Discussion:
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
(too old to reply)
raykeller
2017-02-24 20:17:48 UTC
Permalink
* CLIMATE CHANGE*

*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.*
*Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical
change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far
north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
the report continued, while many well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while
vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far
north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.*
*Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will
rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post * *93
years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
de chucka
2017-02-24 23:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.*
*Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical
change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far
north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
the report continued, while many well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while
vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far
north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.*
*Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will
rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post * *93
years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
max headroom
2017-02-25 00:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
de chucka
2017-02-25 01:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
2017-02-25 01:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
de chucka
2017-02-25 01:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
2017-02-25 01:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
It was either your abject ignorance or inability to think clearly-- or
both.

Ask Max to be sure.
de chucka
2017-02-25 02:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
It was either your abject ignorance or inability to think clearly-- or
both.
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Ask Max to be sure.
He doesn't know either
max headroom
2017-02-25 02:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:31:29 +1100, de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities
uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report
was from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
It was either your abject ignorance or inability to think clearly--
or both.
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Ask Max to be sure.
He doesn't know either
The hell I don't.
de chucka
2017-02-25 02:39:39 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Ask Max to be sure.
He doesn't know either
The hell I don't.
This will be fun Why was I "wooshed" originally?
max headroom
2017-02-25 03:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Ask Max to be sure.
He doesn't know either
The hell I don't.
This will be fun Why was I "wooshed" originally?
The answer is in the text you snipped.
de chucka
2017-02-25 03:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Ask Max to be sure.
He doesn't know either
The hell I don't.
This will be fun Why was I "wooshed" originally?
The answer is in the text you snipped.
Please point out EXACTLY where in the text :-)
Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
2017-02-25 02:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
It was either your abject ignorance or inability to think clearly-- or
both.
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Were you the OP?
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Ask Max to be sure.
He doesn't know either
Ask to be sure.
de chucka
2017-02-25 02:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
It was either your abject ignorance or inability to think clearly-- or
both.
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Were you the OP?
Can't you follow a thread or is it your newsreader ;-)
Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
2017-02-25 11:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
It was either your abject ignorance or inability to think clearly-- or
both.
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Were you the OP?
Can't you follow a thread or is it your newsreader ;-)
It was easier just to ask, and since you mentioned how stupid the OP
was I assumed it was you.
de chucka
2017-02-25 21:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
It was either your abject ignorance or inability to think clearly-- or
both.
Sorry I was just pointing out the stupidity of the OP
Were you the OP?
Can't you follow a thread or is it your newsreader ;-)
It was easier just to ask, and since you mentioned how stupid the OP
was I assumed it was you.
So you can't , mate you are a rubes in every sense
Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
2017-02-25 22:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Can't you follow a thread or is it your newsreader ;-)
It was easier just to ask, and since you mentioned how stupid the OP
was I assumed it was you.
So you can't , mate you are a rubes in every sense
I guess you can't read very well. I removed all the superfluous text
to make it easier for you to concentrate.
max headroom
2017-02-25 01:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Kläûs Schädéñfréudê
Post by de chucka
Post by max headroom
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
[snip
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
... *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
* *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
Whooosh!
You have been
Another "whoosh."
This will be fun ;-) Why was I "wooshed" originally?
Triple whooosh!
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-03-05 23:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point
to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt
the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
de chucka
2017-03-06 04:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point
to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt
the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Scout
2017-03-06 13:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point
to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt
the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Yep, and so far you've not shown any evidence that anthropomorphic climate
change is even significant or relevant.

Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it magically
all man's fault.

We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.

Sure...yea...right.
de chucka
2017-03-06 22:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point
to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt
the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Yep, and so far you've not shown any evidence that anthropomorphic
climate change is even significant or relevant.
Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it
magically all man's fault.
You don't have a strong understanding of the topic do you
Post by Scout
We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.
Control? Yes human activity does effect it
RD Sandman
2017-03-07 18:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according
to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate
at Bergen Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old
seal fishing grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities
uninhabitable.* ** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post * *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Yep, and so far you've not shown any evidence that anthropomorphic
climate change is even significant or relevant.
Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it
magically all man's fault.
You don't have a strong understanding of the topic do you
Post by Scout
We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.
Control? Yes human activity does effect it
a-f-f-e-c-t I believe that human activity does affect it but am unsure
as to what effect it truly has. Some of the same folks screaming about
global warming were warning us about a coming ice age a few years ago.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
de chucka
2017-03-07 19:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according
to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate
at Bergen Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old
seal fishing grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities
uninhabitable.* ** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post * *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Yep, and so far you've not shown any evidence that anthropomorphic
climate change is even significant or relevant.
Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it
magically all man's fault.
You don't have a strong understanding of the topic do you
Post by Scout
We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.
Control? Yes human activity does effect it
a-f-f-e-c-t I believe that human activity does affect it but am unsure
as to what effect it truly has.
I'm sure that human activity is pushing the current global warming rate
but not sure by how much. It may just be a small % on top of natural
climate change

Some of the same folks screaming about
Post by RD Sandman
global warming were warning us about a coming ice age a few years ago.
RD Sandman
2017-03-08 18:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer
and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot
according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from
Consulate at Bergen Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal
hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate
conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic
zone.* *Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice
has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth
and stones, the report continued, while many well known
glaciers have entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have
never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in
the old seal fishing grounds.* *Within a few years it is
predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make
most coast cities uninhabitable.* ** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report
was from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post * *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Yep, and so far you've not shown any evidence that anthropomorphic
climate change is even significant or relevant.
Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it
magically all man's fault.
You don't have a strong understanding of the topic do you
Post by Scout
We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.
Control? Yes human activity does effect it
a-f-f-e-c-t I believe that human activity does affect it but am
unsure as to what effect it truly has.
I'm sure that human activity is pushing the current global warming
rate but not sure by how much. It may just be a small % on top of
natural climate change
On that, we agree. Climate has cycled up and down for millenia.
Post by de chucka
Some of the same folks screaming about
Post by RD Sandman
global warming were warning us about a coming ice age a few years ago.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Scout
2017-03-07 22:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point
to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt
the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Yep, and so far you've not shown any evidence that anthropomorphic
climate change is even significant or relevant.
Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it
magically all man's fault.
You don't have a strong understanding of the topic do you
On the contrary, it seems stronger than yours.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.
Control? Yes human activity does effect it
By 0.00001%?

A cow farts in Montana and it's the end of all life?
de chucka
2017-03-07 23:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point
to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt
the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite a
while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and
has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
Yep, and so far you've not shown any evidence that anthropomorphic
climate change is even significant or relevant.
Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it
magically all man's fault.
You don't have a strong understanding of the topic do you
On the contrary, it seems stronger than yours.
LOL, try reading the science not Breibart
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.
Control? Yes human activity does effect it
By 0.00001%?
cite
Just Wondering
2017-03-08 08:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Millions of years of natural climate change...and then suddenly it
magically all man's fault.
You don't have a strong understanding of the topic do you
On the contrary, it seems stronger than yours.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
We suddenly are in control of the entire climate.
Control? Yes human activity does effect it
By 0.00001%?
A cow farts in Montana and it's the end of all life?
It's what killed off the dinosaurs. Here's proof:

Wiley E. Coyote
2017-03-06 13:38:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
de chucka
2017-03-06 22:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes

https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves:
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.


