I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here

[MLD Woody]

And some people still want to "debate" that god made everything in 6 days.... The fact that we still have a few people on that side does not mean both sides are equal or that a legitimate debate should be happening

[Stewy]

"All available evidence indicates that man made global warming is a physical impossibility."

 

The opening line itself would make me as skeptical of this article as I am of the extent as well as the possibility or even likelihood of reversal.

 

I am no alarmist and I do believe the situation is being exaggerated for political gain and profit.

 

But when the first line right out of the box is bullshit why I keep reading?

 

WSS

 

I thought the same thing, you shoud give it a chance.

 

That opening statement was also questioned by others. At the end the author explains exactly he meant....

 

Similarly, the global warming from man's emissions of greenhouse gases would be too small to be detected. Indeed, for reasons I have repeatedly reported, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a real existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection). Perhaps I should have been pedantic and said "Real man-made global warming is a physical impossibility".

I hope this clarifies my views on these matters.

 

Man made global warming has an abstract existence...thats kinda what you've been saying right?

[Westside Steve]

Good point Steve. Let me know if you stumble on any of those old reports heck would post that called for doomsday and were scientific

I don't feel like going through 4 or 5 years of posts. I think we all remember them. And I don't think heck is an idiot nor would he post something he didn't feel was worthy of notice.

 

That's not to say I bought into any of those doomsday productions. Just that there are people who do.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I don't feel like going through 4 or 5 years of posts. I think we all remember them. And I don't think heck is an idiot nor would he post something he didn't feel was worthy of notice.

 

That's not to say I bought into any of those doomsday productions. Just that there are people who do.

 

WSS

 

Alright. Well then whenever you are talking to "the alarmists" I'll just assume you are referring to no one here and no actual scientific paper. Basically just the left's version of TheBlaze

[Westside Steve]

 

Alright. Well then whenever you are talking to "the alarmists" I'll just assume you are referring to no one here and no actual scientific paper. Basically just the left's version of TheBlaze

I will, of course, remind you of all the times that your responses were nothing more than "I agree with heck."

 

If you don't believe that climate change is bringing us "big serious trouble" then why keep whining if I use the word alarmist?

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

I will, of course, remind you of all the times that your responses were nothing more than "I agree with heck."

 

If you don't believe that climate change is bringing us "big serious trouble" then why keep whining if I use the word alarmist?

 

WSS

 

Because I could say "I agree with Heck" or "I agree with Vapor" or whatever because it is easier than repeating what they just said. Whether I said that or not it is hard to tie that to me thinking the world is going to end in 3 years or whatever these mystical "alarmist" articles that were legit and were posted by Heck said. Or whatever you think that said.

 

If you are considering anyone that thinks climate change will cause serious damage at any point in the future, then yeah, I guess I am "an alarmist". That is really more just being a realist, but whatever.

 

I am not "whining" about your use of alarmist. I believe you are not using it in a correct manner. Like I said, if you are considering anyone that thinks climate change will cause damage, either now or 500 years from now, an alarmist, then I am not sure what to say. That seems like a very blanket statement for a word with a negative connotation.

[calfoxwc]

I would think that "we have to DO something" helps qualify the use of "alarmist".

 

Especially when "doing something" is based on nonsense, like "CO2 is a poison".

[Westside Steve]

 

Because I could say "I agree with Heck" or "I agree with Vapor" or whatever because it is easier than repeating what they just said..

then, in fact, it might be valuable to actually read what they said rather than just endorse it because you are hostile towards me or whoever they are arguing with. For instance if I said I agree with die hard without reading what he had to say you'd have a different opinion of what I thought right? And nobody here, I don't think, is taking the position that well something might happen in the next five hundred years. As you should recall, if you read any of the posts you agreed with, we (or they) are talking decades not centuries.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

here's another point. Here in the US, & I assume elsewhere, we have just about universally banned smoking in every public place. We jumped over fences and went through hoops to get this legislation passed. Great we have accomplished something!!! Now even though I don't think there are any valid numbers how much do you think that legislation improved the health of the American public? I'd say almost none. Anybody disagree?

