Global Warming is over.

[Cliche Guevara]

And, 99% of all life on earth has gone extinct, why do we assume humanity has been tasked with preserving the life that has been here for our miniscule existence.

I wouldn't say that it's our task to prevent all extinction from taking place, but taking that position is very far removed from taking the position that we shouldn't bring about a mass extinction. Please tell me you understand the difference.

And, I'm waiting for someone to respond to my above question.

It was ignored because it was a stupid question. No one denies that there have been past warming and cooling trends, the contention is that this particular warming trend is due to human causes rather than natural ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc

[Farbin Kaiber]

Assuming all the others were happenstance and this one is man made is, as you put it, stupid.

And, assuming all the other species went extinct without human interaction, but now, one small percentage of that 1% will be solely responsible for a mass extinction is also, in your words, stupid.

[cale]

And, 99% of all life on earth has gone extinct, why do we assume humanity has been tasked with preserving the life that has been here for our miniscule existence.


And, I'm waiting for someone to respond to my above question.

Well if you accept what most zoologists do, life has been on Earth for 3.6 billion years. The last 200 years (we'll stretch it to 300 for the sake of the argument in your favour) has seen humans burning fossil fuels in large quantities, something previously not done. So roughly 0.0000083% of lifes existence has seen the use of fossil fuels, a fraction of a blink of the eye. Are you really going to sit here and claim that any substantial changes made to the ecosystem in such a short amount of time are not worth acknowledging and rectifying if we're the cause? Something most reputable climate scientists agree on, that we are in fact the cause. edit * a hugely contributing factor, sole cause...speculative.

Rely on your ignorance more please, it amuses all those with half a brain.

[Cliche Guevara]

Assuming all the others were happenstance and this one is man made is, as you put it, stupid.

And, assuming all the other species went extinct without human interaction, but now, one small percentage of that 1% will be solely responsible for a mass extinction is also, in your words, stupid.

Assuming those things would be stupid, that's why we don't assume. You have heard of this things like empirical evidence and scientific experiment, right? Watch the video, it will give you a much better understanding of the case for anthropogenic global warming.

[mrsleeve]

I am going to pull out Darrin's catch phrase


Correlation =/= Causation


Oh wait I forgot its settled while the sun continues to go on with its instability and increased activity

[herbivor]

Sleeve, what you consider common sence observation, I would consider scientific ignorance. Your statements are proud announcements of your ignorance on this topic. It takes very little reading and understanding of sound science to understand the basics of AGW, yet all the RWNJs on here refuse to do so, probably because ignorance is bliss, especially with this topic.

[gwb72tii]

Sleeve, what you consider common sence observation, I would consider scientific ignorance. Your statements are proud announcements of your ignorance on this topic. It takes very little reading and understanding of sound science to understand the basics of AGW, yet all the RWNJs on here refuse to do so, probably because ignorance is bliss, especially with this topic.

actually herbie, its due to the inability of you and your minions to even consider that there are in fact other opinons.
keep the faith.

[nando]

I didn't know opinions counted as science.

[gwb72tii]

I didn't know opinions counted as science.

well, since there has been little in the way of the alarmist's climate models prediciting anything accurately, it's all opinion

[rwh11385]

I didn't know opinions counted as science.

Who needs facts when you can argue from ignorance?


It is hard to prove how exactly gravity works, therefore did it not exist? They theorized about the Higgs boson before they could discover it after a lot of investment. Does it mean they should have been ignored before?

[cale]

well, since there has been little in the way of the alarmist's climate models prediciting anything accurately, it's all opinion

I see your fallacious arguments and raise you one Lalalala I'm not listening, seems to be your counter argument for most of the science presented.

[gwb72tii]

ha, i'll raise again
tell me where i'm wrong cale
your side cannot account, as phil jones said, for the lack of warming
and why did temps decrease in the 1940-1970 time period when anthro CO2 was rising?

[BraveUlysses]

I see your fallacious arguments and raise you one Lalalala I'm not listening, seems to be your counter argument for most of the science presented.

hahaha

[cale]

ha, i'll raise again
tell me where i'm wrong cale
your side cannot account, as phil jones said, for the lack of warming
and why did temps decrease in the 1940-1970 time period when anthro CO2 was rising?

Google is your friend.

Stop looking at one small window which favors your argument. It only does so if you wear blinders and ignore the overall increase since mans initial use of fossil fuels. An increase MUCH larger than the decrease you mention. One short break in a long trend does not negate the trend, do you disagree with this?

[gwb72tii]

one small window???
ROFL
according to your side its fucking impossible for CO2 to rise and temps to go down, its central and the core of your hypotheses (as opposed to theories. hint- read my sig)
we should have a catastrophe on our hands by now according to your side