This Animation Explains It Well
 

:LOL you are such a stupid puppy ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Variations.png

It's not a coincidence that the firts civilizations has began to rise from 12.000BC to 10.000BC.
You need a good worm summer in order to grow a lot of food.

It's a lost cause to convince people of man affected global warming. We should rather put people in two groups. Those who want a cleaner environment, and those who don't care about increased pollution.

I don't know about the worms, but to grow a lot of food, you got to invent agriculture. Agriculture was developed during those times; like domesticating many present day domestic animals and cultivating wheat, etc.

And they developed an agriculture because is was a lot warmer.
You can't plant crops on a freaking glacier.

That warmer period wasn't the reason for the development of the agriculture. It wasn't that much warmer for starters. The animals and plants they domesticated and cultivated, didn't just pop up during a thousand year or so, when it got a tad warmer. The stuff were already there, people just learned to cultivate and domesticate it.

Not to mention that there were no glaciers in Africa-Middle-East to start with. Although warmer weather did help in certain regions, but it was not the reason.

no fuck given here :)

it was super shitty in my country, not warm, lots of rain

I'm still waiting for a single liberal to show me where anyone has ever suggested the climate is not getting warmer as they love to keep saying over and over and over and over. We're coming out of an ice age. Everyone knows the climate is getting warmer. I've never seen anyone deny this.

I am not saying Global Warming isn't happening; I am sure it is. Right now we are coming out of an ice age; The ice is melting and it's going to get warmer. This is exactly what is supposed to happen. Mankind surely isn't helping here.

Fitty hot Years :pimp

I do find it funny that in the US it's pretty much a political thing. If you are a Democrat or Liberal you tend to understand that man is responsible for much of the current global warming trend= or at least that man has a role in it.

Meanwhile if you are a Conservative or Republican it's almost assured you will not accept that man has anything at all to do with global warming..

Yet most of the rest of the world seems to understand and agree that man has his share of the blame for what's going on, making it's mostly just Conservative in the US whom are in denial.

The best part about this, is that Conservatives in the US constantly preach about taking responsibility for yourself, like no welfare or social programs and so forth.. Meanwhile they can't run fast enough away when it comes to telling them that we have to take responsibility for our own actions when it comes to the environment.

If it's anything to do with the environment, they will do anything to blame something or someone else and try to dodge responsibility.

Pretty fucking ironic.. :error:error

You mean it was the hottest since the last time

That's usually how it works, when you break a record.. are you looking for a trick question or is this how you convince yourself to deny that man has anything to do with it?

nice post, **********. :)

All of my posts are gems, with each one more honest, more passionate, more truthful than the last.

don;t go patting yourself on the back just cause I'm in a good mood, fucker! :1orglaugh

I think you generalize, oversimplify and assume way too much. More often than not people like you are not as right about things as you think you are.



.

I'll believe Nasa and NOAA over anyone else. You should too.

YES!!!!

It wouldn't!

No it is not... !

You don't get it. Warmer AVERAGES means lots of problems. The alarm is for the planet to get too warm. We are already warming it up. The costs of a warmer planet are astronomical.

You are way off. Here is what the EPA does : What EPA is Doing | Climate Change | US EPA


LOL!!! You are so way off base ...

Eon I have no wish to argue with you, but isn't it possible that you are the brainwashed one? I'm not trying to insult you, I'm trying to ask you an honest question. If Nasa and Noaa scientists say the earth is warming up and that this is bad, who is telling you not to believe them, and why?

Don't call me fucker, you person of a present good mood you!

Email me the contact info of your girlfriend. I want to ask her some questions and make sure she's good enough for you.

peace.

So how you explain that 1000 years ago it was warmer than now? Who caused it, crusaders?

Easy: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the only factor contributing to the climate. That doesn't exactly answer to the question, but I don't know the answer; maybe sun was closer, maybe it was more active, or maybe it was the CO2 after all, maybe there were some large vulcanic eruptions, or maybe a combination of these.

That is nothing but appeal to authority. Do you honestly believe that NASA and NOAA are infallible and beyond the reach of their political masters? At the end of the day they are government departments. NASA and NOAA have been caught several times adjusting and fudging the data. Now why do you suppose they would do that? They are "liarists".


You seriously want temperatures to drop by 1.4 degrees? That would plunge us back into the conditions of the Little Ice Age. There would be mass famines, disease, fighting and death. And that's what you want? Are you mentally ill? Or do you just hate poor brown people - the ones who would suffer the most.


How warm is too warm? What is the ideal temperature for the planet? You do realize that the temperature of the earth used to be an average of 10 degrees warmer than now for most of its history, right? And life was far more abundant then than it is now?

The costs of a warmer planet, if any, are far lower than the costs we have already incurred, and will continue to incur, trying to stop the warming.


Again, appeal to authority. Another government department that gets its marching orders directly from the top. If you think these government departments are trustworthy and free from political meddling then you are clearly delusional on top of being brainwashed.


No, I am not brainwashed. I used to fight for your side of the argument. I have an educational background in this stuff and I have been researching it in depth for far longer than you. I do not suffer from "appeal to authority" like you do. I have a healthy distrust of big government agencies that are puppets to politicians.

