US

[gftChris]

What those two pieces of information show is a cooling in the contiguous US, but a warming globally over the past 14 years.

[calfoxwc]

but absolutely nothing about man causing it. I mean, that's my whole problem with

the politics of mmgw. Your numbers are pretty much meaningless, to that point.

[gftChris]

Of course not, it's just temperatures - how on earth do you expect it to show the causes?!

[calfoxwc]

Then why argue with me about mmgw? I'm simply saying, that

there is NO reason to tax, regulate, fund raise, and vote for dems, etc etc etc,,

give up more and more of our freedoms in small? ways...

 

for a FREAKIN THEORY that has not been proven. Don't take it from me - here's a good

scientific explanation for the QUESTIONS about it. And, as long as there are major QUESTIONS

concerning the THEORY, dems who want to regulate our home temps, cows farting, lawnmower and car

exhaust tax, tractors on farms, etc etc etc etc, can go to hell because many of us are not buying into

the farce. "We" refuse to allow our country and ourselves to be taxed out the wazoo, etc, for no

legit, conrete reason. That's all I'm saying.

 

You characters that adopt mmgw as an absolute fact don't know what you're talking about, but you

buy into it completely. Why? I guess, for political reasons maybe?

 

So, in conclusion, I don't know what the truth is, either, and neither do scientists. More and more, they

are confusing, too.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140811165812.htm

[calfoxwc]

Another one:

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

[calfoxwc]

This is an interesting article -

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/

[calfoxwc]

That last article happens to be by a guy who knows a hell of a lot about the subject:

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

[calfoxwc]

So, Chris, also in conclusion, if we did have cows, which we don't, although I do want to have

some chickens....

 

those cows would be allowed to fart all they want to, and I refuse to pay libs, and the un one

penny for their political "mmgw" hysteria.

 

Odd, libs hate "hysteria" until it's politically expedient, like everything else they love/hate - depends on the

benefits they can reap for their causes.

[gftChris]

Do you maybe have a brown paper bag you can breathe in to? You need to calm down a bit!

 

Temperatures on their own cannot give any cause - how can they? They're just numbers.

 

Think of it this way. You plant your tomatoes in the [season for planting tomatoes], water them as normal and whatever else, but when you come to harvest them, there's 10% more than last year. Does that in itself tell you why there's 10% more? No, of course. But using other data, you can maybe have a good guess. Did you get the right rain at the right time? The right frosts or lack of at the right time? Maybe you put some new pesticide or fertilizer on them which had an impact.

 

Point being, you're expecting the numbers themselves to provide the explanation for why they are the way they are, which is nonsensical in this case.

 

 

 

Then why argue with me about mmgw? I'm simply saying, that

there is NO reason to tax, regulate, fund raise, and vote for dems, etc etc etc,,

give up more and more of our freedoms in small? ways...

 

for a FREAKIN THEORY that has not been proven. Don't take it from me - here's a good

scientific explanation for the QUESTIONS about it. And, as long as there are major QUESTIONS

concerning the THEORY, dems who want to regulate our home temps, cows farting, lawnmower and car

exhaust tax, tractors on farms, etc etc etc etc, can go to hell because many of us are not buying into

the farce. "We" refuse to allow our country and ourselves to be taxed out the wazoo, etc, for no

legit, conrete reason. That's all I'm saying.

 

You characters that adopt mmgw as an absolute fact don't know what you're talking about, but you

buy into it completely. Why? I guess, for political reasons maybe?

 

So, in conclusion, I don't know what the truth is, either, and neither do scientists. More and more, they

are confusing, too.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140811165812.htm

 

For the 5,389th time, a scientific theory is different from what you colloquially call a theory. It's the ubiquitously (above 95%) accepted explanation for something. Like the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, the big bang theory - all proven beyond reasonable doubt, given the data available, and all accepted by at least 95% of the scientific community.

 

Here are some things that are proven facts that might help understand the general principal of 'taxing cow farts' as you love to bang on about:

 

1) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is, it traps heat in our atmosphere. There are other greenhouse gases, such as methane (cow farts! trololol) that contribute as well, but carbon dioxide is the biggie.

2) There has been a drastic rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment since the mid 19th century - about the time we entered the industrial age (end of the industrial revolution, mass adoption of the industrial 'machines')

[Pumpkin Eater]

Please explain how co2 traps heat in our atmosphere.

[sadbrownsfan]

Please explain how co2 traps heat in our atmosphere.

