or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of. - Page 3

post #81 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybobski View Post

Um, well according to the EPA they are threatened... Now, prove that they aren't threatened... We libs can cite the epa and the data upon which they made their decision...

Where's the beef?

damnit... i gotta log back in as hardeeharhar...

Let me get this right: The EPA says polar bears are threatened, so therefore they are. Well, I guess that's settled. Shhh....let's not mention the actual number of polar bears out there. You sound like Stephen Colbert getting his audience to triple to number of elephants according to wikipedia. Except you're not joking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

Right on.

Arguing with evolution deniers is sort of fun, because they're basically saying 'The sun is cold and grass is blue', and it never gets tired. But arguing with climate change deniers is really irritating.

Who, specifically is denying evolution? Just curious.

Quote:

We're fucking up the planet, everyone agrees,

No, they don't.

Quote:
it's just true,

Yes, just like it was true that scientists were predicting a new ice age just 30 years ago.

Quote:
and I really want thing to be OK for my kids while some dumb knobcheese is going 'Everyone! Everything's fine, let's not do anything.'

Grr. Or rather, Teh Grr.

Of course we should do something. But what? Everyone wants a cleaner environment. That is simply not the issue. But many reject the craziness of Teh Global Warming, and for good reason. But that doesn't matter to you. You see, It's True...it just is. No matter that the Earth is not actually warming. No matter that the Earth was far warmer just a few thousand years ago. No matter that we haven't demonstrated that C02 actually causes warming. Also, let's ignore all other possible explanations of climate change. That large ball of fire in the sky....nah, that can't have anything to do with it. It's C02! What? Hmmm? You say that man is only responsible for 3% of "greenhouse gas" emissions? You say that cattle farting put out more C02 than all the factories on Earth do? You claim that volcanoes spew more into atmosphere than we can even imagine? Bunk! It's your GMC Envoy that's the problem. And anyuone who disagrees is a Teh Global Warming Denier. Correction...a stupid Teh Global Warming Denier.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

OK... let me back that out a little...

Sex is selfish! It can lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy costs the public health system billions each year... so sex is selfish!

We have good birth-control now -- sex and reproduction are almost entirely divorced from each other (even among good Catholics).

But your point is a good one: reproduction is very selfish.
post #83 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

The problem with those damn scientists is that they have no common sense. They always let data and facts and reason get in the way of common sense. Good thing we have talk radio to set things straight.

"Phfft! Facts! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" [H. J. Simpson]
post #84 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let me get this right: The EPA says polar bears are threatened, so therefore they are. Well, I guess that's settled. Shhh....let's not mention the actual number of polar bears out there. You sound like Stephen Colbert getting his audience to triple to number of elephants according to wikipedia. Except you're not joking.

My dear SDW...

The first rule of PO is know your facts.

The second rule of PO should be to not arbitrarily set the goal post.

You failed on both accounts.

A species is threatened if there exists "the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range."

Oops, there goes your theory on numbers of animals having relevance...

You see numbers only come into play when a species becomes endangered.

You really are a ill-informed, myopic, obtuse, idiot of the highest order sometimes... It shouldn't be this easy...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #85 of 150
This is a massacre.

post #86 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, just like it was true that a few scientists were predicting a new ice age just 35 years ago.

TFTFY

As an example of scientific lack of knowledge just 40 years ago;

Plate tectonic theory

[CENTER]
Quote:
Significant progress was made in the 1960s, and was prompted by a number of discoveries, most notably the Mid-Atlantic ridge. The most notable was the 1962 publication of a paper by American geologist Harry Hess (Robert S. Dietz published the same idea one year earlier in Nature. However, priority belongs to Hess, since he distributed an unpublished manuscript of his 1962 article already in 1960). Hess suggested that instead of continents moving through oceanic crust (as was suggested by continental drift) that an ocean basin and its adjoining continent moved together on the same crustal unit, or plate. In the same year, Robert R. Coats of the U.S. Geological Survey described the main features of island arc subduction in the Aleutian Islands. His paper, though little-noted (and even ridiculed) at the time, has since been called "seminal" and "prescient". In 1967, W. Jason Morgan proposed that the Earth's surface consists of 12 rigid plates that move relative to each other. Two months later, in 1968, Xavier Le Pichon published a complete model based on 6 major plates with their relative motions.

