We're killing the unvierse people. This is bigger than we imagined.

-1

you and cratercreator are my least favorite featured users. in fact, you both can take your what would have been pink usernames and shove it up your collective ass.

-1

Nice to meet you.

you too! lets meet up for coffee and biscotti sometime.

Hoth is in trouble.

+4

But it's a fact. He doesn't know how much impact mankind has on it. It's factual. Stop running negative commercials against Mitt.

+2

ohnoz teh universes are gettin hotter! what we gonna do!?!?!

+2

we make the universe hotter omg.

+1

It's funny because Dennis Millier isn't

+4

For me, any guy who references the Gadsden Purchase in his stand-up act is awesome....except Dennis Miller.

+4

I dont get it... Dodgers suck.

-1

F*ck this guy, yeah I said it.

Oh, I bet you feel like a real rebel now!

Warming the planet via co2 and thinning traffic are obviously comparable endeavors.

+2

The last ice age ended less than 200 years ago, in the past 1000 years the temp of the surface of the earth has risen 0.3 degrees, COINCIDENCE?!

+1

by the technical definition we're technically still in the butt end of an ice age and will be as long as there are polar ice caps.

I do cocaine.

"in the past 1000 years the temp of the surface of the earth has risen 0.3 degrees, COINCIDENCE?!" Your'e trying to be sarcastic, right?

Of course, he's an EXPERT in the field of climate science, so he should know.

+3

Universal* climate science. We're talking about the over heating of the unvierse here after all.

+3

My bad.

+1

Expert, pffft. We all know that the true experts in climatology are Leonardo DiCaprio and anti-corporate hippy college professors.

+3

and Al Gore.

+1

don't forget polend

+1

Al Gore...anti-corporate hippy college professor...six...half a dozen...

+1

global warming is a lie manufactured by democraps

-1

lol, it's like democrat but with crap. Republicans are so clever. :)

+1

I see you watched O'Reilly last night too.

+1

Remember the Ozone hole we all worried about 10 years ago? Oh yeah, me neither.

-1

while you were busy forgetting about the Ozone hole for the future purpose of making a point against alarmism, there was an international ban on CFCs that reduced the Ozone problem significantly.

+4

omgowned.

+3

Remember the killer bees that were going to attack us? Me neither.

-1

the attack was a media scare. but they indeed have spread. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Killerbees_ani.gif

+2

Sh*t happens

-1

Remember when they said that the Earth was going to freeze over back in the 1960's and 70's? Me neither.

What the hell does rant mean?

+1

I don't want to go on a rant, here, but America's foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative defenestrates it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate...

+1

Carbon Credits™

+2

A Scam™

-1

Even Bill Richardson thinks so.

The World has had global warming for thousands of years. There used to be ice sheets going across Canada down to where New York City currently is. Yet, somehow, they retracted without the use of smokestacks or SUV's. Sometimes, the earth gets cooler too. Back around the time of the vikings, Greenland was arable land and had forests. A couple centuries later, it got frozen over. Farm tools and tree trunks were uncovered from beneath the ice sheets.

300 years ago, we had something called 'The Little Ice Age'. Yet things got much warmer quickly, WITHOUT the use of smokestacks, refrigerators or sports cars. In the 19th century, there was the Krakatoa volcanic explosion. It was known as "The Shot Heard Round' the World". Lots of smoke, ash, pollution and other junk got launched into the air, traveling for thousands of miles. As a result, the world had 'The year with no summer'. LOTS of carbon went into the air.

-1

this is a strange "point", considering even Al Gore himself talks about the LIA at length to make his point on how current changes are fundamentally different from natural cycles. You think scientists never noticed that earth climate fluctuates? Studying the differences in climate change during natural cycles and those affected by industrialization are the heart of the issue. You must have a pretty negative opinion of science to think they'd overlook the obvious and just run around screaming "FIRE!"

+2

on a more retarded flame war level, your other comments give you away. seems you're a cut and paste Ron Paulie. appropriate. Paulie wanna cracker?

+1

1. But with the LIA, there was no industrialization to make things warm again. 2. Even today, industrialized carbon and methane together only account for roughly 5% of carbon sent into the air. 3. The hottest year in record in terms of heat was back in the 1930's. 4. There are a variety of statistical estimations out there regarding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting. Most exceed 1,000 years. 5. Antarctica's ice sheets have actually been expanding. 6. The Polar bear population has expanded.

-2

You were saying something about 'science'?

-2

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ http://services.tacc.utah.edu/m/show_grouping.php?g=7044a0062108fc369

One thing you have to factor in is that heat rises come BEFORE carbon increases in the air, not after.

-1

"on a more retarded flame war level, your other comments give you away." I support a candidate you don't like? So sue me.

