Climate Science is in the crapper for warmists .

[flogger]

Polar Bears did not evolve to live on sea Ice that did not exist. There is less ice now than in the last 100,000 years at least. What do you think that means?

Where do you guys get this comic book stuff or do you just make it up on the fly !

Here is the latest Greenland Arctic ice core researched temperature record (Kobashi 2011) for the last 4 millenia ....... again !



And here is the temperature record for both poles going back much further still

Ice Cores

Todays conditions are perfectly normal when you choose to look at established facts based on real analysis of actual evidence

 

[yobarnacle]

So in you mind releasing millions of tons of fossil Co2 ( a greenhouse gas) into an atmosphere that has not seen it for millions of years will have no effect on Earth at all. I don't suppose you have a theory on why this could be possible?

Manmade co2 is such a minute part of the atmospheric co2, it's insignificant.
But you are correct! The whole AGW scenario is based on touchy feely illogic "It just HAS to be BAD!"
Emotions. Not reason.

Anything that exists, is real.

Anything that does NOT exist, is NOT real.

The controversy over AGW is divided along political lines.
That's real.
Ergo, it's political, not science.

Temperature hasn't risen in 10 years, some say 17, yet we spew more co2 than ever.
Ergo, data supporting co2 drives temperature does NOT exist, and the speculation it does, is unrealistic.

End of logic lesson.

 

[flogger]

So in you mind releasing millions of tons of fossil Co2 ( a greenhouse gas) into an atmosphere that has not seen it for millions of years will have no effect on Earth at all. I don't suppose you have a theory on why this could be possible?

It doesnt matter what CO 2 levels are doing only what temperatures are doing and they have currently flatlined quite contrary to what the prevailing hypothesis says should have happened . The most likely future probability looks like a beneficial effect on plant growth in my view and whats not to like about that given our increasing population ?

 

[Threegoofs]

It doesnt matter what CO 2 levels are doing only what temperatures are doing and they have currently flatlined quite contrary to what the prevailing hypothesis says should have happened . The most likely future probability looks like a beneficial effect on plant growth in my view and whats not to like about that given our increasing population ?

Waaah! You repeatedly ignore all tge links that have been posted that show that this view is proven wrong.

You don't want to debate, you just want to repeat the same unfounded views constantly.

Although the benefit for plant growth is a new one, and a really special piece of bull****.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

[flogger]

Waaah! You repeatedly ignore all tge links that have been posted that show that this view is proven wrong.

What links ?

You don't want to debate, you just want to repeat the same unfounded views constantly.

I qualify my position with links to hard science and Peer reviewed data wherever possible. You should try it some time rather than using cartoonist blogs

Although the benefit for plant growth is a new one, and a really special piece of bull****.

So now extra CO 2 doesnt benefit plants ! You really dont have the faintest clue do you ? :roll:

 

[Threegoofs]

On the last thread, your 'peer reviewed' link was some dude writing an article who happened to reference peer reviewed journals.

I don't think you have a strong grasp of the peer review process...

 

[Threegoofs]

So now extra CO 2 doesnt benefit plants ! You really dont have the faintest clue do you ? :roll:

To a significant enough extent to matter and to balance out the harmful effects? No.

Interesting you think CO2 is good for plants. I'm guessing you know that because of science. Seems you like to be selective with what science you believe.

 

[flogger]

Interesting you think CO2 is good for plants. I'm guessing you know that because of science. Seems you like to be selective with what science you believe.

You are clearly so far out of your depth here I'll spare you the embarrassment of even addressing that statement. I'll just let it stand on its own merit for others to judge. :3oops:

 

[code1211]

Any decent prediction of the future is peppered with words like, maybe, perhaps, its possible, etc because any decent prediction of the future knows that there is no real way to predict the future.

The smart course of action would be to continue to explore the possibilites, the easy course of action would be to just ignore it and give it no more thought because its just a possibility. Which do you want to do?

I like dealing with reality and observable facts. If those observable facts indicate a need for concern, then we need to be concerned.

