Last Decade Confirmed Warmest of Recorded Science

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
Indeed, global warming is certainly real. Its just the primary cause thats being obfuscated to try and swindle the public out of more money.

Anthropomorphic global warming (man made) is a factor, but a small one. The activities of man of more resulting in the severe poisoning of our planet, but not its warming.

The sun is by the farthest the greatest influencer of planetary temperature at this point in the planets history. Earths surface is relatively cold at this point comparing it to where it was in bygone eons, and its not really being heated by its interior to a significant degree any more. The heat is coming from outside the planet.

Its easily provable; all the planets in our solar system have experienced a observable shift in temperature, upwards. The only thing within reason that could cause that is a change in the central star of the system.

As the sun heats the Earth, one very important thing happens, the temperature rises and the atmospheres capacity to hold moisture increases. With the increase in moisture capacity, potential energy levels increase as well, resulting in... can you guess?

More violent, unpredictable and erratic weather. Not to mention wetter weather. Temperature spreads for any time frame could also become wider, resulting in very hot temperatures some places, but unseasonably cool in others., and vice versa.

Its all driven by the sun. When the sun says "get hotter" to its planets, the planets ask "how hot?"

In 30 years or so, its not impossible that the world all of us have grown up in will be significantly different from a climatological stand point. Were already seeing it slowly change now, and have been for the last decade or more.

ETA:

Forgot to add, methane is pouring into our atmosphere at a tremendous and accelerating rate due to methane clathrates destabilizing and turning into gas.

Methane is ~20x the insulator as CO2 is, and once methane clathrates start their destabilization process, it doesnt stop until they are ALL sublimated into gas.

So with the sun doing its wacky thing that we dont understand, and methane more and more heavily insulating the planet, get ready for a lot more heat in the future.

edit on 7/4/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

This is the problem, the driving force is money, and it's a bit like income tax - once you start paying for it, even though they'll tell you it's temporary, it'll never end.

I honestly don't know what the PTB are aiming for any more, everyone is broke, people can't even put food on the table, and they want us all to pay more and more in taxes.

The only conclusion you can come to is that they want you to work for your salary, since this is what we've come to accept as the norm, then to overcharge you for everything so the rich take your money in profits, and over tax you for the rest so you're always in poverty and are in effect unshackled slaves.

Anyone who believes that taxation can stop global warming - even if it actually exists, and if it is man made and not a natural cycle - is an idiot.

They might as well make us all pay a death tax claiming it'll stave off the grim reaper.

The majority are so stupid though that they drag the rest of us down with them.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


I did address the Milankovitch cycle in my 1st reply to this post. I mentioned that orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycle) was the initial trigger for the warming period that the Vostok Ice Core captured. Phage has since further addressed temperature vs Co2 leading, so I don't see a need to provide further data. But I will add more commentary... The Milankovitch cycle has never not been taken into consideration regarding climate change of any period, it is acknowledged as the leading driver of climate change in Earth's entire history prior to the industrial age, how could it not be?

What is important to know is that we are currently in a decreasing phase which means we should be cooling down, not warming up. We entered the decreasing phase several thousand years ago. At our current position we should be experiencing warmer winters and cooler summers with an over all cooling trend, but that isn't what's happening. Our climate has departed from the cycle. It has before... from asteroids, meteors and extreme volcanic activity. None of those have happened to explain our current departure, not to mention those events tend to cool the planet also.

Methane... again undisputed that methane traps more heat than Co2. All GHG's including water vapor, whether we put them up in the atmosphere or not contribute to trapping heat in the lower atmosphere and 'reflecting' it in the upper atmosphere, the problem is that the build of GHG's is occurring in the lower and currently the leading GHG is Co2. Methane will be a compounding problem as we continue to warm and it gets releaseed from the permafrost, along with more Co2. So no, methane is not excluded but neither has little explanation been given for it, we know where the increase is coming from and where it isn't (volcanic).

The sun... and yet again where does this notion come from that anyone who acknowledges AGW theory discounts the sun? It's ridiculous. Of course the sun is the primary driver of climate. However that fact does not change the very simple other fact that GHG's in the lower atmosphere trap heat (energy from the sun), they don't cause heat, not one climate scientist has ever said that... and it's pretty simple to lend that more GHG's trap more heat. So regardless of the suns wobble or our wobble we are still left with the very simple fact that whatever orbital situation is going on we are trapping more heat from the sun.