You ask "who is telling you not to believe them, and why?" Nobody is telling me to do anything. There are plenty of scientists who present valid scientific arguments and evidence that dispel, or at least call into question, much of the alarmism that you fall prey to. But I know from your rhetorical question that are just waiting to say that those scientists work for "big oil". There is no argument that can be presented to you that you won't just disregard in whole simply by invoking the "big oil" boogeyman. That's all part of your brainwashing from "big green". They have turned you into a loyal little brown-shirt for their crusade.




.

But of course people like you are always right? I mean after all you know better than most climate scientist, NASA and meteorologist from around the world.

Well hell's bells, I think I figured out how to solve the budget problems of the US. We can just fire all those educated scientist types, disband NASA and just go directly to EonBlue here on GFY for all our scientific needs..... Because he knows stuff...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

No I am not always right and don't claim to be. But what you and others like you fail to recognize and accept is that there are plenty of well credentialed scientists, physicists, meteorologists and even climate scientists that doubt and refute the man-made global warming theory. These are people who believe that the science is not settled and I just happen to agree with them instead of the unproven claims of the alarmists. That you discount them outright as "shills" to "big oil" is your problem.

As long as there is cause for skepticism, and in this case there certainly is, I believe that being on the skeptical side of the argument is the right place to be. Even though I'm not a scientist I know that that's the way that science is supposed to work.

But hey, you carry on with your juvenile sarcastic attacks, laughing smilies and arrogant attitude. All that shows is that you are not prepared, or equipped, to discuss the subject like and adult.




.

Don't have much experience with US politics but I have it like this..

Is global temperature variation caused by humans? No.

Are humans contributing to global Warming? I think so.

Even if both answers are a 'No' in my opinion it's a good idea to convert to more clean energy forms. Oil/gas/coal reserves are limited and will run out in X amount of years anyway. Pollution is a problem, and being dependent on Middle East or Russia is another negative point for many countries. Rather be self-sufficient with wind/solar power etc.

The reason we discredit them as "shills" to big oil, is because pretty much all of them are.. It's the same playbook as big tobacco using scientist whom would claim smoking was healthy. I bet if we were back in the 70's, you would be arguing that smoking cigarettes was good for you, because there are a few scientist whom claim so.

This is the best part, because even if you totally disagree with man having any effect, the changes which are being pushed are "good" for the environment anyway. Meaning in the long run we are better off.

That's just a load of unproven, speculative BS. It's just one of the many standard smears that big green uses to try to discredit those who disagree with them. There is no "playbook" and this is nothing like the past tobacco smoking debates.

Here is a pretty concise piece on how the whole "big green" smear machine works:

The Merchants of Smear

I know you won't read it and even if you do you will just write it off as being written by some "right wing" nut-job in the employ of "big oil". Typical I guess for a left wing nut-job in the employ of big green.


More BS. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."



All of this nonsense based solely on the false assumption that CO2 can warm the atmosphere uncontrollably. After "big green" has destroyed civilization as we know it I wonder if you guys will be around for the inevitable admission that CO2 was not the problem.

-------------------

How to Use "Who" and "Whom" Correctly




.

Hemp seems like a better option

WOW! Hemp is the miracle plant of our time, breathing in 4x the carbon dioxide (CO2) of trees during it's quick 12-14 week growing cycle. Trees take 20 years to mature vs 4 months for Industrial Hemp! Our forests are being cut down 3x faster than they can grow! One acre of hemp produces as much cellulose fiber pulp as 4.1 acres of trees!!! (Dewey & Merrill. Bulletin #404. U.S. Dept. of Age. 1916)


http://i.imgur.com/PSGa5vl.jpg

Finally some good science.. However hemp doesn't have the same life span as trees, so does the maintenance costs take away from it's carbon intake vs a tree's life span?

more science from a couple days ago.

A team of scientists believe they have made a "significant advance" capturing carbon dioxide with a little bit of help from one of the main ingredients in baking soda.

They developed microcapsules made up of "a highly permeable polymer shell" and a fluid composed of sodium carbonate solution* to suck out carbon dioxide from coal or natural gas-fired power plants.

The method involving the first demo of its kind for controlled CO2 capture and release can also apparently be used in industrial processes such as steel and cement production.

Boffins at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory worked alongside researchers from the University of Illinois and Harvard University to develop a carbon capture media containing core-shell microcapsules.

Ex-squeeze me? Baking soda? Boffins claim it safely sucks CO2 out of the air • The Register

They do something similar with coal plants now, by injecting carbon into the plan't exhaust stack and then sucking it back out before it goes out the smoke stack. The carbon pulls the mercury out of the smoke before it hits the air, this is what they call "clean coal".

The problem being you exchange one form of pollution for another. Yes you stop the mercury from getting into the air, but now you have all this carbon power which is full of mercury.

granted baking laced co2 probably isn't as bad to dispose of as carbon laced with mercury, either way keeping it out of the air is better than letting it fly.

they address that issue in the article.

Guess end of the world is near? Peace!

Indeed, the big picture, 100k years not 100 years :2 cents: