HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am a Climate Change (hu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:46 PM

 

I am a Climate Change (human caused) agnostic.

I do not believe that little people know for sure without a doubt that humans are the cause. The earth has gone through many climate changes long before the industrial revolution. I however believe that all pollution should as quickly as possible, be eliminated. I feel if you wouldn't want it dumped in your back yard or buried, then we shouldn't be producing it. I feel the whole idea is a scam to tax you and I. Move towards elimination of pollutants and genetic modifications in food also. The foolhearted attempt at modifying nature will destroy us all. We must work alongside nature not against it. We will lose and some, most or all will die. Nature will kick our ass every time. How many times must we experience this ass kicking to get the hint?

495 replies, 58199 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 495 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am a Climate Change (human caused) agnostic. (Original post)
RegieRocker Nov 2012 OP
slackmaster Nov 2012 #1
dawg Nov 2012 #54
tblue37 Nov 2012 #169
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #217
immoderate Nov 2012 #2
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #4
immoderate Nov 2012 #10
aletier_v Nov 2012 #32
immoderate Nov 2012 #265
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #37
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #146
Viking12 Nov 2012 #148
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #149
immoderate Nov 2012 #267
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #274
AAO Nov 2012 #298
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #359
AAO Nov 2012 #366
Nederland Nov 2012 #462
nadinbrzezinski Nov 2012 #3
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #5
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #7
R. Daneel Olivaw Nov 2012 #6
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #253
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #8
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #15
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #33
aletier_v Nov 2012 #35
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #47
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #372
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #382
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #417
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #423
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #447
XemaSab Nov 2012 #448
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #449
Nederland Nov 2012 #463
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #50
Nevernose Nov 2012 #45
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #196
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #202
Viking12 Nov 2012 #205
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #213
Viking12 Nov 2012 #218
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #220
Nevernose Nov 2012 #273
obamanut2012 Nov 2012 #413
noamnety Nov 2012 #69
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #96
pangaia Nov 2012 #182
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #188
edhopper Nov 2012 #9
aletier_v Nov 2012 #24
edhopper Nov 2012 #78
jpak Nov 2012 #244
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #321
yawnmaster Nov 2012 #478
edhopper Nov 2012 #487
yawnmaster Nov 2012 #493
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #11
XemaSab Nov 2012 #110
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #190
grantcart Nov 2012 #420
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #424
ProSense Nov 2012 #460
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #378
CreekDog Nov 2012 #12
quinnox Nov 2012 #13
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #17
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #323
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #20
aletier_v Nov 2012 #25
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #40
aletier_v Nov 2012 #42
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #53
Viking12 Nov 2012 #99
hatrack Nov 2012 #139
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #141
joshcryer Nov 2012 #308
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #330
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #328
MH1 Nov 2012 #470
immoderate Nov 2012 #270
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #331
immoderate Nov 2012 #345
joshcryer Nov 2012 #307
jpak Nov 2012 #245
joshcryer Nov 2012 #305
The Straight Story Nov 2012 #14
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #263
sarisataka Nov 2012 #16
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #19
sarisataka Nov 2012 #28
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #48
AAO Nov 2012 #300
aletier_v Nov 2012 #30
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #333
WCGreen Nov 2012 #18
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #22
Viking12 Nov 2012 #21
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #23
Viking12 Nov 2012 #27
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #58
Viking12 Nov 2012 #92
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #104
Viking12 Nov 2012 #109
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #125
AAO Nov 2012 #301
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #335
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #381
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #383
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #391
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #396
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #403
Javaman Nov 2012 #472
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #26
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #51
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #74
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #84
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #131
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #137
AAO Nov 2012 #302
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #371
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #374
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #399
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #402
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #406
Javaman Nov 2012 #474
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #201
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #203
War Horse Nov 2012 #29
longship Nov 2012 #41
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #55
Matariki Nov 2012 #254
AAO Nov 2012 #303
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #377
Nederland Nov 2012 #464
Matariki Nov 2012 #255
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #31
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #38
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #56
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #62
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #70
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #75
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #81
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #101
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #239
morningfog Nov 2012 #142
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #160
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #408
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #425
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #471
AAO Nov 2012 #304
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #44
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #60
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #65
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #73
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #77
JaneyVee Nov 2012 #85
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #90
dawg Nov 2012 #34
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #43
dawg Nov 2012 #49
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #57
dawg Nov 2012 #63
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #67
dawg Nov 2012 #76
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #79
dawg Nov 2012 #83
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #88
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #93
dawg Nov 2012 #94
AAO Nov 2012 #309
dawg Nov 2012 #343
AAO Nov 2012 #365
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #86
dawg Nov 2012 #98
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #105
AAO Nov 2012 #306
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #379
AAO Nov 2012 #389
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #398
tabasco Nov 2012 #106
truebluegreen Nov 2012 #241
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #455
aletier_v Nov 2012 #46
dawg Nov 2012 #52
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #452
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #64
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #66
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #236
truebluegreen Nov 2012 #243
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #385
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #451
Javaman Nov 2012 #476
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #479
Marrah_G Nov 2012 #456
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #494
Javaman Nov 2012 #475
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #249
hobbit709 Nov 2012 #36
Schema Thing Nov 2012 #39
Electric Monk Nov 2012 #158
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #163
Matariki Nov 2012 #59
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #68
Matariki Nov 2012 #72
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #80
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #112
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #117
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #120
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #123
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #130
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #134
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #153
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #162
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #235
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #426
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #437
Javaman Nov 2012 #480
dawg Nov 2012 #61
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #71
AAO Nov 2012 #312
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #361
AAO Nov 2012 #369
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #373
AAO Nov 2012 #380
ret5hd Nov 2012 #400
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #409
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #82
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #87
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #89
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #111
War Horse Nov 2012 #91
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #113
War Horse Nov 2012 #152
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #164
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #207
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #210
War Horse Nov 2012 #224
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #227
War Horse Nov 2012 #232
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #362
Javaman Nov 2012 #482
AAO Nov 2012 #314
liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #95
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #97
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #108
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #252
AAO Nov 2012 #315
aletier_v Nov 2012 #100
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #103
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #156
morningfog Nov 2012 #102
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #107
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #116
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #119
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #126
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #135
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #237
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #296
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #407
Javaman Nov 2012 #484
Nederland Nov 2012 #465
morningfog Nov 2012 #140
AAO Nov 2012 #316
ret5hd Nov 2012 #404
brewens Nov 2012 #114
XemaSab Nov 2012 #115
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #118
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #121
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #128
XemaSab Nov 2012 #124
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #133
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #145
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #157
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #161
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #166
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #175
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #183
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #186
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #194
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #387
AAO Nov 2012 #317
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #363
AAO Nov 2012 #375
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #386
AAO Nov 2012 #390
octoberlib Nov 2012 #147
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #259
retread Nov 2012 #122
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #127
Silent3 Nov 2012 #192
99Forever Nov 2012 #129
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #138
99Forever Nov 2012 #144
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #159
99Forever Nov 2012 #165
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #167
99Forever Nov 2012 #180
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #185
99Forever Nov 2012 #187
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #195
99Forever Nov 2012 #229
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #230
Jamastiene Nov 2012 #132
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #136
morningfog Nov 2012 #143
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #172
morningfog Nov 2012 #272
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #275
AAO Nov 2012 #318
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #150
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #174
sendero Nov 2012 #151
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #154
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #170
joshcryer Nov 2012 #418
Electric Monk Nov 2012 #155
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #168
Logical Nov 2012 #173
Electric Monk Nov 2012 #177
AAO Nov 2012 #319
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #179
jpak Nov 2012 #171
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #176
Silent3 Nov 2012 #189
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #199
Silent3 Nov 2012 #219
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #222
Silent3 Nov 2012 #228
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #231
AAO Nov 2012 #320
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #360
AAO Nov 2012 #367
Junkdrawer Nov 2012 #178
Shivering Jemmy Nov 2012 #181
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #184
Shivering Jemmy Nov 2012 #221
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #225
Shivering Jemmy Nov 2012 #234
AAO Nov 2012 #322
Xipe Totec Nov 2012 #191
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #198
Xipe Totec Nov 2012 #256
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #260
Xipe Totec Nov 2012 #261
AAO Nov 2012 #324
randome Nov 2012 #193
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #197
randome Nov 2012 #200
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #206
randome Nov 2012 #223
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #226
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #204
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #209
Viking12 Nov 2012 #215
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #216
AAO Nov 2012 #325
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #208
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #211
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #212
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #214
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #233
XemaSab Nov 2012 #240
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #246
AAO Nov 2012 #326
Electric Monk Nov 2012 #337
Electric Monk Nov 2012 #337
Silent3 Nov 2012 #242
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #247
ProSense Nov 2012 #238
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #248
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #250
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #251
hatrack Nov 2012 #268
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #269
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #311
hatrack Nov 2012 #347
lalalu Nov 2012 #257
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #258
AAO Nov 2012 #334
bowens43 Nov 2012 #262
Speck Tater Nov 2012 #264
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #292
Speck Tater Nov 2012 #299
Logical Nov 2012 #266
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #271
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #276
XemaSab Nov 2012 #277
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #278
Systematic Chaos Nov 2012 #284
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #285
Systematic Chaos Nov 2012 #293
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #294
Systematic Chaos Nov 2012 #295
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #357
Logical Nov 2012 #443
Systematic Chaos Nov 2012 #444
AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #282
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #286
grantcart Nov 2012 #436
Logical Nov 2012 #442
joshcryer Nov 2012 #445
grantcart Nov 2012 #446
BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #279
vaberella Nov 2012 #280
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #289
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #340
grantcart Nov 2012 #281
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #288
grantcart Nov 2012 #344
cliffordu Nov 2012 #346
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #353
grantcart Nov 2012 #393
cliffordu Nov 2012 #397
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #401
grantcart Nov 2012 #433
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #341
TransitJohn Nov 2012 #283
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #287
TransitJohn Nov 2012 #290
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #291
Systematic Chaos Nov 2012 #297
joshcryer Nov 2012 #310
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #327
joshcryer Nov 2012 #336
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #354
joshcryer Nov 2012 #414
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #422
joshcryer Nov 2012 #428
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #431
joshcryer Nov 2012 #434
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #440
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #438
joshcryer Nov 2012 #439
Quixote1818 Nov 2012 #441
Iterate Nov 2012 #486
joshcryer Nov 2012 #488
Iterate Nov 2012 #491
CreekDog Nov 2012 #348
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #356
Democracyinkind Nov 2012 #342
GliderGuider Nov 2012 #313
rightsideout Nov 2012 #329
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #332
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #349
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #350
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #351
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #352
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #355
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #358
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #364
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #368
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #429
rightsideout Nov 2012 #411
rightsideout Nov 2012 #412
NoOneMan Nov 2012 #415
joshcryer Nov 2012 #419
RedCappedBandit Nov 2012 #337
Tobin S. Nov 2012 #370
yawnmaster Nov 2012 #483
RedCappedBandit Nov 2012 #490
yawnmaster Nov 2012 #492
treestar Nov 2012 #376
ProSense Nov 2012 #384
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #392
ProSense Nov 2012 #395
treestar Nov 2012 #416
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #388
ProSense Nov 2012 #394
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #421
joshcryer Nov 2012 #430
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #432
joshcryer Nov 2012 #435
ProSense Nov 2012 #457
AgingAmerican Nov 2012 #410
Nederland Nov 2012 #468
joshcryer Nov 2012 #489
intaglio Nov 2012 #405
RegieRocker Nov 2012 #427
intaglio Nov 2012 #453
Mojorabbit Nov 2012 #450
Permanut Nov 2012 #454
ProSense Nov 2012 #458
WinkyDink Nov 2012 #459
billh58 Nov 2012 #461
AngryAmish Nov 2012 #466
99Forever Nov 2012 #467
datasuspect Nov 2012 #469
catfish57 Nov 2012 #473
Xipe Totec Nov 2012 #477
H2O Man Nov 2012 #481
stevenleser Nov 2012 #485
2ndAmForComputers Dec 2012 #495

Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:49 PM

1. History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of men

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:01 PM

54. Oh no, there goes Tokyo ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #54)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:35 PM

169. How do you know if Godzilla is in the room with you?

You can smell Tokyo on his breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #169)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:33 PM

217. Faith my friend faith.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:50 PM

2. Modifying food is wrong, but modifying the atmosphere isn't?

Not very consistent.

Obstinacy rules!

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:52 PM

4. So you don't consider man made CO2 a polllutant?

 

?????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:15 PM

10. I do. How did you infer otherwise from my post?

The word "pollutant" is kind of loaded. In extreme conditions oxygen is also a pollutant.

The word "agnostic" indicates a lack of knowledge. It sounds like you don't know what harm is being caused to the environment from burning sequestered carbon. That is pretty well established.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:42 PM

32. "pretty well"

I'm a fan of words.

Some of my favorites are "appears to be", "seems to be", "apparently".

And the best way to know if a project will fail
is to parse the full project plan and identify
how many times you see

"should be"
"could be"

and my all-time favorite

"would be" as it in

"This deliverable would be met IF..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:23 PM

265. Do you have a point?

Scientists don't make absolute statements about scientific theory.

I have to admit that I usually debate environment with a couple of hard core climate deniers. They pounce on terms like "settled science" and want to equivocate the shit out out of every little unguarded phrase.

The words you cited all have a place. The important thing, I think, is to get what people mean. You're not their copy editor. And this is not a project.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:46 PM

37. Come on you know very well

 

what I meant. Maybe you and others should read this.
Carbon Dioxide levels also increased and reached levels three times what they are today.
The cooling period was soon replaced by a gradual warming which steadily increased due to the effects of rising CO2 levels and possibly the release of methane from its frozen state in ocean depths.

It is also conjectured that the spreading of the sea floor in the trenches beneath the Atlantic contributed tremendous amounts of gasses and heat to the overall global warming.

http://eonsepochsetc.com/Mesozoic/Cretaceous/cretaceous_home.html

Still even if this is true I do not want to consume pollutants. They are harming our biosphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:54 PM

146. "They are harming our biosphere"

 

What is CO2 doing to your biosphere, if not trapping heat and causing warming. Please, do tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #146)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:57 PM

148. Acidifying the oceans....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #148)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:00 PM

149. Totally true

 

Which can cause more warming. Not sure why I was blanking in general on that one today.

But, does this poster really believe it causes that or correlates to it?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 10:45 PM

267. I might have misread your intention.

You were identifying with "little people" and I missed the meaning there. Still do.

The paleohistory stuff is not relevant to what's happening now. Climate change in the past took place over thousands of years. More time for plants and animals to adapt through natural selection.

The CO2 levels you cite do have ill effects on modern humans, but other life forms thrived, and grew large because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere.

In short, the problem is not the climate change, it's the rapid climate change. And "pollutant" gets an asterisk at least. I only drink seltzer. Loaded with CO2, and right down my gullet. I wouldn't do that with most pollutants. I see the rationale behind the appeal to people. But they won't listen. They think pollution "goes away."

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #267)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:45 PM

274. Thank you for this.

 

It gives me hope. Drink too much water and it becomes toxic. Too much of anything is not beneficial. I however am not focused on just the CO2. I am focused on everything that comes out of tailpipes and smokestacks along with all pollutants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #37)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:23 AM

298. I nominate this thread for a DUzy!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #298)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:31 PM

359. It would have been more factual

 

to nominate this post because you continue to refuse to accept this



from

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #359)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:55 PM

366. The graph, like the site it came from is garbage.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #359)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:35 AM

462. You are truncating the data

If you look up the observed temperatures in Greenland for the last few years you'd see that your red line needs to go up much further than what you have shown. The temperature record at the GRIP drilling site (which is only 24km from where the ice cores you are referencing were drilled) looks like this:



Now, you can't simply tack on a new line that goes all the way up to -27.0. I know a lot of people would do that to try make you look really stupid, but I'm not one of them. I'm interested in the truth, which I hope you are too.

No, what you need to do is correct for the difference between the proxy data (coming from the ice cores) and the observed temperatures by comparing them at the same point in time. Doing this we see that around 1855 where the ice core data ends the temperature comes back as -28.5, but the actual observed comes in at -31.5 for the same period. So we have a ~3.0 degree difference. So we take the observed number in 2009 (-27.0) and subtract 3.0 to end up at 30.0 degrees for present day. That would make your chart look like this:



I believe this is a more accurate picture. You still might have a point, since you were a little vague on what you think the chart showed. I'll let people look at it and decide for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:51 PM

3. Ok...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:55 PM

5. 1. Scientists aren't "little people." 2. It's "to tax you and ME," not "I." 3. It's impossible to

eliminate "all pollution."

So you preferred Dubya to Gore, then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:03 PM

7. I don't prefer either

 

I only prefer for us to clean up our act and stop polluting. Obviously you don't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 12:58 PM

6. I agree with most of what you write.


I believe there is enough evidence to suggest that climate change or global warming is directly related to the industrialization occurring brought about by humans.

There is evidence of lead in the atmosphere, from ice core samples, going back thousands of years to Roman and Greek times. Considering the much smaller populations at the time, and their ability to pump enough pollutants into the air to be detected, has convinced me that mass industrialization and burning of fossil fuels to be the culprit to our modern problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:00 PM

253. You and I are pretty much on the same page, R.D.

Yeah, I think the science is pretty much settled in that regard, at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:04 PM

8. Agnostic about human caused warming?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #8)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:24 PM

15. Yes I am

 

As with all things human, they don't all agree on history and science ever. The only sure way to solve this problem is to move away from pollution as quickly as possible and to be in harmony with nature not against it. That still would not 100% ensure that that nature doesn't have it's own plans or that forces outside of our world (Sun and all within the Universe) doesn't have it's own also. Humans are little minded, egotistical piss ants. Trying to understand that which they still are unable to comprehend. Instead of saying "We are not sure what is causing this but we do know that pollution is bad and must be moved away from as fast a possible" we are getting "We must tax for carbon emissions". When has taxing made anything better? Will not prices go up but the pollution continue? Isn't a move away from pollutants with a time frame a much more viable solution? Such as, all vehicles must have a 50mpg rating by 2016 otherwise you can't make them? Why does it always have to end up with taxation? Why not elimination? One person said "pollution can't be eliminated". LOL. So what is the freakin point then? Taxes? Yea that makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:42 PM

33. There are some things I agree with you on....

 

I think the tax scheme is a carbon shell game and I think humanity is living completely incongruently with nature. The reality is that all proposed solutions are being proposed in the context of saving civilization and keeping it going forward. I care fuck all about that.

But as far as the cause, its pretty clear as long as you understand that atmospheric green house gases increase temperature (fortunately, we can simulate this behavior in a simple closed system lab experiment that a 3rd grader can conduct). Now, if we can pinpoint GHG levels as a significant cause of warming with science, and we can correlate green house gas levels to human activity and industrialization (for 2000 years), then it follows that human activity is causing an increase in a condition that promotes warming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #33)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:44 PM

35. Yes but your model is already broken...

because "warming is advancing faster than expected".

Models are simulations of reality, not reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:55 PM

47. That is b.s.

 

compared to what? The earth has been here a long time and will be here even if we are not. To say that this is unprecedented is crap. The earth started out as a molten orb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:04 PM

372. Why have you adopted the Republican position on climate change?

AND why are you attempting (very unconvincingly) to preach it on a DEMOCRATIC web forum?

Curious....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #372)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:12 PM

382. LOL

 

what a little narrow view you have of the democratic party. I bet you think all democrats are for outlawing all guns too and if they're not they aren't democrats. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #382)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:36 PM

417. We don't adopt republican policies, no

We do not follow their ideology, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #417)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:09 PM

423. And most democrats

 

DO NOT adopt your far left ideology either. We tend to be rational and deal with facts.

Chew on this graph!



from

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #423)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:17 AM

447. What "far left" ideology?

Is it a "far left" position to admit that scientists are correct, and the GOP is wrong, or is it just common sense?

Science = facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #447)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:19 AM

448. OP got locked out of the thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #448)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:27 AM

449. Imagine that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #423)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:37 AM

463. I believe this is more accurate:

See post #462 for an explanation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:57 PM

50. I don't proclaim to have a model

 

I am talking to you about the fundamental science, not projections. Most models fail to understand and account for the vast feedback loops being created from the GHG warming (tundra losing methane, ice sheets losing reflective abilities, etc).