 

And just for the record I much prefer going into or playing at a bar that's not filled with smoke. I just don't think that has anything to do with my health or anyone elses.

 

WSS

[Browns149]

here's another point. Here in the US, & I assume elsewhere, we have just about universally banned smoking in every public place. We jumped over fences and went through hoops to get this legislation passed. Great we have accomplished something!!! Now even though I don't think there are any valid numbers how much do you think that legislation improved the health of the American public? I'd say almost none. Anybody disagree?

 

And just for the record I much prefer going into or playing at a bar that's not filled with smoke. I just don't think that has anything to do with my health or anyone elses.

 

WSS

I would think it has helped the health of people that had to work in a smoke filled bar. It might not help the casual customers health. But someone working in a smoke fill room for 40-50 hours a week, it HAS to help. IMO

 

I go to my local bar and the girls there have all say it is a way better place to work then when smoking was allowed.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I think the reason for the public smoking bans was to limit the amount of other people who are subjected to the smoke. They used the health issue of it (there is some but likely overstated) but ultimately it is an issue of not being a rude fuck haha. If I wanted to stink like a smoker and hack like one I would choose to smoke myself. So the non-smokers won out.

[LogicIsForSquares]

I used to shoot a lot of pool and I absolutely hated having to go home and immediately shower because I smelled like the Marlboro Man.

[MLD Woody]

then, in fact, it might be valuable to actually read what they said rather than just endorse it because you are hostile towards me or whoever they are arguing with. For instance if I said I agree with die hard without reading what he had to say you'd have a different opinion of what I thought right? And nobody here, I don't think, is taking the position that well something might happen in the next five hundred years. As you should recall, if you read any of the posts you agreed with, we (or they) are talking decades not centuries.

 

WSS

Obviously I would have read their post if I said I agreed with it. Don't be a fucking idiot. Right now all we have in the argument are these mythical actually scientific reports that Heck apparently posted that called for doomsday and then myself apparently agreeing with that part of them....

 

And again, you're calling anyone that thinks damage will be done an "alarmist". That's like calling anyone that eats vegetables a health nut

[MLD Woody]

here's another point. Here in the US, & I assume elsewhere, we have just about universally banned smoking in every public place. We jumped over fences and went through hoops to get this legislation passed. Great we have accomplished something!!! Now even though I don't think there are any valid numbers how much do you think that legislation improved the health of the American public? I'd say almost none. Anybody disagree?

 

And just for the record I much prefer going into or playing at a bar that's not filled with smoke. I just don't think that has anything to do with my health or anyone elses.

 

WSS

Seriously? You don't think the overall health of the US improved? How? You have less people smoking and less people exposed to 2nd hand smoke

[Westside Steve]

Seriously? You don't think the overall health of the US improved? How? You have less people smoking and less people exposed to 2nd hand smoke

Seriously.

I think the threats associated with second hand smoke are exaggerated as a motherfucker.

Less people are smoking. But thanks to old it its and your generation the cigarette companies are still in business.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Obviously I would have read their post if I said I agreed with it. Don't be a fucking idiot. Right now all we have in the argument are these mythical actually scientific reports that Heck apparently posted that called for doomsday and then myself apparently agreeing with that part of them....

 

And again, you're calling anyone that thinks damage will be done an "alarmist". That's like calling anyone that eats vegetables a health nut

Idiot?

Look if you say you read the articles (and agreed) saying that in as little as 10 to 15 years without significant changes disaster would occur and don't remember them now I would say that between the two of us I would be the one who was not an idiot.

 

And I realize you are angry with Cal who argues that there is no such thing as MMGW. That's not me.

 

Alarmists are people who believe this threat is imminent, maybe 10 or 20 years.

Not 500.

 

If it makes it easier for you how about if I start calling you wood pecker poop butt head or something similar?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

I used to shoot a lot of pool and I absolutely hated having to go home and immediately shower because I smelled like the Marlboro Man.

Well that's not the point I'm making. I'm just saying that I believe the threat of second hand smoke is exaggerated wildly. As far as my beliefs I can't stand stinking like an ashtray when I'm done with a gig. I figure if enough customers don't like the smell and don't come into your bar... I have also played at places that had air filtration systems built into the bar and you could barely smell smoke.

