Positive effects of Global Warming?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Sadistic-Savior, Jan 19, 2012.

  1. Xanadu

    Xanadu New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,397
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is nothing positive about bringing a complete ecosystem out of balance (it is simply insane), and destroying the foodchain and the massive destruction of rainforests and other very old forests and local biotopes.
    This kind of propaganda is only in this world to protect the oil (of powerhungry supermacists aka imperialists), the fundamental energy of this globally build empire (they use every trick/tactic to keep their imperialistic agenda pushing forward, they do this for a century now)
    Don't buy into any of their propaganda, because they are trying to take over the entire world (and destroy it even more by their next wars), they have already destroyed lots and natural resources are not endless (except two big energies that are never mentioned via politics or media of this system, geothermical/supercritial water and tidal energy)
     
  2. Thx

    Thx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That "did not come about"?

    What about Siberia turning into a bog?

    Sheesh.

    Thx
     
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what about all those hurricanes we were supposed to have?

    Sheesh.

    BTW, could you show us some of those doomsday scenarios about the Siberian bog? LOL
     
  4. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The standard prediction has been about the same number of hurricanes, but stronger ones.

    Which is exactly what we've been seeing.

    Sheesh. You really need to learn more than you can get from Fox News.
     
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the true believers, everyone that does not toe the line in their religion is a heretic. You need to learn to at least retain a modicum of skepticism or become just another parrot in the true belief.
     
  6. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, having no actual evidence to support your position, you resort to the ad hominem attack.

    How many times have we seen deniers follow this pattern? On this forum, pretty much every time. When you started, I had high hopes that you would have been different, Hoosier8. I'm sorry that you lived down to my worst expectations rather than up to my best.

    Oh, and for future reference: the guy who has no evidence is the religionist (that's you). The guy who has evidence is the scientist.
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing like the usual retort for a non believer. I provide plenty of evidence of past history and the cyclical nature of the climate, but that is to be ignored for the true belief.

    To be expected.

    If you need a list of "deniers" (the name itself is a way to marginalize any heretics against the belief of AGW) then you only have to look to yourselves because the true believers keep a list of them for easy reference. Some of these "deniers" are quite up there in the scientific community, but have to be ridiculed for their non belief.

    For the true believers, the science is settled, there is complete consensus, any questioning results in the equivalent of a witch trial by true believers.

    Problem is, if you dig even a little, you find conflicting scientific viewpoints.

    Ah, but don't confuse the true believers with the truth, they have already made up their minds.
     
  8. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Still confusing bad journalism with science?

    Sheesh!
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You have so far provided ONE link to a palaeontology site that really had nothing to do with climatology and we did discuss it
    YEP usual response from the denialists
     
  10. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's utterly non-controversial that past episodes of climate change were caused by natural forcings. That says absolutely nothing about the current episode of climate change. And for the current episode, you have provided no evidence at all, only unsupported speculation.

    When I ask for evidence, I'm asking for something peer-reviewed. I'm asking for something more than what Rush said on the air today, and more than what some blogger posted six years ago. In other words, I'm asking you to be just as skeptical of your own beliefs as you are of mine. If you can actually do that, you can prove to me that you're a true skeptic, which would mean you're someone I can respect.

    But frankly, I don't think you can do that. I don't think you're a true skeptic at all: I think you're a fake skeptic. I think you apply one standard of evidence to things that support your right-wing view, and a completely different standard of evidence to anything that challenges that view.

    A true skeptic would never have swallowed that breadfruit-in-Iceland story.

    In the first place, I'm not asking for a list of people, I'm asking for evidence. In the second place, if you don't like the word "denier" then come up with something better. Since people like Pat Michaels and Judith Curry have embraced the term, I view it as descriptive rather than pejorative.

    Not at all. If you've actually got evidence, we want to see it. The problem is, you don't, and neither do those on that short list of denier scientists. Those guys do get published, so they're not being hounded out of the profession, and there's no witchhunt going on. The problem is, their political beliefs can't pass peer-review (nor should they), and their actual science doesn't refute the consensus.

    Conflicting opinion is easy to find. Conflicting evidence is what I'm asking for, and what you have not provided. Nor have the Roy Spencers of the world.
     
  11. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, skepticism is a right wing belief, which means in your world that AGW true believers are left wing. Says much about you.

    Sorry, but skepticism can be non partisan.

    Your continued references to Rush points out your left wing belief that this is somehow a partisan issue. It is not.

    There is plenty of factual evidence of what I have pointed out, the cyclical nature of the climate. There is even plenty of evidence that the true natural climate is somewhere between the ice age we are in now and the hot humid climate of the dinosaurs.

    What you wish to cling to is the notion that the last 100 years is somehow indicative of a long term future, to which there is no consensus at all except for the doomsayers. Sorry.
     
  12. Thx

    Thx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh get off the coffee cake.

    I posted the BBC vid that shows Siberian permafrost thawing into lakes and bogs, but I guess you are going to ignore it.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKyRHDFKEXQ"]Russian Permafrost Melt - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

    How about all the flooding and more powerful hurricanes we are seeing year after year, do you live in Anarctica?

