I finally found a complete list of all facts proving man is causing "GlobalWarming"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Sure I'll bring it up, again you spin---that discussion was not about both caps, only the Arctic cap and your responce was clear and precise that if it had melted by 40% why was the world not flooded...it was not about future melting, not about Antarctica, but about melt that had already occured. You mockly questioned why the world wasn't flooded.

Nice edit...again bringing up Antarctica, rather than what the discussion was then, the Arctic.

 

Your scientists aren't making the distinction. They refer to "polar ice caps". Nice try.

 

Are you claiming all the ice caps in the Arctic are in water? None are on land? Gotcha.

[TheNewGirl 1,042]

Can someone 'splain this picture to me and explain how man caused Global Warming over 450 thousand years ago?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Can someone 'splain this picture to me and explain how man caused Global Warming over 450 thousand years ago?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

 

FACTS regarding the history of the Earth and all climate changes found therein are to be ignored for this discussion. It has no bearing on MMGW.

[FeelingMN 273]

So you, like everyone else so far, do not have a single FACT showing man is causing GW. Right?

 

Seriously, were you on the jury for the OJ trial? I see the bloody gloves, and the bloody footprints, and the bloody interior of his vehicle, and the scratches on his arm, and his history of violent outbursts, and matching DNA samples. But I did not see him kill anyone, so OJ is innocent. I have enough doubt because that cop is racist and those gloves didn't fit......on top of his other gloves he was wearing.

 

CO2-Temp charts

 

 

Oh, and a fact you might want to consider while looking at these charts: the current CO2 levels are about 380 ppm....you'll have to extrapolate onto the given graph.

[Snoopy1 0]

Your scientists aren't making the distinction. They refer to "polar ice caps". Nice try.

 

Are you claiming all the ice caps in the Arctic are in water? None are on land? Gotcha.

 

 

THE DISTICTION WAS MADE in the original thread that you mocked. The conversation was about the 40% melt of the arctic cap as measured by Navy Sub commanders---whom you also mocked, until you found out who took the measurements.

 

You are again refer to these links which are describing possible future events, the thread in question was about something that had already occured. You are the one keeps trying to change this to something else, but you just have to get over the fact you made an ass out of yourself then, were completely wrong and basically have proven you can't grasp the simplest of concepts. Hence you have no place in any discussion on anything that requires a reasoning ability greater than that of of a fifth grader.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

If you've got some spare time...here are some good videos on Climate Change, they are long but the first one is at least worth watching. Not sure if the link will work, I got it in an email a while ago and I can't get to youtube at work so I don't know if it still works: Its a lecture given at a climatology conference in australia

 

 

 

 

[pt_mck 7]

Why does there have to be a clear consensus on the cause to make doing what we can to reverse/slow down the effects that are measurably,i.e verifiably happening? See polar ice cap size changes as an example. I just don't get the resistance to admitting that something is happening. I would think that with American industry and technologies leading the way, some solutions and large amounts of jobs could come from taking this approach. The only threat would be to big oil and if they can't figure out a way to get involved in such amanner as to assure themselves a big slice of the new pie, f ém. whole industries get replaced by technology advancements all the time

bought a horse drawn carriage or vinyl record lately?

 

Why create a new pie when you can bribe everyone to keep the status quo.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

THE DISTICTION WAS MADE in the original thread that you mocked. The conversation was about the 40% melt of the arctic cap as measured by Navy Sub commanders---whom you also mocked, until you found out who took the measurements.

 

You are again refer to these links which are describing possible future events, the thread in question was about something that had already occured. You are the one keeps trying to change this to something else, but you just have to get over the fact you made an ass out of yourself then, were completely wrong and basically have proven you can't grasp the simplest of concepts. Hence you have no place in any discussion on anything that requires a reasoning ability greater than that of of a fifth grader.

 

LMAO

 

Ok, you have distracted from not having any facts by rehashing a year old thread long enough. Fine, 40% of the arctic ice caps melted and NYC is still here.