 

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Idiot?

Look if you say you read the articles (and agreed) saying that in as little as 10 to 15 years without significant changes disaster would occur and don't remember them now I would say that between the two of us I would be the one who was not an idiot.

 

And I realize you are angry with Cal who argues that there is no such thing as MMGW. That's not me.

 

Alarmists are people who believe this threat is imminent, maybe 10 or 20 years.

Not 500.

 

If it makes it easier for you how about if I start calling you wood pecker poop butt head or something similar?

 

WSS

 

 

I'm saying that if you think I didn't read a post I said I agree with, then you're an idiot. If you fall in that category, then yeah, you'd be one.

 

What you're saying has nothing to do with Cal. No one here actually takes him seriously on issues like this so I am not that concerned with him.

 

And again, it depends on how you define threat. If you are considering any negative affect on the world, climate, environment, etc, then yeah, we'll probably be doing damage within a few decades. Will the world become uninhabitable? Will the oceans rise a considerable amount? No, probably not that quickly. Will damage be done though? Yeah, that's probably true.

 

Thanks to people like Cal, conservative think tanks, fake "science" orgs with "experts", etc that continue to debate against it actually happening, we're wasting time. We'd be better off concentrating our efforts on learning about the extent of the effects, how to try to prevent them, how to try to reverse it, etc. Our current political system, with the giant influence of lobby groups, allows science deniers to have too much of an impact. Money is clearly too powerful. It works for other issues too, like for pro gun groups have made it almost impossible for thorough, independent research to be done.

 

The dangers from smoking can affect you for the rest of your life within a relatively short time of smoking. Will you get cancer? Will it be very bad? No, probably not. But there will be negative effects.

[MLD Woody]

Seriously.

I think the threats associated with second hand smoke are exaggerated as a motherfucker.

Less people are smoking. But thanks to old it its and your generation the cigarette companies are still in business.

WSS

 

It isn't going to disappear immediately.....

 

To say that the overall health of the US has not improved at all though, that seems pretty crazy.

[The Cysko Kid]

It's stopped relatively few people from actually smoking. They just now have to huddle in little cones of shame to smoke. Second hand smoke is nasty smelling but i don't think it's the dire health threat the establishment would have you believe it is.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

This is taken from the Center For Disease Control page:

 

 

Top of Page

Facts About Secondhand Smoke

• During 2007-2008, an estimated 88 million nonsmokers in the United States breathed other peoples' tobacco smoke.¹⁴
• Each year, about 34,000 nonsmokers in the United States die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.¹
• Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 7,300 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.¹
• Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.¹⁵
• Secondhand smoke exposure is higher among persons with low incomes. For example, 60.5% of persons living below the poverty level in the United States were exposed to secondhand smoke in 2007–2008, compared with 36.9% of persons living at or above the poverty level.¹⁵

[MLD Woody]

It's stopped relatively few people from actually smoking. They just now have to huddle in little cones of shame to smoke. Second hand smoke is nasty smelling but i don't think it's the dire health threat the establishment would have you believe it is.

 

Shame and disgust is a good way to get people to stop unhealthy habits. Now we just need that to work better for obesity...

 

 

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Well, I see that woodypeckerhead butt of this board loves him some CDC studies

when it politically suits him.

 

well, then, gun control dumbass woodypeckerhead, here's some CDC study for ya.

 

Note: Read the results of the studies, and note that nearly all refer to "inconsistencies",

"lack of evidence", etc.

Conclusion? There is no freakin justification for widespread gun control over law abiding American

citizens.

BTW, Obamao says no American should be able to just go in to a store and buy a semi-automatic gun?

Will somebody PLEASE tell this dumbass "president", that there are background checks in all gun stores?

But just like woodpecker does most of the time, a lie is good if it suits your stupid antagonistic purpose.

\

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[calfoxwc]

Oh, here's a nice graph. The Antarctic sea ice is growing.

 

I thought it was all supposed to have melted by now.

 

Hmmm. Little Woodypeckerhead is now a major loser and a liar.

 

[calfoxwc]

[calfoxwc]

Okay, hypocrite loser woodypeckerhead.....