If the need for concern rises from the possible outcomes of possible effects of possible future events, then not so much.

 

[code1211]

The fact that the melting has been increasing at exponential rates in the last 2 decades means nothing right? How long will you pull the wool over your eyes?

To be clear, are you saying that the melting prior to that time is inconsequential?

 

[Threegoofs]

You are clearly so far out of your depth here I'll spare you the embarrassment of even addressing that statement. I'll just let it stand on its own merit for others to judge. :3oops:

Yeah. Sparing me the embarrassment

You probably had a peer reviewed blog post ready to go, too.

 

[code1211]

So in you mind releasing millions of tons of fossil Co2 ( a greenhouse gas) into an atmosphere that has not seen it for millions of years will have no effect on Earth at all. I don't suppose you have a theory on why this could be possible?

The best theory on this is that it's been there before.

Filehanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[code1211]

Waaah! You repeatedly ignore all tge links that have been posted that show that this view is proven wrong.

You don't want to debate, you just want to repeat the same unfounded views constantly.

Although the benefit for plant growth is a new one, and a really special piece of bull****.

CO2 is plant food

Skeptical Science may present actual fact, but the conclusions always end up saying that CO2 is bad, warming is bad, they are related and Man is the cause.

This is an agenda driven site and not reliable for unbiased review of the information.

 

[flogger]

Yeah. Sparing me the embarrassment

Well you do provide the best comic relief we have had here for some time

You probably had a peer reviewed blog post ready to go, too

On that particular point (and for any other poster reading this) such an exposition of the patently obvious would be entirely uneccessary ! :lamo

 

[yobarnacle]

The polar bear is an excellent swimmer and individuals have been seen in open Arctic waters as far as 300 km (200 mi) from land. With its body fat providing buoyancy, it swims in a dog paddle fashion using its large forepaws for propulsion.[52] Polar bears can swim 10 km/h (6 mph). When walking, the polar bear tends to have a lumbering gait and maintains an average speed of around 5.6 km/h (3.5 mph).[52] When sprinting, they can reach up to 40 km/h (25 mph).[53]

Polar bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More emotion laden dis-information by AGW warmers.
Don't worry about ursa maritimus.
They'll survive AGW controversy, but will the *USA?

 

[Threegoofs]

Skeptical Science may present actual fact, but the conclusions always end up saying that CO2 is bad, warming is bad, they are related and Man is the cause.

This is an agenda driven site and not reliable for unbiased review of the information.

Fine. Here's an unbiased article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361343/

Skeptical science is agenda driven, but is often a good source for info, much like a biology text is agenda driven for evolution, but often a good source of info.

 

[Threegoofs]

Well you do provide the best comic relief we have had here for some time



On that particular point (and for any other poster reading this) such an exposition of the patently obvious would be entirely uneccessary ! :lamo

I'd suggest when you want to sound pretentious, you should string your polysyllabic words together so they actually make sense.

You might fool some here, but I'm guessing very few.

 

[yobarnacle]

Fine. Here's an unbiased article.

Photosynthesis, Productivity, and Yield of Maize Are Not Affected by Open-Air Elevation of CO2 Concentration in the Absence of Drought

Skeptical science is agenda driven, but is often a good source for info, much like a biology text is agenda driven for evolution, but often a good source of info.

Why is it liberals want to inject evolution in every argument regardless of original topic.
it's OBVIOUS they don't really BELIEVE in evolution. Survival of the fittest? In the USA, we have americans, and american'ts. If they truly believed in evolution, they'd have a sink or swim attitude towards the can'ts

 

[flogger]

I'd suggest when you want to sound pretentious, you should string your polysyllabic words together so they actually make sense.

You might fool some here, but I'm guessing very few.

