I give up. It's painfully obvious as to why your anti-social behavior has destined you to where it has.

When the earth is dying there shall arise a new tribe of all colours and all creeds. This tribe shall be called The Warriors of the Rainbow and it will put its faith in actions not words. - HOPI PROPHESY

nice, someone can reply to a valid question with a valid answer. Appreciated.

What's odd is the report authors went out of their way to include a ~paragraph highlighting the fact that, even though those reasons have been shown to contribute, there is no obvious reasons for the dying trees. It's specific in the study. No obvious reasons.

And sure, manmade global warming is about the Earf, not specifically this region only, but that's also a problem in terms of motivation. I'll ask you, would/will you alter your lifestyle in your country because some trees in USA may or may not die in the next 50 years due to unknown reasons?

You give up on what? trying to paint me as a troll because I asked a question. :1orglaugh

And you have no fucking clue as to where destiny brung me.

What do you mean with obvious? Isn't some wildfires and beetles quite obvious? Or change in temperatures and specie specific treeline shifting obvious? You can examine all those things as those are easily measurable.

Your question is presented in certain way to mock the issue, but I still answer yes. Although you didn't say what kind of lifestyle changes, so it's easy to answer yes.

Because we know for certain that glaciations have happened many times in the past, at regular intervals, during the current ice age we are in.

We don't know for certain that man is causing global warming, if man is even capable of causing global warming or if man is capable of doing anything to mitigate global warming even if he wanted to.

We don't need to know it for certain to make decisions about it, I already said that future is always uncertain, but we still have to make decisions. Humans are definitely able to cause global warming, cooling, or whatever, provided that sun doesn't die, etc. We have huge impact on conditions and life on Earth. Although often not with the way we want.

Of course the future is uncertain - that goes without saying. Saying so is just rhetoric.

Indeed humans have an impact on conditions and life on Earth - many of them negative. But there is no convincing proof that completely overpowering and screwing up the global climate is one of them.

The problem as I see it now is that we are spending so much time, money and effort on demonizing and fighting a harmless trace gas that real harmful problems are being overlooked.

So, you don't agree with that ozone layer stuff either (regarding humans impact)?

Well, most scientists + me thinks that there is convincing enough proof about humans impact to climate. Just state your unbeliefs for your own behalf and keep those passive phrases out of this.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Trees are literally the lungs of this plants. When the lungs die, so soon will the planet and the disgusting bacteria along with it known as man.

I've been doing a lot of hiking in the Rockies around Denver. I'm climbing Mt Evans this weekend, but I've noticed some dead trees here and there that seemed a bit excessive. I thought maybe it was due to the pine Beatles. I know there were pine Beatles problems in some of the mountians in New Mexico, but I've also noticed that here in CO the Forrest service seems to be doing a good job out cutting down infected trees.

Either you are drunk or English isn't your first language because sense - you're not making any. But I'll try.

I don't disagree with that "ozone layer stuff". There is hard evidence for the ozone hole and its causes. Not much to argue about there. And I agree that we had a negative impact. So what?

"Most scientists" is a fallacy and one of the greatest and most fraudulent myths of our time. But go ahead and believe it if you like. That's your mistake to make.

And if you think there is enough "proof" of human impact on climate from the emissions of CO2 then you need to look up the definition of proof. Theories do not equal proof.



.

It all is, just another dumb post

Did anyone ever confuse you with Ted Cruz? If not, they will. And when it happens, I hope you are smart enough to be very, very insulted.

Goodnight, Ted.

The world is getting hotter. Everyone on the planet needs to change their lifestyle or we're all doomed, DOOMED I tell you!

Okay let's see here...

I already:

- Recycle meticulously.

- Use energy-efficient lighting.

- Have water-saving devices installed throughout my home and rental property.

- Moved my entire working life to a home-based business model over 16 years ago, thus I drive my car about 1/10 of most job-working slaves. (if not less)

- Have sunk tens of thousands of dollars into insulating my home and rental property, thus saving on natural gas and electricity use.

- Bought and use reusable shopping bags for groceries, etc.

- Turn things off when not in use (computer, lights, tv, etc)

- Haven't taken newspaper delivery for 20+ years. (GFY is all the news I need)

- Don't use bottled water. I had a reverse osmosis system installed over 12 years ago.