[/CENTER]
Climate science (e. g. long term climate variability) was clearly in it's infancy during the 1970's and little was truly understood, at that time, of it's long term consequences.

Meanwhile, back at the climate science ranch, a rather small cadre of new born "climate scientists" were just starting to crawl, before they could walk (in the 1990's), and before they could run (the very recent past and ongoing forward into the future).

Global cooling 1970's awareness

AGW contrarian talking point #1 dating back to the late 1980's, and unchanged in wording since then, thoroughly shot down, for the one millionth time.

Glad to be of service to, one again, correct the talking points of the ancestral AGW contrarians.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #87 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Of course we should do something. But what? Everyone wants a cleaner environment. That is simply not the issue. But many reject the craziness of Teh Global Warming™, and for good reason. But that doesn't matter to you. You see, It's True...it just is. No matter that the Earth is not actually warming. No matter that the Earth was far warmer just a few thousand years ago. No matter that we haven't demonstrated that C02 actually causes warming. Also, let's ignore all other possible explanations of climate change. That large ball of fire in the sky....nah, that can't have anything to do with it. It's C02! What? Hmmm? You say that man is only responsible for 3% of "greenhouse gas" emissions? You say that cattle farting put out more C02 than all the factories on Earth do? You claim that volcanoes spew more into atmosphere than we can even imagine? Bunk! It's your GMC Envoy that's the problem. And anyuone who disagrees is a Teh Global Warming™ Denier. Correction...a stupid Teh Global Warming™ Denier.

1) The Earth was not warmer then it currently is just a few thousand years ago.

2) Natural solar variations (known natural deviations (e. g. sun spot number (qualitative) or irradiance measurements (quantitative) for the past 30 years)) in solar irradiation can't explain the current warming trend.

3) The Earth is actually warming, particularly in the subarctic, arctic regions, antarctic regional perimeter), and higher elevations elsewhere.

4) The carbon cycle is quite clearly sensitive to an increase of 3% from human emissions, as the CO2 measurements and ice core data clearly show this affect quantitatively (there is absolutely no dispute on this anymore).

5) Methane (CH4) is the gas all living animals (which includes humans) discharges as part of the digestive process, not CO2, during their lifetimes, and during their decay after death, from microbes (or other animals) eating them, this are known as microbial farting. Also the CO2 exchange between animal and plant species is a zero sum gain.

6) Volcanoes are short term and minor contributors relative to the GHG emissions from human activities, Until a Supervolcano erupts, killing billions of humans, and returning the rest to The Dark Ages! Part Deux™

And yes, stupid is as stupid does, when those in AGW Stupid Camp™ present no scientific studies of their own to support their stupid spurious specious clams. The only AGW contrarian "science" being done to date is found on the soiled tissues taken just after their bowel movements.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #88 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, they don't.
.

That's right. And the sun is cold and grass is green. Weee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Yes, just like it was true that scientists were predicting a new ice age just 30 years ago.

"Whatever was suggested thirty years ago, outside or inside the scientific consensus, means that what we've now proved beyond doubt can't be true." Got you.

Also Piltdown Man was a fake. Which disproves evolution, if I remember right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You say that cattle farting put out more C02 than all the factories on Earth do? You claim that volcanoes spew more into atmosphere than we can even imagine? Bunk! It's your GMC Envoy that's the problem. And anyuone who disagrees is a Teh Global Warming™ Denier. Correction...a stupid Teh Global Warming™ Denier.

It's just the same as arguing with a Creationist.

"Here's some facts."

"AHAH!!!! BUT HERE'S MY FACTS!

"Your facts aren't good facts."

"ARROGANCE!"

"And here's more facts, agreed on by everyone, taken for granted in every institution and government research body on the planet."

"DON'T CALL ME STUPID!"
post #89 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

That's right. And the sun is cold and grass is green. Weee.



"Whatever was suggested thirty years ago, outside or inside the scientific consensus, means that what we've now proved beyond doubt can't be true." Got you.

Also Piltdown Man was a fake. Which disproves evolution, if I remember right.



It's just the same as arguing with a Creationist.

"Here's some facts."

"AHAH!!!! BUT HERE'S MY FACTS!

"Your facts aren't good facts."

"ARROGANCE!"

"And here's more facts, agreed on by everyone, taken for granted in every institution and government research body on the planet."

"DON'T CALL ME STUPID!"

