Stuff Republicans say.

[tytlyf]

nobody told me, we can do the math ourselves, it's not hard- is that not the point of science? not having to take anybody's word for it?

current CO2= 400+- ppm
pre industrial= 275+-ppm

difference= 125 ppm (parts per million)

125/1,000,000

= 1.25/10,000

yes?

or .125 molecules for every post I've made here so far!

That's math without a basis for understanding the baseline. Nature is all about balance. If pre-industrial was around 275 (balance) and after is 400. That's around a 50% increase in 50 years. No one is arguing that earth's climate cycles have fluctuated over thousands of years, people are pointing out that that fluctuation is happening at a much much faster rate and a much quicker time frame.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's math without a basis for understanding the baseline. Nature is all about balance. If pre-industrial was around 275 (balance) and after is 400. That's around a 50% increase in 50 years. No one is arguing that earth's climate cycles have fluctuated over thousands of years, people are pointing out that that fluctuation is happening at a much much faster rate and a much quicker time frame.

I understand the intuitive concern if we are increasing anything in the atmos by 50%- that's certainly worth looking at, but that this is 'bad' is not a necessary given. had CO2 already been at historic highs, that's one thing, but the opposite is true.

275 was not a perfect garden of Eden 'balance', most plants evolved with far higher 'balances' with levels >7000 ppm in the Cambrian, the Ordovician ice age had >4000 ppm, most plants still prefer 1200-1500 ppm

275 was a near starvation level reached after millions of years of CO2 depletion by plants, helping spread vast deserts on Earth where there had been none- this is not healthy balance.

We are helping restore the balance in terms of photosynthesis, plants are growing measurably faster and more drought resistant than they were 100 years ago, this is an unambiguous observation, requiring no computer sims, political campaigns or funding

- but the levels are minute with regards to any greenhouse effect, which is overwhelmingly driven by water vapor, that's the primary greenhouse gas, not CO2.

 

[sun rise]

So it's win-win when I seize power!

There is a science fiction short story based on implanting sensors in rulers holding absolute power. When their subjects were in pain, the ruler felt the pain literally. The more pain the people suffered, the more the ruler suffered. So I'm happy for you to have absolute power subject to developing such a device. I'd even donate to a kickstarter campaign to develop that idea into a real product.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a science fiction short story based on implanting sensors in rulers holding absolute power. When their subjects were in pain, the ruler felt the pain literally. The more pain the people suffered, the more the ruler suffered. So I'm happy for you to have absolute power subject to developing such a device. I'd even donate to a kickstarter campaign to develop that idea into a real product.

I've long thought about Dune.....install heart plugs into leaders.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum | NASA
www.nasa.gov/.../antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

which just goes to show you, not only does every possible observation 'support' global warming, every possible observation is also made concurrently!-

so without any empirical objective falsifiable evidence whatsoever, what's the whole movement based on? what's the goal here?

But you haven't established that the findings lack empirical evidence. The fact that the data has been recorded and published for every scientist in their respective fields to test means you don't seem to understand what falsifiable means. Your sure don't seem to understand what "objective" means. If scientist around the world are drawing the same or similar conclusions based on current finding as well as their own then that means this consensus is as objective as it gets.

Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren - Google Books

And there are tons of articles and research papers in this area of science. Even the link you provided confirms what we've been telling you.

there you go, that speaks for itself

past generations were all too aware of the hardships of everyday real life-the simplest conveniences were godsends, life savers. people grow up today with literally no concept of how much better their lives are because of the industrial revolution. plentiful food, comfort, medical care, ease of travel, are all taken as granted.

What does this have to do with anything? I mean you can't make the assumption that because times were hard long ago there are no longer hard times. This is far from being true. Even with these conveniences we still have job loss, homelessness, poverty, stagnant income, food insecurity, higher gas prices, higher home prices, higher food prices...regardless of the industrial age and/or the computer age. But to think that global climate change doesn't affect any of these things misses the big picture. Much of the world conflict we see has some roots in a shortage or lack of natural resources. Much of the affect correlates with global climate change.

