Global warming news: thawing glaciers release pollutants

[2MuchMark]

Things just get bad to worse:

When thawing glaciers release pollutants

Thanks for all your help, global warming deniers.

[wehateporn]

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

Things just get bad to worse:

When thawing glaciers release pollutants

Thanks for all your help, global warming deniers.

kinda like your chevy volt, thanks for all your help.

no wonder you're such a debbie downer, pointing your finger at others while you not only don't do anything to help, you make the problem worse.

the funny and revealing part of your view is that the article is a what if scenario, yet you spin it as things just went from bad to worse, then to make it even more fucking stupid, you bring up global warming deniers. life is miserable for you we get it, now stop trying to bring the rest of us down with your glass half empty view of life and the world.

what a fucking sad miserable clown you are.

womp womp.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

If you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website About Long Range Weather, Cliff Harris & Randy Mann of Harris-Mann Climatology and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be, this is why the chart only goes back 4500 years.


Here are some real data from Nasa and other sources concerning the climate change. You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Here are some real data from Nasa and other sources concerning the climate change. You can see that they are very different looking from the graph above.

Of course the graphs look very different. They are using vastly differing time scales.

And from that NASA graph above it is very clear that current CO2 levels and temperatures are well within the range of historical norms.

Props to NASA for making it clear to us that there is really no need for all of the alarmism.




.

[Joshua G]

so flimsy, this thought that Man can "change" the climate. at best mankind is a fart in the breeze.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Of course the graphs look very different. They are using vastly differing time scales.

And from that NASA graph above it is very clear that current CO2 levels and temperatures are well within the range of historical norms.

Props to NASA for making it clear to us that there is really no need for all of the alarmism.




.

And if you pay attention you'll notice the chart ends in 1950 with CO2 levels just under 300PPM, whereas now it is sitting at 401PPM, higher than anytime man has walked the earth and a 25% increase in only 50 years.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Nice islands, but where are the pollutants?

[PR_Glen]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

so flimsy, this thought that Man can "change" the climate. at best mankind is a fart in the breeze.

couldn't have said it better myself.. easier to believe our lives have some significance though.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

so flimsy, this thought that Man can "change" the climate. at best mankind is a fart in the breeze.

Try setting off just half the nukes on the planet and see how fast man can "change" the climate.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Of course the graphs look very different. They are using vastly differing time scales.

And from that NASA graph above it is very clear that current CO2 levels and temperatures are well within the range of historical norms.

Props to NASA for making it clear to us that there is really no need for all of the alarmism.




.

Originally Posted by Joshua G

so flimsy, this thought that Man can "change" the climate. at best mankind is a fart in the breeze.

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

couldn't have said it better myself.. easier to believe our lives have some significance though.

Ok, real questions for y'all- feel free to answer any

as people who are not convinced of the politicized science surrounding global warming, does that impact you and your efforts to curb pollution?

Are y'all litter bugs simply because you are not convinced?

Did you previously work to reduce pollution while conserving energy then stop that because the debate?

Would you do more about your pollution if you agreed with man-made global warming?

Does your lack of being convinced impact pollution?



Thanks global warming deniers! <-sarcastic part, had to.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

couldn't have said it better myself.. easier to believe our lives have some significance though.

Besides climate, man has plowed fields, made cities, roads, etc. and still "no impact". What would be the impact, when there is impact? What it would be?

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

And if you pay attention you'll notice the chart ends in 1950 with CO2 levels just under 300PPM, whereas now it is sitting at 401PPM, higher than anytime man has walked the earth and a 25% increase in only 50 years.

And? Has the earth burst into flames? Have any of the extremist predictions by any of the alarmists come true? Didn't think so.

Much ado about nothing.




.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

And? Has the earth burst into flames? Have any of the extremist predictions by any of the alarmists come true? Didn't think so.

Much ado about nothing.

.

Does it have to be extremist (so far or in general)?

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Ok, real questions for y'all- feel free to answer any

as people who are not convinced of the politicized science surrounding global warming, does that impact you and your efforts to curb pollution?

Are y'all litter bugs simply because you are not convinced?

Did you previously work to reduce pollution while conserving energy then stop that because the debate?

Would you do more about your pollution if you agreed with man-made global warming?

Does your lack of being convinced impact pollution?

I don't believe CO2 to be pollution so I don't don't anything to reduce my "CO2 footprint" specifically. But that doesn't mean I waste energy and buy the biggest gas guzzling car I can find because I know that burning fossil fuels does release some amounts of actual harmful pollutants. Plus energy isn't cheap so efficiency saves money.

And no I don't litter. I won't throw so much as a gum wrapper on the ground and I teach my kids not to litter. I recycle as much as anybody else and I take used batteries and other toxic shit to the toxic waste depot.

I am and always have been very conscious of environmental protection, conservation and pollution. I would much rather see money and effort being put into conserving forests and wildlife and reducing real toxic pollution than reducing CO2.




.

