Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[bend over spaceblues]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>It also pollutes our atmosphere.

here is the answer to all of your problems 'space', try not to to make any mistakes on the sign up sheet, they might not take you. you will have to help 'litesong' with the paperwork though, they only want people who are a little crazy, not weapons grade crazy like you two. good luck on mars, don't forget to pick up some nuts before you go.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/472...

[SpaceBlues]

bend over spaceblues wrote:

<quoted text>here is the answer to all of your problems 'space', try not to to make any mistakes on the sign up sheet, they might not take you. you will have to help 'litesong' with the paperwork though, they only want people who are a little crazy, not weapons grade crazy like you two. good luck on mars, don't forget to pick up some nuts before you go.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/472...

It takes one to know one. Given that you are not qualified for Topix diagnosis.

Ohhh

[Teddy R]

Oh, NOES!

MORE DENIERS!

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/0...

Fatwa required ...

AGW ACKBAR!!!

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

Oh, NOES!
MORE DENIERS!
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/0...
Fatwa required ...
AGW ACKBAR!!!

Russia loves global warming.

They get the Artic gas.

Siberia warms up.

The USA turns into a dustbowl.

[Fair Game]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Russia loves global warming.
They get the Artic gas.
Siberia warms up.
The USA turns into a dustbowl.

Correction: Arctic gas.

[PHD]

pinheadlitesout wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, its roasty toasty....nutty, too(surprise). Comes in various get-ups.... crunchy, w/honey, etc). Hey(not hay, as 'pinheadlitesout' would say), 4 times the price of peanut butter! Costco has an OK price.

Spacedoutblueswrote:
I prefer your unroasted, unsalted almonds as snack.

And walnuts. Pecans.:-) There you have it folks the "pinheadlitesout and spacedoutblues at best.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
Russia loves global warming.
They get the Artic gas.
Siberia warms up.
The USA turns into a dustbowl.

Interesting take.

You think they're that smart? Violates Hanlon's Razor ...

[unbelievable]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting take.
You think they're that smart? Violates Hanlon's Razor ...

good call 'teddy', we know about being smart. Two of the terms tossed about by global warming alarmists are 'unprecedented' and 'irreversible'. it is troubling that scientists, who should know better, persist in using these terms even though the history of our planet clearly shows that neither term is accurate. proof of this inaccuracy is obvious if we look back over the history of earth. notice the wide variation in temperature over time, sometimes colder than the average 14°C of today but much of the time considerably warmer. for the majority of the past half billion years there have been no permanent ice caps in either hemisphere. In that sense, the total melting of the greenland and antarctic glacial ice sheets would mark a return to historically normal conditions for our planet. there have been ice ages when CO2 has been as much as 10 to 15 times higher than modern levels. what we do know is human CO2 emissions at their worst cannot approach the levels of natural GHG release. in a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. There have been many other factors at work during the past that affect climate change. being limited to carbon dioxide levels and temperature, ignores the impact of shifting continents, variation in solar activity, orbital cycles and the possible impact of cosmic rays on earth's climate. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models. earth’s temperature is always changing. life has persisted during periods both hot and cold. there is no one 'right' temperature. carbon dioxide has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere. Over time there have been periods when CO2 has increased and decreased naturally. Life has persisted during periods with high CO2 and low CO2. CO2 levels will change with or without human contributions. climate scientists are unable to be convincing, of direct links of human interference, with all their computer models and IPCC consensus reports. the earth and its climate are constantly changing—there is no one correct climate or temperature for our planet. those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human GHG emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims. mankind is powerless to control the climate, nothing predicted by the global warming alarmists would be unprecedented—earth's climate has been colder than today's and much, much warmer. CO2 levels have also been many times higher than they currently are, even during ice ages. No change in climate is irreversible. given 4 billion years of Earth history and 542 million years of complex life, blaming mankind for 9,000 years of global warming seems rather silly. mankind is powerless to control the climate.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

unbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>good call 'teddy', we know about being smart. Two of the terms tossed about by global warming alarmists are 'unprecedented' and 'irreversible'. it is troubling that scientists, who should know better, persist in using these terms even though the history of our planet clearly shows that neither term is accurate. proof of this inaccuracy is obvious if we look back over the history of earth. notice the wide variation in temperature over time, sometimes colder than the average 14°C of today but much of the time considerably warmer. for the majority of the past half billion years there have been no permanent ice caps in either hemisphere. In that sense, the total melting of the greenland and antarctic glacial ice sheets would mark a return to historically normal conditions for our planet. there have been ice ages when CO2 has been as much as 10 to 15 times higher than modern levels. what we do know is human CO2 emissions at their worst cannot approach the levels of natural GHG release. in a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. There have been many other factors at work during the past that affect climate change. being limited to carbon dioxide levels and temperature, ignores the impact of shifting continents, variation in solar activity, orbital cycles and the possible impact of cosmic rays on earth's climate. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models. earth’s temperature is always changing. life has persisted during periods both hot and cold. there is no one 'right' temperature. carbon dioxide has always been present in Earth’s atmosphere. Over time there have been periods when CO2 has increased and decreased naturally. Life has persisted during periods with high CO2 and low CO2. CO2 levels will change with or without human contributions. climate scientists are unable to be convincing, of direct links of human interference, with all their computer models and IPCC consensus reports. the earth and its climate are constantly changing—there is no one correct climate or temperature for our planet. those who say CO2 is the most important factor in climate change, that human GHG emissions will cause runaway global warming, have no historical basis for such claims. mankind is powerless to control the climate, nothing predicted by the global warming alarmists would be unprecedented—earth's climate has been colder than today's and much, much warmer. CO2 levels have also been many times higher than they currently are, even during ice ages. No change in climate is irreversible. given 4 billion years of Earth history and 542 million years of complex life, blaming mankind for 9,000 years of global warming seems rather silly. mankind is powerless to control the climate.

