Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/12/2015 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Man-made climate change is definitely not a farce. Regardless of what you think of Gore, billions of people burning fossil fuels for a hundred years has impacted the planet negatively.

We can disagree on the appropriate course of action but denying that it is happening is completely stupid.

I'm all for nuclear energy. I've made that clear in the past.

That opens up other cans of worms but at least it's a step towards something.

Other than, you know, just denying the existence of man-made climate change.

OK.  I see now.  You got your little agenda of climate change today.  I guess you are tired of the race card or any other percieved social injustice.  I don't blame you.  Hillary is sucking bad right now and you don't have a candidate and the whole world hates Obama and people like you. You people haven't been correct on anything since 1962. 

You gave Iraq away and everything you have touched has turned into crap so you better look for something to talk about.  How about climate change?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 2:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/12/2015 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Man-made climate change is definitely not a farce. Regardless of what you think of Gore, billions of people burning fossil fuels for a hundred years has impacted the planet negatively.

We can disagree on the appropriate course of action but denying that it is happening is completely stupid.

I'm all for nuclear energy. I've made that clear in the past.

That opens up other cans of worms but at least it's a step towards something.

Other than, you know, just denying the existence of man-made climate change.

I wish just for once you would prove it.  You can't.

We got the e-mails from England and Penn State and all the false tree ring crap.  We got agencies caught changing the temperatures several times and they just go back and do it again. We understand your desire to be on the "good guy" side and how you feel you need a cause because you haven't found your moral base and are still struggling to find the truth between right and wrong.

You gotta stop supporting idiocy in preservation of pride.

You need a sea change son.  Ain't gonna happen though.  You ain't big enough to swallow it.  That would take a man. 

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that humans are responsible for 60% instead of 100%. Does that change anything?

I don't think it does.

Are you really this shallow?  WHAT?  You are making me sick.

You make all these stupid little arguments.  Hey what if it was this instead if that.  

Let's make it 60 instead of 100 THEN YOU deny it anyway.  You're a robot.

WHAT?  OH!  Now I remember.  This week the talking point was global warming.  Next week it will be something else.  Whatever it is and where ever it goes, you will be there toting the party line. 

I got a question.  What is all the global warming predictions based on? 

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 5:38:00 PM (view original):
I think it's more likely that humans being responsible for 1% may be on the high side.

I think that's definitely wrong.

WHY?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 6:25:00 PM (view original):
I don't think either of us has an educational or professional background that would qualify us to do our own tests, so we're sort of stuck relying on the word of experts.

This is from the National Research Council (emphasis added):

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”

This is from the IPCC:

ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was extremely likely that climate change is the product of human activity. Extremely likely in IPCC speak means having a probability of over 95%.


_____


The idea that we can't separate natural, cyclical changes from man-made climate change is false. You may not understand the evidence that we have (I certainly don't understand it completely), or accept it, but it's there.

BULLSHIT!

Not only does it sound creepy but you wasted a lot of our time to say you don't know what you are talking about. 

I will tell you ONE THING that is true and can't be denied.  The  NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL and the IPCC get government MONEY$$$$$$$$!

That's taxpayer money.  And when the government takes over the people,  the people won't have money or power or anything else, but the government will.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 6:39:00 PM (view original):
www.jamespowell.org/Stuff/Ourfault/Ourfault.html

"So we know the added carbon in the atmosphere is coming from plants, but which plants? To answer that question, we use another isotope of carbon: C14. it is radioactive and dies away to undetectable levels in 50,000 years or so. Fossil fuels, being millions of years old, have no C14 left. Adding ancient carbon should have lowered the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere—and it has, as the charts below show."

SHUTUP!

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 7:08:00 PM (view original):
I'm absolutely appealing to authority here. There's no way I can test the atmosphere or interpret the results.

I'm fairly certain that the very rich fossil fuel companies would pay a lot for research that shows that humans aren't causing climate change. Yet, there is still a scientific consensus going in the other direction.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!    You said the C word.  You said consensus.  And that's just a damned bald faced lie..

Do you evar…DO YOU EvAR…..DO YOU EVER take a second to reflect or think about what you are saying?  I know there are many times I don't.

This isn't one of them.  

Now…I want you to stop for a minute.  I want you to cool off and think.  I want you to remember we have a dictionary and words have meaning.   Stick with me now.

What the hell is a consensus?  You got a dictionary?  You might wanna look that up. 

WHAT THE HELL IS A CONSENSUS IN SCIENCE?  Science isn't a vote.  There is no consensus in science. 

There is only fact and reality.  I don't care if 90% of scientists said man will never fly or the sun revolves around the earth.  There is no consensus in science.

Stop!

JEEZ!  I hope you din't make yet another post on your pet project for this week.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 8:07:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet covered a good portion of North America 100,000 years ago.  It started to recede around 20,000 years ago.  It was considered to be one of the major influences on global climate during it's existence, as has it's melting.

What caused it to start melting 20,000 years ago?  Was that also due to human causes?

So, according to you, >99% of climate change is natural and the massive scientific consensus that it is man-made (95-99% of climate scientists depending on the survey) is a conspiracy to get funding.

Interesting.

HELLO!!!!!

Posted by stinenavy on 8/12/2015 9:20:00 PM (view original):
I usually try to keep this about the Presidential race, but I think the left is completely wrong on their opposition to nuclear power. If you want a clean source of energy, nothing is better than nuclear power. I think people against nuclear have their heads in the sand, and really need to give it a second look.

Hypocrite. 

I got a message awhile back from admin telling me to stop reporting posts. Admin sucks.

I never get those.   Of course, I'm not a hypocrite that says "Stay on topic" and then goes off topic.

So maybe it's not ADMIN that sucks.

ADMIN. HAS ALWAYS SUCKED

BANNING CHICKEN TALK AND RAK THE MODERATOR!