Mass tree deaths in the Amazon

[secrets0stolen]

Mass tree deaths prompt fears of Amazon 'climate tipping point' | Environment | The Guardian

[curiouslyrandom]

*weeps*

There's so much I could say about this but would rather not, out of politeness to certain family members who constantly told me climate change was a joke.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by curiouslyrandom

*weeps*

There's so much I could say about this but would rather not, out of politeness to certain family members who constantly told me climate change was a joke.

I can relate...

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by curiouslyrandom

*weeps*

There's so much I could say about this but would rather not, out of politeness to certain family members who constantly told me climate change was a joke.

I think what they've told you is that man mad global climate change is a joke. And it is. Someone has yet to show me that any of the chances happening aren't a normal cycle.

[secrets0stolen]

Okay, which part don't you buy:

a) Increased carbon results in a greenhouse effect

b) Greenhouse effect means higher temperatures, on average

c) We're releasing much more carbon than was released in the past, while simultaneously comprising the natural absorption systems (such as forests)



Or, as fulfillment of the conclusion of the above:

d) On average, global temperatures are rising



And, to get a little less basic:

d) Eco systems are complex, and can have positive feedback loops and points-of-no-return; not just a steady rise in response to stimuli like a thermostat

e) Rising average temperature does not mean rising temperatures everywhere, or at all times of the year. What it does mean is because of the intricacies of the earth's processes such as currents, weather gets weirder and more extreme.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Okay, which part don't you buy:

a) Increased carbon results in a greenhouse effect

b) Greenhouse effect means higher temperatures, on average

c) We're releasing much more carbon than was released in the past, while simultaneously comprising the natural absorption systems (such as forests)



Or, as fulfillment of the conclusion of the above:

d) On average, global temperatures are rising



And, to get a little less basic:

d) Eco systems are complex, and can have positive feedback loops and points-of-no-return; not just a steady rise in response to stimuli like a thermostat

e) Rising average temperature does not mean rising temperatures everywhere, or at all times of the year. What it does mean is because of the intricacies of the earth's processes such as currents, weather gets weirder and more extreme.

There were periods in time with temperatures higher than today where there were lower amounts of manmade carbon dioxide. Why is that, when there was no man to do it?

In history, the economic boom and industrialization after the second world war increase CO2 productions but there was a global temperature drop. You know, when scientists were screaming GLOBAL COOLING!! ICE AGE!! WE'LL ALL FREEZE..... nvm, we meant warming, yeah, warming..

Human made CO2 is not causing global warming since manmade carbon dioxide is not the main source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of green house gases produced by volcanoes and decaying vegetation and live stock DWARFS that of factories and cars. Of all the green house gases ( 95% being water vapor) only a small percentage of that is carbon dioxide, and even smaller percent of that comes from US.

Ice core records use by many globalwarming activist and some politicians that show that global temperature and CO2 correlate is misleading. Not to mention, we've caught scientists blatently trying to falsify information. You know, all those leaked emails?

The layer of the atmosphere where greenhouse gases are found do not have any significant increase in temperature. The way a green house would work, you'd expect higher temps in those areas, as those areas are supposed to be the cause of it, and where the most gases are found, yet they are not higher in tempetures.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

There were periods in time with temperatures higher than today where there were lower amounts of manmade carbon dioxide. Why is that, when there was no man to do it?

No one said humans were the only force that could effect the climate--just that they are now! I have a hard time believing you didn't think of that, but I could be wrong. Climate responds to whatever forces are effecting it, and right now, that's humans.

There's going to be a lot of text, so I'm going to have to respond to your post in parts, but for now:

If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.

Our climate is governed by the following principle: when you add more heat to our climate, global temperatures rise. Conversely, when the climate loses heat, temperatures fall. Say the planet is in positive energy imbalance. More energy is coming in than radiating back out to space. This is known as radiative forcing, the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere. When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal).

How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.

How much does it warm if CO2 is doubled? If we lived in a climate with no feedbacks, global temperatures would rise 1.2°C (Lorius 1990). However, our climate has feedbacks, both positive and negative. The strongest positive feedback is water vapour. As temperature rises, so too does the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. However, water vapour is a greenhouse gas which causes more warming which leads to more water vapour and so on. There are also negative feedbacks - more water vapour causes more clouds which can have both a cooling and warming effect.