 

When a graph shows an up, then a down, then an up, then a down....then an up....

 

what does that mean, considering that the sea ice area mean is climbing?

 

(shhhh...nobody help him...)

[MLD Woody]

Well, I see that woodypeckerhead butt of this board loves him some CDC studies

when it politically suits him.

 

well, then, gun control dumbass woodypeckerhead, here's some CDC study for ya.

 

Note: Read the results of the studies, and note that nearly all refer to "inconsistencies",

"lack of evidence", etc.

Conclusion? There is no freakin justification for widespread gun control over law abiding American

citizens.

BTW, Obamao says no American should be able to just go in to a store and buy a semi-automatic gun?

Will somebody PLEASE tell this dumbass "president", that there are background checks in all gun stores?

But just like woodpecker does most of the time, a lie is good if it suits your stupid antagonistic purpose.

\

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

 

 

Alright, first of all this is another one of your "mmgw is a lie!" threads, try to stay on topic.

Second, I realize part of your science denier playbook is to just throw shit at the wall and hope something sticks, but at least keep it related to the climate.

Finally, I am not even sure what you're getting from that report. If anything that means that we don't know how well increased gun reform works. Some studies say there is a positive effect, some say there isn't one. That doesn't really benefit either side. If anything, that makes me think there should be more research down on the subject, but lobby groups like the NRA are shooting that down (no pun intended). Also, I thought any study originating from the govt. was a liberal, marxist, Obamao scheme that can't be trusted?

[MLD Woody]

If you post these things one at a time I'll attempt to debunk them one at a time. As for the sea ice increasing around Antarctica, here ya go:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing.html

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/why-climate-change-means-more-and-less-ice-for-the-antarctic/

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctic-sea-ice-grows-as-result-of-warming-15816

 

Key takeaways:

 

The difference between sea ice area and sea ice volume

The difference between land ice and sea ice

The fact that the Arctic, and other frozen areas of the world, are rapidly losing ice

 

The increase in sea ice area around Antarctica seems to be from increased winds in the area, breaking up sea ice and pushing it farther out, allowing more ice to form in the gaps, as well as increased precipitation levels and increased flow from land ice melting

 

 

 

So, there ya go. The sea ice is increasing, even though it is decreasing almost everywhere else, but this in no way "debunks" climate change.

 

 

 

What is next?

[calfoxwc]

When wrong, libs just change definitions, and words, and parse more drama out of

half truths.

 

Arctic ice growing. Interesting, eh?

 

Especially when you mmgw political hacks determined that there would be NO ice left by now?

 

How embarrassing to be a mmgw alarmist political hack, and then you get more ice and cooling for years

thrown at your nonsense. I mean, you all simply changed "man made global warming" to "climate change".

 

Thanks for finally, albeit via little choice left, coming around to admitting that climate changes. Big deal for you mmgw

wonks, eh?

 

I'm not trying to prove gw or gc exists. I'm trying to tell you mmgw folks, that you can take you cap and trade, carbon

credits, carbon selling, higher taxes, fees and licenses for cows farting, etc.....mileage tax, SUV and truck tax ...

 

you can take the UN, and it's admitted mmgw is a tool for getting $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for poor countries...

 

and shove it. Let me put it another way. At some point, even though you may be the last on earth to understand it...

the growth of CO2 because plant life has been paved over, cemented over, and built over, and the destruction

of the rain forests is not good.

 

Therefore...when you and Chris say the silly "we just have to DO something"....how about being

concerned about our globe's VIRGIN RAIN FORESTS ? Until then, STFU about Americans stop driving

SUV's, cows farting, lawnmowers, lack of carbon tax money for liberal votes causes....... It's bs.

 

Just once, you libs with the "sky is falling we need "x" taxes" should discuss the correlation between

solar activity, and periods of gw on earth.

 

There is nothing, NOTHING, we can do here in our U.S.A., to modify the climate. It changes.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

[Westside Steve]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/

 

furthermore I'd say that second hand smoke in restaurants and bars has even less effect much less,than living in a house with deadbeat welfare people smoking constantly

 

WSS