Why is It SO COLD in the US Southwest? Did All the CO2 Just Go Away?

Either you are purposefully missing his point and thus trolling the thread, or something else that I'm not allowed to say about you.

dadoalex's assessment of this is correct. The problem is that the USA is crippled by corporate interests in the coal and oil industries, which have a vested interest in the status quo. And that status quo is poluting your country and the planet (along with other industry in other countries).

 

Give me any type of proof showing we would all die with non action or else you are the one who is trolling .

 

I think the point is that the planet could well become unihabitable by humans. I'm sure you understand that humans require clean water and food and air to survive. Our land needs to be watered, in fact we need land and we've built many of our most densly populated areas in low lying coastal areas (NY for example).

I'm also sure that you purposefully did not address the entire case, only a small part, so I'll copy and paste it for you:

Originally Posted by dadoalex
OK. Let's consider it.

If I'm wrong and we do what I want we end up with less pollution, less dependence on foreign oil, more political stability.

less pollution
less dependence on foreign oil
more political stability

 

Ahh so it was just scare tactics ? I noticed you failed to provide any proof . If it was there , you'd provide it right ? We stopped drilling many sites in our own country , get the bulk of our gas now from Canada , and are we any more politically stable ??

 

Oh please quit your whining. I could equally ask the opposite question "prove that companies cleaning up their emissions would have a demonostratably negative consequence to their comany outlook", but I wouldn't be so simplistically minded. But if it was there, you'd provide it right?

The point of this is that it is impossible to have an adult discussion on the matter, because one side refuses to do so. I'm here and ready to have an open discussion, but it will not happen because of your lack of rationality.

 

Grow up.

 

Weirdos join the Warmies because they are lonely losers who need friends and some mass movement in which they can forget how much they hate themselves as individuals. In their childish escapism, this cult offers the chance to feel like a superhero out to save the world. Also by joining this Zero Growth academic clique, losers can get even with those who are proud of being economically productive by discrediting the achievers and claiming that economic progress is destructive.

 

I think most are English/Sociology/Psych majors who desperately want to pretend SOME technical knowledge of ANYTHING.

This is why they are so easily spoonfed the most dubious of "pseudo-science" nonsense, and haven't a CLUE about how ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC experimentation/verification is accomplished, many even parroting the absolute, indisputable proof of their scientific ignorance, the asinine claim that "science does not prove anything", first defecated by a "paleo-psychologist" (whatever TF THAT IS), in a ridiculously obtuse OP-ED.

And then, they declare everyone seeking ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF of the Warmist Religion's Dogmas, to be "anti-science"; BIZARRE....no doubt.

 

In worshipping Nature, Warmies are devolving into a primitive superstition. Nature is not supernatural; it is a hostile entity that only high intelligence can conquer. The balance of Nature is not in man's favor; it is no sacrilege to change Nature radically. Instead of meek submission to this inferior life form, it is our evolutionary duty to destroy what is harmful or gets in the way.

In this oppressive era dragged down by the decadent thinking of an illegitimate ruling class, we are heading back to the Stone Age. Only by dominating nature and totally changing it to fit our needs and even desires can we avoid widespread poverty and anarchy. But those misfits who look up to this filthy vegetation and anti-human chaos while they look down upon man's greatest achievements use scare tactics to say that fighting this force instead of submitting to it like ignorant cavemen will cause anarchy. Like Nature itself, Warmies are the enemies of mankind and should be disempowered.

 

Not that their opponents are any more literate, but the Warmies' claim to being better educated is proved false by their ignorance that words likedata, phenomena, and bacteria are plural.

 

Let us know when your conspiracy theory bears fruit.

 

LMAO, so say the posters that knock education. The reality is your ilk are incapable of comprehending the amount of effort that is needed to do the climate research. Then try spending weeks at a time, in a tent, without bathroom creature comforts in the cold.

- - - Updated - - -

None of them bring mature, rational, let alone educated or experienced discussing to the table. All their posts are insulting in nature, without a shred of evidence.

 

Please quote any of the Real Science posters "knocking education". It is BECAUSE of ACTUAL education, that we understand the difference between unproven "consensus" (like "the world is flat"), and actual SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES.

Here is something "mature and rational", and absolutely CRIPPLING to the Warmist Tenets, a call for ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD:


Again I say", post the results of the chemo/baro/thermo test PROVING the thermal retention/tranfer properties of less than 400 ppm. (.0004) atmospheric concentrations CO2, utilizing SCIENTIFIC METHOD, UTILIZING A CONTROL, and demonstrating PROVABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS.

Please post ALL LAB NOTES, and PROCEDURES. I won't hold my breath....yawwwnnnnnn....

 

Those have been provided by numerous posters. While we are on the subject of education, an educated person knows full well that one cannot prove a negative, so your claims that global warming doesn't exist based on evidence is not possible.

I presume you will post another rant.

 

Your not qualified to make such assesments. Weve already seen your ideology on global warming and how it actually distorts your perceptions.

 

Global warming and cooling have BOTH EXISTED, since long before humanity was here.
Please QUOTE ANY the examples you claim "have been provided by numerous posters".

Still waiting for the test results...got 'em?

 

Sure you can. Evidence that the temperature has decreased or stayed the same would prove that negative.

 

I such as heck know what it's like on the engineering end to make assessments. I listen to scientists because I know their level of effort and the skill required for them to get to their position.

- - - Updated - - -

The posters that have replied to you, have provided links. Scientific American website has info as well as Live Science, you only insult us.

 

Then get one with a functioning baro chamber to do the SIMPLE TEST I proposed.....accurately PROVE the thermal retention/transer properties of concentrations of less than 400 PPM. (.0004), in a pressurized to sea level , duplicated atmospheric mixture,...

 

Go ahead and prove this negative, prove you never murdered anyone. Now for your temperatures, a simple web search reveals the warmest years have been this decade and the last, the evidence is overwhelming.

More than one poster has provided links and cutouts from those articles, yet your ilk remains oblivious the obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Go the Scientific American and Live Science web sites, ask them, they are the experts.

 

Bullcrap. A "Computer Model" is NOT a CHEMICAL TEST. An unsubtantiated claim is NOT scientific proof.

Unless, of course, one is one of the SCIENTIFICALLY CRIPPLED Warmist Religion.

"Insult you"? Please.. not NEARLY ENOUGH, obviously.

Let's SEE what you keep trying to pretend has been posted....or ****.

Once again...if you really think someone has provided a link DETAILING The CHEMICAL TEST I PROPOSED, stop ALLUDING TO IT (the sign of a LIAR), and POST IT.

 

I could equally ask the opposite question "prove that companies cleaning up their emissions would have a demonostratably negative consequence to their comany outlook", but I wouldn't be so simplistically minded. But if it was there, you'd provide it right?

- - - Updated - - -

I could equally ask the opposite question "prove that companies cleaning up their emissions would have a demonostratably negative consequence to their comany outlook", but I wouldn't be so simplistically minded. But if it was there, you'd provide it right?

 

We have far more harmful pollution(s) to be concerned with ,and dealing with, than the ridiculously iditotic, contrived War on CO2.

 

Your problem is in your perception of what you hear. The scientis say 2012 is the 10th warmest year on record and you perceive them to be saying that it was THE warmest year on record. And you still havent figured out that it wasnt the warmest year.