Only elitist fascist liberal hippies insist on consensual "facts". Everyone knows "facts" are dreamed up in elitist fascist liberal hippy indoctrination factories, AKA "universities". The soi-disant "research scientists" at the indoctrination factories are willing dupes of the the hippy elites, which secretly fund all the fake science, on account of hating all progress, initiative and fortitude. Fortitude is like kryptonite to your fake science funding hippy elite.

Fucking hippy scientist academic liberal fact having motherfuckers! Fucking Descartes!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #90 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

Who the fuck cares whose fault it is: we should be fighting to preserve our way of life for ourselves and for our children.

Wow. Strong words.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #91 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

"Phfft! Facts! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" [H. J. Simpson]

That's where reason and logic come in.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #92 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

My dear SDW...

The first rule of PO is know your facts.

The second rule of PO should be to not arbitrarily set the goal post.

You failed on both accounts.

A species is threatened if there exists "the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range."

Oops, there goes your theory on numbers of animals having relevance...

You see numbers only come into play when a species becomes endangered.

You really are a ill-informed, myopic, obtuse, idiot of the highest order sometimes... It shouldn't be this easy...

Let's rephrase: Your claim is that the idiot is the one who think an "endangered" species should actually have its numbers threatened. You, on the other hand, are far more brilliant, because the number of animals should have nothing to do with it!.

Maybe you can get a job at the EPA. It sounds like they're your type. Also, I'll look forward to other animals being endangered according to this most recent standard. Siberian Huskies? Endangered due to Teh Global Warming melting all the snow! House cats? Endangered! No matter that we have so many they're coming out of the woodwork...we should only worry about what MIGHT happen if ten other things happen. Endangered!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #93 of 150
Wildlife populations 'plummeting'

Quote:
Between a quarter and a third of the world's wildlife has been lost since 1970, according to data compiled by the Zoological Society of London.

Populations of land-based species fell by 25%, marine by 28% and freshwater by 29%, it says.

Humans are wiping out about 1% of all other species every year, and one of the "great extinction episodes" in the Earth's history is under way, it says.

Pollution, farming and urban expansion, over-fishing and hunting are blamed.

...

Quote:
Director general James Leape said: "Reduced biodiversity means millions of people face a future where food supplies are more vulnerable to pests and disease and where water is in irregular or short supply.

"No-one can escape the impact of biodiversity loss because reduced global diversity translates quite clearly into fewer new medicines, greater vulnerability to natural disasters and greater effects from global warming."

We argue ad infinitum whether or not there is Teh Global Warming, instead of focusing on the fact that our environmental resources are crumbling around us and actually trying to do something about it. When are we going to get some real leaders to step up to the plate and work on some solutions?
post #94 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's rephrase: Your claim is that the idiot is the one who think an "endangered" species should actually have its numbers threatened. You, on the other hand, are far more brilliant, because the number of animals should have nothing to do with it!.

You would be much better off leaving this thread, it wouldn't be a surprise.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,1220040.story
Quote:
FOR THE RECORD:
Polar bear's status: Headlines in Thursday's Section A about an Interior Department ruling said that it was listing the polar bear as an endangered species. The Interior Department actually gave the bear "threatened" status under the Endangered Species Act. An "endangered" species is defined by the act as facing likely extinction in its natural habitat, while a "threatened" species is seen as one that's likely to fall into the endangered category in the foreseeable future.

Is this to complicated for you?
Quote:
Maybe you can get a job at the EPA. It sounds like they're your type. Also, I'll look forward to other animals being endangered according to this most recent standard. Siberian Huskies? Endangered due to Teh Global Warming melting all the snow! House cats? Endangered! No matter that we have so many they're coming out of the woodwork...we should only worry about what MIGHT happen if ten other things happen. Endangered!

Really, leave the thread.
post #95 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's rephrase: Your claim is that the idiot is the one who think an "endangered" species should actually have its numbers threatened. You, on the other hand, are far more brilliant, because the number of animals should have nothing to do with it!.

Maybe you can get a job at the EPA. It sounds like they're your type. Also, I'll look forward to other animals being endangered according to this most recent standard. Siberian Huskies? Endangered due to Teh Global Warming melting all the snow! House cats? Endangered! No matter that we have so many they're coming out of the woodwork...we should only worry about what MIGHT happen if ten other things happen. Endangered!


