patrick.net

Mr Happygoluckofus says

The EU is actually trying to create a very special place in critics jail for all of the denyers.

Really? Got some proof.

Your argument seems to be that pollution is a problem but can't be solved. Instead we get a bunch of tree-hugging, do-gooders who are steeped in political correctness, but ultimately have no effect on solving the problem. Because it can't be solved you'd like to punch science in the face. Is that a correct assessment of your position?

rooemoore says

Your argument seems to be that pollution is a problem but can't be solved. I

No dillhole I'm saying "Pollution" isn't even the argument.

My hamburger, and light bulb is.

And somehow it's all tied to Huricane Hudini the National Weather servier(c) brought to you by The Home Depot, and Publix, tried to sell South Florida over the week end.

Relax everyone, we have a solution.
S + EC = ZP

S = Solar
EC = Electric Cars
ZP = Zero Pollution

The cost of solar keeps falling, and electric cars are replacing Gasmobiles. The oil companies are in a panic, oil producers are frightened, and utilities are scared to death.
I'm willing to bet not a single fossil fuel power plant will be built in the 1920's, while a large number will be mothballed. They cannot compete with solar panels that will soon be commoditized, and free fuel from the sun.
The energy cost to run electric cars is 75% cheaper than gasmobiles in most states. I see a clear and bright future. :)

Ironman says

Strategist says

I'm willing to bet not a single fossil fuel power plant will be built in the 1920's, while a large number will be mothballed.

Predicting something from 90 years ago?

he he he. Trust you to catch the details. I read it twice and still did not catch it.

Ironman says

That's OK, I though you had a time machine or something... I was hoping you would share it!!

Sure, this will get you anywhere you want to go:

I only pick out facts & charts that support my arguments.
It's not cherry picking,it's Brilliant Trolling.

worth bumping this thread in light of recent climate change denying bullshit

Global Warming skeptics are normal thinking people its the global warming advocates that are idiots after all back in the 1970's we were suppost to be having Global Cooling and a New Ice Age and the global warming advocates are con men(Al Gore)and the cult of GAIA demands the sacrifice of virgins and kids

Spurwing Plover says

Global Warming skeptics are normal thinking people its the global warming advocates that are idiots after all back in the 1970's we were suppost to be having Global Cooling and a New Ice Age

This is a lie. Now when I expose the lie for what it is, are you man enough to admit you were wrong, that you were duped, and to change your position based on the facts? Of course not. You don't care that you are wrong or that what you are saying is a lie. And this is why climate change deniers should bear the entire cost of climate change through taxation and asset forfeiture. There obstinance is what created the problem, so they should have to pay the full financial cost of the problem.

Even if what Plover said were true -- and it's not -- a mistake in the 1970s would not have invalidated 40 years of scientific research and hard-core evidence detailing the exact science of climate change, and yes, it's pretty damn exact despite climate being a complex system. There are literally tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence stating that climate change, including global warming, is already happening as are the consequences of climate change including sea level rises which are threatening trillions of dollars of real estate along coastal states. These lines of evidence have been independently confirmed by hundreds of thousands of scientists all of which have a huge incentive to prove each other wrong.

But to the point, during the 1970s climate scientists did NOT say we were going to have an ice age and in fact predicted global warming.

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

Holy shit! You mean Plover just lied? Yes, he just lied. He like all climate change deniers repeats the same debunked lies over an over again.

And Plover and his ilk are not skeptics. They are deniers. Skeptics demand evidence and base their belief on it. Deniers ignore evidence that contradicts their agenda. At this point no one who denies climate change is a skeptic. The evidence is overwhelming. There is literally thousands of times more evidence that climate change is happening right now than there is that George Washington fought in the American Revolution. As such, it is more ridiculous to deny climate change than it is to deny that Washington played any part in the American Revolution.

To put a nail in the coffin of the "Ice-Age Predicted" lie, here is detailed explanation of why the claim is simply a blatant lie.

www.youtube.com/embed/_F6bq0l18Ng

And here's a whitepaper debunking the ice age lie.

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated
the peer-reviewed literature even then.

Can it get any clearer? Even a cursory Google search reveals thousands of sources debunking this lie. So feel free to challenge me for more evidence.

OK, so Plover -- or should I call you Call It Crazy? (not entirely sure, but highly suspicious given that he registered today just to respond to this old thread and CIC cannot using his common account) -- are you willing to admit that you are wrong and change your position now that the evidence has been presented to you on a silver platter?

I've been following AGW/climate change info for years & I think we are fucked.
But I also have no problem being wrong,possibly being the first time.
If my agreement with the science is correct then.. Die! Stupid Deniers! PHUCKING DIE!
And watch your loved one suffer. HA!HA!HA!

Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

That is why all the Republican congressmen and hate-radio pundits and angry Breitbart sheep who have gagged and intimidated climate researchers into silence are now considered "leftists."

Tenpoundbass says

it's about mind control and creating more venues people must stay Polically correct or risk legal ostricizing

Well, they won't faze or deceive you, what with your multi-source information feed drawn from Breitbart, Breitbart, Breitbart, Breitbart and Breitbart.

jazz music says

Dan8267 says

There is literally thousands of times more evidence that climate change is happening right now than there is that George Washington fought in the American Revolution.

Heheh, how did you come up with that one?

Even by the most conservative counting, there are tens of thousands of lines of evidence that climate change is happening from core samples across the world, to tree rings from every land mass, to satellite imagery, to the migration patterns of countless species, to the life cycle and population of ocean algae. There are maybe a few dozen lines of evidence that George Washington fought in the American Revolution. Even having five independent verification of historical fact would be considered extremely strong by historians' standards. The lines of evidence for climate change, however, are over a thousand fold greater. Every core sample from different parts of the world is an independent verification of climate change. You simply don't get that level of independent verification for historical facts.

Nature records in far more detail and with far more redundant copies than human historians and record keepers. So my statement is true without exaggeration.

HydroCabron says

Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

That's bullshit. The right has banned books, passed blue laws, attempted to ban pornography, attempted to ban flag burning, indoctrinated children by forcing them to say a pledge of allegiance and then including a religious indoctrination into that pledge, passed laws against the use of encryption, violated anti-wiretapping laws. I could go on and on.

You statement is contradicted by all of history.

Oh gee another thread about climate change. I actually believe in it and believe that it's happening. But I disagree with all the solutions that politicians have come up with so far. So where does that leave you? Just because people agree that climate change is real doesn't mean they will let you tax them and give all the money to the lawyers.
So fuck off and die in a greenhouse, asshole!

Dan8267 says

HydroCabron says

Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

That's bullshit. The right has banned books, passed blue laws, attempted to ban pornography, attempted to ban flag burning, indoctrinated children by forcing them to say a pledge of allegiance and then including a religious indoctrination into that pledge, passed laws against the use of encryption, violated anti-wiretapping laws. I could go on and on.

You statement is contradicted by all of history.

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

It's called "mocking right-wing asshats by mimicking their infantile assertions in an assumed voice."

You need to slow down on the 15,000-word rebuttals and assertions and actually read.

You have two ears and one mouth, fool. Listen twice as much as you talk.

HydroCabron says

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

Up yours. I did read your entire post. The second paragraph adds nothing to the first and does not contradict the empirical examples that disproves your assertion that Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

Being a dick won't change that you are obviously wrong.

Dan8267 says

HydroCabron says

Tool, read the second paragraph of my post.

Up yours. I did read your entire post. The second paragraph adds nothing to the first and does not contradict the empirical examples that disproves your assertion that Stifling free speech is uniquely a problem of the left.

Being a dick won't change that you are obviously wrong.

Slow down, there, 'Tard. Tone down the insecure hysteria.

By now even you may have figured out that most of the members of this site are more intelligent than you are. Show some humility, lay off the keyboard and pay attention to what they're saying, instead of lecturing them all day.

It's called "personal growth." Other humans have things to teach you - quite a bit, in your particular case.

Dan8267 says

Now when I expose the lie for what it is, are you man enough to admit you were wrong, that you were duped, and to change your position based on the facts?

In the tradition of all liars, Spurwing is running away now that he's been caught and exposed.

Heraclitusstudent says

For those of us who believe climate change is real: why do we not do anything about it?

For one thing, yeah the impact *now* is virtually 0. Even if you could positively link climate change to some hurricanes, people would still live 99.99% of their lives exactly like they did before. Severe impact will not be there for years, probably 100 years.

Now if you consider what will happen in the next 100 years, I'm honestly not convinced climate change is really the dominant threat.

I would say overpopulation is the dominant threat. The perspective of having 13 billions people on the planet (including 5 in Africa) should give anyone pause. In this 100 years, if history is any guide, you will probably have at least 1 world war. Maybe a massive plagues. Some countries will run out of ground water. Most fish will run out. Lions and elephants will likely go extinct outside of zoos.

Climate change is like the cherry on that cake.

Also remember, If we were using o...

Well, 13 billion people on the planet will certainly speed up climate change tenfold as well.

Why people don't believe in climate science ?
Because its been taken over by Libtards, and become a pseudo-science.

Why do people believe in man-made global warming ?
Because they're idiots.

BlueSardine @ 4

Your second chart,do notice a problem with it?
Does anyone else?
This is your homework this weekend.

SimonRuszczak says

Why people don't believe in climate science ?

Because its been taken over by Libtards, and become a pseudo-science.

Why do people believe in man-made global warming ?

Because they're idiots.

Anyone who thinks that climate change caused by mass pollution is a cultural or politically motivate issue is a fucking retard who deserves no respect. Anyone who dismisses literally thousands of lines of independent evidence that all say the same thing confirmed by tens of thousands of scientists around the world is simply either a pathological liar or a moron of the highest degree. Either way such a person should not respected and should get no say in any policy regarding any domain.

The price of having your opinion on policy considered is adherence to reality.

Hater says

The real questions are:

Did humans cause it?

Yes. At least part of it.

Is it catastrophic?

Probably, but it's not clear how long it will take. Depends on your definition of catastrophic

Can humans do anything about it?

Of course. There are plenty of options, and everyone knows this.

Will humans do anything about it?

They will do something. Not as much as they would if they fully understood the problem.

Hater says

The real questions are:

Did humans cause it?

Yes, absolutely, the evidence is clear on this.

Is it catastrophic?

If left unchecked, also definitely. We're talking tens of millions of deaths, wars, terrorism, and the loss of trillions of dollars of real estate along the U.S. coastline alone.

Can humans do anything about it?

Of course. There are a great many things we can do to mitigate climate change and other problems of pollution. We can ban coal. We can implement carbon and methane taxes. We can restrict or limit many other forms of pollution. We can stop subsidizing fossil fuels. We can invest in hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy. We can decentralize energy production. We can phase out gasoline cars. We can adopt cap and trade. We can sign the Kyoto Protocol and similar international agreements.

Will humans do anything about it?

Only if deniers are made out to be the liars they are and we give them no voice in policy. The price of having influence is adherence to the truth. The stakes are simply too high to allow those with bad intentions to influence policy.

Hater says

The science is not settled until most of these questions are answered about it.

That's bullshit. The debunked lie that the science isn't settled, the same lie told by cigarette companies regarding lung cancer, sole purpose is to prevent action from being taken. The science is settled and anyone claiming that it hasn't been settled for over two decades should get zero voice in dealing with the problem for the exact same reason you don't let Holocaust deniers have any say over whether or not Israel gets to exist.

Hater says

It being global warming climate change.

This is another lie told by people with purely bad intentions. Global warming was not renamed to climate change because the Earth isn't warming. Anyone who even attempts to suggest that the term was renamed for deceptive reasons is a lying scumbag.