What is the net feedback? Climate sensitivity can be calculated from empirical observations. One needs to find a period where we have temperature records and measurements of the various forcings that drove the climate change. Once you have the change in temperature and radiative forcing, climate sensitivity can be calculated. Figure 1 shows a summary of the peer-reviewed studies that have determined climate sensitivity from past periods (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Figure 1: Distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence. The circle indicates the most likely value. The thick coloured bars indicate likely value (more than 66% probability). The thin coloured bars indicate most likely values (more than 90% probability). Dashed lines indicate no robust constraint on an upper bound. The IPCC likely range (2 to 4.5°C) and most likely value (3°C) are indicated by the vertical grey bar and black line, respectively.

There have been many estimates of climate sensitivity based on the instrumental record (the past 150 years). Several studies used the observed surface and ocean warming over the twentieth century and an estimate of the radiative forcing. A variety of methods have been employed - simple or intermediate-complexity models, statistical models or energy balance calculations. Satellite data for the radiation budget have also been analyzed to infer climate sensitivity.

Some recent analyses used the well-observed forcing and response to major volcanic eruptions during the twentieth century. A few studies examined palaeoclimate reconstructions from the past millennium or the period around 12,000 years ago when the planet came out of a global ice age (Last Glacial Maximum).

What can we conclude from this? We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.

The combined evidence indicates that the net feedback to radiative forcing is significantly positive. There is no credible line of evidence that yields very high or very low climate sensitivity as a best estimate.

CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

In history, the economic boom and industrialization after the second world war increase CO2 productions but there was a global temperature drop. You know, when scientists were screaming GLOBAL COOLING!! ICE AGE!! WE'LL ALL FREEZE..... nvm, we meant warming, yeah, warming..

Actually, in 1940, there was also a warming issue, not a cooling issue...where exactly did you get that info?

Human made CO2 is not causing global warming since manmade carbon dioxide is not the main source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of green house gases produced by volcanoes and decaying vegetation and live stock DWARFS that of factories and cars. Of all the green house gases ( 95% being water vapor) only a small percentage of that is carbon dioxide, and even smaller percent of that comes from US.

First of all, US =/= industrialized world.

Secondly, the problem is a disturbance in the total cycle, not just the emission total.

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.


Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatonnes (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

[secrets0stolen]

Not to mention, we've caught scientists blatently trying to falsify information. You know, all those leaked emails?

[/quote]While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their "suggestive" emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. So just what do these emails tell us?

Some of the emails are certainly embarrassing for the authors. One email responds in poor taste to the death of a well known skeptic. There's scathing discussion of skeptics such as Steve McIntyre and Roger Pielke, including imaginings of violence. However, the crucial question is whether these emails reveal that climate data has been falsified. To determine this, some understanding of the science discussed in the emails is required to avoid taking isolated quotes out of context.

"Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline"
The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures (emphasis mine):

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique (aka "trick of the trade") used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The "trick" is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.

The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem" where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone's email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. More on the hockey stick divergence problem...

Trenberth's "travesty we can't account for the lack of warming"
The second most cited email is from climate scientist and IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth. The highlighted quote is this: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Trenberth is actually discussing a paper he'd recently published that discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going (Trenberth 2009).

In Trenberth's paper, he discusses how we know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, surface temperature sometimes shows short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system. More on Trenberth's travesty...

The full body of evidence for man-made global warming
An important point to realise is that the emails involve a handful of scientists discussing a few pieces of climate data. Even without this data, there is still an overwhelming and consistent body of evidence, painstakingly compiled by independent scientific teams from institutions across the world.

What do they find? The planet is steadily accumulating heat. When you add up all the heat building in the oceans, land and atmosphere plus the energy required to melt glaciers and ice sheets, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 Gigawatts over the past 40 years (Murphy 2009). Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 Gigawatt, imagine over 190,000 power plants pouring their energy output directly into heating our land and oceans, melting ice and warming the air.

This build-up of heat is causing ice loss across the globe, from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at an accelerated rate (Velicogna 2009, ). Even East Antarctica, previously thought to be too cold and stable, is now losing ice mass (Chen 2009). Glacier shrinkage is accelerating. Arctic sea ice has fallen so sharply, observations exceed even the IPCC worst case scenario. The combination of warming oceans and melting ice has resulted in sea level rise tracking the upper limit of IPCC predictions.

Rising temperatures have impacted animal and plant species worldwide. The distribution of tree lines, plants and many species of animals are moving into cooler regions towards the poles. As the onset of spring is happening earlier each year, animal and plant species are responding to the shift in seasons. Scientists observe that frog breeding, bird nesting, flowering and migration patterns are all occurring earlier in the year (Parmeson 2003). There are many other physical signs of widespread warming. The height of the tropopause, a layer in our atmosphere, is rising (Santer 2003). Arctic permafrost, covering about 25% of Northern Hemisphere land, is warming and degrading (Walsh 2009). The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007). These results are all consistent with global warming.

