Say Anything Blog

More accurately, it is ‘inconclusive’ either way.

Just because data does not exist directly supporting one theory or another does not automatically make the opposite theory correct.  I wish reporters would remember basic logic.  if p then q, if q then p. (that is the only valid logical assumption) Too often, in ‘fluffy science reporting’ they assume:  if p then q, if p then q.  (which is completely invalid, unless you live in an absolute binary world.) I will shut up now.

my NOT signs did not post in the above equations.  DOH!.  “ I was using 2 wakkas/brackets:

If p then q, if !q then !p = valid
if p then q, if !p then !q = invalid

People like Kennedy are out to use global warming to score political points, and they push any amount of sloppy science to make that happen.

“people like you” see it as political and not environmental. Yeah, let’s not blame this hurricane on global warming. Or the record four that hit florida last year. Or massive glacier melt. Or euro heatwaves. Or early tundra thawing. Or global drought. Or plankton decline. Or warmer oceans. Or upper atmosphere thinning. Or…

To quote a ministry song..."CONNECT THE GODDAMN DOTS!” Blame bush? for the cannibal culture of industry? no! blame bush for not doing something about the obvious problem (that is only going to get MUCH WORSE) right now. It’s his job. At what point will you attribute the increasing severity of storms to global warming?...to the point of telling your party leader to do something about it? Or will you keep viewing them as secular instances of random cyclical devastation? It IS going to get much worse, you know…

what the hell are YOU talking about? You’re one of those “CO2 is just more plant food!” folk...and sun spots!!!

you don’t care to understand so nevermind, I’d like to talk with people who do know what’s happening.

great, you “don’t believe in global warming”...carry on about your day, but you’re contributing nothing to this conversation amongst people who know the atmosphere it is a changin’ mighty quick.

“people like you” see it as political and not environmental.

No...actually it’s just a recognition of what “global warming” is about.

Yeah, let’s not blame this hurricane on global warming. Or the record four that hit florida last year.

Record?

Or massive glacier melt.

Do we count the newly forming glaciers?

To quote a ministry song…”CONNECT THE GODDAMN DOTS!”

“THE GODDAMN DOTS” don’t necessarily lead to the theory you endorse.

blame bush for not doing something about the obvious problem (that is only going to get MUCH WORSE) right now. It’s his job.

What’s his job? What is he supposed to do about this theory?

At what point will you attribute the increasing severity of storms to global warming?

Umm...maybe when they actually get more severe.

…to the point of telling your party leader to do something about it?

Do what? Stop the sunspots that are probably causing our planet to heat up a little?

Or will you keep viewing them as secular instances of random cyclical devastation?

Probably. Makes the most sense. The planet warms and then it cools. The sun has more activity and then it has less. The planet tilts and wobbles and we have ice ages and green spans. It’s all cyclical.

It IS going to get much worse, you know…

OH MY GOD!!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?!

great, you “don’t believe in global warming”…carry on about your day, but you’re contributing nothing to this conversation amongst people who know the atmosphere it is a changin’ mighty quick.

What are you babbling about now? Where is your contribution (other than your emotional rantings)?

what the hell are YOU talking about? You’re one of those “CO2 is just more plant food!” folk…and sun spots!!!

If you have an argument, provide it.

you don’t care to understand so nevermind,...

Just because we disagree, doesn’t mean that I “don’t care to understand”.

I’d like to talk with people who do know what’s happening.

Bye!

If this where you’re stuck, then catch up…

What are you talking about? Can you just explain yourself for once?

I wouldn’t even call your CO2 sunspot glacier comments an arguemnt, they’re just sad statements of your ignorance.

Again: if you have an argument, then provide it. What you are doing right now is offering empty criticisms. I say that they are empty criticisms because we don’t know why you disagree. At this point, I’m not sure that you know why.

This is about real people in position to make political/industrial/economical/societal transition happen according to the dwindling prospects of what we call normal weather in the IMMEDIATE future.

Maybe this is “normal weather”.

If this where you’re stuck, then catch up...I wouldn’t even call your CO2 sunspot glacier comments an arguemnt, they’re just sad statements of your ignorance. This is about real people in position to make political/industrial/economical/societal transition happen according to the dwindling prospects of what we call normal weather in the IMMEDIATE future.

