Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7141 - 7160 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 6, 2013 - 12:32pm PT
Weather and Climate change at far different rates, Dave.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 6, 2013 - 12:37pm PT
Ah step 4 - my cause is holier than thou.

Beautiful Dingus! My, how shifty are those in denial.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 6, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
KMAN, I got ten bucks says you smoked cigs. In fact if you did, that answers everything.


Nope, never was a smoker. You can PayPal me the $10, if you're a man of your word.



However, in lieu of sending me $10, please describe to me how my having had cancer answers anything in regards to your asinine premise that science has done nothing to help cancer patients.

Of all the dumb things you've said, that one in particular is a doozy.


In reality, I have no expectation that you will 1) send me $10, or 2) address your silly claim. More than likely, you will shift away from the subject altogether. But that's OK, we all already know how foolish you, a grown man, can be.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 6, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
It just proves he's a dick who doesn't get anything, really. An angry, obsessive little man.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 6, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
Ok Bruce, lets have a talk about temp increase and CO2. It is generally agreed that the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is 3-6% percent of the atmospheric content. So, where is the other 94-97% percent coming from? There has been a fair amount of work done on samplings from ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, tree rings, etc etc. That work has revealed a lag between CO2 increase and temp increase. One of those nagging problems of the CAGW camp. Despite their best efforts, the mainstream science still shows temp increases first followed by CO2 increase. Of course, some will cite a paper here or there, but the overwhelming body of work shows what I have said above. So, does it not follow that if you want to reduce CO2 levels the best way to do so is to decrease temps. Fortunately we do have on the shelf technology to accomplish this. The oceans can be fertilized with iron to increase biotic production of DMS which stimulates cloud production and reflects more sunlight, or stimulate terrestrial plant which increased atmospheric CO2 content does naturally-by some estimates currently increased 10-12%. Another method is to introduce reflective aerosols into the troposphere via small reconfigurations of jet engines on the commercial, military and passenger fleets-yes the dreaded chem trails. Still another is to allow or expand particulate pollution as China is now doing. All this can be accomplished at a tiny fraction of the cost of a ruinous carbon tax. But then again, why do it if CO2 follows temp increase- is it not natural? Did you look into information on the current solar cycle 24 and the predictions ( which are following closely Livingston and Penns work) for forthcoming cycles?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 6, 2013 - 01:35pm PT
There are simple answers to your questions, Rick. You should pursue them.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 6, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
Bruce I am sorry you cower in self enforced ignorance. There is a tremendous amount of information out there, many, many peer reviewed research papers. Though some of it is highly technical mathematics, most of it includes verbal explanation that is easily understood. You owe it to yourself to try to self educate before you launch criticism and impugn the motives of others.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Aug 6, 2013 - 02:22pm PT
Hateful, disrespectful responses are only hurting your credibility, Chief


Edit; Were you ever considered credible before you started hurling childish words, or have you always just been someone who throws tantrums? Most of us grew out of that phase when we were around three years old.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Aug 6, 2013 - 02:27pm PT
Really? When have I ever thrown expletives at you?

Lets get it back on topic.

Climate change is real. Ignoring this is a detriment to all of humanity, as those who deny this simple fact stall proposed regulations that try to help counter our negative affect on our environment.

Why shouldn't we try to be stewards of our beautiful world, rather than pillagers?
dirtbag

climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:19pm PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



abrams

Sport climber
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
The ridiculous global warming story has a particular scifi
signature to it these days. Most of it skips any reasoning of
the false premise of CO2 and gets right into
doom and gloom language of climate disasters happening everywhere.
Probably in your town and how you are a victim but don't know it yet!

Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:43pm PT
Beware the little wasp! A fierce pest he is.

You are so backwards, it's funny to behold. Small stature is quite secondary to your stunted little mindset, little man.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:49pm PT
Hahahaha... Out to lunch, fantasy dweller. Got it.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 6, 2013 - 03:58pm PT
You can't even argue in a straight line, so we'll leave the question of focus at that. As to your Napoleon complex, it speaks for itself. I'm sure none of it will give you pause from your impotent OCD rage posting, so have fun, Chump.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 6, 2013 - 04:34pm PT
So professor, are you saying their is a limit to the amount of infrared backscatter radiation CO2 can absorb, then it self destructs, the same with any molecular formation including all recognized GHG's. Well then, what happens to the released radiation at this point, is it directed downwards against the stream of upcoming radiation or does it conduct upwards to be absorbed by cooler body's. Just trying to learn here, thankyou.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 6, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
A wise man knows his limitations.

None of the 3 deniers on this thread are wise.

IMHO, they are retarded. Or are normal Americans unable to spell or calculate a percentage?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 6, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
Ok thanks Ed. I will digest this material for awhile, searching for the proper way re-ask my poorly phrased question. It is something that has been nagging the back recesses of my atrophying brain for some time now. No, I was self propelled at that date-and you?

Bruce-where the hell are you on mitigation and solar studies?

Chief, i'm glad I don't have you as a foe. You are a fierce and tireless warrior.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 6, 2013 - 10:48pm PT

Americans: unashamedly stupid
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 6, 2013 - 10:54pm PT
Fat, Dumb and Ugly: The Decline of the Average American
Credit: Malemute
Peter Strupp's book is razor-sharp, real-world humour that sketches an all-too-convincing portrait of a self-satisfied nation of conspicuous consumers, fast-food fanatics and dumded-down dolts.
http://www.amazon.com/Fat-Dumb-Ugly-Decline-American/dp/0743249453
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Aug 6, 2013 - 11:08pm PT
Great summary,Bruce. Our three stooges are the equivalent of 5.9 bumblers criticizing a 5.15 climber's game. Blow-hard hobbyists without a clue.
Messages 7141 - 7160 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews