Rep. Shimkus: Capping CO2 emissions will take away too much ‘plant food from the atmosphere.’
Rep. Shimkus: Capping CO2 emissions will take away too much ‘plant food from the atmosphere.’
Progress Illinois notes that earlier this week at a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) tried to argue that the United States doesn’t need a cap-and-trade system to limit CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. (In the past, he has called cap and trade “a shell game to hide the cost from the ultimate person who is going to pay.”) Here is Shimkus’s newest theory:
SHIMKUS: It’s plant food. … So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? … So all our good intentions could be for naught. In fact, we could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.
Watch it:
Of course, as the National Wildlife Fund points out, the excessive burning of fossil fuels has not been good for Earth’s plant life at all. Matt Yglesias adds, “The point about our CO2 emissions is that the rate at which fossil fuel use puts new carbon into the atmosphere greatly exceeds the rate at which plants remove it. The aim is not to eliminate the CO2 from the atmosphere but to stabilize the amount of CO2, which means curtailing emissions to a level much closer to the rate at which plants consume it.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Derpa, derpa, derpa…
March 28th, 2009 at 8:08 pmRep Shimkus, many plants need sunlight to survive, too. And pumping out all that black soot into the atmosphere isn’t good for plants (not to mention human beings.) Seriously, you’re embarrassing the people of Illinois.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:10 pmThis guy is a real Dexter.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:11 pmQUICK…
March 28th, 2009 at 8:12 pm… Hook Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) up to his CO2 supply.
Wow.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:14 pmOh. My. God.
These people are farking eeedjits.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:15 pmWhat is the optimum CO/2 level for the planet?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:19 pmPlant food? Is this guy nuts? LOL! Who would ever vote for an idiot like this. Dear Lord.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:21 pm.
FLAG gopny
ADVOCATING VIOLENCE!
.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:23 pmThis bug-eyed, RepubliCon fool is on energy and environment! John Shimkus should be in charge of toilet detail! Why do the RepubliCon stooges always vote for the dimwits, like Shimkus?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:24 pmgopny flagged.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:25 pmdbearton@14, Because the RepubliCon’s are just as stupid as he is. It will always be about Big Business for these guys. “Sure, will pollute the Earth as long as we can make money.” Is their motto.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pmBeefeater Says:
4 mins to EARTH HOUR!!
March 28th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Not everywhere, dipshit.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pmWithout CO2 everything would die so I ask this question again.
What is the optimum CO/2 level for the planet?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pmjay Says:
Without CO2 everything would die so I ask this question again.
What is the optimum CO/2 level for the planet?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Use the Google, and find out for yourself. It’s so EMPOWERING!
March 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pmguppy flagged for hatred.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:28 pmRight wingers have a reciprocal agreement with the environment, they push laws that worsen the environment and in turn the environment they create makes them more stupid. The stupider they are the more laws the pass and on and on it goes. The big republican wheel of stupidity.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:29 pm.
Was Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)’s position paid for by The Competitive Enterprise Institute?
“We Call It Life”
Propaganda ad
.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:29 pmIf you can show me the true optimum level of CO2, and not a scientific guess, then I will listen to those who think there is too much.
Shouldn’t you know this already if you’re going to cut someone up about what he says?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:32 pmBeefeater Says:
WHOOO HOOO!! Happy EARTH Hey! Who turned out the damn lights?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
The liberal in your house.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:34 pmGopny, do you vote for dimwits, like Shimkus, because you are a dimwit too, or because you are off your meds! Gopny, if you don’t take your meds, you will end up in five point restraint, in the lock up ward, for delusions of violence.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:35 pmjay Says:
If you can show me the true optimum level of CO2, and not a scientific guess, then I will listen to those who think there is too much.
Shouldn’t you know this already if you’re going to cut someone up about what he says?
March 28th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Why do you need an engraved invitation to educate yourself?
I am not a scientist. I don’t keep that information at the tips of my fingers.
If you find it for yourself, you will more readily believe the information.
Run along…
March 28th, 2009 at 8:36 pm——-
This “gopny” thing is not a human being with an actual soul. Best to not try to speak with it or reason with it.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:38 pmSo you don’t know Zooey. OBTW I’m a member here. I have been for quite some time. I’m not going anywhere.
You go on a have your “anything but the topic conversation” maybe someone else wants to talk.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:41 pm“It’s a wonder you still know how to breathe”, Mr. Shimkus.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:41 pmjay,
I just used the Google to find out what the optimum CO2 level is for Earth.
It’s so cool, I learned something new today!
March 28th, 2009 at 8:41 pmi find it interesting that those who fail to understand the reality of global warming and catastrophic climate change will still die from it just like us LIBS!!
hey, the universe has divine wisdom and one superb sense of humor after all.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:43 pmjay,
I never said you had to go anywhere. I was merely patronizing you.
I really don’t care how long you’ve been around here. You should know how to find that information — no one else made any assertions about the optimum CO2 levels.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:44 pmgopny, stay classy.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:53 pmThanks for letting us know where you’re from. It will make it much easier for the police to find you after we forward your I.P. address & your posting of death threats on this message board.
Thaaanks!
March 28th, 2009 at 8:54 pmZooey, I was trying to start a conversation without all the name calling and assassinations. I know how to find information. It’s good that I asked the question though, it seems my question brought out your curiosity and you went and looked it up. You did learn something today.
Did you know that 500 million years ago there was 20 times the CO2?
Of course it all depends on what scientists you get your research from.
And you did tell me to “Run along”.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:56 pmgopny, Enough already! I’ve been watching your comments slowly steaming. But you have gone too far. To us a favor and go on Red State. They will welcome you with open arms.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:56 pmThe gop pony has achieved distinction in that it one of the few posters here (all trolls, of course) whose posts consistently make less sense than chat’s.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pmNitrogen is plant food, too. Yet excess nitrogen is causing dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Oregon.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pmAnd can you tell us what kind of life the planet supported 500 million years ago?
Thanks.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:59 pmRep. John Shimkus’ brain has obviously been deprived of OXYGEN for too long.
…or maybe not long enough
March 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pmInteresting but all that nitrogen comes from the farms that grow our food.
Maybe we should do some research into how to recover that nitrogen and recycle it into more crops. A good use of funds I would say. How about you?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pmjay Says:
Zooey, I was trying to start a conversation without all the name calling and assassinations.
My apologies, it’s possible I’m suffering troll overload.
I know how to find information.
So why didn’t you just find it?
It’s good that I asked the question though, it seems my question brought out your curiosity and you went and looked it up. You did learn something today.
I learn something new everyday. It’s not all that unusual. The point is, did you find out?
Did you know that 500 million years ago there was 20 times the CO2?
Of course it all depends on what scientists you get your research from.
I do know that. Do you know why?
I get my information from reputable scientists. The ones who are not bought and sold by the energy companies. The ones who give a rats ass about their scientific and academic reputations.
And you did tell me to “Run along”.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
That was the “me patronizing you” piece.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:02 pmSome of these trolls are real shimkuses. Willful ignorance is one of the ugliest human endeavors.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:05 pmBoot To The Head!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFldBVWFgWo
March 28th, 2009 at 9:06 pmBut the Earth is only 6,000 years old, don’t you know that?? ( snicker snicker)
March 28th, 2009 at 9:06 pmgopny strangely silent after post # 46
????
March 28th, 2009 at 9:08 pmSHIMKUS: It’s plant food. … So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere? …
How does he figure plant life survived before the industrial age began?
Where is he getting his info? Maybe just pulling this out of his anus.
What an idiot.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:09 pm500 million years ago, the only plant life was algae. Most animals were invertebrate.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:10 pmAny idiot making up stuff and trying to pass it off as fact should hereafter be known as a shimkus.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:12 pmI can’t decide if this guy is an idiot, a dork of a tool? TOO MANY CHOICES
March 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pmTruth and facts send the moronic trolls running for cover like roaches from a light.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:17 pmCaskets and vaults deprive worms of food. However will all the good ol’ boys go fishin’????
March 28th, 2009 at 9:17 pmYes I did know. I read all the journals.
Of course it all depends on what scientists you get your research from.
There are many scientist investigating CO2 levels who are not employed or affiliated with the energy companies.
Do you patronize everyone you don’t know?
I don’t recognize this new Ralph Locust, is he the old Ralph or a new one?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:20 pmI’m still here. You want to talk or call names?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:26 pmHey kids, I AM A SCIENTIST!!! I work with medical gasses every working day of my life111Any of the gasses in our atmosphere including oxygen, nitrogen,argon, ozone and other trace elements become toxic in high enough concentrations. This blissfully arrogant, misinformed clown has what we in medicine call an anal-cranial inversion.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pmNo wonder the Repuglycans don’t do science. It hurts their itty bitty bwains.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:32 pmSo what you are saying is that you should be called “shimkus”?
What I posted was a fact (or what the scientists say)I’m not quite that old.. Look it up.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:32 pmAnother GOP rocket scientist showing off his 4th grade science education…
March 28th, 2009 at 9:35 pmWhere, oh, where do these people come from? Is there any chance at all their brains can be rewired? Nitwits!
March 28th, 2009 at 9:37 pmYou’re quite the “Scientist” with that post. And I’m sure you’re an expert on “gas” also. So the discussion is “what is the optimum CO2 level for the planet?”
March 28th, 2009 at 9:37 pmjay Says:
There are many scientist investigating CO2 levels who are not employed or affiliated with the energy companies.
No kidding?
I don’t recognize this new Ralph Locust, is he the old Ralph or a new one?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
They are the same. We are now the TP Insect Cabal.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:37 pmjay, I skipped your post and was commenting on the topic at hand, the remarks of Rep. Shimkus. Are you looking to sell some low bank ocean front property?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pmHey, everybody, jay made a funny!
Someone get jay an ice cream cone, okay?
And watch him. Last time he dumped it on his head.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm#
katy Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
ha! that’s MY guy!
the ped-o-phile enabler!
i think this info should have been included in this TP story:
[…] the downstate Republican was in rare form. Speaking to British global warming denier Lord Christopher Monckton, Shimkus made a novel argument that because plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, limiting our man-made carbon dioxide emissions would actually kill the world’s plants.
i wondered who that guy with the accent was, all proper and smart sounding! the rubes love that…
did you notice the guy to HIS right, with the chuckle and grin? he was in on the joke…
southern illinois is so pathetic… i can hardly stand it…
we need a hero here…
shimkus promised 2 terms only… i think this is 4 or 5…
March 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pmjay Says:
So the discussion is “what is the optimum CO2 level for the planet?”
March 28th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Cut the game playing. What’s your point? Do you have difficulty with scientists who won’t give you a hard and fast number?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pmNothing important to contribute? There is a “gas scientist” here. Your post was terribly intelligent I must say.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pmedit:
i think this info should have been included in this TP story:
March 28th, 2009 at 9:40 pm[…] the downstate Republican was in rare form. Speaking to British global warming denier Lord Christopher Monckton, Shimkus made a novel argument that because plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, limiting our man-made carbon dioxide emissions would actually kill the world’s plants.
Yeah, and I believe your contribution was that 500 million years ago, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was twenty times what it is today.
I asked you if you could tell us what kind of life that atmosphere supported. You kinda begged off of that question.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:41 pmSo jay, are you saying the earth is low on CO2?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:41 pmIt never ceases to amaze me how these pin-heads like Jindal and Shimkus can go from an elected representative to a punch-line in less than a paragraph. If more people inhaled toxic levels of CO2 there would probably be more registered Repugnacins. Maybe that’s his REAL agenda.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:46 pmMy comment was supposed to open a discussion on the CO2 levels and what is too much and what has it been in the past.
I don’t think any scientist, either pro warming or anti warming can actually say how much CO2 is a optimum level for the planet. There are some who say that 350 ppm is the optimum level of CO2 and there are some who disagree with that.
It’s like asking “How warm is too warm”? It all depends on who or what you are.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:47 pmDid you read that in my post somewhere?
March 28th, 2009 at 9:48 pmsave the plants now? Please. The guy’s looking for any reason to be against the green movement.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:48 pmjay Says:
My comment was supposed to open a discussion on the CO2 levels and what is too much and what has it been in the past.
I don’t think any scientist, either pro warming or anti warming can actually say how much CO2 is a optimum level for the planet. There are some who say that 350 ppm is the optimum level of CO2 and there are some who disagree with that.
It’s like asking “How warm is too warm”? It all depends on who or what you are.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
You’re not very good at this “opening a discussion” thing, are you? You know, if you’re more upfront about what you’re trying to achieve, you might get better results.
350 ppm is the current thinking for the optimum level of CO2, but that certainly is not carved in stone since we are constantly gaining more new information.
If you are familiar with the scientific method, you understand that no reputable scientist will ever give you a hard and fast number on anything. It’s simply not done. EVER.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:53 pmWarm is definitely too warm, like the sound of one hand clapping is too loud.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:54 pmIf 500 million years ago the planet was uninhabitable by modern human standards, then the CO2 might just have been a tad too high….How’s that.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:54 pmOne issue that needs to be considered when discussing global CO2 concentrations is the effect of the oceans as a carbon dioxide buffer. A drop in atmospheric CO2 will not have a major impact on plant life due to the availability of oceanic CO2 that can be released (analogous to a time-release capsule).
However, it is possible to overload the buffering capability of the oceans by dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere, and this is one of the concerns that climatologists consider when looking at long-term climate change projections.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:56 pmSo you agree with me then Zooey.
As for opening a conversation on this site goes, it’s quite difficult. Just look at what the other people are calling me. No substance just name calling.
The subject was about CO2. Since I don’t see any reason to call anyone names I wanted to discuss CO2 and what it means to the planet. Everyone knows (or should know) that plants cannot exist without it nor can any other living thing on the planet.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pmScience Republican style. Just look at the way they try to figure things out. See the way they twist the information to something they think they understand.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:59 pmJay…the scientific answer to your (deliberately over-simplified) question could is pretty clear actually;
If climate disasters are to be averted, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) must be reduced below the levels that already exist today, …to maintain a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, an optimum CO2 level would be less than 350 ppm — a dramatic change from most previous studies, which suggested a danger level for CO2 is likely to be 450 ppm or higher. Atmospheric CO2 is currently 385 parts per million (ppm) and is increasing by about 2 ppm each year from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and from the burning of forests”.
In the current context, WTF does it matter what the level was 500 million years ago, you troll?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pmC02 has twenty times the affinity for attaching to hemoglobin that oxygen does. Carbon monoxide has 210 times the affinity for hemoglobin then oxygen. The,”optimal level,” is less than two percent. Even an infinitesimal increase can effect any organism. I’m not even talking about thermodynamics!GOT IT JAY???
March 28th, 2009 at 10:01 pm10 Beefeater Says:
So beefeater, you have now spammed this in multiple threads. I wonder if anyone else sees how similarly ignorant beefeater and Shimkus are. They would actually protest something as benign as a day dedicated to trying to help the earth.
What kind of person would go out of their way to cause environmental damage to the planet we all share on a day dedicated to trying to help? A Republican.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pm“The subject was about CO2. Since I don’t see any reason to call anyone names I wanted to discuss CO2 and what it means to the planet. Everyone knows (or should know) that plants cannot exist without it nor can any other living thing on the planet.”
Perhaps it would help if you enlightened us as to your position, say relative YelanaVee at #90?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:07 pmNow that we are discussing things, how about 80 million years ago. The planet still had higher CO2 levels than today and the planet was flourishing with all kinds of life.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:08 pmYes, Jay, 80 million years ago, it was a paradise. What were those CO2 levels dinosaurs thrived on again>?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:09 pmjay Says:
So you agree with me then Zooey.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
If you are of the opinion that global climate change is not a problem because plants need CO2, then we certainly do not agree.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:11 pmJust a point of discussion. You have something against discussing things? Sorry if you’re going to bust a gasket over a simple question.
There is life beyond attacking people who you disagree with. You need to chill.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pm36 jay Says:
Why do the trolls here repeat that they are members here? A five-year-old can be a member here, it’s not rocket science. I also don’t know why they keep saying they aren’t going anywhere, no one ever asks them to go anywhere. Where would TP be without wingnut trolls to bash?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:13 pmWhat is the optimum human population of the earth? Just for the purposes of opening a discussion.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:15 pmjay Says:
… Just look at what the other people are calling me.
paranoid much?
i sure don’t see it…
March 28th, 2009 at 10:16 pm80 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period, when CO2 levels were 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm, the climate was very hot. Ice sheets had melted and sea levels were 120m higher than today.
Do you comprehend the meaning of 120 meters, Jay>? Been to Disney World in underwater Orlando>?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:17 pmJay,
You’re worrying more about being attacked than making your point — if you have one.
There are several outstanding questions pointed toward you above. Are you going to answer them or continue deflecting them?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:17 pmPlants need water. Does that mean we can ignore the flooding taking place in North Dakota?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:17 pmjb ! I know! Probably Zero, for the benefit of all the other species!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:17 pmJay, you’re trolling, not ‘discussing things’. What the CO2 levels were 500, 300, or 80 million tears ago is irrelevant to the current issue and I believe you know this. I you truly want to understand the issues, (which I seriously doubt) why not ask a scientist? What ask it here?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:18 pmNatural forces are stalling global warming.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
It seems to be a problem whith some people here. You do believe in the Freedom Of Speech, right? Someone told me to
“Move on”.
Levi, many have tried to run me off. I don’t really care about what ideologies people have here. I choose my subjects and try to discuss them without the name calling and belittlement that goes on. You know that Levi, we have talked before.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:19 pmIt’s a very sad commentary on our society when so many people can be completely dusted by a question that is taught in biology at the high school level. Maybe this just a reflection of Republican policy on education that we have had to endure since,”The class of ‘94 came into the majority in congress. Pudgy little Newt Gingrich who?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:20 pmZero kind of makes good sense, but I always imagined ONE, me, like some people think they will be the one to survive nuclear war or Global Climate Change.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pmShimkus’s problem is that he performed a lobotomy on himself. He should have left it to professionals.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pmmarwicky, from your link, I quote:
Two researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee say natural forces in the Earth’s climate have conspired to end a recent period of global warming, and they predict that temperatures will change little or drop over the next decade or more.
The findings of mathematicians Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis contradict the assumptions of many climate scientists – including a leading figure who spoke in Milwaukee on Wednesday – who say the planet is currently warming.
Swanson and Tsonis believe that burning fossil fuels will lead to higher global temperatures over the century.
