What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Lucrum
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 34154
09-29-13 01:56 AM
Quote from futurecurrents:
Really? Gee, who should we believe? A whore meteorologist like Watts?...
...or an AC installer who had "experimental" sex with his gay brother while growing up?
Posting a single question is hardly harping on it. I merely asked if it were true as somebody else posted it.
Let me save you some time with the "debate"
You post something and look at FCs previous thousand posts that say "even a 10 year old can understand it idiot"
That's pretty much the debate.
Registered: Dec 2003
Posts: 34154
09-29-13 01:56 AM
Quote from futurecurrents:
Really? Gee, who should we believe? A whore meteorologist like Watts?...
...or an AC installer who had "experimental" sex with his gay brother while growing up?
Posting a single question is hardly harping on it. I merely asked if it were true as somebody else posted it.
Let me save you some time with the "debate"
You post something and look at FCs previous thousand posts that say "even a 10 year old can understand it idiot"
That's pretty much the debate.
That probably came form me. He has admitted his brother is gay.
During an exchange with I forgot who he accused the other guy of being frustrated and regretful for not having engaged in experimental homo sex.
He said it in such a way that I surmised that probably means futurecunts has engaged in experimental sex himself with his gay brother. AFAIK he never actually admitted it directly.
You don't actually consider the back and forth you and others are having with this bat shit lunatic an honest "debate", do you?
Until FC stops calling everyone who disagrees with him an idiot and/or other disparaging names.... no, we are not holding any type of honest debate.
I am just hoping that people may consider reducing personal attacks in our P&R discussions (This includes FC) - and focus more on the actual subjects. Certainly there will be political bickering back and forth... and a few judicious words thrown-in to aptly describe some opinions - but IMHO we still can have an active and interesting P&R debate while trying to steer clear of personal attacks. I understand that people enjoy the rough & tumble of debates in P&R which is why the forum has a warning that it is "Not for the faint of heart" but I still politely stand by my hope that we can call a poster's opinions idiotic but not call them an idiot or other derogatory terms.
So this chart perhaps best shows the heat content gain that the earth has had over the last 50 years
This chart shows how temps and CO2 levels rose together as man started doing his thing.
These two charts and the knowledge that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas is all one needs to come to a conclusion that man's release of CO2 has raised temperatures. (The sun didn't do it).
There is nothing wrong with the charts. They are accurate and not made up. They are not up to date but the trends are still in place.
What gets me impatient and frustrated is that this obvious thing is so hard for some to see. This is important shit, that will have effects on future generations. We can argue the merits of action, but to argue the science is ludicrous at this point.
This chart shows how temps and CO2 levels rose together as man started doing his thing.
These two charts and the knowledge that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas is all one needs to come to a conclusion that man's release of CO2 has raised temperatures. (The sun didn't do it).
There is nothing wrong with the charts. They are accurate and not made up. They are not up to date but the trends are still in place.
What gets me impatient and frustrated is that this obvious thing is so hard for some to see. This is important shit, that will have effects on future generations. We can argue the merits of action, but to argue the science is ludicrous at this point.
No shit there are sinks and sources and overflows and the actual CO2 currently present from man in the atmosphere is around 7% I believe. But it's also true that man has increased CO2 by around 40% over natural levels. There is little doubt about it. Both facts can be true.
Do you have a point? Other than to throw the word nutter around?
Nutter?
Quote from futurecurrents:
Why don't we plot the CO2 range on earth over the past few million years - which would make it obvious that the range over the last 10,000 years is easily within the normal range for the planet.