What’s causing this heat build-up? Humans are emitting huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - 29 billion tonnes in 2009 (CDIAC). Greenhouse theory predicts that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will trap heat energy as it escapes out to space. What do we observe? Carbon dioxide absorbs heat at certain wavelengths. Satellites over the past 40 years find less heat escaping to space at these wavelengths (Harries 2001, Griggs 2004, Chen 2007). Where does the heat go? Surface measurements find more heat returning back to the Earth's surface (Philipona 2004). Tellingly, the increase occurs at those same carbon dioxide absorption wavelengths (Evans 2006). This is the human fingerprint in global warming.

There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming.[/quote]

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Human made CO2 is not causing global warming since manmade carbon dioxide is not the main source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of green house gases produced by volcanoes and decaying vegetation and live stock DWARFS that of factories and cars. Of all the green house gases ( 95% being water vapor) only a small percentage of that is carbon dioxide, and even smaller percent of that comes from US.

"Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.
Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo have little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols."

Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The layer of the atmosphere where greenhouse gases are found do not have any significant increase in temperature. The way a green house would work, you'd expect higher temps in those areas, as those areas are supposed to be the cause of it, and where the most gases are found, yet they are not higher in tempetures.

The way a greenhouse would work, you'd expect higher average temperatures everywhere below those layers. The glass is not the hottest part of a greenhouse, at all times (although at mid day with the sun beaming right at it it might be). That's why a greenhouse works at all--it's hotter on the inside, where air is trapped.

[scorpio1980]

While I do believe we need to cut the pollution, I don't buy the fact we are causing the earth to warm. The fact is the sun goes through stages of more solar activity, and less. Right now we are seeing global warming on all the planets, so unless we have humans driving big SUV's on mars I don't see the connection with human activity. This doesn't excuse our disregard for the earth. I love nature, and our environment, and would love to see nothing more than a stop to the abuse of this earth. While we need to curb pollution, and start using clean energy. I have looked at both sides of the issue, and the man made global warming side just doesn't show the evidence that science has shown with the sun.

[Fred Tracy]

That sucks. Poor trees. :/

[StacyT]

Originally Posted by Fred Tracy

That sucks. Poor trees. :/

Agreed. And whether you think it's caused by humans or just the natural rhythms of the earth-either way it sucks.

[Brutha]

You know, when scientists were screaming GLOBAL COOLING!! ICE AGE!! WE'LL ALL FREEZE.....

Global cooling was never the mainstream scientific opinion.
The idea that it was is a nice invention by oil lobbyists.

[Andrew Brunelle]

This is really bad news, but what can we do? The climate change is already in effect, and I would say it is a significant warming that is going to cause, and is already causing, crazy weather and other crazy things, like birds falling out of the sky, dead. It is a world that is getting warmer and warmer, which causes increases in erratic and uncharacteristic weather, which is going to cause severe problems in the future, some of which have started on a small scale.

Humans definitely had a part in causing this, although I don't know if we are fully to blame, or if we just accelerated the warming instead of completely causing it. But burning all that gasoline cannot be good for the planet, as well as all the other pollutants and toxic waste. So, until we stop this pathological destruction of our home, Earth, things will only get more extreme on Earth when it comes to weather and other natural disasters.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

This is really bad news, but what can we do? The climate change is already in effect, and I would say it is a significant warming that is going to cause, and is already causing, crazy weather and other crazy things, like birds falling out of the sky, dead. It is a world that is getting warmer and warmer, which causes increases in erratic and uncharacteristic weather, which is going to cause severe problems in the future, some of which have started on a small scale.

Humans definitely had a part in causing this, although I don't know if we are fully to blame, or if we just accelerated the warming instead of completely causing it. But burning all that gasoline cannot be good for the planet, as well as all the other pollutants and toxic waste. So, until we stop this pathological destruction of our home, Earth, things will only get more extreme on Earth when it comes to weather and other natural disasters.

You still have no way of knowing if this is a cycle or not! This could happen happen every couple hundred years for all we know. We have such a small window to actually judge what weather is supposed to be like. You say it will get more extreme, but you can't prove that, as we can't predict the future. When is the last time you trusted your weather man enough to plan your weekend based on what he says? How about a few weeks in advance? Now, you are trusting YEARS in advance? I don't trust him to tell me about TODAY.

Pollutants and toxic waste won't hurt they planet. They might hurt our way of life and the way we like the surrounding areas to be, but the planet is and will be just fine.