To everything spin, spin, spin............
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #96 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's rephrase: Your claim is that the idiot is the one who think an "endangered" species should actually have its numbers threatened. You, on the other hand, are far more brilliant, because the number of animals should have nothing to do with it!.

First of all, the Dept. of the Interior did not list the polar bear as "endangered". That is either a deliberate lie, or simple ignorance of the difference between classifications.

I suggest you educate yourself before making any more misleading or ignorant thread titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatened_species

Second of all, if the polar bear population is expected to decline to dangerously low levels, that's all that counts. It is 100% true that numbers don't count, nor should they. Classification is based on threat. Not population. Stop arguing. You've lost this argument.

If a species has a population of 100,000 and it's expected to soon drop to 30,000, with further drops expected after that, it can be classified as threatened. If a species has a population of 50,000 and is expected to grow or at least be stable, it cannot. This is common sense, and that's just the way the classification system was set up (and rightly so). Arguing against this fact just makes you look like an idiot.
post #97 of 150
thanks guys for doing my dirty work...

now can you get it to stop raining so i can go into lab?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #98 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

This is a massacre.


Laugh it up, Shawn. I can't wait until global warming is exposed as a pure fraud. By then you libs will be on to the next World Ending Catastrophe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

1) The Earth was not warmer then it currently is just a few thousand years ago.

I did make one mistake there. It was several whole degrees warmer, but not a few thousand years ago. (though, it was at least as warm). No matter...the point is that the Earth was far warmer even before humans existed. What caused it then? Hmm?



Quote:

2) Natural solar variations (known natural deviations (e. g. sun spot number (qualitative) or irradiance measurements (quantitative) for the past 30 years)) in solar irradiation can't explain the current warming trend.

According to whom? The sun has a profound impact on Earth's climate. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

Quote:

3) The Earth is actually warming, particularly in the subarctic, arctic regions, antarctic regional perimeter, and higher elevations elsewhere.

And in other places it's cooling. It really just depends on what areas you're looking at it. If you're determined to see a warming pattern, it's easy enough to do. Of course, if you look at averages, you get things like this.

Quote:
4) The carbon cycle is quite clearly sensitive to an increase of 3% from human emissions, as the CO2 measurements and ice core data clearly show this affect quantitatively (there is absolutely no dispute on this anymore).

You are positively unreal. There is no question that C02 levels have been going up dramatically. But there is real debate about whether that C02 causes warming itself. As for man's contribution, how can that be? You've acknowledged that 97% of greenhouse gas emissions have nothing to do with people. How could the remaining 3% possibly influence climate? In fact, let's go further. Let's say we somehow reduce our emissions by 50%. Are you then claiming that if we reduce greenhouse gases by 1.5%, it will save the planet from the horrors of Teh Global Warming? Keep in mind that assumes no natural change in the other 97% of non-human emissions.

Quote:

5) Methane (CH4) is the gas all living animals (which includes humans) discharges as part of the digestive process, not CO2, during their lifetimes, and during their decay after death, from microbes (or other animals) eating them, this are known as microbial farting. Also the CO2 exchange between animal and plant species is a zero sum gain.

Really? That doesn't seem to be the argument these folks are making. By the way, that link took all about five seconds to find. There are plenty of Teh Global Warming crazies out there who think that cattle contribute significantly to the problem.

Quote:

6) Volcanos are short term and minor contributors relative to the GHG emissions from human activities, Until a Supervolcano erupts, killing billions of humans, and returning the rest to The Dark Ages! Part Deux

Bullshit. Fucking total bullshit. Volcanoes (correct spelling, Mr. Scientist) release massive amounts of greenhouse gases. They release more than humans could if they tried.

Quote:

And yes, stupid is as stupid does, when those in AGW Stupid Camp present no scientific studies of their own to support their stupid spurious specious clams. The only AGW contrarian "science" being done to date is found on the soiled tissues taken just after their bowel movements.

The arguments are simple and valid.

1. The Earth has been far warmer in the past, long before humans existed.

2. Global Warming, not to be confused Teh Global Warming, is apparently on "pause" as far as we can tell at the moment. Why?

3. C02 has not been proven to actually cause warming. There is some debate, in fact, that it may actually be a byproduct.

4. We've experienced nothing abnormal wrt Earth's climate to date. There are a plethora of other explanations for variances we now experience, including weather patterns such as La Nina and El Nino. All of these are ignored by Teh Global Warming Loons.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #99 of 150
1) The Earth was not warmer then it currently is just a few thousand years ago.

