hot enough for ya?

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Mon May 09, 2016 11:16 pm

donkeydick,

you know turd has been consistently wrong in this thread, and a chickenshit, in addition, for not taking my proposed wager. you might want to reconsider before you ally yourself with a repeat loser.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Tue May 10, 2016 1:42 pm

dead man walking wrote:donkeydick,

you know turd has been consistently wrong in this thread, and a chickenshit, in addition, for not taking my proposed wager. you might want to reconsider before you ally yourself with a repeat loser.

I don't follow all the nuances of this thread but have learned a lot from it. My focus is on the immediate threat of statists doing evil in the name of good. Case in point, Eric Schneiderman the AG of NY who is a key instigator in the fishing expedition against Exxon. Exxon can handle their own problems but the extension of the fishing expedition by one of his minions to the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank seems Orwellian to me. Same w/Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's desire to bring the RICO hammer down on deniers.

Nothing stimulates the free expression of ideas like the knowledge that besides being labeled as an evil denier, you can expect the massive resources of the US Gov't turned against you.

Turd will have to answer for his own climate sins or saintliness.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Tue May 10, 2016 1:59 pm

having the govt go after deniers is worrisome. going after liars is different, i believe. presumably the theory is similar to that which guided the govt's legal action against tobacco companies.

the issue isn't that exxon is a denier. i think it is that exxon is a deliberate liar, and the lie is being told to manipulate policy that affects the environment, human health, and national security (although i don't know whether national security is being brought into it).

Herv100 · Post by **Herv100** » Tue May 10, 2016 5:39 pm

DMW worried about liars now.

HIDE THE DECLINE. HIDE THE DECLINE. HIDE THE DECLINE.

LMAO. What a schmuck

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Wed May 11, 2016 1:24 pm

a nifty gif demonstrating rising temperatures.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11643864/g ... mperatures

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Fri May 13, 2016 7:26 am

From the (ex)horse's mouth:

Global Warming Is Natural, Not Man-Made

(NAPSA)—One of the fundamental
tenets of our justice system
is one is innocent until
proven guilty. While that doesn’t
apply to scientific discovery, in the
global warming debate the prevailing
attitude is that human
induced global warming is already
a fact of life and it is
up to d o u b t e r s t o
prove otherwise.
To complete the
analogy, I’ll add that
to date, there is no
credible evidence to
demonstrate that the climatological
changes we’ve seen since the
mid-1800’s are outside the bounds
of natural variability inherent in
the earth’s climate system.
Thus, any impartial jury
should not come back with a
“guilty” verdict convicting humanity
of forcing recent climatological
changes.
Even the most ardent supporters
of global warming will not
argue this point. Instead, they
argue that humans are only partially
responsible for the observed
climate change. If one takes a
hard look at the science involved,
their assertions appear to be
groundless.
First, carbon dioxide is not a
pollutant as many claim. Carbon
dioxide is good for plant life and is
a natural constituent of the
atmosphere. During Earth’s long
history there has been more and
less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
than we see today.
Second, they claim that climate
is stable and slow to change, and
we are accelerating climate
change beyond natural variability.
That is also not true.
Climate change is generally a
regional phenomenon and not a
global one. Regionally, climate has
been shown to change rapidly in
the past and will continue to do so
in the future. Life on earth will
adapt as it has always done. Life
on earth has been shown to thrive
when planetary temperatures are
warmer as opposed to colder.
Third, they point to recent
model projections that have
shown that the earth will warm
as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit
over the next century.
One should be careful when
looking at model projections. After
all, these models are crude representations
of the real atmosphere
and are lacking many fundamental
processes and interactions
that are inherent in the real
atmosphere. The 11 degrees scenario
that is thrown around the
media as if it were the mainstream
prediction is an extreme
scenario.
Most models predict anywhere
from a 2 to 6 degree increase over
the next century, but even these
are problematic given the myriad
of problems associated with using
models and interpreting their
output.
No one advocates destruction
of the environment, and indeed
we have an obligation to take care
of our environment for future generations.
At the same time, we
need to make sound decisions
based on scientific facts.
My research leads me to
believe that we will not be able to
state conclusively that global
warming is or is not occurring for
another 30 to 70 years. We simply
don’t understand the climate system
well enough nor have the
data to demonstrate that humanity
is having a substantial impact
on climate change.
Anthony R. Lupo is assistant
professor of atmospheric science at
the University of Missouri at
Columbia and served as an expert
reviewer for the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on C

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Fri May 13, 2016 7:30 am

Another scientist, but who is going to listen anyway...

10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Fri May 13, 2016 2:45 pm

Sangoma wrote:Another scientist, but who is going to listen anyway...

10 reasons that show global warming is not man-made. Physics Prof explains his switch to skepticism.

MMGW is a fact. I don't know if it's an actual fact or a group think psychological fact (I suspect the latter). Makes me wonder about the line in our psyches where something's real because it's real or real because we decide it's real. More likely we decide that it's real (or false) because we have the same opinions as our tribe. Tech savvy tribal confirmation bias.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Fri May 13, 2016 7:00 pm

humans are bumbling asses. i don't much give a shit about the fate of lilliputians like sangoma, but i do worry about creatures like the red knot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/scien ... knots.html

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Sat May 14, 2016 11:01 am

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever

Some claims he made were quite unbelievable even for me. But they check out.

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Sat May 14, 2016 11:02 am

dead man walking wrote:humans are bumbling asses. i don't much give a shit about the fate of lilliputians like sangoma, but i do worry about creatures like the red knot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/scien ... knots.html

I know it is much more difficult, but instead of posting stories about poor animals - aimed at housewives - try post material related to the evidence of GW being anthropogenic.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sat May 14, 2016 2:10 pm

i started this thread when many here denied warming even existed. now most seem to accept that the climate is changing, but only after yammering and posting all kinds of nonsense by deniers--like your recent posts.

posts about the effects of climate change seem a reasonable addition to me, your childish dismissiveness of their merit nothwithstanding.

besides which, i'll post whatever i want.

