Confessions of a Climate Change Denier

[taxslave]

yup - I asked him to provide a cite and his shadow Cappy pulled his favourite 'googleBitch' play on me... once again! Of course, taxslave's comeback is to simply say, "he read about it another prior thread"! Geezaz, these denier types around here will say just about anything in their postured "thruthiness"!

Still trolling. Catch anything yet? As I said before we been through the same BS you are spouting with numerous other truthers. All have been proved wrong. That thread is several thousand posts long. Do your own hunting since we are not doing it for johnnycomelatelys. Or maybe wally will be kind and point them out to you.

 

[darkbeaver]

What if us filthy rich and educated funded a program to bull sh it the proles into throwing out their long under ware and mittens with a promise of planetary climate remediation all the while certain of an ice age LIA or worse and that master plan took care of the population problem by freezing billions of unwinterized human trash thereby relieving the strain on the bee's and saving the planet for it's more responsible and fitter simian benefactors?

 

[waldo]

Still trolling. Catch anything yet? As I said before we been through the same BS you are spouting with numerous other truthers.

noted: you refuse to support your IPCC related statement

 

[skookumchuck]

since your quote had a reference to.... to me... let me alert you to the fact I am anything but a "new convert". I've experienced denier lightweights, like you, for a very long time. You're all bluster and fluster and have absolutely no ability to support anything you ever say. Same ole, same ole. I most certainly have no thoughts toward flock conversion... this is just about the ****s&giggles you denier types provide!

You have not rated any posts, you must be a desperate post denier, all bluster and fluster......

 

[darkbeaver]

You have not rated any posts, you must be a desperate post denier, all bluster and fluster......

Not to worry about his kind they are the future victims of bald snow tires old batteries and poor winterizing habits. Nature will thin their ranks every year till they're gone.

 

[DaSleeper]

Have you noticed Captain that all new global warming "converts" are just like the newly "Born again Christians"?


They simply feel the need, almost religiously, to convert others to their faith....?


Then you take Tony.....He's like the Old Christian, he knows that those who don't believe will rarely change their faith and it's not worth the trouble, and he will just stick a comment in once in a while....lol

since your quote had a reference to.... to me... let me alert you to the fact I am anything but a "new convert". I've experienced denier lightweights, like you, for a very long time. You're all bluster and fluster and have absolutely no ability to support anything you ever say. Same ole, same ole. I most certainly have no thoughts toward flock conversion... this is just about the ****s&giggles you denier types provide!

Do you see your name anywhere in my post?


You should learn to read what is written, not what you think the other person says....


Assuming things is not very scientific.......but then again.....no need to be scientific to C & P

 

[petros]

What kind of "scientist" are you exactly? I'm just sort of curious as you don't often encounter educated people who believe AGW is a hoax.

An Earth Scientist. It's not often I run into educated mid lifers who believe in the boogieman. Strange world huh?

I bet he encounters many educated people who know for certain that AGW is complete and total science fiction. Of course being educated isn't the same as being right, is it?

Sunspot AR 2192

Science is selling 5th generation toothpaste to improve the planets smile.

Have you tried the New Tide?

 

[waldo]

Do you see your name anywhere in my post?


You should learn to read what is written, not what you think the other person says....

your "new converts and religious conversion" comment associates to your quote; the quote that references... me! So ya, my name is in your post. You should learn to remember what you write, not what you think you wrote.

 

[petros]

weirdo

 

[waldo]

You have not rated any posts, you must be a desperate post denier, all bluster and fluster......

rating posts isn't something I'm familiar with. Is it a condition of membership? I do note I've attracted quite the ratings attention from the usual suspect denier types - go figure.

 

[MHz]

Not to worry about his kind they are the future victims of bald snow tires old batteries and poor winterizing habits. Nature will thin their ranks every year till they're gone.

Good one, it also answers why furry animals wear the hair of the outside as it would be warmer if the hair was to the inside. The traction is a way better, chalk one for nature over science. Oddly enough, put enough dead batteries in a car with bald tires and it can do drifts just like it was wearing new rubber.

