If you deny man-made global warming...

[Tubbsalot]

violence is natural. i accept that many dumb people die, and i enjoy that they do us the favor of removing themselves from the gene pool.

Irrelevant.

Go back and read my post, then maybe you can make an argument that addresses it.

k

That's not a peer-reviewed article. That's a book.

You're not very good at this 'science' thing, are you.

so there is a difference between 1 atom of CO2 and another? i think we're done here.

Yes, there is.

Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself with your astounding lack of knowledge, though why you're enjoying it so much I can't imagine.

[Avenio]

>implying that the highest levels of carbon ever in the atmosphere also had the highest levels of life ever on earth is a bad example.

Yeahno.



The Precambrian wasn't a particularly super time to live, fyi.

global warming is going to cause an ice age? that is the stupidest thing i have ever read.

It's a good thing I didn't say it then. Take a gander over it again. If you look carefully, I said 'come out of the icebox planet'. 'Out' in this case meaning 'leave'. An arcane definition, I know; I apologize. The icebox planet is the one we currently live in, in which ice covers a fair portion of the planet year-round.

hmm. interesting. you liberals generally accept evolution.

How does triggering a mass extinction event in any way help our species evolve? Biodiversity is good. Continuing to have functional oceans is good. Evolution has nothing to do with it unless you're ignorant of what evolution actually is, and are running off an equally-ignorant model of social Darwinism that deserves to be tossed back into the grave with Galton's bones.

irrelevant. a Catalyst is not a cause.

I was merely putting into perspective how much volcanoes put into the atmosphere vs. we do. It seemed like a pertinent example. Are you going to address it or not?

photosynthesis- 6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2


Cellular Respiration- C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + ~38 ATP

whats that? they produce the same amount of CO2 as the other Removes?

unfortunately, plants do not produce at the same rate as we do.

And they also undergo cellular respiration, at roughly the same rate as animal life. Whoops. Kinda throws off the balance, doesn't it?

[The Aryan Nations]

Irrelevant.

Go back and read my post, then maybe you can make an argument that addresses it.

you were bitching about murder being natural. i agreed with you.

That's not a peer-reviewed article. That's a book.

You're not very good at this 'science' thing, are you.

actually, its a scientific study.

your not very good at this reading thing are you?

Yes, there is.

someone needs to retake chemistry...

Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself with your astounding lack of knowledge, though why you're enjoying it so much I can't imagine.

reciprocated, except replace "astounding lack of knowledge" with "incredible failure of the education system"

[Raw Nation]

Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

I suspect they feel that the common opinion today is as wrong as that common opinion was then.

Uhh...if your brain is black then there is definitely something wrong with it

(I am not a doctor)

[Costa Fiero]

Yes, climate change is natural...but the planet should be cooling down, not heating up.
Between each Ice Age there is an interval of ~10,000 years. The last Ice Age was 10,000 years ago.

As I was informed last time a climate topic arose, the fact that there is ice at each pole indicates that we are still in a mild hyrbid version of an Ice Age. Therefore, if we are talking about climate shifts, we should, according to historical climate data from similar climate shifts occurring in Earth's history, be getting warmer, not cooler.

[The Aryan Nations]

>implying that the highest levels of carbon ever in the atmosphere also had the highest levels of life ever on earth is a bad example.

Yeahno.



The Precambrian wasn't a particularly super time to live, fyi.

as i recall, life hadn't evolved very far at that point, and we know little about the period. i chose a better period on account of it having actual life in it.

It's a good thing I didn't say it then. Take a gander over it again. If you look carefully, I said 'come out of the icebox planet'. 'Out' in this case meaning 'leave'. An arcane definition, I know; I apologize. The icebox planet is the one we currently live in, in which ice covers a fair portion of the planet year-round.

we live in an icebox? oh good thing, i was hoping that it wouldn't reach 100 degrees this summer... wait...

How does triggering a mass extinction event in any way help our species evolve? Biodiversity is good. Continuing to have functional oceans is good. Evolution has nothing to do with it unless you're ignorant of what evolution actually is, and are running off an equally-ignorant model of social Darwinism that deserves to be tossed back into the grave with Galton's bones.

tl;dr: evolution is only good when it contradicts my own posts on NSG.

the weak die, the strong survive- its called natural selection.

