Climate what?

Dr Kynes · Nov 12, 2014

NoDrama said:
It was much better than Sharknado. Chris Evans is a giant of an actor compared to Ian Ziering.
Bonus factoid: In Sharknado, Ian's vehicle is a Toyota Land Cruiser FJ62, but Tara Reid calls it a "Jeep".
Sharknado does have the cheese though, which makes it a cult classic. Snowpiercer will all but be forgot.

seriously, stop.

youre digging your own grave.

NoDrama · Nov 12, 2014

Harrekin said:
In most of the world, a "jeep" is any 4x4 like a land rover, range rover, jeep, etc.

Just for your own edumacational reasons.

Yeah, ignorant people call them Jeeps, but no one who actually knows what it is would call it that.

Harrekin · Nov 13, 2014

NoDrama said:
Yeah, ignorant people call them Jeeps, but no one who actually knows what it is would call it that.

Do you cry when people call all vacuum cleaners "hoovers" too?

bravedave · Nov 13, 2014

loquacious said:
Are you truly insane or are you just a troll? The reason I ask is that you state something so obviously stupid that it makes one wonder if you are just trying to get a reaction. Global warming is very real! Now, whether the fact we are speeding up the process is up for debate but, climate change is not. Also, putting up pictures of contrails makes you seem even dumber or crazier than you may be. You do realise you cannot control the weather. Not to say we haven't tried or are still trying but, for the immediate future it is impossible. I will tell you like I tell anyone else who have a basic lack of understanding science and quote stupid articles, PEER REVIEW OR GTFO!

Mann was peer reviewed, was he not? So he and his reviewers were frauds then?? However, I agree, climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years and shoving immature technology at it is almost as stupid as forcing people to pay for those political choices. The green lobby is fucking up the world, not saving it.

kelly4 · Nov 13, 2014

We call it "Global Warming" nowadays.

NoDrama · Nov 13, 2014

Harrekin said:
Do you cry when people call all vacuum cleaners "hoovers" too?

I cry a little bit, but then I get over it.

OregonTrails · Nov 13, 2014

sheskunk said:
So I assume we all agree climate change is Bullshit.

Yes, all those, that is, who think they know better than 97% of climate scientists.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

UncleBuck · Nov 13, 2014

bravedave said:
Mann was peer reviewed, was he not? So he and his reviewers were frauds then?? However, I agree, climate change is real and has been happening for millions of years and shoving immature technology at it is almost as stupid as forcing people to pay for those political choices. The green lobby is fucking up the world, not saving it.

do you think human activities that have driven CO2 levels higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years are responsible for some of the recent drastic warming we have seen?

or does that amount of basic science not work with your republican dogma?

bravedave · Nov 13, 2014

UncleBuck said:
do you think human activities that have driven CO2 levels higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years are responsible for some of the recent drastic warming we have seen?

or does that amount of basic science not work with your republican dogma?

Actually, science does work for me. Maybe youshould spend less time reading ThinkProgress and read a real science book. 400ppm is actually some of the lowest levels in the last 65million years. In more recent times we sure can paint it as an increase and that slight increase has resulted in a 15% increase in food production worldwide. Do you have a problem with feeding the hungry??? And we all should know why they use PPM values, right? Because when you point out to people that CO2 represents about .04%....yes .0004 of the atmosphere. Add to that, you and yours tell us that man is responsible for 5% of that...so man is responsible for a .00002 affect on the atmosphere. Wow, thank goodness Algore was here to save us. I have nothing against increasing viability of alternatives but that should be done first with goals based on achievement not based on dates formulated by politicians and money grubbers. Neither wind or solar are even close to competing.

UncleBuck · Nov 13, 2014

bravedave said:
Actually, science does work for me. Maybe youshould spend less time reading ThinkProgress and read a real science book. 400ppm is actually some of the lowest levels in the last 65million years. In more recent times we sure can paint it as an increase and that slight increase has resulted in a 15% increase in food production worldwide. Do you have a problem with feeding the hungry??? And we all should know why they use PPM values, right? Because when you point out to people that CO2 represents about .04%....yes .0004 of the atmosphere. Add to that, you and yours tell us that man is responsible for 5% of that...so man is responsible for a .00002 affect on the atmosphere. Wow, thank goodness Algore was here to save us. I have nothing against increasing viability of alternatives but that should be done first with goals based on achievement not based on dates formulated by politicians and money grubbers. Neither wind or solar are even close to competing.

way to dodge the question, just like a cowardly republican type is wont to do.

should i just repeat the question, or are you gonna cower away from it again?

jahbrudda · Nov 13, 2014

OregonTrails said:
Yes, all those, that is, who think they know better than 97% of climate scientists.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Did you hear that on the internet?

UncleBuck · Nov 13, 2014

jahbrudda said:
Did you hear that on the internet?

no, he heard it from NASA.

bravedave · Nov 13, 2014

UncleBuck said:
way to dodge the question, just like a cowardly republican type is wont to do.

should i just repeat the question, or are you gonna cower away from it again?

Your question is based on a false premise, Mr. Buck. Maybe you point me to some "drastic warming" example so I know exactly what you are referring to.

UncleBuck · Nov 13, 2014

bravedave said:
Your question is based on a false premise, Mr. Buck. Maybe you point me to some "drastic warming" example so I know exactly what you are referring to.

1.5 degrees of warming over a mere 100 years. that's drastic compared to how long it takes the temperature to change that much historically.

so do you think it has anything to do with the human activities that have sent CO2 levels skyrocketing to 400 PPM, which is higher than it has been in 800,000 years?

jahbrudda · Nov 13, 2014

UncleBuck said:
1.5 degrees of warming over a mere 100 years. that's drastic compared to how long it takes the temperature to change that much historically.

so do you think it has anything to do with the human activities that have sent CO2 levels skyrocketing to 400 PPM, which is higher than it has been in 800,000 years?

The earth is millions of years old, 800,000 years was not that long ago, so tell us how it got up to 400ppm back then.

UncleBuck · Nov 13, 2014

jahbrudda said:
The earth is millions of years old, 800,000 years was not that long ago, so tell us how it got up to 400ppm back then.

you never told me whether nor not you believed CO2 was a greenhouse gas, beenthere.

jahbrudda · Nov 13, 2014

UncleBuck said:
you never told me whether nor not you believed CO2 was a greenhouse gas, beenthere.

You are answering a question with a question and I've always excepted that co2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is h20.

Now tell us how co2 got to 400ppm back 800,000 years ago

jahbrudda · Nov 13, 2014

Researching?

bravedave · Nov 13, 2014

100 years? Come on Mr. Buck. You might as well point to yesterday's weather. But again, drastic may be a little stong a word for something that increased the world's food supply by 15%. Yes, I think man can do better, conserve more. They can also be smarter. Turning economies on their ear by mandating technologies that are not ready for prime time is not smart. (See Scotland, see Germany, see the progressive Google who also just said their infrastructure can not rely on these alternatives.) Now, back to my question which actually came with a premise? So, you are not concerned with feeding the world's hungry?

jahbrudda · Nov 13, 2014

bravedave said:
100 years? Come on Mr. Buck. You might as well point to yesterday's weather. But again, drastic may be a little stong a word for something that increased the world's food supply by 15%. Yes, I think man can do better, conserve more. They can also be smarter. Turning economies on their ear by mandating technologies that are not ready for prime time is not smart. (See Scotland, see Germany, see the progressive Google who also just said their infrastructure can not rely on these alternatives.) Now, back to my question which actually came with a premise? So, you are not concerned with feeding the world's hungry?

He heard it on the internet.

Climate what?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member