I say that they are empty criticisms because we don’t know why you disagree.

We? Are you someone who likes to speak for others? “CO2 is just more plant food” and sunspots is as empty as it gets, and isn’t even to the point. Fresh water sources are dwindling world wide, storm severity is going to increase...it’s a fact of the immediate future that needs to be addressed by those in position to do something about it. If you want to say “do nothing”, congrats you already have. I believe it’s better not to let the disasters themselves sort things out.

You can’t even lay out what your argument is and you want us to do something about it?

I want who to do something about it? still speaking for others or just you and your imaginary posse of pistol packin’ babes? drink your gasoline, you don’t/won’t get it, and you want to turn this into a stupid argument.

We? Are you someone who likes to speak for others?

Fine. Can anybody else tell me what Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple’s argument is? For some reason, he can’t or won’t tell me.

“CO2 is just more plant food” and sunspots is as empty as it gets, and isn’t even to the point.

You’re so dishonest. I once told you that CO2 is plant food and is not a pollutant. Do you know why I bring up sunspots? Because the sun is the biggest source of global warming and sunspots throw off more energy. It is very to the point and in no way “empty as it gets” to bring up that fact. If you disagree, then make an argument for a change.

Fresh water sources are dwindling world wide, storm severity is going to increase…it’s a fact of the immediate future that needs to be addressed by those in position to do something about it.

Something that “is going to increase” is a “fact”? Okay there. Usually “facts” require provable things. Again I ask: what do you propose be done?

If you want to say “do nothing”, congrats you already have. I believe it’s better not to let the disasters themselves sort things out.

What would we do? You can’t even lay out what your argument is and you want us to do something about it?

I want who to do something about it?

You make this too easy…

blame bush for not doing something about the obvious problem (that is only going to get MUCH WORSE) right now. It’s his job.

This is about real people in position to make political/industrial/economical/societal transition happen according to the dwindling prospects of what we call normal weather in the IMMEDIATE future.

...it’s a fact of the immediate future that needs to be addressed by those in position to do something about it.

still speaking for others...

No shit-for-brains. I just quoted. Read above.

...or just you and your imaginary posse of pistol packin’ babes?

I don’t have an “imaginary posse of pistol packin’ babes”. Why would you even say such a thing. You’re not appearing to be very serious at this point.

drink your gasoline, you don’t/won’t get it, and you want to turn this into a stupid argument.

Get what? WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR ARGUMENT NUMB-NUTS? Maybe I could “get it” if you just explained yourself.

Geeze...it’s like pulling gawddamn teeth.

umm….glad to have such an effect. I’m not going to pretend to explain impending (existing) weather/drought disaster to you like the studied professionals on biology, atmosphere and industry that neither of us are, but you don’t seem to be seeking council from them on the matter anyway...

And you say this because?  Oh...because we disagree. Okay. Are you this difficult in real life? Probably not, huh? You’d get beat up too much.

…sunspots!!! jesus christ sunspots…

It has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

The sun is burning hotter than usual, offering a possible explanation for global warming that needs to be weighed when proceeding with expensive efforts to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, Swiss and German scientists say.
“The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures,” said Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research.

From 1645 to 1715, there was a drastically reduced number of sunspots. This period of reduced solar activity, which was first noticed by G. Sporer and was later investigated by E.W. Maunder, is now called the Maunder Minimum. This period of time was also unusually cold on earth, and it has been referred to as the “Little Ice Age.” This has led to some speculation that sunspot activity may affect the earth’s climate.

Even though sunspots are darker, cooler regions on the face of the sun, periods of high sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the total energy output of the sun. Dark sunspot areas are surrounded by areas of increased brightness, known as plages. Some parts of the solar spectrum, especially ultraviolet, increase a great deal during sunspot activity. Even though ultraviolet radiation makes very little contribution to the total energy that comes from the sun, changes in this type of radiation can have a large effect on the earth’s atmosphere, especially the energy balance and chemistry of the outer atmosphere.

A new analysis shows that the Sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years.