-2

were you even paying attention? yes, the earths temp fluctuated, the earth 'breathes' and every climate change graph shows this, especially Mann's 'hockey stick' that Al Gore uses to make his point. Do I have to reiterate? Its about studying the difference between older patterns of warming and cooling vs how they behave after industrialization. How do I debate science when you can't grasp this basic point, and how do I get you to read anything that doesnt come from libertarian rags Religiously devoted to attacking anything that threatens their economic beliefs?

"I support a candidate you don't like?" What I dont like that you're both a parrot, and clearly by several other posts, a passive/aggressive racist.

Funny, all the things that you say about me are what I was thinking about you. I really don't appreciate you spreading lies about my candidate, especially not when Ron Paul has a variety of Jewish, Black and female supporters. They are smart enough to not listen to Michael Medved. Compared to the people who I was addressing on other threads, I was a perfect gentleman. Passive aggressive racist? Why because I have different political views from you? You are the left wing equivalent of Joseph McCarthy.

+1

Do yourself a favor, and refrain from argument ad-hominem. You might actually convince someone to see your side of the story.

+1

"Antarctica's ice sheets have actually been expanding" - whats ironic and proves your lack of understanding of global warming is that because of warmer temperatures, there is more moisture in the Antarctic and thus greater snowfalls. There is an increase in ice, and as it melts and then as it snows again and melts, etc, etc, this is partially where the increase in sea levels come from. but of course you took the base statement to make a point that doesnt actually exist.

-1

Yeah, I've heard these points before about the 'J curve'. But like I said, the carbon increases have been proven to come AFTER, not before the temperature increases.

But Al Gore's whole point was that the ice sheets were THINNING, not expanding. Already, you are now deviating from what he said in the movie.

btw, that you can infer theres no threat to polar bears when theres absolute undeniable proof their habitat is breaking up, is absurd. Polar bear population has marginally increased in SOME AREAS, you want to know why? They're moving into human populated areas in the Inuit and Alaska to forage for food, and in other areas, conservation efforts have significantly curbed hunting. But once again, you take a couple words like 'population is increasing' as spin, because complex issues couldnt possibly be Complex now, could they?

"Al Gore's whole point was that the ice sheets were THINNING, not expanding. Already, you are now deviating from what he said in the movie." Am I supposed to be debating the movie as an absolute authority? But to answer your question, one wall of the Antarctic gets snow and expands, and the other breaks off. You might think that causes a balance, but the way things currently are, its more like compounding a problem. Its a little complex to completely go through in a ytmnd post.

basically, on this whole issue, i fear you are taking extremely basic talking points at face value - it is not as simple as 'temperature goes up everywhere, sea level goes up everywhere, everything melts' - if you have these wrong assumptions, you're going to continue to be easily led astray by those that dont understand the problem, and latch on to any supposed 'inconsistency' as debunking. i simply urge you to read a little bit more each time one of these so called 'facts' comes along.

Regarding polar bears, what really matters is the overall population count over the course of decades. Overall, the population growth is slow, but the population has still increased if factored on the global scale.

I address the fact that climate change is a complex issue. All I was doing was including more facts to make for a more comprehensive picture to work with. I am also saying that the impact of mankind on the overall climate is greatly overstated. Other things that I wish to address is the conduct of environmentalists towards their opponents, which I feel is quite lacking. Death threats are completely unacceptable. Telling people that they should die or become sterile for the good of the planet is insane.

the US Geological Study figures that 2/3 of the worlds population of polar bears will be gone by 2050. The ONLY study that shows increase comes from the NCPA conservative think tank. if you choose to believe them instead of actual polar bear scientists and conservationists, well thats your choice now isnt it?

All kinds of predictions have been made. All I did was report on what has happened in the past, up until the present. Since I am not really familiar with either organization, I will not take sides with either.

"I am also saying that the impact of mankind on the overall climate is greatly overstated" - further up in the thread to kmalley I stated that since the CFC ban came into place, the Ozone problem has slowed to the point we barely talk about it anymore. If these CFCs were actually to blame for the Ozone, I'd say right there you have proof that we can do a heap of damage. Whats funny to me though is its also been shows in studies that cows methane farts do damage to our atmosphere. Many global warming Deniers/skeptics love that piece of info and purport it to be true. A cow can ruin the world, but us? Never?

"I will not take sides with either." - Well, I'm gonna take sides with the people who have been proven to know what they're doing over a random study from a social policy advocacy/lobbyist group - fact - funded by ExxonMobil. Doesnt seem a tad fishy to you?

There's a world of difference between 'overstated' and 'nonexistent'. 'Overstated' means that there is SOME impact, but the implication is that the impact is exaggerated. Just like when someone screams that some killer dog is coming after them, but it turns out to be some Chihuahua. 'Nonexistent', by contrast, means that there is no impact whatsoever. To be more specific, active volcano emissions and ocean emissions dwarf everything that mankind spews: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

well thats a completely different debate. As much as I love to be right, I HOPE its overstated, man. To be honest, I dont give a f*ck about kids, and am a selfish *ssh*le who just wants there to be fish and chips when i'm 75. I'm not an environmentalist, not a hippie - I just think the climate change red alert crowd have made their case much better than the other side, who seem to be grasping at straws. Could it be overstated? Maybe, but the global warming deniers arent giving me very good reasons why.