But their conclusion of lower temperatures in the near term has been used by anti-global warming forces to argue that the consensus on climate change isn’t clear cut.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:22 pmoops….I meant ‘why ask it here’
And Jay, I’m chill. I gave you a clear and comprehensive answer to your question. If you take that as an ‘attack’, I’d say you’re the one with gasket issues.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:22 pmJay, please take the time to respond to yelena. Or go away.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:24 pmDid you read the topic.? That is why I asked it here. People should know something about what they are posting about. Plants depend on CO2. It is as essential to them as fertilizer.
How about it if I started the conversation as many do here, with insults? I’m not one of those people. I was easing into the subject very carefully and just look at your post. Why accuse everyone before you know them?
There is no way to try to enter into a real conversation on this site without being attacked by people like you and the others. If there is one then show me?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:27 pmShimkus should have got those bags under his eyes while working on the lobotomy.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pmJay, the questions to you are piling up. Stop playing the victim, and answer them.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:29 pmI trust that everyone here understands that plants need CO2 to survive and I think most here understand that that point is irrelevant to the current situation of Global Climate Change.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:30 pmYa right, G.O.P. science. Increased CO2 levels are good for plants AND TERRY SCHIAVO CAN TAP DANCE!!!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:30 pmI’m more of a man than you are. You’re here to antagonize liberals and I want to discuss things with them.
Where have you gotten with your garbage? I’m not like you pal and don’t care for you and what you do.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:30 pmjay Says:
I’m a member here. I have been for quite some time. I’m not going anywhere.
___________
There’s no such thing as a “member here”. I’m not even sure why you keep repeating that. It doesn’t have any validity. If enough people get tired of you and you get flagged often enough, you’ll be gone.
Think of it as “being voted off the island”… ;-)!
____________
It seems to be a problem whith some people here. You do believe in the Freedom Of Speech, right? Someone told me to “Move on”.
____________
As Hubert Humphrey once said, the right to be heard doesn’t necessarily include the right to be taken seriously…
BTW, your reply to Yelena wasn’t a reply. You ducked what Yelena said.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:32 pmWhen you have to take time to answer the attacks then the real questions go unanswered.
So what do you want to know? I’m not the answer man, just someone who would like to discuss things. I don’t need the third degree. When someone wants to talk to me instead of talk at me then we can proceed much better.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pmWhy do I get the feeling the name “Shimkus” is about to make its way into the vernacular as a rather rude noun for yer…
March 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pmjay Says:
When someone wants to talk to me instead of talk at me then we can proceed much better.
____________
Awww, geez, Jay… yer act is starting to fall apart.
Why are you ducking Yelena’s comment?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pmDoes Emily Post have a section on blog comment etiquette?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pmAnd flag me for what? I’m ten time more civil than 90% of the people here. You flag people because you get tired of them?
You are really something.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:36 pmAw Jay, come on, that’s just silly.
Plants depend on a certain level of CO2, and the world is producing too much. By your logic, bushfires should be uncontrolled because some Australian natives need fire to regenerate.
I’m just a newbie here, but shucks Jay, you’ve almost made me feel like one of the gang.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:36 pmI was easing into the subject very carefully and just look at your post. Why accuse everyone before you know them?
There is no way to try to enter into a real conversation on this site without being attacked by people like you and the others. If there is one then show me?
Jay, you’re not easing into anything. You’re trolling. Like I do for salmon. You won’t really ‘discuss’ anything, cause you got nothing. Why don’t you tell us your opinion on how much CO2 you’d like to have and how that affects the existing civilization and cultures in the world today.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pmSo, jay ol’ buddy, do you like your carbon straight up or on the rocks? Just trying to have a friendly discussion.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:37 pmJay, being civil gets you nothing if you’ve got nothing to say.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:38 pmWhy, is your homework due Monday? I’m not like you Pal. I was brought up better than to act like you do. I brought my kids up to be better than that also.
If you want to meet face to face then you will meet quite a different person.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:39 pmIsn’t it just a bit obvious that our earth and its atmosphere is too complex for a computer to model it with such accuracy that scientists could use it to spit out the exact amount of any excess of an element or elements necessary to cause damage significant enough to harm the environment to the point of causing massive damage?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pmI disagree. Jay certainly seems like a MEMBERto me!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pmI have said quite a bit tonight when allowed to. Zooey and I almost had a conversation going before the attacks began.
You sure added volumes to the discussion.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:40 pmStupid is, as stupid does!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:41 pmDumb Azz repugnicans.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:41 pmjay Says:
And flag me for what? I’m ten time more civil than 90% of the people here. You flag people because you get tired of them?
You are really something.
__________
Up yours. You come to badger people w/ nonsense.
You STILL haven’t answered Yelena. Afraid to?
People get flagged because the community here gets tired of them. It’s Democracy in action!!! You’re playing a subtle variation of “the concern troll” here and that’s all you’re doing.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pmjay Says:
I have said quite a bit tonight when allowed to. Zooey and I almost had a conversation going before the attacks began.
_________
Why are you afraid to answer Yelena?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:43 pmI agree but things should be considered on all fronts. Curiosity is a inherent in the human race. As far as I know we are the only species to ask the question “Why”?
Computers are nice but they can only be as reliable as the programming they receive.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pmjay Says:
When you have to take time to answer the attacks then the real questions go unanswered.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Which is the only thing you are succeeding in doing here. Not only do you NOT understand the scientific method, you don’t understand the meaning of irony.
Here’s your engraved invitation: Jay, please respond to the questions put to you by the commenters above.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pmRUCeriousDragonfly Says:
Jay, being civil gets you nothing if you’ve got nothing to say.
_____________
You can say that again, RU…
_____________
RUCeriousDragonfly Says:
Jay, being civil gets you nothing if you’ve got nothing to say.
_____________
Dang… you did!!!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pmJay doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to answer Yelena, Z.
He’s just trying to save face now.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:46 pmPelotonpro 048 Says:
I disagree. Jay certainly seems like a MEMBERto me!
____________
And UPSTANDING MEMBER, at that…
Silly me… I guess I’m just behaving like a real horse’s shimkus when I make comments like that, huh?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:47 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Jay doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to answer Yelena, Z.
He’s just trying to save face now.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
He’s not very good at saving face either…
March 28th, 2009 at 10:49 pmHilarious! Jay’s being trolled…
March 28th, 2009 at 10:49 pmOk, I was an English major in college and science wasn’t my strong point … but even I can tell that Shimkus said one of the most moronic things in the history of mankind. Right up there with “Yes, Mr Limbaugh, I’d like to give you the job!”
March 28th, 2009 at 10:50 pmyelena I said nothing about fires in Australia. I just asked a simple question. How much is too much? Do you have an answer? Many scientists don’t. Plants need CO2, a simple fact. CO2 levels drop in the winter and rise in the summer. So far that is the only scientific verifiable fact that the scientist do agree on.
Silly? Maybe to you I guess. Not to me. It’s very important to understand these things.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:50 pmSo, jay ol’ pal, what do you think we ought to do about this here carbon situation?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:50 pmZooey Lepidoptera Says:
He’s not very good at saving face either…
_____________
True, dat…
Practice, m’boy! Practice!
More roughage… less self-gratification!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:51 pmjay Says:
Silly? Maybe to you I guess. Not to me. It’s very important to understand these things.
______________
Wooooooooow… what a clever non-answer.
Just the sort of thing that’ll get ya flagged, jay…
March 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pmOT: If you need a change of pace, there’s a cesspool party at TheZoo. Just click on my name.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:52 pmZooey Lepidoptera Says:
Hilarious! Jay’s being trolled…
____________
I know… I’m feelin’ kinda… disoriented here…
Tres confusing…
March 28th, 2009 at 10:53 pmYou never answered my question about how you’d like it if the oceans were 120 meters higher, like it was 80 million years ago jay? Answer me dammit!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:54 pmI’m only one person and I’m getting questions from half a dozen people here. You try keeping up with it.
Nice post Zooey. I don’t need to save face with anyone. When I push the “Off” button, all you people disappear.
I’m not as insecure as most of you are here. I’m too old for that nonsense. Some day you will be.
Off topic attacks.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:54 pmIt is pathetic when moron a attacks troll b with the name calling and shit.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:54 pmSorry to interrupt a major troll infestation, but I’m just dumbfounded by the ignorance of congresscritter Shimkus. Some days I feel so hopeful for our future, then I read something like this and I want to just hit myself with a rock as many times as necessary to forget that rational people can seek to improve earth’s condition and still lose by a vote cast by someone who is apparantly far more scientificly ignorant than a bologna sandwich. Our founding fathers laid out the best blueprint for government to date, but what did they invision we would do with this guy?
March 28th, 2009 at 10:55 pmFacts are very easy to check. I’m a proud dem. but I fact check any information that doesn’t pass the smell test and NOT ON LIBERAL BLOGS. These trolls are afraid to check facts because their entire system of values is entirely dependent on cognitive dissonance theory. I hate it when I have to destroy someones entire intellectual construct.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:57 pmFirst we wouldn’t join in the discussion, now we ask too many questions. Oh dear, what to do.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:00 pmI’d have water front property. What do you expect me to say? It’s a silly question that has no bearing on the problems of today.
Hey I’d like to hear some input from all you wise people out there not just questions. I’m only one person and I’m not the answer man. Just a guy with questions.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:00 pmjay Says:
I’m only one person and I’m getting questions from half a dozen people here. You try keeping up with it.
___________
Sniff… sniff… I’m soooooo sorry, jay. I’ve been behaving like a real shimkus, haven’t I?
___________
Nice post Zooey. I don’t need to save face with anyone. When I push the “Off” button, all you people disappear.
___________
Is this Magical Thinking or what? “I cover my eyes and you’re all gone!!”
You’re how old?
___________
I’m not as insecure as most of you are here. I’m too old for that nonsense. Some day you will be.
___________
Riiiiiiiiiiight… if I’m not mistaken, jay has just declared himself the Winner!
Careful, jay… I heard gopny is waiting for you on the playground. Says he’s gonna take yer lunch money away from you. Called you a shimkus too!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pm80 million years ago the environment was very different and supported a different order (not in the taxonomic sense) of life. About 65 million years ago, for a number of reasons who’s relative importance are debated, the environment changed radically enough to virtually eliminate all that life. (changes of similar magnitude have been implicated in mass extinctions before and since but lets stay closer to the present.)
Homo arose long after that fundamental environmental change and was shaped by the relatively minor changes, and mass extinctions, of the last Ice Age. We are strongly implicated in many local extinctions as well.
The problem with the human penchant to destroy our environment and the exponential nature of environmental damage is we are facing the very real possibility of causing an environmental collapse not seen since the KT event. Sadly, it’s not just CO2 emissions and it might be unfortunate that that single issue has been politicized by people from all political camps.
But the undisputed fact is that we are disturbing the fundamental chemistry of the entire planet. That’s as dangerously stupid as giving a human a hydrochloric acid IV. Fundamental changes in the planets chemistry are connected, as a cause or an effect, to every mass-extinction in the planet’s history. One can throw in temperature changes but that’s just one way to measure the effects.
The truly sad reality is that political pissing matches about global warming seldom allow for discussions of the ample evidence that we stupid, greedy, humans are causing a mass extinction event that won’t slow appreciably even if the most drastic measures were taken to reverse CO2 emissions.
Anyone who knows anything about the history of life on Earth knows that mass extinctions ALWAYS hit the top of the food chain the hardest. And anyone with a little understanding of modern biological theories knows that humans are the undisputed top of the worlds food chain.
As adaptable as we are, there’s little hope that human civilization would survive a collapse of most of the Worlds ecosystems. We must stop allowing the people with the scientific savvy to possibly do something about these issues to be used as political props. And we damn well have to stop pretending that Exxon staffers are offering the freaks at FAUX a legitimate dissenting opinion.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:01 pmWiley says;
“Isn’t it just a bit obvious that our earth and its atmosphere is too complex for a computer to model it with such accuracy that scientists could use it to spit out the exact amount of any excess of an element or elements necessary to cause damage significant enough to harm the environment to the point of causing massive damage?”
er, no, not really.
By the logic above, it would therefore be too complex to send a man to the moon, or build an aeroplane, or a satellite, or a nuclear reactor, or….just about anything really.
Don’t forget that before coming even close to a hypothesis, scientists do a huge amount of hard research on the ground too…like measuring ice cores, correlating data from flora and fauna, geological surveys etc. Climate theory covers the whole gamut of scientific disciplines.
Just because many don’t understand the process, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pmYeah and if you have waterfront property today, you will have subsurface property soon. Silly question?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pmGreat post jb. Now do you have something to add other than posts to please your friends. You try fielding all the questions. Then answering post like yours.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pmIt would be hard, I’m very old.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pmGreat post. It really adds to the conversation.
Next!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:06 pmI’d have water front property. What do you expect me to say? It’s a silly question that has no bearing on the problems of today.
You were the one who asked about 80 million years ago.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:07 pmOur civilization is fragile. It is built on an economic model that touts that growth is good, no, essential. But there are finite limits to growth that consumes resources and pollutes our habitat. No animal shits in it’s own nest, except us. So in answer to your question, I’d say that the optimal level of CO2 is the one that allows humans to live and thrive, in balance with nature if possible. If not possible, I’d like to see the human population revert back to the numbers and lifestyle of the Native Americans, who seem to have had a good balance with nature.
Well, jay ol’ pal, please don’t take offense by my saying that the carbon issue deserves immediate action to slow the climate change that is upon us. We are burning too much carbon based fuel and cutting down too much forest worldwide.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:08 pmAs man has done since his existence, when the water come up you move. If you don’t then you had better grow fins in a hurry.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:08 pmPete, You make me very proud to be a Progressive!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pmYeah, lets relocate San Francisco to Kansas, that should work.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:10 pmJay said; yelena I said nothing about fires in Australia. I just asked a simple question. How much is too much? Do you have an answer?
Jay I answered you, way back in post 87. I also asked why you weren’t asking the experts this question, as they can give you very clear answers.
Re the bushfires; You suggest that plants need CO2, therefore all CO2 is good. By the same logic….certain native plants need fire to live, therefore does it follow that all fire is good?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:10 pmBy this logic, there was not human deforestation, no massive clearing of millions of acres. Just a case of trees, foliage, flora choking to death from the lack of man-made CO2.
This dipshit does realize that the land now called the United States used to be mostly forest and there were no cars, no factories, no coal burning, no huge herds of cattle farting methane, right? Oh, never mind…
PEACE
March 28th, 2009 at 11:11 pmAnd to address your other concern, jay. The unfortunate truth is that we humans are simultaneously emitting CO2 and destroying the vast tracts of plant life that could help hold it in check.
For plant growth to overcome the current problems we would have to redirect every human activity that destroys the ability of plant life to convert CO2 and replace them with activities which support plant growth. Can we just take it as a given that such a reversal of human industry would be far more catastrophic than switching to efficient electricity and transportation?
Anyway, part of the reason CO2 is rising so fast is that we have largely destroyed the planet’s natural plant growth. One of the many side effects that’s just becoming apparent is that the Worlds oceans appear to be absorbing CO2 and becoming more acidic. This is disturbing on lots of levels but there’s another factor that’s seldom brought up.
As water warms it can release CO2. So, the CO2 currently being absorbed could, as temperatures rise, be released again and add to a runaway cascade effect.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:11 pmThanks for your erudite post at #161, Pete.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:11 pmNow Jay, stop everything you’re doing and refute, point by point, what pete said.
Thank you for your kind consideration of said request.
No offense jb. I never said that it didn’t need attention. Not in all my posts. It was not the basis of my posts here.
Of course there were many who assumed that that was what I was saying. If they took the time to read what I said instead of playing “whack the troll” they would have seen that. That’s a problem here.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:11 pmFrom now on I do think shimkus should be used as a verb..as in “We were debating a solution and then he spoke up and shimkused the whole thing.”
March 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pmBeefeater Says:
Well that’s disapointing, … some bastid steals the 22’s off my Escalade! Bastids!!
___________
Schwinn makes an Escalade??? Who knew?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pmWrong answer Pete, but a nice try. The problem is with the premise that the humans are the top of the food chain. You aren’t. The insect group I represent is much larger in species, population and diversity. We are thankful for your shortsighted burning of fossil fuels, and welcome your brief visit to our planet.
We will adapt, evolve and live through this period, Sucks to be you.
The bright side is that the deniers like your buddy jay, will be history too. I am rooting for the jay’s of your world. Please, please ignore the 95 percent of scientists’ opinion and follow jay’s lead. Why delay things? You had your shot at the top, now go quietly like the dinosaurs.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pmOutstandingInAPlagueOfLocusts Says:
From now on I do think shimkus should be used as a verb..
___________
I can see yer point, but mebbe it can be both a noun AND a verb, no?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:13 pmjay Says:
Off topic attacks.
March 28th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
And all you do is off topic whining. You are a fraud.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:13 pmMy point, Yelena, is that we don’t need the exact figure to understand the threat. The threat is so great that it is best to err on the side of underestimating the amount of CO2 that is lethal.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pmjay Says:
Great post. It really adds to the conversation.
__________
It’s about on par w/ most of what you’ve said her tonight.
BTW… yer comment about hitting the off button?
That is akin to the kind of magical thinking small children engage in when they cover their eyes.
__________
Next!
__________
And when you do THAT – “NEXT!” you’re using my material. I’m the one who came up w/ that bit, in the fall of 2007.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
OutstandingInAPlagueOfLocusts Says:
From now on I do think shimkus should be used as a verb..
___________
I can see yer point, but mebbe it can be both a noun AND a verb, no?
___________
Sure, it works for sh*t and it’s roughly the same substance.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pmWiley 176; my apologies wiley, i misunderstood your post.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pmjb Says:
Yeah, lets relocate San Francisco to Kansas, that should work.
___________
Well, in all fairness… there are folks in both locales who DO enjoy dressing up and wearing ruby slippers…
March 28th, 2009 at 11:18 pmHow much alcohol is enough?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:19 pmCan I have 30 drinks in two hours?
I’m interested in all opinions.
Goodnight all. Dam I miss Sarah Palin. This human survival stuff is so serious that it’s disturbing, Do I have to start watching The O’Really? Factory to get my G.O.P. yucks?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:20 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Well, in all fairness… there are folks in both locales who DO enjoy dressing up and wearing ruby slippers…
March 28th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I know! Did you see that guy…?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:21 pmwiley Says:
My point, Yelena, is that we don’t need the exact figure to understand the threat. The threat is so great that it is best to err on the side of underestimating the amount of CO2 that is lethal.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
This is exactly my point to Jay.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:21 pmAt some level, I can understand the conservative’s logic behind most of their positions. I may not agree, but at least I know where they are coming from. But it absolutely baffles me as to why global warming has become a left/right issue. I am almost left with no rationale except we are smarter than they are.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:21 pmPlease, oh please do not be offended by my question jay, ol’ pal, but do you think any action is called for? Or are you only interested in asking the questions? It’s very very important that we know these things.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:21 pmI’ve spent 40 years watching the predictions of the best scientists be ignored and rejected, only to see them come true. All too often the most dire predictions have proven overly optimistic.
