Environment gets Bushed

[crabapple]

It's not about Finland compared to other countries it's about humans in general. We exploit and enslave each other constantly. Seriously, what makes us so much better than all the other animals?

.... and whats the meaning of life ?

 

[Loki130]

.... and whats the meaning of life ?

Huh? Now you're just using an abstract statement because you've run out of arguments. Seen it before. Never works.

 

[crabapple]

Huh? Now you're just using an abstract statement because you've run out of arguments. Seen it before. Never works.

ah thought you asked why humans exploit each other, and what i meant in the last post was that its as hard to answer as the question of whats the meaning of life. i didnt disagree with you

 

[El_Machinae]

I already answered it. I would need to see something temperature-wise that has never happened in the history of the planet. Meaning planetary average temperature would have to top the previous interglacial the planet experienced around 100,000 years ago. (in other words, the Earth would have to be at least two degrees warmer than it is now)

Please note the boldface words. One hot day that breaks a few records isn't enough.

So, you're talking about finally agreeing with the AGW concerns after about 2100, and the temp has finally gotten that hot? You're expecting to post your same comments over and over for at least 100 years?

You can't think of any 10 or 20 year horizons which are predicted by the theory, and are convincing of the theory?

 

[BasketCase]

I'm not talking about individual nations. I'm talking about that eureka moment when a monkey picks up a bone and starts beating other monkeys. And as for First World countries, they achieved dominance by beating all other countries into submission

How many times did the United States invade the Soviet Union?

None.


Did the United States invade England? No. France? No. Spain? No. Portugal? No. Sweden? No. Norway? No. Canada? Unless you count that one movie, no.

In fact, quite the opposite--the only time U.S. troops ever went into any of the above countries with significant force was to liberate them during World War II. If anything, we gave them a leg up on the road to becoming First World nations.

History shows with crystal clarity that violent force is not what led the United States to world domination.

 

[BasketCase]

So, you're talking about finally agreeing with the AGW concerns after about 2100, and the temp has finally gotten that hot? You're expecting to post your same comments over and over for at least 100 years?

You can't think of any 10 or 20 year horizons which are predicted by the theory, and are convincing of the theory?

It's infuriating, isn't it? You must have some way to prove your case, and you simply cannot admit to yourself that there may not be one.

I'm familiar with statistics--I hated statistics in college, and so every terrible moment of that hideous waking nightmare is burned forever into my tortured mind. No--10-year or 20-year milestones are not sufficient to accurately predict worldwide climate changes. The planet doesn't work on that kind of scale.

The Little Ice Age and the 20-year cooling period we had half a century ago should already have proved this. When confronted with these two anomalies, the global warming Bible-thumpers always give the same reply: "those were flukes in a long term trend". Well then, how do you know a 10-20 year horizon isn't merely a fluke? You don't.

From 1930, the planet experienced a warming trend; from 1950 to 1970, it was a cooling trend. Obviously one of these two must have been a fluke; since we don't know which, your 10 or 20 year horizons don't cut the mustard.

 

[skadistic]

There was a little bit of info released from some UK meteorologic association that said this year will be cooler the the ones before it. This flies in the face of the IPCC crap report that got them a undeserved Nobel price. According to the IPCC report which is what AGW is mostly based on the temp should be always increasing along with green house gasses, namely the evil CO2.

Once again the actual facts show the IPCC to full of it. But that's to be expected by a group of political hacks who cherry picked the data and used error filled data to come up with the doom and gloom global warming/global climate chance/climate crisis. Its another blow just like the fact there id more Arctic ice this year then last year. Makes it kinda hard to use the old "ice will be gone and polar bears will all die out" emotional ploy.

 

[Simple Simon]

Prove this.

As usual, the burden of proof lies with you, and we all already know that you will now come with with ten posts full of excuses. let's cut that all and you just admit that you talked through your rectum, OK?

 

[Simple Simon]

There was a little bit of info released from some UK meteorologic association that said this year will be cooler the the ones before it. This flies in the face of the IPCC crap report that got them a undeserved Nobel price. According to the IPCC report which is what AGW is mostly based on the temp should be always increasing along with green house gasses, namely the evil CO2.

This shows such a breathtaking ignorance that I scarecly know where to being.