[carenkh]

The post by t4488, which he attributed to a personal response from an unnamed trained climatologist (and which has now been deleted), was copied verbatim from another forum, posted in 2007.

[MariconesUnited]

There's no amount of scientific evidence that will convince a majority of people that Global Warming is man-made unfortunately. Most of us have severe reasoning skills and the tools and languages of science is outside of our understanding. This thread is a fine example. SecretsStolen posts a bunch of factual scientific information and he's met with even more skepticism and inane observations like "I don't trust the weatherman for next week why should I trust him for next year?" Your weatherman is not a scientist! And the scientific community agrees on man-made Climate Change. We see the effects of it all around us as well and yet we keep on denying it!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

There's no amount of scientific evidence that will convince a majority of people that Global Warming is man-made unfortunately. Most of us have severe reasoning skills and the tools and languages of science is outside of our understanding. This thread is a fine example. SecretsStolen posts a bunch of factual scientific information and he's met with even more skepticism and inane observations like "I don't trust the weatherman for next week why should I trust him for next year?" Your weatherman is not a scientist! And the scientific community agrees on man-made Climate Change. We see the effects of it all around us as well and yet we keep on denying it!

Inane? The people who do research on weather and provide our weather men with the information to give us, as well as the tools, programs, and observation technology is what gives us our future weather. I was showing him that with all those tools and science and brains at our disposal, we can't even predict what will happen the same day. The scientists that say it will be the worse hurricane season, and 3 years in a row they are wrong. THOSE scientists. And no, the scientific community doesn't agree that on man-made climate change, or it wouldn't be such a hot debate topic. There is more money involved in green energy and all the taxes and everything else involved in big business to just say we know EXACTLY what the hell our planet is doing. We do not know that. Nothing we've changed so far is having an effect. We don't know crap about what happened in the past, or why. Everything he posted in response to my posts? Quite honestly, I don't have time to read pages and pages of copy/paste information at the moment, and I really don't care enough about this debate to do so I guess. I can admit that, and if people see that as a cop out, so be it. What that one person posted, is real scientific information, just as credible as the OP's, even with out a source to back it up, as everything that was written can be tracked down and proven. What THAT shows you is that neither side can really say they are right. This is tantamount to an argument about religion. Just as the anti meat arguments on this board. Not a single real consensus, yet both sides feel they are right without a shadow of a doubt.

There is no amount of evidence that will convince you people that man-mad global warming does not exist. Nothing showing that the past has had the exact same cycles. But no, lets funnel all our money into trying to fix a problem, that we can't even prove we caused, and without real solutions to this perceived problem.

Now tell me, why are secrets posts FACTUAL? What makes a fact? Because it was posted on the internet? Because it was posted on a site, dedicated to trying to prove anti global warming science wrong? That sure seems factual to me. I'm surprised they haven't convinced the entire world with all their facts. One day, our ancestors are gonna look back at this and think " wow, what an interesting religion these people have created". One mans personal crusade site does not prove anything

[russianrocket]

seeing how this is link/copy and paste day.

Climate Change Dispatch - The New “Skeptical Science� Website: What is Going On Here?


One thing we must learn, that consensus in the scientific community means zip, nada, nothing, zero, and zilch. Let me know if you want proof of that, so I can copy and paste some more. Climategate will for ever show that your side is trying to eliminate the honest reviewers and replace them with people who will promote your agenda regardless of what truth is, or, more precisely, despite what the truth is.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Global warming is fake, you guys, keep driving your SUVs and let's dergulate the industrial sector so we can have smog as thick as pea soup over all our major cities, too!

YAY!!!!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

Global warming is fake, you guys, keep driving your SUVs and let's dergulate the industrial sector so we can have smog as thick as pea soup over all our major cities, too!

YAY!!!!

I drive small 2 door car..... thank you very much.

lol ok, it gets probably worse mileage then an SUV, all while having to use premium fuel, with no catalytic converters so that everyone can smell the raw unburnt fuel coming out of my pipes, and has less utility and car pool ability, but still : D


PS. Local environmental pollution has nothing to do with global warming. I don't know why people get that confused. Local pollution is PROVABLE beyond a shadow of a doubt and you won't find a single person on this planet who isn't insane, that will say " smog doesn't exist. Those lakes are actually clean, etc etc." It is also something that can show results, within single digit years, and will increase peoples HEALTH. Better gas mileage cars will mean we use less fossil fuels, and have to rely less on other countries oil. Cleaning up rivers and fields and preventing trees from being cut down so that we can make more useless junk. All real changes, that create real results in our own life time, unlike everything global warming people are seeking for. So, lets pretend like you didn't use the worse possible examples you could find for your convoluted post.