2) Natural solar variations (known natural deviations (e. g. sun spot number (qualitative) or irradiance measurements (quantitative) for the past 30 years)) in solar irradiation can't explain the current warming trend.

3) The Earth is actually warming, particularly in the subarctic, arctic regions, antarctic regional perimeter, and higher elevations elsewhere.

4) The carbon cycle is quite clearly sensitive to an increase of 3% from human emissions, as the CO2 measurements and ice core data clearly show this affect quantitatively (there is absolutely no dispute on this anymore).

5) Methane (CH4) is the gas all living animals (which includes humans) discharges as part of the digestive process, not CO2, during their lifetimes, and during their decay after death, from microbes (or other animals) eating them, this are known as microbial farting. Also the CO2 exchange between animal and plant species is a zero sum gain.

6) Volcanoes are short term and minor contributors relative to the GHG emissions from human activities, Until a Supervolcano erupts, killing billions of humans, and returning the rest to The Dark Ages! Part Deux

And yes, stupid is as stupid does, when those in AGW Stupid Camp present no scientific studies of their own to support their stupid spurious specious clams. The only AGW contrarian "science" being done to date is found on the soiled tissues taken just after their bowel movements.

If Mac OS X spell checking errors are the only thing you can bring to the table, Earth is indeed in for future fun times.

Do Volcanoes Cause Global Warming? If anything volcanoes cause short term global cooling. n00b.

[CENTER]
Quote:
On average, volcanoes spew over 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. That sounds like a lot, but compare it to global fossil fuel emissions: in 2005, we emitted more than 27 billion tons of CO2. Emissions from human activity are more than 200 times the emissions from volcanic activity.

[/CENTER]

And it's solar variations not mean solar irradiation, as in solar variations from the solar mean irradiation.

What an effin' n00b! Bow down before me, because you are truly not worthy.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #100 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Laugh it up, Shawn. I can't wait until global warming is exposed as a pure fraud. By then you libs will be on to the next World Ending Catastrophe.




I did make one mistake there. It was several whole degrees warmer, but not a few thousand years ago. (though, it was at least as warm). No matter...the point is that the Earth was far warmer even before humans existed. What caused it then? Hmm?





According to whom? The sun has a profound impact on Earth's climate. Only a fool would argue otherwise.



And in other places it's cooling. It really just depends on what areas you're looking at it. If you're determined to see a warming pattern, it's easy enough to do. Of course, if you look at averages, you get things like this.



You are positively unreal. There is no question that C02 levels have been going up dramatically. But there is real debate about whether that C02 causes warming itself. As for man's contribution, how can that be? You've acknowledged that 97% of greenhouse gas emissions have nothing to do with people. How could the remaining 3% possibly influence climate? In fact, let's go further. Let's say we somehow reduce our emissions by 50%. Are you then claiming that if we reduce greenhouse gases by 1.5%, it will save the planet from the horrors of Teh Global Warming? Keep in mind that assumes no natural change in the other 97% of non-human emissions.



Really? That doesn't seem to be the argument these folks are making. By the way, that link took all about five seconds to find. There are plenty of Teh Global Warming crazies out there who think that cattle contribute significantly to the problem.



Bullshit. Fucking total bullshit. Volcanoes (correct spelling, Mr. Scientist) release massive amounts of greenhouse gases. They release more than humans could if they tried.



The arguments are simple and valid.

1. The Earth has been far warmer in the past, long before humans existed.

2. Global Warming, not to be confused Teh Global Warming, is apparently on "pause" as far as we can tell at the moment. Why?

3. C02 has not been proven to actually cause warming. There is some debate, in fact, that it may actually be a byproduct.

4. We've experienced nothing abnormal wrt Earth's climate to date. There are a plethora of other explanations for variances we now experience, including weather patterns such as La Nina and El Nino. All of these are ignored by Teh Global Warming Loons.

SDW666666666666666666666666666666666BC has spoken mistruths, again? YES!

I don't have the time to walk you through your own stupidity and ignorance again. Your reply is 100% proof, that you are indeed as dumb as a rock!

Do you have clue? Why yes, you have a RAGING CLUE, just like the Hardly Boys.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #101 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Enjoy your ban.

