I'm sick of this Global Warming!

[Blake]

@Lobohan

How many people do you suppose will die, and have their incomes affected if middle-of-the-road warming comes to pass?

And how many do you suppose will die needlessly if we implement reduction plans and temperature stalls where it has for the last 15 years?

Let’s go for the low figure, and say that it’s only 10, 000 a year in both cases

Are you saying that’s not enough to get passionate about?

Are you seriously saying that you can’t understand why anyone gets passionate about 10, 00 needles deaths every year.

But yeah, you’re right. They’re only darkies that don’t speak English. Why should anyone give fuck if they die.

[Blake]

@armedmonkey

Goddamn, Blake. OK. Hybrid cars murder people. Got it.

Actually, this is a classic example of the inability of some people to actually think about this shit.

A hybrid car costs at least 10, 00 dollars more than a comparable non-hybrid. Where did the extra 10, 000 dollars come from?

Where did the car come from? The research funding for it? How many lives are lost each and every year because it wasn’t invested into better airbags?

Starting to understand now? The world isn’t like Captain Planet cartoons kid. Everything has a cost. When that cost is human lives, decent people become passionate.

But not you. You don’t understand why people get passionate because you clearly don’t understand anything more complex than Saturday morning cartoons.

[FXMastermind]

@Blake

You don’t understand why people get passionate because you clearly don’t understand anything more complex than Saturday morning cartoons.

Ah, global warming, it’s so many things to so many people, and so ripe for an internet bash fest, everyone all beating each other about the head and shoulders with blunt objects. Or trying to slip a knife in, depends on the emotional fervor one can summon up.

@Blake

Fucking overgrown kids.

No matter what,** that summed up some important shit**. First world problem kids crying about how we have to save the world, meaning everybody else has to do something. Not them of course, they need those fucking fossil fuels to spread the world. To serve up the Kool Aid to the faithful.

@armedmonkey

I’ve never understood why climate change invokes such passion.

I’m not sure I believe you. It’s not the climate, much less the changes that arouses the passion.

@Whack-a-Mole

We can do the above all day. This is happening in almost every case wherever you look in the world.

If this is not the earth getting warmer is there another explanation?

Of course there are multiple other reasons aside from the CO2 levels. The manic circle jerk that only wants to do something about CO2, and ignores the rest, it’s actually part of the problem. Not that one can assign blame for the human condition.

@Magiver

There are no empirical facts to support climate change. It’s a hypothesis that may or may not be true based on computer models that cannot possibly contain all the variables. The only technical solution being pursued is the reduction of carbon dioxide and not technology aimed at lowering atmospheric temperatures.

Umm, actually there isn’t single thing being done to actually reduce CO2 production by human beings. All proposals are aimed at reducing the rise in the amount of increase each year. Nobody is stupid enough to actually plan, much less try to implement, any sort of reduction. It’s why none of the strident experts proclaiming doom have stopped using fossil fuels, or even reduced their carbon footprint. Much less set up a single home or business that doesn’t use carbon fuels. If the prophets of doom were actually DOING something that stopped their fossil fuel use, we would see THAT on Youtube, instead of increasingly desperate attempts to convince us the world is doomed if we don’t stop burning fuels.

@YogSosoth

So you’re basing your objection to a site because its glossary is not up to your standards

No you fuckhead, I call it pseudo-science for may reasons. That they can’t even fucking define their terms, ones the entire site is based on, is fucking ludicrous. (talking about skepticalscience.com)

@sylmar

But continuing to disagree with 95% of the scientific community

No you half baked excuse for an intellectual, if I point out that what the models predicted didn’t fucking happen, and in fact the opposite is happening, it means I’m smart enough to fucking well know when a prediction based on a model based on some assumptions based on a hypothesis turned out to be wrong. Noting something like that does not fucking mean a wholesale rejection of all science, you fucking moronic fuckhead.

@FXMastermind

The emotional, self righteous rhetoric, the personal insults, the illogical and constant moving of whatever it is, it’s hard to tell, it’s like trying to make sense of a religion.

And like most religions, it will probably kill a shit ton of people, while a few get filthy rich.

@Magiver

What we’re doing now is the equivalent of removing anything that burns to prevent forest fires instead of adding fire more fighting equipment.

Oh it’s so much worse than that.

Cue Blake

[armedmonkey]

@Blake

Yep. You really need to have better knowledge than what you got from watching Captain Planet before you post shit here.

I will not debate you because I believe you are losing it. All I said was that there was no need to panic, and you, well, you fucking panic. All this “Captain Planet” and “people die!” bullshit is panic.

It is not possible to examine this complicated subject with you. For some insane reason, you seem to be overly emotionally invested.

[Lobohan]

@Blake

And how many do you suppose will die needlessly if we implement reduction plans and temperature stalls where it has for the last 15 years?

Let’s go for the low figure, and say that it’s only 10, 000 a year in both cases

Are you saying that’s not enough to get passionate about?

Are you seriously saying that you can’t understand why anyone gets passionate about 10, 00 needles deaths every year.

But yeah, you’re right. They’re only darkies that don’t speak English. Why should anyone give fuck if they die.

You’re obviously a stupid man, I just wanted to get a measure.

First off, 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening and we are, to some extent responsible. So trying to equate it to the chance that nothing happens, is a little dishonest.

Second off, if you think the opportunity cost for the money spent mitigating warming would be anywhere near the cost for dealing with lost coastal land and the societal changes that migrating populations would cause, you’re an outright imbecile.

Also, don’t call me a racist again you sniveling halfwit.

[Blake]

@armedmonkey

I will not debate you because I believe you are losing it.

You won’t debate me because you will get your arse handed to you. You clearly have no idea about this issue.

All I said was that there was no need to panic

No you didn’t you liar. The word panic doesn’t even appear in this thread before this post.

What you said is that you don’t understand why people get passionate about this subject.

The outcome of this subject is going to cost tens of thousands of lives, at least. And you don’t understand why people get passionate.

Either you are a heartless psychopath with no compassion for other human beings, or you are an ignorant fool with a Disneyland view of economics.

I vote fro the latter. You’re a spoiled rich kid who is totally unaffected by the bullshit you try to force on other people to give your own meaningless life purpose. So of course you don’t care. You don’t need to care.

It is not possible to examine this complicated subject with you.

Since you clearly don’t even begin to understand the complexities, I don;t think there’s much danger of that happening.

“Hybrid cars murder people”. Really?:rolleyes:

For some insane reason, you seem to be overly emotionally invested.

That you believe that it’s possible to *be *overly emotionally invested when discussing tens of thousands of preventable deaths really tells me all I need to know.

[armedmonkey]

I’m a heartless psychopath.

[Blake]

@Lobohan

You’re obviously a stupid man, I just wanted to get a measure.

First off, 97% of climate scientists agree that AGW is happening and we are, to some extent responsible. So trying to equate it to the chance that nothing happens, is a little dishonest.

Second off, if you think the opportunity cost for the money spent mitigating warming would be anywhere near the cost for dealing with lost coastal land and the societal changes that migrating populations would cause, you’re an outright imbecile.

Also, don’t call me a racist again you sniveling halfwit.

So Lobohan’s argument is that since his alarmist predictions are clearly right, any discussion that assumes they might be wrong is clearly the work of an imbecile.

Yep, that’s the sort of rational, doomsaying argument we’ve come to know and love from the Church of Global Warming Alarmism.

Preach it Sister.

[Blake]

@armedmonkey

I’m a heartless psychopath.

I still think you’re just an ignorant rich, white kid with a Disneyland view of economics.

It’s not that you don’t care about tens of thousands of deaths. You just don’t understand how they can happen. Anything beyond a direct relationship is too complex for you to process.

If hybrid cars don’t actually go out and murder people, you just can’t grasp how they could be causing deaths.

[Lobohan]

@Blake

So Lobohan’s argument is that since his alarmist predictions are clearly right, any discussion that assumes they might be wrong is clearly the work of an imbecile.

No, I’m saying that the vast, vast majority of scientists think that there is a danger. We should take them seriously, factoring the level of confidence we have into the equation.

I think you’re an imbecile, because you’re way, way overreacting and coming across shrill.

Yep, that’s the sort of rational, doomsaying argument we’ve come to know and love from the Church of Global Warming Alarmism.

It’s not alarmism to take the opinion of the experts into account when facing a potential disaster.

If anything, your shrill, insane flailing is more reminiscent of a person who feels their religion is threatened.

[armedmonkey]

@Blake

I still think you’re just an ignorant rich, white kid with a Disneyland view of economics.

It’s not that you don’t care about tens of thousands of deaths. You just don’t understand how they can happen. Anything beyond a direct relationship is too complex for you to process.

If hybrid cars don’t actually go out and murder people, you just can’t grasp how they could be causing deaths.