Call it a possibility. Or dismiss it out of hand without giving it a second thought and then claim that everybody else who doesn’t agree that the science is settled yet is “ignorant”.

umm....glad to have such an effect. I’m not going to pretend to explain impending (existing) weather/drought disaster to you like the studied professionals on biology, atmosphere and industry that neither of us are, but you don’t seem to be seeking council from them on the matter anyway...sunspots!!! jesus christ sunspots…

Probably not, huh? You’d get beat up too much.

uhh...What is your intent in saying that to me?

Care to share quotes from climate projectionists on how the severity of the situation is exceeding all model generations, and how current formulas for projection don’t even consider cumulative effects of the various elements involved? We’re in a very thin bubble of air. The government is not showing any signs of shifting to cleaner industry. They don’t even want to discuss it.

You suggest we maintain business as usual through all this? I mean really, what’s the worst that could happen right? Oh yeah, the worst is really really REALLY bad...like, apocalyptic degrees of badness...and the possiblity of that outcome is actually being put on the table by people who make it their job to determine whether or not something like that could happen. But you’re saying it’s just one random el nino sunspot storm after another until this strange cycle subsides...then drought will cease, all the fresh water will return, the atmosphere will actually be cleaner!!!! How long do you think this cycle will last? Do you think it’s going to get better anytime soon? Do you understand the cumulative effects? Our great grandkids are in for a hellubba party thanks to support from viewers like you. Striving for a cleaner environment (especially in face of today’s rate of pollution) should be a huge priority of all governments, in my wee little opinion. It is EVERYBODY’s life, and their way of life that we’re talking about. You disagree?

Or dismiss it out of hand without giving it a second thought and then claim that everybody else who doesn’t agree that the science is settled yet is “ignorant”.

I’m certainly not...look into it.

wifey, turning down the sun has nothing to do with (one of many examples) the amount of carbon monoxide being pumped into the atmosphere via gasoline burning all over the place...a phenomenon that didn’t exist prior to this century, let alone at the rate it’s escalated over the past 50 years...the effect of that interaction with the otherwise stable gasses of our climate, and the effects of the resulting climate on our weather. Changing the chemical compositions of everything on our planet has an effect. Today’s business as usual is not keeping everything happy, it’s getting worse. People don’t like to think of the possibility of royally screwing ourselves in an apocalyptic manner...but it can happen, and right now there are enough people in positions of respect regarding environmental matters who are saying it is happening. The patterns of denial from authorities who’s business interests would be diverted if ‘twer true is a phenomenon of movie-script reality in itself. It’s not a bad thing if we learn from it and make it right...I don’t understand people who choose to argue AGAINST making it a priority to clean up the filthy processes involved in the foundations of our daily industrial lives; I think there is PLENTY of room for improvement across the board and literally every single person living in the future will benefit.

carl B, would you please explain how you are going to turn down the sun. The entire world is waiting in trembling anticipation.

Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple asked, uhh…What is your intent in saying that to me?

Just an observation. You’re kind of an unlikeable asshole dude. There are times when you’re pretty cool...but all in all…

Care to share quotes from climate projectionists on how the severity of the situation is exceeding all model generations...

No. Because I could also find many “climate projectionists” who say the exact opposite.

...and how current formulas for projection don’t even consider cumulative effects of the various elements involved?

BINGO! This is exactly my point. Glad you stumbled upon it. The current formulas for projection don’t and can’t consider the cumulative effect of the various elements involved. One of the reasons why is that we don’t even know all of the variables involved or how they interact with and/or play off of each other. Another reason is that we don’t know how all of the elements that we already know about interact with and/or play off of each other. Sometimes it is willfull ignorance. Take you for example; you laugh at the idea that the sun’s activity could be the deciding factor and you won’t even consider it. The fact of the matter is that the sun is the reason we have any kind of appreciative energy at all. And yet you shrug it off and dismiss it without a second’s thought. So do many people who call themselves climatologists.

The government is not showing any signs of shifting to cleaner industry. They don’t even want to discuss it.

It isn’t the government’s job to begin with.

You suggest we maintain business as usual through all this?