Other things are now causing increase above and beyond what the GHG would cause by themselves. This is known. It is also known they wouldn't be able to do this if atmospheric carbon wasn't already at 400 ppm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:53 PM

45. Not all historians agree that the Holocaust happened

The point being that one doesn't need 100% of all scientists everywhere to agree in order for it to be true. One could lump evolution into that category, as well, and even the germ theory of disease (which a few people with letters after their name still reject).

I am interested to know if a carbon tax will work. My gut feeling is that it won't, or won't work well enough, but there's an upcoming experiment in California that will make me less agnostic on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #45)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:01 PM

196. Yes, all HISTORIANS do. Nutcase fringe writers? Not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #196)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:07 PM

202. So everyone is a nut

 

that doesn't agree with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #202)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:11 PM

205. everyone that denies the holocaust, evolution, and the human influence on climate is

other things, not necessarily

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #205)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:23 PM

213. The human influence on climate

 

has already been proven many times over. As one stated earlier and I also watched "The Dust Bowl". Destruction of the Rain Forest all bad things. You and others are so fearful that the only way to stop this madness is by accepting climate change from CO2 and not the fact that pollutants are bad. It makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #213)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:34 PM

218. WTF are you babbling about?

Everyone here thinks pollutants are bad. We know that CO2 IS a pollutant. We know that it is the one with the potential to cause the greatest harm to humans. We know that CO2 and other very harmful pollutants all come from the same sources. You clearly can't comprehend that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #218)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:40 PM

220. No that was you from the begining

 

and that was all too clear. Why does it matter to you so much that everyone believes in climate change global warming if it caused by a pollutant. Do you love pollutants? Do you want to bathe, drink and eat pollutants? Isn't it enough to want to eliminate pollutants?
Why the stuck and I do mean stuck on CC and GW? Why alienate those that want the same thing? Those that also hate tailpipe and industrial pollutants? Those that hate all pollutants. Do you really believe that is helping your cause?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #196)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:34 PM

273. I think maybe you missed my point

Which is that climate science denial is on a level with holocaust denial, even if one can find credentialed deniers, and even if people who deny climate change, evolution, and the holocaust are all nutbags of the highest order. They're still out there confusing what should be obvious, cut-and-dried issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:23 PM

413. Holocaust Denial on DU?



Yes, ALL historians agree the Holocaust happened. Give a link NOW to support your claim all historians do NOT think the Holocaust happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:13 PM

69. "when has taxing made anything better?"

when they provide necessary public services like education, roads, firefighters.
when they force businesses to pay the true cost of their business
when taxes on harmful consumer goods like cigarettes cause a drop in cigarette consumption.
when they provide incentives for people to switch to renewable energy sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noamnety (Reply #69)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:37 PM

96. This post is not about that

 

it is about taxation to rid something from the earth. We don't need a drop. We need an elimination. We have tax breaks for the volt but they took them away for hybrids. I am all for tax breaks. Make it so that the more efficient automobile is the least expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:47 PM

182. How does one inforce your very good idea that.

all vehicles must have a 50mpg rating by 2016?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #182)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:56 PM

188. Tax breaks

 

on the vehicles. Large ones at that to the consumer. Force the buyer to purchase the cheaper more efficient vehicle. Quite simple really.
It has already worked in the past. Go full tilt on this and get it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:13 PM

9. What other proven science don't you believe in?

Not that it matters. Science is not about belief. It's about facts and evidence.
And the overwhelming evidence is that Climate Change is happening and it is primarily caused by humans.
Unfortunately the newer evidence shows it progressing at a more rapid pace than earlier thought.
So our window of action gets smaller. Debating the science (a Republican tactic) is just an excuse to do nothing.
Obviously you have read little about the science of Climate Change, or if you have, do not really understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:33 PM

24. There's evidence that warming is happening

But I haven't seen the evidence that proves it's human.

Cause-n-effect are tricky things,
people often get them reversed or confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:20 PM

78. Well I guess you haven't read

the climatologist papers. Denial ain't a river in Egypt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #24)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:19 PM

244. Here ya go - from the good folks in the E/E Forum...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #24)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:57 AM

321. Check out the Scripps Institute for Oceanography website for starts.

Changes in ocean salinity over the second half of the 20th Century are consistent with the influence of human activities and inconsistent with natural climate variations, according to a new study led by researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.

Observed changes agree with computer models suggestions about salinity trends in a steadily warming world, said Scripps climate researcher David Pierce, the study's lead author. Ocean salinity changes are driven by the world's patterns of evaporation and rainfall, which themselves are changing. Observations over recent decades have found a general intensification of salinity differences in which salty ocean regions experience even more evaporation of surface waters and relatively fresh regions are becoming even more diluted with precipitation. These patterns are part of global changes in precipitation and evaporation that influence rainfall or the lack of it over land.

. . . .

The previous temperature studies and this analysis of ocean salinity use a technique known as detection and attribution. In this method, observed trends in ocean salinity are compared to the effects of various historical phenomena such as volcanic eruptions or solar fluctuations and to climate cycles such as El Niño. When the computer climate models were run, the influence of those phenomena do not replicate the salinity or temperature patterns that researchers have observed since 1955. Only when the warming trends associated with human activity were added could the observed salinity trends and temperature changes be explained.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1297&pass=005904


Rosenzweig and colleagues also found that the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.

To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems, collected from about 80 studies each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004. Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Impacts also included changes to biological systems, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and ranges of plant and animal species moving toward the poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.

. . . .

"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia," said Rosenzweig.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/human_impact.html

Great that you favor protecting the environment. The role of human behavior is hard to understand.

The Scripps Institute for Oceanography and NASA are two scientific organizations that can be trusted on this issue. As you will see, their conclusions are based on huge data samples, the work of many scientists, not just a few. You can trust their research and their conclusions.

I know people -- scientists -- who work in this field. The now vast statistical research and the historic record leave no doubt at this point that the drastic, extreme and very rapid climate change that scientists are observing across the globe is due to human activity.

As for the argument that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past. That is quite true. But scientists have studied the record, the traces left in the natural world from those periods of warming and cooling and have determined that they can pinpoint natural reasons for them such as many volcanoes.

By process of elimination (similar to the process of differential diagnosis that doctors use), they have determined that the only possible cause for climate change now is our excessive use of fossil fuels.

Scientists are seeking to find ways to lessen the effects of our excessive use of fossil fuels and other destructive behavior on our environment.

If you have doubts about the causes of climate change, please seek more information. It is so important that people like you who are genuinely concerned about our environment but doubting the science examine that science more carefully. We can all learn more about this from the scientists who study it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:32 PM

478. "Proven science" is a major oxymoron!!! Proof only exists in mathematics and logic...

In actuality, science IS about belief.
Using the scientific method, one can disprove but never prove. Hypotheses and conclusions can be supported with evidence (as you touch on) but it is not proof.

That is what is wonderful about science. Conclusions and theories can always be challenged.
Please don't use science to say something is proven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yawnmaster (Reply #478)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:03 PM

487. Popperesque drivel nt/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #487)

Tue Nov 27, 2012, 04:58 PM

493. Actually not drivel at all. I am seeing a lack of the understanding of the scientific process...

on your part.
Scientific investigation is all about argument.
Scientific skepticism is good.
Don't make science faith based.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:17 PM

11. It's time we started banning people who say they are agnostic about human-made global warming.

Same as we would ban people who aren't sure whether women should be able to vote or gay people should be allowed to get married.

It's just the same category of extremely dangerous wrongness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:52 PM

110. +1

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:57 PM

190. I think we should ban people who teacher-bash & labor-bash too. Doubt that

 

will fly, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #190)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:57 PM

420. just curious why would you rec this garbage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #420)


Response to grantcart (Reply #420)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 10:19 AM

460. Global warming denial isn't just for the RW anymore n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:09 PM

378. There is nothing 'agnostic' in his positions

He is preaching denial. He is a global warming atheist, not agnostic. He is preaching the Koch brothers position. He is preaching the oil industry position. He is preaching the GOP position, and making a fool of himself in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:18 PM

12. if you don't understand something, that doesn't make it not true

you know?

maybe not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:19 PM

13. there are many uncertainties around the subject

 

the hysteria can be overwhelming. It isn't a topic I have done much research on, but here is part of an article I just found doing an internet search. The article seems balanced and neutral in tone, which is what I like to read when seeking info on controversial topics. Here is an interesting piece of it:

"How Global Warming Works"

Is Global Warming a Real Problem?

Despite a scientific consensus on the subject, some people don't think global warming is happening at all. There are several reasons for this:

They don't think the data show a measurable upward trend in global temperatures, either because we don't have enough long-term historical climate data or because the data we do have isn't clear enough.

A few scientists think that data is being interpreted incorrectly by people who are already worried about global warming. That is, these people are looking for evidence of global warming in the statistics, instead of looking at the evidence objectively and trying to figure out what it means.

Some argue any increase in global temperatures we are seeing could be a natural climate shift, or it could be due to other factors than greenhouse gases.

Most scientists recognize that global warming does seem to be happening, but a few don't believe that it is anything to be worried about. These scientists say that the Earth is more resistant to climate changes on this scale than we think. Plants and animals will adapt to subtle shifts in weather patterns, and it is unlikely anything catastrophic will happen as a result of global warming. Slightly longer growing seasons, changes in precipitation levels and stronger weather, in their opinion, are not generally disastrous. They also argue that the economic damage caused by cutting down on the emission of greenhouse gases will be far more damaging to humans than any of the effects of global warming.

In a way, the scientific consensus may be a moot point. The real power to enact significant change rests in the hands of those who make national and global policy. Some policymakers in the United States are reluctant to propose and enact changes because they feel the costs may outweigh any risks global warming poses. Some common concerns, claims and complaints include:

A change in the United States' policies in emissions and carbon production could result in a loss of jobs.

India and China, both of which continue to rely heavily on coal for their main source of energy, will continue to cause environmental problems even if the United States changes its energy policies (critics of these policymakers point out that this approach employs the tu quoque logical fallacy).

Since scientific evidence is about probabilities rather than certainties, we can't be certain that human behavior is contributing to global warming, that our contribution is significant, or that we can do anything to fix it.

