Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[wyly]

Apparently those are the ones the IPCC rejected because it does not fit into their model.

could you name those studies rejected?...

Like studies showing that the sun is having the same effect on Mars and Earth in terms of warming. But that is instantly dismissed by the IPCC. Why would they dismiss that? Why would the sun not be relevant to the warming? Just like why would previous ice ages and concurrent warming not be related to the current trend in temperatures rising?

what studies are those, there is no evidence mars is warming, for that to happen there would need to be an increase in solar irradiance and solar activity has been down for 50yr...it's dismissed because it's wrong...there has been no prior data on mars before the 1970's...you doubt the mountians of data on earth climate supporting warming but have no problems stating an absolute about mars on less than 40yrs of very little data...if the sun were responsible for the warming based on solar activity on earth and mars it should be cooler...

Why is the only aspect of AGW focused on fossil fuel emissions creating CO2 as a cause of warming and discount and dismiss all other sources and possibilities of warming? This is what baffles me.

because you aren't aware of what has been discounted then it must be so? the issue seems to be your awareness not the research...when everything has been looked at and ruled out one by one all that is left is excessive CO2 emissions... Edited December 14, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

Apparently those are the ones the IPCC rejected because it does not fit into their model.

Like studies showing that the sun is having the same effect on Mars and Earth in terms of warming. But that is instantly dismissed by the IPCC. Why would they dismiss that? Why would the sun not be relevant to the warming? Just like why would previous ice ages and concurrent warming not be related to the current trend in temperatures rising?

Why is the only aspect of AGW focused on fossil fuel emissions creating CO2 as a cause of warming and discount and dismiss all other sources and possibilities of warming? This is what baffles me.

still waiting...

clearly, as you're being pressed, your true colours are shining through. Care to elaborate on the meaning of your phrasing, "money trading IPCC hustlers"? Do you have any sense of the makeup of the IPCC... just who constitutes your stated "money trading IPCC hustlers"? Waiting.....

clearly, the IPCC has become your latest target... and, equally as clear, you obviously haven't bothered to understand/recognize the all-inclusive nature of IPCC reports - all manner of "the science of the day" is presented, inclusive of published reference. As much as the IPCC is the easy go-to for deniers, you'll need to broaden your cast/focus as other significant world-wide organizations have their own separate iterative, like initiatives, intended to review/assess the "science of the day"... certainly, previous MLW climate change related threads have touched upon USGCRP Scientific Assessments, NAS NRC reports, USCCSP reports, etc.; unfortunately for deniers like yourself, none of these reports (separate and distinct from the IPCC), from world-wide organizations assessing the "science of the day", will provide the solace you so feverishly clamor for.

you're an absolute purposeful distorting and fabricating neophyte, if you believe the sun/solar variations or paleoclimatic evidence isn't included... isn't thoroughly discussed/referenced... and weighted within IPCC consensus and summary reports. Of course, if you actually made the effort to do even a modicum of research, you'd understand/recognize the scientific basis as to exactly why the sun/solar variations are discounted as the principal causal tie to the relatively current accelerated warming... you'd also understand/recognize there's no conclusive evidence that Mars is undergoing global warming; notwithstanding Mars climate is said to be primarily driven by dust & albedo... not the sun (solar variations). Of course, if you actually made the effort to do even a modicum of research, you'd understand/recognize the scientific basis behind the significance and factoring of paleoclimatic evidence, with pointed relevance to the last 2000 years. Of course, your ratcheted up beak-off against the IPCC and your unwillingness to do any actual research is simply a reflection of the comfort your denier blogs/sources avail you.

as wyly highlights, the real issue is your awareness... the, as you say, "discounting and dismissal" of influences other than anthropogenic sourced CO2, has a scientific foundation... but don't let that get in your way... of your continued beak-offs - hey?

[Saipan]

So where's the "global warm up"?

[Michael Hardner]

Saipan, you got an answer and you just parrot the same questions. This is called trolling... and you have basically hurt your cause by showing yourself to be just another denier/troll on a thread that is ostensibly about discussion.