I’ve seen species extirpated from the woods and waters around my home. I’ve watched migration routes change. I’ve seen countless foreign invasive species take advantage of new environments caused by Man’s destruction of old ones.
I have also watched species be saved from extinction and seen new wilderness from land we had once stupidly destroyed. I’ve watched, from a distance, as the Great Lakes have gone from toxic waste dumps to growing fisheries, despite some bumps, by intelligent human endeavor.
We can halt and reverse the damage but, it won’t happen as long as we give credence to anyone who tries to claim any action is too drastic. No price is too great to continue life as we know it. And it’s stupid beyond recklessness to quibble about how much we are all entitled to waste.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:23 pmI hope no one minds me saying that pete is on fire tonight!!
Stop, drop & roll!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:25 pmI don’t disagree with most of pets post #154. Some parts are based on ideology but I understand that. People need demons.
Post #168 has many good points also. I disagree with blaming the increase of CO2 solely on man. There are many major sources of CO2 that not man made. I’d need some sources for his comments though in order to give them more consideration. To quote someone here many times “you just can’t say it, you have to prove it”. Of course that was a paraphrase of the statement.
What do you think about what pete says RU?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:25 pmPete is certain adding nicely to the discussion. don’t you agree, jay?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pmpete. how far would you go?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:28 pmThe Republic of Hymenoptera Stupidity Says:
Why do I get the feeling the name “Shimkus” is about to make its way into the vernacular as a rather rude noun for yer…
noun, verb, adjective…
i just hope it all sticks! i love it!
my own pet name for him is ’shitkus’…
(hope it’s ok that i joined in on the insect fun! thanks billo…)
March 28th, 2009 at 11:30 pmJay, how far would you go?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pmJay has, in the past, exhibited his desire for the conversation to be all about him. Don’t let that happen.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pmHow funny the trolls are fighting each other.
Oh, bye the way, as Ralph said earlier (have to give you credit) Pre-industrial ice cores have the CO2 levels of 275-280 ppm. Current CO2 levels are 390 ppm, 100 ppm higher! So, I would say the best CO2 level is around 300 ppm, close to pre-industrial lvels
March 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pmtry again…
March 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pmYes I do. He does have a strong bias though. My question is still the same. What is the optimum level of CO2 for the planet? Some say it’s 350 ppm and some say there is no way of saying if you look at the history of the planet.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:32 pmA link NOAA
March 28th, 2009 at 11:32 pmDe nada, Yelena. Sometimes I leave myself open with sloppiness.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:33 pmjay, I think pete is spot on. Thanks for asking.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pmYou sure are helping things along. Very nice post. You people make it all about me, Jane. I wanted to discuss CO2 levels.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pmjay Says:
——————————————————————————–
pete. how far would you go?
Christ on a croissant jay, last time I asked that question I got my mandibles slapped. Quit hitting on people, it makes you look cheap.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pmI’ve read the reports. Not an unbiased source though.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pmLooking at the history of the planet is the strawman here.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pmHuman civilization did not exist during most of the history of the planet, wouldn’t you agree jay?
Jay asks (again);
What is the optimum level of CO2 for the planet?
Answer (sigh, again);
March 28th, 2009 at 11:36 pmIf climate disasters are to be averted, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) must be reduced below the levels that already exist today. To maintain a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, an optimum CO2 level would be less than 350 ppm — a dramatic change from most previous studies, which suggested a danger level for CO2 is likely to be 450 ppm or higher. Atmospheric CO2 is currently 385 parts per million (ppm) and is increasing by about 2 ppm each year from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and from the burning of forests.
RUCeriousDragonfly Says:
Looking at the history of the planet is the strawman here.
Human civilization did not exist during most of the history of the planet, wouldn’t you agree jay?
___________
Oh come on… we ALL know the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark…
March 28th, 2009 at 11:37 pmBSG_dude, love your link from a page four years old, and when you hit the home button, here’s what’s displayed
This site will no longer be updated, but will remain archived. The last issue of NOAA Magazine was posted on August 2007.
Got anything more recent?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:37 pmWell, I wanted to discuss what a shimkus Rep. Shimkus is. That was the topic. I want jay to answer the question, “How far would you go?” before I die. I’m old you know.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pmjay Says:
I wanted to discuss CO2 levels.
__________
And there have been some EXCELLENT comments on that very subject which you REFUSE t o reply to.
Just the sort of behavior that’ll get’cha FLAGGED, Li’l Feller…
March 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pmThe industries that are financing the “global warming denial campaign” share the same unethical “profit at all costs” philosophy that has dominated the decision-making process of the tobacco industry as it repeatedly denied any health-related consequences of using their products.
Economic impact cannot be the sole factor in every regulatory policy of the U.S. government. Those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. We can no longer afford to be so short-sighted when the long-term consequences of our inaction are so great.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pmMy sources, jay, are taken from a lifetime spent intimately in tune with my environment and studying a range of topics far too vast to enumerate. Oddly enough, there’s little that can’t be found on Wikipedia. I often check their accuracy on subjects in which I’ve made considerable study.
I’ll make a few assumptions about your question “how far would you go“.
That’s the wrong question. The correct question is, “what do we change and how do we change it”. Then we ask what it will cost and how will we pay for it.
And please keep in mind that I strongly favor overall conservation and innovative technologies. The first favors everyone but the energy companies and the second will create new industries.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:39 pmpete Says:
We can halt and reverse the damage but, it won’t happen as long as we give credence to anyone who tries to claim any action is too drastic. No price is too great to continue life as we know it. And it’s stupid beyond recklessness to quibble about how much we are all entitled to waste.
__________
I’ve lived in the vicinity of TWo Superfund cleanup sites… the Sessler Farm and Evans Cosmetics in upstate NY… and you’ll have to EXCUUUUUUSE me if I err on the side of caution when it comes to environmental issues.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:40 pmBravo, Pete.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:40 pmHad fun here tonight Jay?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pmRUCerious Dragonfly, that is the heart of jay’s denial. The Gaia argument. Humans are insignificant, we are presumptuous to think that we can destroy Mother Earth.
And in a sense they are right, but the time scale is all dicked up. The earth will be just fine thank you, with or without humans. But if you care about the survival of homo sapiens, you had better care about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
BTW, your nymph phase is a b*tch to tie, but by far the best for the lunker trout.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pmDragonfly, since no one can tell you exactly how much alcohol it would take to kill you right now, don’t worry about it. Just increase the amount of alcohol in your body steadily until you pass out and hope you wake up.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pmAgreed. Man is just a tick of the clock compared to the history of the planet. We will be long gone and the planet will still be here. Over 90% of all species ever to live on the planet have gone extinct. I suspect we will be no different. As far as a species goes the Dinosaurs have us beat by millions of years.
Do I think we will be responsible for our own demise? Yes.
Do I think it will be caused by an increase in CO2? No. We will deal with that problem.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:42 pmPete
jay’s not interested in a real discussion. That’s why he chose something that’s almost impossible to calibrate meaningfully. You’ve made some EXCELLENT comments on the subject matter and he won’t touch them w/a ten foot pole.
He’s just a fraud… a concern troll.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:43 pmA much newer NOAA
But… according to Jay the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Organization (I.E. A governmental organization of the U.S.) is BIASED.. damn Jay is an idiot
March 28th, 2009 at 11:45 pmThe thing that we should worry about is that the rise of CO2 has started the relaese of CH4 (Methane) that is much a worse green house gas
March 28th, 2009 at 11:47 pmI told you! Goddamn, a prescient chigger. Who woulda thunk?
Here’s jay’s post, We will be long gone and the planet will still be here.
Read you like a book little guy. With HUGE font.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:49 pmMake no assumptions pete. It was an honest question to ask. I’m curious to know how far you would go? There are many things I would like to see done but not at the expense of destroying our society.
The personal experience argument usually doesn’t work when I use it. I’m always challenged to supply some sort of URL to back up what I say. Just an observation on my part.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:49 pmI have no idea what your post means. Is there a question or something here?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:50 pmjay,
IPCC, just a bunch of yahoos?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pmMust go work on tying a few Dragonfly nymphs.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pmjb Says:
Must go work on tying a few Dragonfly nymphs.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Kinky…
March 28th, 2009 at 11:54 pmYou will have to take me at my word, jay, when I say I’m not ideologically motivated in this discussion. I’m afraid that there’s no answer as to what the optimum CO2 level is. But, again, you’re asking the wrong question.
The problem is rapid change in atmospheric chemistry. Rapid changes in atmospheric chemistry can destabilize complex systems we are barely beginning to identify and understand. This is Climatology 101.
Paleobiology 101 would include copious evidence that abrupt changes in atmospheric changes lead too mass extinctions, as often as not.
Data available from numerous scientific disciplines will confirm that every organism on the planet, with the exception of some extemeophiles, has evolved to exist in a climate as cool as, or a little cooler than, today. During this epoch CO2 levels have been at, or a little below, those measured today and the best evidence shows that current levels are higher than any time in, at least, 150,000 years. (there’s more controversial evidence that CO2 is at it’s highest stable level in @ 800,000 years.)
March 28th, 2009 at 11:57 pmYou leave my nymphs alone! Unless they catch some delicious bass!!!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:57 pmIt doesn’t surprise me that the post sailed over your head jay, if you took the time to read posts other than your own it might make some sense. This blog is not all about you little guy. If you just read your own posts and giggle to yourself about how cute you are you won’t get much out of the exchange of ideas.
I pointed out that your argument is the Gaia argument, and sure as shootin, two posts later you verified it.
Look up the word prescient, then reread the last few posts. It’s not that hard if you apply yourself.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:59 pmIt is a Government agency that will not go against the mainstream. I have a Scientist friend who does research out of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and she explains the workings of NOAA very well.
BSG, name calling?
March 28th, 2009 at 11:59 pmNice to see you too, sockpuppet. Still the same ol’ same ol’ I see.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:01 amEver hear of weather control, folks?
See here.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:04 ampete Says:
The problem is rapid change in atmospheric chemistry. Rapid changes in atmospheric chemistry can destabilize complex systems we are barely beginning to identify and understand.
_______
Smartest thing I’ve read here recently. Well said sir!
March 29th, 2009 at 12:05 amYou must forgive me, jay. Much of my knowledge is from good ol’ fashioned personal research and field experience. But a lot of the theoretical basis is from a lifetime of voracious book collecting. A list of my sources would fill volumes in it’s own right and would be a real curse to keep current.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:06 amNo thanks. I use plain language. You want to say something to me then say it. I assure you that you won’t be the first.
It seems that everyone here thinks that it is all about me if you would take a look at the post tonight. They made it all about me when I made a simple little posts on topic.
Now you are here also making it all about me. Seems that you have the problem reading posts.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:07 amHere is a link.. to a Government Agency started by Nixon. so i hope its not to biased for ya jay.. EPA Climate Change
Started by a partisan republican, so it should not be to biased according to you
March 29th, 2009 at 12:07 amI think it’s so cute how jay completely ignores some of the comments that ask him direct questions or ask for information, and continually comments about his own feelings of victimization — and then proceeds to b!tch and moan that other commenters are making this thread all about him.
Astounding!
March 29th, 2009 at 12:11 amWhat about Ireland’s EPA. How about a presponderance of evidence? Or, are all government agency I have been linking to (Zooeys link to the IPCC as well) biased….toward reality?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:16 amIt’s nice that you read a lot. So do I. I like science of all sorts. I’m just a guy. My question was a simple one that no one seems to be able to give a specific answer to. It’s one of those questions for thought. I never said I was against lowering emissions but everyone assumed I was. They did that because I’m not a Liberal and they all know it.
My 500 million years ago comment was meant to go beyond the discussion by then moving to 80 million years ago levels and then 1 million years, one thousand and eventually to the present levels. It’s what research is all about but I was never allowed to go that way tonight. Too many attacks. Too much name calling and that’s what happens here.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:16 amjay, if I thought you were really here to discuss the topic and offer something I would engage, but it’s obvious you aren’t. Pete has offered some very valid points, and has been very tolerant of your refusal to offer any counterpoints. It’s very trollish behavior and frankly I would rather talk about RUCerious’ nymphs with their big bright eyes and slender shiny tails that undulate so gracefully….
But please, carry on with your mental masturbation and pretend that anyone here gives a shit about what you think.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:18 amZooey Lepidoptera Says:
I think it’s so cute how jay completely ignores some of the comments that ask him direct questions or ask for information, and continually comments about his own feelings of victimization
________
While I’m completely tired of the B O’reilly threads…whom does this bring to mind?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:19 amBoo Hucking Foo Jay. Go Shimkus yourself.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:19 amFar too many people base their opinions on what Limbaugh or Hannity have told them to believe rather than on the actual evidence that climatologists use to draw their conclusions. And it appears that most people have no clue about the difference between a scientific law and a theory. Some try to negate the power and validity of a theory by equating “theory” with “hypothesis”.
Scientific laws describe an event or phenomenon that occurs in a predictable way, i.e., a law states WHAT will happen.
Scientific theories are our best explanation for an event or phenomenon occurs based on the available evidence, i.e., a theory tells us HOW it happens. Theories have generally been subjected to rigorous testing and represent the consensus of the scientific community, whereas a hypothesis is a possible explanation and has not necessarily been extensively tested.
Calling something a theory does not cheapen or weaken it. On the contrary, the term “theory” gives it legitimacy as something that is scientifically testable and that has been rigorously examined to the point that the available evidence overwhelming supports it.
Climate change or “global warming” is factual and measurable; it is the mechanism or cause of the change that can be debated, but the available evidence overwhelming suggests a manmade cause, hence the label “theory” applies.
While it is true that climate shifts have taken place naturally in earth’s history, the alarmingly unique factor in the current trend is the RATE at which it is happening–many, many times faster than anything previously measured in ice core or geological/mineralogical samples that provide evidence of past climates.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:19 amThe global warming hoax consists of economists, government workers and 14-year old kids. There are a dwindling number of scientists still on board with you loons.
As a matter of fact, there are more scientists who disagree with you loons.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:21 amchingebushchigger, thanks, and here’s a (**blink**) of my 80,000 eye parts Hi!
March 29th, 2009 at 12:22 amI’m sure some may be but usually when a research foundation is dependent on the Government for its funds then they have a habit of coming up with the answers that the Government are looking for. It’s sad that most scientific studies are Government funded and there is a need to keep the funds coming.
I can show you a studies on both side of the argument. Are they any more reliable? You have to read both side and make a decision for yourself.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:23 amOutstandingInAPlagueOfLocusts Says:
Zooey Lepidoptera Says:
I think it’s so cute how jay completely ignores some of the comments that ask him direct questions or ask for information, and continually comments about his own feelings of victimization
________
While I’m completely tired of the B O’reilly threads…whom does this bring to mind?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Oy…Exley? Seixon? Mr Pee? Too tired…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:24 amWho was arguing Global warming? Not me? Who’s the loon?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:24 amI can show you cow turds that look like giant chocolate chip cookies, jay, wanna eat one?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:25 amYou should try reading what is being said. Pete and I are discussing things. You however are being the person that you are. I can’t help you.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:27 amRUCeriousDragonfly Says:
I can show you cow turds that look like giant chocolate chip cookies, jay, wanna eat one?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Check and mate, RUCD. :D
March 29th, 2009 at 12:28 ammarwick Says:
March 29th, 2009 at 12:28 am..whatever,
___
as suggested in the post prior to yours by the coherent labman57, can you prove any thing you said using the scientific method you were supposed to master by 10th grade?
Typical RHF sockpuppet comment.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:30 amYou hang in there RUCeriousDragonfly, another few thousand years or so and those 80k facets will turn into an eye you can be proud of. If an octopus can do it, so can you.
BTW, I thought 30 in two hours was history. que no?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:30 amyea republicans!
without comments like that, the rest of the world wouldn’t think we were the fattest, dumbest, and most utterly incomprehensible idiots ever to defy the concept of divine will; could god have intended republicans?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:31 amPete. Till the next time.
To all you others who think you’re doing the world a favor by attacking people, sorry I can’t help you.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:32 amchingebushchigger, the 30 was just a starting point for the discussion. My personal limit is zero per hour, having used up my lifetime alcohol allotment in my first forty years…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:32 amJay says; “I have no idea what your post means”.
Case closed
March 29th, 2009 at 12:33 amYou’re really adding to the discussion sockpuppet. Who’s hopeless.
Still angry about the Militia thing I see.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:35 amAnd to anyone who needs jay’s help ~ god help you.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:35 amJay says; “My question was a simple one that no one seems to be able to give a specific answer to”.
short term memory loss Jay?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:36 amIt’s not meant as an insult to say that “what’s the optimum CO2 level” is the wrong question. It’s an irrelevant question that has no answer. However, it’s a reasonable scientific deduction to conclude that the existing biosphere has evolved to exist in a stable environment within a few percent, in temp and CO2 level, of the extremes being measured today.
One thing is a pretty hard and fast rule though. The optimum conditions for a stable ecosystem are those conditions which remain stable. Destabilizing a system is always disastrous, it’s just a matter of degree.
That’s not political tripe. It’s informed scientific opinion. If one is truly interested in educating themselves, NASA, The National Weather Service, U.S. geological Survey, and the IPPC all have fairly comprehensive accessible data. They provide a good starting point.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:36 amyelena typaya semicristata vee Says:
Jay says; “I have no idea what your post means”.
Case closed
March 29th, 2009 at 12:33 am
jay says he reads all the “journals,” so I don’t know why he’s having a problem understanding your post. :|
March 29th, 2009 at 12:37 amZ, I’m sure those include the National Inquirer and World Globe.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:38 amRUCeriousDragonfly Says:
Z, I’m sure those include the National Inquirer and World Globe.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Ohhhhhhh…and Ladies Home Journal. I get it…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:40 amRUCeriousDragonfly, zero per hour was my understanding. I did and do admire you, that’s why your previous comment made me wonder.
This chigger needs to burrow under some skin and give it up for the night. Later.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:40 amOy…Exley? Seixon? Mr Pee?
Zooey, I didn’t think that Exley ever posted under anything but Exley. I’m thinking Mr Pee. Regardless, this is the one that TrajanIQ75 and I were wrassling with a few weeks back.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:40 amchingebushchigger Says:
This chigger needs to burrow under some skin and give it up for the night. Later.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Itchy, itchy….
