calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Let's start over - and try to keep to the subject, libs. HECK POSTED this: heckofajobbrownie Member since Sept 28, 2005 I just picked up my copy of that left-wing rag The Economist and saw that the cover story is called "The Melting North." It's about how the Arctic is becoming ice free, and how nations and businesses, particularly oil companies and natural resource extraction industries, are already fighting over who is going to have access to what. It also concludes like this, which sounds an awful lot like someone around here whose been made to answer the same old questions from someone else... "The impending enrichment of Arctic countries would not compensate for the costs of runaway Arctic warming. Arctic species, habitats and quite possibly whole ecosystems would be lost. No Arctic country—not even Russia, which has a poor history of conservation—could contemplate wreaking such environmental havoc unilaterally. Yet all are happy to profit from it. That makes the Arctic a textbook illustration of the commons-despoiling tragedy that climate change is. The costs to the world are likely to be greater than those to the Arctic, however. Arctic glaciers—including the Greenland ice sheet—are melting and disintegrating faster than expected. If this were to continue over a couple of centuries, there would be a strong chance of catastrophic rises in sea levels; this alone might cost the world more than it stands to benefit from Arctic resources. As a symptom of global warming, moreover, the warming Arctic is indivisible from the manifold costs it will entail. The World Bank estimates the cost of adapting to climate change between 2010 and 2050 at $75 billion-100 billion a year; other estimates are higher. Sooner or later such arithmetic is going to force governments to get serious about dealing with climate change. It is already clear what is required: policies to put an appropriate price on carbon emissions, through a tax or market-based system, that is sufficient to persuade polluters to develop and adopt cleaner technologies. These are already available, and so is the ingenuity needed to force down their costs and bring them to market. Indeed, it is evident in the Arctic: the technological feats that oil companies display there are inspiring. With prompt action, the worst outcomes of a warmer Arctic can still be avoided. The shrinking ice cap may find a new equilibrium. Most of the permafrost may remain frozen. But the Arctic will nonetheless be radically changed, to the detriment of a unique polar biome. This much is already inevitable." ***************************** THEN I POSTED THIS: http://www.iceagenow...ng_Glaciers.htm List of the glaciers that are GROWING. I'm tired of all the politics libs have as the only reason for their phoney man made global warming farce. It's over. No fact. Just desperate for lib democrat votes in upcoming elections. It's over. AND THEN I POSTED THIS: *********************************************** http://www.washingto...ce-cap-growing/ An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing By James S. Robbins January 10, 2010, 05:54PM A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them ******************************** increased by 409,000 miles. Libs lie. Try to manipulate public opinions for votes. Any excuse they can muster. Heck is one of the more dishonest ones on this board. It's really tough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt - about out of control idealism. More like what I said. The arctic is becoming ice free? B FREAKIN S. *********************************************** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 So - the Arctic ice is growing bigtime. But Heck says it it melting away. Let's let Heck responid. Let's wait and see what he says. Or doesn't. But, adhering to a lie for political benefit, that's classless. mmgw is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 We needed a new thread? Do I post I new thread every time I demolish your argument? And this "win" is just in your head. I'll tell you what, if I'm feeling up to it when I get home I'll find some evidence against you, or why the source is wrong, or whatever fault there is on your argument. Who knows, maybe there isn't one, but I'll try to look later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Little Johnnie Woodpecker <> Heck whine and pout somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Lol, you should learn how to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Shall I start a new thread again? The rest of us are waiting for Heck to respond.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Oh well if i'm not allowed ill stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 I have no problem answering this, but does anyone want to see the answer to this besides Cal? Because it's pointless for him, and for me to show it to him. He won't be able to process it, even though it's pretty simple. It won't make any difference. But the rest of you might want to see, and will be able to see what's going on, and how getting your global warming information from The Washington Times and the Guardian isn't a good idea. Just let me know. One sentient person is enough. Otherwise, I don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 I've long contended that climate change is a natural occurance. So what of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Yeah, we already wasted enough time on that nonsense. If anyone cares about Cal's sea ice claim, perhaps we can make a small advance for humanity. I'll give you a hint: it has something to do with that old saying about lies and damned lies and statistics. I'll give you another hint: why do they always pick 2007 as a starting point? Why would you do that? Now look at the graphs here. The long term trendline on sea ice is unmistakeable. But if you cherry pick 2007 and start there what happens? Hey, sea ice is increasing!! Congratulations, you've just fooled a rube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Let's see if Cal can understand why his claim was wrong, and a deliberate misuse of data to achieve a particular result. I'm going to guess no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 lol, i like this game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Let's just say you get used to all the tricks they pull pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 I've long contended that climate change is a natural occurance. So what of it? It is a natural occurrence. If you think humans are too puny to affect the climate, well, let's just say that you're going against a large amount of scientific data. In