Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Yet another crack in the AGW theory
Author Message
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #1
Yet another crack in the AGW theory
http://www.pnnl.gov/science/highlights/h...sp?id=1004

Cooling from man-made aresols is less than previously assumed. So, when the argument was made last year that soot from China's coal burning has been the reason that Earth's temperatuers have stopped rising, the answer is, "No it's not."

Oh, it also means that those previous models are bunk. But, that's not news.
09-08-2011 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


plaidtiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,285
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbs
Post: #2
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
When did Earth's temperatures stop rising? 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. The 90's is the second warmest on record followed by the 80's. And according to the source, 2010 was either the warmest (GISS), second warmest (Smith & Reynold's, RSS and UAH) or fourth warmest year (HadCRUT) on record.
09-08-2011 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #3
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-08-2011 02:42 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  When did Earth's temperatures stop rising? 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. The 90's is the second warmest on record followed by the 80's. And according to the source, 2010 was either the warmest (GISS), second warmest (Smith & Reynold's, RSS and UAH) or fourth warmest year (HadCRUT) on record.

...and when did they start keeping those records?
09-08-2011 02:47 PM
Quote this message in a reply
I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou Offline
Medium Pimping
*

Posts: 7,020
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-08-2011 02:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  
(09-08-2011 02:42 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  When did Earth's temperatures stop rising? 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. The 90's is the second warmest on record followed by the 80's. And according to the source, 2010 was either the warmest (GISS), second warmest (Smith & Reynold's, RSS and UAH) or fourth warmest year (HadCRUT) on record.

...and when did they start keeping those records?

Right after the apostle of climate change invented the internet.
09-08-2011 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #5
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
Hate to tell you Plaid, but they're right about that part.

The actual year by year or decade by decade records aren't very old. Most of the rest of the records are circumstantial or parenthetical rather than some book of reliable readings from all across the globe.

We keep hearing things like, the warmest summer since ____. Well, that certainly means that it was cooler between then and now, right?

Absolutely, human population is probably at its highest level in history, recorded or not. Industrialization is ALSO at its highest level. I suspect animal populations, at least livestock, are as well. I'm not at all surprised that we're thus having the largest impact on the earth in history. Rather than do as so many do and simply say, so we're causing warming (because it seems we're JUST as likely causing warming to slow)... or that this proves we need to "go green"... whatever THAT ultimately means, by that I mean making plastic cars and mining for the precious metals to make better batteries doesn't by definition make things better... I'd like for someone to show me that putting THIS element into the air is causing THIS... and if we do THIS at THIS cost, we can prevent THIS. Until you replace THIS with real items, you're just barking at the moon and everyone knows it.

NOBODY on here is in favor of destroying the earth. Not ONE person.... but you MUST consider the unintended consequences of these scare tactics. If we turned off all emissions of any kind in the US, many of the industries that pollute would just go to other countries who don't care and do it even worse.
09-08-2011 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


plaidtiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,285
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbs
Post: #6
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-08-2011 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hate to tell you Plaid, but they're right about that part.

The actual year by year or decade by decade records aren't very old. Most of the rest of the records are circumstantial or parenthetical rather than some book of reliable readings from all across the globe.

We keep hearing things like, the warmest summer since ____. Well, that certainly means that it was cooler between then and now, right?

Absolutely, human population is probably at its highest level in history, recorded or not. Industrialization is ALSO at its highest level. I suspect animal populations, at least livestock, are as well. I'm not at all surprised that we're thus having the largest impact on the earth in history. Rather than do as so many do and simply say, so we're causing warming (because it seems we're JUST as likely causing warming to slow)... or that this proves we need to "go green"... whatever THAT ultimately means, by that I mean making plastic cars and mining for the precious metals to make better batteries doesn't by definition make things better... I'd like for someone to show me that putting THIS element into the air is causing THIS... and if we do THIS at THIS cost, we can prevent THIS. Until you replace THIS with real items, you're just barking at the moon and everyone knows it.

NOBODY on here is in favor of destroying the earth. Not ONE person.... but you MUST consider the unintended consequences of these scare tactics. If we turned off all emissions of any kind in the US, many of the industries that pollute would just go to other countries who don't care and do it even worse.