I was merely putting into perspective how much volcanoes put into the atmosphere vs. we do. It seemed like a pertinent example. Are you going to address it or not?

i already have.

And they also undergo cellular respiration, at roughly the same rate as animal life. Whoops. Kinda throws off the balance, doesn't it?

thank you, for helping my argument that Natural CO2 is caused by breathing.

[Free Soviets]

so what you are saying is that breathing doesn't cause an increase in atmospheric carbon. and therefore anything you said about it was just irrelevant bullshit specifically intended to waste everyone's time. glad we cleared that up.

now about that actually occurring increase in atmospheric carbon from digging up fossil carbon and burning it, and the extremely well known effects thereof...

the rates of the process are totally different. which you would know with a basic high school education.

indeed they are. over time, photosynthesis results in carbon being removed from the atmosphere. hence, fossil fuels.

listen man, you aren't particularly impressive on this topic. if you want to keep going, by all means. but you can stop embarrassing yourself any time you like.

[Tubbsalot]

you were bitching about murder being natural. i agreed with you.

I said that, just like being murdered is your problem even though it's natural, global warming is your problem even if it were natural (which it isn't).

actually, its a scientific study.

your not very good at this reading thing are you?

No, it's a book. Look, here's a quote from the page:

"The excerpt, below, is the first chapter of the book,
Unstoppable Global Warming. Enjoy!"

I'm actually quite good at reading. As it happens.

someone needs to retake chemistry...

I'm in the middle of a chemistry degree.

What I meant was that carbon, while it exists in the biological cycle, is in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide; constantly being removed from and returned to the atmosphere. Any removal is a temporary matter, because sinking into plant material is almost always reversed through consumption and respiration.

Of course, I could also have meant that different isotopes of carbon or oxygen within the carbon dioxide molecule would make a difference (they do), or that ionisation in the upper atmosphere could make a difference (it might, I dunno).

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's my fault, I'm afraid.

[The Black Forrest]

actually, its a scientific study.

your not very good at this reading thing are you?

I am not so sure. Singer seems familiar. I want to say that he once set up an organization funded by big oil to disprove global warming. I think the other guy may have even written a book or a paper about saving the planet with plastic and pesticides.

But again that's my scraggly memory at play.....

[Free Soviets]

As someone who is in the "it is happening but I feel that the man made claim is dubious" camp, I don't like it how some people tend to think that their way/view is the only one that matters and they have no time for others, reiterating the same boring stuff every single time and then trying to claim some moral superiority.

and i don't like the way that people who know nothing about the topic - and refuse to learn - think their lazy assumptions about how the world is have any bearing on the fact that a) global warming is real, b) global warming is caused by us, c) global warming is dangerous, and d) drastic actions are necessary right fucking now to mitigate the damage.

[Free Soviets]

because not everyone accepts that human extinction is the optimal solution. obviously.

also, what environmentalists are you thinking of that have tons of children?

That, was honestly, the most perplexing part, because most greens I know are well under the 2.1 children rate of replacement.

yeah, exactly. two kids seems to be about the max, but the most common number seems like zero. maybe things are different where OLSS lives?

[The Aryan Nations]

As someone who is in the "it is happening but I feel that the man made claim is dubious" camp, I don't like it how some people tend to think that their way/view is the only one that matters and they have no time for others, reiterating the same boring stuff every single time and then trying to claim some moral superiority.

and i don't like the way that people who know nothing about the topic - and refuse to learn - think their lazy assumptions about how the world is have any bearing on the fact that a) global warming is real, b) global warming is caused by us, c) global warming is dangerous, and d) drastic actions are necessary right fucking now to mitigate the damage.

a. yep
b. we are going to return to the medieval climate optimum, based on 1500 year cycles.
c. this is a good thing.
d. no, we dont. try reading this

The climate has been most stable during the warming phases. The "little ice ages" have been beset by more floods, droughts, famines, and storminess. Yet, despite all of this evidence, millions of well-educated people, many scientists, many respected organizations—even the national governments of major First World nations—are telling us that the Earth's current warming phase is caused by human-emitted CO2and deadly dangerous. They ask society to renounce most of its use of fossil fuel-generated energy and accept radical reductions in food production, health technologies, and standards of living to "save the planet."

We have missed the predictive power of the 1,500-year climate cycle.

