The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 26    Average: 3.1/5]
51 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 7057
Rating: 3.1
Category: Science
Date: 05/31/13 09:28 AM

51 Responses to Carbon Surprise For Global Warming Activists [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of SweepOfDeath
    SweepOfDeath Male 18-29
    938 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 9:30 am
    Link: Carbon Surprise For Global Warming Activists - Now what?
  2. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 9:47 am
    Fail.
  3. Profile photo of McThstlpnts
    McThstlpnts Female 18-29
    1540 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 9:53 am
    Doesn`t mean it isn`t a problem though.
  4. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 9:53 am
    I don`t know if it was called a "tipping point," but that number`s relevance is that we have to go several million years back in time to find a point in earth`s history where CO2 was as high as it is now. If you expect immediate repercussions for reaching this number you are kind of a dullard. The point they`ve been trying to make is that we are reaching a point where continued levels of this magnitude are going to cause irreversible changes in climate.
  5. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36866 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:02 am

    Nothing happened "yet".
    It`s not an instant response.
  6. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14268 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:22 am
    Scumbag carbon...
  7. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:32 am
    It`s not like hitting that number would flip some cosmic switch or something...
  8. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:37 am
    lol.. it`s amazingly ignorant.. but perhaps that`s the point ??
  9. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:39 am
    "Scumbag carbon..." Creates Life, Creates Death.

    I`m glad you`re finally starting to understand the problem, McG. :-P
    It`s kinda like WATER, absolutely essential for life, but too much can be deadly.
  10. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:45 am
    Oxygen can be a scumbag element too.
  11. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:46 am
    Not worthy of comment unless it`s supposed to be documenting how stupid some of the "skeptic" arguments are. Thankfully, I think Americans are generally making some real progress in understanding the issue.
  12. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:53 am
    What`s always stumped me is that even if someone believes that this is all just a natural cycle and that people aren`t responsible, why then do they still think that nothing should be done about it, or at the very least, why we shouldn`t stop contributing so much to it? Even *if* people are not mostly responsible, it does not follow that we should just continue our polluting practices; that`s very short-sighted.
  13. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:07 am
    @ Patchgrabber: Good question. I`ll offer this, if it helps: Virtually every time I`ve discussed the issue at length with a "skeptic," it`s boiled down to one of two things--

    (A) The person is a religious fundamentalist, who believes it`s a matter of faith that God could not have created a world that is in any way vulnerable to human activity; or that God`s promise after The Flood (the rainbow) means that God would never allow the Earth to come to harm a second time; Or

    (B) The person has a deep-seated distrust of government, environmentalism, and anything that could be associated with liberalism. This is often attended by a general air of resentment and suspicion concerning anyone with an advanced degree.

    Often it`s some combination of A and B. Regardless, the bottom line is that the person is usually unwilling to accept the science due to ideological baggage.
  14. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:15 am
    I think a lot of us on the left need to be aware that part of the resistance on the right is due to the feeling that their way of life is under attack, in addition to the mistrust of liberals.
  15. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:24 am
    Patchgrabber

    Because

    (a) we can`t so anything about it; even the UK Met Office has now admitted that it is not significantly different from natural variation. How can we "do anything" about natural changes?

    and

    (b) What people suggest we do about it will kill people. Indeed it is already killing people. Of course they are black people in Africa or brown people in Asia, so racists like you don`t care, do you? Life without cheap, abundant energy is nasty, brutish and short.

    Squrlz

    Sceptics do not deny science. They understand what science is, and that climate catastrophism has nothing to do with science. It is a pseudo-scientific religion.
  16. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:26 am
    25% of all the carbon ever emitted by humans was in the past 10 years, the same time period had no increase in temperatures. These figures are from The Economist. So 25% of the increase in Carbon causes no increase in temperatures. The temperature 100 years ago was, meanwhile, increasing faster with less emissions. The Climate is too complex for anyone to understand, and academics and internet people alike are largely blowing smoke.
  17. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:27 am
    FoolsPrussia

    No, you on the left need to understand some real science, and to stop believing the left-wing news media as they retype alarmist press releases. The dishonesty among alarmists alone should make you question the idea of CAGW, but it aligns with your politics so you don`t.
  18. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:34 am
    @ Randomxnp: "Skeptics do not deny science."