PSS. Recycling is also a hoax, just thought I'd add that in for SAG's

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

doesn't convoluted mean intricately involved?

Also I have to say that your opinions have the opposite effect. Reading that last sentence made me want to recycle even more! Weird that you have that effect on people.

What is everything the global warming people are seeking, exactly? Maybe I'm confused about that...?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

doesn't convoluted mean intricately involved?

Also I have to say that your opinions have the opposite effect. Reading that last sentence made me want to recycle even more! Weird that you have that effect on people.

What is everything the global warming people are seeking, exactly? Maybe I'm confused about that...?

I was going for the " hard to follow" part of the definition... actually.

I have that effect on PERSON, as in you. No need to include the general population in that.

What are global warming people seeking? For us all to live like we are in the middle ages, or where everyone drives a prius, so that the earth can heal. I've lost track really of what their goals are. I'm sure the ones on here can answer that question. All I know, is that non of it involves butting out of peoples lives and not forcing them to pay for their ideas with tax money. Pretty much, they want to FORCE people through laws and taxes, because no one will listen to them. That's at least what I've seen so far by all the new laws being made, and all the websites I've seen with suggestions on how we can reverse global warming. Ironically, all those ignore every other country, and feel the US is the worst culprit and will make a difference by changing these tiny little things all over the place.

Oh and, they also want anyone who goes against it, to have their heads blow up...... I'm sure we all remember that one

You'll ( the government) have to tear the keys to my car out of my cold dead hands.

Sincerely,
Car nut/meat lover/gun owner/non recycler/plastic water bottle user/

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

]
What are global warming people seeking? For us all to live like we are in the middle ages, or where everyone drives a prius, so that the earth can heal. I've lost track really of what their goals are. I'm sure the ones on here can answer that question. All I know, is that non of it involves butting out of peoples lives and not forcing them to pay for their ideas with tax money. Pretty much, they want to FORCE people through laws and taxes, because no one will listen to them. That's at least what I've seen so far by all the new laws being made, and all the websites I've seen with suggestions on how we can reverse global warming. Ironically, all those ignore every other country, and feel the US is the worst culprit and will make a difference by changing these tiny little things all over the place.

Huh. I don't have a problem with driving a prius or growing my own food. Go fig.

Ever notice how the more you resistance you feel, the more aggro you become in general life?

[MariconesUnited]

I'm not going to waste my time on this guy. I've got more productive things to do.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

Huh. I don't have a problem with driving a prius or growing my own food. Go fig.

Ever notice how the more you resistance you feel, the more aggro you become in general life?

The internet is not real life to me lol sorry. I don't have a problem growing my own food. I'd drive a prius, as a second car. The problem I DO have, is being forced to drive these types of cars. People being given MY money in tax rebates for buying those cars. Being looked down upon by those who do drive them, and having those smug people tell me I'm horrible for driving my car. Oh and, Prius' ain't so great either. Having to be shipped all over the world. Nickle mining, which is the worse mining there is, and it destroys the planet, where you can't use the land for anything, for a very long time. Plus, having to ship those same parts back and forth from all over the world so that it can be built in one place. You want to be good to the planet? Buy yourself and older model diesel car. Great mileage, can use cooking oil, and anything that comes out of the tailpipe lands on the ground instead of going in the air. Plus, you don't have the issue of having to dump those batteries out and then having to install them again, AND these cars last for decades, while a Prius will not. The more wires and tech involved, the less they last. As a car guy, you can take my word on that. Go fig.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I'm not going to waste my time on this guy. I've got more productive things to do.

At least be honest with yourself. You are on here, so obviously you don't have more productive things. I can at least admit that.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Now tell me, why are secrets posts FACTUAL? What makes a fact? Because it was posted on the internet? Because it was posted on a site, dedicated to trying to prove anti global warming science wrong? That sure seems factual to me. I'm surprised they haven't convinced the entire world with all their facts. One day, our ancestors are gonna look back at this and think " wow, what an interesting religion these people have created". One mans personal crusade site does not prove anything

The articles are referenced, if you'd like to trace the sources and check the scientific veracity. Or, you could check out the summarized arguments and see if there's a logical problem with them.

The site choice was out of convenience, and since the content is what's up for discussion and not my debate skill or amount of facts I can list, it's also irrelevant.

Apparently it has convinced 97% of the scientific community, but I couldn't give you a figure for "the world". Most of the people I meet aren't convinced, but that doesn't tell us anything since most of the people I meet aren't convinced of evolution either.