No. I suggest that we work towards, and implement as it comes, cleaner industries. What I suggest we don’t do, is make drastic decisions based on what you admit is incomplete and far from conclusive data.

Oh yeah, the worst is really really REALLY bad…like, apocalyptic degrees of badness…and the possiblity of that outcome is actually being put on the table by people who make it their job to determine whether or not something like that could happen.

The “worst” is always “apocalyptic degrees of badness”. Secondly - who’s putting this “on the table” so to speak? People who get grant money based upon hyping these kinds of fears? It is a relevant question. Thirdly, almost anything “could” happen. It’s a pretty low bar.

But you’re saying it’s just one random el nino sunspot storm after another until this strange cycle subsides…then drought will cease, all the fresh water will return, the atmosphere will actually be cleaner!!!! How long do you think this cycle will last? Do you think it’s going to get better anytime soon? Do you understand the cumulative effects? Our great grandkids are in for a hellubba party thanks to support from viewers like you.

No I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the evidence is far from conclusive to make any kind of concrete decision as to what the short term, much less the long term, prospects of what the global weather and atmospheric conditions will be. At this point we have what amounts to near blind guesses. That is hardly a foundation upon which to make sweeping industrial changes, wouldn’t you agree? And by the way - El Niño is a natural normal weather phenomenon cycle that occurs every four to twelve years.

To answer all of your questions: I don’t know. And neither do you. That’s kind of been my point all along.

Striving for a cleaner environment (especially in face of today’s rate of pollution) should be a huge priority of all governments, in my wee little opinion. It is EVERYBODY’s life, and their way of life that we’re talking about. You disagree?

Agreed to some extent. We would quibble over what role governments should play and how much say they get.

Likwid:

Secondly - who’s putting this “on the table” so to speak? People who get grant money based upon hyping these kinds of fears? It is a relevant question.

Could you give me an example of a scientist who “gets grant money based upon hyping these kinds of fears?  I’m sure they exist, but my thoughts are that journalists and writers tend to be much worse at sensationalizing problems than funded scientists.

KIS:  If you talk long enough, somethings you say make sense.  Like this one, which I agree with:

Changing the chemical compositions of everything on our planet has an effect.

And regardless of the rest of your diatribe, government environmental policy has had positive results.  A couple of examples: Cleaning up of the Great Lakes, reduction of CFCs in the atmosphere and the stabilization of ozone levels in the atmosphere.

The second problem that scientists and lay people have to wrestle with, once they agree that they are affecting their environment (and sometimes in a demonstrably negative fashion, such as with CFCs) is what to do about it.  There are two approaches here:  Top-down and bottom-up.  Top-down means government fiat followed by a miracle as everything just mysteriously fixes itself.  Bottom up means subsidizing industry to make safer alternatives economically competitive.

I"m a free-market type and favor the bottom-up approach, since I see it as much more efficient than the federal government trying to dictate the best solution, when they may not even know it themselves.

Bottom up means subsidizing industry to make safer alternatives economically competitive.

Or penalizing.

Me:

Bottom up means subsidizing industry to make safer alternatives economically competitive.

Likwid:

Or penalizing.

I tend to think that penalization is a poor substitute for subsidization. Basically subsidies are along the same idea as positive reinforcement in behavioral conditioning… You’ll make a lot more progress by encouraging the desired behavior than punishing the behavior you don’t want.

Carl, KIS

We? Are you someone who likes to speak for others?

I tell you what, he has my permission to speak for me on this topic.  I’ll even give Likwid the leeway to speak for me on a wide array of other topics, like the Economy, Iraq, The war on Terror, etc.  So, now he can say “We.” Cool?

turning down the sun has nothing to do with (one of many examples) the amount of carbon monoxide being pumped into the atmosphere via gasoline burning all over the place…

You’re partially correct.  The increase of solar temperature (from Sun Spots and a general warming trend) increases the heat that the Earth receives.  The warmer the planet, the more fuel is consumed to make us cooler.

a phenomenon that didn’t exist prior to this century,

let alone at the rate it’s escalated over the past 50 years…

The Magnetic poles (North/South) have flip flopped a number of times over the life of the planet.  This happens in a very short period of time.  We have found frozen woolly mammoths with food in their mouths, indicating flash freezing.  This occurred before us.  What should be done?  How do we go to a gas-less society? 