    No, you don`t deny science. You just ignore the findings of NASA, the Nat`l Academy of Sciences, the Nat`l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Royal Society of the UK, and the Academie des Sciences (France), among others.

    The fact is no major national or international scientific body currently disagrees with the science behind anthropogenic global warming. NOT ONE.
  19. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:41 am
    Squrlz

    It is hilarious that you implicitly criticise conservatives and libertarians for distrusting government at the moment. Considering the US government has now proved to have been making every effort to screw them for the last 3 years, I reckon that might simply be that they are better informed and have better judgement than naive fools on the left.
  20. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:42 am
    @ Randomxnp: Way to prove my point there. Thank you.
  21. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:51 am
    Squrls

    "NOT ONE"

    A lie, there. Only one international scientific body actually polled its members. over 60% disagree with you.

    The Royal Society was forced by its members to moderate its own anti-scientific statement.

    I am going with the real science. Statements don`t matter, empirical evidence matters.

    You are disagreeing with the UK Met Office which recently admitted with great reluctance that temperature changes since 1850 are not significantly different from natural variation.

    That is evidence.

    More and more evidence suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is low, below 2 degrees per doubling. Evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, not opinions published by political-minded committee members in their own press releases. 2 degrees AGW is benign.

    See the difference between science and politics?
  22. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 11:55 am
    Squrlz

    Hahahahaha

    Your naivity is almost cute. It`s like a small child, trusting in its mother. Problem is that mothers have instincts to look after their children. The government is made of people who follow incentives, which is to favour their own interests.

    So why do you trust government? Can you tell me a single example of a government that has proved to be worthy of your blind trust?

    You are in the USA: how can you criticise anyone for mistrusting government with 4 scandals of government working against the people at the moment, ignoring things like F&F and racism in the DoJ which have not been resolved?
  23. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm
    P.S. Squrlz - yes I did notice your subtle propaganda lies. Those organisations made statements, not findings. Very different things. If you have to be dishonest, you must know that you are either wrong or too ill-informed to make the case.
  24. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    Question, RandomXP: Do you agree that the climate is changing and just don`t believe in AGW, or do you deny the rise in temperature completely?

    Either way, you pretty much lost me when you accused Patchgrabber of being racist for saying humans are at fault. That kind of language is a non-starter if you want to have a civil discussion.
  25. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 12:14 pm
    @random: Wow, that`s the first time I`ve been called a racist because I don`t want to pollute the environment. But if you want the consensus on the combined opinion of the scientific community, look at this new study that shows 97% of scientists confirming AGW and its effects. Based on this, it would seem you are the one believing in pseudo-science.
  26. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 12:16 pm
    @ Randomxnp: You`re going with "the real science."

    LOL. Good luck with that.

    I`ll pass on any further dialogue because your last several posts do a better job of discrediting the outlook of the "skeptics" than anything I could say.

    Lastly, a couple links.

    (1) For anyone seriously interested in the science of AGW--even you, Random--I`d recommend NASA`s excellent Global Climate Change website.

    (2) For anyone curious about these little soundbites of propaganda that the "skeptics" like to throw out, most of them can be quickly debunked over at Skeptical Science.
  27. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 12:29 pm
    Regarding the UK Met Office, are you referring to the erroneous article in the Daily Mail from last January? You can see the UK Met Office`s response here.
  28. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    FoolsPrussia

    No, that relates to the recent hiatus in warming, which is accepted even by the head of the IPCC. It does not relate to the warming since 1850 (but then I can`t expect you to actually read anything contrary to your faith, or to keep abreast of developments in the climate debate; you are a warmist after all).

    I refer to the last few days, when the Met Office finally answered the Parliamentary question they ignored or failed to answer when they did respond on the last 4 occasions it was asked. They admit that the statistical model was wrong when they had previously claimed warming was significantly different from natural variation. A model that shows no such variation is 1000 times better for the purpose. Since offer no other model, they are admitting that they have not shown that warming is greater than natural variation.

    Do try to keep up, old boy.
  29. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:11 pm
    FoolsPrussia

    As for that Met Office "rebuttal" of the Mail, it is laughable. I have disliked the Mail since they lied about me, but if you have to challenge them with an obvious fallacy like

    "However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850"*

    then clearly you have no actual answer. That alone suggests that the Mail was correct, even without the fact that even warmist have been admitting for 5 years that the warming has stopped. As you would know if you had read the leaked CRU emails.