WTF are you talking about. Did you even read the thread or did you just assume I was making some political statement about global warming.

I was just questioning the original poster claim that the earths temperature have stopped rising. I didn't say anything about highest temperature of the history of the planet. I didn't say anything about green technology. I didn't say about the measurements being perfect. I didn't say anybody was in favor of destroying the earth. I didn't say other countries don't pollute. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm only relaying information and questioning another posters claim.
09-08-2011 04:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #7
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-08-2011 04:18 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  
(09-08-2011 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hate to tell you Plaid, but they're right about that part.

The actual year by year or decade by decade records aren't very old. Most of the rest of the records are circumstantial or parenthetical rather than some book of reliable readings from all across the globe.

We keep hearing things like, the warmest summer since ____. Well, that certainly means that it was cooler between then and now, right?

Absolutely, human population is probably at its highest level in history, recorded or not. Industrialization is ALSO at its highest level. I suspect animal populations, at least livestock, are as well. I'm not at all surprised that we're thus having the largest impact on the earth in history. Rather than do as so many do and simply say, so we're causing warming (because it seems we're JUST as likely causing warming to slow)... or that this proves we need to "go green"... whatever THAT ultimately means, by that I mean making plastic cars and mining for the precious metals to make better batteries doesn't by definition make things better... I'd like for someone to show me that putting THIS element into the air is causing THIS... and if we do THIS at THIS cost, we can prevent THIS. Until you replace THIS with real items, you're just barking at the moon and everyone knows it.

NOBODY on here is in favor of destroying the earth. Not ONE person.... but you MUST consider the unintended consequences of these scare tactics. If we turned off all emissions of any kind in the US, many of the industries that pollute would just go to other countries who don't care and do it even worse.

WTF are you talking about. Did you even read the thread or did you just assume I was making some political statement about global warming.

I was just questioning the original poster claim that the earths temperature have stopped rising. I didn't say anything about highest temperature of the history of the planet. I didn't say anything about green technology. I didn't say about the measurements being perfect. I didn't say anybody was in favor of destroying the earth. I didn't say other countries don't pollute. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm only relaying information and questioning another posters claim.

Someone needs a hug. You're new here - Hambone isn't the type to pick fights or belittle people. Give him a break, will ya...
09-08-2011 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I'mMoreAwesomeThanYou Offline
Medium Pimping
*

Posts: 7,020
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: America
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
I need a hug...
09-08-2011 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #9
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
Thanks SMN. Hug to you, Plaid. Not you, IMATY. You have to do something to deserve it

Quote:When did Earth's temperatures stop rising? 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. The 90's is the second warmest on record followed by the 80's. And according to the source, 2010 was either the warmest (GISS), second warmest (Smith & Reynold's, RSS and UAH) or fourth warmest year (HadCRUT) on record.
This comment certainly implies that you are taking the position that the earth today is warmer than it has "ever" been. I don't know how else you'd interpret that. That statement or opinion isn't REALLY as supported as your comment seems to want to think it is...

Quote:WTF are you talking about. Did you even read the thread or did you just assume I was making some political statement about global warming.

I was just questioning the original poster claim that the earths temperature have stopped rising.
The comment wasn't Torch's... it was a scientific piece put out in the last few years to explain why global temperatures haven't risen as they predicted.
Quote:I didn't say anything about highest temperature of the history of the planet.
You certainly said warmest on record. That implies it hasn't been colder... on record... Put the record in perspective. If we were EVER warmer when we didn't have so many people and SUVs, then that sort of shoots down much of the theory, doesn't it?