It's probably better for you to chime in on conspiracy theories than to argue with responsible posters here.

[Saipan]

Saipan, you got an answer

One Arctic area is not a "globe".

This is called trolling... and you have basically hurt your cause

I have no cause - you do.

showing yourself to be just another denier/troll

"Denying" what exactly?

[GostHacked]

Of course it's a money grab, always has been about redistribution the wealth of the west, nothing more.

The fact that this is ignored by the supporters of AWG is really disturbing.

[GostHacked]

could you name those studies rejected?...what studies are those, there is no evidence mars is warming,

It's part of the book I am reading 'Deniers' which I mentioned in another thread, I'll post it again.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Why is some NASA data ok and this kind of NASA data is not? Why would it not be relevant to the earth warming?

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

Adbussamatov is one of these 'Deniers' in the book called 'Deniers' that I am reading. Why is would this be considered controversial instead of a breakthrough? I'll tell you why, because it does not fit with the IPCC model.

for that to happen there would need to be an increase in solar irradiance and solar activity has been down for 50yr...it's dismissed because it's wrong...there has been no prior data on mars before the 1970's...you doubt the mountians of data on earth climate supporting warming but have no problems stating an absolute about mars on less than 40yrs of very little data...if the sun were responsible for the warming based on solar activity on earth and mars it should be cooler...

People need to pay attention to these types of articles and how they are received by the likes of the IPCC.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

because you aren't aware of what has been discounted then it must be so? the issue seems to be your awareness not the research...when everything has been looked at and ruled out one by one all that is left is excessive CO2 emissions...

When people purposefully leave out the effects of the Sun on the planets, they are misleading themselves by saying that CO2 is the only reasonable explanation left to describe the current warming. To me it is such a narrow minded and ultimately devastating stance to only talk about CO2 and not include everything else that warms and cools the planet.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

Aside from this article being complete speculation, it may help out the AGW points ... but .....

Since we don't live on Mars OR Pluto, we can rule out human AGW as the cause of those planets warming. However this article says that the solar activity has nothing to do with all 3 planets warming and yet it is the only common factor for the planets warming.

But the sun is not even factored in because the sun has been relatively quite in the past few decades. So why do we see warming on other planets at the same time?

What I am really starting to see is that no one really understands why the planet is warming. Either it is AGW or an 800 year lag, but past ice ages are not important and solar activity is not important.

All this seems to fall apart for those who support AGW. Especially when you understand that there is a bank and market to trade carbon credits. MONEY SCAM. You can pollute all you want as long as you pay for it.

Here is how you marginalize anyone that has anything that flies in the face of AGW

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/

How has this tiny 2-3% sliver of fringe opinion been reinvented as a perpetually “growing” share of the scientific community? Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon.

This is a phenomenon that should worry not only environmentalists, but also conservatives themselves: The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.

What a horrible article. Complete bias and nothing that can count as an objectionable view. Essentially equating AGW deniers to Holocaust Deniers, and those who think the CIA killed Kennedy.

[GostHacked]

still waiting... clearly, the IPCC has become your latest target...

As they should be. Because these money grabbers are the ones that will benefit from this carbon trading bank and market. They are the ones that will drive policy for the rest of this planet in terms of reducing C02, of COURSE they are going to be in peoples sites.

As much as the IPCC is the easy go-to for deniers, you'll need to broaden your cast/focus as other significant world-wide organizations have their own separate iterative,

Why should I, when you stated yourself that anything outside of the IPCC and the NOAA is bunk. Other posters have, but you shot them all down with insults.

you're an absolute purposeful distorting and fabricating neophyte,

The only ones who are distorting anything are those who set up a money trading scheme to combat AGW, which allows people to pollute more as long as they pay for it. Where is this money being spent? Do we even have an idea?

as wyly highlights, the real issue is your awareness... the, as you say, "discounting and dismissal" of influences other than anthropogenic sourced CO2, has a scientific foundation... but don't let that get in your way... of your continued beak-offs - hey?

