Well this ain't man's doin.

Man is doin Gods werk. So anybody who puts any measure into this is against God and for Terrorism.

So anybody who puts any measure into this is against God and for Terrorism.

I just love these leaps of logic.

Here comes Chicken Little again. CO2 is rising. Run for the hills!

Let me see if I get this straight. CO2 has risen so fast in the past hundred years that it has exceeded anything within the past 650,000 years. Is that about right? And why is that Zat? Explain to me again how this is the fault of man?

*yawn*

I heard last night on the news that a wedding leaves a huge carbon footprint, more than the equivalent for one person for one year. The answer to global warming then is to ban weddings. If you care at all about the planet, you will not get married.

Which will eventually trigger another Ice Age, but stopping the Gulf Stream. Fortunately, those of us alive today don't have a thing to worry about. But don't buy Beachfront Property.

And if you do buy beachfront property don't worry, Joe Six Pack taxpayer will bail you out, just like they will bail you out if you got into a bad mortgage. The Free Market at work.

Oh bullshit! That's a lie. God made the earth 5 thousand years ago... 7 thousand... tops. Fucking scientists will tell you anything. All they want is your money... worse yet your soul.

Cap emissions. Everyone in the same boat. No use in making matters worse. At least our contribution is within our control. Curbing and then lowering the CO2 emissions would be a good thing if for no other reason than we can't breathe it.

Ray, did you check out that video posted by member2586? It's very informative.

Apocalypto - At your suggestion, I looked at it. That about sums up dooomsdayers like Zat.

I had this uncomfortable feeling a long time ago when scientific research was getting dependent on government grants that it would be infected by political correctness.

Everytime I pull a ringtab, CO2 is released, and boy do I feel guilty. But I'm reducing planetary toxic waste one beer at a time.

WHITE HOUSE THINK TANK:

This document is top secret. You are not to discuss this matter outside of our selected group of professionals.

Your Job Assignment:

HOW DO WE TAX OXYGEN?

Given there was no world for 640,000 of those years, this is no big surprise. More CO2 in the air is just God's way of helping the afghan poppies to grow.

The Right

greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane

According to my ears, nose, throat and eyes -- 95% of all the world's greenhouse gases are currently right here in the Los Angeles basin.

Curbing and then lowering the CO2 emissions would be a good thing if for no other reason than we can't breathe it.

Posted by OzarkAggie

Plants do, they can't breath oxygen. Do you want to kill all the plants oza?

You can't convince Ray man has any effect on global warming and you can't teach pigs to fly. Why bother with trying either?

Anyone who thinks scientists from all over the world are lying so they can get government money is too stupid to reason with, just as pigs are too wingless for flying. Neither will ever be able to accomplish the goal.

Yeah sure Bob. I don't see real science here. All I see is a mish mash of gobbledygook, fearmongering, mathematical modeling and argument by authority. If you knew a little something about science, you would know that scientists are susceptible to going off on tangents as anybody else. Don't think that government subsidies don't help.

And as for our good buddy Zat. He doesn't do a thing to clear up the confusion. All he does is post global warming stories and insult skeptics.

What global warming story, Ray?
The ice melted.
New ice core data are published.
It's flooding in Africa.
You're the one who set up your boorish strawman.

We're all impressed that your genius surpasses that of the members of the National Academies combined, and your expert opinion on chaotic systems and numerical methods in supercomputers garners you many inquiries from NCAR.

The science has been understood for almost two centuries, just not by you.

1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation.

Zat - I think you've gone senile. I don't know how many times I told you I accept global warming and embrace it. You, like a complete moron, keep ignoring me as if I'm denying global warming. The more I think about it, you remind me of Niceville.

We're all impressed that your genius surpasses that of the members of the National Academies combined, and your expert opinion on chaotic systems and numerical methods in supercomputers garners you many inquiries from NCAR.

Argument by authority. That's not science. That religion.