-1

Well, I'm not going to side with the oil companies on this one. They have done me no favors. I frankly don't care if they go out of business (so long as they are not bullied by some hysterical bureaucrats). I am also not a good friend of any auto company, especially not in the USA. They have produced mediocre cars for years. Mainly because they have the state watching their backs should they run into financial trouble. I look forward to new entrepreneurs, like Tesla in California.

+1

The reason why I get concerned is because I see a lot of solutions that frankly, strike me as draconian. I do not like the demonizing of opponents that go on. I think the carbon tax program is highly questionable. It just comes across as selling indulgences, or maybe making other people into whipping boys. I really don't like this talk of how people should be charge $5,000 per newborn child, or the idea that gasoline should be charged extremely high taxes in order to increase its price, to reduce use.

+1

Demonizing comes from both ends, but I'm obviously more inclined to forgive it from the people I think are researched and right, who have genuine reason to be frustrated. Do I think the 'solutions' are draconian? Well, maybe. We're so far along that everything does seem pretty damned drastic. Ultimately I think I respect the "I dont care, f*ck the future" rebuttal more than the "lalalalala this is not happening lalalala" wilfully ignorant. I'm not saying they're ALL that way, but theres many.

-1

I think that increasing the price of gasoline would hurt the poor people most of all. If you had some minimum wage job, and you had to drive to work, you would end up paying through the nose. Whatever is left of one's disposable income would be eaten up. From the environmentalist perspective, I think far better solutions would include canceling subsidies to oil companies and car companies. I really do think that it is time for new market players in the auto industry.

+1

In other words, instead of using the stick on industry, just take away their unearned carrots.

+1

I mean lets face it, zealots are always annoying, no matter how right they are. I don't find Al Gore annoying, or scientists annoying. Its people on the Greenpeace boats, vegans who return wool hats to stores that i gave them for Christmas that I find annoying. But I dont know what I can do about that - I'm not the one putting my neck that far out there for a cause. Even when it comes to religious zealots - the extent of my care comes in arguing/presenting facts, not throwing paint at fur coats or Keying Hummers.

-1

"I think that increasing the price of gasoline would hurt the poor people most of all" - well friend, what it comes down to is those who look at the short term harm both environmentally and economically vs the long term. It would be nice if we were all self sacrificial and thought more about what we're doing to future generations, but thats not the world we live in.

-1

Well, I oppose zealots of all stripes too. Even those who are close to my ideals. I advocate the use of reason. I am glad you do too. I think what we need to talk about is what would really be the least worst solutions, both economically and environmentally. So far, the cleanest large scale source of energy currently known to man is Nuclear Fission. The most efficient cars on the road are increasingly the electric ones. Which is why I pointed out the Tesla.

+2

Although to really improve pollution output, and not merely offset it from gasoline to coal emissions, the American power grid will have to increasingly become more nuclear. Right now, the percentage is roughly 20% of the current nationwide grid. Another positive thing about nuclear power is that electricity becomes so cheap, that distilling ocean water becomes reasonably affordable. Right now, converted fresh water is used in places like Israel and Saudi Arabia, but is fairly expensive.

lol you saps, arguing over opinions in science few of which are proven

^ Uh, no. Both he and I have presented some valid pieces of evidence. But your point does have some similarities to mine. Which is why I am quite skeptical of all this talk of all these regulations, not to mention the potential economic unintended consequences of them.

+1

Woah.... I read what I thought was a lot, and then scrolled down to see I was about a quarter of the way through... are we being tested on this?

+4

50 years ago we'd have you upside down with a f*ckin fork up your ass

+2

^ F.AGGOT!

congrats on pissing off someone enough to get a parody account. (it wasnt me)

I think the debate over global warming can be resolved with a frame of bowling.

Gay sex.

"congrats on pissing off someone enough to get a parody account." Don't give a shït.

According to the logic of Al Gore, that amount of carbon that was spewed into the air from Krakatoa should have turned Earth into the planet Venus.

+2

Silly ecologists, climate is more complicated than you think.

+1

Its good to know a special hack comedian has all the answers.

+1

aherm... jon stewart anyone?

+1

ahem... Penn Jillette anyone?

ahem Ann C*nter anyone?

And I bet that you are a research scientist working on your PhD

I'd say Dennis Miller is about as qualified to speak about global warming as al gore, probably more qualified, but i think dennis miller's a good guy

+3

I'd say its pretty clear Al Gore is more qualified, simply from years and years of experience. However as much as I dislike Miller I wouldnt disqualify anyones voice so long as they have their facts right.

-2

And nobody has their facts right like Dennis Miller, defender of the universe.