 

[captain morgan]

No it doesn't, no matter how many times you cut it.

So, are you stating that it's only the emissions from a select demographic that are bad/evil/planet destroying then?... Are the CO2 emissions from the exhaust of a car more damaging than the CO2 emissions from burning wood in a Franklin stove?

.... I can see the carbon exchange getting really complicated now.

That said, it's not me 'cutting' anything, this is simple physics... I assume that you have some degree of faith in the study of physics

Five is still five in your world, I will assume. So why would you assert 5 less people emitting one tonne a year is more valid than 5 million people who all told emit 5 fewer tonnes per year? You're going to have to explain this logic.

5 less, eh? A whole 5 people out of 7 billion... Nothing like a wicked understating of the example to try and buoy a point.

Fact is, the pop is increasing at a very high rate... Quote whatever numbers you like, the fact is that the pop will hit a critical, according to the Anthro GW/CC climate modelling where no amount of efficiency will offset the Armageddon to come.

Hell, the simple act of respiring O2 and expelling the evil CO2 will be enough to tip the scales under this model.

.... Yet, somehow, the number of emitters has nothing to do with it

If it does to you, well that`s some really fuzzy logic.

What a massively ironic statement

 

[MHz]

Five is still five in your world, I will assume. So why would you assert 5 less people emitting one tonne a year is more valid than 5 million people who all told emit 5 fewer tonnes per year? You're going to have to explain this logic. On a global scale, which is the scale we're talking about, both scenarios are equal. If you`re assuming anthro emissions are the culprit, and not the number of people, then it bloody well doesn`t matter which scenario.

If it does to you, well that`s some really fuzzy logic.

More CO2 per year is more plant food, I'm not ready to rule that as being a bad thing. Nobody has shown me that the green area doesn't move south as the snow moves south. If the land lost can grow one crop a year and the land that will get rain can grow two crops per year then the areas would have to be 2x the size. That isn't what science predicts. That might not make much difference in North America but if the Gobi became the new prairies with two annual crops then starvation is the least of of out worries. The more snow on land the lower the oceans get saving a lot of places from coastal flooding. Moving into those areas would seen to be less stressful than running away from a flood.. The only thing that is for sure is that we will miss something and the reality could be the opposite.

 

[waldo]

More CO2 per year is more plant food, I'm not ready to rule that as being a bad thing. Nobody has shown me that the green area doesn't move south as the snow moves south. If the land lost can grow one crop a year and the land that will get rain can grow two crops per year then the areas would have to be 2x the size. That isn't what science predicts.

your premise appears to be one that suggests accelerated atmospheric CO2 will lead to increased global crop yields. IPCC analysis suggests select regional gains; however, overall global staple crop production will decrease. Of course, a full analysis includes all factors inclusive of such things as stressed versus unstressed conditions, particularly with regard to weeds, pests, soil quality, water availability/quality, air quality, acclimation considerations, resource competition, etc.

 

[petros]

Crops will decrease? Why? The genetics are amazing these days. Drought and disease resistant traits galore. There is a cultivar for every condition and every crop.

 

[waldo]

sorry to brush up against your apparent zeal for the "CO2 is plant food" meme. I look forward to you providing predictive analysis citation to support your suggestion/implication of a global increase in staple crop yields due to increased atmospheric CO2...

 

[petros]

Where do you get CO2 from breeding? Are your glasses fogged up from mouth breathing in anger?

 

[Zipperfish]

Crops will decrease? Why? .

Why not? Nobody really knows what effect it's going to have. The models are little more than guesses.

 

[petros]

Why would crops decrease? Does climate change drag crop sciences down? Will it prevent Africa, which could feed the planet all by it's self from developing and modernizing it's agriculture? Is there no way to turn dirt into soil and grow crops in new regions? Climate change won't turn the tundra back into grasslands? We have no yet to be cleared lands in Canada for Ag?

 

[mentalfloss]

Grain fed prairie people.

Climate change omitted from Saskatchewan Evironmental code | News Talk 650 CKOM