And just to add to the overall thread:

The tax 'solutions' may be stupid and ineffective and cap and trade will only benefit the already rich and ironically the dirty energy cartels, that doesn't negate reality however. People pay taxes on their houses and properties and roads and none of those things don't exist simply because they are taxed. Pretending something isn't happening just because the morons and evil bastards in power can profit off it or control peoples through it, doesn't change the reality of it happening.

Politicians and Policy the world over has babied the dirty energy cartels, let them have their way, catered to the rhetoric that nothing we do can affect the climate so dramatically. That everything is fine. This is the manipulation you are all so afraid is happening to get your tax dollars. The reality is this... weather extremes will eventually cause mass human migration, by ignoring it for as long as the elites have... they know where and who will be on the move first or roughly know anyway. When the impact of AGW forced climate change happens you better be ready to bend over and say thank-you master, or be prepared to go down swinging because the militaries of the world will enforce who can go and where they can go to and it will be the infamous Elites who get to decide the specifics.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


First of all, when you say "consensus", you need to omit the liars working for the oil companies. Second of all, global warming has not stopped or slowed. In fact, it is accelerating at the bottom of the oceans and will catch up to the surface soon enough. See:

news.discovery.com...

www.commondreams.org...

Just read latest blog from climate depot, as I get an update every day, Antarctic sea ice well above average at 14.6 million square kilometers, and represents the second greatest extent since 1980.
flashback to 1966, president Johnson also thought he could control the climate!

Originally posted by Power_Semi

This is the problem, the driving force is money

Actually, yes. The real driving force behind climate change is money - the desire to have cheap electricty, cheap palm oil, cheap soya, cheap cement ....... We could stop it. But it would cost you and me money. So we don't.

And also, politicians use climate change as a 'cheap' means of raising taxes that otherwise they'd have to perhaps be a bit more ingenious to enforce (and would still impose for some other reason, regardless)

But climate change is happening and is happening because of human activity (notwithstanding which, climate change also happens naturally, additionally to anything humans do). We won'd stop it. So we have to live with it. And millions will die (but not in the West, so we don't care)

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by greyer

 

Dear greyer,

Isn't if odd that all the planets experienced the same temperature swings? Could it have anything to do with the sun? Just asking.

You visited all the planets? Even pluto? Wow!

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
Indeed, global warming is certainly real. Its just the primary cause thats being obfuscated to try and swindle the public out of more money.

Anthropomorphic global warming (man made) is a factor, but a small one. The activities of man of more resulting in the severe poisoning of our planet, but not its warming.

The sun is by the farthest the greatest influencer of planetary temperature at this point in the planets history. Earths surface is relatively cold at this point comparing it to where it was in bygone eons, and its not really being heated by its interior to a significant degree any more. The heat is coming from outside the planet.

Its easily provable; all the planets in our solar system have experienced a observable shift in temperature, upwards. The only thing within reason that could cause that is a change in the central star of the system.

As the sun heats the Earth, one very important thing happens, the temperature rises and the atmospheres capacity to hold moisture increases. With the increase in moisture capacity, potential energy levels increase as well, resulting in... can you guess?

More violent, unpredictable and erratic weather. Not to mention wetter weather. Temperature spreads for any time frame could also become wider, resulting in very hot temperatures some places, but unseasonably cool in others., and vice versa.

Its all driven by the sun. When the sun says "get hotter" to its planets, the planets ask "how hot?"

In 30 years or so, its not impossible that the world all of us have grown up in will be significantly different from a climatological stand point. Were already seeing it slowly change now, and have been for the last decade or more.

ETA:

Forgot to add, methane is pouring into our atmosphere at a tremendous and accelerating rate due to methane clathrates destabilizing and turning into gas.

Methane is ~20x the insulator as CO2 is, and once methane clathrates start their destabilization process, it doesnt stop until they are ALL sublimated into gas.

