Inhofe Exposes Another Epic Fail by Global Warming Alarmists Thursday

Answer: With FAKE NUMBERS

DistinctlyOK wrote:

<quoted text>
I challenge you to do some math:

I doubt if your questions involve mathematics.

DistinctlyOK wrote:

How many years until the human population reaches its threshold?

Depends on the standard of living and development of technology. In a global warming scenario of 4C warming the 'limit' may be 1 billion. The rest die off. But we could also discover ways to increase yield of 'ocean deserts' or go vegetarian (many more calories for each person). It is more of a social problem than a mathematical problem.

DistinctlyOK wrote:

How many years until Oil and Gasoline become scarce/unusable?

We have already passed the 'peak production', clearly shown by the rise in prices (natural gas fills the shortfall).

From here on in, coal and oil usage will decline due to high cost and so it depends on what ELSE is available and when. Obviously we won't shift from coal and oil rapidly but I am sure that oil and coal will be left in the ground when we end use of fossil fuels completely. Again, a social, not a mathematical problem.

DistinctlyOK wrote:

How many years until global warming makes earth's equatorial region inhabitable?

Depends on emissions and what you mean by uninhabitable. With sufficient A/C we could 'inhabit' the Sahara Desert. The number of places that are economically uninhabitable (and there are some from long before AGW) will just increase so there is no definitive answer. One factor will be die-off of plants and animals unable to cope with temperature change (they have evolved in a very stable temperature and are easily affected by changes). Then also it will affect hydrological cycles more than temperature. It depends on the population in these regions as well.

But I guarantee that the tropics will become LESS hospitable to life as AGW increases. The plants (agriculture) are optimized already and have a terrible time adapting to warmer temperatures. And the food crops from the tropics will decrease faster than in the temperate zones.

With sufficient A/C we could 'inhabit' the Sahara Desert.

No one told that to the inhabitants of:
"Dallol, Ethiopia, whose annual mean temperature was recorded from 1960 to 1966 as 34.4 °C (93.9 °F). The average daily maximum temperature during the same period was 41.1 °C (106.0 °F)."
http://www.meoweather.com/weather/Ethiopia/na...
Adapting to harsh climates
http://www.wellhome.com/blog/2011/03/adapting...

Man Made Global Warming = SOCIALIST LIE

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

The obvious error in Fu Que's argument is that 'natural' change or accidents from good sober drivers...

Reminds me of a LessFact classic:

According to YOUR theory, no car can be charged with hitting a pedestrian unless the pedestrian is already dead or too crippled to move.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Earthling-1 wrote:

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:
<quoted text>Reminds me of a LessFact classic:<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

WOW. What's is this about?

We want to know!

Spambrat wrote:

What's is this about?

ROFLMAO.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>WOW. What's is this about?
We want to know!

It was about the rules of the road and I was referring to the cars instead of the drivers ( a fairly common shortcut).

I.e. The blue ford (whatever) rather than "the short fat guy driving the blue ford).

Pretty petty stupidity from my viewpoint.
But then everything Earthling posts is stupid, misreading, misleading, heckling or ad-hominem. I have never seen him post one single meaningful thing.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

Pretty petty stupidity from my viewpoint.

I'm glad you agree with me, what you wrote is pretty stupid from any viewpoint, but that applies to much of what you write, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
IPCC 2001
Solar (200 year cycle)+.02C
Aerosols (industry)-.02C
GHG (industry)+.06C
----------
Total +.06C
But that is a 'snapshot'. The percentages will change with each analysis since the 200 year cycle will go from adding +.02C to negating +.02C, while aerosols will vary only a little and GHG's will increase steadily becoming the overwhelming factor as we hit 400ppm and over.
I am assuming you were serious in your ignorance and not just yanking my chain, of course. Yes. We have at least as good 'statistics' on AGW as we have on drunk driving odds.

Now this is bad.
You realize we have only been tracking global or sun temps for 100 years?

How can you remotely claim anything about global warming? There have been mini ice ages from time to time and heat waves from time to time recorded in history. Day to day temps have not bee recorded anywhere or everywhere around the globe except the last 100 years.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

It was about the rules of the road and I was referring to the cars instead of the drivers ( a fairly common shortcut).
I.e. The blue ford (whatever) rather than "the short fat guy driving the blue ford).

Bad excuse.
How you could/should have written it by simply changing one word, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, "car" for driver:
"According to YOUR theory, no [driver] can be charged with hitting a pedestrian unless the pedestrian is already dead or too crippled to move."

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

But then everything Earthling posts is stupid, misreading, misleading, heckling or ad-hominem.

Ad hominem, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, I've told you before, the hyphen is excess to requirements.

NoFactAllHype wrote:

I have never seen him post one single meaningful thing.

A few possibilites here:
1. You missed my meaningful posts, highly unlikely.
2. You didn't understand them.
3. You ignored them.
4. You forgot them.
5. You're simply appealing to the "group" for effect.
Now, there is a difference between you and me, I have lots of evidence of your stupidity, whereas all you appear to have is a broad generalisation.
Ö¿Ö

American_Infidel wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you calculate a myth?
Well?

Myths are not calculated.
I do not understand your condesending question.

I was under the impression the man-made global warming thing was considered inconsequential and that the climate heats and cools normally in response to solar output, outerspace radiation, and cyclical behaviors based on the Earth's wobbling and tilting.

Has something new come to light or is this the same breathing tax scam?

Silver7 wrote:

I was under the impression the man-made global warming thing was considered inconsequential and that the climate heats and cools normally in response to solar output, outerspace radiation, and cyclical behaviors based on the Earth's wobbling and tilting.
Has something new come to light or is this the same breathing tax scam?

Yes it's the political babble from the politicians. Oh than there’s the dirtling with more useless babble.

Silver7 wrote:

I was under the impression the man-made global warming thing was considered inconsequential and that the climate heats and cools normally in response to solar output, outerspace radiation, and cyclical behaviors based on the Earth's wobbling and tilting.
Has something new come to light or is this the same breathing tax scam?

You're right, AGW is inconsequential, because nothing can be done to fix it, probably because it isn't broken.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>You're right, AGW is inconsequential, because nothing can be done to fix it, probably because it isn't broken.

Oh yo forgot your mantra. But what you wrote is irrational. What is "not broken," dirtie?

The human-induced climate change is raging while you claim AGW is inconsequential.

Raging?
I see no raging climate change, only weather.

"Oh yo?"

What is "not broken," dirtie?

SpaceBlues wrote:

What is "not broken," dirtie?

An unwashed egg is dirty and not broken. Is this a test?