There's more CO2 in the atmosphere than at ANY time in the last 650,000 YEARS?????

My God! and after only 12 years of running the country........
Another reason to not let the rethuglicunts be in charge in Washington for extended periods of time......

All the peasants and commoners should cease to drive vehicles and warm their houses so that I can fly around the country in my fuel-guzzling private jet and preach about Global Warming...

Sincerely

Al Gore

"so that I can fly around the country"

Only pilots fly.

Al's just Spam in a can.

Plants do, they can't breath oxygen. Do you want to kill all the plants oza?

Posted by Sniper at 2007-09-16 03:07 PM | Reply

Like so many of you on the "right" you are wrong.

When sunlight hits a plant, it takes in CO2 and releases Oxygen. When it is dark, the plant takes in Oxygen and releases CO2.

Know what else breathes oxygen? Fish.

Only pilots fly.

Sure, whatever. You work pretty hard here to make yourself believe you are superior don't you?

Sure, whatever. You work pretty hard here to make yourself believe you are superior don't you?

Don't get him started. He'll post the picture of the mountain from the plane window again. Three times was enough for me.

he STILL refuses to see the correlation between the industrial revolution and the sharp increase in atmospheric CO2.

Posted by ddenton at 2007-09-16 10:11 PM | Reply

Ray probably understands the relationship between Co-2 and industrial activity. What he also understands is that the Earth has gone through multiple cooling and warming cycles long before the first Ford.

A point Denton ignores, in denial or stupidity. Or probably blind political asshole-ness.

Well, Vern, what do you think of increased levels of CO2? Do you deny the possibility that humans could have an effect on this planet?

ok so before 650k years it was worst? before man was ever around ...

what's the evidence anyway? i didn't read it because i know it's bullshit. CO2 has gone up and down for millions of years. CO2 goes up, iceage hits, co2 declines. it's been in cycles forever. North pole and south pole swaps also causing problems.

fact is this - the planet is in constant change. Planet is alive and moving within. It does not take any human involvement. There are galactic giant space gases and dust the effect planets. Our galaxy is in constant acceleration. There are cosmic rays that effect the planets weather. The sun goes through phases that we can actually quantify. every 11 years the sun goes through major changes that do in fact effect the planets weather.

CO2 makes up a very small percentage of greenhouse gases. Majority being water vapor. Methane is a green house gas. All these gases keep the planet from freezing. This is a good thing. Too much greenhouse gas will just eventually escape into space anyway.

The melting has happened before. Just now paying attention to it because you think it's important. Like when you buy a new car you suddenly see all the cars of your make and model. It's perception.

Humans are weak and frail beings with the intelligence of a common animal. You assume you're smart and witty but you know no more about weather than the common animal. Weather is complicated - if it was easy Meteorologists would be able to predict the weather with ease. How often have you said "wow they were way off"? Weather is in constant change unpredictable to even the most sophisticated computers.

"Global warming" is politically motivated and why people reject it. Show some actual science behind it. You're heated arguments and telling people to obey your order is rejected. People aren't buying this crap anymore. People who have are now actually asking questions.

these are facts. I guess anyone who's politically motivated will ignore them. Bottom line is this; we're still here right?

"Well, Vern, what do you think of increased levels of CO2? Do you deny the possibility that humans could have an effect on this planet?" -

People reject your assumptions with little science. Assumptions are not science. Just because it makes sense it doesn't make it fact. It once made sense that the world was flat because you could see into the distant lands for so far until it appeared to fall off over the edge.

What's your response to the the hottest year recorded being revised to 1958 i think it was?

Prag, do you think humans can effect the climate? Yes or no? And most scientist believe current global warming is human-caused. What do you think of that?

BTW, do you have a source for 1958 as the hottest year? I can't find it.

And most scientist believe current global warming is human-caused. What do you think of that?

I would say you are full of shit.

Why didn't you comment on the thread just within the last week showing that more than 500 peer reviewed papers had been published recently questioning aspects of the man-made global warming assertion?