I'd like to think of myself as aware and have an idea what is going on.

Edited December 14, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

could you name those studies rejected?...

It's part of the book I am reading 'Deniers' which I mentioned in another thread, I'll post it again.

no - a denier book reference does not suffice... name the actual studies rejected; i.e.; not included; i.e.; purposely and intentionally omitted within IPCC reports? By name/author... the studies... by name/author

[waldo]

still waiting...

clearly, as you're being pressed, your true colours are shining through. Care to elaborate on the meaning of your phrasing, "money trading IPCC hustlers"? Do you have any sense of the makeup of the IPCC... just who constitutes your stated "money trading IPCC hustlers"? Waiting.....

clearly, the IPCC has become your latest target... and, equally as clear, you obviously haven't bothered to understand/recognize the all-inclusive nature of IPCC reports - all manner of "the science of the day" is presented, inclusive of published reference. As much as the IPCC is the easy go-to for deniers, you'll need to broaden your cast/focus as other significant world-wide organizations have their own separate iterative, like initiatives, intended to review/assess the "science of the day"... certainly, previous MLW climate change related threads have touched upon USGCRP Scientific Assessments, NAS NRC reports, USCCSP reports, etc.; unfortunately for deniers like yourself, none of these reports (separate and distinct from the IPCC), from world-wide organizations assessing the "science of the day", will provide the solace you so feverishly clamor for.

As they should be. Because these money grabbers are the ones that will benefit from this carbon trading bank and market. They are the ones that will drive policy for the rest of this planet in terms of reducing C02, of COURSE they are going to be in peoples sites.

you really should reign your lunacy in... as I said, just who constitutes your stated "money trading IPCC hustlers"? Again, as stated to you previously, the IPCC reports to governments/policymakers are, in fact, worked through and written in language acceptable to government representatives... the IPCC does not make policy... does not drive policy... does not influence policy... unless, of course, you consider providing a summary accounting of the "science of the day", as making/driving/influencing policy - and, of course, in that regard, you simply can't accept the consensus "science of the day"; i.e.; you deny it. Nothing new here... it's what you do.

[waldo]

As much as the IPCC is the easy go-to for deniers, you'll need to broaden your cast/focus as other significant world-wide organizations have their own separate iterative, like initiatives, intended to review/assess the "science of the day"... certainly, previous MLW climate change related threads have touched upon USGCRP Scientific Assessments, NAS NRC reports, USCCSP reports, etc.; unfortunately for deniers like yourself, none of these reports (separate and distinct from the IPCC), from world-wide organizations assessing the "science of the day", will provide the solace you so feverishly clamor for.

Why should I, when you stated yourself that anything outside of the IPCC and the NOAA is bunk. Other posters have, but you shot them all down with insults.

your desperation is climbing... beyond it's regular levels. Your statement is bullshit - categorical, undeniable, absolute, unmitigated bullshit.

[wyly]

It's part of the book I am reading 'Deniers' which I mentioned in another thread, I'll post it again.

deniers is not a scientific study, it's deniers/journalist's point of view...of which several of his sources claimed he misrepresnted or misunderstood their work, some asked for retractions...

Why is some NASA data ok and this kind of NASA data is not? Why would it not be relevant to the earth warming?

1st because it's not linked by solar activity, solar activity is down so mars should be getting cooler if it was the common source but it's not so there is something else that effects Mars's climate not related to earth...2nd the planets each have their own milankovitch cycles and seasonal variations...whoa what a concept mars may actually have it's own summer and winter...

Adbussamatov is one of these 'Deniers' in the book called 'Deniers' that I am reading. Why is would this be considered controversial instead of a breakthrough? I'll tell you why, because it does not fit with the IPCC model.

because it's idiotic...the sun cannot affect one planet and not the others, solar activity is downwe should be cooling not warming...