March 29th, 2009 at 12:43 amYet if you ask any scientist to prove what the optimum level of CO2 for the planet they can’t give you an answer because there is no answer that can be proven. Projections and suppositions. The man made CO2 Hysteria has clouded scientific thought in this case. Of course it’s just my opinion. Scientist are supposed to prove their statements. That’s how science works, or have I missed something?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 amWell Jay, I would prefer to read studies that weren’t paid for by CO2 producers (as with every study, you should know who funded it), they have invested interest in debunking Climate Change, so who are your sources Jay?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 amJane E. Schneider Says:
Oy…Exley? Seixon? Mr Pee?
Zooey, I didn’t think that Exley ever posted under anything but Exley. I’m thinking Mr Pee. Regardless, this is the one that TrajanIQ75 and I were wrassling with a few weeks back.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:40 am
I have a hard time keeping them straight these days. The lack of self-awareness is stunning in these ding dongs.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:45 amjay Says:
I missed something?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Yes, you have missed the scientific method. Look it up, learn it, and then you will understand why scientists develop theories, not proof.
Sheesh…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:48 amrepugs are just plain stupid.
They also believe that too much snow is proof that there isn’t Global Warming.
How can these idiots get elected?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:48 amI read many sources including yours. I’m not aware of any Exxon studies though. It seems that many scientist are now saying that the planet is beginning another cold spell like in the 70’s. I remember the 70’s, “the global cooling, ice age threat”, how about you?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:51 amJay asks; ‘have I missed something?’
only the scientific bits Jay
March 29th, 2009 at 12:52 amI didn’t mention Exxon, youre hiding something arent ya, and where are your studies?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:52 amOh, and on the seventies, I was not born yet.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:54 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
You’ve MISSED EVERYTHING as USUAL… What’s HYSTERIA is the OIL FUNDED LUNATIC RESPONSE to CURRENT SCIENCE that YOU REPRESENT! Why are you SO AFRAID of FACTS jay?
Where are your FACTS little sockpuppet? I mean real facts, not Scientific opinion. An opinion is not exactly a fact.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:55 amOh, and the global cooling had little scientific support Even though I cant read the entire thing right now, the first sentence says it all
March 29th, 2009 at 12:57 amTime magazine June 24, 1974.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:57 amBSG_Fan Says:
Oh, and on the seventies, I was not born yet.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:54 am
See? That just makes me depressed. ;)
March 29th, 2009 at 12:58 amSee ya. You keep thinking folks.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:00 amClearly some folks have no clue how science works. Theories are based on the best empirical EVIDENCE available, not PROOF. The evidence either supports or fails to support the hypothesis or theory. Scientists never claim to have “proven” something through observation or experimentation unless they are confirming a fundamental scientific law.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:01 amjay Says:
I mean real facts, not Scientific opinion. An opinion is not exactly a fact.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:55 am
That clears up a lot about jay’s “thinking.” No wonder he ignores the scientific method — he’s incapable of understanding the concept.
DISMISSED.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:01 amOh, and a Time article is not necessarily “proof”
March 29th, 2009 at 1:01 amWhat labman57 said, jay — you f ucking doofus!
March 29th, 2009 at 1:04 amAlso during that time we were producing more SO2 (a Global Coolant) after the Clean Air Act was passed, we started to filter it out of the exhaust of our factories because of acid rain, thus the warming trend became unimpeded
March 29th, 2009 at 1:05 amIf your questions are genuine Jay, (which I very much doubt) read this scientific report and get back to us.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
Or of course you can read the reports by the 2500 scientists at the IPCC.
“I remember the 70’s, “the global cooling, ice age threat”, how about you?”
Although the ‘global cooling’ of the 70’s was widely reported by the media at the time, the vast majority of scientists were, in actuality, concerned with warming, even back then. Look it up.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:09 amJay; as posted in 293;
“There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”
March 29th, 2009 at 1:12 am#293
Yelana, I posted a journal article that says the same thing but ya know Jay doesnt care and aint going to read it.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:12 amOh, ya beat me to it
March 29th, 2009 at 1:13 amBSG says; Jay doesnt care and aint going to read it.
I know, couldn’t stop myself though.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:18 amAh jay. As a lark, and because this is a subject I’ve studied for decades, I sought to educate you. A vain effort but a worthy one. It sure makes me angry when I think about how many willfully ignorant cowards have been herded into wasting so much time giving BS consideration in scientific issues of life and death.
Don’t these people realize that we have flourished by ingenious exploitation of our environment and listening to our best minds when they say we are about to do something that’s going to kill a whole bunch of people?
We know the problem. The implications are dire. We know the worst possible case and we know the best possible case is little better. We know most of the causes. We know how to mitigate the damage caused by most of them. We know many of the effects we can slow or halt. And we have proven that sane environmental policies have dramatic positive effects.
We can’t afford to waste any more precious time arguing about the possibility that God wants more CO2 emissions or lax environmental regulations will hasten the Second Coming.
If one reads any reputable scientific publication, apparently some readers select their sources based on conformity with Conservative values, it is immediately obvious that human emissions are driving an imminent ecological disaster and we have the knowledge and ingenuity to mitigate the damage.
We can’t afford to wait for a major ocean basin to become a dead lake. We can’t wait for crops to fail due to man made changes in weather patterns. It’s quite bad enough that around a billion people could run out of fresh water in the next thirty years.
The best science has supported these facts for at least the last 30 years and, despite the odd lists of: oil company stooges, YECs, defunct weathermen, snake oil salesmen, frauds, and people who’s science degrees come from religious “schools”; the consensus becomes more clear and alarming almost daily.
The scientific community has provided every possible proof a reasonible person needs and still we are bogged down by people who are afraid to drive a smaller car or have to foot the bill for a rooftop solar panel to compete with the Jonses.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:19 amI never said it was a fact. It was 70’s hysteria. There are many scientist who are saying that we may be heading for a cooling trend now.
You people just do what you do. Try reading the posts. That’s what you keep telling me isn’t it?
I don’t suspect you will see anything other than what is pre conceived in your minds though. It must be dark inside a closed mind.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:20 amI earlier posted NO as Nitrous Oxide, the correct chemical formula is N2O. It is another greenhouse gas that is rising in ppm
March 29th, 2009 at 1:22 amPete. I didn’t call you names in any of my posts here tonight but it seems you feel it’s your place to call me names. That’s sad.
Maybe you can move beyond your need to please the others here and treat me with the respect I have shown you and your posts.
It doesn’t help your argument. It’s what is done here though and I kinda expected it.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:24 amIt is irrelevant to ask what the “optimum” level of CO2 is. We are able to exist because the current level of CO2 will sustain our particular lifeform. It is only logical to believe that altering that level significantly, one way or the other, could have an effect on the environment that could render it uninhabitable for humans. It is foolhardy to believe that human activities are not having an effect on that CO2 level.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:28 amIt is only logical to believe
And therein lies the problem.
The ’short-bus’ crowd ain’t all there when it comes to “logic”.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:30 amThe GOP, constantly reminding us it’s the party of knuckle-draggin, non-thinkers.
And judging by the retard-O-trolls here, there’s still at least a limited audience for such stupidity.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:32 amJay says; ‘There are many scientist who are saying that we may be heading for a cooling trend now’
But there just aren’t Jay.
Just because George Will and Charles Krauthammer repeat scientifically debunked climate denial talking points, does NOT make it true.
Go click on the supplied links, or actually read what others, like Pete, are saying. Cause you’re just wasting our time and it’s still a beautiful day over here in Oz.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:32 amI didn’t call anyone names. I said I was saddened that willfully ignorant cowards waste our time in hopes that you would choose not to include yourself in that group. Perhaps I let my passion for the subject convince me that it’s futile to waste even more time trying to be polite to people who appear to summarily reject all the documentation they’ve been offered with cries of “prove it”. If you choose to include yourself in that group? So be it. I did not intend to arbitrarily place you in that group.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:33 amHmm,
jay has been here since the thread was posted, OVER 5 HOURS AGO.
What’s your agenda?
LOSER???
March 29th, 2009 at 1:34 amNot even the most vehement supporter of capping CO2 emissions would waste 5 hours of their life wanking-off on a “Clean Coal” blog.
jay is a paid shill if there ever was one.
His ignorance and tenacity are quite telling.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:38 ampete, your passion for the subject enlightened the rest of us. I know it seems fruitless to try enlighten some folk, but the rest of us benefited from the illumination spillover. I thank you, and the new poster (I think) yelena, for providing me with food for thought.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:41 amall the best…
Let’s apply Shimkus logic:
LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF GARBAGE AT LAND FILLS WILL TAKE AWAY TOO MUCH FOOD FOR WORMS AND RATS.
REDUCING GUN VIOLENCE WILL TAKE AWAY TOO MUCH WORK FOR MORTICIANS.
RECYCLING WILL TAKE AWAY TOO MUCH TRASH FROM OSCAR THE GROUCH.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:47 amHas our guest bothered to read up on the implications of the alarming trends I and others have have pointed out at any of the excellent sources suggested or countless other independent sources in dozens of languages?
National Geographic and Scientific American, while not peer reviewed journals, are fairly reliable sources that laymen can appreciate. Nature is a step up and then we start getting into much more obscure professional publications that deal in cutting edge science modest intellects like mine are not able to grasp. Or at least depend on new theories my old formal education didn’t ground me in.
One may either accept the findings of others or research it for oneself. Every relevant, reputable, publication one can think of has volumes of evidence for what’s happening to our planet, mankind’s roll in recent changes, why we should stop it, and how we can stop it.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:52 amDNFP says;
jay has been here since the thread was posted, OVER 5 HOURS AGO.
and he’s threatened to leave about as many times too
March 29th, 2009 at 1:57 amFerchristssake!!! - Does this man have a vacuum in his cranium?????
I would say he’s retarded, except that would be an insult to retarded persons.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 am*
Well, everyone, Good Night, and Good Luck
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 amOutstandingInAPlagueOfLocusts says;
pete, your passion for the subject enlightened the rest of us. I know it seems fruitless to try enlighten some folk, but the rest of us benefited from the illumination spillover. I thank you, and the new poster (I think) yelena, for providing me with food for thought.
all the best…
Not as illuminating or eloquent as Pete, but I just couldn’t stop myself this time. (I usually just quietly observe here. Watching the rest of you trollsmash is a thing of joy and beauty).
March 29th, 2009 at 2:11 amBefore I forget. There is pretty convincing science which suggests that the “cooling trend” of the first two thirds of the twentieth century was due to the exponential rise in particulate emissions causing a global dimming effect.
Ironically. Improved burning technologies, that capture many of the particulates that were once released by inefficient combustion and lack of scrubbing technology, may be a cause for some of the more alarming temperature spikes of the last half century. it’s not impossible that some future emergency measures may include the intentional release of inert particles.
Unfortunately, the exposed dirt on exposed, melting, ice is compounding current disturbing trends.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:12 amyelena typayasemicristata vee Says:
Not as illuminating or eloquent as Pete, but I just couldn’t stop myself this time. (I usually just quietly observe here. Watching the rest of you trollsmash is a thing of joy and beauty).
March 29th, 2009 at 2:11 am
You did great, yelena, I’m glad that you couldn’t stop yourself. And jump right into the trollsmashing any time, it’ll give ralph, dbadass, TRoS and the rest of the regulars a much-needed break.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:35 amWatching the vid it could be taken shimkus is mocking the brit.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:37 amBSG_Fan Says:
Oh, and on the seventies, I was not born yet.
Damn you missed a hell of a ride. ;)
March 29th, 2009 at 2:40 amAny dumbass would side with caution.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:45 amjay Says:
You are still a punk J you want to call others sockpuppets then snivel and whine that YOU are called names
March 29th, 2009 at 3:19 amJane E. Schneider Says:
I’m glad that you couldn’t stop yourself.
aw, thanks Jane
March 29th, 2009 at 3:23 am.
Hi yelena…
.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:45 amMax Anax junius -1 Says; Hi yelena
hello
March 29th, 2009 at 3:55 am.
SORRY OT but…
Detainee’s Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say
By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01
Link HERE>>> Washington Post
NOTE to TROLLS:
No longer can you claim the TORTURE program saved lives!
Just because Assassin Cheney said so, doesn’t make it so!
.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:01 amNeed help with Jay?
March 29th, 2009 at 4:04 amWhy would you talk about other peoples close minds when you have an empty head Jay?
March 29th, 2009 at 4:05 amDas is verflucht!
Actually, you can prove that global warming is not a hoax simply by noting that the global-warming proponents are not behaving a bit like hoaxers.
When a hoax is revealed, the hoaxers usually retreat forthwith. Since there’s nothing to back up the hoax, they have little more to say.
But the atmospheric scientists, government workers, and 14-year-old kids who tell us about global climate change are not backing down, as hoaxer would.
On the contrary, they are sticking to their guns, doing more research, and issuing new studies constantly–mostly indicating that global warming is far worse than they intially thought.
A child can tell you this is not the behavior of hoaxers. The story falls apart at a glance.
Each of the global warming deniers, by contrast, has his/her own crackpot theory about what’s going on. Some say the earth is not warming up a all. Others admit it’s warming up, but disagree on the cause. The deniers can’t even get their story straight.
Now that’s how hoaxers act.
Mr. Logan takes refuge from reality in his Magic Book
March 29th, 2009 at 6:29 amTrolls!
Do you believe freon and aerosols damaged the ozone?
March 29th, 2009 at 7:34 amThe Human Race Dodged a Bullet.
Through the Serendipidy of Scientific Progress ( and the Realities of War)…We Humans launched the Space Program…and this lead to the DISCOVERY of the OZONE Layer.
This Beneficial Ozone Layer Keeps Deadly Radiation, eminating from outer Space and the Sun, From Killing All of us.
Freon and other Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Catalyze the protective OZone layer out of existence.
Fortunately , We Discovered these “Holes” in the Ozone Layer, and Stopped releasing Chlorinated Hydorcarbons into the Air.
So…if our Great Grandmothers had used Refrigerators instead of ICE Boxes….before World War II and Space Exploration…We Would ALL BE DEAD.
Cautionary Tale…
March 29th, 2009 at 8:27 amWhat RHF? You don’t like me calling you a sockpuppet sweetie.
It’s what you are. You need to get new material. You’ve been posting the same crap for years now.
Who’s the moron?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:37 amA response from a person with a closed mind. It must be dark inside a closed mind?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:39 amMax Anax junius -1 Says:
.
SORRY OT but…
Sooooo OFF TOPIC.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:40 amThat’s between me and her Eugene. It goes back a ways to her slander campaign against me. She’s still at it but that is what you people do here right?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:43 amYou jump right in. That is what you people do here right?
It must be dark inside a closed mind?
March 29th, 2009 at 8:45 amAre you suggesting that we pollute the atmosphere with particles now Pete?
The number one contributor to Global warming is water vapor and cloud formation. More particles in the air, more clouds. I think that’s how it goes.
Formation of Clouds
March 29th, 2009 at 8:53 amClouds are formed when air containing water vapor is cooled below a critical temperature called the dew point and the resulting moisture condenses into droplets on microscopic dust particles (condensation nuclei) in the atmosphere.
Jay has a way of posting things just like Bcup how intresting.
I must ask tough you claim that it’s simply scientist opinion, while using your “scientist opinion” as a fact?
So basically you don’t believe in anything scientist says?
Except those with the same believes as you?
I really don’t understand what you were trying to prove here.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:57 amThat you read a articale in the 1970s?
What was your point?
Is there any possible way of “capping” GOP ignorance and denial?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:02 amFirst, I’m not your li’l Feller and second thing, I’m only one person trying to answer all the attacks of the many here.
If you “Very Smart People” could refrain from all the name calling and personal attacks, I would be able to respond to more posts. It’s not possible to answer all the posts thrown at me, read all the web sites and keep up. It’s just not possible. You go threaten someone else with your rhetoric.
Of course that is a tactic used here all the time. It’s what you do here, right? Why don’t you flag the nonsense attacks that are not on subject? No you couldn’t do that, it’s what you all come here for.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:05 amI think so. Right after they cap the Liberal ignorance and denial.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:07 amAfter reading all the posts from last night, I would like to thank Pete and all the others for the great info. Climate Change/Global Warming is the biggest challenge the human race faces. Sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring it is not a option, all our lives depend on it. Thanks again to all the sane posters.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:10 amI’m someone who reads what is being written on the subject and forms his own opinion. You attempt to put words in my mouth have failed. If you can understand the English language then you would have seen that I referred the 70’s thing as Global Cooling Hysteria, not fact. RHF couldn’t read English but she only sees what she wants to see like many others here.
Are you one of them?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:12 amMy original post had nothing to do with Global Warming. It had to do with the levels of CO2 and what the optimum levels are.
You people here turned it into a Global warming thing, not me.
I also enjoyed Pete’s posts. He was almost trying to discuss things with me but eventually his posts turned into Global Warming hysteria. It’s always interesting to read what the “Doom and Gloomers” have to say.
He never answered my question though. Pete, how far would you go? Simple question, yet no answer.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:18 amIt is interesting that “conservatives” would spend valuable Sunday time in Liberal blogs defending the lunatic ravings of Shimkus, Bachmann, Limbaugh, and O’Reilly. Is there any real wonder why the GOP are becoming a party struggling to keep their hold on that shrinking region of Appalachia?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:19 amJay, so in the context of this thread, why would you bring up a red herring like 70’s global cooling if you knew it was bunk? Also as a person who lived threw the 70’s I don’t remember any hysteria about global cooling. If I remember correctly, the article was first printed in Popular Mechanics, not exactly what I would call a science journal.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:22 amNow you all go “Blog” among your selves like you always do. The name calling and other liberal crap that you do after someone you attack is gone.
I’ll check back later for the laughs. There are so many intelligent people here.
35 posts after I left last night calling me names. Not a record, I’m sure you can do much better. It’s easy to stroke each other than to treat people with respect.
I understand. You are what you are.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:25 amYour friends directed the discussion in that direction, not me.
You go and read things from the beginning. Maybe you would understand things a little better.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:28 amjay, I didn’t call you any names, and asked you a simple question which you failed to answer. Why come here, if you can’t or won’t debate? It seems to me all you are looking for is to piss people off to the point that they give up on you and start calling you what you seem to be.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:29 amjay I read things just fine. It was you who brought up this BS, not some other poster. God man, stand up for your own posts.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:30 amI thank you for not calling me names like everyone else did here. I answered your question in the wee hours of the morning and I’m not going to start it all over again. It’s all there, go read it.