NEXT
Just Wondering
2017-03-07 06:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
de chucka
2017-03-07 09:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
Just Wondering
2017-03-07 10:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
So now water vapor is a pollutant.
de chucka
2017-03-07 18:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
So now water vapor is a pollutant.
Certainly is a pusher of climate change
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-03-07 11:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Without greenhouse gases, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be about -18 °C (0 °F),[2]
rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F).

Squawk, the sky is falling. Squawk, the sky is falling.

I was talking about pollution, not your eco freak bullshit.
Scout
2017-03-07 22:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
Which includes far more than CO2 and GHGs are only a fraction of all
pollutants.
de chucka
2017-03-07 23:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
Which includes far more than CO2 and GHGs are only a fraction of all
pollutants.
These pollutants have what to do with the discussion. In fact I would
suggest that volcanoes reduce the Earth's temperature by increasing
dust, soot etc in the atmosphere
Just Wondering
2017-03-08 08:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
Which includes far more than CO2 and GHGs are only a fraction of all
pollutants.
H20 and CO2 are not pollutants.
de chucka
2017-03-08 19:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
Which includes far more than CO2 and GHGs are only a fraction of all
pollutants.
H20 and CO2 are not pollutants.
Depends where they are and in what concentration. Try driving with water
pollinating your petrol.
Just Wondering
2017-03-09 03:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s
volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about
200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our
automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for
themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes
comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution",
not about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
Which includes far more than CO2 and GHGs are only
a fraction of all pollutants.
H20 and CO2 are not pollutants.
Depends where they are and in what concentration. Try driving
with water pollinating your petrol.
You're being silly. If the discussion was about 24 caret gold, anything
except elemental AU would be a pollutant. But the
discussion is about the release of stuff into the environment in general
and the atmosphere in particular. Within the scope of the discussion
H2O and CO2 are not pollutants. Within the scope of the discussion it
is your petrol that would be the pollutant.
de chucka
2017-03-09 04:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s
volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about
200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our
automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for
themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes
comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution",
not about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
GHGs are
Which includes far more than CO2 and GHGs are only
a fraction of all pollutants.
H20 and CO2 are not pollutants.
Depends where they are and in what concentration. Try driving
with water pollinating your petrol.
You're being silly. If the discussion was about 24 caret gold, anything
except elemental AU would be a pollutant. But the
discussion is about the release of stuff into the environment in general
and the atmosphere in particular. Within the scope of the discussion
H2O and CO2 are not pollutants.
CO2 is a pollutant that results in increase atmospheric H2O. In the case
of CO2 it is the concentration not where it is, same as the other GHGs.


Within the scope of the discussion it
Post by Just Wondering
is your petrol that would be the pollutant.
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-03-07 11:51:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
Yep.
de chucka
2017-03-07 18:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by raykeller
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
in
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at
Bergen
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met
as
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal
fishing
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
*
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
Your facts may be correct, but Coyote's claim was about "pollution", not
about CO2 which as everyone knows is not pollution.
Yep.
Do you want to discuss GW or pollution?
Wiley E. Coyote
2017-03-07 11:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post *
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for quite
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
NEXT
CO2? You mean the stuff that plants like and they convert to O2?

So?
de chucka
2017-03-07 18:42:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in
some places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a
report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen
Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met
as
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic,
while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before
ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing
grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice
melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post
*
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
*93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion years
old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces more
"pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but here
goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been
making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound
plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
NEXT
CO2? You mean the stuff that plants like and they convert to O2?
Yep that is the stuff among others
RD Sandman
2017-03-07 18:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according
to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate
at Bergen Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old
seal fishing grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities
uninhabitable.* ** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post * *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces
more "pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but
here goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has
been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may
sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
NEXT
Then perhaps, you should really put the blame on China and Mexico for
most of that.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
de chucka
2017-03-07 18:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according
to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate
at Bergen Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old
seal fishing grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities
uninhabitable.* ** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post * *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces
more "pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but
here goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has
been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may
sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes,
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
NEXT
Then perhaps, you should really put the blame on China and Mexico for
most of that.
OK I blame them but so what?
RD Sandman
2017-03-08 18:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and
in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according
to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate
at Bergen Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers have
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old
seal fishing grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities
uninhabitable.* ** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post * *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces
more "pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but
here goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has
been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may
sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s
volcanoes,
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial
activities
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
NEXT
Then perhaps, you should really put the blame on China and Mexico for
most of that.
OK I blame them but so what?
If they did the same things the US has done, then we would all be better
off than we are now. There are places in China and Japan where one dare
not venture without a mask over their nose because of the smog. Mexico
City is about the same.
--
RD Sandman

Airspeed, altitude and brains....two of the three are always
required to complete a mission.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
de chucka
2017-03-08 19:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer
and
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
in some places the seals are finding the water too hot according
to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate
at Bergen Norway.* *Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and
explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions
and
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and
stones, the report continued, while many well known glaciers
have
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
entirely disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern
Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old
seal fishing grounds.* *Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coast cities
uninhabitable.* ** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report
was
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by Wiley E. Coyote
Post by de chucka
Post by raykeller
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington
Post * *93 years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or
possibly from horse and cattle flatulence.*
You do realise that the industrial revolution had been going for
quite a while by 1922 don't you? You didn't? Typical scientific
luddite
You do realize, you stupid fuck, that the earth is 4.5 billion
years old and has been subject to constant change over that time.
Natural verses anthropomorphic climate change
So man is stronger than nature? Really? A single volcano produces
more "pollution" than man has ever?
Bullshit, I know you won't like this because it is 'scientific' but
here goes
https://tinyurl.com/jyfd4ng
This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in
the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has
been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may
sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s
volcanoes,
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial
activities
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for
Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one
percent
Post by de chucka
Post by RD Sandman
Post by de chucka
of those generated by today’s human endeavors.
NEXT
Then perhaps, you should really put the blame on China and Mexico for
most of that.
OK I blame them but so what?
If they did the same things the US has done, then we would all be better
off than we are now. There are places in China and Japan where one dare
not venture without a mask over their nose because of the smog. Mexico
City is about the same.
It is a worldwide problem which needs a world wide solution like the
world reaction to acid rainn
bigdog
2017-03-08 21:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
It is a worldwide problem which needs a world wide solution like the
world reaction to acid rain
It's not a problem at all.
de chucka
2017-03-08 21:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
It is a worldwide problem which needs a world wide solution like the
world reaction to acid rain
It's not a problem at all.
You are welcome to your opinion
bigdog
2017-03-08 21:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
It is a worldwide problem which needs a world wide solution like the
world reaction to acid rain
It's not a problem at all.
You are welcome to your opinion
How generous of you.
de chucka
2017-03-08 22:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
It is a worldwide problem which needs a world wide solution like the
world reaction to acid rain
It's not a problem at all.
You are welcome to your opinion
How generous of you.
My pleasure, Usenet is open to anyone to post their crazy ideas so why
should you not be one of them
benj
2017-03-09 01:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
It is a worldwide problem which needs a world wide solution like the
world reaction to acid rain
It's not a problem at all.
You are welcome to your opinion
How generous of you.
My pleasure, Usenet is open to anyone to post their crazy ideas so why
should you not be one of them
Free to post lies too, which explains how you are here.
de chucka
2017-03-09 02:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
It is a worldwide problem which needs a world wide solution like the
world reaction to acid rain
It's not a problem at all.
You are welcome to your opinion
How generous of you.
My pleasure, Usenet is open to anyone to post their crazy ideas so why
should you not be one of them
Free to post lies too, which explains how you are here.
AH another of your crazy ideas but feel free to keep posting
Mr. B1ack
2017-02-25 07:08:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:17:48 -0700, "raykeller"
Post by raykeller
* CLIMATE CHANGE*
*The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot according to a report to the
Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate at Bergen Norway.*
*Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical
change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the
Arctic zone.*
*Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far
north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.*
*Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,
the report continued, while many well known glaciers have entirely
disappeared.*
*Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while
vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far
north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.*
*Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will
rise and make most coast cities uninhabitable.*
** * ** * * * * **
*I must apologize.** I neglected to mention that this report was
from* *November
2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post * *93
years ago.*
*This must have been caused by the Model T Ford's emissions or possibly
from horse and cattle flatulence.*
Yes, they refuse to admit that some (most?) of this
is a cyclical thing. When they give you graphs they
conveniently cut out the older data that does not help
their cause. As such their "science" is disinformation,
lies, political, intended to get the industrial nations to
destroy themselves.