Now that’s just funny. How the hell you made the leap from:

@armedmonkey

but it’s not exactly exactly a doomsday scenario.

to calling me an ignorant rich white kid I haven’t a fucking clue.

If you must know my race and background, I’m a 40 year old white male who is currently an oncology nurse, but used to work with horses and cattle. (It didn’t pay well). I don’t think anybody has ever called me “rich”

You’re chomping at the bit so hard to insult me. It’s hilarious. I remarked on misplaced passion, and you proved me right. Calm the fuck down.

[Blake]

@Lobohan

No, I’m saying that the vast, vast majority of scientists think that there is a danger.

Please show us what the danger is that the vast, vast majority of scientists think going to occur.

I think that 95% would be a reasonable lower limit for vast majoity don’t you?

So please tell us what this life-threatening danger is that 95% of scientists agree is going to happen.

And then quantify for us the likely death toll, and how that figure was arrived at.

When you can do that, you will be indulging in something other than religious doomsaying.

[magellan01]

@Blake

So Lobohan’s argument is that since his alarmist predictions are clearly right, any discussion that assumes they might be wrong is clearly the work of an imbecile.

Yep, that’s the sort of rational, doomsaying argument we’ve come to know and love from the Church of Global Warming Alarmism.

Preach it Sister.

Yep. Calling other posters “stupid”, “imbecile”, etc. is his go-to “argument”. I would place money that since he’s been around no other poster has done this near as much as he.

You’re premise is absolutely correct. It’s like a religion with them. It just MUST all be true.

By the way, I’d like to hear one of the Believers counter the point made by ralph124c just upthread.

[Lobohan]

@Blake

Please show us what the danger is that the vast, vast majority of scientists think going to occur.

That will, of course vary. The consensus is real:

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

I think that 95% would be a reasonable lower limit for vast majoity don’t you?

The IPCC uses the number 90% for things that are very likely to happen. Lets use that.

So please tell us what this life-threatening danger is that 95% of scientists agree is going to happen.

Wait, stupid. Stop screaming. Take a deep breath and think:

You are suggesting ten thousand deaths (I think, since in the midst of your tantrum you mistyped it several times). You are basing that on opportunity cost, not direct action. That the money diverted to climate change will mean less spent on future endeavors that will lower future deaths.

That’s cool enough, but you can’t compare your “future deaths because of unspent money on disease research” and direct deaths due to AGW.

Blake, buddy, surely you aren’t actually that stupid, right? You’re just hyperventilating because of how excitable this issue makes you, right? You’re not a dishonest liar, are you?

And then quantify for us the likely death toll, and how that figure was arrived at.

Show me how you arrived at that ten thousand number for fighting climate change. I suspect I can pull whatever number I want out of the puckered repository you got that from.

In any case, what the IPCC says is “very likely”:

Contraction of snow cover areas, increased thaw in permafrost regions, decrease in sea ice extent

Increased frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation

Precipitation increases in high latitudes

Precipitation decreases in subtropical land regions

Okay, so your argument, is that the cost to mitigate AGW will lead to opportunity cost that will cause ten thousand deaths. You base that on nothing but your sayso. Okay, Blake, buddy, how many people are likely to die as a result of the opportunity cost of dealing with the above weather phenomena?

Care to pull me a number the same place you got yours?

When you can do that, you will be indulging in something other than religious doomsaying.

Again, you’re the one acting like his religion is threatened.

[Lobohan]

@magellan01

Yep. Calling other posters “stupid”, “imbecile”, etc. is his go-to “argument”. I would place money that since he’s been around no other poster has done this near as much as he.

Few have to deal with people like you, Magiver, SA as much as I do.

You’re premise is absolutely correct. It’s like a religion with them. It just MUST all be true.

So far as I can tell, no one is saying it must be true. We’re saying that the vast majority of experts find it to be happening.

In every other segment of your life, you accept what the vast majority of experts say. But because of your religion of American 21st Century Conservatism, you assume it must be wrong.

I’m not the one acting strange. I accept scientific consensus on most issues. It’s why I don’t take homeopathic medicine.

By the way, I’d like to hear one of the Believers counter the point made by ralph124c just upthread.

Can I have a cite that Mars is cooling?

Also, Mars isn’t Earth. It has a different atmosphere, year long duststorms and dry icecaps. It doesn’t respond the same as our wet, thick atmosphere does.

[Blake]

@Lobohan

the vast, vast majority of scientists think that there is a danger.