Technology will find a way to get us out of the global warming mess, so any change in our policies will ultimately be unnecessary and cause more harm than good.

What's the correct answer? It can be hard to figure out. Most scientists will tell you that global warming is real and that it is likely to do some kind of harm, but the extent of the problem and the danger posed by its effects are wide open for debate.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming7.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:26 PM

17. That is an intelligent reply

 

thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #17)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:00 AM

323. The source for that reply is not a very good one.

You need to go to scientists who are actually doing the research to get a reliable answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:29 PM

20. "we can't be certain that human behavior is contributing..."

 

So its a coincidence that the earth is warming as we approach 400 ppm of atmospheric carbon, just as it is a coincidence we are approaching these levels while man is kicking up 30 billion tons of CO2 a year?

Or?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #20)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:34 PM

25. Yes, it could easily be coincidence

correlation is not causation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

40. Which part is a coincidence?

 

Its simple to verify the greenhouse effect

So you are saying that when man puts 30 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere its a coincidence atmospheric carbon levels increase?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

42. You have no direct proof, you have correlation

That's from Statistics 101.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:01 PM

53. Where does all man's carbon go then?

 

Since their 30 billion ton of emissions isn't causing an atmospheric carbon increase, does it fly away to magic lollipop land the moment it hits the air?

Here is proof that emissions increase atmospheric composition: drive your car into your garage and close the door to create a semi-closed system. Take a breath of air to notice its pollutant levels. Run the car for 5 hours while staying in the garage. Let me know how it goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:39 PM

99. really, correlation is all the evidence there is?

There's no known physical mechanism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #99)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:40 PM

139. Yes, it's not like CO2's properties include trapping heat energy from longwave radiation . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hatrack (Reply #139)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:44 PM

141. But does 30 billion tons a year of CO2 released in the atmosphere actually end up in the atmosphere?

 

That's the million idiot question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #141)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:54 AM

308. CO2 PPM goes up.

The answer is obvious.

(Not sure if you were being sarcastic NoOneMan.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #308)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:24 AM

330. Incredibly so

 

But it seems our friend downstream has denied the warming actions of CO2, so its irrelevant regardless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #42)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:14 AM

328. That is what the cigarette companies said about

the link between lung cancer and other diseases for many years.

There is correlation but no proof.

In fact, the tobacco companies were just hiding the overwhelming evidence that tobacco kills. It doesn't kill every smoker with 100% certainty, but the process by which tobacco causes serious disease is in well understood. If people want to play tobacco roulette with their lives, it's their business. But personally, I consider them to be fools. Tobacco kills far too often for me. I believe the science. I don't smoke.

Like the tobacco industry with smoking, companies that sell products that are polluting our environment have a tremendous incentive to create false and misleading information on the issue.

I assure you that the university professors and scientists including NASA scientists who are warning us about the human causes for climate change could just as well be earning their living doing research that would contradict the idea that human behavior is causing climate change. In fact, the scientist who could give a clean pass to carbon fuels based on credible research would be extremely well rewarded by the corporations that are enriching themselves by selling carbon fuels like coal and oil.

The evidence that our current climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity especially our burning of fossil fuels is so persuasive that it is really a cruel joke for people to question that evidence. Just a cruel joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #42)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:47 PM

470. Wouldn't "extrapolation" be the correct term?

There is a simple-to-do experiment that demonstrates the effect of increasing carbon dioxide concentration in an atmosphere in closed system. We know by measurement that the carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere is increasing. Therefore we extrapolate from our tabletop experiment that the increasing CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere will cause a similar effect.

That alone is still not "proof" in the absolute sense but it's a heckuva lot more meaningful than correlation.

Oh, and we also know why carbon dioxide is increasing in Earth's atmosphere, and that's because a) we're putting it there by burning fossil fuels and b) we've reduced the rate of CO2 removal by cutting down forests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 11:02 PM

270. You can't "prove" causation.

Correlations are the only indicators of causations in most of science. An examination of the data and sequence, and elimination of common causes, and replication would largely eliminate the "coincidence."

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #270)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:29 AM

331. Driving drunk merely correlates with having an accident.

There is no 100% guarantee that driving drunk will cause an accident every time.

But is it worth taking the chance.

Not for me.

The extent of the scientific research on global warming pretty much eliminates any explanation for the observable and rapid warming of our planet other than our burning of fossil fuels.

If you have any suggestions about anything besides fossil fuels that could be causing global warming, I'm sure the scientists at NASA and places like the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and many other serious institutions studying the issue would be glad to hear about it. But I must warn you, the serious students, the scientists dedicating their lives to these questions have already considered and eliminated non-human alternatives such as volcanoes.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #331)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:50 AM

345. I think you misread me.

I think that correlations are evidence of causation. My objection was to using the concept of proof as it applies to science. I am not a denier of climate change, even when I'm driving drunk.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:53 AM

307. CO2 absorbs infared radiation. That is physical reality.

PPM of CO2 is rising. That is physical reality.

There's only a 5% chance we are not the cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:22 PM

245. What an ignorant crock 'o shite - really

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:51 AM

305. "It isn't a topic I have done much research on"

Then why would you link an article that spends most of its time talking about the "few don't believe that it is anything to be worried about" and "we can't be certain that human behavior is contributing to global warming"?

This is akin to saying "we can't be certain what processes spurred the evolution through natural selection of a given species."

You've taken a position whether you want to believe it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:21 PM

14. Something I remember from California

I lived in Ridgecrest, CA - east of the Sierra nevada mountains.

Storms would roll in from the west and just stop right on top of the mountains.

In Tehachapi, another placed I lived, when I worked for Enron I watched out my window as a mountain was removed bit by bit.

Had they done this with the larger mountains it would have drastically altered the climate of the desert.

We can affect our climate in many ways. Yes there are cycles but just because they exist does not mean they are the sole cause.

If we can control one thing that contributes to it in a negative way we should.

I also liken it to sitting in a garage with your car running. Nothing will happen at first, but over time some bad most certainly will as things build up.

'The' cause? Perhaps not. A cause most assuredly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:57 PM

263. Very true.

Sometimes, we tend to forget that altering climate doesn't just happen indirectly thru Co2. It can happen directly as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:25 PM

16. My opinion...

Even if the theories are wrong and humans are not having any effect on the climate, what is the harm in reducing emissions and limiting our impact on the environment?

-If we are not affecting the climate anyway, reduced pollution will only benefit us with even cleaner air and water.
-If we are affecting the climate, reducing pollution must be started as soon as possible to mitigate harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:28 PM

19. My post unequivocally stated

 

we should not just reduce pollutants but eliminate them. I think we agree then. Why the taxes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:36 PM

28. Not sure about how I would be taxed

I believe carrots would be better than sticks. Rather than extra taxes on pollutants, which encourages companies to hide their actual waste, offer incentives which encourages publication of positive actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:56 PM

48. Exactly

 

taxation is the solution. Elimination is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:38 AM

300. The only people I see get this lathered up over taxes are usually republicans.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:38 PM

30. That's kind of my take on it too

Why not be safe?

OTOH, it does gore a lot of economic oxen.

In any event, we don't have much control of India, China, etc.

Tragedy of the Commons.
Most likely we'll see a repeat of history and a fairly large die-off,
either through virus, starvation or war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:35 AM

333. We could have a lot of control of India and China if we

stopped trading with countries that pollute.

Problem is we like to pollute.

We drive SUVs and other gas guzzling cars. We drive instead of using public transportation that uses less gas.

We keep our houses extremely warm. Many people overheat their houses.

We use air conditioning when we really don't need to. We fly when we don't need to. We overconsume when it comes to energy. That is one of our national flaws.

Increasingly, I see young people in Los Angeles riding bikes and walking. It's healthy, and they are helping the environment. I wish I could do more. I want to leave a world with clean air, clean water and a livable climate for my grandchildren. It makes me sad when people raise foolish questions and refuse to do the minimal amount of research and then accept the undeniable truth that research proves. Really sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:27 PM

18. Watch the recent PBS two part special about the Dust Bowl....

That will show you that people can impact the weather.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WCGreen (Reply #18)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:31 PM

22. I did when it first showed

 

and a favorite of mine is Grapes of Wrath. My post did not cover that part of man screwing with nature. However it still coincides with man working with nature. That should be presumed. Why is it so important that it be presumed man is causing global warming and not that pollution is really bad? Why tax and not prevent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:30 PM

21. Rush is that you?

A massive conspiracy to raise taxes? Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #21)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:32 PM

23. You don't know Rush do you?

 

He is not for the E.P.A. I am however. A strict hand to stop pollution. So maybe you're Rush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:35 PM

27. Nice dodge.

How about addressing the substance of my post. You claim it's all a "scam to tax". Please proceed.


You're not any different than Rush if that's your position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:05 PM

58. Don't accuse someone of your

 

action.

Why tax? Why not eliminate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #58)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:34 PM

92. So you're economically illiterate too?

Scientifically, politically, and economically ignorant is not a good combination on this website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #92)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:48 PM

104. That would be you

 

and it's all too evident who's arse you kiss and your ignorance of other solutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #104)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:51 PM

109. You're the one that doesn't know how taxation works as a policy tool.

I understand the science. I know how policy tools work to influence the market. You clearly don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Viking12 (Reply #109)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:13 PM

125. No you don't.

 

You don't understand anything. Industry and the public will pay higher prices and it will continue. Tax breaks however are the answer. That is what prompted many hybrid sales. Not higher prices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:42 AM

301. I guess you won that argument!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:51 AM

335. The whole point of taxing polluting substances is to

cause them to cost more. We need a combination of tax breaks for choices that help the environment and a tax penalty for choices that harm it.

The problem is too serious, and our habits too deeply ingrained to change our behavior just with positive reinforcement.

There comes a time when the addicted smoker with a bad cough has to make a choice: smoke or die young.

As a society we are at that point. To reduce the prevalence of smoking in California, we raised the price of cigarettes and made it more expensive to smoke by raising taxes on tobacco products. We also prohibited smoking in places where people expose others to second hand smoke, places like restaurants and office buildings.

In part because of our geography, in part because the size of our cities, in part because we burn too many fossil fuels in Southern California, the air is bad even for those of us who don't smoke. As a state, we simply cannot afford to have to pay for the treatment of so many lung diseases. And from a humanitarian point of view, we don't want to see so many of us suffer from those diseases.