First, it has been pointed out about 100 times that climate always has a variation range. Therefore, your (unsubstanciated, btw) talk about ONE cooler year doesn't means anything.

Second, AGW is not 'based' on an IPCC report. Rather, it is based on humans releasing massive amounts of greehouse gases. Also, the theory (by now accepted by fact by the vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields, although details are being discussed) that huamns cause global warming is not based on the IPCC reports. Rather, it is a long established theory, backed up in many scientific publications. Your post shows that you did not even read my response to your c&p-link-spamming post.

Once again the actual facts show the IPCC to full of it.

Care to (once, just once!) put your money where your mouth is? Or are you deliberately posting stuff that's not true?

So how about you copy and paste the relevant sentences from the ICPP reports that are contradicted by this years cooler weather in your country?

Come on, post them! The way you talk about the report you should know it by heart!

But that's to be expected by a group of political hacks

Proof!

who cherry picked the data

This will be the last time, if you again fail to do it I'll put 'skadistic is a big fat liar' in my sig and link to this thread: BRING PROOF of the supposed cherry-picking! I told you what such proof could be - you have nto even responded to my post.

and used error filled data

as above - you have so far made no attempt to bring hard data. instead, you have flooded the thread with links that lead to lies, political hacks' conspiracy theories and wild cliam with no backup. Care to being anything BUT innuendo, lies and speculation?

 

[skadistic]

Simple indeed. I already gave you the proof and the only one here ignorant is you. Why don't you go attack another poster and his sources with out addressing the substance. Put what ever you want in your sig. Again I already gave you proof. Its not my fault or my problem if aren't intelligent enough to realize that.

 

[El_Machinae]

To be fair, if you've put 'proof' in this thread, you've hidden it in a lot of 'spot on' crap.

According to the IPCC report which is what AGW is mostly based on the temp should be always increasing along with green house gasses, namely the evil CO2.

AGW is not based mostly on the IPCC report, considering AGW concerns are older than that. It might be the most-referenced modern incarnation.

Temperatures are still trending upwards, as I mentioned the first time you posted that graph using different comparison techniques. That said, I betcha you can't find a place in the report which says "always increasing".

What does AGW predict will happen, that won't happen if AGW isn't true? Make a prediction about what will happen, a prediction which is not predicted by AGW.

 

[BasketCase]

As usual, the burden of proof lies with you

Wrong. You claim that animal biomass consumes much less oxygen than the rainforests produce.

You made the claim. You back it up. Otherwise you are.....how did you put it? Oh yeah--talking out your ass.

It's not "rectum". It's "ass".


Edit: What the hey--might as well quote Wikipedia on this:

Rainforests are home to two-thirds of all the living animal and plant species on Earth.

 

[Simple Simon]

Simple indeed. I already gave you the proof

Where?

All you did was spam a bunch of links to sites that are full of allegations, but very short on data.

You provided insinuations and allegations. You have not brought any evidence whatsoever - what should I call you? Liar or ignorant?

and the only one here ignorant is you. Why don't you go attack another poster and his sources with out addressing the substance. Put what ever you want in your sig. Again I already gave you proof. Its not my fault or my problem if aren't intelligent enough to realize that.

Yeah, yeah, me idiot ask for proof, too stupid to say that someone saying 'it is so' IS proof

 

[Simple Simon]

Wrong. You claim that animal biomass consumes much less oxygen than the rainforests produce.

You made the claim. You back it up. Otherwise you are.....how did you put it? Oh yeah--talking out your ass.

It's not "rectum". It's "ass".


Edit: What the hey--might as well quote Wikipedia on this:

nice, you made an implicit claim, I put it (in inversion) in my post expressis verbis, and that is supposed to be my claim?


And it is 'rectum' - not my fault that you lack the education to know that.

 

[BasketCase]

nice, you made an implicit claim

Nope. I never did. I said this:

Well, why do they never mention the large amount of oxygen CONSUMED by the equally abundant ANIMAL life in the rainforests.....?

I never said how much oxygen is consumed, because I don't know. This bullcrap argument you're making about "BasketCase said this" and "BasketCase said that" is....well.....bullcrap.

You're talking out of your ASS. No, it's not "rectum"--that's for uppity Englishmen with Oxford ties, meerschaums, and million-dollar salaries. Sheesh.