 Patrick.net |
16,481 readers yesterday Get a free "Debt Is Slavery" bumper sticker! |
Watch (3) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike Hell, it is the ONLY thing the nitwits on this sight haven't used as a reason not to buy, so I'll do it for them!
As the arctic ice melts, balmy beach front property will become available in Greenland and Antarctica! unspoiled and unpolluted, these two locations will put places like California, Hawaii etc out of business!
« First « Previous Viewing Comments 6-45 of 45 Last » See most liked comments
|
robertoaribas is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Nope, the Gulf just pushes further up into CA.
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/
As the Colorado river basin drys Phoenix will become even more of a desert (yes, it can get less habitable).
This was discussed at length in this thread:
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1213579
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
robertoaribas says
And sunscreen. Lot's and lots of sunscreen. At least if you're a pale white boy like me.
Follow
Befriend (3)
38 threads
801 comments
San Francisco, CA
robertoaribas says
Okay, dude, please tell me you're writing for our entertainment now. The whole of what you just wrote is really funny.
I agree, somewhat, through. I sometimes visit Tucson and really love it. I usually go in Winter. I grew up in a similar climate and have fond memories.
Follow
Befriend
19 threads
1,534 comments
Los Angeles, CA
If I lived out there I would have every imaginable sand toy.
sand car
sand rail
dune buggy
25 dirt bikes
15 lifted rotting away trucks
RV/Trailer/Toy hauler
Its redneck paradise out there. Try owning all that shit in san franciso (im pretty sure they are all illegal there anyway)
and one boat (in case of flash flood when the once in a decade rain storm hits)
Follow
Befriend
229 threads
2,790 comments
FunTime says
Maybe the heat is getting to him and he isn't thinking straight???
Follow
Befriend (7)
30 threads
1,220 comments
31 male
Premium
Hell, it is the ONLY thing the nitwits on this sight haven't used as a reason not to buy, so I'll do it for them!
By sight, you did mean website I assume? I wasn't sure, between the insulting the readers intelligence and then following it up with an immediate misspelling, I was laughing so hard, I thought maybe me eyez wuz playin trix on me!
Over time I've come to realize, I'm not as smart as I think I am
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,836 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
errc says
Ingles is my second language... screw spelling!
Follow
Befriend
8 comments
Sedona, AZ
For all who currently live in coastal areas, it will be new meaning to "being underwater" on their mortgagues!
Follow
Befriend (6)
5 threads
2,359 comments
Sounds like you are a hoaxster, putting up all those comments in an effort to tarnish a community college teacher you have a grudge against.
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
1,055 comments
robertoaribas says
Let's try your sentence again, "the nit-wits on this site..." JEEZ
Follow
Befriend
1 threads
1,055 comments
robertoaribas says
Why do I feel Ingles is your first language and you are just a bad actor?
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
Global Warming is a hoax. But if carbon taxes become mandatory then the cost of energy sky rockets. That would push prices down on housing costs for bigger houses. Smaller less expensive housing units would be more in demand...
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,836 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
cdw7503 says
Only in the US do you see idiots saying these things...
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
robertoaribas says
The sun heats our planet and the sun heats the earth in cycles that go up and down. But we are lead to believe that CO2 causes global warming without taking into account sun cycles? This makes no sense to a reasonable person. BTW, you seemed to have missed the official hoax memo...its not global warming any more it is now "climate change." By using "climate change" the powers that be can claim any unusual weather condition is caused by humans and CO2. But feel free to turn your brain off and call me names to prove you are right. That's always effective...
Follow
Befriend (23)
55 threads
3,836 comments
Scottsdale, AZ
robertoaribas's website
cdw7503 says
Let's see: 99.9% of all climate scientists accept this theory of climate change. In fact, the most noted scientist numbered among the sceptics, Richar Muller from my alma mater, UC Berkeley, after he did his own extensive research of the data, changed his mind and became a believer... In fact, he even attempted to fit the earth temperature data to the existing solar record, and found no correlation... so take that theory back to your fantasy land!
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/07/how-a-global-warming-skeptic-came-to-change-his-mind/
some dipstick on the internet with no background in the field doesn't.... Oh that's an even call!
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
Roberto....99.9% really?...read this and weep. James Lovelock started all this Global Warming nonsense...now read what he thinks...
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?fb_ref=.T5YUnODYffU.like&fb_source=profile_multiline
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
He pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
I graduated from UC Berkeley too genius. But it doesn't matter where you went to college if you can't think for yourself.
Pay any Scientist enough and they'll write whatever you want them to. Any Climate Scientist that wants Federal Govt funding must agree with Global Warming/Climate Change theories or they don't get funding. Just ask the scientists that have disagreed with the Global Warming hoax. They'll tell you they no longer work at the university they used to work at. That's not objective science, that is coercion.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
*YAWN*
Solar scientist on the whole no longer believe that.