Climate change is going to cause reduced harvests, hunger, disease, forest fires, extreme weather events and any number of really horrible effects on our lives.

It may already be too late to slow down or stop the process of climate change. It's irresponsible and greedy for people to spread doubt on this issue. Climate change is real and it is caused to a great extent, a decisive extent, by human conduct. That is all there is to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #125)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:12 PM

381. So, tax cuts will cure global warming?

...which you deny exists? Er, um...ok.

lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #381)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:13 PM

383. No the tax breaks

 

for merchandise that is more energy efficient will help curb CO2 emmisions. I know it's hard for you but I am against pollutants. Man made CO2 happens to be one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #383)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:22 PM

391. Your "pollutants are bad" argument

is no more than a shield that you hide behind. Show the studies showing that CO2 is just another pollutant, and not the cause of climate change.

Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #391)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:28 PM

396. I've been around

 

during the dixoin poisoning, lead poisoning, smog causing lung diseae times. You are the one hiding behind the shield of CC & GW and not concerned about the real problem, pollutants. All you care about is keeping the earth temps from climbing. Fine, have your stoppage of earths temps and ingest other pollutants. That's smart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #396)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:42 PM

403. Again

Show the studies stating that CO2 is just another pollutant, and not the cause of climate change.

Thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #403)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:13 PM

472. don't hold your breath.

when the reggie is called on his bs, he uses supposition and opinion and zero facts and links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:35 PM

26. Pull your head out of the sand

The tide is coming in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #26)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:57 PM

51. Don't live on the beach and

 

never would. A person should build his house on a strong foundation. The beach isn't a good place to build. A great place to visit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #51)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:17 PM

74. It's a metaphor

for denial

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #74)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:26 PM

84. Very few are denying that it is

 

happening. Climate change happens every day. ROFLMAO. What the smart ones are denying is that we for sure know what the cause is but we know for sure pollution is bad for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #84)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:26 PM

131. Mitt Romney: ‘We Don’t Know What’s Causing Climate Change On This Planet’

You are taking the GOP position

Denial is rooted in fear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #131)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:35 PM

137. That is b.s.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #137)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:44 AM

302. No it is not. I hope your pizza is served piping hot!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #137)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:01 PM

371. What is BS?

The fact that you have adopted the GOP position and are shouting it from the rooftops, or that you are repeating Romney's climate change position verbatim?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #371)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:06 PM

374. No i havent that simply isn't true

 

I have relatives and friends who are die hard far righties. They want the E.P.A. abolished. I'm not saying the CC & GW isn't true. I simply stated I do not believe. An agnostic on the subject. I neither believe or disbelieve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #374)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:35 PM

399. You are doing a pisspoor job of hiding it

"An agnostic on the subject. I neither believe or disbelieve. " This statement is not true. You are shouting DENIAL from the rooftops. Your position is clear, that CO2 is not the cause of climate change, and that scientists are wrong.

You are trying to hide behind words like 'agnostic', and 'pollution' .

What are you so scared of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #399)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:39 PM

402. No no no

 

that is b.s.

I'm simply not convinced. You know, the area that isn't black nor white? Or do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #402)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:48 PM

406. You are convinced

You state so ad nauseum throughout this thread. You are convinced that the GOP and the Oil companies are correct, that CO2 is not causing climate change. That is your stated position.

An agnostic would not argue such a position. An agnostic would state, "Is it possible that climate change is caused by man made CO2, and it is possible that it isn't"

You are a climate change denier, which ranks right up there with birtherism and dinosaurs pulling plows in the middle ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #374)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:17 PM

474. "I'm not saying the CC & GW isn't true. I simply stated I do not believe."

!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #84)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:07 PM

201. So "the smart ones" to you exclude the group known as "scientists"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #201)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:09 PM

203. Well it's guaranteed it's not the smart

 

ones that think 100% of the scientist agree exactly on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:37 PM

29. ...

&feature=player_embedded

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:51 PM

41. Love that video!

Glad you posted it. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:01 PM

55. Got as far as 28 sec

 

when she said the 20th century. Damn the world is not a 10o yrs old!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #55)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:05 PM

254. Too bad. That video was made especially for you. You should watch to the end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #254)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:47 AM

303. Don't worry. He has republo-facts. And Rush and Sean will back him up.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #254)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:08 PM

377. And this graph was made especially for you

 



from

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/

but you will deny it with no reasoning what so ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #377)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:38 AM

464. I believe this is more accurate:

See post #462 for an explanation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:06 PM

255. Bravo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:41 PM

31. But pollutants ARE the cause of climate change. Isn't that the same as admitting humans cause it?

For the past 150 years, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, factories around the globe have been pumping toxins into our atmosphere and into our oceans. Relentlessly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:49 PM

38. Why does it matter?

 

Damn. Shouldn't it be "Pollution is bad and it's killing us. Let's eliminate it? Not tax it?" Or do you not believe that pollution is bad with or without global warming climate change etc. etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:02 PM

56. Of course pollution is bad, but since industrial pollution is impossible to completely eliminate

the worst offenders should be taxed for costs of already occurring climate change and pollution related health care. It would ease the burden on the FedGov in cases of things like Hurricane Sandy or Cancer treatment for uninsured, things that are in direct correlation with climate change & pollution. Not a tax on consumers, only worst industry offenders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #56)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:06 PM

62. No no no...

 

How on earth would taxation fix the problem?????

They have built a CO2 elimination machine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #62)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:14 PM

70. Oh I see, you're suggesting eliminating industrial pollution altogether??

There are absolutely ZERO ways to "fix the problem", there are only ways to slow it. Even then, it's a pipe dream unless we make this a global action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #70)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:19 PM

75. Think about what you just said

 

If there are ZERO ways to fix the problem and we can only slow it, then.......What is the point. That isn't acceptable and we had better find a REAL solution fast and taxation isn't it. Time to quit kidding ourselves with little kid notions.

I am advocating elimination and back to harmony with nature. Not just industrial pollution but all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #75)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:24 PM

81. Yeah, it sounds great, but it will never happen. Here's what taxation can do:

Give businesses a swift kick in the ass to start developing greener technology or we'll use their taxed money to develop our own and then sell them the patent for billions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #81)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:44 PM

101. That will never happen. Who is we.

 

The government. Nope. We would give the money to some other entity and they would most surely waste the money and take their time. Give it directly to M.I.T. and you might have something. Then require the related industries to use the technology. Yes that would work. I am OK with taxing the hell out of industry if used in that fashion only. NO taxation against the people or the raising of prices. Can you assure that the public wouldn't end up paying for it anyway. Tax breaks only for the people when buying energy saving goods. They stopped the hybrid tax breaks. They should make the most efficient cars have tax breaks for the consumer. In other words no new taxes for the people or higher prices. Taxation on the industries I have no problem with as long as not paid by the consumer by higher prices. Screw that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #101)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 07:25 PM

239. I think we're kind of on the same page in terms of utopia. The difference is...

Industrial pollution can never be completely eliminated, this I know. No matter how great or awesome the idea of zero pollutants in our atmosphere is the only thing we can really do is force business to develop green technology, and the only way to do that is to impose a tax or fine to jumpstart their ambitions. We can't do it militarily, and we can't do it by force. The only legal way is to tax biggest offenders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #75)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:45 PM

142. Taxation is the only way to force *ahem* deniers to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #142)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

160. No

 

Tax breaks are like they did with the hybrids. Rewards not punishment is the answer. You have no clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #160)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:19 PM

408. Taxes are punishment?

I remember Ben Stein and the GOP pushing that tripe a couple years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #408)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:12 PM

425. Unbelievable just

 

unbelievable. Carbon taxation will be just that, a punishment. Damn. Crazy is as crazy does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #425)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:42 PM

471. Carbon should be taxed out of existence

Taxation is a good way to solve the problem, forcing corporations to find alternative sources of energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:48 AM

304. Seems like your only REAL concern is your taxes. Hmmmm....

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:53 PM

44. Yes and that is pollution

 

and should be stopped. So......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:05 PM

60. But industrial pollution can't be stopped, it can be capped.

Until more efficient and ecologically sound technology comes along. Taxing pollution could invest in such technology. This is also a population issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #60)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:08 PM

65. You mean like Lotteries

 

would help our schools that have laid off thousands of teachers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #65)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:17 PM

73. No, you're thinking too locally, this would require global action. Climate change is not

a country problem, its a world problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #73)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:20 PM

77. I know and agree

 

with you it's a global problem. We now are getting food from all over the world and always the air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #77)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:27 PM

85. Yeah but you forget the ozone layer

Could try to prolong this thing:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #85)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:33 PM

90. I think you missed something

 

I said global pollution effects us all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:43 PM

34. It is an indisputable fact that the Earth is warming.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. It is pointless to argue with a thermometer.

It is also an indisputable fact that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere raises global temperatures. Therefore, it follows that it is conclusively true that human activity is raising global temperatures.

The only issue on which reasonable people can disagree is the question of whether or not there is an underlying natural warming trend that human activity is only exacerbating. But regardless, something needs to be done to either mitigate or adapt to what is happening.

And I have yet to read an informed opinion that denies human contributions to global warming from someone who was both highly-educated in climate science and not on the payroll of an oil company or political organization in some capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:52 PM

43. I personally wouldn't mind a littlem more warmth

 

and a little less cold. The world has been hotter before. Sheesh. But I do not want to pollute the world into a uninhabitable place. Damn. Taxes solve nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:56 PM

49. It isn't the heat.

Some areas will actually get colder due to disruption of ocean currents. The real problem will be the effect on agriculture and the availability of enough food to feed our swelling population.

Starvation, rising sea-levels, horrible storms, desertification of some areas, dogs and cats sleeping together.

In all seriousness, most people are seriously underestimating the amount of devastation this is likely to bring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #49)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:03 PM

57. and isn't the cause

 

POLLUTANTS????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #57)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

63. Well, that's what you say you're agnostic about.

I definitely think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #63)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:10 PM

67. What I said was

 

I am not convinced without a doubt that global warming climate change is 100% unequivocally man responsible. I am adamant that we should rid ourselves of pollutants and be in harmony with nature. That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #67)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:20 PM

76. Every time you exhale or fart you emit either CO2 or methane.

The existence of huge herds of beefcattle results in massive emissions of methane (cow farts). There is no way to reduce man made greenhouse emissions to zero. The question is how to reduce those emissions to an acceptable, sustainable level.

