Man Based Global Warming....

Ufourya writes: "What 'folks like you' assume is that a 1 F degree/decade change is TOO significant. The reality is that most species endure changes of TENS of degrees every single DAY when night falls or the sun rises. It is absurd to assume they can't adapt to a ONE degree change over much longer periods."

The absurdity of this idea, belies your ignorance,,, and defies comment.

Icarus

PS Why do you find it necessary to ridicule my name on every post? I don't take particular offense considering the source,,, but I find it curios that you have to make fun of people instead of presenting a rational argument.

 

Britain faces severe warming by 2080s: study | Green Business | Reuters

 

Sorry this is late..... CALL NOW!

 

F8l, ufourya will quote you scripture from the writings of OK senator Inhofe given the chance.

Now *that* is drivel. Ufourya's rants are just regurgitated talking points with a lot of Freudian projection of political stupidity thrown in to frame the debate.

 

Once again, how about showing me what is wrong with my response to an absurd proposition. Show me one scientific source that corroborates your assertion that ...

" The reality is that many (most?) species cannot adapt as fast as the climate changes. "

Please, just one, that's all I'm asking. If you can't do that, you'll prove my point that you've got nothing but the ad hominem attack.

In addition, let me help you out a little. You probably should look up the word 'belie' since your assertion "The absurdity of this idea, belies your ignorance,,, and defies comment," doesn't mean what you think it does. Don't get confused, now, take your time.

P.S. I made fun of your name ONCE. i car us merely splits the word into syllables - that's ridicule?

P.P.S. I find it ironic that you would choose the name of one who foolishly ignored the power of nature and met his demise. Here you are doing it again in thinking man can control something he doesn't understand. It's either massive ignorance or dangerous hubris.

 

This bill is a huge power grab - an assault on American business and the taxpayer. It is a TAX. This will cost each American family thousands of dollars. It's beyond me why people would abandon their individual freedoms and give more and more control to government. Fools!

Gore is the most disingenuous blowhard on the planet. A more loathsome politician is hard to imagine.

The word leftists and statists love to throw around fits him perfectly - HYPOCRITE.

If this monstrosity should pass the House, I pray the Senate can kill it.

 

My prediction: If civilization survives*, historians will judge him as one of the most important and influential people of the modern age. Go Al Go!

* Lovelock thinks it won't...The Prophet of Climate Change: James Lovelock : Rolling Stone

 

For those of you who think that the temperature changes we are presently undergoing (and I am stipulating for purposes of this discussion that they are accurate - which is questionable) are more rapid and more severe than any in history and present a danger to life - take a look at:

1. The Younger Dryas
What is the Younger Dryas?



Dryas octopetala
An event that occurred about 12,800 years before present (BP), termed the Younger Dryas (YD), is the canonical example of abrupt climate change. It is best seen in the Greenland ice cores, although it had very marked consequences over Europe, North America, and as far as New Zealand. The YD is an invaluable case study: it occurred recently enough so that records of it are well-preserved, and seems to have left traces all over the world.
Let us look at the temperature over Greenland for the last 18,000 years:

Figure 1: The Younger Dryas event as an example of abrupt climate change. Source: Abrupt Climate Change; Inevitable Surprises​

Around 15,000 years ago, the Earth started warming abruptly after ~ 100,000 years of an "ice age"; this is known as a glacial termination. The large ice sheets, which covered significant parts of North America and Europe, began melting as a result. A climatic optimum known as the "Bölling-Allerød" was reached shortly thereafter, around 14,700 before present. However, starting at about 12,800 BP, the Earth returned very quickly into near glacial conditions (i.e. cold, dry and windy), and stayed there for about 1,200 years: this is known as the Younger Dryas (YD), since it is the most recent interval where a plant characteristic of cold climates, Dryas Octopetala, was found in Scandinavia.
The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years. ​

DID YOU GET THAT? 10 degrees C in 10 years, yet you will not be able to show that there were any extinctions during this period. YOU WON'T.​

Now, tell me again how absurd my statement is and why your understanding is superior. Please.​

 

If Gore is loathsome one has to wonder where Cheney, Dubya, Inhofe, Ted Stevens, Sanford, Larry Craig, etc. stand.

It's funny how obsessed conservatives are with someone trying to do the right thing and thinking of more than himself. Probably much of it is residual animosity (or jealousy) against him for winning the actual vote against their leader, Dubya. While I've never been particularly fond of Gore as a political figure, his heart is at least in the right place. Whereas those others I listed above profess a sort of selfish, deceitful, destructive, pillaging ideology that runs counter to the values I was taught in Sunday school, etc.

These are the ones that believed Gordon Gecko was the hero, not the villain. What they and ufourya really need is a moral compass, because the one's they have appear to be broken.

The denialist approach has all the moral integrity, certitude, zeal, and reason of the pro-slavery bloc of 1860. By the end of the Civil War they were working hard to recharacterize their argument as some noble disagreement over states rights. Never mind that their own statements from the prewar period and their adopted constitution refuted that flimsy sham.

 

How will Al Gore benefit from his hysteria mongering?