So with the sun doing its wacky thing that we dont understand, and methane more and more heavily insulating the planet, get ready for a lot more heat in the future.

edit on 7/4/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: (no reason given)

The sun is not getting hotter. All the planets are not getting warmer. This is complete BS driven by agenda. Show me the evidence.

No matter how many times and how many ways you say it, it's still just a load of crap!

reply to post by sorgfelt


BWAAHAHAAA!

Originally posted by sorgfelt
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

First of all, when you say "consensus", you need to omit the liars working for the oil companies. Second of all, global warming has not stopped or slowed. In fact, it is accelerating at the bottom of the oceans and will catch up to the surface soon enough. See:

news.discovery.com...

www.commondreams.org...

Well, therein lay the whole problem. I have articles that say it's stalled and they're among what has run in recent world headlines. As in, the previous week or two. You have headlines saying it's still going or, on the other, even accelerating. Now I'm not sure what side to believe and the high politicization of it by people like Gore and his bunch are precisely why that confidence problem exists. If it had been handled as pure science and not jumping at the blocks to find ways to make bureaucracy out of it for profit....it would be so much easier to take which side has the best point.

...That, and despite spending a several weeks now (off and on) looking for source data on ocean temps at depths, world wide...there seems to be large portions just missing or inconclusive. Odd about that and not encouraging. Especially as that would indicate changes we aren't responsible for and generally speaking, wouldn't have comfortable ranges for limits to run to. After all, Antarctica was a lush and tropical continent with life at one time. That natural side is what is concerning.

reply to post by jibajaba


It cracks me up when people use the empire state building or 'Manhattan' as a measuring unit; are there people out there that can only fathom it in those terms?

We've been having some rainy weather in Appalachia. I've never seen it act so erratic though, it's been interesting.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Just curious Wrabbit2000 - why is it that when you talk about the "politicization" of the science you only mention Gore "and his bunch"? Why don't you mention oil companies and right wing politicians who are pockets-deep in fossil fuel money who happen to also be outspoken skeptics of the science?

Do you have any facts that Al Gore has actually politicized the science? Because all I've ever seen is a whole buttload of hyperbole and rhetoric from extremely politicized sources from the other side of the fence who make this claim.

I've been studying this topic on a conspiracy level for over 5 years now, and on a scientific level for much longer than that. And I could fill the Fragile Earth forum with all sorts of tangible proof on how:

1) man-made global warming is real, and only "uncertain" in an extremely dangerous way.
2) oil companies + right wing politicians + paid off, politicized "skeptic" scientists have completely manipulated a fake debate around it to hide from fact #1.

But I rarely bother, because it's useless - people have entirely made up their minds about this and they only respond to whatever bits of information suit their confirmation bias, and NOTHING else.


...
So if The Heartland Institute says "Al Gore has politicized the science!", and I then show you The Heartland Institute is a completely dubious source because it has a long history of shilling for the Tobacco industry on a platform that smoking doesn't cause cancer - except now it is primarily funded by Big Oil instead of Big Tobacco, do you go - "well I might have to reconsider my position here", or do you just write it off because "Ok Ok, maybe they're politicized - but Al Gore does it too!"?**

** - Perhaps you feel that's justified because you've heard about how Al Gore and his bunch have politicized the science from so many different sources. But what you might call multiple different sources - I would call "the echo chamber": and as such I bet you I could prove the whole thing is extremely politicized.

That is if you, or any self-professed skeptic out there agreed to actually listen with an objective and open mind, and not one that's struggling to make everything fit how you already perceive it.


So what I'm asking - when I see you single out "Gore and his bunch" for apparently politicizing the science is - where does the partisan predisposition end, and the genuine skepticism begin?

I'm not trying to attack you - but just honestly curious. This is something I have wondered about every single "skeptic" I've pretty much ever met on this.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Just curious Wrabbit2000 - why is it that when you talk about the "politicization" of the science you only mention Gore "and his bunch"? Why don't you mention oil companies and right wing politicians who are pockets-deep in fossil fuel money who happen to also be outspoken skeptics of the science?

Do you have any facts that Al Gore has actually politicized the science? Because all I've ever seen is a whole buttload of hyperbole and rhetoric from extremely politicized sources from the other side of the fence who make this claim.