There are various methods that have been proposed to reduce emissions. A carbon tax is one of those. The theory being that people will reduce an activity if it is taxed.

Personally, I think a national carbon budget enforced by a cap and trade mechanism would be a much better approach. (But only in connection with a word wide plan to reduce emissions.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #76)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:21 PM

79. So now it's the cows is it.

 

No tax. That is a farce. It is not a solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #79)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:25 PM

83. The point is that we can't magically eliminate all emissions like you claim to want to do.

It's not a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #83)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:30 PM

88. The point was

 

getting back to harmony with nature. Man shits that is a fact. He will always pollute. That doesn't mean that he should create Dioxin and it is ok. Or that he should over populate the world so that he suffocates from his own feces.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #88)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:34 PM

93. If you are going to tell people to give up their iPhones...

 

...without telling them the production of them is causing the sixth extinction, you have a tough sell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #88)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:35 PM

94. We can't abandon technology altogether, but I do get your point ..

I think most of the people arguing with you get your point, although you don't believe that we do.

We *should* try to get back to nature and live in ways that are sustainable. Agreed.

It's just that most of us realize that we can't just wish that into being. There has to be some kind of mechanism to enforce it. And it has to be somewhat of a gradual change; otherwise there would be anarchy and disruption on a scale even more massive than climate change is likely to cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #94)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:58 AM

309. "disruption on a scale even more massive than climate change is likely to cause."

 

What disruption could be more massive than the extinction of most land-based species, including humans? This is our future, and may no longer even be avoidable. Maybe 15 years ago we still had a chance, but did virtually nothing. Taxes my ass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #309)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:04 AM

343. You're preaching to the choir with me, you know.

I was just attempting to make the point to the OP that we cannot just "cold turkey" stop 100% of emissions and expect anything less than an economic catastrophe followed by wars and massive starvation.

The solution is a worldwide framework that will reduce emissions to tolerable levels. I favor some sort of cap and trade mechanism, but others favor a carbon tax and I don't have a major problem with that either.

For what it's worth, I don't think we are capable of raising the global temperature sufficient to cause the extinction of most land-based species. (Unless, perhaps, we were trying to do that on purpose.) I could be wrong about that, but life has been proven to be highly adaptable in the past, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so in the future. But we are certainly working toward the demise of our technological civilization and the decimation (probably literally) of our population. And that would be very bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #343)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:52 PM

365. I wan't implying otherwise.

 

I could be exaggerating the extinction thing, but I don't think that enough evolutionary adaptability can take place in 20-30 years, but what do I know? I agree with your approach to a solution. I also think - after seeing plutocracy in action - it will probably take a major scientific breakthrough, in addition to the framework you described to prevent horrible consequences - even for those off us "exceptional humans" ( ) fortunate to live in the US of A.

Nice to chat with a kindred spirit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #79)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:27 PM

86. Cows are a component of man-made totalitarian agriculture

 

Not only do cattle produce methane, a lot of carbon is released from natural sinks when pastures are created. Without man, these problems would not exist, and they are significant.

Transporting, packaging, and refrigerating the meat is also not a carbon free process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #86)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:39 PM

98. Not to mention that many more calories per acre can be produced from plant-based crops.

Although I do love a good burger; I shouldn't have give them up completely. They should just be an occasional treat, and one that I'm forced to really pay-up for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #98)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:49 PM

105. NO oh no

 

let's tax the cows. We cant move away from eating cattle. No no no......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #79)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:52 AM

306. What a moron. I can't believe your logic. You don't seem able to follow intelligent argument.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #306)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:09 PM

379. You're real funny

 

you've posted elsewhere so I'll let it go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #379)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:19 PM

389. Yeah, this topic is fucking hilarious!

 

Regie, in the light of a new day, and minus a snootfull of vodka, I want to call a truce on this entire thread. You've been bashed enough for your opinions, and I've had a great time giving you shit about it. All in good fun, though! Peace brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #389)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:34 PM

398. OK!

 

We truly are on the same side. There is just one thing that we are not. I might be someday. I just haven't made up my mind on CC & GW. CO2 is one problem of many. I don't want mercury in my fish either and on and on. I don't stop there though. I want all pollutants reduced or eliminated. The point I was trying to make is that even though a person might not be convinced of CC & GW they still could be on your side. Don't alienate them. You need them. If they believe the E.P.A. and all regulations on pollutants needs abolished then most definitely. I'll be right there with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #43)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:49 PM

106. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've read today.

I think you should go play somewhere else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #106)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:08 PM

241. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #43)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:27 AM

455. I think maybe global warming doesn't mean exactly what you think it does. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:54 PM

46. And yet strangely the east coast had its worst winter in 2010 in the past 100 years

Oh, the woe, the woe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:58 PM

52. A 4 degree rise in global temperature would be devastating to agriculture.

But we would still have some cold winters. Cold winters happen. Weather is variable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:09 AM

452. Definitely very true.

As said in my reply to aletier, look at what happened in 2010 and 2011. As far as I can recall, just 5 years ago, scientists were saying that we'd see something on the order of 20 record highs for every record low(or something), by 2100. Now with those two winters in mind, and some research beginning to indicate that extreme winters may become more common as well, I'm calling this into question.

I think GreenMan had a couple of videos explaining how such extreme cold could still occur in an increasingly warming planet. I'll try to see if I can dig them up sometime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

64. And the continental US is in its worst drought in decades

 

Do these occurrences neatly cancel each other out to such the point that we don't have to measure global average temperatures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:08 PM

66. I don't think that you understand the concept

of global warming.

The formula that says GW= "it's getting hotter and hotter everywhere all the time" is fauxish and moronic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:23 PM

236. Strange only to Fox News fans.

And other deludalists.

In the us 2010 had some record snowfalls, not record low temperatures. Europe indeed had an unusually cold winter (along with record breaking summer heat waves), as the mitigating effect of the arctic ice cap on European weather patterns diminishes due to, ER, global warming and the shrinking of that ice cap.

The models predict more severe weather, not just increasing mean temperatures, and more severe will include regions where it will get colder than usual in winter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:16 PM

243. That is one of the dumber replies I hear on this subject.

Do you think global warming is like putting the Earth in a giant convection oven, so that it warms evenly over the whole surface?

And BTW, what is your definition of "worst winter"? Coldest? Wettest? Longest? Windiest? Most extreme?

Check out the link between increased absorption of energy in the atmosphere and wild weather and then think about that, before you answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:16 PM

385. Define "worst"

Wildest weather? This is normal to you? Last year was the warmest on record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:05 AM

451. Increasingly, though, I've been seeing research that is beginning to strongly indicate.....

That climate change may in fact, be a double-edged sword as far as temperatures go. The fact that we had two really nasty winters back to back in 2010/2011, maybe be partly coincidental, in of themselves, I suppose, but overall, maybe not so much. I recall hearing Carl Sagan made this same prediction sometime in the '90s; I'll have to see if I can find it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #451)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:27 PM

476. Hotter overall temps put more moisture in the atmosphere...

which leads to heavier snow and rain falls.

that's how climate change works when the temps go up.;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #476)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:33 PM

479. That's true as well. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 08:29 AM

456. Global warming causes weather extremes

It doesn't mean everywhere gets a little warmer and we all go on with our day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #456)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:54 AM

494. Very true.

In fact, you may remember the cold snap of February '96......that was highly unusual, as temps went as far down as -60*F in some parts of the country: How about Tower, Minn., for example? I have wondered from time to time, if ACC may have played a role in that event.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:26 PM

475. with hotter temps there is more moisture in the atmospher.

with more moisture, you have heavier snow and rain falls.

nice try with the denier logic. It failed and failed predictably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:48 PM

249. Yes, I agree, because that's what all the best evidence is telling us right now. n/t


And I have yet to read an informed opinion that denies human contributions to global warming from someone who was both highly-educated in climate science and not on the payroll of an oil company or political organization in some capacity.


I suppose there might be a few mavericks out there, but yes, I would think that the vast majority are indeed being paid off, as far as what I've seen so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:44 PM

36. Ask yourself where all the increased C12 in the atmosphere is from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 01:49 PM

39. You're not agnostic, you're smarmy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Schema Thing (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:23 PM

158. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Schema Thing (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:29 PM

163. You'e a

 

provacatuer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:05 PM

59. The conceit of anti-intellectualism

The conceit of anti-intellectualism is that if you are ignorant of something no one else can possibly know it either.

You can not have done much research on this topic or you wouldn't be posting such ignorant things like "I personally wouldn't mind a little more warmth". A rise in the earth's average temperature of even a couple degrees can, probably will, be a terrible disaster, killing many people. It will NOT be you having more comfortable days sipping iced tea on you veranda.

Educate yourself:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/06/two-degree-global-warming-limit-is-called-a-prescription-for-disaster/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #59)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:13 PM

68. Educate your ownself and

 

stop being anti-intellectual. Your ignorance of the earth's billions of years temperature and co2 levels history are astounding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #68)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:16 PM

72. And there you go. The response of someone stubbornly uninformed.

Read the Nasa article and get back to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to RegieRocker (Reply #80)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:52 PM

112. Do you know why this cooling occurred?

Snip> Plate collisions disrupt these carbon fluxes in a variety of ways, some tending to elevate and some tending to lower the atmospheric carbon dioxide level. It has been suggested that the Eocene, the early warm trend 55 million years ago, was caused by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide and that a subsequent decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide led to the cooling trend over the past 52 million years. One mechanism proposed as a cause of this decrease in carbon dioxide is that mountain uplift lead to enhanced weathering of silicate rocks, and thus removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

In addition, the collision of India and Asia led to the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas. While topography may not be enough to explain the cooling trends, another mechanism may account for changing climate. The uplift may have caused both an increase in the global rate of chemical erosion, as well as erode fresh minerals that are rapidly transported to lower elevations, which are warmer and moister and allow chemical weathering to happen more efficiently. Through these mechanisms, then, it has been hypothesized that the tectonically driven uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas is the prime cause of the post-Eocene cooling trend.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

This cooling took MILLIONS of years! We are seeing all this wiped away in a decade!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #120)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:11 PM

123. Nope

 

you didn't read it did you. My graphs went back hundreds of thousands of years. Not a thousand. Wrong......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #123)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:18 PM

130. Your graphs are based on data that has been disproven.


See my links. Or watch this video:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #130)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:31 PM

134. Show me at least 3 links

 

with graphs that go back 10,000 yrs then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #134)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:12 PM

153. All you have to do is go to NOAA's own website

Go to the 3:40 mark of this video and it will explain why: &feature=related


Here is NOAA's actual link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #153)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:26 PM

162. Once again

 

they only go back a few hundred years. You don't believe in evolution and that the world is billions of years old?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #162)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:22 PM

235. Few hundred years? The link focus on the Earth 6,000 years ago.


Look at the link again: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

It re-butts your clams about the data for the past 10,000 years.