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Sun May 15, 2016 1:56 am

You didn't change anybody's opinion about anything here. Trying to have a conversation with you is similar to discussing evolutionary biology with creationists.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sun May 15, 2016 2:22 am

minds have changed.

meanwhile your go-to move is the weak insult with the inapt metaphor, given that climate change has science on its side. you're in the creationist role.

there is no point discussing this topic with you, but here's some reading, background you seem to have missed:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empiri ... arming.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... zfanWPmtol

and a look at how leading deniers have had to revise their temperatures numbers upward, because they initially were wrong multiple times before being corrected

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... r-ted-cruz

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Sun May 15, 2016 3:13 am

Leading alarmists have revised their numbers way more frequently than deniers. And no, there is no credible science on the climate side, and the whole thing is reminiscent of the Dark Ages when Galileo was punished for denying the validity of heliocentrism.

By the way, the argument at both links you mentioned is far fetched and is at best circumstantial. Mixing associations with causations. Not that you are willing or able to engage in the detailed technical discussion.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Sun May 15, 2016 3:53 am

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun May 15, 2016 7:50 am

dead man walking wrote:and a look at how leading deniers have had to revise their temperatures numbers upward, because they initially were wrong multiple times before being corrected

So shitty science on both sides is getting exposed? Good news.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sun May 15, 2016 2:31 pm

Sangoma wrote:Leading alarmists have revised their numbers way more frequently than deniers. And no, there is no credible science on the climate side, and the whole thing is reminiscent of the Dark Ages when Galileo was punished for denying the validity of heliocentrism.

By the way, the argument at both links you mentioned is far fetched and is at best circumstantial. Mixing associations with causations. Not that you are willing or able to engage in the detailed technical discussion.

let me know when your peer-reviewed article proving the failure of climate science is published.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon May 16, 2016 1:40 pm

Companies whose success or failure is impacted by climate change are making economic decisions based on its truthiness. That includes the Navy, looking at the Arctic waters.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Mon May 16, 2016 7:27 pm

to meet your duty to your children and grandchildren, become vegetarian.

according to the u.n., worldwide methane releases from raising livestock are greater than the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.

Herv100 · Post by **Herv100** » Mon May 16, 2016 8:00 pm

Notice how all these global warming and big government shitturds like deadman walking want to regulate or outright abolish things needed for human beings to survive without the state or in the event of a governmental/societal collapse? Keeping animals, farming(good luck starting a farm nowadays without begging the government for handouts), guns(LOL), things with combustion engines, hunting and fishing, even dietary supplements, etc. Medicine is already illegal without prescription. Yeah, your goals are really well hidden, faggots.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Tue May 17, 2016 4:58 pm

nafod wrote:Companies whose success or failure is impacted by climate change are making economic decisions based on its truthiness. That includes the Navy, looking at the Arctic waters.

And Exxon.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Tue May 17, 2016 7:45 pm

good point, turd

back in the 80s, exxon's research projected increased co2 emissions from human activity--notably deforestation and combustion of fossil fuels--and increasing temperatures as a result because of the well-understood "greenhouse effect" of such emissions.

their papers acknowledge uncertainty about the pace of increasing emissions and consequently the pace of rising temperatures and about the timing of the consequence of an altered climate. of course, it was the 80s, so a lot was uncertain.

less so today, doncha agree?

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/globa ... effect.pdf

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/globa ... t-1980.pdf

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Tue May 17, 2016 9:42 pm

dead man walking wrote:good point, turd

back in the 80s, exxon's research projected increased co2 emissions from human activity--notably deforestation and combustion of fossil fuels--and increasing temperatures as a result because of the well-understood "greenhouse effect" of such emissions.

their papers acknowledge uncertainty about the pace of increasing emissions and consequently the pace of rising temperatures and about the timing of the consequence of an altered climate. of course, it was the 80s, so a lot was uncertain.

less so today, doncha agree?

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/globa ... effect.pdf

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/globa ... t-1980.pdf

I think it's obvious that their projection that climate change would have no effect on their profits over the next 30 or so years was correct. I also think the world is a better place than it was back then, in large part because of the enlightened self interest of large multinational corporations-- the several billion people who no longer live in abject poverty their ancestors did would probably agree.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Tue May 17, 2016 11:37 pm

Turdacious wrote:
dead man walking wrote:good point, turd

back in the 80s, exxon's research projected increased co2 emissions from human activity--notably deforestation and combustion of fossil fuels--and increasing temperatures as a result because of the well-understood "greenhouse effect" of such emissions.

their papers acknowledge uncertainty about the pace of increasing emissions and consequently the pace of rising temperatures and about the timing of the consequence of an altered climate. of course, it was the 80s, so a lot was uncertain.

less so today, doncha agree?

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/globa ... effect.pdf

http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/globa ... t-1980.pdf
I think it's obvious that their projection that climate change would have no effect on their profits over the next 30 or so years was correct. I also think the world is a better place than it was back then, in large part because of the enlightened self interest of large multinational corporations-- the several billion people who no longer live in abject poverty their ancestors did would probably agree.

ok.

looking ahead, with rising seas likely to be damaging to large numbers of poor in the third world and with drought also likely to harm the poor in the mideast and africa, what once worked may no longer work so well.

the conundrum is that many of the poor have been lifted because of improvements powered by fossil energy, but now the consequences of that fossil energy could bite them in the ass.

i'll overlook your use of the modifier "enlightened" to characterize the behavior of multinationals.

IGX

hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?

Re: hot enough for ya?