1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    24 Jul '15 14:14
    http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    24 Jul '15 15:331 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html
    a true story of misleading statements, critical information omission and false information.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13478
    24 Jul '15 15:54
    All computer models are flawed badly, including the solar computer models. That was clearly what I implied with my mini ice age post. Read the OP!

    You both forget so easily. LOL!
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    24 Jul '15 16:01
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    All computer models are flawed badly, including the solar computer models. That was clearly what I implied with my mini ice age post. Read the OP!

    You both forget so easily. LOL!
    We listen to scientists.
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    25 Jul '15 07:15
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We listen to scientists.
    and not to morons with no science credentials.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13478
    25 Jul '15 19:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We listen to scientists.
    No you don't.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    25 Jul '15 21:054 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    No you don't.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
    Time will tell and I hope they are right, that it is business as usual. The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other.

    Oh no, another set of morons giving predictions:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html

    Yet more moronic data:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-07-globe-june-scientists.html

    And yet more idiotic assumptions:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mammoths-abrupt-climate.html

    And look at this idiot:

    http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/mayor-epiphany-climate-change/
  8. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13478
    26 Jul '15 02:29
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Time will tell and I hope they are right, that it is business as usual. The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other.

    Oh no, another set of morons giving predictions:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html

    Yet more moroni ...[text shortened]... html

    And look at this idiot:

    http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/mayor-epiphany-climate-change/
    Look at this long term graph of ocean level rise. Notice the slow and consistent rise without much increase during the time CO2 increased a lot. There is no significant correlation of a rapid increase of ocean levels along with increased CO2 levels. It is simply not there.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html

    This begs the question of why the projected ocean level increases in the prediction. Increased CO2 has not resulted in a significant increase in ocean levels at all.

    Why do you think predictions of a rapid increase have merit? It clearly has nothing to do with CO2, so what is supposed to be the cause? Can you answer that question?
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13478
    26 Jul '15 02:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Time will tell and I hope they are right, that it is business as usual. The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other.

    Oh no, another set of morons giving predictions:

    http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html

    Yet more moroni ...[text shortened]... html

    And look at this idiot:

    http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/mayor-epiphany-climate-change/
    "The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other."

    Are you stupid? Extinctions are increasing because of man, but that has nothing to do with climate change. The Dodo Bird did not go extinct because of climate change and neither did the Tasmanian Tiger. You are seeing a cause that is not there. Correct your man made cause.

    Mammoths were hunted by humans. I even posted a link claiming man hunting Mammoths to extinction caused climate change. I think it is nonsense, but so is your link that claims the opposite cause and effect.

    Those phys.org links are often biased and a joke quite frankly. You should not regard them as being as credible as you think.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    26 Jul '15 05:5613 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain

    The Dodo Bird did not go extinct because of climate change and neither did the Tasmanian Tiger. .
    so, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?

    Please tell us all; where is the contradiction in having BOTH some animals gone extinct NOT as a result of climate change AND some other animals ( not the same animals, obviously ) gone extinct AS a result of climate change?

    Just one example of a species gone extinct at least in part due to climate change is the the Golden toad:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140331-global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-animals-science-environment/
    "... Last seen in 1989, the golden frog lived in mountaintop cloud forests that have disappeared due to drought and other climatic changes...."
    Toads require water and that means they generally can be killed by drought. Therefore, a climate change that increases the incidence of drought can kill them off.
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13478
    26 Jul '15 11:511 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    so, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?

    Please tell us all; where is the contradiction in having BOTH some animals gone extinct NOT as a result of climate change AND some other animals ( [i]not ...[text shortened]... drought. Therefore, a climate change that increases the incidence of drought can kill them off.
    "so, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?"

    Did I say that? No, I did not say that.

    You have not established that the drought was caused by climate change. Weather is different than climate change. You keep mixing the two as if they are the same.

    Climate change can result in species going extinct, but that has been happening for millions of years. You want us to believe it is anthropogenic, but you have not established that. FAIL!