Will the fear of dangerous global warming lead society to accept draconian restrictions on the use of fertilizers, cars, and air conditioners?

Will people give up the scientific and technological advances that have added thirty years to life expectancies all over the globe in the last century?

Massive human sacrifices would be required to meet the CO2 stabilization goals of the Kyoto Protocol. The treaty's "introductory offer" is a tiny 5 percent reduction in fossil fuel emissions from 1990 levels, but that would do almost nothing to forestall greenhouse warming of the planet. Saving the planet from man-made global warming was supposed to wait on Kyoto's yet-unspecified second stage, scheduled to begin in 2012.

We have a large faction of intensely interested persons who say the warming is man-made, and dangerous. They say it is driven by releases of greenhouse gases such as CO2 from power plants and autos, and methane from rice paddies and cattle herds. The activists tell us that modern society will destroy the planet; that unless we radically change human energy production and consumption, the globe will become too warm for farming and the survival of wild species. They warn that the polar ice caps could melt, raising sea levels and flooding many of the world's most important cities and farming regions.

However, they don't have much evidence to support their position—only (1) the fact that the Earth is warming, (2) a theory that doesn't explain the warming of the past 150 years very well, and (3) some unverified computer models. Moreover, their credibility is seriously weakened by the fact that many of them have long believed modern technology should be discarded whether the Earth is warming too fast or not at all.

Many scientists—though by no means all—agree that increased CO2emissions could be dangerous. However, polls of climate-qualified scientist show that many doubt the scary predictions of the global computer models. This book cites the work of many hundreds of researchers, authors, and coauthors whose work testifies to the 1,500-year cycle. There is no "scientific consensus," as global warming advocates often claim. Nor is consensus important to science. Galileo may have been the only man of his day who believed the Earth revolved around the sun, but he was right! Science is the process of developing theories and testing them against observations until they are proven true or false.

If we can find proof, not just that the Earth is warming, but that it is warming to dangerous levels due to human-emitted greenhouse gases, public policy will then have to evaluate such potential remedies as banning autos and air conditioners. So far, we have no such evidence.

[The Aryan Nations]

Prior to World War II, there were peer reviewed scientific studies, widely accepted by the scientific community at the time, that black brains were unsuited to the rigors and control required to control an aircraft in combat situations.

Most of us would call that absurd, and rightly so, but it was the common opinion of scientists at the time.

I suspect they feel that the common opinion today is as wrong as that common opinion was then.

Uhh...if your brain is black then there is definitely something wrong with it

(I am not a doctor)

brain of a black man. not a literally black brain

another way to put it-

Galileo may have been the only man of his Era to say earth revolved around the sun, but turns out, he was right.

[Costa Fiero]

and i don't like the way that people who know nothing about the topic - and refuse to learn - think their lazy assumptions about how the world is have any bearing on the fact that a) global warming is real, b) global warming is caused by us, c) global warming is dangerous, and d) drastic actions are necessary right fucking now to mitigate the damage.

People like you are exactly what I am talking about. Your whole moral superiority complex is one exact reason why I won't be jumping on the bandwagon any time soon. I never denied global warming. I even made a point to say that it was bound to happen anyway.

Why can't you accept the fact that some people don't tow the line and would much rather be engaged in something productive than having to deal with people like you, who clearly believe that their opinion is the only opinion and God forbid someone disagrees.

[Avenio]

as i recall, life hadn't evolved very far at that point, and we know little about the period. i chose a better period on account of it having actual life in it.

Hence why it was a bad example. The Cretaceous period was a period of decline on many fronts; the climate was slowly changing, and was leading to the slow extinction of many different types of dinosaur. The asteroid dealt the killing blow, but the dinosaurs were already going extinct. The high CO2 during that period may have, in fact, been a partial cause of that; we have evidence of massive supervolcanic eruptions throughout the Cretaceous (Like the Deccan Traps deposits), which may kickstarted the climate change.

EDIT: See this post for correction.

we live in an icebox? oh good thing, i was hoping that it wouldn't reach 100 degrees this summer... wait...

'Icehouse Earth' (Not 'icebox', my apologies) is a term for periods of the Earth's history when there is year-round ice sheets on the planet's surface, as opposed to the 'greenhouse Earth, where there is no year-long polar ice. Now, are you going to address that point I made?