A new term was adopted for a simple, clear, and noble reason. Global warming is only one of the properties of climate change. Rising sea levels is another. Mass extinction is another effect. Floods and droughts are another. All these things are related, but dumb ass conservatives couldn't understand why warmer weather is a bad things. After all, if they aren't physically uncomfortable, what possible danger could there be. Oh wait, super-fucking-tornadoes. Because conservatives are too stupid to make the connection between rising temperature and various other effects, the broader term climate change was adopted. And the term climate change includes global warming. There is no deception by using the broader term.

There is, however, great deception in suggesting the term was changed to cover up lies. Anyone makes such a suggestion is a shill.

There's another thing that's been increasing rapidly, especially since the 19th Century, besides CO2, and in tandem with Industrialization.

But if you mention this, some AGW people freak the fuck out.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

There's another thing that's been increasing rapidly, especially since the 19th Century, besides CO2, and in tandem with Industrialization.

You mean population? Yes, that also needs to be controlled. Species that reproduce beyond the carrying capacity of the environment experience mass die-offs when the environment gets depleted and the carry capacity plummets until the environment recovers hundreds of years or even tens of thousands of years later.

Hater says

Dan8267 says

and the loss of trillions of dollars of real estate along the U.S. coastline alone.

It was overpriced anyway.

Anyone who is OK with such a great loss of homes and businesses clearly does not give a shit about the economy. Uncontrolled climate change greatly harms the economy.

Hater says

The name was changed because the earth was not warming as fast as predicted.

Another easily debunked lie. Who should you believe, some Internet troll with obviously bad intentions or NASA? I'll go with NASA.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

Real world evidence contradicts everything Hater said. As any discussion requires some adherence to evidence and real-world facts, Hater's will no longer be allowed to spread debunked propaganda on my threads. He can bitch and moan about this in his own threads.

We do not leave in a post-fact society and fake news, fake facts, and pseudoscience will not be tolerates. You can express any political preference you want, but you cannot express any reality you want. There is only one reality, and no fruitful conversation can be had with those who care not for reality.

Dan8267 says

We can ban coal. We can implement carbon and methane taxes. We can restrict or limit many other forms of pollution. We can stop subsidizing fossil fuels. We can invest in hydroelectric, wind, and solar energy. We can decentralize energy production. We can phase out gasoline cars. We can adopt cap and trade. We can sign the Kyoto Protocol and similar international agreements.

That would be awesome. It will happen, and a lot faster than anyone thinks. The cost of alternative energy is plummeting like a rock. In a few years it will cost a penny a mile to drive an electric car. Right now it's 4 cents a mile, except in high cost California.

jazz music says

Saudis oversupplying world markets with oil now have destabilized Russia and have thrown Venezuela into crisis.

So sad isn't it? When alternative energy completely displaces all fossil fuels you will be gushing with tears.

Dan8267 says

As any discussion requires some adherence to evidence and real-world facts, Hater's will no longer be allowed to spread debunked propaganda on my threads.

Amen.

Dan8267 says

What I do about climate change is

1. Debunk lies told by idiot deniers.

2. Promote solutions like a carbon tax and methane tax, which I would gladly pay as long as it's universal.

3. Promote removing all subsidies for fossil fuels and replacing them with subsidies for clean energy.

These are material policy changes that would greatly help solve the problem, or at least mitigate the consequences of it. Symbolic gestures are meaningless bullshit. You are treating climate change as if it's a cultural war rather than a serious and material problem. And that makes you a fool.

By taking one less airline flight per year, you would have a greater impact on GW reduction than your 3 talking points.

Why do all Libs continue to deny reality?

komputodo says

By taking one less airline flight per year, you would have a greater impact on GW reduction than your 3 talking points.

I doubt that, especially since most years I don't even take one flight. How exactly does one take a negative number of flights?

Dan8267 says

I doubt that, especially since most years I don't even take one flight. How exactly does one take a negative number of flights?

convince a friend not to take one.

One thing environmentalists must do is embrace molten salt nuclear plants.

Any environmentalist who refuses is an impractical, unreasonable ideologue. There's no feasible or economic pathway to carbon neutral energy without nuclear.

Hater demonstrates the original post extensively in his recent thread.