    Edit: That national geographic link claims polar bears are threatened by climate change which is completely false. Polar bear populations are increasing, NOT decreasing. Coral reefs are not threatened by climate change either. That is another false claim. You can blame people for blast fishing and other man made destruction, but not climate change. National geographic is a horrible source of information! I have already exposed them for asserting outright lies. Try again.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Jul '15 12:491 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "so, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?"

    Did I say that? No, I did not say that.

    You have not established that the drought was caused by climate change. Weather is different than climate change. You keep mixing the t ...[text shortened]... rible source of information! I have already exposed them for asserting outright lies. Try again.
    Here is a study about those coral reefs that can recover, but notice there are still going to be vast fields of reefs that die off and the recovery will be much less than the original populations:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/14/scientists-reveal-coral-reefs-can-survive-global-warming-great-barrier-reef

    Here is an assessment of the reefs. The increase in world temperatures is not the only stressor on these reefs, ocean acidification is another one and increased cyclones is another:

    http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/what-does-this-mean-for-habitats/coral-reefs

    But hey, what do you give a crap about any of that, stuck in the upper midwest where coral reefs are thousands of miles away, why should you give a shyte.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13478
    26 Jul '15 14:10
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Here is a study about those coral reefs that can recover, but notice there are still going to be vast fields of reefs that die off and the recovery will be much less than the original populations:

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/14/scientists-reveal-coral-reefs-can-survive-global-warming-great-barrier-reef

    Here is an assessment of the ...[text shortened]... in the upper midwest where coral reefs are thousands of miles away, why should you give a shyte.
    Coral reefs are not bleaching because of global warming. Bleaching is caused by seasonal temp changes and La nina. Furthermore, natural climate change has caused mass dying of coral reefs in the distant past. Ice ages are a much greater threat to coral reefs.

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/coral-bleaching-what-about-the-coral-reefs-part-2-of-3/

    The truth is that global warming will actually be beneficial to coral reefs. Try again.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Jul '15 16:231 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Coral reefs are not bleaching because of global warming. Bleaching is caused by seasonal temp changes and La nina. Furthermore, natural climate change has caused mass dying of coral reefs in the distant past. Ice ages are a much greater threat to coral reefs.

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/coral-bleaching-what-about-the-coral-reefs-part-2-of-3/

    The truth is that global warming will actually be beneficial to coral reefs. Try again.
    This report shows a direct link between CO2 in the atmosphere and change in Ph in the oceans. They call it 'acidification' or something like that, more acid. Actually, acid starts at 7 on down, so it is really less basic, basic starts at 7 and up. There is already damage to coral reefs due to this effect:

    http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resources/education_modules/coral_reefs_and_climate_change/how_does_climate_change_affect_coral_reefs/

    It is people like you who will be saying, 'if only we had listened to those idiots back in the day, the world would be a much better place now'. When it is much too late.
  15. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13478
    26 Jul '15 17:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    This report shows a direct link between CO2 in the atmosphere and change in Ph in the oceans. They call it 'acidification' or something like that, more acid. Actually, acid starts at 7 on down, so it is really less basic, basic starts at 7 and up. There is already damage to coral reefs due to this effect:

    http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resourc ...[text shortened]... e idiots back in the day, the world would be a much better place now'. When it is much too late.
    Correct, less basic. It isn't a problem. Your link does not say it is or was, it merely implies it will. This is just another scare tactic with no basis in reality. Your link even pushes that myth about coral bleaching. Global warming is not causing coral to bleach. Seasonal water temperature changes are enough to cause that. It is normal.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/?page=all

    Mr. Giaever, an institute professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and professor at the University of Oslo, said it was time to scrap the global-warming theory, which he described as a “new religion.”

    “If you’re a physicist, for heaven’s sake, and here is the experiment, and you have a theory, and the theory doesn’t agree with the experiment, then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” he said.
Back to Top