I tried to debate with the people here for 6 hours and was bombarded with attacks from a half dozen people all at one time. It’s not possible to debate with that much deflection going on.
It’s the “whack the troll” game that is played here. You know that.
There are many who block any kind of debate when it doesn’t come from the same ideology.
Just go read it.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:34 amjay,
change yer tampon lil pussy.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:34 amI see that you didn’t understand what happened.
So be it.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:36 amThat’s an intelligent post. YUP.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:37 amjay, I give up. You are not worth the time or energy. You have no grasp of the issues, and it seems you are not willing to educate yourself either.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:41 amjay Says:
It’s the “whack the troll” game that is played here. You know that.
There are many who block any kind of debate when it doesn’t come from the same ideology.
Just go read it.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
__________
Who is this idiot and where did he come from? This is the most pathetic trolling I’ve ever seen.
Seriously, the RNC must be having trouble recruiting. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:41 amjay,
you don’t come here to debate.
you’re a fcuking lying, taunting, moronic Conservative “bullshit” fluffer.
i think masochism is your hobby.
and ignorance is your forte.
GO TO HELL, do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars…
March 29th, 2009 at 9:41 amJay is an outstanding example of how the right-wing media manipulates it’s minions. Find ONE scientist that agrees with theirPOLITICALagenda. Ignore the scientific consensus, which is the way the scientific truth is determined! By consensus! Whenever the Dubaya administration had an agenda-on, they would attack other federal agencies and even their own appointees! Anyone who threatened to spoil the party was criticized, marginalized or dismissed. THESE GUYS CAN’T HAVE A SERIOUS DIALOGUE AMONGST THEMSELVES! Don’t expect them to come to THINK PROGRESSand do it. Jay and his ilk come here for one reason; We are more tolerant of two-way discourse than their own party. You can come here and disagree and there is no one sitting three feet away from you yelling,”Cut His Mic,” Like we have seen on,”The O’Really? Factory,” and all the A.M. trash talk shows where dissenting opinions are never heard!
March 29th, 2009 at 9:45 amSo what you’re saying is that If I don’t believe as you do then I’m not worth talking to.
Fine. It’s statements like yours that really want me to change my mind. I have a pretty good grasp of the issues, they just don’t agree with yours.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:45 amLike I said,
There’s a VERY limited audience for ignorant GOP talking points.
Jay wears her stupidity on her sleeve, proudly.
GOOD GOOPER JAY, GOOD LITTLE GOOPER!
If you started showing signs of independent thought, your GOPTROLL card would have to be revoked.
(and what’s with the trend of female trolls adopting male names and vice-versa? I smell homo-curiosity, and it looks delicious on the Conservatard.)
March 29th, 2009 at 9:45 amjay Says:
So what you’re saying is that If I don’t believe as you do then I’m not worth talking to.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:45 am
____________
You’re not. No science denier is. Anyone who denies science obviously has no grasp of reality, and it is thus pointless to attempt any sort of reasoned discussion with them.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:46 am(and I see they’re still paying per post over at GOPtard central.)
Good boy, er girl, jay.
Or should we just call you “herm”?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:47 amJust keep in mind that this thread was about an idiot Republican (Shimkus) saying idiot things.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:47 amAbove the Clouds Says:
Just keep in mind that this thread was about an idiot Republican (Shimkus) saying idiot things.
Ms. jay’s presence is an all to constant reminder…
March 29th, 2009 at 9:48 am#
Pelotonpro 048 Says:
Jay is an outstanding example of how the right-wing media manipulates it’s minions. Find ONE scientist that agrees with theirPOLITICALagenda. Ignore the scientific consensus, which is the way the scientific truth is determined! By consensus! Whenever the Dubaya administration had an agenda-on, they would attack other federal agencies and even their own appointees! Anyone who threatened to spoil the party was criticized, marginalized or dismissed. THESE GUYS CAN’T HAVE
Very intelligent post from you Pelo. So much hate. I don’t think I mentioned O’Reilly once here but you seem consumed with the guy.
Hate can be all consuming and ignorance is the most expensive commodity in this country. It must be dark inside a closed mind?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:49 amYou mean to say it was a cut up of a Republican and one sided.
That’s what TP does here.
I thought a discussion about CO2 was in order. You should have some type of knowledge of why you hate people.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:50 amKeep em coming Ms. jay.
The World is a lonely place without moronic fcukwits proudly displaying their ignorance.
I’m in awe…
March 29th, 2009 at 9:51 amAnother intelligent post. You must really work hard at it DNFP. Don’t hurt yourself now.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:53 amJay says :
I’m someone who reads what is being written on the subject and forms his own opinion. You attempt to put words in my mouth have failed.
Are you one of them?
The part that you’re responding to here:
So basically you don’t believe in anything scientist says?
Except those with the same believes as you?
Is because you said “I’ve read the reports. Not an unbiased source though.”
read post 203
“It is a Government agency that will not go against the mainstream. I have a Scientist friend who does research out of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and she explains the workings of NOAA very well.
”
Read post 231
And that was right after you told Pete at
post 222
“The personal experience argument usually doesn’t work when I use it. I’m always challenged to supply some sort of URL to back up what I say. Just an observation on my part.”
So again I’m asking what was your point?
IMO You’re kicking your own ass.(no offense just a observation)
You’re claiming the reports we linked are biased(your opinion)
because you’ve a “Scientist friend” that told you otherwise.
(using your logic)
Since you claim Scientist are simply saying their opinion,I wonder why you put your Scientist friend opinion higher then the reports of others?
bias?
Oh and please note I’m simply asking a question, no need to flip at me like post 365
March 29th, 2009 at 9:53 amIt’s not TP’s fault Shimkus is an idiot.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:54 amIt must be dark inside a closed mind?
You say this so often, you must speak from experience.
Judging by the immense amount of ignorance coming form you, not much has changed inside that tiny head.
Here’s a nifty experiment even the most fundamentally intellectually challenged can try it.
1. go into closed garage containing one automobile
2. start the engine and pull up a chair
3. sit until you pass out and die
4. then determine the “tipping point” for CO2 density in the air which caused you to pass out
5. get back to us with results
(even I can play the GOP ‘retarded scenario 101′ game, but in this case, we all win)
March 29th, 2009 at 9:57 amOh yeah, I forgot that one, Characterize disagreement as hate!
March 29th, 2009 at 9:57 amI’ll simplify it for you. When you depend on Government money for your research you have a tendency to say what is expected to be hear to keep the funds flowing.
Is that simple enough. I never said that I don’t believe scientists, that is your assumption not mine.
As far as my friend goes, she is inside the loop so to speak. She sees how the money is kept flowing. It’s not rocket science (pun intended).
Do you read a scientific report without seeing if there is an opposing report on the subject? I don’t.
I don’t flip at people like you say. You really need to read the attacks thrown at me. They are constant and relentless by your friends here. It doesn’t come from me it comes from them. That is what they do here. You know that.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:03 amOh and please note I’m simply asking a question, no need to flip at me like post 365
Stop trying to play nice with ms. jay.
Her tampon is stuck, and she’s dying form “Toxic Shock Syndrome”, but believes it’s a left-wing conspiracy theory so she’s not too concerned. She’s chronically obsessed with Al Gore (watch her explode after this post).
Let’s all pray for her quick recovery, or demise, whichever comes first.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:04 amA brilliant post DNFP. Pulitzer stuff for sure.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:06 amJay says :
I’ll simplify it for you. When you depend on Government money for your research you have a tendency to say what is expected to be hear to keep the funds flowing.
That’s where the part about “Peer Reviewed” comes in to play. I honestly don’t think you have a good understanding of what Science is.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:07 amDuh.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:10 amPoor Jay, she had to stay up and write a bunch of posts to paste here this morning. She will probably leave soon to go worship her invisible shy god.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:11 amWow! It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant many of our representatives are. He is up there with Inhofe.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:13 amjay, my little Contard princess.
Did you sleep well? We’re you busy slaying dragons?
Up so late, defending the indefensible, and now, up at the crack of dawn!
Your presence here and your ignorance are quite compelling, if not fascinating.
However, in the end, you still need to just GET A LIFE YOU FCUKING LOSER!
The one you’re living here isn’t worth the toilet you drink from.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:14 amShe will probably leave soon to go worship her invisible shy god.
Before or after trying to copulate with her bolt-action rifle?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:14 amGod jay, you really don’t have a clue. Most research is not funded by government money alone. Most scientific research done in this country is a combination of government and private funding and your friend should know that. Most funds are dolled out by scientific boards and not government persons. The only thing that keeps the funds coming is results in the research.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:15 amYes, I’m glad you brought up “Peer Reviewed” Badger. There are many who disagree with what is being reported but it is dismissed by narrow minded people here because it doesn’t fit into their beliefs and ideology.
Getting back to Government sponsored funding. To quote my friend at Woods Hole, “All you need to say is, there is something going on here that needs more study, and then back it up with some numbers”.
That keeps the money flowing. Now if you were to say that “it might not be as serious as we first thought”, then you are replaced by someone else.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:15 amI of course meant to say sky god, but shy god works too. I’ve never seen her myself, that sky god, so maybe she is shy!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:15 amNow who is the naive one here?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:16 amjay, the little GOPtard princess of stupidity.
Keep posting honey, the free entertainment is truly priceless.
And the retard-O, convoluted logic (ignorance of scientific method, lying and obfuscating) is quite Limbesque.
Go on…
March 29th, 2009 at 10:18 amA good one DNFP as are all your others. So very wise and intelligent.
Your language is right out of that toilet bowl that you are so familiar with.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:19 amLady jay believes that the Shrub government was funding Climate Research???
DO TELL!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:19 amIts you who are naive here. And your friend may have forgotten to tell you that a lot of the funding at Woods Hole are private funds.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:19 amWonderful stuff DNFP. You’re on a roll today.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:20 amNice obfuscating d o u c h e bag.
Now, exactly what research was Shrub’s government funding.
We’re waiting with baited breath…
…
…
. . .
. . .
. . .
March 29th, 2009 at 10:22 amI know but they do have to depend on the Government for much of it also.
It’s a game that they all play. How do we qualify for more funding? They all play it.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:22 amjay Says:
Yes, I’m glad you brought up “Peer Reviewed” Badger. There are many who disagree with what is being reported but it is dismissed by narrow minded people here because it doesn’t fit into their beliefs and ideology.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am
__________
There are many who disagree with the heliocentric model of the solar system, or with the fact that the Earth is flat, or the fact that the planet is 4.5 billion years old. Just because someone has their own crackpot conception of reality doesn’t mean they deserve equal time in the public sphere.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:23 amWhy don’t you put the excellent brain to work and find out for yourself. As Zooey would say, “you learn better that way” (paraphrasing her of course)
March 29th, 2009 at 10:24 amJay is such a smart gal with all her science knowledge isn’t she? I wonder if she could explain the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum to us today.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:24 amDo you know what it is?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:24 amEvery post by Ms lady jay lifts here skirt another inch, exposing the horribly ugly truth beneath it…
But I love the classics. Tragic Irony at it’s best.
Go on, we’re waiting for more zingers from the GOPtard pimp lady…
March 29th, 2009 at 10:25 amjay Says:
I wonder if she could explain the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum to us today.
Do you know what it is?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:24 am
_________
Yes. A modified poison pump.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:26 amYou deal in the zingers don’t you? Lets hear what that magnificent brain can come up with next. You’re so good at it. It’s amusing. Don’t hurt yourself though. I wouldn’t want you to do that.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:27 amThere are many who disagree with what is being reported
C’mon Jay,,,
The OVERWHELMING number of Scientists who actually STUDY Climate, agree that we should Worry about CO2 Levels, that their are the result of Human Activity, and that We should DO SOMETHING about it.
And how MANY of the “Many who disagree” are funded by the fossil fuel Industry??
March 29th, 2009 at 10:27 amBadger Says:
You see Badger. You make my point. Any opposing view is being “funded by the fossil fuel Industry”.
Thanks. It shows your mindset.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:31 amjay Says:
I know but they do have to depend on the Government for much of it also.
But you failed to mention that during your whining rant.
Again, you’re a lying bullshitter, nothin’ but a total fcuking lying bullshitter.
And still paid per post…
March 29th, 2009 at 10:32 amC’mon DNFP, you can do better than that.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:34 amJay…
I NEVER Said that. I asked “How Many??”
And excuse me, if I Think the answer is “MOST”.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:34 amjay Says:
Getting back to Government sponsored funding. To quote my friend at Woods Hole, “All you need to say is, there is something going on here that needs more study, and then back it up with some numbers”.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am
______________
So? What scientist is ever going to say “well, that’s it – this is the most definitive study on this topic that will ever be created and no further research will be needed ever.”
None. Because there’s ALWAYS more research to be done, there is ALWAYS more to be discovered, there are ALWAYS more aspects of a theory to be analyzed.
Is this self-serving? Perhaps. Nobody wants to write themselves out of a job. But that is no reason to assume that the actual data is flawed, and that’s all that matters.
The overwhelming preponderance of data points to the conclusion that global warming is real, it is occurring now, and it is very likely due to human activity. A handful of studies that point to different conclusions don’t discount the consensus – they just add some additional details to the models.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:35 amAre you gettin’ a little hot under the collar DNFP.
I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:35 amjay, you really don’t have a clue how research projects are funded do you? You have no idea who or what it takes to get a research project funded, be it private or public funds. You seem to think that the government decides what projects are funded and which ones aren’t. Moneys for research are allocated threw scientific depts and boards. The government will allocate money to a field of science, but not what the projects will be or what the results are. That is up to the dept heads and or scientific boards of the colleges, where most of the research comes from.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:36 amThanks for helping me make my point.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:37 amJust a question, but why is it that with all the research, we still don’t have concrete evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases? We are basing concrete laws that are affecting people’s jobs and real lives on a theory that we can’t prove. The man made global warming scare is already taking away jobs and hurting families. I wouldn’t want to have responsibility for that based on a theory. The new system of “cap and trade” will also raise energy prices to unprecedented levels. Obama admitted that his plan will “necessarily bankrupt coal power plants.” I’m not a scientist who studies climate change, but I think we should have better information before we execute a whole industry’s jobs.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:38 amjay Says:
Thanks for helping me make my point.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:37 am
___________
I didn’t. I destroyed your point. Do explain how the ongoing need for more research in any way affects the data being presented. Or did your friend not explain that part to you?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:39 amstupid, poor little fcuktard jay:
Think FOR ONE FCUKING second on this:
A research group, partially funded by the U.S. government has evidence of climate change. How much money do you think they’re getting from the Fed, 5 million, maybe 10? And when and if the evidence is proved, research ends, funding cut off.
A research group, partially funded by the Coal or Oil and Gas industry studying climate change has A LIFETIME OF PROFITS AT STAKE.
You see moron, your argument is what we call a “staw man”.
The financial need for private research funded by the Govt. to find probable cause is a thousandth of a fraction of the funds the fossil fuel industry stands to lose by NOT fighting tooth and nail against the truth.
Before you stand out on a limb and cry “debate”, you might want to find a group of idiots even dumber than you.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:39 amjenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
Just a question, but why is it that with all the research, we still don’t have concrete evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
____________
We do.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:40 amThe shorter version of my post#433
JAY IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND DENIER OF THE TRUTH.
CASE DISMISSED (LOST CAUSE).
March 29th, 2009 at 10:42 amJay say:
I’ll simplify it for you. When you depend on Government money for your research you have a tendency to say what is expected to be hear to keep the funds flowing.
So even if it’s true you wouldn’t believe it because it’s government funded correct?(that’s a typical conservative logic I guess)
Basically we wouldn’t get anywhere on that point so let me move on.
Is that simple enough. I never said that I don’t believe scientists, that is your assumption not mine.
Read post 280 your respond to It’s informed scientific opinion
”
Yet if you ask any scientist to prove what the optimum level of CO2 for the planet they can’t give you an answer because there is no answer that can be proven. Projections and suppositions. The man made CO2 Hysteria has clouded scientific thought in this case. Of course it’s just my opinion. Scientist are supposed to prove their statements. That’s how science works, or have I missed something?”
(again using your logic)
It’s simply a opinion vs opinion
How is your(or your friend) opinion higher then others?
So what was your point?
Considering you’re implying their can’t be no fact simply differences in opinion.
again
March 29th, 2009 at 10:43 amHow is your opinion right and the rest wrong?
Simple. As long as the research continues, the money keeps flowing. You destroyed nothing. You only verified what I was saying.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:43 amNow don’t bust a blood vessel Pal. It’s not worth it.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:44 amNo, we have theories.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:44 amjay Says:
Simple. As long as the research continues, the money keeps flowing. You destroyed nothing. You only verified what I was saying.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:43 am
___________
Indeed. But you utterly failed to connect this to your larger implication, which is that the need to continue research invalidates the data.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:44 amThe troll thinks the amount of money a research firm earns when hired to perform “environmental studies” is comparable to the profits of Exxon.
CASE DISMISSED, FCUKTARD.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:45 amjenny, before running off about theory, please take the time to educate yourself about what the word theory means in a scientific sense. It doesn’t mean how we use theory in everyday life. Gravity is a scientific theory. Do you believe in gravity?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:46 am(hold up, I’m going to get my 8 year old daughter on here, she’s about on the same level of cognitive discourse as ms. jay…)
March 29th, 2009 at 10:46 amrepeat:
the troll believes the amount of private research funding for climate change is equal to Exxon’s profits…
March 29th, 2009 at 10:47 amI never said that my opinion was right and the others were wrong. Where did I say that? I just expressed my opinion and was attacked by the people here.
My question was “What is the optimum level of CO2 for the planet”? It’s still up for discussion in the Scientific community but not allowed to be discussed by many here.
My other statement is a fact, plants cannot exist without it, neither can we. Now that’s not an opinion.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:50 amYou’re getting pretty desperate now DNFP. Take an aspirin or sumthin.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:51 amjenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
Just a question, but why is it that with all the research, we still don’t have concrete evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases?
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
We do.
jenny_aidyn_aaron says:
No, we have theories.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:51 amWell it’s “Global Warming” outside and I’m going to go enjoy some of it. You all should do the same before the end of the world.
See ya.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:53 amjenny, one more thing about scientific theory. It takes scientific facts to make up a scientific theory. A scientific theory is higher up the food chain then scientific fact.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:53 amI couldn’t resist. Now you have put the cart in front of the Horse Angel.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:55 amjay Says:
What is the point of your question?
March 29th, 2009 at 10:56 amCan you after all this time answer that please?