    The coral reefs dying, years of both floods and droughts across America, Siberia turning intop a bog, California-sized receding of glaciers, we see global warming unfolding in many ways and still people like you will stooge for big oil...

    Sheesh, get a clue.
     
  13. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    More lies. Name the powerful hurricanes that hit the US since Katrina
     
  14. Thx

    Thx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There have only been three category 5 hurricanes that have hit the United States in the past hundred years, but category 4 and 5 around the world have doubled since 1970 and some storms are pushing the bounds to level 6 with sustained winds almost 200 mph.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1986862&page=1

    Thx
     
  15. ptif219

    ptif219 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Messages:
    10,299
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you evade my question. I would expect nothing less

    Read what DR Gray says

    http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...icanes-not-caused-warming-scientists-conclude
     
  16. Thx

    Thx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,623
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ummmm - it is called GLOBAL warming for a reason - not everything happens in the USA[​IMG]

    This is not a trend either - in fact none of the scientists say it is
     
  18. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the answer is. So what? Big deal. The problem is you wish to think this is something unusual when history of the earth is full of climate changes. For instance, why did the ice in the Antarctic increase during the ice minimum in the Arctic (2003)? Did you know at one time (linked above) there was no ice in the Arctic while there was an ice cap on the Antarctic?

    It is the hubris of man that allows us to think we are the center of everything going on and that we can actually control it. You might call this our Climate Manifest Destiny.

    We cannot control what is going on and the natural changes the climate will go through. Even the amounts of CO2 we are putting into the air would eventually end up there anyway since all oil eventually bubbles to the surface and everything changes. We have just created a little bubble of it but in the long run, it will mean nothing in the scheme of things.

    I suggest you prepare civilization for the end of this interglacial.
     
  19. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hint. Who sets their budget?
     
  20. Thx

    Thx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, there's the "ME generation" response: "As long as it doesn't effect ME and MINE it doesn't matter."

    "So Siberia turns into a bog, so what..."

    Meanwhile, here in the US we have 300 tornadoes touch down in a short period and half the country either flooded or parched like Texas.

    But, as long as it doesn't directly effect "ME and MINE", right this minute it gets the "so what"...

    And NASA and other govt agencies are some of the few gathering statistics and doing research in this, do you expect Rupert Murdoch's Fox to provide research here?

    Or... just fan the fires for oil company tools like you so they can sell I-pods and flashy shoes and flood insurance?

    How does the govt. profit by the NASA report on global warming?

    Are they stealing your tax dollars to fund the bogus EPA... what do they gain by lying?

    Is it like the fake Moon mission?

    The fact is, when we make a mess something has to clean it up...

    Nature can absorb a lot of our pollution, but only so much and eventualy you see huge changes like Siberia melting.

    Thx
     
  21. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for proving a lot of my previous points. For one, this is all some kind of left wing right wing partisan game for you. Second, who says that Siberia warming is a bad thing? Ever been there? Third, you have man as the center of the universe which is much more "ME" centered than understanding that the climate will change no matter what we do and we should be prepared for it. Forth, when has the government or consensus ever been wrong before? LOL
     
  22. Thx

    Thx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And I can see who you are... a litterbug who figures "it's not MY problem".

    A pure denialist, you won't even entertain the possibility of man-made messes.

    You have no evidence to support your point, zero, mountains of evidence in support of man-made global warming, but I'm sure it's too inconvenient for you to consider.

    NASA as I recall has been supported through many administrations, so are you saying this is a govt conspiracy?

    (With nothing, but a few crack-pot blogs to back it up with...)

    (Oh, and just because you claim I backed up many of your points doesn't make it so, just like your claim that Siberia melting is perfectly natural.)

    It shouldn't be a partisan issue, but naive zombies like you have to lap up whatever the Fox propaganda machine spews out to sell shampoo and zit cream...

    Thx
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perfect emotional response. Thanks.

    This is what happens when a true believer is confronted with anything that is outside of their true belief.
     
  24. Thx

    Thx New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just calling 'em as I see 'em, do you think you are the only Fox zombie I have encountered? (No you are not, just another cookie-cutter example... (You are the only one with enough guts to actually say Fox was a good, credible source though, the rest just post articles and stooge points, but rarely go as far at to say they are credible...)

    And you are just trying to dodge every one of my points as you have done with myself and others all along this thread.

    Somehow we just weren't impressed with your four T-pub sources. (Let me guess, you're an "RP independent" right, and have been ever since it was obvious to ANYONE that Bush was the worst disaster in 75 years, right? Join the herd. Same ol' repub goop in a brand new jelly jar. You guys aren't fooling anyone. Lol!)

    You don't like NASA stats, is NASA a partisan agency, or do you have a problem with govt. stats in general?

    Give us some details this time instead of just tossing a spit-ball.

    Thx
     
  25. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Here is a sentence that sums up the true belief and how heretics to that belief are to be treated and dismissed.

    After that identification, nothing written, discovered, or theorized by such people need be considered.
     

Share This Page