So my question is; what the fucking fuck else do you want from me?? My "carbon footprint" is now the size of my fucking baby toenail already. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. The green changes I've made have not been a hardship on me, and in fact do save me thousands of $'s every year.


I should also mention here, from where I sit, the planet is getting COLDER not hotter. Last winter was the coldest winter Manitoba has seen in anywhere from 50 to 150 years depending on which expert you ask. It was certainly the coldest that I can recall in at least 40 years, maybe longer. Plus, this summer has been short, having started late, having had a lot of cool rainy days, only a few weeks of relatively hot sunny days, and now as of September I actually had to turn the heat on already.

So don't take this as a slight but please don't talk to me anymore about this so-called warming trend supposedly going on. I have yet to see it where I am. We've had some pretty mild winters in the past, and some nice long and hot summers. But they're getting scarcer and scarcer.

I'd still rather face a Manitoba winter than move south where it's "warmer" and then face your hurricanes, tornadoes, earth tremors, supervolcanoes, oil spills, etc etc ET-CETERA. :D

There was a frost warning here last night, so just shut it about global warming already.

The ozone layer issue is about human's impact on climate. You just questioned human's impact on climate. Isn't there some logic error anyways if you believe that humans can make enough emissions to somewhat destroy ozone layer, but not regarding other aspects of climate?

But you are correct in one thing, English is not my native language. Sorry if my tourismo englande is baad enough.

The ozone layer issue is not directly related to human's impact on climate with regards to warming caused by CO2 emissions. Thinning ozone is a problem but it does not cause warming. Besides that we recognized the ozone problem and took measures to stop it before it got too bad.

My comments are directly related to warming supposedly cause by CO2 emissions. This whole ozone thing is a completely separate issue.



.

Leave it to ********** to fully distort the issue, making it about some fucking politician and me.

classic dodge and deflect. Happens every time. It's mostly due to ********** not having a fucking clue about what he's yapping about, the rest is his guilty conscience that he feels he needs to dump on everyone combined with his paranoia that doomsday is eminent mixed with his silly idea that he can "fix" it with his dad's excellent set of tools topped off by his hypocritical life choices such as dumping 20 tons of carbon on the rest of us with a fucking hybrid while bullshitting himself he's saving the planet driving it.

/**********.

The issue was and is humans impact to climate, not just some fucking warming. Although thinner ozone layer may contribute to warming too as sun gets to shine more freely on Earth's surface, UV-radiation is hot. Although the heat can probably also escape more freely.

The debate was that can human affect to Earth's climate with significant ways, and the answer is yes, it can. Even you don't seem to deny it.

Ok. You have reached your own conclusions based on zero proof. Hats off to you sir.

What conclusions, what zero proof? You deny the ozone issue?

That's really cool, congrats! You are helping to get the problem fixed, not to make it worse. And you are saving money at the same time too.

In very basic terms, the plan should be for everyone to use energy more efficiently, or to use renewable energy where possible. You are probably doing everything any single person can do except to drive electric. Electricity in Canada is alot cheaper than it is in the US so maybe look at doing this too.


It's not your local temperature that you have to worry about. It's the global average temperature that is the main concern.

More word salad by Ted Cruz.

Listen Ted, I know alot more about this than you do. I do not think the world is doomed, only broken. 1 Person like me cannot fix it alone but alot of people working together, just by changing their habits slightly, can make a big difference. Just because you have become brainwashed into thinking that everything is just fine does not make it so. Stop being such a fucking coward and grow a pair.

You misspelled a lot a lot.

It's hard to believe you "know alot [sic] more about this" (about anything really) when you can't even spell right; I've pointed it out at least a couple times just in this thread.

I'd learn to spell before getting on a soapbox pounding my chest and pointing fingers.

This from the guy who's bought 2 brand new cars in the last few years, dumping ~40 tons of carbon on the rest of us in so doing.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No, I already said I don't deny the ozone issue. But I wasn't talking about the ozone issue. You brought it up.

Besides that the ozone issue is stable and/or improving.

Yes Eon is right. The Ozone layer absorbs a specific range of sunlight known as Ultraviolet-B, or UV-B. It also serves to modertate daytime and nighttime temperature swings, but only slightly. Without it, we would have much more skin cancer, cataracts, and other forms of cancer and DNA damage. Crops exposed to that much more UV-B would become damaged and inedible. Phytoplankton would also become damaged.