We're modifying the climate at a much, much, much faster rate. As in, come out of the icebox planet in a few centuries fast.

tl;dr: evolution is only good when it contradicts my own posts on NSG.

the weak die, the strong survive- its called natural selection.

No. Mass extinctions don't help anyone, whether it be the environment or us. Especially considering the weak and the strong alike die in mass extinction events. Social Darwinism is a dead, worthless ideology that doesn't help anyone, least of all someone that ironically has 'Workers of the world, unite!' in his signature.

i already have.

Coulda fooled me. Reiterate it for me, will you dearie?

thank you, for helping my argument that Natural CO2 is caused by breathing.

As Tubbsalot said, it's in equilibrium, as the carbon cycle sequesters carbon. We're digging that carbon up and burning it, in the form of hydrocarbons, and releasing it into the atmosphere. This isn't that hard to understand.

[Salma]

Talking about failure of the education system?

Galileo may have been the only man of his Era to say earth revolved around the sun, but turns out, he was right.

Um, no he was not the only one. Not at all. Bet you thought Columbus was a ROUND-EARTH IS TRUE visionary in the darkness of a flat-earth believing world.

[Tubbsalot]

and i don't like the way that people who know nothing about the topic - and refuse to learn - think their lazy assumptions about how the world is have any bearing on the fact that a) global warming is real, b) global warming is caused by us, c) global warming is dangerous, and d) drastic actions are necessary right fucking now to mitigate the damage.

People like you are exactly what I am talking about. Your whole moral superiority complex is one exact reason why I won't be jumping on the bandwagon any time soon. I never denied global warming. I even made a point to say that it was bound to happen anyway.

Why can't you accept the fact that some people don't tow the line and would much rather be engaged in something productive than having to deal with people like you, who clearly believe that their opinion is the only opinion and God forbid someone disagrees.

You seem to be confusing the statements:

"the facts say you are wrong, and there's no reason your opinion should matter when you know nothing about the topic"
and
"you're dumb and stupid and I don't like you because you disagree"

Please make a note of it.

[Free Soviets]

try reading this

haha, no. that's just stunningly stupid. like, wow.

[Trotskylvania]

For the love of God, how can you miss the elephant in the room of 21.3 billion tonnes of CO² produced every year by burning fossil fuels. The carbon cycle can only absorb half that amount. Anthropogenic global warming is a demonstrable fact, and it will drive us to ruin unless we take quick measures against it.

[Natapoc]

To deny global warming is to prefer fantasy to reality. To decide that one will believe as one wishes despite petty things like facts or reason.

It's not possible to look at the data and come to any honest conclusion other than what scientists have come up with.

BTW, Watch 130 years of global warming in 30 seconds here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/3 ... 30-seconds

Rapid (and drastic)changes must be made NOW. Or you may as well forget any future for human civilization.

[Salma]

try reading this

haha, no. that's just stunningly stupid. like, wow.

Didn't you know? Never mind if it's peer-reviewed and all, if it's published it's true.

[The Aryan Nations]

Talking about failure of the education system?

Galileo may have been the only man of his Era to say earth revolved around the sun, but turns out, he was right.

Um, no he was not the only one. Not at all. Bet you thought Columbus was a ROUND-EARTH IS TRUE visionary in the darkness of a flat-earth believing world.

you misread that, i think.

[Free Soviets]

For the love of God, how can you miss the elephant in the room of 21.3 billion tonnes of CO² produced every year by burning fossil fuels. The carbon cycle can only absorb half that amount. Anthropogenic global warming is a demonstrable fact, and it will drive us to ruin unless we take quick measures against it.

but i think magical mechanismless 'cycles' must be to blame. also, it isn't happening. also, it will be awesome.
so nyah!

[The Aryan Nations]

haha, no. that's just stunningly stupid. like, wow.

Didn't you know? Never mind if it's peer-reviewed and all, if it's published it's true.

1. the second link said that the 1500 was true.
2. mine was heavily sourced, reviewed, etc etc.

[Eviliatopia]

The IPCC is Greenpeace's parrot, and has much bad history. Also, Global Warming never ceases to freeze my balls.

So, If you deny mad-man Global Warming... You'll be crucified for being an antisocial greedy asshole?

Vade Retro ecofascists.