[420]

Does anyone know earth's temperature before trees existed? Lets cut them all down and make room for shopping malls.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by aka123

Does it have to be extremist (so far or in general)?

Ok then. How about - have any of their predictions come true?

Again, no. Everything that is happening or has happened or is likely to happen is well within the range of natural variability. The alarmists just use extreme predictions to drive fear.




.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

And? Has the earth burst into flames? Have any of the extremist predictions by any of the alarmists come true? Didn't think so.

Much ado about nothing.




.

Its settled then. Cause the world hasn't burst into flames proves you know what you're talking about.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Ok then. How about - have any of their predictions come true?

Again, no. Everything that is happening or has happened or is likely to happen is well within the range of natural variability. The alarmists just use extreme predictions to drive fear.
.

Why it has to be about some predictions? How about the actual consequences? Also, the most worrisome predictions are mostly far into the future, as the situation is still building up.

Also that "alarmist" thing is quite funny, or do you consider science community in general as "alarmists", those use extreme predictions?

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

Its settled then. Cause the world hasn't burst into flames proves you know what you're talking about.

I know a hell of lot more than you Mr. Chicken Little. Now go ahead and hide under a rock somewhere.




.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by aka123

Why it has to be about some predictions? How about the actual consequences? Also, the most worrisome predictions are mostly far into the future, as the situation is still building up.

Also that "alarmist" thing is quite funny, or do you consider science community in general as "alarmists", those use extreme predictions?

What "actual consequences" are you talking about? And of course most of the "worrisome" predictions are far in the future when the alarmists who are making them now won't be around to answer for them when they fail.

Go ahead and hate humanity and civilization if you want. Arguing these points with people like you is a waste of time.




.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

What "actual consequences" are you talking about? And of course most of the "worrisome" predictions are far in the future when the alarmists who are making them now won't be around to answer for them when they fail.

Go ahead and hate humanity and civilization if you want. Arguing these points with people like you is a waste of time.
.

I mean actual consequences, do I need to spell it?

I don't hate humanity. Based on your aggression and views you are the one who hates it.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

I know a hell of lot more than you Mr. Chicken Little. Now go ahead and hide under a rock somewhere.




.

Of course you do, you're the one that claims man can not only survive but actually thrive with CO2 levels as high as 10,000PPM. You're fucking brilliant.

[420]

How long does co2 stay in the atmosphere? This doesn't seem to be as permanent a change as blasting mountains to make highways.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by aka123

I mean actual consequences, do I need to spell it?

I don't hate humanity. Based on your aggression and views you are the one who hates it.

I mean what actual consequences? Do I need to spell it? Provide me with some actual consequences that are scientifically proven to be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ok, so you don't hate humanity. You just hate civilization. Please tell us what you propose as an alternative.

And if you think I'm being aggressive then maybe you need to go away to cry a little bit and try to come back a little tougher.




.

[RebelR]

Call me a skeptic, but if scientists weren't alarmists, their field of research wouldn't be a priority. No sense of immediacy means no funding, so no job. Should be be good stewards of the earth? Without a doubt. Should we turn everything on it's head at great cost for what amounts to a lot of hyperbole from the media to drive certain agendas? I'm not sold.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by 420

How long does co2 stay in the atmosphere? This doesn't seem to be as permanent a change as blasting mountains to make highways.

And it was relief for the slaves that the slavery was just temporary (you know, they die).

Yes, the impact is just temporary. If couple millions/billions people dies and or general shittyness for decades, centuries or thousands of years, it is of course just temporary. Compared to that, for example US does awful lot of things to save few temporary US lives.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by RebelR

Call me a skeptic, but if scientists weren't alarmists, their field of research wouldn't be a priority. No sense of immediacy means no funding, so no job. Should be be good stewards of the earth? Without a doubt. Should we turn everything on it's head at great cost for what amounts to a lot of hyperbole from the media to drive certain agendas? I'm not sold.

.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

I mean what actual consequences? Do I need to spell it? Provide me with some actual consequences that are scientifically proven to be caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ok, so you don't hate humanity. You just hate civilization. Please tell us what you propose as an alternative.

And if you think I'm being aggressive then maybe you need to go away to cry a little bit and try to come back a little tougher.
.

Those actual consequences those will happen. Don't you get the concept? About the present and or predicted consequences; don't you read? For example acidification of the seas is pretty straight forward thing. But when it comes to more complex issues, science is not foretelling. There is no way knowing all the possible variables. Even if all is correct, there might come asteroid and change things dramatically. You can't predict future for certainty.

Propose as an alternative for what?

I already cried a little bit and you are still aggressive, didn't seem to have any impact on your behaviour. Maybe you didn't hear my cry?

[Magnetron]

My balls are warmer.

[420]

Originally Posted by aka123

And it was relief for the slaves that the slavery was just temporary (you know, they die).

Yes, the impact is just temporary. If couple millions/billions people dies and or general shittyness for decades, centuries or thousands of years, it is of course just temporary. Compared to that, for example US does awful lot of things to save few temporary US lives.