Show me your facts that "most scientist believe" this crap. Keep in mind... to show that most scientist believe it, it takes more that just showing that supposedly 2000 scientist signed some paper to the UN. You also have to show how this stacks up to the total number of relevant scientist there are. Never mind the fact that many of the scientists listed on that report have actually come forward since then demanding that their names be taken off of it since they never agreed to what the report said they were agreeing to.

Zatoichi tries to see, "It's already happened.
That's why the ice is melting faster than predicted."

You have cause-and-effect mixed-up, knuckle-head!

Haven't you heard, you lotus-eating dreamer? Venus, Mars and some moons of Jupiter and Saturn are warming, at the same time as Earth's atmosphere is warming ...

Is that because of melting methane, Oh Ye Blind Mendicant?

Zat says, "Happy extinction, Tad, you deserve it."

Misery loves company, Zat, and you have replaced any existing echo of formal religion with the belief in, "Global Warming".

Just 10-15 thousand years ago, there was a massive extinction which took place on the Earth. Thousands of species became extinct because of the process of "Global Warming", and which ended the last great world wide Ice Age and started the Holocene period of geography. Mammoths and Mastadons perished, sabre-toothed tigers, three-toed horses, the giant Birds of Australia and New Zealand, among hundreds and hundreds of others.

Not one iota of industrial CO2 started that warming -- in fact it is unknown to science just why the warming took place -- Except The Sun Got Warmer ... or our position in space changed significantly!

I vote for the sun's periodic cycles of variance, and which can be more or less, depending on circumstances mankind hasn't a clue of, now ...

... all those except arrogant believers in the religion of Global Warming which is kindling a fire in the hearts of believers desperate for some faith ... some spiritual handle to feel superior over believing ...

As you wish extinction on your fellow man ...

Many of the comments here are echoing the idiot in charge of mass communications (Rush Limbo) and drawing the conclusion that if CO2 levels were higher so many years ago and man wasn't here then it logically follows that man is not responsable for the CO2 rise today. For the unthinking conservative which is normal this may make sense. However let me address the rednecks here with an analogy they might understand , car engines. What causes an engine to burn oil? Answere there are many reasons: poor oil, low oil, improper engine assembly, high engine temps, dirty oil, grit in the oil, etc etc etc. So you see man can be responsible for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless you can show where there is a corresponding phenomena that is raising the CO2 levels beside man made you have to conclude that man is at least partly responsible since we are putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Reznwerks to promote headaches, "Many of ... are echoing ... Rush Limbo... and drawing the conclusion that if CO2 levels were higher so many years ago and man wasn't here then it logically follows that man is not responsable for the CO2 rise today."

No, my major was chemistry, with a minor in "Environmental Health", and I've been interested in the subject since grade school. Rush echoes the actual science, and not the spiritual belief and greed for power which is the motive for those fostering Global Warming as another "The-Sky-Is-Falling" scenerios they slavishly use to do so. Notably, Leftist/Democratic politicians and their dupes here in the USA.

"... What causes an engine to burn oil? Answere there are many reasons: poor oil, low oil, improper engine assembly, high engine temps, dirty oil, grit in the oil, etc etc etc. So you see man can be responsible for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere."

Unreal! You acknowledge that there are many factors in any diagnosis of engine heating, but then pick out one example that makes the temperature rise in our atmosphere ... CO2?

It is undoubted, no claims have been made otherwise, that mankind adds to CO2 levels ... however, CO2 levels do not drive Global Warming!!!

You know this! The UN just got through informing you "believers" to change your emphasis to methane ... but you won't listen!!! You keep on insisting that mankind is doing it ... now by farting too much!!! Meat eaters and the meat, are the next enemy of mankind to destroy == along with McDonald's and Walmart!

"Unless you can show where there is a corresponding phenomena that is raising the CO2 levels beside man made you have to conclude that man is at least partly responsible since we are putting a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere."