I already did some time ago here. In fact many times. Go find it.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:57 amangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
jenny, before running off about theory, please take the time to educate yourself about what the word theory means in a scientific sense. It doesn’t mean how we use theory in everyday life. Gravity is a scientific theory. Do you believe in gravity?
jenny_aidyn_aaron says: But we can prove gravity. We can see it and experience it. We cannot prove that greenhouse gases have caused global warming. We can watch videos about drowning polar bears and melting ice caps, but how can we prove that man caused it? Don’t we have scientific proof that the world’s climate cycled through warming and cooling periods long before man came along? Give me some concrete evidence, the kind of evidence that I can knock on a coal miner’s or a power plant employees door and say ” I’m sorry about your job and not being able to support your family, but we have proven global warming.”
March 29th, 2009 at 10:59 amSo why not do just stick heads in sand until it is too late and the documentation all to definitive. That is the approach I use with my children’s illnesses. Now it seems there will be none left to receive the inheritance…
March 29th, 2009 at 11:02 amjay Says:
March 29th, 2009 at 11:03 amNo point huh?
jay, you really are stupid. Almost everything we know in the scientific world is theory. We have gravity which is a theory, we have the theory of relativity, evolution is a theory, how stars are born, live and die are theories, the big bang is a theory, All of these scientific theories are made up of scientific facts which when put together make up a theory. This is how science works dummy.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:03 amangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
jenny, one more thing about scientific theory. It takes scientific facts to make up a scientific theory. A scientific theory is higher up the food chain then scientific fact.
jenny_aidyn_aaron says: Giving me a Bill Clinton style definition of a word still won’t convince me that we should be making changes that affect people’s jobs, businesses, and affordability of energy. All I want is real proof.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:04 amdon’t forget the endosymbiont theory
March 29th, 2009 at 11:05 amAll I want is real proof.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:06 am–
Have you asked the people’s of Tuvalu?
jenny, you can see gravity? Whats it look like? Also we can’t prove gravity, what we can prove is the results of gravity. We have a THEROY that explains the effects of gravity and a theory that explains the warping of space by objects, which tells us gravity exists.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:07 am#
jay Says:
DNFP Says:
repeat:
the troll believes the amount of private research funding for climate change is equal to Exxon’s profits…
You’re getting pretty desperate now DNFP. Take an aspirin or sumthin.
The truth somehow smacks the Wingtard as desperation.
Just goes to show how far down the road to nowhere the TrollTard truly is.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:08 amScience to a GOPtard is like water on the ducks back:
It just rolls right off without leaving a trace.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:10 amjenny, what I gave you was a scientific definition of the use of scientific fact and theory.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:11 amJay is behaving much in the same way Shimkus behaved. This is basic to the Republican philosophy. Because Republicans are the party for fundamentalist Christianity, they reflexively reject all science. This was true back when the hypothesis was proven true, that the world was round, and it’s still true with evolution.
If Republicans embrace science, they deny their own foundation. Indeed, not only do they fail to embrace science, they actively seek to undermine education to produce as many stupid Americans as possible. Stupid Americans are all the Republican Party has left.
The Republican Party has adopted a brainwashing program for very low intellect Americans. Their job is to go to whatever web site they want, and post the talking points they were programmed to talk about. Many of them are barely competent enough to even spellcheck their work.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, this thing called the Internet came along and ruined everything.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:12 amAll I want is real proof.
You’re hopeless.
We’re not here to convince you, you came here to throw us under the bus, remember?
Never forget, the deniers job is to convince the lemmings of society that climate change IS NOT man-made. Whether it is or not, the reality is that the climate is changing, and there’s not a much we can do about it. Change on this scale is slow, almost un-changeable without wholesale change in EVERYTHING we do.
The Regressives are just trying to cloud the truth, in order to continue raping and pillaging of Earth’s resources without care.
And in a trolls mind, the field of climate research is such a juggernaut, that even the fossil fuel industry is at their mercy… only in a Limbots wildest fantasy.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:16 amangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
jenny, one more thing about scientific theory. It takes scientific facts to make up a scientific theory. A scientific theory is higher up the food chain then scientific fact.
jenny_aidyn_aaron says: There is a lot of scientific evidence opposing man-made global warming. What discredits it? From my research, it also has a lot of data backing it. The way to convince me isn’t to try and discredit me by saying I have no knowledge about the meaning of a scientific theory. I can’t fight for a cause that I can’t have proven to me. I will support your cause if someone can just give me some proof.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:16 amFirst Blago, now this guy. It makes me so proud to be from Illinois.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:17 amYea, what’s with the flatlanders electing all these Republicans?
March 29th, 2009 at 11:20 amFor the last time, science deals with EVIDENCE, notPROOF.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:22 amjenny, I’m also not here to make you believe anything. You say you want proof that humans are effecting the change in climate, all you need do is start educating yourself. There are thousands of peer reviewed articles out there that will give you all the facts you need. This is not about left or right thinking. The science is overwhelming that what humans are doing is speeding up the warming of the planet at rates we have never seen before.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:24 amI am a 23 year old business owner. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I will continue to. Three other people’s families depend on my business to put food on their tables. I sacrifice not only for my business, but for my employees. Right now through the tough times, I could lay off an employee to make my business more profitable to me. But instead I struggle to keep them employed because I care about their needs as well. So again, give me proof that would make me want to go knock on a coal miner’s door and explain it to him.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:27 amSo again, give me proof that would make me want to go knock on a coal miner’s door and explain it to him.
Gow a brainstem, go back to school and pay attention in Science, then, consider college, and don’t go all “business” courses again.
They don’t help you in the “real world.”
March 29th, 2009 at 11:29 amMost of your post was irrelevant.
Let’s focus on the last sentence.
I suggest you do your own digging (there is enough info out there) as you seem to not want to ‘believe’ anything that’s been posted on this board.
Truth does not require belief.
Just sayin’
March 29th, 2009 at 11:31 amBesides super-concerned-jenny,
If you had the wherewithal and gumption to actually knock on a coal miner’s door, you’d discover they’d prefer some sort of help in retraining for another line of work.
Other than when energy prices are sky-high (Republitard rule), most coal miner’s DESPISE their dangerous, filthy jobs.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:33 amIt seems to me that people are following this scare more religiously than scientifically. I have educated myself. Part of the problem is all of the “scientific evidence” that has already been found to have been EXAGGERATED. How should I know who to believe? Should I pray to Al Gore or something? Maybe he will give me the answer.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:34 amShould I pray to Al Gore or something?
There you go!
Your true colors.
Feel better?
And please feel free to post a link to the “evidence” which has been so “wildly exaggerated”.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:35 amjenny, I’m glad you are doing well at the age of 23. I’m 60 and have kids and grand kids. I would like to have my kids and grand kids have air they can breath and food they can eat. This problem has a less to do with you or me, it has to do with the fate of the human race. We as humans are not immune to the effects of climate, in fact, we are not very well equipped to withstand a big swing in a change of climate.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:36 amShimkus should have resigned in shame back here > 10/01/2006 08:41:00 PM
March 29th, 2009 at 11:38 amGOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) let Foley spend “a lot of time” with pages, including private dinner with one, after GOP knew Foley was a problem
This problem has a less to do with you or me, it has to do with the fate of the human race.
This statement will always fall on the deaf ears of the Conservatard (me-me-me and mine, to hell with you and yours).
It’s like trying to tell Donald Trump that his hairdo sucks, and all he hears is his name, and continues to smile in the mirror.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:39 amDNFP Says:
——————————————————————————–
Besides super-concerned-jenny,
If you had the wherewithal and gumption to actually knock on a coal miner’s door, you’d discover they’d prefer some sort of help in retraining for another line of work.
Other than when energy prices are sky-high (Republitard rule), most coal miner’s DESPISE their dangerous, filthy jobs.
jenny_aidyn_aaron says:
If I had the gumption to knock on a coal miner’s door? My father was a coal miner. He LOVED his job. Not because it was filthy or dangerous, but because it put food on the table. Are you saying that all coal miners are too stupid to get training to get another job on their own if they hate their job? Have you ever considered how these coal miners would pay their bills during this new job training? Oh wait, I guess we could just tax someone else a little harder to pay their bills for a while.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:42 amjenny, quit listening to political talking heads and read up on what scientists in the field have to say. Like I said earlier there are thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals out there that will give you all the info you need to make a educated conclusion as to if this issue is real or not. Its like anything else, if you want the truth bypass all the talking heads and go to the source.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:42 amJenny,
Let’s start with a minor sampling of events domestically. Have you observed how some plants are budding out of their normal seasonal cycles? Or how some tree species have been observed to grow at higher altitudes than they have been found previously? How about the crisis in the honeybee colonies–and let me tell you, if they go, so go we.
Does Katrina ring a bell? Perhaps whats going on right now in North Dakota. Or perhaps the fact that the counties in Southern California are preparing to move all critical infrastructure further inland due to the ALREADY rising sea levels dent your helmet?
If you don’t want to ‘believe’ these events, then take a look worldwide. The writing is on the wall-you don’t even have to do any reading of scientific studies if you don’t want to.
It’s happening around you. Open your eyes.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:42 amYou want to pray to Al Gore to know what to believe? Try this, don’t believe anything you have not educated yourself in. Don’t believe everything you read either. There are a lot of Republican propaganda sites out there spreading disinformation and outright lies.
Basically, if you have to “believe” in something without evidence, then you are just gullible.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:42 ampastcaring ceratopogonidae Says:
——————————————————————————–
Jenny,
Let’s start with a minor sampling of events domestically. Have you observed how some plants are budding out of their normal seasonal cycles? Or how some tree species have been observed to grow at higher altitudes than they have been found previously? How about the crisis in the honeybee colonies–and let me tell you, if they go, so go we.
Does Katrina ring a bell? Perhaps whats going on right now in North Dakota. Or perhaps the fact that the counties in Southern California are preparing to move all critical infrastructure further inland due to the ALREADY rising sea levels dent your helmet?
jenny_aidyn_aaron says: You have given me events. How did you link them to the greenhouse gases that people produce again? THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:48 amNo, therein lies the PROOF you were asking for.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:52 amangels81 Says:
——————————————————————————–
jenny, I’m glad you are doing well at the age of 23. I’m 60 and have kids and grand kids. I would like to have my kids and grand kids have air they can breath and food they can eat. This problem has a less to do with you or me, it has to do with the fate of the human race. We as humans are not immune to the effects of climate, in fact, we are not very well equipped to withstand a big swing in a change of climate.
jenny_aidyn_aaron says: I have a three year old daughter, an eight month old daughter, and a baby boy due in July. I am not one bit worried about the air they will breathe. I am worried about whether or not they will be able to have the same opportunities I have had, or if there will be too many government regulations preventing their success. Right now my little girl wants a bowl of cereal, so I’m going to go give her that and continue spending my time on what’s really important instead of global warming.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:54 amjenny,
Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya…
I’m sick of morons like you who have to feel that their personal contribution to Climate Change is null.
PEOPLE DON’T PRODUCE GREENHOUSE GASES, THEIR HABITS DO.
Again, go into the garage, start your car with all doors closed, sit beside the running auto, and report back to us how the trapped gases in your garage are any different than gases trapped in the atmosphere, and how the consequences of both scenarios are inextricably the same.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:55 amJenny,
Since you seem to be a spokeperson for the coal industry, please explain this:
Tennessee sludge spill estimate grows to 1 billion gallons
March 29th, 2009 at 11:57 amjenny, once again look at the science. If you want to see what runaway greenhouse gases do to climate, you need look no farther then the planet Venus. Venus is a planet with about the same mass as earth and is in the zone were life can evolve. Venus is a planet were greenhouse gases have run amok. So by looking at Venus we know that greenhouse gases can effect climate in an adverse way.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:58 amOr this:
“This final step creates sludge that contains coal dust and other sediment, and may contain heavy metals or chemicals that would impair water quality in streams and rivers if it were allowed to flow freely off the mine site.”
March 29th, 2009 at 11:58 amOr this:
When it comes to coal, perhaps the only thing more controversial than what to do about the heat-trapping carbon dioxide it generates is what to do about the social and environmental costs of getting it out of the ground. Nowhere is the debate over how far we are willing to go for inexpensive energy more contentious than in the coalfields of the Appalachian Mountains, where technology and engineering have allowed the scale of surface coal mines to reach gigantic proportions.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:58 amjay Says:
Now you all go “Blog” among your selves like you always do. The name calling and other liberal crap that you do after someone you attack is gone.
I’ll check back later for the laughs. There are so many intelligent people here.
35 posts after I left last night calling me names. Not a record, I’m sure you can do much better. It’s easy to stroke each other than to treat people with respect.
I understand. You are what you are.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:25 am
See? It’s all about Jay. I’ll say it again, do not engage this troll.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:58 amp.s. if you want the good Lord’s view on the subject, take a look around our Solar System.
There’s plenty of evidence that runaway Greenhouse gases on Venus and most likely Mars created wholly un-liveable climates.
It is believed that the water which used to flow on Mars evaporated into the upper atmosphere and “bled off” into space.
Not a very welcoming turn of events, which could someday be at your doorstep.
But why bother? You’ve got three whole families which rely on you!!! HELL, PRACTICALLY THE WEIGHT OF THE ENTIRE WORLD IS ON YOUR SHOULDERS.
GO GIRL.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:59 amDNFP, you are obviously the moron. You are so angry that everyone won’t jump on the bandwagon with you. It’s sad there are so few people willing to use their minds for something worthwhile. Now excuse me while I go start my diesel pickup and ruin the world for your grandchildren.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:00 pmJenny, for good measure, I’ll throw in this:
Tennessee coal sludge disaster ‘shows that the term clean coal is an oxymoron.’
that way you can stay on-site.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:00 pmNow excuse me while I go start my diesel pickup and ruin the world for your grandchildren.
Finally, it speaks “it’s” truth.
We knew you could.
GOPpigs, gotta love them.
YOU GO GIRL.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pmjenny are you fat?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pmJenny, you are worried if your children will have the same opportunities as you did, and that is noble, all parents should be just as concerned as you are. The problem is that climate change guarantees they will not have the same opportunities that you have. They will not have any food to eat, they will die because you are worried about the jobs of coal miners.
Unfortunately, it’s not just your children that will die, its everyone, including my children. Your ignorance is a threat to my children, and the children of every human being on the planet.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:03 pmpoor stupid jenny,
thinks that because her father was a coal miner who had no other choice for income, that he must have enjoyed the work.
I’m guessing she spent very little time actually getting to know the man.
Typical “know-it-all” -ism of the Wingtards…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:05 pmpastcaring ceratopogonidae Says:
——————————————————————————–
Jenny,
Since you seem to be a spokeperson for the coal industry, please explain this:
Tennessee sludge spill estimate grows to 1 billion gallons
jenny_aidyn_aaron says: It sounds like an accident, doesn’t it? I guess we should stop doing anything that could end up with bad consequences. Except for making laws that will raise the majority of people’s energy expenses to unprecedented levels. We should keep doing things like that.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:07 pmjenny,
prideful ignorance is NOT a virtue.
Unless you fashion your wisdom after Limbaugh.
Go ahead, make him proud.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pmLevi, jenny is just mad because she stepped into a blog were she knows nothing about the subject. She is someone who doesn’t know the difference between scientific fact and theory. She is not very well read on the subject, but has come up with a belief based on what rightwing talking heads have told her. Like jay, she is a hopeless case.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron
March 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pmHow do you feel about the theory that Al Quieda was responsible for 911. The theory that homosexuality is a choice? The theory that capitalism is the best? The theory that the US is somehow better than “old Europe”. The theory that christianity is superior to any other religion/cult?
Just wondering…. Show mw the irrefutable evidences of any or all of these.
jenny, by running away when I’ve given a VARIETY of proofs, you confirm you are full of $hi+….or should I say, coal?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:10 pm… and three whole employees?
Wow, that’s so amazing.
Don’t break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back there skippy…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:10 pmI’m wondering if Jenny has figured out what causes the pregnancies.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:11 pm…jen,
the local chapters of “snake handlers” and the “flat earth society” is wondering why you’ve been missing all the recent meetings…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:11 pmHe’s absolutely correct. We WOULD be depriving plants of all that food. In exactly the same way we could deprive ourselves of food when we put a huge tube down our throats and pump and pump and pump and pump food down our gullets until we ’splode from ‘over-feeding.’ What a ridiculous and desperate ploy.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pmSo, Jenny now joins the club of trolls that have been p’wned by pastcaring.
Go on now…enjoy a drink at the troll lounge of losers.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pm…besides,
The local grocery store put the ‘milk man’ out of business.
And nobody really cared.
So goes the coal industry…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:15 pmI’d love to stay and chat, you know in a friendly obtuse jay sort of way, but I need to spread some shimkus on the garden. The plants need it.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:16 pmJenny could replace her current employees with older workers on Social Security. Not only will they work for lower wages, if they have grandchildren they don’t need to be trained in Daycare Center Operations.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:17 pmInstead of worrying about raising people’s energy costs why don’t we teach them to be less dependent upon energy? Especially that filthy coalminer’s daughter shit…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:21 pmWhat can I say, you have personally attacked me and now I am going to go and cry. I also find it sad the way some of you made certain comments directed at me as a woman. What makes it worse is that I am Aaron, not Jenny. Says something about your characters
March 29th, 2009 at 12:21 pmActually it says more about yours.
BTW, still waiting for an intelligent reply from you to ANY of my posts.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:24 pmI guess I’ll have to keep waiting for an intelligent reply from JENNY, until HELL FREEZES OVER.
But since there’s an inconvenient truth JENNY doesn’t want to face, THAT will NEVER happen.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:26 pmI am Aaron, not Jenny. Says something about your characters
March 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm–
Whatever
Since I am not in that group would you like to have a discussion or whould you rather whine? Your choice. Running away is an option as well. Either way it is clear what is really going on here.
I am Aaron, not Jenny:
Do you really know who you are? Are you a tranny? I must confess I like trannies.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pmAll right, that’s enough, let’s get back to the issue. So what ended the last ice age?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:31 pmjenny, lets start earlier, do you know what caused the ice age?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pmjenny I’ll give you a hint. It had to do with the orbit of the planet.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:34 pmSo imply that you are a judge of character then claim that you are incharge of the thread? What gives? So about those theories in 502. Can I assume you do not believe any of them to be truth?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pmIs it allowed here for multiple people to use the same user name? I am a noob here so I do not really know if there any rules against such things, but in the online gameing community, it is forbidden for obvious reasons. I wonder if the same rules should apply here.
Assuming it is not against any terms of service here, I recommend you make your own account name, or you will be held accountable for things that the other person or people that use the same account.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:36 pmI won’t say too much about this issue, except for the fact that we humans need to look ahead in order to strive for future considerations. Too many times we have thought about the present without considering the status quo.