I've been studying this topic on a conspiracy level for over 5 years now, and on a scientific level for much longer than that. And I could fill the Fragile Earth forum with all sorts of tangible proof on how:

1) man-made global warming is real, and only "uncertain" in an extremely dangerous way.
2) oil companies + right wing politicians + paid off, politicized "skeptic" scientists have completely manipulated a fake debate around it to hide from fact #1.

But I rarely bother, because it's useless - people have entirely made up their minds about this and they only respond to whatever bits of information suit their confirmation bias, and NOTHING else.

That's complete bull diarrhea. Most of the global warming skeptics simply refuse to take a small piece of data while ignoring all conflicting data, and then run to the hills compounding their own conclusion as to what the data means. For example a rise in global sea temperatures does not automatically mean cars and airplanes are going to kill us. Just because a tsunami happens or an earthquake, doesn't mean it's happening because of "climate change" and all of our airplanes and automobiles. (Industry etc..) Why don't the climate scientists keep it real? Simply say you think the global climate is warming and could cause ____. The second you start blaming what's responsible for it is where the deniers lose you and don't want to hear the rest of what you have to say because you're already BSing them.

...
So if The Heartland Institute says "Al Gore has politicized the science!", and I then show you The Heartland Institute is a completely dubious source because it has a long history of shilling for the Tobacco industry on a platform that smoking doesn't cause cancer - except now it is primarily funded by Big Oil instead of Big Tobacco, do you go - "well I might have to reconsider my position here", or do you just write it off because "Ok Ok, maybe they're politicized - but Al Gore does it too!"?**

I think both need to be scrutinized. I don't want to listen to a massive government backed think tank either.. Neither are likely to be honest and both likely have an agenda..

** - Perhaps you feel that's justified because you've heard about how Al Gore and his bunch have politicized the science from so many different sources. But what you might call multiple different sources - I would call "the echo chamber": and as such I bet you I could prove the whole thing is extremely politicized.

Let me some it up for you. The hockey stick graph DIDN'T HAPPEN and it ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN..

That is if you, or any self-professed skeptic out there agreed to actually listen with an objective and open mind, and not one that's struggling to make everything fit how you already perceive it.

That's what you guys do.. Ignore it could be solar activity, ignore it could be increasing activity in our core, NO, you have to automatically conclude it's those horrible human beings and their technology.. My problem is you don't throw out a thousand years of progress without a simple thing called EVIDENCE.. So far all the evidence brought forward over the last decade has been dead wrong. Sure you can bring a chart here or a chart there that fractionally gives you a case but there are plenty of other charts and studies that contradict. So far I haven't seen one study that definitively shows a direct link between our human way of life and the destruction of our planet. Rising temps does not prove that. I'm glad we haven't signed our freedom and souls over to the carbon tax system which is ultimately what drives the global warming bad humans freight train philosophy.

So what I'm asking - when I see you single out "Gore and his bunch" for apparently politicizing the science is - where does the partisan predisposition end, and the genuine skepticism begin?

Maybe you could start by looking into yourself? You have not demonstrated through your own badgering a poking that you have any room for looking at the situation objectively.

I'm not trying to attack you - but just honestly curious. This is something I have wondered about every single "skeptic" I've pretty much ever met on this.

Give solid proof humans are responsible. Until then stfu and stop enslaving us. Work on technology that can fix the ozone layer, find a way to reduce electricity use through better technology, but don't reduce our way of life, point fingers at us as if we're destroying our earth, when you honestly have no freaking clue the cause.

Originally posted by Adaluncatif

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by greyer

 

Dear greyer,

Isn't if odd that all the planets experienced the same temperature swings? Could it have anything to do with the sun? Just asking.

You visited all the planets? Even pluto? Wow!

Dear Adaluncatif,

Actually, NASA monitors them. They also monitor solar activity.

reply to post by libertytoall


Thanks for "someing" it up for me by replying to my post about partisan rhetoric with a bunch of partisan rhetoric.

There's a reason I addressed Wrabbit2000 on this. I'll wait for hopefully a much more measured, thoughtful and worthwhile response from him.



I honestly can barely stand ATS anymore with all this idiotic crap.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Thanks for "someing" it up for me by replying to my post about partisan rhetoric with a bunch of partisan rhetoric.