Here is his investment team:

Team | Generation Investment Management LLP

That's right, he and his partners will become incredibly rich as they convince governments to enact their phony policies. Here's what Fibb's pal, Lovelock thinks of Gore:

Dr. James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia Theory, says most of the “green stuff” we are doing to abate global warming is a giant money making scam - and “just what finance and industry wanted. Carbon trading, he warns, won’t “do a damn thing about climate change.”

James Lovelock: Global Warming Scam Right Pundits

While I think Lovelock is wildly mistaken in his own hysteria, his view of Gore is right on point:

Dissenting viewpoints are many, on all global warming and climate change perspectives. The problem for dissenters is that the research by their Ph.D.’s, seldom makes it to print - not to mention that few research facilities and Universities will fund or allow research that might not be among the more popular doomsday theories.
It’s a dilemma for humans, and especially for Liberal humans who seem determined to sacrifice for, and bear the mantle of guilt handed out by Al Gore. and his “team,” at Generation Investment Management (GIM), where Gore is chairman, and where Gore purchases his own carbon credits. It works like this: buy your own carbon credits from yourself and write yourself a paycheck. According to NewsBusters, GIM has one of the largest carbon credit portfolios in the world and Gore has a 9.5 percent stake in the company, or maybe he doesn’t. Read NewsBusters’ ‘gotcha’ piece. The hysteria Gore and his followers generate is a green money machine.

 

Let's see, Ted Kennedy walked away from a girl in a car who lived for a long enough time to be saved, but preferred to worry about his career rather than save Miss Kopechne. He's a moral compass for the leftists. William Jefferson takes a big bribe and is still one of our moral betters and still votes on what we can and can't do. Clinton betrayed his wife in their home repeatedly and lied about it. Had it not been for a stain on a dress, he would have further ruined a young girl's life. Another moral compass. Barney Frank ran a male prostitute ring from his apartment. He's still ruining our lives with terrible policy today. Senator Reid is involved in one shady deal after another. Chris Dodd is a lying scumbag.

For every Republican you can name who engaged in wrong doing, I can name two Democrats. You will find that GWB and Cheney have been shown to do no wrong and served the country with dignity. Inhofe is a voice of reason in a world of insanity. (Watch that knee, d0n't injure yourself). The Republicans clean their own house and you won't find much support for the men you mentioned who made mistakes, while the Democrats, who have no real moral compass, allow their miscreants to continue in office.

If 'doing the right thing' involves making things up to enrich yourself while sticking it to others, Al Gore is a really great man. See my previous post to understand how Gore will laugh all the way to the bank while the people he bilks continue to bend over for his ministrations.

People forget that it was a Republican President, regardless of your twisting of history, who engaged and defeated slavery. In the Jim Crow era it was Democrats who filibustered and stonewalled on equal rights. As to 1964 and the Civil Rights Act which Democrats always take credit for:


Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Who were the guys who opposed and filibustered? Democrats. One, Senator Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle, is still a moral compass for the Democratic Party.

Now how about addressing some of the climate issues rather than spouting nonsense.

 

I have believed global warming is real and we are responsible for some or all of it for well over a decade.

That being said, I also think we all need to hope that we are responsible for it so we can do something about it. If we can't do anything about it because it's all a natural cycle, we are in for some major issues (war, terrorism, famine, disease, dropping standard of living, mass migrations of people, species loss, etc.) in the 21st century. Just wait until we get the bill for protecting New York City, Washington, DC, Florida, and California's Central Valley. And what will happen when billions of people in poorer countries have to move because they can't afford to build those dikes and locks?

 

Even though he keeps threatening to leave,, clearly the troll likes being fed. I will try to resist the urge to do so. My final though (for now) is I want to know what ufoura is going to say to his grandchildren as they struggle with the effects of what we are doing and what our parents and grand parents did, when they ask, " Grandpa, why did you sit idly by in spite of all the evidence that we were messing up the planet? How could you let this happen,, and why didn't you do anything to help us? Why in fact did you actively work against a solution? Hug Grandpa?"

Icarus

PS. Your ridiculed my name on more than one example,,,the fact that you can't remember that is evidence of the density of your brain. In point of fact Icarus is indeed a variant of my given name. I have refrained from attacking you personally with the rare exception. Go bury your head in the sand and see how long you can breath!

 

Trolls are posters who do nothing but push buttons to get emotional responses. I have posted opinions, links, graphs, humorous examples of global warming idiocy, etc.

The trollish behavior seems to me to come from those who add nothing to the discussion, such as yourself. You have assiduously avoided responding to my substantive posts and contented yourself with snide comments which play well in this echo chamber of self-congratulatory lock-steppers.

Other than ONCE calling you IckyRuss, I do not recall 'ridiculing' your moniker. (It's not your real name, right?) Please prove me wrong if you can by citing a specific post. Until then, your attempt to ridicule my brain density, whatever that is supposed to mean, rings hollow - like an empty head.

So, dear friend, go back and read a few of my posts. When I am not fending off personal attacks, you'll find some educational material that questions the basis of what you so fervently believe about man's role in changing the climate.

