"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22

[Vuk]

Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly. "Flat-Earth Science Deniers" and other terms have been used to describe those of us who believed that the science accepted by today's governments contradicted history and common sense. Our's was not just another opinion though, but a vile heresy that should never be uttered on these forums, and managed to open the flood-gates of bitter bile from those wise members of this forum who disagreed with us.
When I said that the science was not settled, I was told what a fool I was, and that ever respectable scientist accepted current theories and that the science was as settled as it could possibly get.

What do you think now darlings?

Head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the leaked summary showed that 'the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux'

Ohh, my, oh my that sounds familiar.

Admit it, you don't know dog-poo.
Even our best scientist don't understand a tiny fraction of what causes changes in our climate or how to predict them. The best thing we got is history, and it shows swings more drastic than we have seen since the industrial revolution all throughout history.

Now let's see how many of you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are wrong and to apologize for all the inappropriate crap you have said through out the years to the members who have disagreed with you on this subject.

[gaelic cowboy]

the Daily Mail is a rag my dear fellow dont shoot yer bolt just yet

Also the sea ice thing is merely whats called regression towards the mean

[Fisherking]

I wouldn’t hold my breath for that if I were you.

People don’t like to be wrong and for some admitting it is nearly impossible.

Then there are the True Believers who will not be swayed by any means. Facts or otherwise, because it is their belief that man is responsible.

[gaelic cowboy]

Extent of sea ice from 1980s to 2013

plus the sea ice revisions

There is a clear reduction in sea ice in that graph even in the revision.

The increse is merely just a larger amount than last year because last year was an extreme.

[Husar]

I am truly sorry Vuk.

[Beskar]

i don't think anyone has done the following:

Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly

This statement is more shaky than the consensus on climate change.

[Fisherking]

The major even was not that warming may be over. It is that the sea ice is not completely gone, as predicted.

On the other hand, glaciers do seem to be growing, particularly in the southern hemisphere.

Antarctic Ice is said to be the greatest ever recorded, but that is not a very long history.

It is a bit too soon for one side to be crowing too loudly.

[Myth]

Every member of this forum who has expressed some sort of skepticism on current accepted 'science' concerning man-made climate change has endured more ridicule than they would have if they had come out and told everyone that they molest children regularly. "Flat-Earth Science Deniers" and other terms have been used to describe those of us who believed that the science accepted by today's governments contradicted history and common sense. Our's was not just another opinion though, but a vile heresy that should never be uttered on these forums, and managed to open the flood-gates of bitter bile from those wise members of this forum who disagreed with us.
When I said that the science was not settled, I was told what a fool I was, and that ever respectable scientist accepted current theories and that the science was as settled as it could possibly get.

What do you think now darlings?


Ohh, my, oh my that sounds familiar.

Admit it, you don't know dog-poo.
Even our best scientist don't understand a tiny fraction of what causes changes in our climate or how to predict them. The best thing we got is history, and it shows swings more drastic than we have seen since the industrial revolution all throughout history.

Now let's see how many of you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are wrong and to apologize for all the inappropriate crap you have said through out the years to the members who have disagreed with you on this subject.

I like how an average volcanic eruption injects more carbon in the atmosphere than human kind has for the last 100 years. Yet we still get bull like "carbon footprints" and the asshats at the top want to push a global carbon tax on us.

[HoreTore]

I like how an average volcanic eruption injects more carbon in the atmosphere than human kind has for the last 100 years. Yet we still get bull like "carbon footprints" and the asshats at the top want to push a global carbon tax on us.

So.... Reduced consumption is something you consider bad....?

[InsaneApache]

So.... Reduced consumption is something you consider bad....?

/facepalm/

[HoreTore]

/facepalm/

It's an honest question, not an accusation or anything like that, IA.

The aim and (debatable) effect of a tax, in this case a carbon tax, is to reduce consumption in the market economy and usually increase consumption in government.

Given Myth's previous posts, I had the impression that he considers consumption in the market economy as bad, thus I would think a tax reducing that kind of consumption to be right up his alley. This works the same whether or not climate change is true, since the tax will lower consumption anyway.

[Fragony]

That's where the emission-trade comes in. The big guns can buy it off if they hand over protection-money, nothing happens in the end, they can pump as much CO2 as they want and the consumer gets the bill. Emission-rights speculations and outright fraud is very lucrative. It's one of the most refined pyramide-games ever.

[Myth]

It's an honest question, not an accusation or anything like that, IA.

The aim and (debatable) effect of a tax, in this case a carbon tax, is to reduce consumption in the market economy and usually increase consumption in government.

Given Myth's previous posts, I had the impression that he considers consumption in the market economy as bad, thus I would think a tax reducing that kind of consumption to be right up his alley. This works the same whether or not climate change is true, since the tax will lower consumption anyway.

I don't view consumption as bad or good, I view it as necessary. What I want is for our needs to be met with manufacturing and energy that are clean and go hand-in-hand with our beautiful planet.

However this tax will do none of those things. The money will go somewhere, and it will mostly condition people that being taxed on externally imposed guilt is OK. Next thing you know, there will be "fat tax" because people feel guilty that they are fat.

The big polluters - petroleum based chemical industry, hevy MFG and resource excavation and treatment, power plants will all keep on truckn' and making money. That tax will do jack to stop them or make them consider alternative ways of doing their thing.

Seriously, the only way for alterntive energy and manufacturing to be developed is for us to run out of oil and coal reserves.

[Myth]

So.... Reduced consumption is something you consider bad....?

You are like a small country which has logical fallacies and deliberately inept arguments as its major exports.

[Ironside]

I like how an average volcanic eruption injects more carbon in the atmosphere than human kind has for the last 100 years. Yet we still get bull like "carbon footprints" and the asshats at the top want to push a global carbon tax on us.

Please spot the vulcano eruptions here. The largest one is Pinabuto (1991) btw.

It's hard to dig out any good estimations, but we're at least talking the scale of 10 times Toba here. That was the emissions for 2008. Your "average vulcano eruption" is about 40 times stronger. It's in the size of wiping out humanity.

[drone]

The advantage of (explosive) volcano eruptions is that along with the CO2, you get huge amounts of SO2 ejected high into the atmosphere. Combined with the particulates, this counters the greenhouse effect and cools the global climate.

[Ironside]

The advantage of (explosive) volcano eruptions is that along with the CO2, you get huge amounts of SO2 ejected high into the atmosphere. Combined with the particulates, this counters the greenhouse effect and cools the global climate.

Indeed. A Tora level eruption would cause global mass starvation due to the cooling effect. It's speculated to have been close to wiping out humanity (there's a human genetic bottleneck around the same time). Even Tambora (1815 Indonesia) caused "the year without summer" in Europe.

It just annoys me to see a blatant lie, simply because you didn't check the most factual basic source and saw the impossibillity of the statement.

[gaelic cowboy]

Only problem I can with a volcano based reduction is we will still merrily belch co2, the skeptics will cry ah ha ha and naturally we will end up in a worse position than before after the so2 levels out.

Of course an extinction level event will mean the s02 co2 mismatch will be the least worry we have.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Look up the Oglala aquifer. Fracking has already ruined much of our water.

Water which will be depleted by inefficient farming in another 100 years. That's another thing we need to tackle as soon as we get our energy problems solved.