It’s pretty simple to picture the earth as a closed container. In order for things to exist, there needs to be a chemical balance. If there is too much of a certain chemical, some organisms grow and others die. However, too much of anything pretty much kills all sorts of life.
And that’s what we need to be aware of. Too much CO2, too much pollution, too much consumption of irreplaceable resources, too much production of non-recyclables is unhealthy for our ecosystem, both rural and urban.
We better focus on this now rather than later, especially if an ailing economy requires the need for new industries.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pmI’m just one person, dungbeetle. Sorry I haven’t been too involved with the online gaming community.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pmYou will be held accountable for things they say that is.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pmRight out of the Troll Handbook.
Hey, there…yoo hoo…still waiting on an answer to ANY of my posts.
Here is a handy reference guide: #488, #490, #491,, or # 495
March 29th, 2009 at 12:38 pmSo what changed the orbit of the planet? I really want to be informed.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:39 pmAw, come on I am Aaron, not Jenny, don’t go all cold and Ice Age on me I’m horny today. I’m really quite handsome.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixie_native/1090483796/
Oh, BTW, the Ice Age ended with the invention of commercial refrigeration didn’t it? I know because I remember the ice man didn’t commeth after we got an electric refrigerator in 1948.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:39 pmNo you don’t.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pmTrick question. There isn’t a optimum CO2 level for the planet. There IS, however, an optimum CO2 level for HUMANS to be able to SURVIVE on the planet (and for the rest of the existing life to likewise survive). There is also an optimum level at which said CO2 levels are altered, such that they aren’t causing extinctions (as they give life time to adapt to the new levels).
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pmBTW I thought you were toddling off to start your diesel?…Methinks thou suckest downeth tooeth manyeth fumeth andeth thoueth areth dizzyeth witheth stupidityeth.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pmjenny, scientists think the ice age was caused by a change in the angle of the axis and a few degrees change in the orbit, which meant the cooling of the northern hemisphere. As the planet moved back into a more stable orbit and the tilt in the axis also stabilized, the ice age came to an end.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:44 pmpastcaring, sorry, I got caught up in the namecalling. Once again the tennessee spill looks like an accident. Probably someone’s mistake. I am sure TVA will pay to clean up the mess and for any lasting damages. But once again, is this a regular event at coal mines?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:47 pmWhat do they think caused the change in the orbit?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:49 pmBy the way, I’m not a spokesperson for coal mines and I have no interests involved with them. I simply brought that up because of the president saying the new cap and trade system would necessarily bankrupt coal power plants.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pmFrequency isn’t the issue, severity is.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:52 pmjenny, when the axis (tilt) changed it created a wobble which pushed the orbit out a few degrees. Scientists don’t understand what caused the change in the angle of the axis.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pmin an example of spills, albeit not coal, Prince William Sound is still suffering from the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill 20 years ago.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:53 pmand people in fishing industry lost their jobs because of the decimation of that industry in that area.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:54 pmooooh! It’s PLANT FOOD everyone! We haven’t been hurting the environment this whole time, we’ve been trying to feed it! Is this seriously what people think? Oh yeah, we barely had any plant life before we started pumping CO2 into the air. Now, thanks to our polluting ways, it’s all over the place and if we were to stop producing we would possibly DESTROY the planet! Too bad we don’t have anything else on the planet that produces CO2…oh wait I forgot, virtually all life DOES!
March 29th, 2009 at 12:55 pmpastcaring, those are all facts and good points. What should we do about these spills?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:56 pmHow do you clean up “lasting dammage”?
March 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pmangels81: So that makes sense, but I also point out that it shows there are other causes of climate change. The information I have read that shows that CO2 rised after warming, what discredits their findings?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pmWe should begin the transition into more viable energy solutions.
I think that each area of the U.S. has it’s own strengths and needs, energy wise.
Rather than argue over whether warming is happening, we should be putting our collective shoulders to the lever to develop not only sustainable energy technologies, but also to repair the damage done previously, or at least mitigate it as well as we can.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pmjenny I explained what science thinks caused the ice age, so I ask you, what point were you trying to make by bringing it up?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:00 pmjenny, I also showed you what happens with greenhouse gases when they go unchecked, by giving you the example of Venus our sister planet.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm544 jenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
Please provide a link showing that CO2 rose after warming.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm(whatever the heck that is supposed to mean)
pastcaring, we have begun the transition to more viable energy solutions. However, it is my opinion that these new energy sources should be developed to be more efficient and cheaper. We shouldn’t be giving out government grants to help clean energy, private organizations should research and develop clean energy to the point where it is also more cost effective than fossil fuels. Right now it isn’t as cheap. Thus the reason I don’t think we should be passing laws that benefit clean energy. With so many debates about whether or not man caused global warming, should we really be making definitive decisions?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:06 pmSorry, I don’t have a link, but if you research it, you will find it exists. We should be researching both sides of this debate so we can be fully informed.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pmIt’s a shame that some people view money as the only important thing. We could show all kinds of evidence that our climate is changing, and in a way that will ultimately be bad for humans (the planet itself will live on just fine, thank you), but in the end, some people will just whine that the costs of doing something about it are too high and would cut into profits. I would ask, “What good are profits if your customer base is dead?”
Many of the people who oppose trying to do anything about the climate crisis consider themselves Christians. If they oppose taking action because it would raise the cost of doing business, I would remind them “The love of money is the root of all evil.”
Finally, if you run a small business, the odds are that you are not, by yourself, contributing to the excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere very much, and any costs you would incur from taxes or equipment upgrades would be insignificant compared to what coal-fired plants contribute. Start now by improving energy efficiency in your own place of business, and you won’t have to pay as much later. But unless you are in the business of making aluminum (or some other high-energy using business)
March 29th, 2009 at 1:09 pmto finish my last sentence…
…you don’t have to worry about energy taxes driving you out of business.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pmguys, I just got back from the doctor, he says I’ve got an overdose of shimkus coming from my santorum, it’s bad, real bad…I dont know how much longer I’ve got…
March 29th, 2009 at 1:10 pmangels81, So what caused the CO2 rise on venus.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pmjenny/aaron, the only ‘debates’ about man-made global warming are fomented by the oil, coal, and natural gas industries. Should we continue to give billions in government money, i.e., our tax dollars, to the oil industry? Should we continue to rent America’s public lands to some of these industries at nominal rates?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:13 pmThat will happen over time.
I disagree with you completely on this point. Then we shouldn’t be giving out tax breaks to energy companies that make an outrageous profit on fossil fuels taken from public land.
Also, keep in mind, energy is a national security issue. Before you ask me for proof, think: WWII, Iraq etc.
They are. Look back at history; the govt has helped industry in the past with R & D
There really is no debate. Just denial from one main source, primarily funded by the guys who brought you Exxon Valdez ‘89.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:14 pmWith so many debates about whether or not man caused global warming, should we really be making definitive decisions?
THERE IS NO DEBATE!!!!!
It is only the right-wing, climate-change deniers who are paid by the oil and coal industries who are saying there is nothing wrong, because they have a vested interest in us continuing to use fossil fuel’s for energy. And we are long past the point where we are saying that “man caused global warming”, we are saying that man’s activities are contributing to the problem, and that if we don’t stop or seriously slow down what we’re doing, we won’t have a climate that we can live in.
Anyone still stuck on the “man didn’t cause global warming” argument hasn’t been paying nearly enough attention to the discussion.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pmjenny, when to much CO2 is put into the atmosphere it becomes trapped, which heats the planet up at a very fast rate. What you end up with is the runaway greenhouse effect.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:16 pmpastcaring, I guess I don’t think the government should be subsidizing all of these green energy solutions while they raise the taxes on fossil fuel energy. Do we really want our government making such big decisions based off of a theory that there is so much controversy over. It seems important to me that anyone looking to start a business should consider whether or not the government likes their idea. If not, they could just raise your taxes and “necessarily bankrupt” you.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:22 pmAnt, it appears you are only willing to look at one side of the DEBATE.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pmMay I add?
The ability of the ecosystem to process the CO2 previously released and well as that currently released is being pushed to a point which we may not recover from. We have already crossed the ‘threshold’.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pmSorry if that was just a repeat of what you said.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pmjenny, once again you don’t understand what theory means. I asked you before, do you believe in gravity? Gravity is nothing more then a theory. No one has ever seen a gravity wave. We cannot prove that gravity exists, we can only see the effects of gravity, which we have a theory for. Theory is the bases of almost everything we know about the universe and this planet.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pmIt sounds to me as if your hesitance is fear based.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pmNo one is saying that the govt should raise taxes to bankrupt your business model, unless your business model imperils the welfare of the nation as a whole, in which case, they shouldn’t raise your taxes, they should prevent you from doing business.
angels 81, I have read about the trapped greenhouse gases causing global warming. However, the climate change models that show this acceleration of warming cannot possibly take into effect every contributing factor of climate. I have read these models can only account for two factors, and that to add a third would take a computer 1000 times larger than what is being used. To add a fourth factor would take a computer so large that only mathematicians can comprehend the number. That helped me come to the conclusion that we can’t comprehend all of the actions involved with our climate. It also told me we cannot prove these causes to come from man.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron, there is no debate. There is only science and wingnut science denial. You choose to believe the science deniers, putting the human species at risk of extinction. How can you be so ignorant?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:32 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
Ant, it appears you are only willing to look at one side of the DEBATE.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
And it appears that you have already made up your mind that nothing needs to be done.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:34 pmSo, you don’t deny that it is actually happening then…you just want to argue over who’s at fault?
Either way, in the end, it doesn’t really matter.
Something must be done about it.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pmLet’s try this tranny Jenny/Aaron:
Why invest in finite fuels when there are options that will never run out. You know that Peak Oil thing vs Solar and Wind.
Conservatives are like the buggy whip makers who fought against the automobile, IMHO.
Jenny/Aaron, sweetie, wanta meet me down by the pond later on so I can check out you package?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm566 jenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
I have read this and I have read that. Do you have any links to support what you have allegedly read?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron,
Try to understand the important distinction. We are not saying that global warming was caused by humans. We are saying that human activities are making the problem worse.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pmpastcaring, so now we want our government to completely control our business based on something we are still debating?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pmYou can’t truly believe that full government control over business would be the best way for America to prosper. So what do you think about congress’s attempt to tax the bonuses away from the AIG executives that were given? I personally disagree with the bonuses, but don’t think taxing them away is the way to handle it.
Jenny, don’t be that guy, who is more concerned about who shot him rather than where the nearest hospital is.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pmBecause, if you do, then you will bleed to death.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:38 pmOT, and uninterested.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pmNo one posited such an idea.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pmPachydiplax St. Augustine, can you really not leave all the crap out?
March 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pmjenny, It is a BS argument if humans are the main cause or not. The fact is that if the planet is going threw a natural warming period, humans are speeding up the process by pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can see the effects of what happens when these gases go unchecked. For every cause there is an effect. To use computer models is also a red herring. Computer models are only tools that are used by scientists, they are nothing more then that.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pmthis JennyAaron troll seems fixated on the government taking over her business. Typical Republicans fear mongering.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pmAnt, I am sorry, but I don’t agree. I think the world goes through warming and cooling phases that we can’t control or affect. At some point, we have to realize we can’t control everything.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pmBut at some point we have to realize that’s not a good enough argument for continuing along the path of destruction either.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm“so now we want our government to completely control our business based on something we are still debating?
You can’t truly believe that full government control over business would be the best way for America to prosper.”
No one has said anything about “full government control over business.” And, again, the only ones “still debating” are the ones who benefit from the continued dominance of the oil, coal and natural gas industries. Enough with the straw man arguments. You’re not really here to become informed, as you previously lied.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pmJenny, although we don’t agree, thanks for the opportunity you have given me to blow holes in every argument you have put forth without calling me a liberal.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pmjenny, no one is saying we can control everything, but the one thing we can control is what we do as humans on this planet. Of course the planets climate changes in a natural way. The question is what happens when we upset the natural event of things. Once again, for every cause there is an effect.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:49 pmNot that I mind being called a liberal.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pmpastcaring, you said “No one is saying that the govt should raise taxes to bankrupt your business model, unless your business model imperils the welfare of the nation as a whole, in which case, they shouldn’t raise your taxes, they should prevent you from doing business.” The problem with that statement is that you feel that fossil fuel energy imperils the nation as a whole, and I don’t. Therefore, the gov’t preventing fossil fuel producers from doing business in my opinion is wrong. If the government can fully control one industry based on a controversial debate, then the government can really control any industry if given an argument that it could imperil the welfare of the nation. Even if it’s harm cannot be proven.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:51 pmjay & jenny/aaron are not interested in learning about climate change, and they are certainly not interested in the scientific evidence.
Flag ‘em — unless you have nothing better to do than bang your head on a wall. ;)
March 29th, 2009 at 1:51 pmKeep living, experience will make you a believer.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
One of the frustrating things about arguing with a troll (and this is an argument, not a debate) is when the troll seems to have an “all or nothing” mentality about every single aspect of something. I believe that we need to do something about the pollution our businesses are putting out, and you immediately turn that into “controlling every aspect of business”. No one is suggesting that, so what you are putting forth is known as a “straw man argument”. And, frankly, trolls like you need to stop putting them out there. They prove nothing because they are based on flawed premises.
And my wife is right, you didn’t come here to be informed. You just came here to pick a fight and waste our time.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pmThis isn’t actually happening. So…
Again, there is no debate, just controversy stirred up by a rapidly diminishing group.
Secondly, as a fulfillment of our constitution, a government is supposed to provide for the general welfare. In this case, it can fulfill that requirement by regulating industry.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pmZooey, you’re right. Same with SIG on the Olbermann thread.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pmpastcaring ceratopogonidae Says:
Keep living, experience will make you a believer.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Ever the optimist…
March 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pmOh come now Zooey
March 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pmEveryone enjoys a little headbanger’s ball. Come on feel the noise…
Well, it is Sunday and as a show of respect to our, ahem, shall we say visitors who tend to be of a certain religious persuasion, I like to be a little less strident.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron
Read your Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“The Congress shall have power…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Congress absolutely can tell businesses how they will be run. And they are certainly not bound by Milton Friedman’s Unregulated Free Market ideology (which was one major contributing factor to the current financial crisis.)
March 29th, 2009 at 2:00 pm“…The problem with that statement is that you feel that fossil fuel energy imperils the nation as a whole, and I don’t…”
There’s no problem. We’re right. You’re wrong. And you haven’t even touched on the aspect of “imperil(ing) the nation as a whole” by starting pre-emptive wars over oil. Try using the brain that the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave you, troll.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pmSweet Tranny Jenny/Aaron:
No dear, I can not, can you?
BTW, honey, are your oral skills better than your written ones?
March 29th, 2009 at 2:01 pmZooey, should it really be a problem that I oppose what you believe? My comments don’t hurt anyone. That’s fine if you can’t disagree with someone. All I’m waiting for is some proof that isn’t discredited by other findings. If I really believed we were in danger, then why wouldn’t I join your cause. If no one opposes an idea that is sketchy, then everyone would follow like sheep. I’m not calling anyone here sheep, but if opposition to your idea is wrong, then it will eventually be proven wrong. Or, maybe your idea will be proven wrong. One thing for sure is that if no one opposes this, we may not ever get the whole story.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pmJane E. Schneider Says:
Zooey, you’re right. Same with SIG on the Olbermann thread.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Thanks, Jane. :)
Just imagine if these idiots spent as much time and energy on educating themselves regarding climate change, as they do on screaming “you can’t prove it!”
March 29th, 2009 at 2:03 pmHey guys, I’ve already tried, startin’ with, oh about 100 or so posts ago.
You cannot reach a man who wants to believe rather than think.
My motto: Truth Does Not Require Belief.
Good luck.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:04 pmHumans have been on this planet for around 12,000 years. The most successful species to walk this planet has been the dinosaurs who ruled for about 165 million years. If we are not careful we will become nothing more then a foot note in the chain of life on earth. For all you people who think global warming is a hoax, this should give you pause.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:05 pmThe masochistic side of me wishes this would happen. I think earth would be better off if she just farted us out.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:06 pmJenny, I suggest a very period of silent prayer. It would do us all some good. And please be restrained with the breeding.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:07 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
March 29th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Honey, I don’t have a problem in the world with your belief system — it’s your education I’m concerned about. But really, that’s not a problem for me either. You’re an adult now, so you’ll do what you need to do to learn — or not.
Seriously, you don’t have the first inkling as to what any of my “ideas” might be.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pmMaybe I think for myself instead of following something that isn’t the truth.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pmShould be LONG period of silent prayer….the longer the better.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pmJenny,
Rest Easy…the Govt. is NOT going to Prevent fossil fuel producers from doing business.
With a Majority of America’s energy needs being provided by fossil fuel…such action would be economic and political Suicide.
What the Govt. should do, is require Energy Companies to Pay the True Costs of their products.
Pregnant Women are advised to NOT eat fish caught in Lakes around here, due to Mercury that leaves the coal fired power plant smokestacks, and then settles in the Lakes.
We need to Sensibly Transition from Fossil Fuels to Safer renewable Energy sources. The argument should be about the definition of “Sensible”.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron,
One more time. THERE IS NO DEBATE!
The vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activities are contributing to, and making worse, a general change in our environment that is bad for humans (if they want to go on living.)
The only people denying this (who could reasonable be assumed to have any credibility on the subject, as opposed to people like you and me) are in, or paid by, the fossil fuel industries. And why wouldn’t they? We’re saying that their products are bad for our environment. And since they want to keep making lots of money (even at their own children’s expenses), they will jump up and claim that we need not do anything.
There is no debate. There is the science which supports what we’re saying, and the people who stand to lose money if we act on what that science is telling us. And, frankly, I couldn’t care less how much money the fossil fuels industries lose. They’ve already taken way too much of our money from us.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pmjenny, when it comes to the truth on this issue, you wouldn’t know it if it ran you over in the street.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:10 pmMaybe… but I doubt it.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:12 pmWow, glad to see you finally agree with me and you agree on the fact that global warming is caused by humans!!
Now, i can go enjoy some of that global warming and wash my car!!!
Oh happy day, oh happy day!!
March 29th, 2009 at 2:13 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
Maybe I think for myself instead of following something that isn’t the truth.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Maybe as you mature you will understand that “truth” isn’t carved in stone. Learning about climate change — or anything else — doesn’t require “following,” it requires thought.
What if you’re wrong? Just for a moment, be in love with the idea that climate change is real, and right now we have an opportunity to put the brakes on. Can you honestly look at your childrens’ sweet faces and choose not to do anything about it?