I don’t understand people who choose to argue AGAINST making it a priority to clean up the filthy processes involved in the foundations of our daily industrial lives; I think there is PLENTY of room for improvement across the board and literally every single person living in the future will benefit.

When did we say that we were “AGAINST making it a priority to clean up the filthy processes involved in the foundations of our daily industrial lives”? 

I am all for cleaner technologies, but don’t think that Government mandates will solve anything.  Government mandates usually result in a decline in development.  Nor do I think that we have only scratched the surface of our understanding. 

Care to share quotes from climate projectionists on how the severity of the situation is exceeding all model generations, and how current formulas for projection don’t even consider cumulative effects of the various elements involved?

You’ve talked yourself into a box, and didn’t realize it.  Scientists can’t accurately model cloud formations over an afternoon for a region, let alone global weather for generations.  Everything we know about the Earth is still only a small part of what we need to know in order to determine the proper course of action.  Often times, ad hoc reactions, like fuel blends, cost more in energy to produce than the ecological benefits of the ad hoc plan.

We’re in a very thin bubble of air. The government is not showing any signs of shifting to cleaner industry. They don’t even want to discuss it.

What are you talking about?  Bush stated that he wanted development in alternate fuel.  CFC emissions were cut… (I understand, not by Bush… I was referring to the Govt in general).

How is it that Bush and members of the Government are not willing to discuss it?  Where have you seen that?

likwidshoe: Because I could also find many “climate projectionists” who say the exact opposite.

Please show me some. I would sincerely like for you to do that.

Here’s a no brainer: what do YOU think the effects of all the carbon monoxide and other refinery pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere is? Do you know the major outputs, how they are received in the natural environment and what the resulting chain reactions are? Are you aware of the cumulative volumes of these pollutants? It’s a new thing in the history of the universe as we know it, all this refinery action and burning gasoline...if you care to differ that 200 years in the history of advanced life on this planet is the blink of a relative eye, please speak up. Species of dinosaur lived for hundreds of millions of years, and we’re counting less than one. Look at the physical environmental changes life on the planet was making then vs. what we’ve done with the place, and in what span of time.

BINGO! This is exactly my point. Glad you stumbled upon it. The current formulas for projection don’t and can’t consider the cumulative effect of the various elements involved.

are you serious? You do know that the cumulative effects are the BAD kind right? Like, reduce the humidity of Area A and osmosis dries up Area B little more to balance things out, and then Area C dries up a little more to keep up with Area B, and everybody slowly gets less water but at an increasing rate...those type of cumulative effects, right? And how if you have a little bit of oil in a fish tank and the fish can still live in it, but then you add a little more oil and the fish suddenly CAN’T live in it...those types of cumulative results are the one’s we’re talking about right? Because what you just said furthers my point. There is no positive cumulative effect “on the table” with regards to pollution. It’s what pollution is. I’m glad we agree.

Another reason is that we don’t know how all of the elements that we already know about interact with and/or play off of each other.

you’re understanding of how the projections work is wrong here as well. They DO know how the elements will react with eachother. It’s very easy to test and make intelligent projections...they can’t guarantee the cumulative effects because there are so many possiblities, but in fact have made various projections to test countless likely reactions from which we may hypothesize. They DO know that the realities are exceeding the projections sans cumulation. It’s yet another no brainer.

Take you for example; you laugh at the idea that the sun’s activity could be the deciding factor and you won’t even consider it.

you call this my example but it is no such thing. It is not what I am talking about.

So do many people who call themselves climatologists.

????...word! I’m getting tired of all these fake ass climatologists spittin’ the hate bro...It’s my gas to burn! WOOO! Howzabout you link me some of them too brudda cuz? Lay out my argument for me a lil’ or sumpin.