I don't deny that man has influence, in many ways, upon his environment. What I reject, because there is absolutely no evidence, is the kind of hysteria and fear-mongering to which robbyr2 has obviously fallen prey.

 

Why don't you educate me? Tell me where, in my posts, I have gone astray. You say you have 'corrected' me. Point me to the accepted scientific literature that shows conclusively where I am wrong.

It's easy to say, "You are an uneducated boob in these matters, go study, come back and then we can converse."

This is the condescension I expect from those who regard themselves a little too highly, yet shrink from honest debate.

It is true that I know nothing about you other than the almost 5,000 posts you've made on this site. (And I'm not inclined to read them all.) I thought perhaps this was your full time job. I'm guessing that you install electronic equipment in cars or tint windows as a part-time endeavor.

Joining a couple of environmentalist groups or taking measurements on field trips does not make you a climate science expert any more than I am.

So, I'm delighted you have chosen to dismiss me so lightly and refuse further contact. More predictable than the weather.

 

Fish grow bigger ears as ocean CO2 levels rise: study

 

As usual, posting a link and leaving it at that doesn't turn out to your benefit.

"...Researchers now will try and figure out how the added carbon dioxide in the water causes the ear bones to enlarge, whether this is happening to other types of fish, and whether the longterm effect will be good or bad..."

First - The study does not indicate (because thay cannot know) whether bigger 'ears' are a benefit or not.

...The ear structure in fish is known as an otolith and is made up of minerals. Checkley and colleagues knew that increasing carbon dioxide in the oceans — absorbed from the atmosphere — is making the sea more acidic, which can dissolve and weaken shells. They wondered if it also would reduce the size of the otoliths...." - quotes from the article

Second - Any middle school student who pays attention in science class can tell you that the oceans are NOT acidic. Present pH levels are 8.104. This is ALKALINE, not acidic. Properly stated, a reduction in this pH level would be referred to as a decrease in alkalinity.

Why would anyone refer to acidification? Because 'acidic' is more scary to most people than 'less alkaline'. OOOOOhhhhh Ocean Acidification, Oh NNoooooo!

Even if the worst case scenario comes to fruition in a hundred years, (which is doubtful) and CO2 levels in the oceans rise to predicted (also doubtful) levels, the pH of the oceans would be 7.824. (These are model predictions.) At 7.824, the oceans are STILL ALKALINE, not acidic. There will probably be no shells dissolving due to acidity until ocean pH falls below 7.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification"]Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

This is simple science, folks. You've got to wonder how a so-called group of scientists and a so-called encyclopedia can fall prey to and become part of the hysteria by refering to this process as 'acidification'. Hmmmmm?

It also gives pause to wonder how the scientists in the paper referred to [footnote 3] determined the pre-industrial (pre 1700s) pH level to three decimal points. The pH scale was invented in 1909. Just sayin'.

 

Once again you show you own ignorance of biology. The issue is not whether the oceans are acidic or more alkaline, but rather the specific Ph range organisms like (or at the extreme, tolerate!).

What you fail to grasp is the vast interrelationship between organisms throughout an ecosystem and indeed the planet. While the effect may be hard to quantify, the effect on Antarctic plankton may indeed have an effect on humans living in N.America. You also seem to fail to grasp the importance of micro organisms within any ecosystem. There are millions of species of microorganisms, so many in fact that new ones are being discovered all the time.

Your moronic comment yesterday, about organisms being able to withstand 10s of degrees of temperature change daily not withstanding, even slight changes in temperature and Ph can have devastating effects on organisms. At the risk of stating the obvious,,, do you have any clue why you ( or least humans) get a fever when they are sick?

Icarus

 

The issue I brought up relates to fear mongering and misnaming scientific processes to elicit the kind of mindless, religious belief that man is going to cause the demise of life as we know it by burning fossil fuels.

Calling a decrease in alkalinity 'acidification' is just one obvious example. I didn't make this up - it's all there in the article fibber linked.

Did you read the post about the historical 10 degree C change in 10 years? Show me the evidence of species that suffered extinction during this abrupt change. Significantly more abrupt than anything we're talking about happening in a hundred years. You have no comment other than calling a reply I made moronic without explaining why you think it is. Please, instruct the moron. I'm waiting.

At the risk of deflating your ego, do you have any idea what a non sequitur is? Here's an example - Daedalus lived, you died. Do you have any idea why?

There are organisms and species beyond our accounting. Some of them thrive in narrow, some in large temperature variations. By definition, the ones alive today have survived everything nature and man have thrown at them. Otherwise, they'd be dead. Throughout history we have examples of extinct species. So what?

Why are you predisposed to look at life from the negative point of view? Did you have a bad childhood? Was there always someone smarter than you? Well, move on, there always will be.

 

I apologize ahead of time for this remark, but I can't help but be amused every time a person from the religious right whines that science is not being heeded.

Bush's preference for chairperson to head climate change discussion: Senator Inhofe
Obama's choice: S Chu, nobel laurete.

Contrast and compare, and for pete's sake ignore the bozos.