 

Now, give me one FACT that shows man has anything to do with GW.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Seriously, were you on the jury for the OJ trial? I see the bloody gloves, and the bloody footprints, and the bloody interior of his vehicle, and the scratches on his arm, and his history of violent outbursts, and matching DNA samples. But I did not see him kill anyone, so OJ is innocent. I have enough doubt because that cop is racist and those gloves didn't fit......on top of his other gloves he was wearing.

 

CO2-Temp charts

Oh, and a fact you might want to consider while looking at these charts: the current CO2 levels are about 380 ppm....you'll have to extrapolate onto the given graph.

 

 

Historical data shows dramatic rises in CO2 levels throughout history. Most often occurring just AFTER a period of warming. Hmmmm.............add your higher CO2 levels with the predictions of your MMGW scientists who are now saying we will be cooling for the next decade or so and what do you have?

 

Could this mean are warming trend is over?

[Brad GLuckman 518]

CO2-Temp charts

Oh, and a fact you might want to consider while looking at these charts: the current CO2 levels are about 380 ppm....you'll have to extrapolate onto the given graph.

 

Dude, not trying to be a jerk or anything but your graph kind of works more for the whole GW skeptic point of view...at least that's how I see it

[Snoopy1 0]

LMAO

 

Ok, you have distracted from not having any facts by rehashing a year old thread long enough. Fine, 40% of the arctic ice caps melted and NYC is still here.

 

Now, give me one FACT that shows man has anything to do with GW.

And again, the proof you require would also require you have an understand of science much greater than you have ever shown here, basically someone who can grasp the concept that Arctic Icecaps melting does not translate into a massive world wide flooding---being that they are already in the ocean.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Still without a single fact. Typical Snoop.

[Savage Beast 1]

 

After seeing all of the evidence provided in this thread about the dangers for mankind's survival during a Global Warming event, I'm changing my ways, and I'm going to ride my bike 20 miles to work and then home from work every day, I'm no longer spraying renuzit in the bathroom after I take a smelly crap, because the fumes from the spray can also destroy the ozone. I am throwing my television in the trash, because the manufacture of flat screen televisions is proven to cause Global Warming. I am no longer eating meat, because commercial farming is the leading cause of Global Warming, and mankind has never survived a Global Warming event in the history of mankind. What are we going to do for our children's future? If the wooly mammoths couldn't survive Global Warming, then how is little johnny going to survive it? We used to think that global nuclear war and global chemical war was the worse threat to mankind, but now we know that Al Gore is the man who has saved the Earth, by making the sacrifice of flying his private jet all around the Earth, for the welfare of all the little children, by warning us of the evils of aerosol cans. How is Al Gore not the president of the World by now. He created the Internet after all, and saved us from a climate event that has happened numerous times over the history of the Earth, each time, destroying all of the human life on the planet. It's a good thing the space aliens keep putting new people on the Earth each time Global Warming kills us all off.

 

All of you guys who are contributing to Global Warming better stop it! No more farting!

[Snoopy1 0]

Still without a single fact. Typical Snoop.

 

 

Thought it was a pretty self-evident FACT, but apparently you even need this explained to you.

 

FACT: Snoopy will not debate GW with idiots who cannot comprehend the most basic of scientific concepts.

[kutulu 1,552]

It's gettin' hot in here

 

So take off all your clothes

 

I am gettin' so hot

 

I wanna take my clothes off

[Savage Beast 1]

Snoopy will not debate GW with idiots who cannot comprehend the most basic of scientific concepts.

 

Where do your scientific concepts come from?

 

Some numb nuts liberal idiot, who doesn't know his elbow from his a-hole about true science, that's where.

[FeelingMN 273]

Dude, not trying to be a jerk or anything but your graph kind of works more for the whole GW skeptic point of view...at least that's how I see it

 

How's that? Because global temp fluctuates according to a natural rhythm? Really?

Does this then prove people have zero effect on climate? The data on the graphs stretch back 400,000 years. Do you really think a huge effect would be apparent from 150 years of industrial activity? Are we so arrogant to believe we can do whatever we want without suffering any consequences?