Is a Lack of Water to Blame for the Conflict in Syria? | Innovation | Smithsonian

If You Think the Water Crisis Can't Get Worse, Wait Until the Aquifers Are Drained

Water In Crisis - Spotlight Ethiopia

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/u...rces-a-painful-reckoning-for-states.html?_r=0

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But you haven't established that the findings lack empirical evidence. The fact that the data has been recorded and published for every scientist in their respective fields to test means you don't seem to understand what falsifiable means. Your sure don't seem to understand what "objective" means. If scientist around the world are drawing the same or similar conclusions based on current finding as well as their own then that means this consensus is as objective as it gets.

Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren - Google Books

And there are tons of articles and research papers in this area of science. Even the link you provided confirms what we've been telling you.



What does this have to do with anything? I mean you can't make the assumption that because times were hard long ago there are no longer hard times. This is far from being true. Even with these conveniences we still have job loss, homelessness, poverty, stagnant income, food insecurity, higher gas prices, higher home prices, higher food prices...regardless of the industrial age and/or the computer age. But to think that global climate change doesn't affect any of these things misses the big picture. Much of the world conflict we see has some roots in a shortage or lack of natural resources. Much of the affect correlates with global climate change.

Is a Lack of Water to Blame for the Conflict in Syria? | Innovation | Smithsonian

If You Think the Water Crisis Can't Get Worse, Wait Until the Aquifers Are Drained

Water In Crisis - Spotlight Ethiopia

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/u...rces-a-painful-reckoning-for-states.html?_r=0

I think you'll find 'conflict in the middle east' goes back a tad further than the invention the SUV! how about the marked increase in stability in Western Europe relative to the first half of the 20th century? was that 'climate change' too? You don't think the rise and fall of socialist dictators in Europe and Syria had a little more to do with it, than 1 extra molecule of CO2 in 10,000 of air?!

That's what I mean when I say 'climate change' is utterly unfalsifiable and hence unscientific

when every possible observation,cold, warm, rain, snow, drought, growing ice, shrinking ice, and the conflict in Syria are all blamed on 'climate change'
that's as unscientific and unfalsifiable as it gets, to call it a religion would be insulting to religion, anything bad happening being blamed on human activity is literally the oldest superstition known to mankind.

science the method and science the academic consensus are two entirely different things, Galileo, Lemaitre and Einstein would all remind you of that.

99.9% of paranormal instigators believe in ghosts, and they should know, they're the experts, right?

 

[tytlyf]

I understand the intuitive concern if we are increasing anything in the atmos by 50%- that's certainly worth looking at, but that this is 'bad' is not a necessary given. had CO2 already been at historic highs, that's one thing, but the opposite is true.

275 was not a perfect garden of Eden 'balance', most plants evolved with far higher 'balances' with levels >7000 ppm in the Cambrian, the Ordovician ice age had >4000 ppm, most plants still prefer 1200-1500 ppm

275 was a near starvation level reached after millions of years of CO2 depletion by plants, helping spread vast deserts on Earth where there had been none- this is not healthy balance.

We are helping restore the balance in terms of photosynthesis, plants are growing measurably faster and more drought resistant than they were 100 years ago, this is an unambiguous observation, requiring no computer sims, political campaigns or funding

- but the levels are minute with regards to any greenhouse effect, which is overwhelmingly driven by water vapor, that's the primary greenhouse gas, not CO2.

You're assuming again and just 'making it up.' Just like your figures of your math, you aren't proving anything. Just all talk. As mentioned before, we have experts on planet earth that are trained in this field. Your math is pointless and ignorant until you prove otherwise. Sorry.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're assuming again and just 'making it up.' Just like your figures of your math, you aren't proving anything. Just all talk. As mentioned before, we have experts on planet earth that are trained in this field. Your math is pointless and ignorant until you prove otherwise. Sorry.

well... great , well informed, substantive counter arguments tytlyf! see ya

 

[tytlyf]

well... great , well informed, substantive counter arguments tytlyf! see ya

Your assumption is that CO2 is such a tiny fraction of the PPM in the atmosphere that it has no effect. You stated that the earth used to have 7000ppm and acted like that was ok. I pointed out that humans have doubled the PPM in 50 years. You act like CO2 should equate to 50% of the atmosphere before it's dangerous. I'm pointing out that small fractions are dangerous.