CO2 levels have not risen much because the Earth absorbs excess CO2; increasing plant life, algae and photosynthesizing bacteria; the sea, rocks, earth, ad nauseam.

You and Zat are co-religionists, that's for sure!

Rush echoes the actual science

Ah, a pale echo of Science. A useful tactic. Using science to dispute Science. The betrayl evidenced by:

The religion of science is the most idiotic one of them all! It defines "oxymoronic" ...

Posted by tadowe at 2007-09-17 04:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts." George Orwell, 1984

Yav misconstrues with a quote, "The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts." George Orwell, 1984"

I had said, "The religion of science is the most idiotic one of them all! It defines 'oxymoronic' ..."

Indeed, you and George are correct! It is a contradiction of plain facts to assert that science is supported by BELIEF or FAITH! The exact opposite is the reality! No belief or faith allowed in science!

I love this thread. IMO, it represents a pretty good debate on this issue.

Certainly, I don't deny the possibility of man's contribution to this issue nor do I deny what we are experiencing from a global climate perspective.

With that said, it is getting old to be accused of being a Rushlover if your opinion isn't consistent with those who believe man IS causing global warming. Actually, it makes your position weaker by playing that card.

Your use of "blackwhite" is scienceScience, Tad.

Good article on CO2

www.co2science.org

www.sourcewatch.org

Posted by YAV

Yeah, this one too. $90K in funding means what?

Either disprove it with science or leave it alone.

Yav mumbles, "Your use of "blackwhite" is scienceScience, Tad."

I don't know what you said, unless it is saying that I "believe" in the institution of science, and therefor it is my religion, too?

I do NOT believe in the institution of science, I only rely on facts and observation to determine what is and what is not reality. I may build a theory of how-things-workd, but I won't defend that theory with belief or faith, when contradicted by fact or observation ... as does the institution which invents "Dark Matter" to justify their theory of cosmology....

Or, political hacks like Gore, who uses it to gain influence and political power ... gathering murmuring hordes of partisan dupes and stooges who BELIEVE and have FAITH in the Religion of Global Warming ....

"Run for your lives ... the sky is falling, the sky is falling ..."

La Mole, has "gravitas"? Weight? Mass?

Eberly,

At least you know Exxon funds The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Eberly. Thanks for checking the link.

It's rather long article Jest cites. Besides, who's mind would be changed?

The information is out there. I have yet to see anyone concede even the most obvious of points. I see correclations drawn that support global warming, human influence, yet presented as proof of the opposite. Take one example from this thread:

Sunspot activity was highest in the 50's.
Sunspots are linked to climate change in the past.
Therefore the 50's were the hottest global temperatures in 400 years, not now.

Excuse me? We have higher temps now. What's the difference between the 50's and now? Our greenhouse gas levels have increased. CO2 levels are about 380PPM, highest in 650,000 years. The highest levels in the past 650,000 years was 300PPM. Now the level of sunspot activity is slightly lower than the peak in the 50's.

What's the logical conclusion if today, with the levels of greenhouse gases we've measured, we had the same solar activity we had in the 50's? The slightly reduces sunspot peaks didn't do anything to reduce the global temps - as data shows over and over again. Why's that with lower solar activity?

What in the world could account for the discrepancy between 650,000 years in CO2 levels and the record levels we have today? What variables have changed?

From the Solanski/Planck website that was attempted to be used to discredit the human contribution in favor of Sol's influence:

Climate can vary for many reasons. In particular, human activities can lead to radiative forcing through changing the atmospheric concentrations and distributions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by more than 25% in the past century and since the beginning of the industrial revolution (see Fig. 4). There is no doubt that this increase is largely due to human activities, in particular fossil fuel combustion. Prior to this recent increase, CO2 concentrations over past 1000 years, a period when global climate was relatively stable, fluctuated only slightly around the average value. Concentrations of other greenhouse gases has also increased (check here for the current concentrations compared to the pre-industrial ones

On the other hand, since the Sun is by far the largest supplier of energy to the Earth's surface, any change in the radiative output of the Sun also affects the energy balance of the E(a)rth's surface and atmosphere, so that at some level it influences our climate, too. But how strongly does the Sun vary and to what extent does it influence the Earth's climate? It is important to find a firm answer to these questions in order to estimate the solar contribution into the global warming and in particular to determine its weight relative to that of the man-made greenhouse gases.

