Global warming deniers drown in utter BS! ?

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Someone call Al Gore, we need a sequel now

Leonardo DiCaprio

This is a National Geographics Channel documentary. It gives you a chance to see things where they're happening. Most people don't get a chance to see these things with their own eyes.

Once the Oil and gas and coal corporations find a way to make a higher profit margin off of renewable energy rather than fossil fuels, the funding for climate change denial "science" will end and so will the denial propaganda.

Perhaps the trauma of food and water scarcity which brings war over resources with starvation and human on human atrocity won't be cataclysmic yet. Or not.

a reply to: brutus61
Mt. Pinatubo, that a small fart heard from 1000 miles away. If you want a mega eruption just wait for Yellowstone to blow (experts believe it's way past it's time) that will be the one. Yes just one and you can kiss your a** goodbye and I mean everyone.
I keep trying to find out how much water is held in glaciers and the Antarctic land ice as these are the only masses of water not already in the oceanic system.
But worry not about that just look up the amount of water put into the system by the worlds rivers. No-one wants to look at those. Let me tell you, it's multiple trillions of gallons per hour (this is inevitable, every hour, every day, every year)yet how high has the oceans become. Let me think,,,, oh nothing. There is no overflow or drain system, only in not out.

Explain this and I will listen to any "Global Warming is Man's Fault" evidence you have......
How did the Earth's temp go up and down, before Man was...well...Man? We know the Earth has gone through radical temp changes for hundreds of millions of years, from "Snowball Earth" to a tropical paradise, so.......
What happened to change that? Why are people so desperate to blame Man, when evidence says it's a natural cycle?
We may have a tiny tiny bit to do with it, but blaming it completely on us?.....No.

a reply to: kloejen

I've often wondered if the sun expanded by one inch how much of an effect that would have on our planet. I cant say for sure if its manmade or nature itself. There to me is just not enough data. I wonder what ice cores could tell us.

Believe whatever you like, just leave me alone.The earth has been warming since the last ice age. There is no "correct" temperature for the earth.

originally posted by: kloejen
But we know the facts, the # is hitting the fan as we speak.
Watch Scandinavia next days - disaster!
Watch the US next week... its gonna be rough! Pack in Canada!
Last week there was snow in Iran.
This is an issue where money wont work.. so prepare
Solution? --- stop burning the world you lazy humans!

Lazy humans eh! It seems you are a bit lethargic yourself, "snow in Iran" what's the significance? they have snow in Iran, they even have ski resorts You can have snow in Morocco, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Lebanon, and more... It is also not unusual to see snow in Jerusalem and Amman.
I sincerely hope you are no scientist for anything.

originally posted by: kloejen

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Arguing with people who have already come to a conclusion based on a loose understanding of half the story is difficult.

No gloabal warming for 18 years
Raw data

But we know someone tried to cover it up. United Nations and NASA were in on it too.
woul

When the solution touted by the government elite of the world isn't a scheme to get richer, then I'll start taking it seriously, if at all.

Congratz on being the first denier of pure logic.

I read those falsehoods too, and yea its depressing. And i agree, shoving money in that is a scam. Ofcourse there will be lamers trying to make money of that too. But did you really read up on real science? I know u didnt, because the facts will make your post so uncomfortable that your should have a body shiver when you read this, and you know it.
Ofcourse you can deny logic and default to believe. But thats really a longshot dont you think ?

Maybe... just maybe some "god" will correct this?

Or are you gonna tell me and the huge scientific crowd, that "you" somehow figured out the "facts", that they are all lying in order to make a coin on your ignorance ?

If you do have some "facts" that say otherwise, when looking out the window today, please speak up.

Come on ... we burned 2 trillions barrels of crude oil so far.. and thats not gonna impact the climate?

Good luck in your fantasy

Hey, nice long post without anything to refute what I posted.

Obviously, you're young (congratz? lamers?) and fall into the "people who have already come to a conclusion based on a loose understanding of half the story" category.

Ive heard about that Climate change thing, Its a fiscal problem that can only be fixed by taxing people right?

yep, so hot , snow in the desert....
UK met office says 2017 will not be a hot year....
58 c below Siberia...
1.8 c increase in mean average global temperature +- 2 degrees...
Still no north west passage promised to us by Al Gore ten years ago....

a reply to: 00018GE

Is your username a Martin Guitar reference?

On topic: I think we all have to understand that earth has its own cycles. Do we ruin ecosystems? Pollute? Hell yes. We should try to fix what we can in practical ways. Carbon tax = bad.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: kloejen

Why don't you try providing some #ing links or sources as to what your maths is based on?

So far you've posted an opening post which is about four words long and continued in the same direction.

Merry #ing Christmas. I hope global warming does destroy the earth if this is the future...

I could post tons of links and you know it. The outcome will always be denial, or off-topic chit-chat.
Do you seriously think burning a trillion barrels of oil (so far used), does not have an impact on the climate?
Of course it will have an impact. What we are debating is how severe the impact is. Using logic on this one, leads you to a definate conclusion.
I guess when it strikes in your part of the world, then you might reconsider, but hey.. its "only" 3. world countries suffering, so who gives a batsh!t ?

Merry freakin' Xmas to you too

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
a reply to: jappee

I'm only 6 feet tall, I'd be screwed in 7 feet of water if I expected to "stand" in it.

I know, right?!

These idiots will will die of climate change/AGW/GW whatever the doom porn name is at the moment, while you and I and 90% of other people will die of old age.

a reply to: kloejen

You are being incredibly arrogant. You have brought nothing to the table but soundbites. You seem to know beyond any doubt that burning "a trillion barrels of oil" (can you source that?) is causing "climate change", but you are not backing it up with anything except attitude e.g., "I could post tons of links and you know it."