I'm sure there IS some anthropogenic warming. The
extra CO2 DOES add to it ... but perhaps deforestation
and re-routing of river systems does more. Regardless
the captain of this game is still dear sweet Mother Nature.
We're just her little-league team.
Winston_Smith
2017-02-25 21:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. B1ack
Yes, they refuse to admit that some (most?) of this
is a cyclical thing. When they give you graphs they
conveniently cut out the older data that does not help
their cause. As such their "science" is disinformation,
lies, political, intended to get the industrial nations to
destroy themselves.
I'm sure there IS some anthropogenic warming. The
extra CO2 DOES add to it ... but perhaps deforestation
and re-routing of river systems does more.
Of course, deforestation and messing with rivers is also
anthropogenic.
Argument 1 – Rise in Sea Level – Sea level is rising in many areas of the world. This is partially attributed to the melting of ice caps and glaciers, but more to the changes in the gases contained within the sea. In the past decade, the global mean sea levels have doubled compared to the 20th century trend of 1.6 mm per year. The global sea levels rose about 6.7 inches in the last century.
I question the glacier thing. The volume of glaciers isn't much
compared to that of the oceans AND THEN when you melt the ice you only
get something like 1/10 the volume. I'm more inclined to finger simple
thermal expansion of the ocean water as it warms.
Argument 2 – Rise in Earth’s Average Temperature – Global temperature rise during past century and half continues. Tracking global atmospheric temperatures since the 1800s, scientists point to a steady rise with a stronger period in the 70s, lull in the 90s and a return to the rising pattern in the 2000s.
Earth has had global hot house periods and wide spread ice ages. Here
we are calling a handful of degrees something that has never happened
before. Might be real; might not. Might be good; might be bad. But it
ain't nothin' that hasn't happened before.
Argument 4 – Shrinking Glaciers – The glaciers on several mountain ranges, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica, are decreasing in size due to reduction in gases that help to maintain temperatures, and changes in the regions climate. Studies conducted by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 36 to 60 cubic miles of ice every year between 2000 and 2006.
The glaciers that once covered Scotland and much of the UK and Ireland
are gone. Same for Canada and northern US. Oops, never mind. That was
a couple ten thousand years ago by most reckonings. Must have been
those cavemen in France making their cooking fires too big. You know
how French love their cooking.


Look up Doggerland and Doggerbank
rbowman
2017-02-26 00:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
The glaciers that once covered Scotland and much of the UK and Ireland
are gone. Same for Canada and northern US. Oops, never mind. That was
a couple ten thousand years ago by most reckonings. Must have been
those cavemen in France making their cooking fires too big. You know
how French love their cooking.
http://glaciers.us/Glaciers-Montana

There are glaciers in Montana although they tend to be a little
underwhelming. The snowfields are quite handy; you can stuff snowballs
into your CamelBak and have ice water on your return. I ran into a woman
from California on the trail over on the Idaho Divide. When she asked me
what the white formations were across the lake I'm not sure she believed
me when i told her they were ice. That was in August of 2003 when there
was a major forest fire on the southern edge of Missoula.

According to the predictions, Glacier National Park will be fresh out of
glaciers by 2030.
bigdog
2017-02-26 02:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by rbowman
Post by Winston_Smith
The glaciers that once covered Scotland and much of the UK and Ireland
are gone. Same for Canada and northern US. Oops, never mind. That was
a couple ten thousand years ago by most reckonings. Must have been
those cavemen in France making their cooking fires too big. You know
how French love their cooking.
http://glaciers.us/Glaciers-Montana
There are glaciers in Montana although they tend to be a little
underwhelming. The snowfields are quite handy; you can stuff snowballs
into your CamelBak and have ice water on your return. I ran into a woman
from California on the trail over on the Idaho Divide. When she asked me
what the white formations were across the lake I'm not sure she believed
me when i told her they were ice. That was in August of 2003 when there
was a major forest fire on the southern edge of Missoula.
According to the predictions, Glacier National Park will be fresh out of
glaciers by 2030.
Glaciers have been going through cycles of expanding and receding for as long as there have been glaciers. So Glacier National Park will run out of glaciers? BFD. Change the fucking name of it.
Martin Eastburn
2017-02-26 04:02:02 UTC
Permalink
If one remembers - the Hudson Bay north of Canada/inside of it - / was a
lake of sorts - the Bay - Ships from England would come and go - Hudson
Bay Co was into hides and fur from the new world. On more than
once the ships would be frozen in for the winter. Ice. That turned
into more and more ice with the little ice-age that grew the glaciers in
North America.

What is screwing up the weather on a major way is the great forests in
Brazil. The great Amazon is slowing down and the forest land is now
farm land as long as it stands it. It is used to being built up with
leaves/trees animals waste and bodies... all gone. This being gone
creates more problems with the storms in the Pacific.

Martin
Post by rbowman
Post by Winston_Smith
The glaciers that once covered Scotland and much of the UK and Ireland
are gone. Same for Canada and northern US. Oops, never mind. That was
a couple ten thousand years ago by most reckonings. Must have been
those cavemen in France making their cooking fires too big. You know
how French love their cooking.
http://glaciers.us/Glaciers-Montana
There are glaciers in Montana although they tend to be a little
underwhelming. The snowfields are quite handy; you can stuff snowballs
into your CamelBak and have ice water on your return. I ran into a woman
from California on the trail over on the Idaho Divide. When she asked me
what the white formations were across the lake I'm not sure she believed
me when i told her they were ice. That was in August of 2003 when there
was a major forest fire on the southern edge of Missoula.
According to the predictions, Glacier National Park will be fresh out of
glaciers by 2030.
Jim Wilkins
2017-02-26 13:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Eastburn
If one remembers - the Hudson Bay north of Canada/inside of it - /
was a lake of sorts - the Bay - Ships from England would come and
go - Hudson Bay Co was into hides and fur from the new world. On
more than
once the ships would be frozen in for the winter. Ice. That turned
into more and more ice with the little ice-age that grew the
glaciers in North America.
...
Martin
The old rumor of a Northwest Passage to China (Strait of Anian) was
investigated within a decade of Columbus, once Spain's expeditions
made it necessary to publicly claim and map the territories northern
Europeans had secretly been exploiting for at least 500 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Weston_(explorer)

This is how they kept the secret. The crew knew only that they were
somewhere on the ocean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutter_(nautical)
"These notes were probably passed secretly within their profession
ranks, from master to apprentice. Only a few of these Italian
handbooks were made public, and even fewer have survived to this day."