I believe Solanski's perspective is quite clearly stated above. His interest in solar irradiance is with respect to the state of the Earth and the levels of greenhouse gases present. Given the current state of greenhouse gases, a change in solar irradiance that would have had minor impact years ago may indeed produce something more profound.

Now off to work.

Tad,

The focus on methane is not a new thing, for people who have actually been paying attention to this for the past few years.

Peat bogs in the siberian tundra that have been frozen for who knows how long have been thawing at an unprecendted rate in the last 2 years because of global warming.

Those peat bogs are estimated to contain enough methane to raise the global temperature by one to two degrees overall, which would throw off nearly every ecosystem on the planet. One to two degrees to a human is nothing, but for moisture levels in the soil or air, or small forms of life that live within a very narrow margin of survivability, that one to two degree difference is everything.

"I do NOT believe in the institution of science, I only rely on facts and observation to determine what is and what is not reality."

This cracks me the hell up. Based on most of your posts, you're not at all in touch with reality. As is the case with conservatives these days, you wait for others to cite proven, repeatable data, or wait for clear evidence that CO2 levels have increased, wait for others to do the work, then spit in the eye of those who report it and say it's bullshit. Just because you want to believe something isn't true doesn't make it false. In the face of the evidence, that would put YOU in denial.

And people much smarter that you are the ones who have hypothesized that "dark matter" exists. Now you expect me to believe you're an astrophysicist in your spare time?

What's the logical conclusion if today, with the levels of greenhouse gases we've measured, we had the same solar activity we had in the 50's? The slightly reduces sunspot peaks didn't do anything to reduce the global temps - as data shows over and over again. Why's that with lower solar activity?


Maybe it's the flywheel effect. June 21 iss the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere. This means we get more sun than on any other day of the year, right? But we don't get the hottest temperatures for two more months. Likewise, perhaps it takes a few years after the increase in solar activity to see the change.

Just a theory of mine, don't ask for links.

"The information is out there. I have yet to see anyone concede even the most obvious of points."

I think most everyone concedes the fact that there IS global warming. There HAS BEEN pretty much for thousands of years. The differences lie in how catastrophic it is and how much is a result of man's activities. As for myself, I don't want to see the U.S. adopting some Draconian measures to limit CO2/methane emissions when we don't have solid answers to a lot of those questions. That, and the fact that Kyoto didn't call for ANY measures for the BILLIONS of people in China or India to limit emissions. In fact, they have plans to INCREASE emissions in the future while trying to ban my SUV. The "sky is falling" crowd needs to calm down.

....and 650,000 years ago it was our beloved native Americans that were causing the high levels. Had to be, dontcha know!

and 650,000 years ago it was our beloved native Americans that were causing the high levels. Had to be, dontcha know!

They weren't here yet. But the Neanderathals in Europe OTOH . . .

Hmmm -- maybe that's why they died out.

Goat, I'm telling you buddy...they were here...they ruined it all...this shit is North American based. We are the source of the ruination of the planet.....get with it!

im waiting for some liberal to blame bush for this.. im sure they are out there someplace wanting to bash someone for this.. ....

DDenton says, "The focus on methane is not a new thing, for people who have actually been paying attention to this for the past few years."

I never said it was -- just to the dupes and stooges who use CO2 as the raison d'etre for Global Warming.

"Peat bogs in the siberian tundra that have been frozen for who knows how long have been thawing at an unprecendted rate in the last 2 years because of global warming."

They have been thawing at unprecedented rates since the Holocene started, circa 12k years ago.

