Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

U.N. panel says it's more certain that humans drive global warming


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 20 August 2013 - 09:11 PM

I suspect all the people that balk at human caused climate change do so for political reasons and more importantly economical reasons but here is an article http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_c4 with links on the possible cost of human caused climate change.
Climate sticker shock: Arctic thaw could cost $60 trillion

That's trillion, with a "T," a figure rivaling the entire globe's economic output in 2012.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/24/world/climate-arctic-methane/index.html

#2 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 20 August 2013 - 09:56 PM

plus video now
http://www.cnn.com/v...change.cnn.html

#3 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 21 August 2013 - 08:59 PM

Oh really?

Your responses would be a lot less of an embarassment is, after all this time, you demonstrated that you have even the slightest understanding of the difference between: "global warming"; "anthropogenic global warming"; "climate change" and "anthropgenic climate change".

Each of these is a seperate and distinct phenomenon, and each requires an entirely different response; if any.

Such as devegetating a couple of thousand square miles of forrest in the USA to replace coal for a power plant in Britain; or to shoot 40,000 elephants because it seems like a good idea.

#4 loganinkosovo

loganinkosovo

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Afghanistan

Posted 23 August 2013 - 12:05 AM

If the UN said it would be warm and sunny for the next month I'd break out the long johns and start carrying and umbrella.

The UN is the most corrupt organization on the face of this planet. If there is a crooked scheme the UN is up to their beady little pig eyes in it.

I've had to work around them and I wouldn't trust them with my lunch pail let alone trust them to tell the truth about anything.
The only difference between Socialism and National Socialism is the snappy uniforms. - Logan "Aside from ending Slavery, Fascism and Communist World Domination, War has never solved anything!""For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute! But it's "Savior of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot." - Rudyard Kipling"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."---George Orwell"Always Remember-All Lessons in Life are Expensive.....and the last one costs you everything you have." - Logan"Socialism is just Communism without a Dictator....and you can always find a Dictator!" - Logan"An Armed Man is a Citizen. An Unarmed Man is a Subject. Subject to anything anyone wants to do to him." - Logan

#5 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:53 AM

Oh really?

Your responses would be a lot less of an embarassment is, after all this time, you demonstrated that you have even the slightest understanding of the difference between: "global warming"; "anthropogenic global warming"; "climate change" and "anthropgenic climate change".

Each of these is a seperate and distinct phenomenon, and each requires an entirely different response; if any.

Such as devegetating a couple of thousand square miles of forrest in the USA to replace coal for a power plant in Britain; or to shoot 40,000 elephants because it seems like a good idea.


So you've set up a red herring of an argument. It doesn't matter what you call climate change. I think your plot you have in mind is one were, if I can't define what it is, human forced climate change it isn't happening. That's a bit of obfuscation because neither of us are doing climate science. But you've asked an important question, how do you tell the difference between natural forces causing change to the climate over human caused? Here's one important point. Since the Industrial Revolution [IR] there has been a rapid measurable increase of the average CO2 content in the atmosphere. Prior to the IR the CO2 parts per million was between 180-280ppm. Now it averages 400ppm. The last time CO2 content was at this level was 15-20 million years ago. The only obvious source for this increase has been human activity since the IR. Another point. Isotopes of CO2 tell the difference. Read http://www.realclima...vities-updated/ Methane is another gas that is even better at trapping the sun's energy. It's mainly caused by agriculture it seems. It has risen from .75ppb pre-industrial to 1.73ppb as of 2012 and appears to still be rising.
Is this good enough?

Deforestation isn't a good thing.
I have no idea what elephants have to do with climate change. Maybe you can explain how why it fits in?

Edited by ohreally?, 25 August 2013 - 08:55 AM.


#6 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:01 AM

If the UN said it would be warm and sunny for the next month I'd break out the long johns and start carrying and umbrella.

The UN is the most corrupt organization on the face of this planet. If there is a crooked scheme the UN is up to their beady little pig eyes in it.

I've had to work around them and I wouldn't trust them with my lunch pail let alone trust them to tell the truth about anything.


It's a small tragedy when someone displays willful ignorance like it's some medal of honor. There is a word, it's a small six letter word that defines one like you. Perhaps you with some persistence are able to find it in the dictionary, but I doubt it.

#7 loganinkosovo

loganinkosovo

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Afghanistan

Posted 25 August 2013 - 03:52 PM


If the UN said it would be warm and sunny for the next month I'd break out the long johns and start carrying and umbrella.

The UN is the most corrupt organization on the face of this planet. If there is a crooked scheme the UN is up to their beady little pig eyes in it.

I've had to work around them and I wouldn't trust them with my lunch pail let alone trust them to tell the truth about anything.


It's a small tragedy when someone displays willful ignorance like it's some medal of honor. There is a word, it's a small six letter word that defines one like you. Perhaps you with some persistence are able to find it in the dictionary, but I doubt it.



So... you must work for the U.N,

Typical......can't win against the facts so resort to name calling.

Calling me a moron does not change the fact that the UN is a collection of Corrupt Tin Pot Dictators who want a one world Government run by them and everyone else can live or die at their whim. As it has been pointed out by others "It's the Cantina scene from Star Wars" at the UN.

So....no, I do not Believe in the UN and I do not believe in Man-made "Global Warming".

Climate is controlled by the Sun and the Deep Ocean Currents and always has been.

Pollution is bad and should be combated for it's own sake but not for the sake of a dummied up Scam to defraud the Governments and the Tax-payers of the West.

If "Environ-MENTAL-ists" were soooooooooooo worried about the environment and "Green house gasses" they would be trying to change the personal and manufacturing habits of China, India and Eastern Europe, which are the real culprits of Pollution on a monumental scale.