 

The graphs were included to show the relationship between CO2 and temp. They tend to rise and decline with one another. Current levels of CO2 are at 380ppm. Plot that point on the graph and tell me it's part of the natural variation. Then tell me this will have zero effect on climate.

 

The fact is, right now things aren't any different than they've been the past half million years with respect to global climate. But does that mean it always will be so regardless of what we pump into the atmosphere? The skeptics seem to always point to the past and say, see? But what they're pointing at is a planet, without human beings, ebbing and flowing through its natural cycles. But introduce human activity, and can you be certain the same patterns will continue? Just seems overly anthropocentric to me.

 

Why is it such a liberal view to be proactive rather than reactive, while avoiding becoming overreactive with regard to policy change?

[Savage Beast 1]

How's that? Because global temp fluctuates according to a natural rhythm? Really?

Does this then prove people have zero effect on climate? The data on the graphs stretch back 400,000 years. Do you really think a huge effect would be apparent from 150 years of industrial activity? Are we so arrogant to believe we can do whatever we want without suffering any consequences?

 

The graphs were included to show the relationship between CO2 and temp. They tend to rise and decline with one another. Current levels of CO2 are at 380ppm. Plot that point on the graph and tell me it's part of the natural variation. Then tell me this will have zero effect on climate.

 

The fact is, right now things aren't any different than they've been the past half million years with respect to global climate. But does that mean it always will be so regardless of what we pump into the atmosphere? The skeptics seem to always point to the past and say, see? But what they're pointing at is a planet, without human beings, ebbing and flowing through its natural cycles. But introduce human activity, and can you be certain the same patterns will continue? Just seems overly anthropocentric to me.

 

Why is it such a liberal view to be proactive rather than reactive, while avoiding becoming overreactive with regard to policy change?

 

You are still missing the whole point friend.

 

Who gives a fock? Global Warming is no threat to mankind whatsoever.

 

Every day hurricanes, earth quakes, tornadoes, floods, etc..................... happen all around the World, and they always have, and yet mankind is still living on just like we always do, and always will do. Mother nature is bad news, but mankind is still here to fight her every day.

 

Should we as human beings take care of the planet God has created for us? Yes we should.

 

Will a Global Warming event hurt mankind in a significant way? No it won't. Life will still go on as usual, until Christ the King returns to restore Paradise lost.

[kutulu 1,552]

Should we as human beings take care of the planet God has created for us? Yes we should.

 

Will a Global Warming event hurt mankind in a significant way? No it won't. Life will still go on as usual, until Christ the King returns to restore Paradise lost.

 

And casts you sinners into the lake of fire.

[pimptastic69 0]

And casts you sinners into the lake of fire.

 

It'd be best if an Environmental Impact Study was performed before anyone was cast into the lake.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

How's that? Because global temp fluctuates according to a natural rhythm? Really?

Does this then prove people have zero effect on climate? The data on the graphs stretch back 400,000 years. Do you really think a huge effect would be apparent from 150 years of industrial activity? Are we so arrogant to believe we can do whatever we want without suffering any consequences?

 

Are we so arrogant to believe even though the graph shows the earth has had a fluctuating climate for 400000yrs, that all of a sudden the most recent fluctuation is caused by us?

 

The graphs were included to show the relationship between CO2 and temp. They tend to rise and decline with one another. Current levels of CO2 are at 380ppm. Plot that point on the graph and tell me it's part of the natural variation. Then tell me this will have zero effect on climate.

 

The fact is, right now things aren't any different than they've been the past half million years with respect to global climate. But does that mean it always will be so regardless of what we pump into the atmosphere? The skeptics seem to always point to the past and say, see? But what they're pointing at is a planet, without human beings, ebbing and flowing through its natural cycles. But introduce human activity, and can you be certain the same patterns will continue? Just seems overly anthropocentric to me.