@Blake

Please show us what the danger is that the vast, vast majority of scientists think going to occur.

@Lobohan

That will, of course vary.

And there we have it folks.

The vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.

But they can’t actually tell us what the danger is. Just that there is some nebulous “danger”.

Does this sound like science to anyone?

It’s a classic example of religious doomsaying. We are all condemned for our sins. The punishment is imminent. We can’t say what the punishment will be, but rest assured all the priests agree that it is real.

And when something bad happens, whether it be heat or snow or flood or drought or plagues of locusts or a lack of locusts, that shall be the sign that was predicted.

No Lobohan, the fact is that there is not a single danger that the vast majority of scientists agree is real.

But than you for highlighting this so perfectly for us all.

[FXMastermind]

@Blake

And there we have it folks.

The vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.

But they can’t actually tell us what the danger is. Just that there is some nebulous “danger”.

Does this sound like science to anyone?

What you describe isn’t scientific. In fact it sounds very much like several fallacies rolled up with some good old fashioned prophecy and religion.

The thing is, according to scientific knowledge, hypothesis and reasoning, increasing GhGs should lead to changes, and some of them will be bad for mankind.

[Lobohan]

@Blake

And there we have it folks.

The vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.

The vast majority of scientists agree we’re raising the temperature of the world.

The danger is a separate thing. If you believe that raising the temperature of the world will be a net good, you’re probably stupid. Which we already know, because you’re screaming like a loon instead of speaking intelligently.

But they can’t actually tell us what the danger is. Just that there is some nebulous “danger”.

Does this sound like science to anyone?

Different groups will have different expectations for what the increased temperature will do. The IPCC examples that I listed above should do you fine.

It’s a classic example of religious doomsaying. We are all condemned for our sins. The punishment is imminent. We can’t say what the punishment will be, but rest assured all the priests agree that it is real.

Except, silly bitch, in this instance, the priests are scientists who peer-review their findings.

And when something bad happens, whether it be heat or snow or flood or drought or plagues of locusts or a lack of locusts, that shall be the sign that was predicted.

I’ll admit that many on the pro-GW side take specific storms as proof they’re right. Of course no individual storm is more than a data point.

No Lobohan, the fact is that there is not a single danger that the vast majority of scientists agree is real.

But than you for highlighting this so perfectly for us all.

I do try.

[Blake]

@Lobohan

The vast majority of scientists agree we’re raising the temperature of the world.

The danger is a separate thing.

You lying fucking weasel.

Your claim was, and I quote: “The vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.”

That was a typical alarmist claim. Shrill, almost hysterical, intended to raise tensions, and without a shred of evidence to back it up.
And now you try to weasel out of it by claiming that the danger is separate.

No dude, the danger is isn’t separate. your claim was a simple, single sentence, that the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.

The danger isn’t separate. The danger is what you claimed that the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.

And that claim is bullshit without a shred of evidential support.

Typical alarmist bullshit. Make wild claims about imminent danger, and as soon as you get called on it, claim that you never said it.

Lying, weaseling alarmist bullshit. The good thing about a message board is that everyone can see exactly what you posted. And what you posted was not that the danger was a separate thing.

What you posted was that the danger was the only thing.

And that claim has been proven to be unsupportable alarmist bullshit.

Once again, thank you for highlighting the ignorant, dishonest tactics ofAGW alarmists.

[Lobohan]

@Blake

You lying fucking weasel.

Your claim was, and I quote: “The vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.”

That was a typical alarmist claim. Shrill, almost hysterical, intended to raise tensions, and without a shred of evidence to back it up.
And now you try to weasel out of it by claiming that the danger is separate.

No dude, the danger is isn’t separate. your claim was a simple, single sentence, that the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.

The danger isn’t separate. The danger is what you claimed that the vast, vast majority of scientists all agree that there is a danger.

And that claim is bullshit without a shred of evidential support.

Typical alarmist bullshit. Make wild claims about imminent danger, and as soon as you get called on it, claim that you never said it.

Lying, weaseling alarmist bullshit. The good thing about a message board is that everyone can see exactly what you posted. And what you posted was not that the danger was a separate thing.

What you posted was that the danger was the only thing.

And that claim has been proven to be unsupportable alarmist bullshit.

Once again, thank you for highlighting the ignorant, dishonest tactics ofAGW alarmists.

Does it feel good to vent your spleen, Blake?

So you agree that the world is warming due to our actions, Blake? Yes?