But it's not about the Environment or Global Warming, it's about Power and Money. Neither of which they would get if they were actually worried about pollution.

"Environmentalists" are just the old Western Democracy hating Communists in a new wrapper. That's why in Europe they call them "Watermelons".....Green on the outside and Red on the inside.

Global Warming is a Sham and always has been. In the 70's and 80's the Scientists were harolding a coming mini-ice age. Not something you could use to create a crisis that you could bilk the Governments of the West with and create such onerous regulations that those same Western Governments would commit economic suicide over it. So a Scam was born of the rings of one tree in Siberia whom no one has seen and has not been heard from since.

Destruction of evidence or feigned destruction of imaginary evidence will do that.

Email-gate showed us just how crooked these "scientists" really are and after all the Phony Photos, Manipulated Data and Outright Lies they, with the help of the Urine stream media and the Teacher's Unions they still beat the worn out and tuneless drum of "Global Warming"


The Public has finally figured this out and is not buying it any more.

So in desperation the beating of the drum becomes more frantic and the cries more shrill...... but it's the same old lies and they are falling on deaf ears now.

Ears deafened by the destruction of at least three European economies and the Theft of Billions upon Billions of dollars/pounds/euros from western treasuries in the name of "Global Warming".

There are generally two types of people in the Global Warming movement.... the first is the "Useful Idiot" tool who parrots the talking points he's been fed by his handlers and the second are the handlers themselves who are old hard line Communists in on the scam who feed the phony talking points to the useful idiots and the urine stream media in hopes of stealing more money from the people, destroying Democracy and ultimately becoming part of the Communist Ruling Class that everyone else has to obey and worship like the old USSR.

Which one are you?

Edited by loganinkosovo, 25 August 2013 - 03:56 PM.

The only difference between Socialism and National Socialism is the snappy uniforms. - Logan "Aside from ending Slavery, Fascism and Communist World Domination, War has never solved anything!""For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute! But it's "Savior of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot." - Rudyard Kipling"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."---George Orwell"Always Remember-All Lessons in Life are Expensive.....and the last one costs you everything you have." - Logan"Socialism is just Communism without a Dictator....and you can always find a Dictator!" - Logan"An Armed Man is a Citizen. An Unarmed Man is a Subject. Subject to anything anyone wants to do to him." - Logan

#8 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 12:11 AM


Oh really?

Your responses would be a lot less of an embarassment is, after all this time, you demonstrated that you have even the slightest understanding of the difference between: "global warming"; "anthropogenic global warming"; "climate change" and "anthropgenic climate change".

Each of these is a seperate and distinct phenomenon, and each requires an entirely different response; if any.

Such as devegetating a couple of thousand square miles of forrest in the USA to replace coal for a power plant in Britain; or to shoot 40,000 elephants because it seems like a good idea.


So you've set up a red herring of an argument. It doesn't matter what you call climate change. I think your plot you have in mind is one were, if I can't define what it is, human forced climate change it isn't happening. That's a bit of obfuscation because neither of us are doing climate science. But you've asked an important question, how do you tell the difference between natural forces causing change to the climate over human caused? Here's one important point. Since the Industrial Revolution [IR] there has been a rapid measurable increase of the average CO2 content in the atmosphere. Prior to the IR the CO2 parts per million was between 180-280ppm. Now it averages 400ppm. The last time CO2 content was at this level was 15-20 million years ago. The only obvious source for this increase has been human activity since the IR. Another point. Isotopes of CO2 tell the difference. Read http://www.realclima...vities-updated/ Methane is another gas that is even better at trapping the sun's energy. It's mainly caused by agriculture it seems. It has risen from .75ppb pre-industrial to 1.73ppb as of 2012 and appears to still be rising.
Is this good enough?

Deforestation isn't a good thing.
I have no idea what elephants have to do with climate change. Maybe you can explain how why it fits in?


Oh my God!

Whatever possessed you to put yourself up as a cheeleader for science?

#9 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:57 PM

This is your best reply? I'd have thought with your acumen you would have gleefully explained what each term means and why the information in my reply is incorrect. But then again, I'm reminded that you didn't know the seasons are reversed.

#10 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 10:39 PM

Read this, then go away.

http://www.jpands.or...no3/lindzen.pdf

#11 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:13 AM

Read this, then go away.

http://www.jpands.or...no3/lindzen.pdf


It's not surprising that you avoided avoided defining the very terms and questions you asked. It's because you don't know enough to answer them and it tells me and everyone that reads your postings you are merely blowing smoke from your arse.

Wow, you found the one scientist that agrees with you. That in itself is a logical fallacy, known as argument from authority. Now let's dig a little deeper into the Lindzen fellow. Did you know Mr. Lindzen was a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which had been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil? He is also on the Academic Advisory Council of the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation opposed to mitigating climate change even though the founder Nigel Lawson agrees that AGW is occuring. Did you know that Lindzen spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change? This conference was hosted by the Heartland Institute a U.S.A. think tank that has received money from Exxon Mobile to down play global warming. He's also spoken at the Cooler Heads Coalition another group opposed for economic reasons to AGW. You've probably heard of the Golden Rule. No no, I don't mean the biblical one, I mean the Golden Rule that reads Thems that got the gold make the rules. Certainly Lindzen holds the views of no reason to take action to mitigate AGW prior to speaking at any of these places, but as long as he's probably being monetarily compensated by these entities he will tow the line. One last thing. You should learn to keep socioeconomics and science separate when arguing climate science when you don't it adds too much confusion.

Edited by ohreally?, 30 August 2013 - 07:16 AM.


#12 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 30 August 2013 - 07:20 AM

deleted

Edited by ohreally?, 30 August 2013 - 07:21 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users