 

Why is it such a liberal view to be proactive rather than reactive, while avoiding becoming overreactive with regard to policy change?

 

There has not been a temperature increase since 1998, and to me, if mankind were really contributing to GW as much as we hear...there wouldn't be a 10 year gap where all of a sudden it just stopped. In fact during these last ten years...with the industrial boom in more nations...I would think the problem would grow even worse during that time frame.

 

Again, I'm not a scientist, none of us are. But to me, I need hard evidence to believe something. The only evidence I see is that the earth goes through a natural cycle of climate change. I don't see a need for the whole world to stop everything they are doing because a computer model, that has never been right, continues to tell us we are all going to die if we don't stop living the way we are.

 

Now I'm not against cleaning up the planet and limiting pollution. Im all about that. I've been in places where you choke on fumes from the vehicles in front of you everyday, and it's sickening. I agree with cleaner cars, cleaner factories, and all that. That's just common sense to me, to have a nice place to live. But to me there is a line, and if we go overboard with regulations...then the economy suffers. And the Global Warming hysteria is only going to lead to things like the Kyoto Treaty. And as the hysteria grows worse, so will the regulations. And if the whole world isn't on board...then we suffer when we sign on to it.

[Snoopy1 0]

Where do your scientific concepts come from?

 

Some numb nuts liberal idiot, who doesn't know his elbow from his a-hole about true science, that's where.

 

 

Guess I needed to add "or idiots too stupid to read or comprehend what they read"

[Savage Beast 1]

And casts you sinners into the lake of fire.

 

 

Exactly.

 

You can't have Paradise restored with a bunch of wicked sinners running around lose. I love the Lake Of Fire, it weeds out the wicked liberal garbage of society

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Are we so arrogant to believe even though the graph shows the earth has had a fluctuating climate for 400000yrs, that all of a sudden the most recent fluctuation is caused by us?

There has not been a temperature increase since 1998and to me, if mankind were really contributing to GW as much as we hear...there wouldn't be a 10 year gap where all of a sudden it just stopped. In fact during these last ten years...with the industrial boom in more nations...I would think the problem would grow even worse during that time frame.

 

I am not sure if that is correct considering that the IPCC report for 2007 clearly states:

An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years, and 11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years.

[Brad GLuckman 518]

I am not sure if that is correct considering that the IPCC report for 2007 clearly states:

 

I don't know dude...

 

Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

 

According to man-made global warming advocates, CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change and natural weather patterns caused by sun activity and other native contributors play second fiddle.

 

But here we have UN climate scientists admitting that natural climate change contributors have eclipsed the effect of CO2 emissions for the past 10 years, even as carbon belchers like China and India have increased CO2 output at record levels!

 

On the whole, the world is getting colder, which is why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.

...Link

 

The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.

Link

 

 

Citing a politicized agenda and misrepresentations of climate science, prominent climate scientist Chris Landsea on January 17 resigned his post as a participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

Landsea's announcement is the second recent major embarrassment for global warming alarmists, whose "hockey stick" representation of world temperatures during the past millennium was recently exposed as being based on faulty data and misleading statistical methods

Link

[kpbuckeye 2]

Geology 101 was a heck of a class.

I think it would help a lot of guys put the earth in perspective.

How old is the earth? and how long have we been keeping records of climate?

How many warming trends or cooling trends has the earth been through?

 

Going green has more to do with $$ in peoples pockets than it does about the earth.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Thought it was a pretty self-evident FACT, but apparently you even need this explained to you.

 

FACT: Snoopy will not debate GW with idiots who cannot comprehend the most basic of scientific concepts.

 

 

Correction: Snoopy will only dredge up threads from a year ago cuz he can't bring a single fact that shows man is causing GW.

 

End of debate!

 

[Savage Beast 1]

Geology 101 was a heck of a class.

I think it would help a lot of guys put the earth in perspective.

How old is the earth? and how long have we been keeping records of climate?

How many warming trends or cooling trends has the earth been through?

 

Going green has more to do with $$ in peoples pockets than it does about the earth.