Quote:I didn't say anything about green technology. I didn't say about the measurements being perfect. I didn't say anybody was in favor of destroying the earth. I didn't say other countries don't pollute. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm only relaying information and questioning another posters claim.
as I said, it wasn't HIS claim. Perhaps he should have linked something like
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...exist.html

but it was pretty well discussed around here... with those on the "questioning" side accusing those on the "show me" side of all of the above. I didn't claim YOU PERSONALLY felt this way. I don't know you. But I know that many of those who claim global warming is an undisputed fact accuse those of us who are practical about it of everything I mentioned and more. You certainly seemed to be heading that direction, comfortable with the conclusion that the earth is still warming, and has been for decades. If that's not you... fine. I didn't know I had to wait for someone to make such a common claim before disputing it. Seems to me I saved a lot of time.... AND gave out a few hugs in the process
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2011 04:51 PM by Hambone10.)
09-08-2011 04:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #10
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-08-2011 02:42 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  When did Earth's temperatures stop rising? 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. The 90's is the second warmest on record followed by the 80's. And according to the source, 2010 was either the warmest (GISS), second warmest (Smith & Reynold's, RSS and UAH) or fourth warmest year (HadCRUT) on record.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

Quote:The lull in global warming from 1998 to 2008 was mainly caused by a sharp rise in China's coal use, a study suggests.

The absence of a temperature rise over that decade is often used by "climate sceptics" as grounds for denying the existence of man-made global warming.

But the new study, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that smog from the extra coal acted to mask greenhouse warming.

China's coal use doubled 2002-2007, according to US government figures.

Although burning the coal produced more warming carbon dioxide, it also put more tiny sulphate aerosol particles into the atmosphere which cool the planet by reflecting solar energy back into space

[Image: just-20-years1.gif]
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2011 06:10 PM by DrTorch.)
09-08-2011 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Claw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,898
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1225
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Orangeville HELP!
Post: #11
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
How do China's coal power plants cool the globe when ours would destroy the earth and have to be shut down?
09-08-2011 09:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
plaidtiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,285
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbs
Post: #12
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-08-2011 06:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

Quote:The lull in global warming from 1998 to 2008 was mainly caused by a sharp rise in China's coal use, a study suggests.

The absence of a temperature rise over that decade is often used by "climate sceptics" as grounds for denying the existence of man-made global warming.

But the new study, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that smog from the extra coal acted to mask greenhouse warming.

China's coal use doubled 2002-2007, according to US government figures.

Although burning the coal produced more warming carbon dioxide, it also put more tiny sulphate aerosol particles into the atmosphere which cool the planet by reflecting solar energy back into space

[Image: just-20-years1.gif]

I just find that to be crappy journalism. I don't think any sensible scientist would draw a trend line from the 'super' el nino year of 1998 to the last decade which saw much more moderate el nino patterns.

If you draw a trend line from the peaks of moderate el ninos to the peaks of the el ninos of the 2000's the trend line would would be positive. If you draw a trend line from the bottom of the la ninas in the 90's to the bottom of the la ninas in the 2000's the trend line would be positive. The actual trend line is up and not flat and definitely not down.

At any rate I do find it pretty interesting aerosols have been modeled to have less of an impact on climate than previously thought. 1/3 of its effectiveness is fascinating.
09-09-2011 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
plaidtiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,285
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbs
Post: #13
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-08-2011 04:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Thanks SMN. Hug to you, Plaid. Not you, IMATY. You have to do something to deserve it
Feel better already.

(09-08-2011 04:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
Quote:When did Earth's temperatures stop rising? 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record. The 90's is the second warmest on record followed by the 80's. And according to the source, 2010 was either the warmest (GISS), second warmest (Smith & Reynold's, RSS and UAH) or fourth warmest year (HadCRUT) on record.
This comment certainly implies that you are taking the position that the earth today is warmer than it has "ever" been. I don't know how else you'd interpret that. That statement or opinion isn't REALLY as supported as your comment seems to want to think it is...

Quote:WTF are you talking about. Did you even read the thread or did you just assume I was making some political statement about global warming.

I was just questioning the original poster claim that the earths temperature have stopped rising.
The comment wasn't Torch's... it was a scientific piece put out in the last few years to explain why global temperatures haven't risen as they predicted.
Quote:I didn't say anything about highest temperature of the history of the planet.
You certainly said warmest on record. That implies it hasn't been colder... on record... Put the record in perspective. If we were EVER warmer when we didn't have so many people and SUVs, then that sort of shoots down much of the theory, doesn't it?