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html

 

here ya go.

[gftChris]

Wow...

[calfoxwc]

Please explain how CO2 increases, and the temp decreases.

 

And, Chris, I never said anywhere that numbers should show whatever.

 

That's garbage rationalization.

 

I just posted three links that explain the problems with mmgw. They don't know.

 

I am venting about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Either stick to the subject,

or go start another one in another thread. I do not give a frak to be taxed, etc, because of a bunch of scientists

who say it's a global warming man made crisis.

 

There are plenty of others who say not so fast on the mm part. You can take your 95%

and make a crap sandwich out of it.

 

There are pullentee of scientists who were signed on to agreements about mmgw, who did not

sign on. They were collectively added, and plenty of them didn't like it, and had the courage to

say so.

 

And, as most of the time, you ignored the three links I posted, that pretty much kick the arse

of the "mmgw is an absolute fact" bs.

[calfoxwc]

Okay, back to CO2. It is only 0.039 % of our atmosphere. You talk like CO2 only absorbs that radiation one way.

 

History has shown, that CO2 spikes have been significant, after warming phases. Interesting, yes?

 

Since plants feed on CO2?

What percentage of man made CO2 could realistically be stopped from going into the atmosphere?

 

I think it was .14 %. But Chris, that doesn't matter if money in taxes, is what really matters to the mmgw wonks.

 

And, carbon trading? Are you freakin kidding me? It's okay to not produce carbon, so you can get $$$$$$$$$$ from

other countries can go ahead and do the same thing?

 

It's nonsense. What it is about, is green sales, and redistribution of wealth. Al gore stands to possibly become

the world's first green billionaire.

[MLD Woody]

Keep going Chris, this has everything...

 

 

 

"You're just being political"

"It's just a THEORY"

"You didn't address all of these links, therefore I win"

"Stick to the subject of the thread"

 

Hahahaha.

 

 

I think you're doing a great job Chris. I enjoyed the tomato season joke too. It amazes me though how he's always able to bend it in his mind to something else.

[Pumpkin Eater]

The link you posted isn't exactly correct. Co2 absorbs infared radiation....for a moment. Then it releases it again. The theory is that some of the infared photons are absorbed then "reflected" in all directions, some back towards the surface of the earth. If the Co2 simply absorbed the infared radiation it wouldn't be much of a problem, would it?

 

So tell me how excess infared radiation leads to higher temperatures?

[Pumpkin Eater]

So why is the liberal solution to tax co2 producers? Why not start an industry that uses unreliable renewable energy to split the carbon and oxygen atoms? That way you remove co2 from the atmosphere, and create carbon rich products. Such an industry would also speed along development of ways to harness renewable energy more efficiently.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Mentally challenged daddy college educated liberals.

[MLD Woody]

Mentally challenged daddy college educated liberals.

 

that damned college... done makin kids think they smart. In my day, I walked up hill both ways to grade school. You know what Iearned? LIFE! Hard work!

 

 

 

etc etc etc....

 

 

yawn

[calfoxwc]

So, let me guess - woodpecker just posted something... of no content,

just some snide, stupid smart ass post about nothing...

 

am I right?

 

When Canton Mike and I went to the Brownsboard tailgate at the Browns-ratbird game,

woodpecker said he'd be there, too.

 

We were there, we say what we mean. woodpecker never showed. What, ya little schoolbus

not runnin on Sundays, little featherbrain ?

 

Didn't.....show....his.....beak. You have to wonder if he's just a coward, or he's "so much cooler and older" online,

and he's actually in Jr. High

 

To hell with being taxed about co2. What a devious fraud mmgw is.

 

Want to solve the problem? Plant more trees, save the

rainforests. Stop with paving so much of what used to be prairies and woods,

 

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/16464/20141014/plants-reduce-carbon-dioxide-levels-invalidating-predicted.htm

[MLD Woody]

Hey Cal.... shove it up your ass

 

I was supposed to go to the Ravens game, but that fell through when others couldn't make it. I was also going to go to the Texans game with a buddy from Michigan that's a Texans fan, but now he has to go to China for work for a few weeks. So we'll see. I don't think I ever committed to showing up.

 

 

Also, bro, I know you don't have me on ignore. You've replied to my comments... lol. Actually though, idc, play your little game.

 

 

 

Back on topic... we still never get a source for the OPs chart, right?

[gftChris]

So, let me guess - woodpecker just posted something... of no content,

just some snide, stupid smart ass post about nothing...

 

am I right?