There's a reason I addressed Wrabbit2000 on this. I'll wait for hopefully a much more measured, thoughtful and worthwhile response from him.



I honestly can barely stand ATS anymore with all this idiotic crap.

You can't refute a single thing I said because you know it's true that you don't have any solid evidence to link humans directly to climate change. I mean you have to be able to bring solid evidence to the table connecting people to global warming. In almost every case, just like with you, the people screaming bad humans and bad industry, continue to fail at bringing forward any of the specific evidence that directly links humans to the climate change. Just like in this case, you have resorted to immature baseless statements calling my comments partisan when there is no partisanship. I want evidence and proof either way. I have remained neutral in my statements. You on the other hand are deflecting me rather than focusing on the material proving your case. That's all I'm waiting for.. If you can't provide solid definitive evidence, then your case lies in theory and speculation. If it lies in theory and speculation you have no right to pass laws that enslave mankind. You don't plan for hypothetical.. You plan for things in reality.. Make the link between humans and global warming reality for me instead of theory and speculation and then we can all move forward accordingly. When the global warming community is completely funded by government think tanks who in many ways want to control you and me all while failing to provide a definitive link between human activity and global warming, It seems forced and driven by an agenda.. I invite you to prove me wrong, but most likely you will continue to attack me rather than read and focus on the debated material.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
When I saw the title of this thread, I was afraid that I would have to be the one to point out that the 'epidemic' of man-made global warming is little more than weak science coupled with powerful propaganda; thankfully, it appears that there are plenty of members on ATS with similar views.

Yea and we are only talking about 150 years of recorded conditions.

wrong....actual scientists have measured ice cores going back hundreds of thousand of years. when they take a sample, they can measure the different percentages of gases that made up the ice of those centuries, atmospheric gases trapped in the ice at that time in history, is what this is based on ...this isn't some "theory"...these are in-hand measurable results from the earth's past. set the bible down slowly and move away.
and as far as your statement about there being "plenty of ATS members with similar views".....it's because the vast amount of others don't even bother anymore to dispute it, due to the massive amount of researched data over the previous decades.....see, a lot of us actually read the "non-entertaining" articles, papers, and the accompanying research.

So.. the data was incorrect about the past decade? Hmm.. I wonder what this press release by the WMO on July 3rd means then:

001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes

Maybe you shouldn't stop researching the moment you see one article that supports your opinions and theories.

Global warming is real, so is global cooling. These are natural cycles that do not rely on humanity for their existence, yet, most of the duped out there believe that humans are solely responsible for these ordinary occurrences.

And you can prove that this is a natural cycle how? While climate oscillation most certainly does occur, it's foolish to assume that is what we are going through now, solely because it has happened before. There is no proof to suggest this is just a cycle we are going through. Even if the entire solar system were going through an equal temperature change, there is no guarantee that this is the cause of temperature change on our planet. There are studies in regards to each body that has any temperature change - no scientist is on record saying that they are connected. They do not know this. So I know you cannot know this either - you are guessing.

And guessing is bad. Assumption is not a good thing when it comes to the health of our entire planet. What if the Earth -was- going through a natural change, but our own actions are acting as a catalyst to greatly speed up the process? What if the climate changes on our planet are solely our doing? We should just bury our heads in the sand and press on with all the pollution, because it -might- not be the reason we are heating up? That is a monumentally irresponsible stance to take.

If there is any chance humans are affecting our planets climate, it should be seriously approached. Not ignored until we say "Hmmm... I guess we did have something to do with it.. too late to fix it now!" Look beyond your theorist opinions that there is someone trying to make a buck, and look instead at how serious a problem this could be, and how unwise it would be to simply ignore it, because it "might" be a natural cycle the planet is going through.

You have NO idea that this is a natural cycle. Scientist have not said this is the case - why do you and others like you assume it's a fact, and can make such claims with conviction? You are guessing - guesswork is not good science.

reply to post by libertytoall

You can't refute a single thing I said

I can refute everything you said - like for example the ridiculous "there's no hockey stick" myth that you arrogantly and foolishly summed up for me:

What evidence is there for the hockey stick?

