Global Warming is over.

[MAXELHOFF]

Wait until more parts of the world have "dirty" infrastructure.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/green-lifestyle-choices-dont-change-the-systems-that-make-fossil-fuels-attractive/275575/

. .

[nando]

I see 100+ car coal trains going to China every day. tons and tons and tons of coal.. obviously for electricity generation. where do people think that shit ends up when they burn it? I guess some people believe in magic or something.

of course, GWB doesn't care, it's not in his back yard. But just wait until all that smog from China blows across the pacific into his retirement home. ;)




(and it will still be Obama's fault)

[nando]

this is pretty cool, and also very sad:

http://world.time.com/timelapse/

based on the Google project to process 30 years of satellite images

George, I suggest you keep your eyes shut if you click on this link. Well, I guess it doesn't matter, you're totally blind either way.

[herbivor]

Congratulations everyone. We did it!!! 400ppm CO2 reached. I never thought I would see this day so quickly but never underestimate the power of human innovation. It was only about 28 years ago when we started the path to irreversible destruction. Oh how time flies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130510180610.htm

[gwb72tii]

Congratulations everyone. We did it!!! 400ppm CO2 reached. I never thought I would see this day so quickly but never underestimate the power of human innovation. It was only about 28 years ago when we started the path to irreversible destruction. Oh how time flies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0510180610.htm

and no global warming for 20yrs
maybe CO2 is not the evil you and your ilk present to be?

[nando]

and no global warming for 20yrs
maybe CO2 is not the evil you and your ilk present to be?

are you a robot or something? again posting the same thing that has been disproven over and over and over again.

I guess you skipped over the link I posted because it's too inconvenient for you?

[BraveUlysses]

Trolls gonna troll

[herbivor]

and no global warming for 20yrs
maybe CO2 is not the evil you and your ilk present to be?

Even the deniers aren't denying global warming anymore, yet you still are. :loco:
Tell us your theories of creationism and how the world is less than 5000 years old. Technically, the science isn't settled on that either because I'm sure you can find a couple of "scientists" that would side with creationists and cherry pick the data they wanted to "prove" it to you.

[BraveUlysses]

Don't feed the troll herbie. Just like any other scavenger, he will come back as long as you keep feeding him.

[Q5Quint]

and no global warming for 20yrs
maybe CO2 is not the evil you and your ilk present to be?

There has been a global warming trend for 20,000 years, how can you say that?

We just pushed the co2 higher than it has naturally been in the last 400,000 years.... either way we will be testing our theories- and I hope you are right.

Hope because you haven't proven anything we have said wrong- just ignoring 'facts', dismissing information based on 'liberal bias', and references to just bad science.

I would still love to read a paper dismissing global warming, but the problem there is that there are too many papers proving the co2 to temperature connection for the last 400k years.... so applying it to our 400ppm today is obviously relevent. Saying it has not being warming for the last 20 years and that 'proves' global warming has stopped is just idiotic and you know that.



Look at that deviation- for all we know it could still be rising so how can you be so sure and so dismissive? Your point just doesn't make logical sense.

Nice find Nando- the vegas and reservoir timelapse one is cool.

[cale]

Saying it has not being warming for the last 20 years and that 'proves' global warming has stopped is just idiotic and you know that.

He doesn't. He genuinely believes that despite nearly every record for the hottest year taking place in the last decade or so is irrelevant and that warming has stopped. It's an idiotic claim, because he's an idiot.

[gwb72tii]

for once mr "brave" is correct, sort of

and cale, define idiot for me. better yet, post a pic of yourself so i can see what one looks like.

you, herbie, "brave", and mr Q like to have one side of the argument and ignore any and all dissent, even when its obviously from prople more qualified to opine on the subject than you or anyone on this board.

and i'm an idiot. LOL

[rwh11385]

and no global warming for 20yrs
maybe CO2 is not the evil you and your ilk present to be?

Again, are you going senile? Or are you not only incapable of realizing that riding a dead horse...

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showpost.php?p=3694863&postcount=1878

It's good to recycle, but perhaps consider not doing so with a dumb argument that you seem to not understand why it is flawed.

Again and again you fire and forget, never actually responding to the question of the disappearing energy...

and then repeat the same line a few pages later.

...But also cannot remember what time period your narrow-minded, mathematically dumb argument is based upon.

2013 - 20 years = ... 1993



Yeah... might want to double check your "played a climate scientist on TV" source again to parrot the right number of years for the ignorant protest.

you, herbie, "brave", and mr Q like to have one side of the argument and ignore any and all dissent, even when its obviously from prople more qualified to opine on the subject than you or anyone on this board.

and i'm an idiot. LOL

The irony meter is about to break George. Q has repeatedly asked for a scientific paper that disproved global warming. I've repeatedly asked for a denier or skeptical explanation of where all the additional energy "disappears" to. Your "qualified" source is a college drop out that doesn't understand statistics and draws flat lines in MS Paint.

[cale]

cale, define idiot for me.

i'm an idiot.

[herbivor]

for once mr "brave" is correct, sort of

and cale, define idiot for me. better yet, post a pic of yourself so i can see what one looks like.

you, herbie, "brave", and mr Q like to have one side of the argument and ignore any and all dissent, even when its obviously from prople more qualified to opine on the subject than you or anyone on this board.

and i'm an idiot. LOL

I used the creationist parallel because it is identical to your argument in relevant ignorance. Your side of the AGW argument is like debating evolution with a creationist. Your information is not based on scientific scrutiny and facts, so there really is very little to debate intelligently. And it therefore really does not belong in the debate.