itself, there's nothing wrong with that, since it's how some of the craziest shit we know gets discovered, and that's how people win Nobel prizes. If you're going to say that, however, you had better have some damning evidence that shows the contrary (I know of no scientific evidence that could be considered "damning"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 The point is, man made global warming. If you cherry pick a time that benefits you, it's just that. BS. And Heck is great at bs. Apparently, that's what he gets paid to do. Warming/cooling changes occur naturally. Like we keep saying - the great Ice Age melted away. There were no people. So, dishonest dipshits like Heck will still blame Republicans driving SUV's for that Ice Age melting away. Except - there were no people. At all. But the melting occured. Now, you libs get all hapy and come up with a way to explain THAT and blame it on human beings and suv's and factories and all, and I'd be impressed. Nobody ever said warming trends changed. The question is, how does that prove HUMAN BEINGS CAUSED it? It's all bs. But Vapor and Little Johnnie Woodpecker get the short end of the stick - they don't get paid for being witless and ignorant. Heck gets paid, at least as far as I can guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 The question is, how does that prove HUMAN BEINGS CAUSED it? Human beings didn't cause it, dipshit. It's a natural process that's been around since, oh I don't know, forever. Most evidence points to human beings influencing the process. If you still can't understand the difference between the two, perhaps you should enroll in your local elementary school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 You'll never guess, but it turns out I was right. Cal couldn't see where he was wrong! Stunned. Simply stunned. Let's try again: Cal, can you see how the Washington Times article that you posted cherry picks ice melt data from 2007, an extremely warm year and the year the most ice melted, and compares it to now, in order to make it seem like the ice pack is actually increasing? Why would anyone pick 2007 to start running the numbers about decades of ice decline? Should you find it odd especially since 2007 is the only year you can pick to make your data look like there's more ice now? Here, look. I'll even post it again: See how they manipulated you into thinking the ice isn't melting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Heck's own graphs say he's full of crap. LOL The low points and high points.... how does that blame human beings for the ice age melting? When there WERE NO HUMAN BEINGS? Come on. Is odd that solar flares coincide with peaks of warming, isn't it? Newsflash. There were solar flares back in the days when the ICE AGE MELTED. But no people Warming happens, comes and goes. Trends long term - don't mean that human beings cause that trend.. And get this: Heck is stupid enough to think that dinasaur farts and sharks driving SUV's caused the ice age to melt before there were human beings on the planet. You other lib feeeelers just keep on feeeling on. But you make no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Science H. Logic, what a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Look, they did it here again with global temperatures! Using the same year! Look how obvious that is. Even you could see what's going on here. ...Okay, maybe not. But most people could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Now, I feel bad, because Cal is an idiot. But it's important to note it anyway because this shit is trotted out all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Don't feel bad. Out this moron for being a moron. Anyone who willingly disregards evidence is an idiot and should be treated like one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Heck wimpy translation: "I'm too big a sissy, and too stupid to talk about the ice age melting, and I won't talk about the rain forests being destroyed hundreds and thousands of acres at a time. I'm a cowardly weinie because those things don't get votes for democrats." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Heck wimpy translation: "I'm too big a sissy, and too stupid to talk about the ice age melting, and I won't talk about the rain forests being destroyed hundreds and thousands of acres at a time. I'm a cowardly weinie because those things don't get votes for democrats." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Yes, if you can't reply to ALL the deranged rantings of an idiot then they clearly won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 ice age. melted. losers. You never have an answer. Just angry hateful emoting. haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 You never have an answer. You never have an answer. You never have an answer. You never have an answer. You never have an answer. You never have an answer. You never have an answer. This guy is soooooo crazy. You have no idea how hard I'm laughing at my desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 See? Libs aren't funny. We conservatives and independents are. Told ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted June 18, 2012 Report Share Posted June 18, 2012 Look, I don't want to point out the flaws in your argument anymore, Cal. It'll piss off Cysko. Everyone else can see what you posted, and your challenge for me to address it. And then they can see how easily it was for me to take it down. Then they'll see you ignoring how it got taken down and trying to change the subject to something even less on point. This is enough for me. Back to my work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 But you didn't take down anything. You simply moved the yardstick. The subject of the thread is man made global warming. If they pick 2007, and the ice is far greater, how does that compute with mmgw? It doesn't. Not at all. Pick another year to start from... nobody is dissing the fact that warming/cooling trends happen. The ice age melted. No humans. The ice in recent years grew, and melted. That's weather. That's solar flares. It is all sorts of things - but it has NOT been proven a whit, that man's activities caused it. And that comes from actual scientists who are experts in the field. You have some experts who agree with you. Trouble is, that only makes for a theory, and evidence to the contrary of a theory. As usual, you just changed the subject, and moved the yardstick, and changed the critieria to have your political conclusion. Loser. But you do have some "content" in a lot of your posts - but Little Johnnie Woodpecker makes you look like a fool. Have nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.