Ice in Antarctica proves Global Cooling!

Post Reply New Topic

For anyone denying anthropogenically-driven global warming: I invite you to provide empirical evidence from a peer-reviewed climatological journal.

ANYTHING LESS THAN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE PRIMARY LITERATURE MIGHT AS WELL BE USELESS.

Fact is...you can't. You cannot, it doesn't exist. The only thing the deniers have up their sleeves are poorly constructed arguments, misrepresentations of data, and conspiracy theories. Emphasis on the last on there.

But hey, go ahead, try. Good luck.

That was in jest. I always get accused of being a Limbaugh fan so I thought I'd live up to it for a change. Maybe I should do it more often.
Even if I were sitting on a mountain of "evidence" denying global warming I wouldnt bother to share it will you.

I suspect that you haven't really given the topic any serious thought.

No, no, no, no!

Don't give the impression that one supporting paper validates their claims! There are studies out there that show evidence of humans have precognitive abilities, so I expect there are several that support some of the claims of the deniers. What is important is the body of evidence as a whole. I know you probably know that, but it is important that is clear.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is"

I think you guys misunderstood my point of view, it doesn't matter if there is a link between mankind and warming because I do not believe it is moral to try to change it by force of government. The cure is worse than the disease. Saying that, I do not believe in the apocalyptic forecasts by politicians with their own agendas nor do I think that is backed up in science. What is the solution that has been come up with at these big conferences? It all carries a common thread of more government and more socialism. Who got the biggest cheer in Copenhagen?

The solution is not to dismantle anything. The solution is to put a moratorium on how many kids people have. I'd say two would be a good number and not much more. We got to cap population growth so it stays steady and never really increases much. Just sorta evens out. Either that or figure out ways to start sending them into outer space. There are plenty of resources out there. So many, there could be an infinite amount of humans without any problems finding them.

But for goodness sakes as long as we are confined to this planet NO MORE BABY BOOMS! That's what's got us so out of whack now. One enormous population with all the others normal sized is not a good thing. That's the reason we are in such tremendous debt, for real.. It's like a pyramid scheme. It only works if everything evens out but if one generation is larger than the other BOOM the entire thing collapses and you see it happening now with social security. The Baby Boomers are bankrupting it, along with their generation of greedy, corrupt politicians.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 05 Jan 2014, 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Have you ever given ANY topic here serious thought?

As serious as can be, Sweetie.

No one misunderstood your point of view... except you. Here is what you said:







It is obvious to anyone with a positive IQ score that you deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

Your intellectual laziness is obvious: If the science doesn't fit your political views, the science must be wrong.

My only advice is, if you want to continue with all the freedoms, including having scores of kids, start thinking of ways to get them into space, If you can figure that out, your problems will be solved.

Blasphemer, heretic, denier! Real scientific language there.

I don't deny it is real or that CO2 is indeed a pollutant I just wonder what the results will be. If there is an ice age no doubt that will put an end to a lot of the activities that create much of the CO2 because most humans do not navigate glaciers well enough to create industry on them.
It is just common sense we do not need more CO2 because it's not what we breathe, so how would increased levels benefit us?
There have been times of increased CO2 around earth, the plants grew much bigger, so did the animals for that matter. They evolved gradually. Ice ages have also occurred so there is much more to this than just simple declarations about what will happen with increased pollution. We will have a harder time breathing and the climate will change. I believe it will ice over because Earth is pretty much like that anyway, and was like that before. Right now we experience an inter glacial period of warmth. It's not the norm.

A lot of how man made global warming is presented is sensationalized though. Probably the media and not the science.

Nobody doubts "climate change." The climate is ALWAYS changing. The debate is over the laughable contention that man plays a significant and controlling factor.

We can't significantly increase or decrease the planet's temperatures. We are insignificant.

It's one thing to not deliberately pollute the environment. It's another to believe that our activity is having a catastrophic effect on the world ecosystem.

This is what I propose. How about a special school devoted to space technology? A student is accepted at age three and stays at this school their entire lives figuring out this space stuff. They screen them first to find out who they want to accept. If there were such a school, humanity would have space travel figured out in no time at all. Problem is, no one wants to concentrate on such an idea, instead, they think of excuses why it won't work. We should be devoting our energy to this instead of scaring people about the future of earth. It's a waste of time.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5836410 ... t=#5836410

Have you ever considered that it might be wise to actually *read* the responses to your posts?

Baby steps, now. We don't want people new to this "science" business to be overwhelmed. You don't start first graders with algebra, do you?



It's fool sentiments like this that are causing all sorts of environmental chaos. Have you ever heard of cadmium? It's this funny little metal we like to stick in our soil that has catastrophically wrecked kilometers upon kilometers of our farmland here in New Zealand. The worst part is that there are no known viable soil remediation techniques that could possibly hope to reverse the problem. Cadmium contamination is just one example of widespread environmental damage that has been caused by humans.

Go ahead and google "cadmium soil contamination" and learn all about it. We humans aren't nearly as insignificant as you think. Humans wield power over the environment that is unprecedented by anything Nature has ever experienced before us. Humans are a walking major extinction event.