March 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pmThe government is owned by the energy companies. They just need to figure how to keep making money off the working slobs with some cleaner alternatives. The Government and the Energy Companies work hand in hand.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pmNo doubt powered by those fossil fuels Jenny loves to advocate for.
Ah dammit! there now, i’ve gone an done violated my own Sunday rule.
:]
March 29th, 2009 at 2:16 pmpastcaring, you are a hoot. Thanks for the laugh.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pmjenny_aidyn_aaron Says:
——————————————————————————–
Maybe I think for myself instead of following something that isn’t the truth.
—
March 29th, 2009 at 2:19 pmlike those I posted in 502 and you have avoided?
My pleazah!!
No doubt, if we didn’t laugh at their ignorance, we may just cry over the consequences of their beliefs.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:20 pmAll I’m waiting for is some proof that isn’t discredited by other findings.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pm—
Ah like in #502 or are you selective in the need for proofs of the things you believe and don’t believe?
I was wondering what kind of proof could be discredited by other findings. Isn’t that impossible. I mean, if its proof, then the other findings that contradict the proof would be inaccurate, right?
March 29th, 2009 at 2:32 pm#554 jenny_aidyn_aaron Asks:
Oh-Oh-Oh…
… Let me answer this one. Humans?
.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pmLevi @620,
You know how I know the sun rotates around the Earth?
The moon, the moon!
.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pmHi all, Im new here i never heard of this blog until Bulloreilly attacked Ms. Terkel. This place is awesome. I have been reading the comments on here for a few days. Zooey, Ralph, Past, and Wayne just to name a few, you people are good.Dont most conservatives love their fossil fuels? Most conservatives like Palin also believe that god created the earth 6000 years ago. So how do you explain oil wich takes many millions of years of dead plants and dead animals and alot of pressure to create? Ive also noticed that the trolls never bring any facts into the conversation.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:01 pmsscncturn64, welcome aboard. its always nice to have another voice in the mix. Just remember Palin and her flock believe dinosaurs walked with humans, so we must have just pumped that oil right out of their asses.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:18 pmsscncturn64
March 29th, 2009 at 3:27 pmHi. What they bring to the table is the basis for the rest of us to goof on them. Hope you stick around. In between the goofiness, many intelligent folks most many intelligent and thoughtful ideas
Several arguments that I have grown very tired of hearing:
1. Humans can’t possibly be having an effect on the atmosphere/climate and there is no proof that we are. (If only these people were as concerned about proof when preemptive war was on the table.)
2. Nothing should be done about any problem if people lose their jobs as a result. This includes policies that might benefit the actual health of people. (Except of course when businesses make stupid decisions in the interest of profit margins and cause massive job losses as a result. Then, it is just operation of the almighty market. Only government decisions that cause job losses must be viewed with disdain.)
3. Private entities will solve all problems – even those they themselves created. (Except of course, when they don’t, because the objective of private entities is not to preserve the public welfare.)
March 29th, 2009 at 3:28 pmRep. John Shimkus, the RNC’s expert of climit change and C02 levels in the atmosphere. The party has so many self appointment experts (rent a degree program) its hard to keep track. The RNC really has to get its’ act together. The dittoheads are getting worse, and its a sad joke. The thoughtful blogs are great. But really, should Shimkus be taked seriously? Thats the real question.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:46 pmWell Thankyou Angels81 and dbadass, I plan on sticking around for a while, its just too much fun watching the right wing fold under stress. It really is amazing what desperation can do to some people.
March 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pmI must say that Pete actually says more in any single one of his posts than all the hundreds of jay and jenny combined.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pmWelcome sscncturn64, it always something to smile about when a kindred spirit comes along:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dixie_native/1090483796/
March 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pmWell, mikehunt, besides having a vulgar name, you managed to deny global climate change, and mention al gore and talk about some kind of Democratic conspiracy to make money on global climate change. You performed a stupidity trifecta. Well done.
Flag this troll and flag him often.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:38 pmsigh
March 29th, 2009 at 5:45 pmTroll speak (with finger firmly up nose): There’s no global warming, it’s cold here!
Idiots.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:52 pmWow Mikehunt. So Al Gore invented the internet AND global climate change. How did he get all the scientists to agree to support his vast money making operation? Did he plan this in advance of the election loss? Because people have speculated about this phenomenon since before Al Gore was born.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:55 pmMust be shift change time at Troll Central (a/k/c RNC Headquarters).
March 29th, 2009 at 5:58 pmThe last thing we might want to do is reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. We would deny Shimkus his food source.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:12 pmUmmm, little nit-pick here, but our species has been on this planet, physically all-but-unchanged, for around 200,000 years, not 12,000 years. Humans from 200,000 years ago are just as intelligent as we are, and just as physically capable. The only difference is the our level of knowledge they helped to pass down, and their much earlier in life physical development, meaning they were more physically fit than we are. However, if you took a 200,000 year old human and brought him or her into the modern world, they 100% have the mental capacity to pick up our languages, learn all about our cultures and technologies, pick up the sciences and math, and so on.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pmIf one is bothered by being treated like a troll, one should not act like a troll. The scientific consensus on mankind’s contribution to the degradation of the Earth’s entire environment is beyond debate in serious scientific circles. We have hard data and it’s readily available at sources we have pointed to, and hundreds of others.
Yet? Our stubborn guests have shown no sign that they have read any of the sources highlighted nor have they indicated that they understand the implications. In fact, all one can see is a systematic attempt to ignore all the data.
We have been treated to assertions that the conclusions of the last 60+ years of climatology studies can be passed off as a “hoax”. We have seen ridiculous statements that we, to paraphrase, “don’t know anything about past CO2 levels”. That particular claim is up there with “we haven’t found a single transitional form” in competition for the baldest lie told by the manipulative to the ignorant.
We have seen hard science completely ignored. And we’ve seen a classic strawman introduced to combat the science, which is abundant, that we humans have actually succeeded in reducing our emissions per unit burned and reduced relative particulate emissions drastically since the 1970s.
The burgeoning science of global dimming and the part that particulate emissions play is fascinating and compelling. Prior to the 1950s, we humans gave no consideration to emissions unless a bunch of people were actually overcome by toxic fumes and died.
Since then, and especially since the ’70s, we have introduced effective emission controls that are too diverse to bother enumeration. Weaning our way off of leaded gasoline and it’s effects, both those demonstrable in recent work and those just hypothesized, is just one of the spectacular success stories.
There are really only two camps. On the one hand one sees the concern of, roughly, 95% of those people who even posses the vocabulary to discuss scientific issues. One could generalize the conclusions of this group by saying that they think inaction is the one option we no longer have and if mistakes are to be made those should err on the side of caution.
The other camp is composed, almost entirely, of spokesmen for the most radically right-wing few percent of the U.S. They are, almost to a man, scientifically illiterate. Those who are not actually on the payroll of a company with a vested interest in delaying action have blatantly obvious ties to various political and religious factions who are, in their own right, scientifically illiterate.
Throughout the history of man, following the lead of the scientifically illiterate has proven to be disastrous. And when the worst possible case is a mass extinction that will only end when the planet has been so altered that none of the species currently extant can survive? Fearful timidity, based on ignorance and political whim, is no longer an option.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:41 pmDon’t they understand that they lose any semblance of credibility when they bring up Al Gore? Mr. Gore is not a scientist, he’s a spokesman. Mr. Gore is simply a prominent figure with the means to make a large audience aware of an issue.
That being said, I sincerely wish he had never made that stupid movie. It was a tactical error by people who should have known that his connection to any cause would result in the automatic enmity of the hard-core GOoPbots.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:59 pmMore good stuff, Pete.
I would also note, that those who dispute the existing evidence consider themselves skeptics. But in my experience, they are not skeptics; rather, they are contrarians. A skeptic would view all the evidence with some suspicion, but they typically apply a different standard to different sources. To government, academic, and international sources they apply a very stringent one set of criteria, but other sources, a much looser set is used. That latter set typically reinforces their original inclination and is rationalized with statements like:
It is only one degree.
There are many sources of CO2.
Humans can’t possibly be affecting the atmosphere.
None of which actually says anything meaningful about the problem. If they were actually being skeptical, they would see that the best supported theory is that humans are contributing to climate change. On top of it all, many of them think they are being helpful by forcing us to look into the question further.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pmJay; My original post had nothing to do with Global Warming. It had to do with the levels of CO2 and what the optimum levels are.
sheesh Jay. That means you don’t understand topic. Not one little bit.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pmI mean no offense, jenny_aidyn_aaron , but the mere phrasing of your questions and objections indicates that you lack the practical scientific background to discuss this subject. Assuming that you have children who attend a certified public school, I would suggest reading the latest available textbook.
Failing that, I and others have suggested numerous sources accessible to anyone and at all levels of complexity and specificity. Alas, I fear that your posts indicate that you won’t ever do your own research and the only interpretations you will accept will need to fit your political and cultural, preconceptions.
Most disturbing, and hardest to overcome, is your insistence on referencing “beliefs” in a scientific discussion. More than six decades of applied science, (complete with experiments, successes and failures, and predictions that came to pass), has described a very real problem and proposed corrective action.
I hope you accept my preemptive apology for saying that there is no rational “objection” to initiating drastic measures to curb our emissions. Nor reason. No logic. No science. And the only people who are “objecting” are a very greedy group of shills and the ignorant people they maliciously manipulate.
So? If one chooses to participate in a scientific discussion, one must first move beyond the notion that science is driven by “belief”. If one can not separate the concepts like: facts, data, theory, learning, and applied logic; from “beliefs”? Continued discussion is futile.
A good second step would be to spend ten minutes on the Google and try to get some grounding in the subject at hand. And please note that virtually every legitimate scientist on the planet can tell you that scientific interpretations from FOX News, talk radio, religious extremists, or anyone else who’s ignorant of the subject being discussed are worthless at best. They can be a positive danger to civilization as we know it.
It’s time to learn that someone shouting “I object” does not change physical realities. I invite everyone to search peer-reviewed sources, as I have, in search of any compelling science that suggests we should not take drastic measures to reduce all forms of pollution. Or you can take the reality based community at our word and accept the fact that no sane person can make any such claim.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:47 pmThey certainly are not skeptics, tbone. Skeptics reserve judgment until every significant fact is considered. The anti-science movement of the American Reichwing is devoted to suppressing evidence and simple denial.
If you haven’t already seen it, here’s a link to Groucho Marx’s message to the GOP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
March 29th, 2009 at 7:56 pmI get a kick out of that clip. It is so appropriate for the GOP, especially now.
To the anti-science movement, science is only useful for making military technology and medical treatments. Everything else be damned.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:29 pmReichwingers are exploiting a base that believes in the “gut”, is illiterate in the sciences, and is not prone to critical reasoning and self-examination. Many of them have an emotional need for certainty that is incompatible with scientific reasoning.
There is now debate among some scientists about changing their language to prevent the misunderstandings that arise from different meanings of the words “beliefs” and “theories”. I’d rather they didn’t have to go that route, because doubt and humility is such a vital part of good research.
I’ll try a philosophical linguist approach, just for practice. The text I’ve put in bold is a response to Jay’s silly demand.
source
March 29th, 2009 at 8:53 pmActually the banning of embrionic stem cell research was a kick in the teeth to medical treatment. Really the only science the wingnuts support is war science.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:54 pmThanks for the correction Levi. Clearly I was being too generous. We probably shouldn’t forget creation science though.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:06 pmCreation science? is that an oxymoron or a Republican moron?
March 29th, 2009 at 9:15 pmLevi: You know. The presence of a watch implies there must be a watchmaker. That kind of science.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:26 pm…but only God can make a tree.
Ugh.
March 29th, 2009 at 9:42 pmangels81 Says:
Humans have been on this planet for around 12,000 years. The most successful species to walk this planet has been the dinosaurs who ruled for about 165 million years.
So angels81, what are you using for the statement “most successful”? If it is learning to manipulate the environment to provide a means to allow the species to live in the greatest range for its Family then you are incorrect, humans win.
ANd if it is type, then you loose again, as Insects win.
Actually Dinosaurs were pretty lousy evolutionarily. They were lucky in that the world was stable, and did not require them to adapt in short order…until that big boom, that is, and then their true “capapability to be successful fell flat on its face, and do did the dinosaurs.
Good try though.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:05 pmAlecto Says:
But what about birds?
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/dinobird/story.htm
March 29th, 2009 at 10:20 pmtbone Says:
Levi: You know. The presence of a watch implies there must be a watchmaker. That kind of science.
And the presence of a boiler implies there must be a boilermaker. Let’s drink!
March 29th, 2009 at 10:52 pm‘aaron’ says; With so many debates about whether or not man caused global warming, should we really be making definitive decisions?
There is NO debate on climate change within the scientific community. Big Oil is just desperately trying to create that impression. As are you.
You seriously need to get informed about this if you expect anyone here to take you at all seriously.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:11 ampost 638 by Pete;
If one is bothered by being treated like a troll, one should not act like a troll.
amen
March 30th, 2009 at 12:26 ampete says:
Futility is trying to explain to lemmings:
That bad, nay, HORRIBLE models were used in coming up with the “global warming” crap.
That “fossil fuel” is not fossils but a naturally occurring and self replenishing function of the planet itself…akin to replenishing blood in animals, including humans, and sap in trees, etc.
In other words, to stop oil from replenishing itself, the planet itself would have to be obliterated.
Holier than thou, and oh, so much wiser than everyone else when it shows so much flawed reasoning is simply arrogance born of ignorance and not admirable in the least.
Trying to reason logically and factually with someone who is willfully ignorant is futility squared.
PI, anyone?
March 30th, 2009 at 2:27 amDude,
Animals replenish blood in weeks. The earth “replenishes” fossil fuels (to use your metaphor) in a span of millions of years. I really don’t think EXXON is going to be around to wait for the next batch once all of our planet’s reserves have been depleted.
Nice try, though.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:51 amAny reaction to the last bit of trolling would merely serve to elevate the insane.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:25 amBTW. Repeating Kent Hovind, VenomfangX, or Kirk Cameron automatically disqualifies one from serious consideration.
March 30th, 2009 at 3:28 amThis dork is a classic example of the old adage that a little learning is a dangerous thing. What he needs to look at is the actual results of plants that are put in a high CO2 environment. The work has been done and it shows that most plants do a lot worse than in a normal CO2 atmosphere.
You will notice also that he carefully avoids mentioning the increased temperatures associated with the increased CO2. Those temperatures and the climatic changes (drought) associated with them in the West have resulted in some really horrific forest fires.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:03 pmAnother example of “a little learning is a dangerous thing” is
That bad, nay, HORRIBLE models were used in coming up with the “global warming” crap.
That “fossil fuel” is not fossils
Sorry, but the models have been pretty good. The only point that they fall down is that their predictions have been optimistic and the reality shows that the situation is worse than predicted.
And “fossil fuel” most assuredly is fossils. Only the woefully ignorant think that the term fossil is restricted to bones and other body parts that have become encased in stone. Fossils are any remains or traces of remains of living organisms that still exist after thousands to millions of years.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pmSomeone needed to refute the most recent troll. Thanks, Texas Aggie. I’m glad I didn’t need to risk my sanity by examining the stupid troll’s raving. However, if I might add a bit…
Among the many models used to examine climatology the biggest, oldest, and most accurate is Planet Earth itself. And what that model tells us, in no uncertain terms, is that we humans are rapidly destroying the Earth’s ability to support life as we know it. Even if one simply rejects the thousands of models scientists use, and regularly improve, rejecting what our ione and only planet tells us is moronic in the extreme.
So? The next time someone bleats some nonsense about flawed modeling, remind said idiot that Planet Earth doesn’t lie.
March 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pmThe scariest part of the Shimkus response is that he may actually believes what he says! Only 2 questions: has he ever taken a course in Biology that included photosynthesis and if so what was his grade.
His biography suggests that he has no educational background in the field in which he is attempting to sound so astute…so was this a GOP Talking Point?
Environmentalist around the world are laughing at his ignorance and unfortunately will have to waste time proving how wrong his statements are!
March 30th, 2009 at 1:40 pmHe cites the Buy-bull in scientific discussions, blood1. And that’s all the people need to know.
March 30th, 2009 at 2:33 pmI had not seen this particular clip before. This guy isn’t just scientifically illiterate, he fails to grasp the most basic tenets of our society. When a lawmaker starts spewing Scripture in a committee meeting they should be dragged from office on the spot. Mr. Shimkus is fundamentally incapable of understanding or following the most basic rule of American Governance. Namely, that personal religious beliefs have no place in government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E
March 30th, 2009 at 3:21 pmjenny_aiden_aaron says;
I don’t agree. I think the world goes through warming and cooling phases that we can’t control or affect.
So Jenny/Aaron or whatever your name is, what kind of credentials give you the authority to claim that you know better than 95% of the world’s scientists?
March 30th, 2009 at 11:30 pmIt seems that you have a different Constitution than I have. Where does it say that the Government is “supposed to provide for the general welfare” as you put it?
Sorry but I just can’t find it.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:14 amShow me the facts my little sockpuppet. How much is too much? Show me the facts. Over 30 thousand scientist disagree with you and the numbers are growing.
It must be really dark inside your mind my little sockpuppet.
It must really hurt being someone like you. I really feel sorry for you my little sockpuppet.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:23 amI can pretty much guarantee that all of you Global warming activists and anti-Oil people will jump in your cars and drive off to work every morning. Turn the thermostat up when it gets cold and turn the AC on when it gets hot. Fly in a plane to go visit grandma, or just drive around on a summers day to get an ice cream.
It’s called hypocrisy of the left.
As I kept asking “pete” the resident “doom and gloomer”, how far would you go? He never answered the question and that says it all about him.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:31 amJay says; Over 30 thousand scientist disagree with you
Jay that is just complete b ul sh i t.
If not, care to provide a link?
April 1st, 2009 at 3:07 amadd an extra l up there
April 1st, 2009 at 3:07 amLink please, troll
April 1st, 2009 at 3:08 amJay; I can pretty much guarantee that all of you Global warming activists and anti-Oil people will jump in your cars and drive off to work every morning. Turn the thermostat up when it gets cold and turn the AC on when it gets hot. Fly in a plane to go visit grandma, or just drive around on a summers day to get an ice cream.
It’s not about stopping energy use Jay, it’s about using energy more efficiently and from renewable sources.
And since when does believing the mainstream science make one an ‘activist’?
The fact is Jay, climate deniers like you are a shrinking fringe minority, and whichever way you try to spin it, the rest of the world is leaving you behind.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:06 am