Yes the Earth has been much warmer and much colder over the entire course of it's history but scientists know what mechanism's cause this. In our current state of warming with all the natural mechanism's plugged in to their models, the hockey stick warming is a huge anomaly that can only be explained by humans flooding the atmosphere with extra CO2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #235)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:15 PM

426. Hell look at the graph

 

it's been much warmer many times in the past. Just because you have a silly slice of time for the last 200 yrs means nothing. Nothing is proven yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #426)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:36 PM

437. 200 years? What on Earth are you talking about? The link talks about the past 10,000 years!!!!


And YOU KNOW IT DOES!!!! And I have explained to you over and over and over and over why it was warmer in the past and what the natural mechanism was and why we are currently in anomaly and yet you keep acting ignorant. This little game is getting old. You are either willfully ignorant or have the comprehension of a 2nd grader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #437)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:36 PM

480. some people enjoy being obtuce rather than admit they are wrong.

trying to argue with them, is like trying to argue with a 5 year old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:05 PM

61. Oh, and you can stop worrying about that carbon tax.

I don't think it's going to happen, and I don't think it would happen with 435 Democrats in the House and 100 in the Senate.

There needs to be some kind of mechanism to control greenhouse emissions, but it needs to be a worldwide program and not a nation-specific one. One country acting alone would be pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg (Reply #61)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:15 PM

71. Agreed

 

and a tax is not the answer. I prefer an elimination. Not having it in my environment vs having a taxed pollutant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #71)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:21 AM

312. Simplistic teabag mentality. OK, I'll bite. I go for elimination over tax. (snaps fingers)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #312)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:35 PM

361. Wrong snap

 

go for tax breaks over more taxation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #361)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:57 PM

369. Not enough incentive to offset the offenders huge profits.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #369)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:04 PM

373. It would be if we raised

 

their corporate taxes and removed loop holes and write offs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #373)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:12 PM

380. Good luck with that idea.

 

How about we also eliminate all the billions in subsidies to the greatest polluters and use that money for helping upgrade the power grid to support the new power and battery solutions that may develop in time to save us from the worst predictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #373)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:36 PM

400. oooooooohhhhh! Raise taxes. well, at least now you are blatantly i consistent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #373)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:34 PM

409. Short of outright ban

The only way to make it go away is to tax it out of existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:25 PM

82. What you 'believe' and the way you 'feel' about it

Is all well and good, but I'll stick with the science, thanks.

I think beliefs and feelings are better saved for things like church and personal relationships.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #82)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:28 PM

87. Then believe your science then

 

http://eonsepochsetc.com/Mesozoic/Cretaceous/cretaceous_home.html

and then you can feel appropriately about the subject. Either way pollution is bad and needs to be eliminated. Taxation will solve nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #87)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:31 PM

89. Pollution just correlates with environmental death

 

Come on man, does it really cause it? It being "bad" seems like a belief to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #89)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:52 PM

111. You need to say a little more

 

ambiguous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:33 PM

91. "The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

FTA: Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that variations in sunlight could have ended the “Little Ice Age,” a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we’ve learned from satellite measurements that solar activity changes the brightness of the sun very little.

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #91)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:55 PM

113. It's mind boggling really

 

why on earth do you persist to convince me that we are causing it? Do you not believe that pollution is the cause? Do you not believe that our only hope is by removing the pollution? I don't get it at all. Are we not in agreement that we need to eliminate pollution? If not all at least the CO2? If not what is the point of taxing green house gases?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #113)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:10 PM

152. You can't post an OP here about being "agnostic" about AGW

and not expect people to react severely (and apparently also rashly) to it. Surely you know that we have a huge and heavily funded AGW denialism industry on our hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #152)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:31 PM

164. That is the point

 

blindsided by your position you are. It's the pollutants that are the problem. Not whether or not we are causing the warming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #164)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:12 PM

207. So where do you think the pollutants come from? Mice? Rocks? Goldfish?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #207)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:18 PM

210. Are you serious

 

really now? Come on!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #164)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:46 PM

224. I know I should drop this by now, but...

Yes, pollutants are a problem. There's a hell of a lot of them that we need to worry about. And there seriously is a case to be made for us as a species to be in more in tune with mother nature.

But:

Is AGW a real problem that somehow should be dealt with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #224)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:50 PM

227. Wouldn't that mean

 

dealing with the cause? If pollutants are a problem and we begin to morally deal with them wouldn't the AGW be a mute point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #227)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:10 PM

232. Here's the thing

You obviously own a pc/mac, and as such you are contributing to said pollution. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to War Horse (Reply #232)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:36 PM

362. Then your a doomsayer.

 

What is your point then on this topic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #362)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:42 PM

482. "you're" not "your".

he points up the fact that you are also contributing to the problem and you call him a "doomsayer"? that's very weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #113)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:28 AM

314. Jesus - who causes pollution? The dolphins? Santa Claus?

 

In this scenario we aren't worried about most pollutants. Green house gasses will end life on this planet, most specifically CO2, not pesticides, fertilizers or other man-made pollutants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:36 PM

95. I'm agnostic on genetic engineered food

In fact I think there will come a time when we need genetically engineered food. With 7 billion people in the world and climate change creating super storms, floods, and droughts, I don't think we will be able to feed the world without it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:38 PM

97. You don't think scientists who are experts on the subject have included natural climate cycles

into their models? Fact is, if anything we should be on a very slow cooling trend right due to the Milankovitch and solar cycles and yet we are warming at a rate that is 1000 times faster than anything that has ever been observed. The science behind this is rock solid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #97)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:51 PM

108. 400k years

 

from a Billion of year old earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #97)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 08:58 PM

252. Well, mostly so anyway.

The Younger Dryas period is an exception, though: some scientists say that the Earth's temperature may have gone up by as much as 7*C in just several decades!
So yeah, it's still rather rare, though, and I think at least a good part of the warming we've seen over the years might not have happened if we hadn't been pumping so much Co2 into the air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #97)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:32 AM

315. Not only that, but every year they find the models not aggressive enough.

 

We are on a trajectory to oblivion. I hope Reggie will be around to see the worst of it. Maybe by then he'll be a believer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:43 PM

100. Calm Down

Look, the real problem here is that people are monkeys. Our DNA is hardwired to tribal behavior of groups numbering a few dozen. Our time horizon is hard coded to a few weeks to a couple of seasons. We're wired to eat and make more monkeys, not to contemplate death.

By all means keeping discussing and acting but be aware of the limitations of your audience. Most likely AGW gets resolved the old fashioned way, ie lots of death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #100)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:45 PM

103. Sad but true

 

just trying to help. Sorry.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #100)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:20 PM

156. Let's be happy that the two of you evolved beyond monkeyhood


unlike the rest of us ignorant fucks, right?
Smarm, smug assholes who thrive on contrarianism without understanding what this is really about or what really is at stake.

My IPCC-attached friends @ my workplace heavily disagree. But hey... only correlations right.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:45 PM

102. You are willfully ignorant or in denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #102)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:50 PM

107. That would be you

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #107)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:03 PM

116. Before you post links trying to make your case please take the time to understand the mechanism


that caused the warming and cooling to occur. The rise of the Himalayas is what they believe caused the cooling to occur and this took millions of years. See my link above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #116)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:06 PM

119. This is about Global warming

 

not about Global cooling. If we were going into another ice age I don't believe this would be an issue other that pollution is not good for health. I understand the hypothesis you have stated. Not sure why you're on cooling and not warming. Temperatures have increased in the past dramatically in a short period of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #119)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:14 PM

126. Of course it's about global warming


Your link makes the point it was warmer over 50 million years ago which is true. The reason it cooled was because of the rise of the Himalayas. Not sure why you posted that link now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #126)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:33 PM

135. You're still not addressing

 

the right issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #135)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:26 PM

237. I addressed your links as directly as humanly possible


Fill me in on what the "right issue" has changed to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #237)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:19 AM

296. Pollutants

 

always has been. Isn't that the cause of global warming? Instead you bring up cooling when you accuse me of denying CC & GW?
How do you explain this?



from

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #296)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 03:03 PM

407. Your graph is only as good as understanding the mechanism's behind it which you don't understand

It's also based on old data. Our current temperature is above the Medieval warming period as I pointed out before and you ignored http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html . There has been cooling and warming for billions of years but climate scientists understand the mechanism of these occurrences. Your graph is meaningless without knowing if what set off the warming and coolings throughout Earth's history was natural or not. They know very clearly that the warming we are seeing currently is NOT natural but caused by humans. Got it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #407)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:49 PM

484. Don't hold your breath for a reply...

anyone that has called him on that crazy graph never gets a responce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #296)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:40 AM

465. You are truncating data

See post #462 for an explanation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #107)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:43 PM

140. What we know of the Cretaceous Period is not at all mutually exclusive

from human-caused climate change we are experiencing now. You provided nothing which I, nor any logical person need to deny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #107)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:36 AM

316. Are you "J. E. Morris" by any chance? Not much behind this website.

 

About Eons, Epochs, Etc.

Since I was a youngster, I have loved paleontology. It wasn't just the dinosaurs that fascinated me, but it was the amazing progression of Life on Earth in all it's varied and multifarious expressions. It inspires nothing but awe.