Ok, carl B, how are you going to clean up industry in China, Russia, and Africa. They, specificaly, are exculded from your little fantasy,Kyoto. And those who did sign it have already scrapped it. Now on to reality. 99.99 percent of recorded global temp rise is caused by increased solar radiation, which is, by the way, accompanied by a marked increase in sunspot activity. Industry in Norte America is allready far cleaner than anywhere else on the planet. Only way to make it cleaner is to stop doing ANY industrial activity. Oh, yea. This ain’t wifey, she would use far too many polysyllabic scientific terms you would not understand, not to mention being far to polite with your fucktard ass. This is 2Hotel9, and I know what you are. So go spout your lying eco-bullshit to the teenyboppers and mental defectives who MIGHT believe it. All you are concerned with is arguing in circles and spreading your anti-American, anti-freedom bullshit.You have been thouroghly debunked by real scientists. Now run along back to DU or Kos and leave the adults to have real debate on issues you cannot grasp, simpleminded moron.

Carrick asked, Could you give me an example of a scientist who “gets grant money based upon hyping these kinds of fears? I’m sure they exist, but my thoughts are that journalists and writers tend to be much worse at sensationalizing problems than funded scientists.

You can bet your bottom dollar that pretty much everybody who works at the UNFCCC is working to prove that man made global warming exists. I know that is pretty broad, but I’m just honestly not going to fish out links right now.

I tend to think that penalization is a poor substitute for subsidization. Basically subsidies are along the same idea as positive reinforcement in behavioral conditioning… You’ll make a lot more progress by encouraging the desired behavior than punishing the behavior you don’t want.

Totally agreed. I was just acknowledging the other option of a bottom up approach.

Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple said, Please show me some. I would sincerely like for you to do that.

You don’t care. If you did you wouldn’t have dismissed the sun spots so quickly. As such, I don’t have a bunch of ready links to feed you, but I did come across this earlier today that kind of blows holes in your claim about higher hurricane activity.

CO2 levels aren’t high.

Water vapor isn’t taken into account. Probably for the same reason you immediately dismissed sun spots as possibly playing a role - you willfully don’t want to take it into account.

Heat island effect skewers temperature readings.

Seems like “global warming” is junk science based largely upon a lot of irrational religious fears. Kind of like some of those Christians you deride.

Here’s a no brainer: what do YOU think the effects of all the carbon monoxide and other refinery pollutants being pumped into the atmosphere is?

Carbon monoxide? I don’t know and won’t claim to. We don’t know enough of how the earth handles a lot of cow burps. I’m assuming that you will now show us a conclusive study since you labeled this a “no brainer”.

Do you know the major outputs, how they are received in the natural environment and what the resulting chain reactions are?

No. Do you?

Are you aware of the cumulative volumes of these pollutants?

Sure. 368,400 ppb CO2 (since you consider CO2 a “pollutant”, I’ll include it). 1,745 ppb CH4 (methane). 312 ppb N2O (I don’t like referring to nitrous as a “pollutant” myself, but whatever.) 27 ppb mixed gases.  As of Oct. of 2000. I’m not going to look for more recent info.

are you serious?

Yes, I’m completely serious. The current formulas for projection don’t and can’t consider the cumulative effect of the various elements involved. We don’t even know if the formulas are right, if we are including all of the needed variables, if we are giving too much weight to one variable and not enough to another, etc. Completely serious statements.

You do know that the cumulative effects are the BAD kind right?

That’s what you are claiming. Some pollutants can be for sure put into this category of “BAD kind”. There are a lot of nasty chemicals and whatnot out there. Other “pollutants” like CO2? We don’t know.

Like, reduce the humidity of Area A and osmosis dries up Area B little more to balance things out, and then Area C dries up a little more to keep up with Area B...

This is life on our ever changing planet. Always has been this way and always will. Forests will bloom, deserts will spread where there was once forest, and lands will be born through volcanic activity, and etcetera.

...and everybody slowly gets less water but at an increasing rate…those type of cumulative effects, right?

Everybody gets less water? Naw...sorry whateveryourname is. You can’t tell me that the intensity of storms are increasing on one hand (that’s water) and that we are losing water on the other. Unless you are saying that it’s only going to storm over the oceans and lakes of the world. The fact of the matter is, water availability is largely dependent upon how well water tables are kept. Use too much underground water for farming or people in one area and the table will start to dry up. We are seeing this in China and parts of Africa right now. Some eastern African nations are right on the verge of having some wars over water actually. None of the future hostilities will have anything at all to do with “global warming” and everything to do with poor management of their water tables.

Solutions to the water problem? We have to conserve and pay attention to the water table. In addition to the conservation of the water table that can be done now, we can increase our riches to head off any future problems. It will be easier with great riches to convert salty seawater into potable water.

And how if you have a little bit of oil in a fish tank and the fish can still live in it, but then you add a little more oil and the fish suddenly CAN’T live in it…those types of cumulative results are the one’s we’re talking about right?

Yeah I get your analogy. It’s apt and your point is well taken. But I have to ask, where are your facts?

Because what you just said furthers my point. There is no positive cumulative effect “on the table” with regards to pollution. It’s what pollution is. I’m glad we agree.

We don’t agree to much of anything yet bud. You are mistaken. Nice try though.

you’re understanding of how the projections work is wrong here as well. They DO know how the elements will react with eachother.

Wrong sir. If you don’t know all of the major variables and sometimes purposely omit variables like sun spots, soot and dust in the air, and water vapor, you can’t possibly know how all of the elements that we already know about interact with and/or play off of each other because you are dealing with an incomplete equation.

It’s very easy to test and make intelligent projections…they can’t guarantee the cumulative effects because there are so many possiblities, but in fact have made various projections to test countless likely reactions from which we may hypothesize.

Again, if you don’t have all of the variables than you simply do not know the correct answer is. You will get what is sometimes a totally different answer therefore making your end result seriously incomplete and flawed.

Try this one: what do you get when you mix up gravel, sand, and water? Why you get gravel and sand and water of course! Now what do you get when you throw cement into the mix? You get concrete. The point is - the variable of cement in this example drastically changed the outcome.

They DO know that the realities are exceeding the projections sans cumulation.

Those projections are bunk for the reasons explained above.

It’s yet another no brainer.

You keep on saying this. Do you have no brain?

you call this my example but it is no such thing. It is not what I am talking about.

Wrong bucko. You are willfully ignoring what could be a major component in global warming and cooling. You said, and I quote, “Are you someone who likes to speak for others? ‘CO2 is just more plant food’ and sunspots is as empty as it gets, and isn’t even to the point.”

It seems that when you are not misquoting me, you are denying your past comment history.

????…word! I’m getting tired of all these fake ass climatologists spittin’ the hate bro…It’s my gas to burn! WOOO! Howzabout you link me some of them too brudda cuz? Lay out my argument for me a lil’ or sumpin.

No. I’ve said enough and it’s obvious that you are hostile with this subject. It’s a “no brainer” dude.

You can’t tell me that the intensity of storms are increasing on one hand (that’s water) and that we are losing water on the other.

rather than disect your googling, I should just leave this quote to speak for the sum of your ignorance. Yes, likwidshoe, not only can it happen but it is happening...it’s THE point of argument from people who actually know what the numbers mean. Basic ways to look for basic info on it:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=increase+storm+intensity&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=water+shortage&btnG=Search

If you’re sincerely letting what you think to be hostile sharing of information affect your view of the information itself then you DO have a lot to learn. We are talking about the wellbeing of all human life on this planet, present and future.

Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple spits out, rather than disect your googling, I should just leave this quote to speak for the sum of your ignorance. Yes, likwidshoe, not only can it happen but it is happening…it’s THE point of argument from people who actually know what the numbers mean. Basic ways to look for basic info on it:

Can you read?  Here is what I said,

Everybody gets less water? Naw…sorry whateveryourname is. You can’t tell me that the intensity of storms are increasing on one hand (that’s water) and that we are losing water on the other. Unless you are saying that it’s only going to storm over the oceans and lakes of the world. The fact of the matter is, water availability is largely dependent upon how well water tables are kept.

Catch that? It’s the water table management that is the cause here, not “global warming”.

If you’re sincerely letting what you think to be hostile sharing of information affect your view of the information itself then you DO have a lot to learn. We are talking about the wellbeing of all human life on this planet, present and future.