    * If you don`t see how that sentence is a fallacy, then you must be even more clueless on the climate debate than you appear. The Met Office weren`t the first to use it, and it has been talked about in the debate for months.
  30. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    P.P.S. Forgot to ask if you saw the other fallacy, the stating of 2010 as the warmest on record? Given that this was the only other argument they used, and that it is just as ridiculous, you must be feeling pretty dumb bringing that one up, eh?
  31. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    "Do try to keep up, old boy."

    The only reason it would be difficult to keep up is that you continually repeat lies that misrepresent what is being said, forcing us to refute your claims.

    Your claim that the head of the IPCC also admits to a hiatus in global warming is another misrepresentation.

    Clearly, you only want to read what reinforces your own perspective. Due to that fact, I will also resign myself from discussing this further with you. I`m aware that you`ll most likely interpret that as a victory, but fortunately validation of your own tactics doesn`t change reality.
  32. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    Sqrurlz


    Hahahahaha

    "Skeptical Science", where no scepticism nor science is allowed. You do realise that this is run by a chap called Cook, don`t you, who recently published a paper demonstrating his dishonesty?

    It was the study of papers mentioning climate change. He claimed that because he said 32% of papers were pro-warmist there is a 97% agreement with CAGW. Actually fewer than 0.7% of the papers even fell into the highest category, and that took any paper claiming man was more than 50% responsible for warming. Remember that the CAGW position relies on man being 90-100% responsible for the warming from 1980 to 1997. So in fact it is possible that not a single paper supported his contention, yet he claimed 97%.

    That is even before we consider the fact that at least 4 authors have stated that he wrongly placed their papers in the CAGW-supporting category.
  33. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    FoolsPrussia

    As stated below, quoting "skeptical science", the most dishonest site on the web that does not mention 9/11 or moon landings, is really not up to much.

    Note that in your link they lie through their teeth about ocean heat content. Before 2003 no-one had any measure of ocean heat content at all, not that is any use on the scale we are considering. Since 2003 when the Argo floats went live they have shown no warming at all in the oceans (no, not even below levels of statistical significance). Even the Argo floats do not give very good ideas (there are only 3000 in the world`s oceans); the cartoonist`s lying mouthpiece, SS, is obviously not even using this.

    Many people claim the missing heat is in the oceans. None has shown that it is there.
  34. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:40 pm
    So, FoolsPrussia, why are you quoting lies from a site run by someone currently being roasted across the web for dishonesty in order to claim that I am lying? Perhaps because you can`t handle the change in your world if you actually ask for real science?

    For example, what is the empirical evidence for strong positive feedback in temperature? None has ever been published that I can find. So many people say that the evidence exists, yet none tells us what it is.
  35. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    FoolsPrussia

    Ignoring Pachauri, how about Trenbarth? Wasn`t it he who said 5 years ago that it is a travesty that we cannot explain the lack of warming for a decade? Hasn`t warmed since.
  36. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 1:45 pm
    Oh, and maybe you would now say why we should panic, if event he UK Met Office says that human influence has not been statistically demonstrated.
  37. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 2:12 pm
    Ugh, I can`t believe I`m even bothering but SIX DAYS AGO Kevin Trenberth posted this: Global Warming is Here to Stay Whichever Way You Look At It.

    So if you`re going to deny the view of the scientists, fine. Just don`t misrepresent what these scientists are saying to support your own perspectives. That would be akin to me saying Lord Monckton admitted anthropogenic global warming is happening.
  38. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 2:37 pm
    FoolsPrussia

    Trenbarth`s pay, position and authority depend on the myth of CAGW. It is very telling for his dishonesty that he says in private that it is a travesty that we cannot say why there has been no warming, then in public he brings the myth that it has been shown to be going into the oceans. This is (again!) just a model. Unproven. There is no empirical evidence whatever for the idea.

    You still have not answered the fact that the UK Met Office now admits that human influence has not been demonstrated statistically. Given that at least 90% of the warming from 1980 to 1997 would have to be caused by human activity for aGW to be dangerous, that is astonishing. Given that the warming was not significantly faster than periods of warming before man could possibly have influenced CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it is also very realistic.