I'm certainly not out to 'fool' anybody but I'll try using smaller and less confusing words for you next time

 

[iguanaman]

The polar bear is an excellent swimmer and individuals have been seen in open Arctic waters as far as 300 km (200 mi) from land. With its body fat providing buoyancy, it swims in a dog paddle fashion using its large forepaws for propulsion.[52] Polar bears can swim 10 km/h (6 mph). When walking, the polar bear tends to have a lumbering gait and maintains an average speed of around 5.6 km/h (3.5 mph).[52] When sprinting, they can reach up to 40 km/h (25 mph).[53]

Polar bear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More emotion laden dis-information by AGW warmers.
Don't worry about ursa maritimus.
They'll survive AGW controversy, but will the *USA?

Polar bears live on seals they kill when the seals come up for air at holes in the ice. They have no chance of survival without that source of food. No ice no food. They certainly can't out swim a seal.

 

[flogger]

Polar bears live on seals they kill when the seals come up for air at holes in the ice. They have no chance of survival without that source of food. No ice no food. They certainly can't out swim a seal.

And Al Gore says there will be no ice cap left by next year too . Whatever shall they do ! :shock:

 

[iguanaman]

Why is it liberals want to inject evolution in every argument regardless of original topic.
it's OBVIOUS they don't really BELIEVE in evolution. Survival of the fittest? In the USA, we have americans, and american'ts. If they truly believed in evolution, they'd have a sink or swim attitude towards the can'ts

That is the lamest comment I've heard on this board for awhile. Evolution has nothing to do with caring about your fellow man. I guess you aren't a Christian either. What do you believe in besides yourself.? You seem to be the poster boy for DE-evolution.

 

[yobarnacle]

While polar bears prefer seals, they're opportunists. They'll eat anything from beluga whales to walruses [source: Polar Bears International]. The bears can find food on land if they have to, attacking reindeer and raiding birds' nests (bird eggs are a favorite snack), but they aren't well-adapted to hunting on land.

Instead, their strength is on the ice. Polar bears can't swim fast enough to catch a seal in the water and need an ice platform to use their full strength to grab one. But with global temperatures rising, Arctic ice floes melt earlier in the year than they used to, reducing the surface area on which bears can hunt. It also means that when polar bears wander onto land, they can end up stranded because the distance between land and the nearest ice sheet is too far to swim in one shot.


HowStuffWorks "Polar Bear Diet"

Polar bears been around about 620,000 years. during much warmer periods than now. I reckon they'll adapt.

Humans are even MORE adaptable.

Look how fast AGW warmers shifted from global warming to climate change, whem their prediction models failed on temperatures!

 

[iguanaman]

While polar bears prefer seals, they're opportunists. They'll eat anything from beluga whales to walruses [source: Polar Bears International]. The bears can find food on land if they have to, attacking reindeer and raiding birds' nests (bird eggs are a favorite snack), but they aren't well-adapted to hunting on land.

Instead, their strength is on the ice. Polar bears can't swim fast enough to catch a seal in the water and need an ice platform to use their full strength to grab one. But with global temperatures rising, Arctic ice floes melt earlier in the year than they used to, reducing the surface area on which bears can hunt. It also means that when polar bears wander onto land, they can end up stranded because the distance between land and the nearest ice sheet is too far to swim in one shot.


HowStuffWorks "Polar Bear Diet"

Polar bears been around about 620,000 years. during much warmer periods than now. I reckon they'll adapt.

Humans are even MORE adaptable.

Look how fast AGW warmers shifted from global warming to climate change, whem their prediction models failed on temperatures!

Right, this chart does not show any warming of temperature at all. What is all the fuss about?

 

[yobarnacle]

That is the lamest comment I've heard on this board for awhile. Evolution has nothing to do with caring about your fellow man. I guess you aren't a Christian either. What do you believe in besides yourself.? You seem to be the poster boy for DE-evolution.

I didn't say I didn't care about my fellow man.

I said, Liberals position on evolution and the cradle to grave welfare state is inconsistent.

and I AM Christian, and my church helps the poor and the sick. and visits those in prison and those who can't leave their home.

But I don't believe the government should be a trough for anyone too lazy to work.
The bible says, he who doesn't work, shall not eat.