"Two gases make up the bulk of the earth's atmosphere: nitrogen (

), which comprises 78% of the atmosphere, and oxygen (

), which accounts for 21%. Various trace gases make up the remainder."

That's 99% of the atmosphere with only 2 gases. The rest are fighting over 1% (CO2).

Introduction to the Atmosphere: Background Material

 

[Sunstone]

'They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About Gay People - The New Civil Rights Movement

 

[sun rise]

Sometimes word substitution says it all:

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [black] People

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [Jewish] People

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [Muslim] People

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [Irish] People(to go back in history a bit)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

'They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About Gay People - The New Civil Rights Movement

You beat me to it. I was just getting ready to post an article oN this.....wow...many of the bigots in this party are out in the open telling us how they feel.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sometimes word substitution says it all:

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [black] People

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [Jewish] People

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [Muslim] People

They Don’t Have A Right To Be Served In Every Store' Says GOP Lawmaker About [Irish] People(to go back in history a bit)

Be careful. Someone around here likes to claim we're always playing the race card regardless of how many teapubtarians come out tell us what they think about others....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Don Young, Alaska Republican: Best way to solve homeless problem is let wolves run free - Washington Times

Wow...!

"Bring out your dead"

 

[sun rise]

Be careful. Someone around here likes to claim we're always playing the race card regardless of how many teapubtarians come out tell us what they think about others....

I did mention Jews, Muslims and Irish people

Don Young, Alaska Republican: Best way to solve homeless problem is let wolves run free - Washington Times

Wow...!

"Bring out your dead"

I'm tempted to go back and re-read the Book of Revelation looking for a metaphorical image of this kind of evil.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Did 47 Senate Republicans just break the law?

Is it tantamount to treason what they just did?

Will there be congressional oversight hearings on the matter? Well I can answer that for myself..."NO!"

47 GOP Senators Tell Iran They May Not Honor A Nuclear Deal : It's All Politics : NPR

The law that they may have broken is:

Logan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The Act was intended to prohibit unauthorized United States citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments"

And....

Private correspondence with foreign governments.
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

What do you think about their latest stunt...?

 

[sun rise]

Did 47 Senate Republicans just break the law?

Is it tantamount to treason what they just did?

Will there be congressional oversight hearings on the matter? Well I can answer that for myself..."NO!"

47 GOP Senators Tell Iran They May Not Honor A Nuclear Deal : It's All Politics : NPR

The law they may have broken is:

Logan Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 30 January 1799, currently codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953) is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
....
Private correspondence with foreign governments.
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
...

What do you think about their latest stunt...?

I think it would be fun to see the executive branch arrest them for violating the law but we won't see it. Instead we're now liable to see the Democrats in the Senate block any action from the criminals against the deal which will be ratified by the UN security council.

 

[metis]

The New York Daily News, which hardly is a bastion of Democratic support, said in yesterday's headline that these 47 were "traitors", and frankly I think that's accurate under this circumstance. They're making Jane Fonda of 50 years ago seem like a flag-waving American patriot.

 

[esmith]

Hmm, guess some of you have very short memories. By any chance do you recall Nancy Pelosi talking with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2007. Probably not since she is a Democrat and only Republicans can be in the wrong.
Pelosi meets with Syria’s Assad - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

 

[metis]

Hmm, guess some of you have very short memories. By any chance do you recall Nancy Pelosi talking with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2007. Probably not since she is a Democrat and only Republicans can be in the wrong.
Pelosi meets with Syria’s Assad - World news - Mideast/N. Africa | NBC News

Did you actually read the article in regards to what Pelosi was doing? She was not undermining Bush, even though Bush didn't approve, as she was trying to put forth a peace effort between Syria and Israel. That's not even close to what the 47 "traitors" were doing.