We'll all be dead before the carbon dioxide is out of our atmosphere. If we change now we won't see any benefits. Average human can not see very far into the future.

Originally Posted by Magnetron

My balls are warmer.

Ever have someone seriously tell you the cold weather disproves global warming?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

I don't believe CO2 to be pollution so I don't don't anything to reduce my "CO2 footprint" specifically. But that doesn't mean I waste energy and buy the biggest gas guzzling car I can find because I know that burning fossil fuels does release some amounts of actual harmful pollutants. Plus energy isn't cheap so efficiency saves money.

And no I don't litter. I won't throw so much as a gum wrapper on the ground and I teach my kids not to litter. I recycle as much as anybody else and I take used batteries and other toxic shit to the toxic waste depot.

I am and always have been very conscious of environmental protection, conservation and pollution. I would much rather see money and effort being put into conserving forests and wildlife and reducing real toxic pollution than reducing CO2.




.

thanks for doing your part global warming denier! The future is bright.

[BlackCrayon]

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

couldn't have said it better myself.. easier to believe our lives have some significance though.

and i guess nature just killed off lake erie with phosphates. we had nothing to do with it. nature also ensured to release mercury into the waters so everything living it had some level of poison in them, etc, etc.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by 420

We'll all be dead before the carbon dioxide is out of our atmosphere. If we change now we won't see any benefits. Average human can not see very far into the future.




Ever have someone seriously tell you the cold weather disproves global warming?

Hopefully it won't all be out of atmosphere. Average Joe might have some difficulties grasping these kind of issues, but luckily we have better men in charge. Although some think beyond themselves, at least for their children.

Also the culture regarding these things is slightly different in the land of something and in the rest of the world.. well.. Russia is quite similar, they don't give shit for other than present.

[fappingJack]

Party like its the end of the world.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

kinda like your chevy volt, thanks for all your help.

no wonder you're such a debbie downer, pointing your finger at others while you not only don't do anything to help, you make the problem worse.

the funny and revealing part of your view is that the article is a what if scenario, yet you spin it as things just went from bad to worse, then to make it even more fucking stupid, you bring up global warming deniers. life is miserable for you we get it, now stop trying to bring the rest of us down with your glass half empty view of life and the world.

what a fucking sad miserable clown you are.

womp womp.

Alrighty then...

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Ok, real questions for y'all- feel free to answer any

as people who are not convinced of the politicized science surrounding global warming, does that impact you and your efforts to curb pollution?

Politicized or not, it's happen. So yes it impacts me, and I go out of my way to pollute less. And all I want is for big oil companies to try to do the same thing.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Are y'all litter bugs simply because you are not convinced?

I never litter. I hold on to every item until I can dispose of it properly. I've never once thrown anything out of the car window. I don't smoke really but the few times I've had a cig, I've never even once thrown the butt into the street the way I've seen every other smoker do.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Did you previously work to reduce pollution while conserving energy then stop that because the debate?

No debate for me. My only wish was that I paid more attention to the problem much earlier.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Would you do more about your pollution if you agreed with man-made global warming?

I already do, but "Agree" is a strange way to put it. It's like asking if someone believes in science. Science is truth. Belief ... just doesn't fit here.

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Does your lack of being convinced impact pollution?

I bet this is true for everyone. A lot of people think that there's no such thing as a pollution problem and just shit where they eat. The Rollin Coal idiots are a good example.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by **********

Things just get bad to worse:

When thawing glaciers release pollutants

Thanks for all your help, global warming deniers.

Thanks for the help of fucking idiots like you who deflect attention away from the real discussion and actual arguments by using words like "deniers" as if anyone in the world doesn't understand the planet has been warming for 1000s of years.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by aka123

Those actual consequences those will happen. Don't you get the concept? About the present and or predicted consequences; don't you read? For example acidification of the seas is pretty straight forward thing. But when it comes to more complex issues, science is not foretelling. There is no way knowing all the possible variables. Even if all is correct, there might come asteroid and change things dramatically. You can't predict future for certainty.

Alrighty then.





.

[PornoMonster]

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

and i guess nature just killed off lake erie with phosphates. we had nothing to do with it. nature also ensured to release mercury into the waters so everything living it had some level of poison in them, etc, etc.

DUHH haven't you seen mother natures Acid rain???????

[420]

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

DUHH haven't you seen mother natures Acid rain???????

nature's acid rain is from...volcanoes...which release...emissions....that contain "pollutants"

humans are adding to natural emissions which must certainly speed up earth's natural processes

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

Things just get bad to worse:

When thawing glaciers release pollutants

Thanks for all your help, global warming deniers.

**********, when do you figure that pollution in that glacier got there? How many eons ago? How do global warming deniers get in the way of a solution to a glacier releasing pollution? SHould we all chip in and put a lid on it? How long do you think it takes for a man-made solution to global warming would pay dividends?