My educational and occupational pursuits took me down a different path, but my interest never waned. This website is the result of my continued passion. It is a website dedicated to the lay person in love with paleontology. A website whose approach is not simplistic nor painted with broad brushstrokes. Nor does it contain lists of species and overly-technical pronouncements. Like the Goldilocks fairy tale, I hope the readers will find this information "just right".

In summary, my goals for this site are the following:

Provide information (backed by current scientific research) about the various eons, eras, epochs, etc. of this wonderful planet of ours.
Present the facts on a level that the general reader will understand and at the same time be challenged and inspired.
Create a well-organized and easy-to navigate website that will enhance the learning experience.

Happy Reading!

J.E. Morris

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #316)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:43 PM

404. i bet you nailed it. nothing but spam when you get down to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 02:57 PM

114. I would say I'm convinced that we definitely can cause climate change. There was a day when

no one thought dumping waste in a big river would ever amount to much and look how that turned out. I'm leaning toward believing global warming is already happening.

I'm not totally convinced it's happening yet or that the scientists have figured out just what will happen. Kind of like how I'm not convinced the cops figured out just what happened in the O.J. case. I always try an be aware when I'm relying on someones experts to make up my mind. I know I will tend to side with who I"m predisposed to believe. In the case of climate, it's more like disbelieving the corporate deniers. Their claiming it's all a hoax is definitely a lie. I know they are paid to say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:00 PM

115. This is why deniers and lukewarmers

aren't allowed in the E/E group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #115)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:03 PM

118. It becomes a circus in no time

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #118)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:10 PM

121. Explain to me why it makes a difference

 

if CO2 levels are greatly reduced from the belief that they are harmful to your health or that they are reduced because it's causing our earth's temperature to rise. Doesn't the same result happen? What is the point? Taxation? I don't get it. Is it only CO2 that is harmful not other pollutants. Wouldn't it be better to move away from harmful pollutants? Why is it so important to push "Global Warming"? Why not push "Harmony with Nature"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #121)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:16 PM

128. One idea is nonsense

 

The only reason CO2 is "harmful to your health" is because they warm the earth and will result in drought & famine.

There is much more science illustrating that current CO2 levels trap above baseline heat, than any that suggest these levels harm us physically.

And as I mentioned earlier, I think taxation is a carbon shell game that is bullshit.

Yes, its good to stop polluting. Yes, harmony with nature is good, but only if you can show the opposite (infinite growth civilization that cultivate & destroys nature) is bad; the most obvious reason it is bad is because it is causing the 6th extinction on earth by warming the globe!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #118)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:12 PM

124. It always descends into anti-intellectualism

and ad hominem attacks, whether on other DUers or on scientists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #124)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:30 PM

133. I see that across the board

 

no matter where on the graph a person falls or whether they are a scientist or not. The fact is pollution is bad. Some must be tolerated depending on what it is. Example "man shits". However as I have stated it doesn't mean man should procreate to the point that he suffocates on everyone's feces. Nature has a remedy for that. I only stated that pollution is our common enemy and that this division on whether we are causing global warming is not necessary. The fact is, it's not good period. We live in a finite world. We need to treat everything as it were our own backyard. That everyone is family. Real simple, but as always, no matter what side of the political spectrum your on, the same intolerant behavior exists. Unable to see the forest for the trees. Would I like to see us reducing natural pollution (naturally occurring but man made) to acceptable levels? Yes. Would I like to see unnatural pollution (man made) being eliminated? Yes. So in essence I have seen nothing other than the intolerable "must believe in global warming, climate change etc." and if you don't you're ignorant responses. Yep that helps the cause greatly. Yes I am a Democrat but am not tolerant of far left closed mindedness. It's not acceptable and it's was and will be the demise of the Republicans if they do not change. As a Democrat I feel it's my duty to not let it happen to our party. I will not waiver from that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #133)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:52 PM

145. "The fact is pollution is bad"

 

Why? Essentially by tautology; the definition of pollution is:

The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects



There are different types of pollution. They have different effects (all of which is harmful, or otherwise it would not be considered to be a pollutant).

CO2's harmful effect is trapping heat. Its not just bad/pollution because it looks yucky. Its "pollution" because it traps heat. Its actually entirely a natural substance, but its source from humans and effect is above natural levels in recent history.

If you don't agree that it traps heat, you cannot classify CO2 as a pollutant and your entire argument about reducing CO2 because pollution is "bad" (since its not a pollutant anymore) falls apart. At that point, you just become a climate denier.

On edit: Its also associated with ocean acidification as mentioned above, but I don't know if you believe it causes that or correlates to that. Also, of course it, as all gases do, has a toxic level that isn't even relevant in the context of the current discussion, as we will never make it there in our atmosphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #145)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:20 PM

157. More b.s.

 

Anything that causes a health hazard indirectly or directly is a pollutant. As I stated which escaped you is the natural man made and unnatural man made. Read it again.

the definition of pollution is:
The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects

Are you saying that CO2 has harmful effects or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #157)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:25 PM

161. Wait, so atmospheric CO2 is significantly contributing to the warming or not?

 

Yes or no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #161)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:32 PM

166. You first be polite not rude

 

by ignoring my question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #166)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:39 PM

175. I've addressed it elsewhere

 

Are you saying that CO2 has harmful effects or not?


CO2 is not harmful to organism at these levels (.04%) but may be toxic at 5% (which is outside the realm of this discussion). Oxygen is also toxic in too high of levels, so is it a pollutant?

CO2 is otherwise only harmful (classifiable as a pollutant) due to its effects on climate. I cannot yet determine if you believe in those effects or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #175)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:47 PM

183. I believe

 

an over abundance of CO2 is harmful to the environment but not necessarily the cause of a temperature increase and I don't think it matters. If I have bad eggs I'm going to look at the chicken. I also stated it needs to be reduced as it can't be eliminated because it's naturally occurring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #183)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:51 PM

186. Wow. That is very anti-science

 

Its magically bad when its a fraction of the toxic levels, but it can't trap heat (observable in a simple experiment).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoOneMan (Reply #186)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:59 PM

194. Unbelievable

 

The world is the hottest it has ever been! LOL. No back during the dinosaur age when Freddy was driving around in his automobile he was the cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs. The earth supposedly started as a molten orb. It was very hot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #183)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:17 PM

387. You believe

"an over abundance of CO2 is harmful to the environment but not necessarily the cause of a temperature increase"

Show us a study that backs your statement, if one exists. Oil company studies do not count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #133)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:44 AM

317. And most of us are not tolerant of far right closed mindedness.

 

That is why you are meeting some resistance. Pollution is bad. Yeah, we get that - by definition it is not preferable to an unpolluted environment. What is irking me is that the topic of global warming (and yes that is what it is - I'm not going to dumb down the conversation for right-wingers) is about a small subset of global pollutants. We are specifically talking about CO2. Since you cannot acknowledge that, it make people thing you are a troll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #317)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 01:42 PM

363. I'm not tolerant

 

of either the far right or far left. I am a democrat however. I am as with others, am getting very tired of these far from center individuals labeling our party with nonsense agenda. It creamed the Repugs this election and I DO NOT want to see it happen to my party. As far as acknowledgement, grapple with this. I do not want the world I live in to have normal temps and be polluted to hell and back with high taxation. That seems to be yours and others goal. Just because I feel that way doesn't mean I don't understand what your group is trying to convince me of. I am simply not convinced either way. I however do want to reduce CO2. So go ahead and alienate me. Real smart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #363)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:06 PM

375. Get used to it - there are many far-left people on DU

 

I am tolerant of anyone that is sane and able to process information logically and - most importantly - is able to distinguish between fact and propaganda - no matter where it comes from. That makes me intolerant of GW deniers - and GW confusers and FUD purveyors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #375)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:16 PM

386. Once again if you deny this

 

then it is you who is the denier



from

http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/02/23/global-cooling-not-warming-is-the-problem/

you see the whole notion of a 200 yr graph of a world that is billions of years old is a crock. This represents the big picture. Not a slice of a moment in time that helps further your agenda of taxation instead of tax breaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #386)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 02:20 PM

390. Peace brother.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #115)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:56 PM

147. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XemaSab (Reply #115)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 09:18 PM

259. What is a "lukewarmer", btw?

I do believe things COULD get really, really bad if this problem isn't addressed. I just don't think that a 6*C scenario is necessarily inevitable, that's all? Am I a lukewarmer because of that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:11 PM

122. Marco Rubio is "agnostic" on the age of the earth. Like minds I see!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retread (Reply #122)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:14 PM

127. Blind you are

 

because I have posted the earth is billions of years old. Bad try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #127)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:58 PM

192. Now don't you go burning Marco Rubio at the stake...

...simply because he has a different opinion than you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:16 PM

129. Uh huh...

... and evolution is a hoax too.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #129)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:38 PM

138. Are you saying

 

that we should lovingly accept pollution because it will help us to evolve?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #138)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:52 PM

144. Sure...

... that's exactly what I was saying.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #144)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:23 PM

159. It's what you believe

 

we need pollution to evolve.....obviously because I don't see how evolution was the least bit relevant to the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #159)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:31 PM

165. But of course!

It's perfectly logical, on a 6000 year old Earth.

I dare you to prove otherwise.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #165)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:34 PM

167. Prove that it isn't

 

I bet you've proved nothing. You only take only people's word on that. I on the other hand trust neither. So both sides hate me. I don't give a rats ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #167)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:41 PM

180. I'm not the ...

... one making serious claims.

I suggest you look up the definition of "mocking."


You're one extra smart feller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #180)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:51 PM

185. Issues

 

you have many. Making the claim about evolution or global warming is a serious claim. I however as it escapes you made only one claim. That pollutants are bad and need to be eliminated. So continue mock on....I smella fart

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #185)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 04:55 PM

187. Maybe you should..

... go wipe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #187)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:00 PM

195. Yep your my favorite

 

****

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Reply #195)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 05:55 PM

229. Ahh gosh...

... I'm so honored. However...


.. I won't be joining you under the bridge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #229)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 06:00 PM

230. I wouldn't expect you to leave

 

yours. I understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:28 PM

132. Oh geez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #132)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:34 PM

136. You need to change your

 

rectangular box text since you don't believe in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RegieRocker (Original post)

Sat Nov 24, 2012, 03:48 PM

143. What is your position on evolution? And on tax increases for the wealthy, generally?

I'm looking for context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink