Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
NYet.

You're a stupid f*g hick who thought TREES were HEAT SENSORS.

You thought MEN INVENTED MATH that TRANSLATES a TREE into a TREEMOMETER EVEN though that math makes HOCKEY STICKS from CALIBRATION data.

You're being SHi* by DARWIN'S DOG and that LIGHT you SEE at the END of the TUNNEL is JUST the GUTTER of TIME and
HISTORY
getting ready to WASH your
LEGACY
of GULLIBLE IGNORANCE
down the PILTDOWN PIPE to HA-ha-HA-ha-HA-ha-HA!!!!

Therefore you are HERE to SEE the SPIT and CONTEMPT POUR OUT on your CHILDREN as they TRY to EMULATE your

LIBTARD
LUNACY.

Agreed wrote:

<quoted text>
Losing? Cap n tax was soundly rejected by Americans and majority say the scam is not worth all the hype radical liberals make it out to be.
Hysteria is always irrational like global cooling in the 70's and global warming today.

global cooling was NOT the mainstream consensus in the 70's.
give a denier some hay and they'll make a strawman everytime. because they can't argue against the facts.

IamDigitap wrote:

He can't believe there was actually a tomorrow, and the man who told him "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE, SEND ME MONEY!111!!!!!!"
was just a FAILURE who LOST the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION and decided to SCAM his BELIEVERS to PUNISH THEM by PROVING how f>g S.T.U.P.I.D. and G.U.L.L.I.B.L.E. they
OBVIOUSLY
are.
Hey BLOWZO: Tell everyone here HOW YOU CAME to UNDERSTAND 'bout thuh
MAGIC MATH
MAGIC TREEMOMITURS
MAGIC ALWAYS WRONG REAL instruments worldwide
being a good reason to shut down civilization after it's obviously ruined us, taking us from an average age of death of, about 25 to about 75.
That TRIPLING the LIFESPAN part, and the MANKIND DIVERSIFYING the BIOSPHERE EVERYWHERE he GOES due to his VARIED FOOD PRODUCTION/LIVING styles,
is something BLOWZO wants to get rid of.
If he could make everyone die younger, he knows there would be fewer old, fat, stupid dipshits hating life and all they and their parents stand for.

rant on brother.

deferstoexperts wrote:

.......give a denier some hay and they'll make a strawman everytime.

I've heard it differently:
..... give a denier some hay & they'll make..... cow pies.

Sangelia wrote:

.... compared to the size of the universe. the earth is a dust mote in comparison.

But you do believe the dust mote is...... flat.

deferstoexperts wrote:

<quoted text>
global cooling was NOT the mainstream consensus in the 70's.
give a denier some hay and they'll make a strawman everytime. because they can't argue against the facts.

Time Magazine held the lead story on global cooling baloney , can't get more mainstream than that.

Sorry its an embarassment.

RU Kidding wrote:

<quoted text>
Time Magazine held the lead story on global cooling baloney , can't get more mainstream than that.
Sorry its an embarassment.

Where's your reference?

Without it, merely a cheap shot at the subject.

You must be realy embarrassed.

deferstoexperts wrote:

<quoted text>
rant on brother.

Yes, he should.

Also self [might be Gord].

[QUOTE who="ru lupi, im lupi"]Time Magazine held the lead story on global cooling baloney , can't get more mainstream than that.[/QUOTE]

Lots of scientists on Time Magazine...... nope, you dope..... I mean 'ur lupi'....

As stated 50(+?) times on these topix AGW forums to other topix AGW denier dopes....
You read your global cooling articles at your local newsstand on the sly. You should have entered University & read Science Journals at chemistry, astronomy, engineering, physics & science college libraries. 44 Science Papers published in Science Journals on AGW, while only 7 papers were published on global cooling.

Oh, that's right. You never had the ability to enter University in science, engineering, chemistry, astronomy or physics courses.

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
But you do believe the dust mote is...... flat.

I'm not you. I know that the earth is round. and that it occupies a very small space in our universe.
flat earthers think that the sun is smaller than the earth. they also believe that the earth is at the center of the universe. which is not true.
I do know that you can fit roughly a million earths into the area occupied by the sun.
I also know that the sun and the planets that form our solar system moves about in the galaxy that we are in. the sun is not static in where it is in the Milky Way galaxy.
part of the solar warming is due to our solar system in relation to the "protective" area of the galaxy.
.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild... Yes, the Sun - in fact, our whole solar system - orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. We are moving at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr. But even at that high rate, it still takes us about 230 million years to make one complete orbit around the Milky Way!
.
http://earthsky.org/space/milky-way-rotation

About damn time you got here Sagelia!
I have had a terrible time watching over them, or not watching over them as preferred, just doing the judged. With a few exceptions, most here are bots, the rest follow, as stated above there are a few exceptions, those exceptions...I don'[t know why they are here. Thank you with my eternal grace.
Good bye for now ;)

SpamBot wrote:

You must be realy[sic] embarrassed.

Your turn to be embarrassed.
Ö¿Ö

Well with so many fundamentalist Republicans like Michele Bachmann promoting the idea that there is no such thing as global warming no wonder so many credulous Americans believe that there is no global warming, they worship their demagogues.

Bachmann believed that the earths atmosphere is made up of 3 % carbon dioxide, she doesn't know the difference between 3 % and 0.039 %. You know 3 % carbon dioxide would be slightly over 75 times the amount of carbon dioxide that exist in earths atmosphere. This is blatant stupidity on Bachmann's part humans wouldn't survive 24 hours if the earths atmosphere was 3 % carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide levels presently are 396.18 ppm, can you imagine the levels at 75 times that level? If a human is exposed to carbon dioxide at levels at 5,000 ppm just for several hours they will experience headaches and nausea can you imagine the detrimental effects at 30,000 ppm?

Toby wrote:

Carbon dioxide levels presently are 396.18 ppm, can you imagine the levels at 75 times that level? If a human is exposed to carbon dioxide at levels at 5,000 ppm just for several hours they will experience headaches and nausea can you imagine the detrimental effects at 30,000 ppm?

I don't think many alarmists would notice.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Your turn ...
Ö¿Ö

Now you turn to correct tina.

Long overdue. You must be really embarrassed that you don't read her posts.

LOL.

SpamBot wrote:

Now you turn to correct tina.

No, I didn't "turn to correct tina."

Toby wrote:

Carbon dioxide levels presently are 396.18 ppm, can you imagine the levels at 75 times that level? If a human is exposed to carbon dioxide at levels at 5,000 ppm just for several hours they will experience headaches and nausea can you imagine the detrimental effects at 30,000 ppm?

Hysteria gone wild.

Imagine if we had no carbon dioxide?

Oh plants, animals and humans need it for survival.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Where's your reference?
Without it, merely a cheap shot at the subject.
You must be realy embarrassed.

Thanks for playing!!!

Time Mag Flashback: 1974 Issue Warns of Man-Made 'Global Cooling' By Greg Sheffield | July 24, 2006 | 10:48

Do you want to know the real reason there is global warming now? It's because people in 1974 panicked about news that humans were actually causing "global cooling." To remedy the situation, countries upped their pollution and cut down more trees. But now it's gotten too hot again.

Did the world have just the right concentration of carbon dioxide at the pre-industrial level of 270 parts per million? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 "pollution" and about minimising our "carbon footprints", one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2. Humans and most other animals would do fine in a world with no atmospheric CO2 - but most plants stop growing if CO2 levels drop much below 150 ppm, so we would starve to death without at least this minimal amount. We are probably better off with our current 390 ppm than with the preindustrial 270 ppm, and we would be better off with still more CO2. For example, there is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.

What atmospheric levels of CO2 would be a direct threat to health? Both the United States Navy and NASA have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the navy recommends an upper limit of about 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days and NASA recommends an upper limit of 5,000 ppm for missions of 1,000 days.

We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above about 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5,000 ppm to avoid harming people.