 

When Canton Mike and I went to the Brownsboard tailgate at the Browns-ratbird game,

woodpecker said he'd be there, too.

 

We were there, we say what we mean. woodpecker never showed. What, ya little schoolbus

not runnin on Sundays, little featherbrain ?

 

Didn't.....show....his.....beak. You have to wonder if he's just a coward, or he's "so much cooler and older" online,

and he's actually in Jr. High

 

To hell with being taxed about co2. What a devious fraud mmgw is.

 

Want to solve the problem? Plant more trees, save the

rainforests. Stop with paving so much of what used to be prairies and woods,

 

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/16464/20141014/plants-reduce-carbon-dioxide-levels-invalidating-predicted.htm

Yes! Planting more trees is *definitely* going to help, and we should be doing more of it.

[gftChris]

Please explain how CO2 increases, and the temp decreases.

 

It's decreasing in America, but globally increasing. I don't know enough about weather patterns to answer, but this might help:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html#.VFICnfnke-A

 

And, Chris, I never said anywhere that numbers should show whatever.

It certainly came across that way:

"but absolutely nothing about man causing it...your numbers are pretty much meaningless, to that point."

That's garbage rationalization.

 

I just posted three links that explain the problems with mmgw. They don't know.

At least one of them was interesting, pointing out some internally conflicting data. I haven't been through them all yet though.

 

I am venting about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Either stick to the subject,

or go start another one in another thread. I do not give a frak to be taxed, etc, because of a bunch of scientists

who say it's a global warming man made crisis.

Where did I not discuss the human element of it? I in fact pointed out the direct correlation between the rise in green house gases (mainly CO2) and the proliferation of industrial machinery, which gives a very real human element.

 

 

There are plenty of others who say not so fast on the mm part. You can take your 95%

and make a crap sandwich out of it.

So, you don't like the scientific method. We knew this.

 

 

There are pullentee of scientists who were signed on to agreements about mmgw, who did not

sign on. They were collectively added, and plenty of them didn't like it, and had the courage to

say so.

95% != 100% There will always be some who are not convinced, some who will claim it's all wrong, for many reasons, some genuine that should be clarified, some less so genuine.

 

 

And, as most of the time, you ignored the three links I posted, that pretty much kick the arse

of the "mmgw is an absolute fact" bs.

I'll get to them at some point, hopefully.

 

 

Okay, back to CO2. It is only 0.039 % of our atmosphere. You talk like CO2 only absorbs that radiation one way.

What's your point? That since there's only 0.04% CO2 it can't be causing any harm? This is incorrect. The planet's ecosystem is balanced in such a way that CO2 will fluctuate around that value, and has done for millions of years, but over the last 200 years we've been pumping out more than the planet can absorb.

 

 

History has shown, that CO2 spikes have been significant, after warming phases. Interesting, yes?

Yes. CO2 gets trapped in ice sheets, and oceans, for example. After a period of global warming, there's more ice melting, and so more CO2 is released in to the atmosphere.

 

Since plants feed on CO2?

Yes...

 

What percentage of man made CO2 could realistically be stopped from going into the atmosphere?

 

 

I think it was .14 %. But Chris, that doesn't matter if money in taxes, is what really matters to the mmgw wonks.

From where? You keep saying 'libs try to politicise MMGW' but at no point in this entire thread has anyone besides you mentioned taxation or anything like that. This is a cross-party issue.

 

And, carbon trading? Are you freakin kidding me? It's okay to not produce carbon, so you can get $$$$$$$$$$ from

other countries can go ahead and do the same thing?

I'm not sold on the idea either. The general point is that you are encouraging companies to be more responsible, but as you say, others are then just pumping out that CO2.

 

It's nonsense. What it is about, is green sales, and redistribution of wealth. Al gore stands to possibly become

the world's first green billionaire.

If so, he's a bit late:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2012/04/20/the-richest-green-billionaires-2012/

[Westside Steve]

It would be funny when the anti government separatists and the global warming doomsday gang bump into each other at the same store buying their survival supplies.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

It's decreasing in America, but globally increasing. I don't know enough about weather patterns to answer, but this might help:

God does indeed bless America.

[gftChris]

 

It's decreasing in America, but globally increasing. I don't know enough about weather patterns to answer, but this might help:

God does indeed bless America.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1912398/

 

It was an, erm, interesting movie?

[calfoxwc]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/31/white-house-keeping-these-global-warming-documents-out-of-the-sunlight/