People need to pay attention to these types of articles and how they are received by the likes of the IPCC.

you and people who want to look for the bizaare answers look at these type of answers, they've been discounted by the those who have a better understanding of what's going on....

When people purposefully leave out the effects of the Sun on the planets, they are misleading themselves by saying that CO2 is the only reasonable explanation left to describe the current warming. To me it is such a narrow minded and ultimately devastating stance to only talk about CO2 and not include everything else that warms and cools the planet.

once again because you're ignorant as to the research you automatically assume it didn't happen...I'm (Ghosthacked) not aware or don't understand therefore it can't possibly be true...

Since we don't live on Mars OR Pluto, we can rule out human AGW as the cause of those planets warming. However this article says that the solar activity has nothing to do with all 3 planets warming and yet it is the only common factor for the planets warming.

solar activity is accurately measured here on earth..it has been lower than usual for many years while temps have been climbing..."the only common factor" duh, planets have seasons just like earth, earth goes through all it's seasons in one orbit, Neptunes year is something like 160 earth years, and guess what Neptune is approaching it's summer...and Jupiter has shown no warming...

But the sun is not even factored in because the sun has been relatively quite in the past few decades. So why do we see warming on other planets at the same time?

What I am really starting to see is that no one really understands why the planet is warming. Either it is AGW or an 800 year lag, but past ice ages are not important and solar activity is not important.

All this seems to fall apart for those who support AGW. Especially when you understand that there is a bank and market to trade carbon credits. MONEY SCAM. You can pollute all you want as long as you pay for it.

no what what we have here is someone who is refusing to look at the answers supplied, you pretend to be objective but you haven't attempted to deal with any of the answers given, you just dismiss them and go strait into denial mode...

What a horrible article. Complete bias and nothing that can count as an objectionable view. Essentially equating AGW deniers to Holocaust Deniers, and those who think the CIA killed Kennedy.

your method reflects it perfectly, denial in the face of all evidence to the contrary...you don't want answers that dispute your cherished beliefs... Edited December 14, 2010 by wyly

[waldo]

as wyly highlights, the real issue is your awareness... the, as you say, "discounting and dismissal" of influences other than anthropogenic sourced CO2, has a scientific foundation... but don't let that get in your way... of your continued beak-offs - hey?

I'd like to think of myself as aware and have an idea what is going on.

of course you would... and then reality sets in!

[GostHacked]

no - a denier book reference does not suffice... name the actual studies rejected; i.e.; not included; i.e.; purposely and intentionally omitted within IPCC reports? By name/author... the studies... by name/author

The book quotes the studies that were rejected.

[waldo]

could you name those studies rejected?...

It's part of the book I am reading 'Deniers' which I mentioned in another thread, I'll post it again.

no - a denier book reference does not suffice... name the actual studies rejected; i.e.; not included; i.e.; purposely and intentionally omitted within IPCC reports? By name/author... the studies... by name/author

The book quotes the studies that were rejected.

you said you bought the book... "name the actual studies rejected; i.e.; not included; i.e.; purposely and intentionally omitted within IPCC reports? By name/author... the studies... by name/author".

[Wild Bill]

As they should be. Because these money grabbers are the ones that will benefit from this carbon trading bank and market. They are the ones that will drive policy for the rest of this planet in terms of reducing C02, of COURSE they are going to be in peoples sites.

Why should I, when you stated yourself that anything outside of the IPCC and the NOAA is bunk. Other posters have, but you shot them all down with insults.

I'd like to think of myself as aware and have an idea what is going on.

You're wasting your time, GH! This is the reason why I've come to distrust those who favour global warming. Too many of them are like Wyly and Waldo! The price of perhaps gleaning some knowledge from them is to accept snide insults and heaps of ad hominem vitriol. This goes to character. It's as if a teacher kept whacking his student on the head while he was lecturing them. After a while the student will just accept anything his teacher says willy-nilly, right or wrong, in order to get the pain to stop.