Thanks to reduction in CFC's, the Ozone hole is now on the mend. http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/.../#.VBMgUEtnnZA

If we can get our shit together on the Ozone Hole, maybe we can do the same for Global Warming.

You could also look at it like this: I recycled 1 car, and my new car now uses zero gas. Today I contribute far less carbon into the air than I used to.

Very simply put, for a simpleton like you, is that I learned from my mistakes. I don't need expensive dirty gasoline to take me to where I have to go when I can use cheap, clean electricity instead.

It's ok Ted, I know you can't fathom that concept. Learnin' just ain't one of yer strong suits, Ah' reckon'.

umm, **********, why do you just make shit up and think people will fall for it? Is it because you fall for shit?

Here, I'll learn ya something:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...tprint-new-car


YOu can either realize that or keep bullshitting yourself, but knock off trying to bullshit the rest of us about this.

The concept of "global average temperature" is most likely an impossibility and so probably a very poor measure for the true state of the climate.

Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'


Besides that, what do you suppose the "correct" temperature of the Earth is supposed to be?



.

analysis by Toyota found that as much as 28 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the lifecycle of a typical gasoline-powered car can occur during its manufacture and its transportation to the dealer; the remaining emissions occur during driving once its new owner takes possession.

the new hybrids‚ despite lower emissions and better gas mileage‚ actually have a much larger environmental impact in their manufacture, compared to non-hybrids.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-ecofriendly/

what exactly are you basing that conclusion on?

http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/07/new-a...one-depletion/

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...tica-chemicals

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014




.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...46913994914472


http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs31/i/20...agon_stock.jpg

did you read that?

There was only a few producers of CFC's. They just switched to the more environmental friendly version and it was done. Easier fix.

Math is not your long suit obviously. He did not put his old car in a landfill. Just think about it, it will come to you.

I read the summary which is all I have time for right now.

reading is not your's. Feel the fuck free to quote where I ever said that.

I'll help you, since you struggle with the obvious, I never fucking stated or even implied that.

i didn't either, but i was trying to find reference to this:

'CFC113a' / 'Despite the production of all CFCs having been banned since 2010, the concentration of one ? CFC113a ? is rising at an accelerating rate. '

and there doesn't seem to be mention of this specifically, but does seem to state that some CFCs are in fact increasing.

Yes I read that elsewhere also. But for the time being at least the ozone hole appears to have stabilized.

But like I said before I didn't start out talking about the ozone layer and have no desire to keep talking about it. It's a separate issue with it's own set of variables and complications. Sure there is some overlap but the CAGW issue is complicated enough on it's own for one discussion.



.

i believe the overall point is the position that humanity can't have an impact on the environment.. the ozone certainly proves that we do, and our current discussion shows that regardless of these wonderful 'success stories', we have a long way to go.

this has been used to show how the position, 'humanity cannot change the climate', is ridiculous, delusional, and dangerous.

yes there has been changes to the climate over a long period of time. yes there appears to be a change to the climate now.

what i think is missed here, is no, 'we' do not have irrefutable proof that our activity is the direct cause of current global climate fluctuations. yes, we have seen the increased solar activity, and the fact mars appears to be heating as well.

a question.. lacking irrefutable proof.. is how exactly does our activity with greenhouse gases, damage to the ozone, and the series of other irresponsible things we appear to do, on a daily basis, affect this natural cycle?

Of course humanity can have an impact on the environment - often very negatively and measurable. But there is nothing concrete yet to suggest that we have impacted it to the point of catastrophe or to the so-called "tipping point" that alarmists try to scare us with.

The truth is that we just don't know enough yet. But with all of the focus and attention given to CO2, which is a natural, necessary and harmless trace gas, we might be missing the opportunity to tackle other far more serious problems. Deforestation and the release of actual harmful chemicals for example.




.

ok, so we wait for whatever event will concretely show that our activities have thrown the planet into a tailspin towards catastrophe.. ? or use the power of deduction and try and do something about it now?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

farva?

It's always good for lolz when a gfyer drives by just to be a dick, eh magnetron?

It snowed in Calgary last week.