like a scientist because you have seen Al Gore's film.

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>I think you're wrong about this but I'm not sure

You should have stopped at "I'm not sure"

It would have been the smartest thing you have said thus far.

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You should have stopped at "I'm not sure"
It would have been the smartest thing you have said thus far.
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Your out of date dude. We're coming up on 397 now.

CO2, warmth, ocean levels have been different in the past, but so was the Earth. Comparing our earth with the one 60 mya, or 200 mya, or 600 mya, is like comparing apples and orangutans.

Tree ring prove Global cooling is the real problem over the last 2,000 years!!....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...

The IPCC is caught lying... AGAIN!!

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You should have stopped at "I'm not sure"
It would have been the smartest thing you have said thus far.
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

You left the link you copied this from. I'll show it for you.Allthou, I'm not sure what your point is.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly...

My response:
No paleo-climate student would deny the fact that past CO2 levels have been higher than today's levels.(Alltho, it has been 15 Mya since the Earth has seen the level it is today.)That doesn't the fact that our current increase(s) in CO2 levels are altering our planet. In a non positive way at that.


from http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/clim...

Carbon Dioxide through Geologic Time

It is very hard for scientists to say what precisely sets the level of the carbon dioxide content in the air throughout geologic time. While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels -and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time when it has risen back to levels not seen for 15 million years.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You should have stopped at "I'm not sure"
It would have been the smartest thing you have said thus far.
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

You're out of date dude. We're coming up on 397 now.

To expand on my previous reply: CO2, warmth, atmosphere, the Sun's intensity, the continents, ocean currents, ocean levels, Earth's tilt, and several other factors were different in the past, but so was the Earth. Comparing our earth with the one 60 mya, or 200 mya, or 600 mya, is like comparing apples and orangutans.

If you had an ounce of scientific understanding and if you weren't stuck in your radical conservatism, you'd know that many factors shape the Earth's climate and it ain't as simple as your mind seems to be.

Z_SKI_ wrote:

Tree ring prove Global cooling is the real problem over the last 2,000 years!!....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
The IPCC is caught lying... AGAIN!!

It looks to me like from the chart shown, temps have been rising since about 1850. Just like the IPCC says.

Z_SKI_ wrote:

Tree ring prove Global cooling is the real problem over the last 2,000 years!!....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
The IPCC is caught lying... AGAIN!!

You make a regular fool of yourself here.

This one study doesn't disprove AGW. In fact, the study says the Earth was cooling until something stopped it over 100 years ago. Guess what that was.

Depending on the Daily Mail for science info is like depending on McDonald's for good nutrition.

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>It looks to me like from the chart shown, temps have been rising since about 1850. Just like the IPCC says.

Maybe..... the emergence from the "Little Ice Age"??.. Every hear of it??.. Temps go higher than the temps during the ICE AGE!!..
Please, please, drink something other than Kool-aid!!...

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You make a regular fool of yourself here.
This one study doesn't disprove AGW. In fact, the study says the Earth was cooling until something stopped it over 100 years ago. Guess what that was.
Depending on the Daily Mail for science info is like depending on McDonald's for good nutrition.

The Daily Mail is just as unbiased as the IPCC.. In fact it might be a better source.. The "Daily Mail" does not take Government monies, to slant reports, in a manner that makes it easier for the Government to re-enslave their Citizens.. The IPCC does!!..

Z_SKI_ wrote:

<quoted text>Maybe..... the emergence from the "Little Ice Age"??.. Every hear of it??.. Temps go higher than the temps during the ICE AGE!!..
Please, please, drink something other than Kool-aid!!...

Temps are much higher than before the LIA.Higher than during the Medevil Warm Period. Ever here of that??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Pe...
And you tell me to "drink something other than Kool-aid". How funny.

Z_SKI_ wrote:

<quoted text>The Daily Mail is just as unbiased as the IPCC.. In fact it might be a better source.. The "Daily Mail" does not take Government monies, to slant reports, in a manner that makes it easier for the Government to re-enslave their Citizens.. The IPCC does!!..

DAMN! Another one of those. Do you really feel "re-slaved" by the Gov/IPCC? When were you in-slaved, anyway?

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>Temps are much higher than before the LIA.Higher than during the Medevil Warm Period. Ever here of that??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Pe...
And you tell me to "drink something other than Kool-aid". How funny.

Ix-Chel's trees do not back you up.. But you can use wikipedia, I'll believe in "Mother Natures" fossilized remains...

menoworry wrote:

<quoted text>DAMN! Another one of those. Do you really feel "re-slaved" by the Gov/IPCC? When were you in-slaved, anyway?

I've never been a slave... YET.. But my Grandfather was.. He didn't like it at all.. When Eastern Europe freed their slaves he came here.. Others family members were re-enslaved by the Germans.. I thank God he did.. And I want to leave my children free, never to be enslaved by Socialist again.. Whether they be National or Democratic is irrelevant..

Z_SKI_ wrote:

<quoted text>The Daily Mail is just as unbiased as the IPCC.. In fact it might be a better source.. The "Daily Mail" does not take Government monies, to slant reports, in a manner that makes it easier for the Government to re-enslave their Citizens.. The IPCC does!!..

BTW, one could hardly consider TDM as "unbiased". It has long been a conservative tabloid and deals more in gossip and controversy, than scientific research..
The IPCC, on the other hand, is a scientific intergovernmental body made up thousands of scientists and other experts (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) who contribute to writing and reviewing reports. Not tabloid journalists.

How's that kool-aide taste to you now, Bucko?