"Those peat bogs are estimated to contain enough methane to raise the global temperature by one to two degrees overall, which would throw off nearly every ecosystem on the planet."

And, be a culmination of a natural process, caused by factors which have driven this cycle over-and-over-and-over again over millions of years -- all without the input of mankind's CO2, or farts ...

"One to two degrees to a human is nothing, but for moisture levels in the soil or air, or small forms of life that live within a very narrow margin of survivability, that one to two degree difference is everything."

Many species will go the way of the Dodo, the giant Moa, the Mastadon, the Mammoth, the giant sloth, the cave bear, the Irish Elk, and countless other species which died out as a result of the environmental changes which began at the Holocene (when Niagra Falls were formed).

"This cracks me the hell up. Based on most of your posts, you're not at all in touch with reality."

Unfortunately, this site does not have anyone who can contradict the points I mention, and as you seem to indicate they can! Why don't you try and show why the sun is NOT the principle driving force of Global Warming, eh? Give it a shot ... or provide some other proof that mankind is responsible for GW ...

(hint: scan down and avoid articles saying the sun's luminosity doesn't change ... it is a base lie and a misdirection ... think of the known warming which is not only taking place on Earth, but on Venus, Mars and several of the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn ...)

Bowa says, "I though water vapor had by far the greatest impact on the greenhouse effect"

It is the principle holder of heat in the atmosphere, and can reach much higher temperatures of retention, before snuffing itself out on some innocent rock, water or other object-chemical that will happen with CO2 or CH4.

However .... shut the hell up!!!

The Leftist/Democratics will call you nasty names for taking hot showers ... causing Global Warming; however clean you think you can wash that stain away!

im waiting for some liberal to blame bush for this.. im sure they are out there someplace wanting to bash someone for this.. ....

Posted by kc101

KC, too late. Frank already vomited this out some time ago.......


There's more CO2 in the atmosphere than at ANY time in the last 650,000 YEARS?????

My God! and after only 12 years of running the country........
Another reason to not let the rethuglicunts be in charge in Washington for extended periods of time......

Posted by frankf55

Nice to see Tad's just as stupid as Ray.
What a surprise.
www.ngdc.noaa.gov
upload.wikimedia.org

Yeah that's what priests tell me too. Chicken Zatoichi can't make a coherent argument so he typically posts a couple obscure ill-defined charts without explanation. I know religion when I see it.

Yeah that's what priests tell me too. Chicken Zatoichi can't make a coherent argument so he typically posts a couple obscure ill-defined charts without explanation. I know religion when I see it.

His next favorite tactic is to post a single 4 word sentence and if you don't understand it, he calls you stupid or "you dunny", *headdesks*. I think in his mind it puts him on a pedestal above us mere mortals and elevates his ego.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

As is the case with conservatives these days, you wait for others to cite proven, repeatable data, or wait for clear evidence that CO2 levels have increased, wait for others to do the work, then spit in the eye of those who report it and say it's bullshit.

False argument. The question is whether CO2 is cause, effect or coincidental. Or for that matter if it is even remotely possible that anything can be done about it. Given what I know about the nature of politics, no chance!

" I know religion when I see it. "

If you'd bother to look you would see it's the 400-year sunspot record, Ray.


Talk to the ice, Ray, while you can, it's melting fast.

Talk to the ice, Ray, while you can, it's melting fast.

No shit Niceville. My gosh, you sound retarded. Nothing coherent has come out of you yet.

If you'd bother to look you would see it's the 400-year sunspot record, Ray.


Talk to the ice, Ray, while you can, it's melting fast.

That 400 year chart shows the greatest sunspot activity over 400 years has been in the last 50.

Goat - Maybe Chicken Zatoichi should urge Bush to declare war on the sun.

Goat - Maybe Chicken Zatoichi should urge Bush to declare war on the sun.

Good idea. SPF 1,500 smeared all over the globe oughta do the trick.