"Perhaps the most dramatic rutter was the 1595 Reysgheschrift by Dutch
sailor Jan Huygen van Linschoten. Having sailed to the Asia aboard
Portuguese ships, Linschoten publicized the sailing directions to the
East Indies that had been assiduously kept secret by the Portuguese
for nearly a century. The publication of Lischoten's rutter was an
explosive sensation, and launched the race by a myriad of Dutch and
English companies for the East Indies in its aftermath."
-jsw
Mr. B1ack
2017-02-27 03:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by rbowman
Post by Winston_Smith
The glaciers that once covered Scotland and much of the UK and Ireland
are gone. Same for Canada and northern US. Oops, never mind. That was
a couple ten thousand years ago by most reckonings. Must have been
those cavemen in France making their cooking fires too big. You know
how French love their cooking.
http://glaciers.us/Glaciers-Montana
There are glaciers in Montana although they tend to be a little
underwhelming. The snowfields are quite handy; you can stuff snowballs
into your CamelBak and have ice water on your return. I ran into a woman
from California on the trail over on the Idaho Divide. When she asked me
what the white formations were across the lake I'm not sure she believed
me when i told her they were ice. That was in August of 2003 when there
was a major forest fire on the southern edge of Missoula.
According to the predictions, Glacier National Park will be fresh out of
glaciers by 2030.
Guess they'll have to re-name it then. Maybe they
shouldn't print up too many brochures.

I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........

Maybe a "Save The Ecosphere - CO2 to 2500 ppm or Bust !"
would be a more appropriate crusade eh ?
Winston_Smith
2017-02-27 05:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. B1ack
I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........
Making Climate Normal Again (to paraphrase a current slogan)

Greenland Gisp2 Temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

Holocene Temperature Variations
Loading Image...
Jim Wilkins
2017-02-27 11:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........
Making Climate Normal Again (to paraphrase a current slogan)
Greenland Gisp2 Temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
Holocene Temperature Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
bigdog
2017-02-27 15:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........
Making Climate Normal Again (to paraphrase a current slogan)
Greenland Gisp2 Temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
Holocene Temperature Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
According to that chart, for most of the last 8000 years, the earth has been warmer than it is now. Should we blame Fred Flintstone?
bigdog
2017-02-27 15:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
benj
2017-02-27 22:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Nay. If a Lib can imagine it, then that makes it true.

Bigdog, Obviously you are a denier who doesn't take climate change
seriously. (formerly called global warming until the warming stopped)

Here is a list of just how serious this problem is while the media
wrings it's hands over Trumps rejection of these media truths!

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Just Wondering
2017-02-28 10:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
de chucka
2017-02-28 21:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
bigdog
2017-02-28 22:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you suggesting Aussies quit farting?
de chucka
2017-02-28 22:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you suggesting Aussies quit farting?
What an eloquent debating point by you NOT
benj
2017-02-28 23:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you
suggesting Aussies quit farting?
What an eloquent debating point by you NOT
Ok, so he exaggerated. But I tell you true, that if the Aussies lefties
just shut their pie holes that they are using to try to disarm all
American gun owners, the amount of Hot Air not injected into the
atmosphere would clearly be a "good first step" toward ending global
warming.
de chucka
2017-03-01 00:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you
suggesting Aussies quit farting?
What an eloquent debating point by you NOT
Ok, so he exaggerated. But I tell you true, that if the Aussies lefties
just shut their pie holes that they are using to try to disarm all
American gun owners,
I, for one, don't want to disarm you. It would be rather hypocritical
for me as a gun owner to do so. Same as if I tried to get your tractors
or chains saws banned.



the amount of Hot Air not injected into the
Post by benj
atmosphere would clearly be a "good first step" toward ending global
warming.
benj
2017-03-02 00:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you
suggesting Aussies quit farting?
What an eloquent debating point by you NOT
Ok, so he exaggerated. But I tell you true, that if the Aussies lefties
just shut their pie holes that they are using to try to disarm all
American gun owners,
I, for one, don't want to disarm you. It would be rather hypocritical
for me as a gun owner to do so. Same as if I tried to get your tractors
or chains saws banned.
Wait a minute. Hypocrisy is what Libs (even in Oz) do, right?

And don't you CARE about all those people killed and injured by
chainsaws and tractors when it all can be prevented by passing some
simple laws?
de chucka
2017-03-02 01:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you
suggesting Aussies quit farting?
What an eloquent debating point by you NOT
Ok, so he exaggerated. But I tell you true, that if the Aussies lefties
just shut their pie holes that they are using to try to disarm all
American gun owners,
I, for one, don't want to disarm you. It would be rather hypocritical
for me as a gun owner to do so. Same as if I tried to get your tractors
or chains saws banned.
Wait a minute. Hypocrisy is what Libs (even in Oz) do, right?
no, BTW the big L Liberals are the Australian conservatives
Post by benj
And don't you CARE about all those people killed and injured by
chainsaws and tractors when it all can be prevented by passing some
simple laws?
There is a danger with any tool
Just Wondering
2017-03-02 03:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you
suggesting Aussies quit farting?
What an eloquent debating point by you NOT
Ok, so he exaggerated. But I tell you true, that if the Aussies lefties
just shut their pie holes that they are using to try to disarm all
American gun owners,
I, for one, don't want to disarm you. It would be rather hypocritical
for me as a gun owner to do so. Same as if I tried to get your tractors
or chains saws banned.
Wait a minute. Hypocrisy is what Libs (even in Oz) do, right?
no, BTW the big L Liberals are the Australian conservatives
Post by benj
And don't you CARE about all those people killed and injured by
chainsaws and tractors when it all can be prevented by passing some
simple laws?
There is a danger with any tool
Yes, and libs are the biggest tools of all.
de chucka
2017-03-09 04:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Every time an Aussie farts he is affecting the atmosphere. Are you
suggesting Aussies quit farting?
What an eloquent debating point by you NOT
Ok, so he exaggerated. But I tell you true, that if the Aussies lefties
just shut their pie holes that they are using to try to disarm all
American gun owners,
I, for one, don't want to disarm you. It would be rather hypocritical
for me as a gun owner to do so. Same as if I tried to get your tractors
or chains saws banned.
Wait a minute. Hypocrisy is what Libs (even in Oz) do, right?
Not wrong the Australian Liberals are amazingly hypocritical but so is
the ALP
Post by benj
And don't you CARE about all those people killed and injured by
chainsaws and tractors when it all can be prevented by passing some
simple laws?
LOL Australia trys to make it as safe as possible to use by mandating
safety measures

Just Wondering
2017-03-01 00:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Read what I wrote, then you'll know what I am saying.

Water vapor is a GHG. Putting more water vapor into the
atmosphere results in higher humidity and more precipitation,
which obviously are effects.
de chucka
2017-03-01 00:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Read what I wrote, then you'll know what I am saying.
I'd hence my reply
Post by Just Wondering
Water vapor is a GHG. Putting more water vapor into the
atmosphere results in higher humidity and more precipitation,
which obviously are effects.
Just Wondering
2017-03-01 00:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by de chucka
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs
into the atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one).
Are you suggesting that putting extra GHGs into the
atmosphere is having no effect?
Read what I wrote, then you'll know what I am saying.
I'd hence my reply
Huh?
benj
2017-03-01 00:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Correct, Chucker. The major GHG is water vapor. What you plan to do?
Cover the sea with plastic? (Already too much plastic floating in the
ocean as in the Pacific Plastic Pile) But here's the true scientific
deal (Note all libs are way to ignorant of science to be trusted to say
anything true)

Dumping tons of combustion products into the air is not a good idea.
Dumping dire chemicals into air and water is also a bad idea. Even bits
of plastic into the sea has very negative potentials. Thus, Trump's idea
of bringing back coal is really a pretty stupid idea UNTIL all the
problems of "clean coal" are solved. And it's important they ARE solved
because unless someone starts selling "free energy" machines right now,
our civilization must run on fossil fuels and coal will give us time to
finally invent something that works.