Quote:I didn't say anything about green technology. I didn't say about the measurements being perfect. I didn't say anybody was in favor of destroying the earth. I didn't say other countries don't pollute. I'm not using scare tactics. I'm only relaying information and questioning another posters claim.
as I said, it wasn't HIS claim. Perhaps he should have linked something like
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...exist.html

but it was pretty well discussed around here... with those on the "questioning" side accusing those on the "show me" side of all of the above. I didn't claim YOU PERSONALLY felt this way. I don't know you. But I know that many of those who claim global warming is an undisputed fact accuse those of us who are practical about it of everything I mentioned and more. You certainly seemed to be heading that direction, comfortable with the conclusion that the earth is still warming, and has been for decades. If that's not you... fine. I didn't know I had to wait for someone to make such a common claim before disputing it. Seems to me I saved a lot of time.... AND gave out a few hugs in the process

Just because we were warmer in the past doesn't mean the theory of AGW is shot. It means the climate was different. The Earth's path around the sun could of been slightly different. Earth's tilt could of been different. Although I currently don't buy into it, cosmic rays could play a role in upper level cloud coverage. Total solar irradiance could of been higher. All those are possible but none rule out AGW.

When I said on record, I was talking about the temperature records from HadCRUT (160 years), GISS (130 years), S&R (130 years), UAH (30 years) and RSS (30 years). I did not mean to imply thousands or millions of years. I guess I should have been more clear about that.
09-09-2011 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #14
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
So if you throw out data that doesn't support your conclusion, your conclusion is supported. Okay. What does the pattern from 2002-2011 look like. How would you interpret the period from 1950-1980? CERTAINLY the trend line from 2002-2011 isn't anything LIKE the trend line from 1990-2000, which is (eyeballing it) a 45 degree angle... and what most of these catastrophic predictions were based on

Bottom line is that all of these things we've been told are the problem... aerosol, coal etc etc don't actually seem to be explaining the problem, do they? Even if we agree there is a problem, we're nowhere NEAR a solution... and the postulates that have been thrown out so far (eliminating coal etc) might have actually done more harm than good.

I'm not arguing causation. There are so many moving parts it's hard to point to one or two things... I'm merely disputing the previously purported causation and thus the proposed solutions. The data doesn't seem to support the fears.
09-09-2011 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #15
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-09-2011 10:23 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  Just because we were warmer in the past doesn't mean the theory of AGW is shot. It means the climate was different. The Earth's path around the sun could of been slightly different. Earth's tilt could of been different. Although I currently don't buy into it, cosmic rays could play a role in upper level cloud coverage. Total solar irradiance could of been higher. All those are possible but none rule out AGW.

When I said on record, I was talking about the temperature records from HadCRUT (160 years), GISS (130 years), S&R (130 years), UAH (30 years) and RSS (30 years). I did not mean to imply thousands or millions of years. I guess I should have been more clear about that.

I know what you meant... and the postulates you throw out are exactly what I'm talking about. Just because we're the warmest in 150 years doesn't mean man is causing the problem. The earths path around the sun could have been slightly different etc etc etc. My argument is that if man's influence isn't the only changed variable... and clearly it isn't... then you can't draw conclusions based solely on that premise. The fact that we're warmer in 2011 than 1911 may be a result of forces OTHER than man... it may have happened anyway. Since we don't know what the baseline is, we can't possibly conclude what the impact is, much less the cause. Only looking at 150 years or so is destined to give you false data.

While AGW may not be dead (and the op only implies that it has another crack in it), it doesn't appear to be as conclusive as we were lead to believe.... being told it is established fact (I'm speaking to the portion about man's causation). I think being good stewards of the environment is a good thing. It certainly is good for man's breathing and water usage... but that doesn't mean that man's destiny on earth isn't for the population to be halved and to be sent to the poles in 1000 years... only to return to the equator and prosper 1000 years after that no matter WHAT we do... Though it may be ours, this doesn't appear to be earth's first time at the rodeo. The simple fact that man seems to have spawned from what is now pretty dry country after an ice age supports the general theory of a warming earth. That doesn't mean we caused it
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2011 10:57 AM by Hambone10.)
09-09-2011 10:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
plaidtiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,285
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbs
Post: #16
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-09-2011 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So if you throw out data that doesn't support your conclusion, your conclusion is supported. Okay. What does the pattern from 2002-2011 look like. How would you interpret the period from 1950-1980? CERTAINLY the trend line from 2002-2011 isn't anything LIKE the trend line from 1990-2000, which is (eyeballing it) a 45 degree angle... and what most of these catastrophic predictions were based on

What "data" did I throw out? If you are talking about why I don't like calling the global temperature trend since 1998 flat, that is not throwing out data. That is disagreeing with a conclusion. And I already explained why. If you don't understand what I wrote tell me and I might be able to explain it better. But I never threw any data out.