Oh look, SDW2001 is our new moderator.
post #102 of 150
Help me...I'm going backwards in time on this forum...
post #103 of 150


you know who...
post #104 of 150
Earth was a little warmer in the past... just after the Big Bang.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #105 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

SDW666666666666666666666666666666666BC has spoken mistruths, again? YES!

I don't have the time to walk you through your own stupidity and ignorance again. Your reply is 100% proof, that you are indeed as dumb as a rock!

Do you have clue? Why yes, you have a RAGING CLUE, just like the Hardly Boys.

Enjoy your ban.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Enjoy your ban.

Seriously.

When you start four threads on Teh Global Warming™ at approximately two month intervals, most of us tire of your singular and myopic POV.

Nothing changes with you, and it never will.

It's the same old same old.

No peer reviewed science to support your specious claims, just AGW contrarian blog-o-smear prattle, parroted by yourself, because you lack the basic skill of critical thinking, and that is a cold hard fact.

When you are factually wrong so many times that we all lost count a long time ago, what can we say, because you leave us with no recourse, but to dismiss outright whatever it is that you are trying to say.

Have a good day, and try to actually get a life outside of PO trolling, TYVM.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #107 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

"Phfft! Facts! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" [H. J. Simpson]

Facts?

Take one hundred facts, combine them through various functionals, so that these one hundred facts are reduced to one "so called" fact.

So whereas you had one hundred pieces of information, you are now left with one "so called" fact.

Obviously 100% of the original information has been lost. D'oh!

That is why the original unadulterated facts are so important, because there is no information loss a priori.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #108 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denton View Post

This is complete bullshit. Scientists are already considering contingency plans in the event that warming gets completely out of hand. The solution is to scatter aerosols in the upper atmosphere, scattering a certain percentage of the incoming light from the sun.

The scary thing about this is that it would be cheap enough to be performed by a small country or a rich individual! Yes, this is the power that we have over our environment! You should have had your consciousness raised to humanity's power to adjust the world environment by our race 20-30 years ago to eliminate CFCs which were destroying ozone in the upper atmosphere. What lessons have you still not learned from history?

I found this POS paper at none other then the Heartland Institute.

[CENTER]
Quote:
The Heartland Institute is a conservative, free-market oriented public policy stink (sic) tank based in Chicago, Illinois.

[/CENTER]

Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve A Policy Dilemma?

It reads like an "if ... however" paper. It implies a defeatist attitude, a let's just give up on trying attitude. And then pumping short term SO2 into the troposphere, which has a half life of 1-2 years, at an assumed cost of 25-50 billion dollars per year, and would have to be repeated for approximately one millennia. Meanwhile CO2 emissions would continue unabated, with acidification of the oceans, continued melting of the ice caps (because the global warming is elevated in these regions relative to the global mean.

This is not a contingency plan by any stretch of the imagination, it is a do nothing plan.

A good rebuttal of the above editorial essay paper, which BTW, will not be found at the Heartland Institute, but does appear in the same issue of Climate Change is Geo-Engineering to Confine Climate Change: Is it at all Feasible?.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Seriously.

When you start four threads on Teh Global Warming™ at approximately two month intervals, most of us tire of your singular and myopic POV.

Nothing changes with you, and it never will.

It's the same old same old.

No peer reviewed science to support your specious claims, just AGW contrarian blog-o-smear prattle, parroted by yourself, because you lack the basic skill of critical thinking, and that is a cold hard fact.

When you are factually wrong so many times that we all lost count a long time ago, what can we say, because you leave us with no recourse, but to dismiss outright whatever it is that you are trying to say.

Have a good day, and try to actually get a life outside of PO trolling, TYVM.


Unlike you, I am open to new evidence. It is your side of the debate screaming "there is no debate! It's settled science! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damned fool!"
You then ignore evidence that directly contradicts the theory of Teh Global Warming. It is your side that mocks and derides scientists who are skeptical of TGW. There are, in fact, dozens if not hundreds of scientists that simply don't believe we are responsible for the greenhouse effect, if it exists at all. But you'll dismiss them as part of the We Hate The Earth Republican Club. There are no alternative theories! NONE I say!

But yeah, it's me who is myopic. Righto.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #110 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There are, in fact, dozens if not hundreds of scientists that simply don't believe we are responsible for the greenhouse effect, if it exists at all.