I've become more like the passenger in the seat beside the lead character of the movie Airplane!, Ted Striker, who becomes so bored at listening to Ted spill his life story that he hangs himself to get away!

The Armageddon Global Warming folks may or may not prove right but with spokesmen who are so obnoxious they are perpetually forced to round up an audience at the point of a gun! Or else find masochists who LIKE abuse!

Whenever some uses their techniques I automatically become suspicious. These are "snowjob" tactics and it is only logical to wonder why they are being used. Obviously, the expounder must feel some need for them. It makes it less likely that they feel their arguments can stand on their own merit. Or perhaps, being nasty makes them feel good! That is a sickness and makes it very likely that they will choose venting vitriol even over eventually proving a point. They are more troll than spokespeople or champions.

Sadly, the Al Gore Army seems to have a preponderance of such characters! When I downloaded the Kyoto Accord and read it for myself, I found that you barely started to read the thing and it was obvious that the real goal was wealth re-distribution to Third World countries and competitive economic advantages for China and India. It made it very difficult to accept the little bit of actual science mixed in with the document. The "hidden agenda" was just too conspicuous!

So, I'm just saying that if you're looking for answers here with these guys you're wasting your time. It's more like that old Monty Python sketch - "It's 'Getting Hit On the Head' lessons in here!"

If you enjoy that sort of thing well, whatever blows your skirt up. Me, I don't really want to win an argument. I'd like to find out what's true! Maybe it's just me but if I had run into Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments under his arm and he explained them to me in between insulting me as to my intelligence and my character I would have just told him to f**k himself and keep walking! What's more, if and when I eventually read his Commandments I would have been biased to be suspicious of them.

Life's too short to be some troll's punching bag...

Edited December 14, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You're wasting your time, GH! This is the reason why I've come to distrust those who favour global warming. Too many of them are like Wyly and Waldo! The price of perhaps gleaning some knowledge from them is to accept snide insults and heaps of ad hominem vitriol. This goes to character. It's as if a teacher kept whacking his student on the head while he was lecturing them. After a while the student will just accept anything his teacher says willy-nilly, right or wrong, in order to get the pain to stop.

I've become more like the passenger in the seat beside the lead character of the movie Airplane!, Ted Striker, who becomes so bored at listening to Ted spill his life story that he hangs himself to get away!

The Armageddon Global Warming folks may or may not prove right but with spokesmen who are so obnoxious they are perpetually forced to round up an audience at the point of a gun! Or else find masochists who LIKE abuse!

Whenever some uses their techniques I automatically become suspicious. These are "snowjob" tactics and it is only logical to wonder why they are being used. Obviously, the expounder must feel some need for them. It makes it less likely that they feel their arguments can stand on their own merit. Or perhaps, being nasty makes them feel good! That is a sickness and makes it very likely that they will choose venting vitriol even over eventually proving a point. They are more troll than spokespeople or champions.

Sadly, the Al Gore Army seems to have a preponderance of such characters! When I downloaded the Kyoto Accord and read it for myself, I found that you barely started to read the thing and it was obvious that the real goal was wealth re-distribution to Third World countries and competitive economic advantages for China and India. It made it very difficult to accept the little bit of actual science mixed in with the document. The "hidden agenda" was just too conspicuous!

So, I'm just saying that if you're looking for answers here with these guys you're wasting your time. It's more like that old Monty Python sketch - "It's 'Getting Hit On the Head' lessons in here!"

If you enjoy that sort of thing well, whatever blows your skirt up. Me, I don't really want to win an argument. I'd like to find out what's true! Maybe it's just me but if I had run into Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments under his arm and he explained them to me in between insulting me as to my intelligence and my character I would have just told him to f**k himself and keep walking! What's more, if and when I eventually read his Commandments I would have been biased to be suspicious of them.

Life's too short to be some troll's punching bag...

I will wade into this pool with; there is numerous sources of published data that appear to support either side of the fence. Yet here is the rub, nobody denies that our global environment is changing. So the created argument is about who is to blame, and even when that is considered there is always a money end to the equation.