Interesting, but you cannot equate what is happening today with historical happenings. Nowhere in the past has there been the amount of CO2 been as rapidly released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossilized fuel as we see today. There is solid scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has the property of absorbing IR radiation in the bond structures of the molecules. This has been verified over and over through spectrography. It is an accepted scientific fact. There is no doubt that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will indeed cause the planet to warm. To deny this is to deny science, but that seems to be the norm for the scientifically illiterate these days.

[unbelievable]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting, but you cannot equate what is happening today with historical happenings. Nowhere in the past has there been the amount of CO2 been as rapidly released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossilized fuel as we see today. There is solid scientific evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has the property of absorbing IR radiation in the bond structures of the molecules. This has been verified over and over through spectrography. It is an accepted scientific fact. There is no doubt that additional CO2 in the atmosphere will indeed cause the planet to warm. To deny this is to deny science, but that seems to be the norm for the scientifically illiterate these days.

sorry 'bozo', but that sounds like an answer right out of he global warming handbook and in no way equates to a valid answer remotely resembling scientific fact. fossilized fuel has been burning for eons throughout earths history and is no way a threat to the atmosphere. peat bogs, coal seams, tar pits and even the tar sands have burnt or are still burning for centuries. there are many examples of spontanous combustion events that have lasted for centuries. coal seams in china have burned for more than 400 years and are still not not thought to be out, coal seam fires in russia, southeastern united states, northern canadahas coal seam fires that have been burning for centuries. look up the smoking hills for starters. there are seams of lignite under the tundra that spontaneously ignited many hundreds of years ago upon exposure to air, and have been burning continuously since. the hills, a few hundred feet tall and located on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, smoke like volcanos, and in some cases so much coal has burned that the overlying rock has collapsed on itself.that blows your 'Nowhere in the past has there been the amount of CO2 been as rapidly released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossilized fuel' ideas away. the basalt flows in russia and the pacific northwest burned everything in their path for miles and miles, many many times. look that up. many times in the past have seen much more fossilized fuels burned faster than today. therefore you cannot equate what is happening today with historical happenings. your answer is that of the scientifically illiterate. thankyou for your time
unbelievable

[PHD]

So no one really really knows.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

unbelievable wrote:

<quoted text>sorry 'bozo', but that sounds like an answer right out of he global warming handbook and in no way equates to a valid answer remotely resembling scientific fact. fossilized fuel has been burning for eons throughout earths history and is no way a threat to the atmosphere. peat bogs, coal seams, tar pits and even the tar sands have burnt or are still burning for centuries. there are many examples of spontanous combustion events that have lasted for centuries. coal seams in china have burned for more than 400 years and are still not not thought to be out, coal seam fires in russia, southeastern united states, northern canadahas coal seam fires that have been burning for centuries. look up the smoking hills for starters. there are seams of lignite under the tundra that spontaneously ignited many hundreds of years ago upon exposure to air, and have been burning continuously since. the hills, a few hundred feet tall and located on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, smoke like volcanos, and in some cases so much coal has burned that the overlying rock has collapsed on itself.that blows your 'Nowhere in the past has there been the amount of CO2 been as rapidly released into the atmosphere by the burning of fossilized fuel' ideas away. the basalt flows in russia and the pacific northwest burned everything in their path for miles and miles, many many times. look that up. many times in the past have seen much more fossilized fuels burned faster than today. therefore you cannot equate what is happening today with historical happenings. your answer is that of the scientifically illiterate. thankyou for your time
unbelievable

You are going to need to quantify the natural burning of fossil fuels and compare that with anthropogenic to give any validity to your hypothesis. While those natural burnings continue, mankind is adding much more CO2 to the atmosphere by burning vast amounts of fossil fuel. The evidence is very apparent with the CO2 content of the atmosphere rising rapidly along with the onset of the industrial revolution and consequent rapid development of the industrialized world. The burning of fossil fuels is definitely causing a rapid increase of atmospheric CO2. It is also a scientific fact that the chemical bonds of CO2 absorb IR and cause the Earth to retain more heat from the sun than it would if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere. You can deny this, but to do so you must deny science. That seems to be a quality that deniers cherish.

It is apparent that it is you who needs to dispatch with the denier handbook and consider the science.

[PHD]

Science makes corrections to errors to find more errors that show their corrections are in error. What science should you consider?

[CDC]

I like Global Warming. I want more of it.

[Patriot AKA Bozo]

PHD wrote:

Science makes corrections to errors to find more errors that show their corrections are in error. What science should you consider?

Then there are those who are never correct because they make no errors.

[PHD]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Then there are those who are never correct because they make no errors.

So who are they?

[gcaveman1]

Who would have thought 20 years ago that some ignorant conservative would resort to quoting the opinion pages of Pravda to back his argument?

While they can hardly be called communist anymore, the Russian government is still a criminal, totalitarian construct and a model for radical conservatives who like profit over people.

Teddy takes some strange bedfellows pursuing his dogma....

[PHD]

The same people that thought 40 years ago. They only fast moving thing is the money.

[Correct-O-Bot]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
(Silly juvenile troll snipped)

Troll. Ignore.

"Helping ignore trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."

[Teddy R]

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Then there are those who are never correct because they make no errors.

I thought I did once, but I was wrong.