You’re such a stupid dick, ya know that? You have any more stupidity for me to destroy?

Catch that? It’s the water table management that is the cause here, not “global warming”.

HAHAHAHAHAA! Yeah, the stoic monolith of reason actually has to do with gravity waves (in terms of metaphore as well) but let’s not really get down to the fractalinear definitions of things shall we? I’ll be a stupid dick if you want but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re not seeing what’s going on right outside your window. Not that common sense doesn’t dismiss what you said, but you failed to address how the links do as well. Keep up your support for a kinder, gentler and dirtier nation...world.

You’re such a stupid dick, ya know that?

Do you really care? Stick to the subject then homey bro basket weaver.

I’ll be a stupid dick if you want but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re not seeing what’s going on right outside your window.

Are you stalking me?

What do I see out my window? I see an ever changing world.

Not that common sense doesn’t dismiss what you said, but you failed to address how the links do as well.

You must have missed my previous comments. I did address “how the links do”.

Keep up your support for a kinder, gentler and dirtier nation…world.

This is useless rhetoric.

I’m looking at this situation logically. You happen to be using emotion. That about sums up the difference between us two on this issue (and most issues for that matter).

You must have missed my previous comments. I did address “how the links do”.

you didn’t.

This is useless rhetoric.

this is useless rhetoric.

This is useless rhetoric.

this is useless rhetoric.

This is useless rhetoric.

see where I’m going with this? then fuggedaboudit.

I’m looking at this situation logically. You happen to be using emotion. That about sums up the difference between us two on this issue (and most issues for that matter).

yeah, I’ve been saying this for quite some time now. It takes someone without emotions to feel we shouldn’t be addressing the issue of pollution much more seriously. You’ve followed the illogic fed to you by your like-minded constituents in the grab for power and profit...just read everything you’ve said above.

you didn’t.

You must have some serious reading comprehension problems.

see where I’m going with this? then fuggedaboudit.

Yeah...you’re trying to make me forget that you have no argument. (it’s not working)

yeah, I’ve been saying this for quite some time now. It takes someone without emotions to feel we shouldn’t be addressing the issue of pollution much more seriously. You’ve followed the illogic fed to you by your like-minded constituents in the grab for power and profit…just read everything you’ve said above.

Yeah okay there Carl B. holier than thou holier than marty get a grip keep it simple. At least I addressed you with logic. At least I addressed what you have brought up. I even took the time to answer many of the questions you posed. Did you do the same? Not even close. All I got from you was smarmy sarcasm and flaky thinking that you didn’t even try to explain when questioned about. I was right when I said that you are hostile with this subject. A subject with views you hold by faith much like a religion as opposed to a science. When given opposing viewpoints all you can do is offer some smarmy self serving opinion that I must be for a “dirtier nation” or for “power and profit”. It doesn’t enter your mind that I’m just not convinced. Sadly, you have done nothing to even begin convincing me.

Now I know what will happen next. You will give me some Google search link and tell me to “connect the dots” or “look out your window” or some other such thing followed by an insult or two and a bunch of exclamation points. Next will be the obligatory closing statement about ulterior motives.

Your bag of tricks is pretty limited.

I’m done with this conversation with you. I know you will not pose any worthwhile questions or points worth responding to. You will give me a comment I’ve described above.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=increase+storm+intensity&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=water+shortage&btnG=Search

[...] its-not-global-warming [...]

the whole “global warming” thing that k.i.s. is talking about doesn’t have anything to do with the human species. our planet has constantly gone through warming and cooling trends. it’s done this for billions of years before us and will continue to do it billions of years after we are gone. a volcanic eruption spills more green house gasses into the atmosphere then we have been able to produce since the beginning of the industrial revolution, we aren’t causing global warming we aren’t causing the increasing amount of hurricanes, it is natures cycles. can we stop a hurricane? no. if we can’t stop it how can we create it?

[...] It’s Not Global Warming By Rob on September 1, 2005 at 8:20 pm The Independent - Professor Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also claimed, less than a month ago, that ocean surfaces had become warmer, which doubled the destructive potential of tropical storms in the past 30 years. [...]