    Yet you have no answer.
  39. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 2:41 pm
    "So if you`re going to deny the view of the scientists, fine. Just don`t misrepresent what these scientists are saying to support your own perspectives."

    You are also denying the view of scientists, as many disagree with Trenbarth`s publically-stated position. I am doing so on the sound scientific grounds that he has no empirical evidence. You are doing so on the fallacious grounds that a more politically-connected scientist says so.

    I misrepresented nothing. I accurately paraphrased what Trenbarth said in an email he thought would not be made public. If you deny it, then tell me what he did say. It`s in the CRU emails. The ones you dare not read as then you will have to admit that the people you believe are utterly dishonest.
  40. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13631 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 3:54 pm
    World will always exist
    Humans put out a small percentage
    animals insects volcano`s rotting vegetation etc
    put out way more than us plague on Earth do
  41. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 4:18 pm
    *snicker*

    BWA! HAhahaha!

    In the distant past? The levels were over 1,000 and the Earth survived somehow...

    I guess those "creationist" humans who lived with the Dinosaurs were responsible back then...
  42. Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13631 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    5Cats
    Earth will always survive,
    well until the sun goes supernova and eats it

    its us parasites who hunt animals to extinction
    chop down forests, and breed like germs who are the problem
  43. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12387 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 6:05 pm
    Earth will always survive,
    well until the sun goes supernova and eats it

    The sun can`t go supernova. It doesn`t have anywhere near enough mass.

    Not that the distinction will matter much to any life on Earth at the time, because the sun will become a red giant and eat the Earth that way, or at least cook it very thoroughly.
  44. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    Th earth is cyclic in nature. It has survived worse than us, and it will survive us. Global Warming is a money-making venture that fools believe. Look at the ice core drilling results.
  45. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 6:32 pm
    ~high five`s Xprez~

    You`re darn right, buddy! All them high-falutin` NASA scientists with their fancy degrees. What do they know?

    Yeeeeeee-HAW!
  46. Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 8:02 pm
    Yeah Squrlz, I am talking about scientists. You know the same scientists that drilled the ice cores? Or did you miss that show? Too busy buying everything wholesale? I`m not arguing science, I`m arguing application. You are the perfect audience for the scam. Like it says, it reached the levels and nothing happened. What does that tell you? Do you take that as a mistake or that the scientists got a little ahead of themselves? Or maybe the scientists that drilled the ice cores in Arctic were closer to a more logical explanation? But go ahead and be dumb and argue the results before you.
  47. Profile photo of handimanner
    handimanner Male 60-69
    2095 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:26 pm
    yet
  48. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    May 31, 2013 at 10:28 pm
    @ Xprez: Please. Educate me. Provide a link to a single climatologist who stated that "planet-wide destruction" would happen overnight once CO2 levels passed 400 PPM, as this article implies (and as you apparently believe).

    I eagerly await your link.
  49. Profile photo of Sleepyhallow
    Sleepyhallow Male 50-59
    1983 posts
    June 1, 2013 at 3:27 am
    That`s the problem. Because there is no immediate and instantaneous affect, people incapable of understanding complex interrelated systems see no reason to be worried and believe it all to be a hoax.

    Obviously it`s not going to take something like a asteroid to wipe out humanity. We`ll do it to ourselves from our own stupidity.

    So Yes, Xprez, the earth WILL survive us..... the problem is we will not survive along with it.

    Nature doesn`t need us in the least bit, but we certainly do need nature. Duh!
    Why is that such a difficult concept for you and those like you to understand?
  50. Profile photo of BDT1981
    BDT1981 Male 18-29
    132 posts
    June 1, 2013 at 6:23 am
    for any that want to find the problem, put your mouth on a running cars exhaust. If you think that would kill you, you are correct. The gas DOES NOT JUST GO AWAY
  51. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33142 posts
    June 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm
    @BDT1981: Yes, in fact, it DOES go away!
    There`s 100 ways in which nature deals with "carbon" and it has been going on for 500 million years (apx). Humans have as much to do with "global climate change" as does pissing in the ocean...

    What`s worse? The SO-CALLED "fixes" for it are economically devastating to those who aren`t even causing "the problem" in the first place! Death for millions and poverty for billions = AGW`s Plan.

Leave a Reply