It is an old hypothesis that never gained much traction. The more evidence that comes in it appears that it is less and less likely to be true.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
Money from the Koch Brothers, speaking engagements at the Heartland institute and being a "scientific" commentator for Newscorp are probably far more lucrative than a "normal" climate science career. But, then again I suppose that depends on how much ones self-respect, integrity, and dignity are worth.
cdw7503 says
Well...objective science has already amassed a mountain of data showing that global warming deniers are most likely wrong.
What should a University do about a biology professor who insists that evolution is wrong and that intelligent design should be the basis of his/her research and lectures? Or a geography professor that insists the earth is flat?
Yes, they should be fired because they are doing a disservice to their students and the university.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
Hahahaha, you funny!
Yes, sorry to disappoint you but James Lovelock is still with the, "99.9% of all climate scientists accept this theory of climate change." as Rob put it.
Did you even read the article? Or were you just hoping that no one else would read it and see how horribly out of context you took the quotes?
Here are some more quotes (emphasis mine):
"Lovelock, 92, is writing a new book in which he will say climate change is still happening, but not as quickly as he once feared."
"Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: 'It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.'"
"He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature..."
"'We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit,' Lovelock said."
"...humanity should still 'do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning' and try to adapt to the coming changes."
Just one more question cdw...
...did you weep when you read this?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
Well, put cdw7503 something that we can agree on...
Follow
Befriend (8)
38 threads
2,036 comments
Pleasanton, CA
Premium
If global warming makes everything like Phoenix then I would agree. The suicide rate would go up, hence less buyers. And we all know that only renters commit suicide. Owners have so much more enjoyment out of life. What, with all them additional expenses to make them feel important. HOA, Taxes, PMI, insurance, closing/opening/middle/sub-open/documentation/setup/origination/title/just because/go screw yourself fee/etc./etc. Really important.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
There's a lot of debate in the scientific community about *how much* warming will occur. But the basic theory of AGW is pretty much settled science.
As with most things in life, the devil is in the details. Will there be a lot of warming or just a little? What will that mean for agriculture and water supplies? That's where the debate has shifted.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
leo707 says
Who funds his research? Can he really publish the opposite of what he did publish or is his job dependent on taking the position he has? This is critical.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
freak80 says
The "settled science people" claim that if we don't take draconian measures to stop warming then we all die. Lovelock says: "we don't know what the climate is doing." This is not settled science...far from it. That means it is all open to debate. Humans have lived on earth for what 10,000 or 20,000 years or so. We only have 120 years of reliable recorded data on temperatures. We can't even predict the weather accurately a month out, and yet we want to call claims that temps will dramatically increase over the next 10-20 years as accurate? Really? Who benefits financially if we cause major human suffering by doubling or tripling energy costs through "carbon taxes?" Al Gore and other people like him benefit massively correct?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
Not the Koch Brothers or the Heartland institute I can tell you that.
Although the Koch Brothers did accidentally fund a study that found global warming to be real.
Oops...I guess it is getting harder and harder to find a climate scientist who lacks any and all professional ethics or self dignity.
Don't worry their is plenty of funding for a climate scientist who wants to run studies with the attempt to deny global warming.
cdw7503 says
Agreed, this is critical and I already answered it here (if you need more clarification on my position on this topic, please let me know):
leo707 says
Cdw7503, why did you not answer this question of mine?
leo707 says
It boils down to this...
Why lie? Why would you lie about Lovelock's position on global warming? Why take his quotes out of context? Did you lie out of ignorance (not actually having read the article), or was it a calculated attempt at deception?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
No, "all" is not open for debate at this point.
The fact that global warming is happening has been settled, Lovelock agrees with this.
The current debate -- outside the crackpot circles -- is how severe the consequences of GW will be. Lovelock has recently shifted his opinion on this.
You know this, why would you misrepresent Lovelock's comments?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
@cdw7503, well based on your additional posing out-of-context Lovelock quotes I am starting to assume that you are intentionally trying to deceive forum readers.
Here is a little tip for you buddy.
As tempting as it may be for someone who has very little to no legitimate data backing their argument, telling lies does not strengthen your point. In fact it makes you seem like an untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives, and others are much less likely to believe anything you have to say.
I hope this helps!
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
leo707 says
Is this out of context? Does this sound like settled science that we are all going to die if we don't dramatically reduce CO2 emissions? Quotes don't lie...is English difficult for you?
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
Ah, haha, good one! Why yes they can if taken out of context by a liar!
cdw7503 says
Yes, when you conveniently ignore the fact that Lovelock still thinks GW is happening, that it is caused by CO2, but it has been "deferred a bit" com paired to his original estimations.
That my friend is a deception!
The question is, why do you feel that you must deceive and lie in order to support your view that global warming is not happening?
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
cdw7503 says
I don't believe that.
Fail.
Follow
Befriend
7 threads
44 comments
Sacramento, CA
leo707 says
So if I don't agree with you then I am an "untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives." Logical fallacies will NOT help you win any debates, but it does indicate that you believe you can not win the debate by supporting what you claim by quoting what Lovelock actually says.leo707 says
I agree with you on this. This is not "settled science." He is saying that there is still a lot about the climate that we don't know about...how the oceans effect the climate etc. And what he and Al Gore have said in the past is NOT accurate. This is a MAJOR shift in thinking about the climate on the part of Lovelock. Surely you can agree about this. right?
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Yes, this thread:
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1216530 is appropriate here I think.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Yes, everybody already knows Al Gore is a crank.
Realistically, the only way to put a significant dent in CO2 emissions is with nuclear power. People aren't going to give up their cars, especially in the USA. Our whole development pattern in the USA assumes $1 gasoline.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
cdw7503 says
No, you can be free to disagree with me on anything. No harm no foul. Reasonable people can disagree, that is part of life.
When someone who begins to use deception and lies in order to support their argument (regardless of if they are right or wrong), then they start entering into the territory of an "untrustworthy villainous scumbag with hidden motives."
cdw7503 says
But I did (see my posts above), and from his quotes it is clear that he believes GW is real, it is caused by CO2 and the effects are further into the future than he originally thought.
cdw7503 says
Yes, he had a shift in thinking, but it was not as significant as you are making it out to be. "NOT accurate" is different from totally wrong, or doing an 180 on his position.
All he did was shift his time table further into the future, he did not say that that consequences were no longer an issue and we should no longer concern ourselves with GW.
Saying so is a disingenuous lie.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,516 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
freak80 says
Yes, and for a long time Lovelock has advocated this.
Something that has gotten him in trouble with "green" groups.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
leo707 says
That's the thing. There's no other zero-CO2 energy source that's economical and available on a large enough scale to matter. At least not yet. If there is, I am not aware of it.
When compared to coal, I can't help but have the opinion that nuclear power is the lesser of the two evils. Nuclear power could at least slow the rate of CO2 buildup and warming, giving humans and ecosystems more time to adapt.
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
There is one word that explains everything you should know about global warming (yes, warming...which just might lead to a "Day After Tomorrow" scenario of a new ice age, but only if all of the factors line up).
Food.
The civilization story as we know it depends on vast quantities of food: grown, harvested, transported and processed with vast quantities of energy. Every step of the way is dependent upon the STABILITY and PREDICTABILITY of the weather.
In other words, the arguments that say "we don't know what the climate is doing" actually prove the point that we have a major problem on our hands right now: not in the future centuries. Money won't buy more food if the farmers can't grow it, and the farmers can't grow it if the weather isn't at least reasonably similar to what it has been for the last 100 years (the cycle of developing new species that can handle a large change in climate). So, the statement that "weather is not climate" is bullshit. Stability of weather is FOOD, and climate is the stability of the weather (as compared to the weather when the food species were adapted to that weather pattern).
The "hockey stick" graph of temperature is not significant in whether it is man-made or not: it is significant in its exponential representation of the change in temperature over the last 100 years. It does not show a 'peak' or any sign of slowing down. The thermal inertia of the oceans and the ice packs have moderated the change for one or maybe two of the most recent generations.
Then that's it. The fruit trees bloom too early, then freeze, then have no fruit. The corn grows, but sees a drought during pollination and grows no seed (this year, not "by 20XX"). The farmers with cattle get rid of their cattle and don't buy more because there won't be corn to feed them. The semi-arid grasslands dry up and fires cover more acreage each year (now..not in "20XX").
Look around. Agriculture is a system that predicts the future from average weather by its very existence. It is now failing to predict 2 years (insect and bird patters alone will show this), let alone the decades necessary for government planning.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/16/855861/warmer-temperatures-make-new-usda-plant-zone-map-obsolete/
You can't just drill for more food. Someone has to grow it, and they can't grow it under unstable conditions.
Follow
Befriend (5)
7 threads
228 comments
Belgium, WI
Premium
freak80 says
Most of the things people are using energy for (some 15% of the grid is now for internet porn (video.whether people are naked or not, is porn)) don't need to be done. A car weighs 2000 lbs. A person weighs 200: ergo, we are burning up 10 times as much to get people to work as is necessary.
The suggestion that we have a crisis because we can't meet energy "demand" is simply a misdirection: the demand has nothing to do with Malthusian needs, and thus, the arguments over energy 'solutions' and the 'cost' of a carbon tax are simply entertainment (Giant stone heads on Easter Island) while we ignore the resulting destruction going on around us. Everyone can argue, but few can build an electric car or grow their own food without doing some actual learning and work.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Airplanes use a crapload of energy.