Um, there are NO reasonably informed scientists who believe the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. This is an observed phenomena on multiple planets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

As for causation, it is largely irrelevant...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #111 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Unlike you, I am open to new evidence. It is your side of the debate screaming "there is no debate! It's settled science! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damned fool!"
You then ignore evidence that directly contradicts the theory of Teh Global Warming. It is your side that mocks and derides scientists who are skeptical of TGW. There are, in fact, dozens if not hundreds of scientists that simply don't believe we are responsible for the greenhouse effect, if it exists at all. But you'll dismiss them as part of the We Hate The Earth Republican Club. There are no alternative theories! NONE I say!

But yeah, it's me who is myopic. Righto.

You are not "open" to new evidence, as presented in the well established peer reviewed climate science literature.

How do I know this to be a factually correct statement, you ask?

When have you ever provided a link to well established peer reviewed climate science literature?

The answer is never.

Therefore, you are a priori not open to new well established peer reviewed climate science literature.

Until such time that you do present new climate science from the well established peer reviewed climate science literature, then, and only then will I give you the time of day.

In short, put up, or shut up.

And your caricature of "settled science" is laughable at best, if it were "settled science" then there would be no need for further climate science research and well established peer reviewed climate science literature. D'oh!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #112 of 150
Originally Posted by SDW2001
There are, in fact, dozens if not hundreds of scientists that simply don't believe we are responsible for the greenhouse effect, if it exists at all.



You can also find "scientists" who will tell you that there is no link between HIV and AIDS, but most of us question their credibility.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #113 of 150
SDW, you still want to argue about polar bears, do you not?

post #114 of 150
Climate now shifting on a continental scale, huge study says

Quote:
A landmark climate study released Wednesday reports that global warming is changing the life cycles of thousands of animals and plants — as well as hundreds of physical systems — worldwide.

It documents rapid glacier melts in North America, South America and Europe; trees and plants sprouting leaves much earlier in the spring in Europe, Asia and North America; permafrost melting in Asia; and changes in bird migration patterns across Europe, North America and Australia, all in response to rising global temperatures.

Though previous studies have looked at single phenomena or smaller areas, the latest analysis examines data on a continental scale, says lead author Cynthia Rosenzweig, a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

By analyzing data from each of the Earth's seven continents and the oceans, the study paints a clear picture of a world that's been undergoing rapid transformation in just the past few decades.

"These are things that are happening now, not projections of future changes," she says.

Thread over.
post #115 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Enjoy your ban.

After all the things you've called people here in response to those who didn't agree with you? Please!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #116 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Climate now shifting on a continental scale, huge study says



Thread over.

Attributing cause and effect

Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change

Supplementary Information

It took me longer to cut and paste these, then to find the free versions in the first place.

I just wish the MSM would catch up with the WWW and cite the pertinent reference, to save me the 30 seconds (or so) it takes to reverse engineer their layperson level articles.

Oh, and there's even something something for SDW to chew on, look the Cato Institute (wingnut stink (sic) tank) opines on the well respected peer reviewed climate science literature, not with their own well respected peer reviewed climate science literature, put with the same old same old AGW contrarian talking points.

[CENTER]
Quote:
But Pat Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., says the research "is a retrospective study, with very little to say prospectively, given the unevenness of global warming."

Michaels says that there has been no warming since 1997 and that a recent study, also published in Nature, found that global warming isn't likely to get started again for at least another 10 years. "I think the problem with this study is not in matching the past with the changes but in projecting the future."

[/CENTER]
Today's word is non-monotonic (or modulated if you prefer).

SDW, I'd suggest you look up this word, try to understand it's meaning with respect to the fluctuations in the mean global temperature reconstructions from instrumental time series data. Otherwise, I'll just make you look like the complete n00b you are, all over again.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #117 of 150
Please clarify this more me because it scares the shit out of me.

The Sixth Extinction

Quote:
There is little doubt left in the minds of professional biologists that Earth is currently faced with a mounting loss of species that threatens to rival the five great mass extinctions of the geological past. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis this Sixth Extinction is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed.

Scaremongering or reality?

My date has arrived and I'm heading out. I'll be back tomorrow...I hope.
post #118 of 150
.....
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #119 of 150
I saw Saint Hillary last night at the Hyatt here in Louisville... I can only imagine how many polar bears are going to die due to the carbon footprint for her entourage... \

Please, Hill, think of the polar bears.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #120 of 150
Interesting question concept:

I wonder how many polar bears are going to die due to the carbon footprint of the war in Iraq?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Polar Bear Endangered. Sort of.