Lib lies are things like pie in the sky solar and wind. There is a
reason the Netherlands does not still use those windmills. Remember
those great times with everybody growing tulips? Sorry. These things
make great niche power but run human civilization? Not a prayer. You
remember how great life was back in the middle ages before guns were
invented? Yeah, Libs want to go there. And nobody knows what vast fields
of bird choppers and solar panels will do to our climate?

Bottom line is this: CO2 is a MINOR green house gas. A trillion dollar
per year tax on energy (which they want) and spending it on CO2 is utter
stupidity of the worst kind because if the money were to be spent, there
are LOTS of much more important things to spend it on like the pacific
plastic pile, cleaning up the mess from making atomic bombs, clean coal,
and so on. Things that really are a threat to civilization rather than
some pie in the sky lib fantasy. CO2 levels are high, but since
temperatures went DOWN while Co2 went up from 1940-1970 that pretty much
does that theory in. Besides, the CO2 absorption bands are saturated.
This means that greatly increasing CO2 has very little effect on
warming. And Finally a little warming might be good. Time was when
vikings farmed Greenland. Is that so scary?

Bottom line is there are lots of things in the pollution department that
need attention. Spending some money there is not a bad idea, but
collecting money and spending it on a lie like CO2 is criminal. Global
warming is FAKE NEWS. That's why they suddenly changed the name to
"climate change" as if one could stop climate from changing. That is the
science and those are the lies. All this can be proved as well as the
ways in which warmballers have faked data, bought sold-out scientists,
and spun the fake news. It is time everyone woke up. At least Trump is
on the right page.
de chucka
2017-03-01 00:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Correct, Chucker. The major GHG is water vapor. What you plan to do?
Cover the sea with plastic? (Already too much plastic floating in the
ocean as in the Pacific Plastic Pile) But here's the true scientific
deal (Note all libs are way to ignorant of science to be trusted to say
anything true)
Agree as we the other GHGs heat up the atmosphere the amount of water
vapour inccrease
Post by benj
Dumping tons of combustion products into the air is not a good idea.
Dumping dire chemicals into air and water is also a bad idea. Even bits
of plastic into the sea has very negative potentials. Thus, Trump's idea
of bringing back coal is really a pretty stupid idea UNTIL all the
problems of "clean coal" are solved. And it's important they ARE solved
because unless someone starts selling "free energy" machines right now,
our civilization must run on fossil fuels and coal will give us time to
finally invent something that works.
Many ways of decreasing our reliance on coal as an energy source
Post by benj
Lib lies are things like pie in the sky solar and wind. There is a
reason the Netherlands does not still use those windmills.
Main one being they didn't produce electricity


