Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

[Bushwhacked]

It's a schmahl minded spammer/name changer child...

[litesong]

PHD2 wrote:

The earth is flat and Russia and China are on the other side and the pollution they produce stays on their side of the planet.

'Bout 10% of the air pollution in the west coast states of the U.S. comes from China. We got tsunami trash from Japan washing up on our shores. May not bother the 'Lands of the 10,000 Lakes' much, tho.

[PHD2]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
'Bout 10% of the air pollution in the west coast states of the U.S. comes from China. We got tsunami trash from Japan washing up on our shores. May not bother the 'Lands of the 10,000 Lakes' much, tho.

How much VOG reaches the west coast?

[Bushwhacked]

Depends on whether you're speaking or posting.

[redeemer]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
'Bout 10% of the air pollution in the west coast states of the U.S. comes from China. We got tsunami trash from Japan washing up on our shores. May not bother the 'Lands of the 10,000 Lakes' much, tho.

Please don't judge the land of 10,000 lakes by
PHD2,he fell through the educational safety net,he's a full fledge
nut,he's from trash side of town.

[Fair Game]

jose wrote:

Ok so 3.5 million year camel fosseles were just discovered in the canadian artic because they lived there during a period of global warming(google it) and many of you will read this and still blame everything on modern man, Those of you who do this tell me do you use clothes dryers and spew warm air into the great outdoors or do you use a clothes line and walk the walk as you talk the talk

There used to be palm trees and crocodiles at the Arctic. But if you see the crocs buying Bermuda shorts and sun cream and moving north again, don't think it's nothing to worry about- the rest of the Earth was arid and inhospitable when the Arctic was tropical.

[Brian_G]

Fair Game wrote:

Geological sources are not emitting enough CO2 to explain the rise. Observable fact.

How do you observe all geological sources of CO2 when more than 2/3rd of the Earth is under the oceans?

Global warming is faith based, not science based.

[Brian_G]

Kyle wrote:

You said this a few times, but it's so strangely formulated that I don't understand your point.

My point is simple, if you are going to buy a hair growth product you should try a sample or a product that's been experimentally tested. Why wouldn't you use the same standard for climate change mitigation?

.

Kyle wrote:

Do you accept the science of climate change, but reject doing anything about it - supposedly on scientific grounds?

I accept the science of climate change; climate always changes. There's no experimental evidence we can do anything to mitigate climate change. I call that 'practical' grounds but if you want to call it 'scientific' grounds; go for it.

We've tens of thousands of years learning to adapt to climate change. Human climate adaptation science is so strong we can now live almost anywhere on Earth. No living species has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change; life adapts.

[Fair Game]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>How do you observe all geological sources of CO2 when more than 2/3rd of the Earth is under the oceans?
Global warming is faith based, not science based.

CO2 is increasing in the oceans from the top down not the bottom up, and the isotope ratio doesn't match anthropogenic CO2.

Science.

[Brian_G]

Fair Game wrote:

CO2 is increasing in the oceans from the top down not the bottom up, and the isotope ratio doesn't match anthropogenic CO2. Science.

Water moves around, it's fluid. Science.

Please note, if the isotope ratio doesn't match anthropogenic CO2, then the CO2 isn't man made. Problem solved.

[Fair Game]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Water moves around, it's fluid. Science.
Please note, if the isotope ratio doesn't match anthropogenic CO2, then the CO2 isn't man made. Problem solved.

No, the CO2 isn't volcanic.

[Bushwhacker]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>My point is simple, if you are going to buy a hair growth product you should try a sample or a product that's been experimentally tested. Why wouldn't you use the same standard for climate change mitigation?
.
<quoted text>I accept the science of climate change; climate always changes. There's no experimental evidence we can do anything to mitigate climate change. I call that 'practical' grounds but if you want to call it 'scientific' grounds; go for it.
We've tens of thousands of years learning to adapt to climate change. Human climate adaptation science is so strong we can now live almost anywhere on Earth. No living species has evolved the ability to mitigate climate change; life adapts.

Because it's NOT the same, simpleton. Pretty sad, you believe in baldness cures ! LMAOROTFU~!

[SpaceBlues]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>My point is simple, if you are going to buy a hair growth product you should try a sample or a product that's been experimentally tested. Why wouldn't you use the same standard for climate change mitigation?
.
.

OK. You should be using the same principle before you burn fossil fuels.

You are not thinking clearly.

[SpaceBlues]

Bushwhacker wrote:

<quoted text>.. you believe in baldness cures ! LMAOROTFU~!

Yet he does not believe in climate mitigation!

He's confused.

[Bushwhacker]

I'm putting my money on bald & dumb, but you're clearly nicer.

[HomoSapiensLapto picus]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>... There's no experimental evidence we can do anything to mitigate climate change...

Yes, & there was no experimental evidence that we could go to the Moon in 1963 when President Kennedy proposed we do it. You are just one of the pessimists who GUARANTEE failure before they even try.

What would happen if you started a business with the attitude "I KNOW this business is going to fail"? What if Jeff Bezos had had that attitude when he started Amazon? After all, there was no experimental evidence his business model could work.

You must have had a very tough time in life. Have you ever done ANYTHING worthwhile?

[SpaceBlues]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Global warming is faith based, not science based.

Where's your science?

[martinezjosei]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Yes they practice scientific science fiction scare tactics. See what happens when you catch them in their lies. They spend hours casting their bad judgments against you and anyone that bucks their scientific science fiction scare tactics.

Today in Ohio is 35 degrees Farengeith Global Warming hot!

[martinezjosei]

Kyle wrote:

<quoted text>Says the denier jackass that refuses to acknowledge when I post science that clearly defeats his BS.

Why don't you be a man and respond to the clear facts that I've posted elsewhere that undeniably lay the blame for warming on GHG's? Hmmm? Only denier scum run from facts to spread lies elsewhere.

Because I had already proven your facts wrong! Why repeat myself?

See? I can find any site that proves you wrong but you will refuse to accept their facts!!!

But you will accept any childish refutation of my facts!!

So if my point and yours are both proven wrong by different scientists, you will only pick the ones that refutes mine as the final authority!

That is how we know GW is a HOAX!

[martinezjosei]

Iowan wrote:

We need to save planet earth

By raising taxes so Liberals can play more golf!

How convenient!

Hey! Talking about golf balls. Does golf balls breakdown or do they hurt the environment?

Ask Al Gore and Obama after their golf game!