The simply reality is that we are required to adapt to any change in our environment in order to survive. All the rest is political BS, designed to create division and therefore interest, and lastly leading to how profit can be derived from the entire process.

WE are fools to believe otherwise. As the planet becomes less healthy, so will the citizens and that is just another taste of this reality.

[GostHacked]

If you enjoy that sort of thing well, whatever blows your skirt up. Me, I don't really want to win an argument. I'd like to find out what's true! Maybe it's just me but if I had run into Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments under his arm and he explained them to me in between insulting me as to my intelligence and my character I would have just told him to f**k himself and keep walking! What's more, if and when I eventually read his Commandments I would have been biased to be suspicious of them.

Life's too short to be some troll's punching bag...

That is why I picked up some books and do some reading myself. I've always been able to think for myself, and I am wrong sometimes, (part of being human) but at least I am making an effort to learn more about it. I am not afriad to be wrong, and never afraid to say 'I do not know'. Which I think many people really have an issue with. Everyone wants to be right, but not everyone can admit to being wrong.

But even if I am able to find the evidence that it is not happening, for those who support AGW it willbe ignored because it'd not from these so called sanctioned sources.

I ain't no punching bag for sure. But I do take my lumps now and them.

To me, none of the science means squat because of the money trading scheme is involved. If the money is used in RnD and new technologies that will help reducing CO2, that would be great, ... the question is where is this money being used to mitigate global warming? Third world countries who only produce a fraction of the emissions that modern industrialized nations do so it makes no sense to give them money to help them reduce emissions when they are not the major source of it.

Follow the money they say, and you will find the truth.

[wyly]

You're wasting your time, GH! This is the reason why I've come to distrust those who favour global warming. Too many of them are like Wyly and Waldo! The price of perhaps gleaning some knowledge from them is to accept snide insults and heaps of ad hominem vitriol. This goes to character. It's as if a teacher kept whacking his student on the head while he was lecturing them. After a while the student will just accept anything his teacher says willy-nilly, right or wrong, in order to get the pain to stop.

that's fuckin'BS wildbill...show me where I've made an ad hominem on ghosthacked...this goes to your character, your lack of self esteem when you can't put up a reasonable debate for your pov...

Sadly, the Al Gore Army seems to have a preponderance of such characters! When I downloaded the Kyoto Accord and read it for myself, I found that you barely started to read the thing and it was obvious that the real goal was wealth re-distribution to Third World countries and competitive economic advantages for China and India. It made it very difficult to accept the little bit of actual science mixed in with the document. The "hidden agenda" was just too conspicuous!

when you have no intelligent point to make regarding the issue immediately bring up al gore that scores instant points with the scientifically illiterate...then follow with "conspiracy theory" hey no one can disprove a conspiracy because there is no proof otherwise it wouldn't be a conspiracy...

So, I'm just saying that if you're looking for answers here with these guys you're wasting your time. It's more like that old Monty Python sketch - "It's 'Getting Hit On the Head' lessons in here!"

a waste of time since he has (like you) no intention of debating honestly...

Life's too short to be some troll's punching bag...

a troll is someone who comes into a debate with no intention to debate but stir the pot with no evidence to back up his pov...some of us back up our points with logic and evidence others come with links to denier blogs and opinions based on ignorance, the later are trolls because they only seek argument and not debate...ghosthacked with his reluctance to look at the evidence and debate it is fast moving into troll territory... Edited December 14, 2010 by wyly

[GostHacked]

I will wade into this pool with; there is numerous sources of published data that appear to support either side of the fence. Yet here is the rub, nobody denies that our global environment is changing. So the created argument is about who is to blame, and even when that is considered there is always a money end to the equation.

Our environment has changed indeed. The sprawling cities we have put into place are a cause of the changes, large interstate roads cutting off migration patterns of most land species, toxic pollution from cars, factories, and the chemicals we use and without question simply toss them away in the garbage.