(09-09-2011 10:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Bottom line is that all of these things we've been told are the problem... aerosol, coal etc etc don't actually seem to be explaining the problem, do they? Even if we agree there is a problem, we're nowhere NEAR a solution... and the postulates that have been thrown out so far (eliminating coal etc) might have actually done more harm than good.

I'm not arguing causation. There are so many moving parts it's hard to point to one or two things... I'm merely disputing the previously purported causation and thus the proposed solutions. The data doesn't seem to support the fears.

Honestly I have no idea what you are rambling about here. What problem are you talking about? Global warming? Aerosols do not and have never been claimed to exacerbate global warming. Air quality maybe? Honestly, I don't know what you are talking about. It just seems you are trying to change the subject to fit some agenda you might have. But I'm not interested in playing along.
09-09-2011 05:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
plaidtiger Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,285
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbs
Post: #17
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-09-2011 10:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My argument is that if man's influence isn't the only changed variable... and clearly it isn't... then you can't draw conclusions based solely on that premise.

I did not and have never made that claim. I have never heard anybody make that claim. What is your point? Are you trying to put those words in my mouth? Are you trying to put those words in the mouths of all people that believe in AGW? Seriously what is you point?
09-09-2011 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UM2001GRAD Offline
Humble to a Fault
*

Posts: 8,968
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 139
I Root For: The Tea Party
Location: Blue State
Post: #18
RE: Yet another crack in the AGW theory
(09-09-2011 10:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(09-09-2011 10:23 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  Just because we were warmer in the past doesn't mean the theory of AGW is shot. It means the climate was different. The Earth's path around the sun could of been slightly different. Earth's tilt could of been different. Although I currently don't buy into it, cosmic rays could play a role in upper level cloud coverage. Total solar irradiance could of been higher. All those are possible but none rule out AGW.

When I said on record, I was talking about the temperature records from HadCRUT (160 years), GISS (130 years), S&R (130 years), UAH (30 years) and RSS (30 years). I did not mean to imply thousands or millions of years. I guess I should have been more clear about that.

I know what you meant... and the postulates you throw out are exactly what I'm talking about. Just because we're the warmest in 150 years doesn't mean man is causing the problem. The earths path around the sun could have been slightly different etc etc etc. My argument is that if man's influence isn't the only changed variable... and clearly it isn't... then you can't draw conclusions based solely on that premise. The fact that we're warmer in 2011 than 1911 may be a result of forces OTHER than man... it may have happened anyway. Since we don't know what the baseline is, we can't possibly conclude what the impact is, much less the cause. Only looking at 150 years or so is destined to give you false data.

While AGW may not be dead (and the op only implies that it has another crack in it), it doesn't appear to be as conclusive as we were lead to believe.... being told it is established fact (I'm speaking to the portion about man's causation). I think being good stewards of the environment is a good thing. It certainly is good for man's breathing and water usage... but that doesn't mean that man's destiny on earth isn't for the population to be halved and to be sent to the poles in 1000 years... only to return to the equator and prosper 1000 years after that no matter WHAT we do... Though it may be ours, this doesn't appear to be earth's first time at the rodeo. The simple fact that man seems to have spawned from what is now pretty dry country after an ice age supports the general theory of a warming earth. That doesn't mean we caused it

You remember that time you were making one of your typical dumba$$ arguments and I brought up how simple economic elasticities proved you wrong, and of course you didn't understand it so you just ignored it and make a complete fool out of yourself? Well, this is that time all over again. I'm not telling you to stop. Frankly, I find it hilarious to watch you be a moron. Heck, I even prod you on sometimes just to see you do it. You would quit now if you had even a half-functioning brain, but I'm sure you won't. And I'm kind of glad you won't.
09-09-2011 10:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.