Remember
Post by benj
those great times with everybody growing tulips? Sorry. These things
make great niche power but run human civilization? Not a prayer. You
remember how great life was back in the middle ages before guns were
invented? Yeah, Libs want to go there. And nobody knows what vast fields
of bird choppers and solar panels will do to our climate?
:-)
Post by benj
Bottom line is this: CO2 is a MINOR green house gas. A trillion dollar
per year tax on energy (which they want) and spending it on CO2 is utter
stupidity of the worst kind because if the money were to be spent, there
are LOTS of much more important things to spend it on like the pacific
plastic pile, cleaning up the mess from making atomic bombs, clean coal,
and so on. Things that really are a threat to civilization rather than
some pie in the sky lib fantasy. CO2 levels are high, but since
temperatures went DOWN while Co2 went up from 1940-1970 that pretty much
does that theory in. Besides, the CO2 absorption bands are saturated.
This means that greatly increasing CO2 has very little effect on
warming. And Finally a little warming might be good. Time was when
vikings farmed Greenland. Is that so scary?
yes as a 2m sea level rise would seriously screw things, well if the
MEWP was a Earth wide phenomenon which it wasn't
Post by benj
Bottom line is there are lots of things in the pollution department that
need attention. Spending some money there is not a bad idea, but
collecting money and spending it on a lie like CO2 is criminal. Global
warming is FAKE NEWS. That's why they suddenly changed the name to
"climate change" as if one could stop climate from changing. That is the
science and those are the lies. All this can be proved as well as the
ways in which warmballers have faked data, bought sold-out scientists,
and spun the fake news. It is time everyone woke up. At least Trump is
on the right page.
bigdog
2017-03-02 00:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Correct, Chucker. The major GHG is water vapor. What you plan to do?
Cover the sea with plastic? (Already too much plastic floating in the
ocean as in the Pacific Plastic Pile) But here's the true scientific
deal (Note all libs are way to ignorant of science to be trusted to say
anything true)
Agree as we the other GHGs heat up the atmosphere the amount of water
vapour inccrease
Post by benj
Dumping tons of combustion products into the air is not a good idea.
Dumping dire chemicals into air and water is also a bad idea. Even bits
of plastic into the sea has very negative potentials. Thus, Trump's idea
of bringing back coal is really a pretty stupid idea UNTIL all the
problems of "clean coal" are solved. And it's important they ARE solved
because unless someone starts selling "free energy" machines right now,
our civilization must run on fossil fuels and coal will give us time to
finally invent something that works.
Many ways of decreasing our reliance on coal as an energy source
Post by benj
Lib lies are things like pie in the sky solar and wind. There is a
reason the Netherlands does not still use those windmills.
Main one being they didn't produce electricity
Remember
Post by benj
those great times with everybody growing tulips? Sorry. These things
make great niche power but run human civilization? Not a prayer. You
remember how great life was back in the middle ages before guns were
invented? Yeah, Libs want to go there. And nobody knows what vast fields
of bird choppers and solar panels will do to our climate?
:-)
Post by benj
Bottom line is this: CO2 is a MINOR green house gas. A trillion dollar
per year tax on energy (which they want) and spending it on CO2 is utter
stupidity of the worst kind because if the money were to be spent, there
are LOTS of much more important things to spend it on like the pacific
plastic pile, cleaning up the mess from making atomic bombs, clean coal,
and so on. Things that really are a threat to civilization rather than
some pie in the sky lib fantasy. CO2 levels are high, but since
temperatures went DOWN while Co2 went up from 1940-1970 that pretty much
does that theory in. Besides, the CO2 absorption bands are saturated.
This means that greatly increasing CO2 has very little effect on
warming. And Finally a little warming might be good. Time was when
vikings farmed Greenland. Is that so scary?
yes as a 2m sea level rise would seriously screw things, well if the
MEWP was a Earth wide phenomenon which it wasn't
Yeah, it might flood all those coastal areas where so many Hillary voters live. That's not a deal breaker. I wonder if we could accelerate the process.
de chucka
2017-03-02 00:44:27 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Bottom line is this: CO2 is a MINOR green house gas. A trillion dollar
per year tax on energy (which they want) and spending it on CO2 is utter
stupidity of the worst kind because if the money were to be spent, there
are LOTS of much more important things to spend it on like the pacific
plastic pile, cleaning up the mess from making atomic bombs, clean coal,
and so on. Things that really are a threat to civilization rather than
some pie in the sky lib fantasy. CO2 levels are high, but since
temperatures went DOWN while Co2 went up from 1940-1970 that pretty much
does that theory in. Besides, the CO2 absorption bands are saturated.
This means that greatly increasing CO2 has very little effect on
warming. And Finally a little warming might be good. Time was when
vikings farmed Greenland. Is that so scary?
yes as a 2m sea level rise would seriously screw things, well if the
MEWP was a Earth wide phenomenon which it wasn't
Yeah, it might flood all those coastal areas where so many Hillary voters live. That's not a deal breaker. I wonder if we could accelerate the process.
How pathetic you are
benj
2017-03-02 00:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the
environment we should take reasonable steps to end the
pollution for a lot of reasons, but "climate change" is not
one of them, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting
that putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no
effect?
Correct, Chucker. The major GHG is water vapor. What you plan to
do? Cover the sea with plastic? (Already too much plastic
floating in the ocean as in the Pacific Plastic Pile) But here's
the true scientific deal (Note all libs are way to ignorant of
science to be trusted to say anything true)
Agree as we the other GHGs heat up the atmosphere the amount of
water vapour inccrease
Post by benj
Dumping tons of combustion products into the air is not a good
idea. Dumping dire chemicals into air and water is also a bad
idea. Even bits of plastic into the sea has very negative
potentials. Thus, Trump's idea of bringing back coal is really a
pretty stupid idea UNTIL all the problems of "clean coal" are
solved. And it's important they ARE solved because unless someone
starts selling "free energy" machines right now, our civilization
must run on fossil fuels and coal will give us time to finally
invent something that works.
Many ways of decreasing our reliance on coal as an energy source
Post by benj
Lib lies are things like pie in the sky solar and wind. There is
a reason the Netherlands does not still use those windmills.
Main one being they didn't produce electricity
Remember
Post by benj
those great times with everybody growing tulips? Sorry. These
things make great niche power but run human civilization? Not a
prayer. You remember how great life was back in the middle ages
before guns were invented? Yeah, Libs want to go there. And
nobody knows what vast fields of bird choppers and solar panels
will do to our climate?
:-)
Post by benj
Bottom line is this: CO2 is a MINOR green house gas. A trillion
dollar per year tax on energy (which they want) and spending it
on CO2 is utter stupidity of the worst kind because if the money
were to be spent, there are LOTS of much more important things to
spend it on like the pacific plastic pile, cleaning up the mess
from making atomic bombs, clean coal, and so on. Things that
really are a threat to civilization rather than some pie in the
sky lib fantasy. CO2 levels are high, but since temperatures went
DOWN while Co2 went up from 1940-1970 that pretty much does that
theory in. Besides, the CO2 absorption bands are saturated. This
means that greatly increasing CO2 has very little effect on
warming. And Finally a little warming might be good. Time was
when vikings farmed Greenland. Is that so scary?
yes as a 2m sea level rise would seriously screw things, well if
the MEWP was a Earth wide phenomenon which it wasn't
Yeah, it might flood all those coastal areas where so many Hillary
voters live. That's not a deal breaker. I wonder if we could
accelerate the process.
Don't hold your breath. Truth is sea level is rising. That is science
fact! The Ice Age is over and seas rose 120 meters as ice melted. And in
modern times seas have been rising steadily at 2 millimeters per year
for as long as anyone can remember. So it's going to take a while to
drown all those Hillary supporters. Even the geezers in Florida can make
it out ahead of the flood with their walkers. Bad news is that even
driving your SUV won't speed it up as CO2 warming is a fraud.
First-Post
2017-03-02 01:29:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 16:16:07 -0800 (PST), bigdog
Post by bigdog
Post by de chucka
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Correct, Chucker. The major GHG is water vapor. What you plan to do?
Cover the sea with plastic? (Already too much plastic floating in the
ocean as in the Pacific Plastic Pile) But here's the true scientific
deal (Note all libs are way to ignorant of science to be trusted to say
anything true)
Agree as we the other GHGs heat up the atmosphere the amount of water
vapour inccrease
Post by benj
Dumping tons of combustion products into the air is not a good idea.
Dumping dire chemicals into air and water is also a bad idea. Even bits
of plastic into the sea has very negative potentials. Thus, Trump's idea
of bringing back coal is really a pretty stupid idea UNTIL all the
problems of "clean coal" are solved. And it's important they ARE solved
because unless someone starts selling "free energy" machines right now,
our civilization must run on fossil fuels and coal will give us time to
finally invent something that works.
Many ways of decreasing our reliance on coal as an energy source
Post by benj
Lib lies are things like pie in the sky solar and wind. There is a
reason the Netherlands does not still use those windmills.
Main one being they didn't produce electricity
Remember
Post by benj
those great times with everybody growing tulips? Sorry. These things
make great niche power but run human civilization? Not a prayer. You
remember how great life was back in the middle ages before guns were
invented? Yeah, Libs want to go there. And nobody knows what vast fields
of bird choppers and solar panels will do to our climate?
:-)
Post by benj
Bottom line is this: CO2 is a MINOR green house gas. A trillion dollar
per year tax on energy (which they want) and spending it on CO2 is utter
stupidity of the worst kind because if the money were to be spent, there
are LOTS of much more important things to spend it on like the pacific
plastic pile, cleaning up the mess from making atomic bombs, clean coal,
and so on. Things that really are a threat to civilization rather than
some pie in the sky lib fantasy. CO2 levels are high, but since
temperatures went DOWN while Co2 went up from 1940-1970 that pretty much
does that theory in. Besides, the CO2 absorption bands are saturated.
This means that greatly increasing CO2 has very little effect on
warming. And Finally a little warming might be good. Time was when
vikings farmed Greenland. Is that so scary?
yes as a 2m sea level rise would seriously screw things, well if the
MEWP was a Earth wide phenomenon which it wasn't
Yeah, it might flood all those coastal areas where so many Hillary voters live. That's not a deal breaker. I wonder if we could accelerate the process.
They are also where a great many of the AGW purveyors have homes as
well, like AlGore or DiCaprio for example.