We are going to need such a fundamental change in our way of life to reverse the damage we have done to the planet, no one is ready or even WILLING to do it. We still continue down the same path. Do we have some kind of death wish? We don't even need to look at AGW to know that we need to change our way of life. It is simply not sustainable in the long run. That I have no doubt of.

The simply reality is that we are required to adapt to any change in our environment in order to survive. All the rest is political BS, designed to create division and therefore interest, and lastly leading to how profit can be derived from the entire process.

WE are fools to believe otherwise. As the planet becomes less healthy, so will the citizens and that is just another taste of this reality.

We humans have an amazing ability to adapt, and that is what we will need to do to survive this crisis.

[GostHacked]

that's fuckin'BS wildbill...show me where I've made an ad hominem on ghosthacked...this goes to your character, your lack of self esteem when you can't put up a reasonable debate for your pov...

I think he is just lumping you in with Waldo or the fact that both names start with W. And no for the record you have been great, no insults at all, and I will keep the debate with you because you have been great.

a troll is someone who comes into a debate with no intention to debate but stir the pot with no evidence to back up his pov...some of us back up our points with logic and evidence others come with links to denier blogs and opinions based on ignorance, the later are trolls because they only seek argument and not debate...ghosthacked with his reluctance to look at the evidence and debate it is fast moving into troll territory...

I have not moved into troll territory. I am insulted to be called a troll. When I ask things like the ratio of carbon isotopes and the 800 year lag to be explained more, I get met with resistance, when I ask about it because it does not make any logical sense to me.

[wyly]

I think he is just lumping you in with Waldo or the fact that both names start with W. And no for the record you have been great, no insults at all, and I will keep the debate with you because you have been great.

I have not moved into troll territory. I am insulted to be called a troll. When I ask things like the ratio of carbon isotopes and the 800 year lag to be explained more, I get met with resistance, when I ask about it because it does not make any logical sense to me.

but when you're given answers you often go back to repeating the same question, so by all apearances you are either not understanding or ignoring them...waldo explained the CO2 isotope points very well, I gave you a link to the 800yr lag that explained more than I did... Edited December 14, 2010 by wyly

[GostHacked]

but when you're given answers you often go back to repeating the same question, so by all apearances you are either not understanding or ignoring them...waldo explained the CO2 isotope points very well, I gave you a link to the 800yr lag that explained more than I did...

And I go back to the questions because sometimes even after I read the articles from you guys I am still confused. I feel the following is still not answered at all.

So what is needed is for you to show how current warming trends are due to human activity when you say it takes a few hundred years for that to manifest which leads me to the conclusion that the current trend (by your statement) is due to something that occurred 800 years ago and NOT by human activity.

[waldo]

but when you're given answers you often go back to repeating the same question, so by all appearances you are either not understanding or ignoring them...waldo explained the CO2 isotope points very well, I gave you a link to the 800yr lag that explained more than I did...

it doesn't really matter wyly... he just isn't interested in anything that presumes to counter his predetermined denier position... he's a total lightweight substituting bluster/fluster for substance. His latest johnny-come-lately rants seems to be targeting the IPCC (surprise!) and cap&trade... and, of course, he's blindly and wildly linking one to the other. I note he completely ignored the several suggestions he look into, for example, cap&dividend (being advocated by a few of the scientists that actually bother to directly engage the policy side)...

[waldo]

And I go back to the questions because sometimes even after I read the articles from you guys I am still confused. I feel the following is still not answered at all.

So what is needed is for you to show how current warming trends are due to human activity when you say it takes a few hundred years for that to manifest which leads me to the conclusion that the current trend (by your statement) is due to something that occurred 800 years ago and NOT by human activity.

you shit on others and have the temerity to keep coming back asking for help understanding something... meanwhile disputing the related topic simply based on ignorance or predetermined bias... and then you either outright ignore it or simply can't grasp what you're being presented. Hey buddy... they're called Google/Bing... you should try them out - hey?