I'll bet there's an awful lot of middle ground to be shared with people who seem to disagree with you, but you'll never get there unless you alter your approach. Slow your roll: nobody likes a know-it-all.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Shoot, I'll probably die of French fries or something

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: kloejen

The Math ! Explain to me mathematically if you are so freaking genious, that im wrong... please try!

Already done. I posted the math based on cumulative energy transfer some years back. It was ignored because some people can't understand the 2D projection of a sphere is a circular disk.

So here's a crazy idea: how about you showing us your mathematical analysis of why an atmospheric carbon dioxide level of 0.04% instead of 0.03% is going to kill anything?

TheRedneck

Must have missed that, can you post the link? Thx in advance.

I like your comment "It was ignored because some people can't understand the 2D projection of a sphere is a circular disk.", it almost sounds credible if you are not familiar with Pythagorean shapes. Its utter nonsense imho.

Did i say that "the world is gonna die", because of this? NO. We are going to have severe problems containing ourselves, and living under theses conditions. Thats about it. Question is, can we adapt quickly enough to ride the storm ?

Im pretty sure we cant. When the electricity goes, we are ALL screwed. We are so dependent on electricity, the majority will fall like flies. No water pumping, no water cleaning.

On with the facts...
www.justfacts.com...

Visual confirmation is probably more appropriate?


And please try to understand there is a BIG difference between sea ice and land ice!
The ice in the sea, has already its weight in the water. Try to observe a glass of water with ice cubes in it. When melting, the waterlevel will not rise. But when the ice on land melts and gets into the ocean, the salinity will deminish, making it very hard for many species to survive. This is the domino effect. The plancton cant flourish as it did and therefore fish cannot survive. You know, the eco-system.

I know it a sport for many of you to prove me wrong, and you can probably dig up tons of links saying the exact opposite.
But if you really think hard about it, do you think a greener world will be the outcome of burning trillions of barrels of oil ? No impact, no change.. just a little old sunlight burned... really ?

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
a reply to: kloejen

You are being incredibly arrogant. You have brought nothing to the table but soundbites. You seem to know beyond any doubt that burning "a trillion barrels of oil" (can you source that?) is causing "climate change", bit you are not backing it up with anything but attitude e.g., "I could post tons of links and you know it."

I'll bet there's an awful lot of middle ground to be shared with people who seem to disagree with you, but you'll never get there unless you alter your approach. Slow your roll: nobody likes a know-it-all.

I understand you dont give a sh!t about the debate, but have some kind of ego trip, proving other ppl wrong. I get that you dont want to waste 5 mins of your precious time to research the facts.

Its all fun and dandy for you to redicule me, its ok. Im sorry if i sounded arrogant, but seriously its a complete no brainer, the outcome.
Oil Shale

Read that page, and you will see my point. I'll bet you come back and tell me that wikipedia is full of bull. Please research the footnotes too, if you have the time.

I hate this alarmist role, but really... if we spend time researching alternate fuels, im pretty sure we could come up with another ingenious way to improve our consumption of power, in a way that balances things out.
Ofcourse its gonna cost alot of money, but who cares about money, its survival that is the key here?

a reply to: kloejen

You know nothing about me. This is evident by the things you say that you know about me. Nevertheless, that's neither here nor there. Next.

Actually I did not ridicule you. I was even going to take a light jab, but I really don't like sparring with fellow ATS members, even in the Mud-Pit. I'm here to learn. Next.

A link. Cool. I will read it. For the record though, there are actual reasons to remain skeptical of Wikipedia entries, but I won't throw that baby out with the bathwater. Next.

Alternative energy. Bam. There's that middle ground I mentioned. Something that most everyone (except those who partake of oil profits) wants to get going big-time.

"Global warming deniers drown in utter BS!"

But I definitely won't be drowning in rising oceans ... Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study shows here. So we wont see Bangkok or the maldives sink under water as ocean rise has been decelerating from the 1940's.

originally posted by: glend
"Global warming deniers drown in utter BS!"

But I definitely won't be drowning in rising oceans ... Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study shows here. So we wont see Bangkok or the maldives sink under water as ocean rise has been decelerating from the 1940's.

Yea if the Gulf stream is killed, there might be a cooling age, and yes i am aware that we are currently living in a warming age.
Either way, we as humans are still gonna have a tough road ahead.

Lets stick to climate change then

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
a reply to: kloejen

You know nothing about me. This is evident by the things you say that you know about me. Nevertheless, that's neither here nor there. Next.

Correct, i know nothing about you, but your approach to the subject is even more arrogant.

Actually I did not ridicule you. I was even going to take a light jab, but I really don't like sparring with fellow ATS members, even in the Mud-Pit. I'm here to learn. Next.

Cool. I like the feedback Maybe we both could learn something?

A link. Cool. I will read it. For the record though, there are actual reasons to remain skeptical of Wikipedia entries, but I won't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Next.

I know the concensus about wikipedia. And i agree its not the source of truth, what is really ? But its a heck of a good start.

Alternative energy. Bam. There's that middle ground I mentioned. Something that most everyone (except those who partake of oil profits) wants to get going big-time.

Totally agree. We as humans are pretty innovative, if we put our minds to it, we might figure out some ingenious solution.

The thing is that its real, no one can deny that. Look at the human explosion since the 1800s. Its a hockey stick right?
So to provide energy and food for all these ppl will show a oil output that matches that previous hockey stick graph. Its so logic, Spock would laugh.