Pretty funny that the loyal minions of AGW are so desperately afraid
that sea levels may rise while those that do so much preaching about
it obviously share no such fear, yes?
Just Wondering
2017-03-01 08:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by benj
Post by de chucka
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the
atmosphere (hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that
putting extra GHGs into the atmosphere is having no effect?
Correct, Chucker. The major GHG is water vapor. What you plan to do?
Cover the sea with plastic? (Already too much plastic floating in the
ocean as in the Pacific Plastic Pile) But here's the true scientific
deal (Note all libs are way to ignorant of science to be trusted to say
anything true)
Dumping tons of combustion products into the air is not a good idea.
Dumping dire chemicals into air and water is also a bad idea. Even bits
of plastic into the sea has very negative potentials. Thus, Trump's idea
of bringing back coal is really a pretty stupid idea UNTIL all the
problems of "clean coal" are solved. And it's important they ARE solved
because unless someone starts selling "free energy" machines right now,
our civilization must run on fossil fuels and coal will give us time to
finally invent something that works.
Lib lies are things like pie in the sky solar and wind. There is a
reason the Netherlands does not still use those windmills. Remember
those great times with everybody growing tulips? Sorry. These things
make great niche power but run human civilization? Not a prayer. You
remember how great life was back in the middle ages before guns were
invented? Yeah, Libs want to go there. And nobody knows what vast fields
of bird choppers and solar panels will do to our climate?
Bottom line is this: CO2 is a MINOR green house gas. A trillion dollar
per year tax on energy (which they want) and spending it on CO2 is utter
stupidity of the worst kind because if the money were to be spent, there
are LOTS of much more important things to spend it on like the pacific
plastic pile, cleaning up the mess from making atomic bombs, clean coal,
and so on. Things that really are a threat to civilization rather than
some pie in the sky lib fantasy. CO2 levels are high, but since
temperatures went DOWN while Co2 went up from 1940-1970 that pretty much
does that theory in. Besides, the CO2 absorption bands are saturated.
This means that greatly increasing CO2 has very little effect on
warming. And Finally a little warming might be good. Time was when
vikings farmed Greenland. Is that so scary?
Bottom line is there are lots of things in the pollution department that
need attention. Spending some money there is not a bad idea, but
collecting money and spending it on a lie like CO2 is criminal. Global
warming is FAKE NEWS. That's why they suddenly changed the name to
"climate change" as if one could stop climate from changing. That is the
science and those are the lies. All this can be proved as well as the
ways in which warmballers have faked data, bought sold-out scientists,
and spun the fake news. It is time everyone woke up. At least Trump is
on the right page.
You took five paragraphs to say what I said in one sentence.
Scout
2017-03-01 22:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by bigdog
Post by Jim Wilkins
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
It is pure idiocy to think we can stop climate change.
Or that we should even try. If we are polluting the environment
we should take reasonable steps to end the pollution for a lot of
reasons, but "climate change" is not one of them, and carbon dioxide
is not a pollutant.
We are polluting our environment by adding extra GHGs into the atmosphere
(hint CO2 is not the only one). Are you suggesting that putting extra GHGs
into the atmosphere is having no effect?
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the GHGs
being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
de chucka
2017-03-02 00:46:26 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by Scout
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the
GHGs being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
Actually my farm is totally off the grid, so the electricity for my
computer is coming from wind and solar
Scout
2017-03-06 13:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Scout
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the
GHGs being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
Actually my farm is totally off the grid, so the electricity for my
computer is coming from wind and solar
Solar? You mean that massively polluting 'green energy' that takes more
energy to produce that is recovered, and results in massive environmental
pollution from the manufacture of the solar cells?

Wind? Isn't that the process that uses rare earth magnets that involve
massive mining operations using diesel equipment with zero emissions
controls?

Oh, I bet you're one of those morons that believes that unless the pollution
is produced at the time of use, then it magically has 'zero emissions' and
thus doesn't cause pollution.
de chucka
2017-03-06 22:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Scout
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the
GHGs being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
Actually my farm is totally off the grid, so the electricity for my
computer is coming from wind and solar
Solar? You mean that massively polluting 'green energy' that takes more
energy to produce that is recovered, and results in massive
environmental pollution from the manufacture of the solar cells?
No, I mean solar that becomes energy neutral after a few years and than
becomes clean
Post by Scout
Wind? Isn't that the process that uses rare earth magnets that involve
massive mining operations using diesel equipment with zero emissions
controls?
No and you forgot killing birds
Post by Scout
Oh, I bet you're one of those morons that believes that unless the
pollution is produced at the time of use, then it magically has 'zero
emissions' and thus doesn't cause pollution.
No I'm one of those people who has actually done the research and know
that my power will be carbon neutral after a few years

BTW you forgot about the manufacture of the batteries which I also took
into consideration.

From my calculations the farm's power will be GHG neutral in just over
2 years and 8 months and my power will be free after ~5 years.
Scout
2017-03-07 22:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Scout
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the
GHGs being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
Actually my farm is totally off the grid, so the electricity for my
computer is coming from wind and solar
Solar? You mean that massively polluting 'green energy' that takes more
energy to produce that is recovered, and results in massive
environmental pollution from the manufacture of the solar cells?
No, I mean solar that becomes energy neutral after a few years and than
becomes clean
Sorry, but solar panels never produce enough energy to overcome the
pollution caused by their creation.

Heck, they don't even overcome the pollution required to produce the energy
required to produce them.

Solar panels requiring more energy to manufacture than they will ever
produce.

Though maybe in the future that might change, but for now....no.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Wind? Isn't that the process that uses rare earth magnets that involve
massive mining operations using diesel equipment with zero emissions
controls?
No and you forgot killing birds
Really, so how exactly does your wind system work, specifically if it
doesn't use rare earth magnets.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Oh, I bet you're one of those morons that believes that unless the
pollution is produced at the time of use, then it magically has 'zero
emissions' and thus doesn't cause pollution.
No I'm one of those people who has actually done the research and know
that my power will be carbon neutral after a few years
Apparently not.
Post by de chucka
BTW you forgot about the manufacture of the batteries which I also took
into consideration.
From my calculations the farm's power will be GHG neutral in just over 2
years and 8 months and my power will be free after ~5 years.
Would those be the calculations you just made up?
de chucka
2017-03-07 23:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Scout
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the
GHGs being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
Actually my farm is totally off the grid, so the electricity for my
computer is coming from wind and solar
Solar? You mean that massively polluting 'green energy' that takes more
energy to produce that is recovered, and results in massive
environmental pollution from the manufacture of the solar cells?
No, I mean solar that becomes energy neutral after a few years and
than becomes clean
Sorry, but solar panels never produce enough energy to overcome the
pollution caused by their creation.
Cite please
Post by Scout
Heck, they don't even overcome the pollution required to produce the
energy required to produce them.
Solar panels requiring more energy to manufacture than they will ever
produce.
Cite please my research shows my panels become GHG neutral in 2 years 8
months
Post by Scout
Though maybe in the future that might change, but for now....no.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Wind? Isn't that the process that uses rare earth magnets that involve
massive mining operations using diesel equipment with zero emissions
controls?
No and you forgot killing birds
Really, so how exactly does your wind system work, specifically if it
doesn't use rare earth magnets.
Australian mines use diesel engines with emission controls, I'm sure the
Neodymium is Aussie mined
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Oh, I bet you're one of those morons that believes that unless the
pollution is produced at the time of use, then it magically has 'zero
emissions' and thus doesn't cause pollution.
No I'm one of those people who has actually done the research and know
that my power will be carbon neutral after a few years
Apparently not.
Seems I am, any more questions?
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
BTW you forgot about the manufacture of the batteries which I also
took into consideration.
From my calculations the farm's power will be GHG neutral in just over
2 years and 8 months and my power will be free after ~5 years.
Would those be the calculations you just made up?
no, unlike you I do the research and have some understanding of the topic
Scout
2017-03-08 00:29:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Scout
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the
GHGs being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
Actually my farm is totally off the grid, so the electricity for my
computer is coming from wind and solar
Solar? You mean that massively polluting 'green energy' that takes more
energy to produce that is recovered, and results in massive
environmental pollution from the manufacture of the solar cells?
No, I mean solar that becomes energy neutral after a few years and
than becomes clean
Sorry, but solar panels never produce enough energy to overcome the
pollution caused by their creation.
Cite please
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/solar-companies-creating-millions-of-pounds-of-polluted-sludge-contaminated-water/

And this is for domestic US panels. The bulk of the solar panels are made in
China, power by unregulated coal, near zero pollution controls, etc. Heck
the pollution is so bad it can be seen from outer space.

These are the sort of people making your 'green energy'.