Climate myths: The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

The Hockey Stick Lives: New Study Confirms Unprecedented Recent Warming Reverses 2,000 Years Of Cooling

The hockey stick has been reaffirmed over and over and over again so many times that the National Academy of Sciences published a 160 page report full of different data sets from all over the world that reproduce it:

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

So who's the one ignoring the inconvenient data?

The only place the hockey stick doesn't exist is in the warped minds and blogs of climate deniers who are either explicitly part of the fossil fuel conspiracy, or - like yourself - haphazardly getting sucked in and played by it.


...
As for the rest, I stand by everything I wrote before: I can produce piles of empirical evidence for why modern global warming is man made.

But the point of my post was to put out feelers for a reasonable discussion on it - one focused on humility and facts, not ego and partisan bullsh--.

Yet it never fails around here: Try to start up a sane discussion on this, and right away along comes some loudmouth, blowhard partisan fool spewing all sorts of belligerent ideological nonsense and derailing everything.


So I have no intention of engaging this circus with you. Someone who can handle it, sure. But people who open up with so much cock-sure arrogance like you just did - the more evidence that shows you're wrong, the more you are going to feel like a fool, and the more you are just going to get loud and belligerent because of it. I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.

People like you ARE the real story behind the true conspiracy here. Professional disinformers arm you to the teeth with myths and hyperbole on this subject - and then pump you full of piss and vinegar about how Al Gore's just trying to steal your tax monies.

Then you go off marching into online discussion forums like this guns blazing with all your totally misinformed but authoritative statements about how there's no proof, it's all a scam, yaddi yadda...Shoot first, ask questions...never.

You are the echo chamber.

reply to post by mc_squared


You seem awfully touchy about the fact Al Gore has little to no respect from people like me. In fact, I think he's one of the filthiest hypocrites to walk the Earth today in any high profile way. That's before we get to how he invented the Internet. (I not only heard the man say that...I have a nice audio of it to laugh over for years to come. I do ..every time it comes around in my playlist too).

Gore politicized global warming because Gore is a Politician (Remember? Vice President for 8 years.... Very hard faught candidate for Presidency?? THAT Al Gore :shk: ). I don't know how self evident a truth needs to be before we can stop the "pics or it didn't happen" stupidity of proving the obvious. Psst.... Obama is a politician too, if that fact hadn't crossed your mind yet. He politicizes everything he becomes a major part of.

.....As did Bush Jr, Bush Sr., Reagan. Nixon and etc etc... Since being all fair and balanced to both sides (Oil and Greenie weenies) seems especially important as well, I'll make sure I include all sides.

-----

Now you made a statement and sounded like an offer.

I've been studying this topic on a conspiracy level for over 5 years now, and on a scientific level for much longer than that. And I could fill the Fragile Earth forum with all sorts of tangible proof on how:

1) man-made global warming is real, and only "uncertain" in an extremely dangerous way.
2) oil companies + right wing politicians + paid off, politicized "skeptic" scientists have completely manipulated a fake debate around it to hide from fact #1.

But I rarely bother, because it's useless - people have entirely made up their minds about this and they only respond to whatever bits of information suit their confirmation bias, and NOTHING else.

I seriously doubt you can support that...in fact, I'm outright saying you can't because the claim is all I ever see out of people who say it. Without exception and without fail. Lots of claims of "I could prove....." or "The evidence exists to show..." without people ever PRODUCING any of it...or MSM reports at best. Though, often, even that much isn't offered for the claims of the political environmental movement.

-----

Generally speaking, I focus on Gore and his sorry bunch of political criminals because the other side, Oil, isn't trying to make enormous NEW bureaucracies to blanket the world with NEW regulations, laws and taxes to pay for it all. Al Gore is and his bunch is pushing like hell to help him do just that. Gore is a global village kind of moron and I'd just as soon see him voted ONTO an Island. A very distant, lonely island where no one is likely to go again for decades to come.

To be real clear.... The Carbon Credit system is the largest scam known to man. The exchange? The largest criminal enterprise for fraud and a global con-game that I've ever seen or even heard suggested in my life. Yet...Some green types lap it up like a kitten to milk. It'd be hilarious to watch if it weren't so serious for meaning.