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/09/the-hidden-pollution-caused-by-solar-panels/#FHMQw7qq2148BM2S.97
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Heck, they don't even overcome the pollution required to produce the
energy required to produce them.
Solar panels requiring more energy to manufacture than they will ever
produce.
Cite please my research shows my panels become GHG neutral in 2 years 8
months
Did you include all the additional energy consumption such as transporting
waste products, processing of waste products and so on? I ask because almost
never are these energy consumptions including in the calculations, yet they
are a direct result of solar cell manufacturing.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Though maybe in the future that might change, but for now....no.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Wind? Isn't that the process that uses rare earth magnets that involve
massive mining operations using diesel equipment with zero emissions
controls?
No and you forgot killing birds
Really, so how exactly does your wind system work, specifically if it
doesn't use rare earth magnets.
Australian mines use diesel engines with emission controls, I'm sure the
Neodymium is Aussie mined
Well as long as your sure. I mean it's not like the global economy would in
any manner make it easier to use cheaper stuff from somewhere without the
pollution controls in either mining or manufacturing.

So how much diesel emission and other pollution was caused to dig up,
transport, process, refine, extract, and finally produce the magnets you
claim are so 'green'?

I mean if you've calculated the carbon neutality, then you should have all
these figures at your fingertips.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Oh, I bet you're one of those morons that believes that unless the
pollution is produced at the time of use, then it magically has 'zero
emissions' and thus doesn't cause pollution.
No I'm one of those people who has actually done the research and know
that my power will be carbon neutral after a few years
Apparently not.
Seems I am, any more questions?
Will you ever be honest?
de chucka
2017-03-08 00:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
snip
Post by Scout
I suggest you need to shut off your computer and quit adding the the
GHGs being added....that is if you're really serious about the issue.
Actually my farm is totally off the grid, so the electricity for my
computer is coming from wind and solar
Solar? You mean that massively polluting 'green energy' that takes more
energy to produce that is recovered, and results in massive
environmental pollution from the manufacture of the solar cells?
No, I mean solar that becomes energy neutral after a few years and
than becomes clean
Sorry, but solar panels never produce enough energy to overcome the
pollution caused by their creation.
Cite please
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/solar-companies-creating-millions-of-pounds-of-polluted-sludge-contaminated-water/
And this is for domestic US panels. The bulk of the solar panels are
made in China, power by unregulated coal, near zero pollution controls,
etc. Heck the pollution is so bad it can be seen from outer space.
These are the sort of people making your 'green energy'.
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2011/09/the-hidden-pollution-caused-by-solar-panels/#FHMQw7qq2148BM2S.97
Pollution is awful isn't it
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Heck, they don't even overcome the pollution required to produce the
energy required to produce them.
Solar panels requiring more energy to manufacture than they will ever
produce.
Cite please my research shows my panels become GHG neutral in 2 years
8 months
Did you include all the additional energy consumption such as
transporting waste products, processing of waste products and so on? I
ask because almost never are these energy consumptions including in the
calculations, yet they are a direct result of solar cell manufacturing.
Yes
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Though maybe in the future that might change, but for now....no.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Wind? Isn't that the process that uses rare earth magnets that involve
massive mining operations using diesel equipment with zero emissions
controls?
No and you forgot killing birds
Really, so how exactly does your wind system work, specifically if it
doesn't use rare earth magnets.
Australian mines use diesel engines with emission controls, I'm sure
the Neodymium is Aussie mined
Well as long as your sure. I mean it's not like the global economy would
in any manner make it easier to use cheaper stuff from somewhere without
the pollution controls in either mining or manufacturing.
So how much diesel emission and other pollution was caused to dig up,
transport, process, refine, extract, and finally produce the magnets you
claim are so 'green'?
I don't claim they are green
Post by Scout
I mean if you've calculated the carbon neutality, then you should have
all these figures at your fingertips.
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Post by de chucka
Post by Scout
Oh, I bet you're one of those morons that believes that unless the
pollution is produced at the time of use, then it magically has 'zero
emissions' and thus doesn't cause pollution.
No I'm one of those people who has actually done the research and know
that my power will be carbon neutral after a few years
Apparently not.
Seems I am, any more questions?
Will you ever be honest?
LOL
Mr. B1ack
2017-02-27 15:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........
Making Climate Normal Again (to paraphrase a current slogan)
Greenland Gisp2 Temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
Holocene Temperature Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
You're missing the point - we WANT climate change,
LOTS of it ! The past little spell has been seriously
abnormal - ridiculously, destructively, LOW CO2
levels. Earth-normal is about four times as much as
we see today. Creates that nice hot wet climate in
which a vast diversity of life flourishes from pole
to pole - a global rainforest. THAT'S what's normal
for Earth.
Frank
2017-02-27 17:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........
Making Climate Normal Again (to paraphrase a current slogan)
Greenland Gisp2 Temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
Holocene Temperature Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
Send this to Al Gore who has a 20,000 square foot house and private jets
everywhere.
Winston_Smith
2017-02-27 20:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Send this to Al Gore who has a 20,000 square foot house and private jets
everywhere.
And not some piddley little corporate jet. He uses the big, commercial
size. For just him and perhaps a handful of guests.
Just Wondering
2017-02-28 10:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank
Post by Jim Wilkins
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by Mr. B1ack
I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........
Making Climate Normal Again (to paraphrase a current slogan)
Greenland Gisp2 Temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg
Holocene Temperature Variations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-you-can-stop-climate-change/
" Dryers are energy hogs, so hang dry when you can."
Send this to Al Gore who has a 20,000 square foot house and
private jets everywhere.
But surely AlGore saves the planet by hanging his tidy whities
from his jet tailfins to dry as he flies? :)
bigdog
2017-02-27 14:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr. B1ack
Post by rbowman
Post by Winston_Smith
The glaciers that once covered Scotland and much of the UK and Ireland
are gone. Same for Canada and northern US. Oops, never mind. That was
a couple ten thousand years ago by most reckonings. Must have been
those cavemen in France making their cooking fires too big. You know
how French love their cooking.
http://glaciers.us/Glaciers-Montana
There are glaciers in Montana although they tend to be a little
underwhelming. The snowfields are quite handy; you can stuff snowballs
into your CamelBak and have ice water on your return. I ran into a woman
from California on the trail over on the Idaho Divide. When she asked me
what the white formations were across the lake I'm not sure she believed
me when i told her they were ice. That was in August of 2003 when there
was a major forest fire on the southern edge of Missoula.
According to the predictions, Glacier National Park will be fresh out of
glaciers by 2030.
Guess they'll have to re-name it then. Maybe they
shouldn't print up too many brochures.
I ran across something in an issue of SCIENCE last month
that had a chart showing the atmospheric CO2 levels, derived
from a number of proxies, stretching back about 450 million
years. Ya know what ... modern levels are seriously anomolous,
a veritable ecological disaster - because there's so LITTLE of
it over the past 30 million years. The norm is four to six times
as much CO2 as we see now. No wonder we started getting
these ice ages ........
Maybe a "Save The Ecosphere - CO2 to 2500 ppm or Bust !"
would be a more appropriate crusade eh ?
The is no norm. There is only a range and the range varies greatly from one time to another and that has been true long before humans entered the equation. It simply is what it is.

For as long as humans have been around in their various stages of developmemt they learned to adapt to whatever changes occurred to the climate. Ancient humans had to deal with ice ages and managed to come out the other end. Modern humans don't want to adapt to changing climate. Maybe we aren't as smart as the Neanderthals.
Loading...