|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #4108 on ContentLevel 241 Comments: Doinitrite
OfflineSend mail to caesarslegion Block caesarslegion Invite caesarslegion to be your friend flag avatar
- Views: 43434Red Dawn
1543 162 Total: +1381
- Views: 20695Really?
250 33 Total: +217
- Views: 13108A kind, generous soul
229 16 Total: +213
- Views: 9118Pomf =3!
134 21 Total: +113
- Views: 3502The Wailing Negro
35 9 Total: +26
- Views: 2909Calibrations
28 5 Total: +23
latest user's comments
|#260 - Meanwhile, in Morrowind||09/21/2014 on MMO feels||+2|
|#23 - Picture [+] (3 new replies)||09/19/2014 on At least they tried||+22|
|#37 - gentlemen.||09/19/2014 on When you remember the pizza...||+2|
|#98 - Still waiting on the **** versions. [+] (1 new reply)||09/19/2014 on LOSERS #5 - Everyone Dyes...||+5|
|#12 - Picture||09/18/2014 on What girls love||+1|
|#11 - Mounting evidence process global warming to be false … [+] (19 new replies)||09/17/2014 on DYK Comp #54||-9|
#29 - lean (09/17/2014) [-]
According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”
Excerpts from an article by Tom Harris, exec director of Ottowa's International Climate Science Coalition, and Bob Carter, former head of Earth Sciences at James Cook Uni. Titled Leo vs. Science: Vanishing evidence for climate change.
#103 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/18/2014) [-]
You shouldn't try to use an organization as support when they are actually saying the opposite of what you are:
The rest of what you says doesn't really warrant a response since I doubt you'd change your mind, I just felt the need to respond to that incorrect factoid.
#146 - lean (09/18/2014) [-]
What is really mind blowing to me is you accept what a group like Nasa says immediately, and discount hundreds of credible and knowledgeable scientists who object, not to the existence of climate change, but to the alarmist theories and that it is going to destroy the planet. It is not the largest danger we face by any means.
#149 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/18/2014) [-]
It won't destroy the planet, and I can't think of a single scientists who has claimed as such, though you're welcome to list some. It will, however, cause severe problems with ecosystems and weather patterns, cause widespread famine due to these issues with the weather patterns and ecosystems, cause large scale extinctions, especially in marine life due to ocean acidification, and lower the quality of life for billions of people on the planet. It's definitely the largest immediate issue that we face close seconds of the die-off of honey bees and the possibility of nuclear annihilation, and also coincidentally is directly due to our own actions just like the other two.
I'll address your other comment here as well: 140 years is an extremely fast rate of climate change. Natural climate change takes anywhere from tens of thousands of years to millions of years to occur, but we have sped it up to a small fraction of the time. This means that the planet's biosphere can not adapt to the slow change as it normally does, and that will have global negative consequences. The only thing you've proved here is that you don't understand that time frames apply differently to the planet than they do to us. Additionally, an increase of .5 *C translates to about 2-3 *C increase on land since that is a global average that factors in the ocean's ability as a heat sink. That means that the estimated global temp increases will be equal to 4-10 *C.
#144 - lean (09/18/2014) [-]
Do you know of another agency that has satellite imaging and worldwide temperature sensors? Hint: everyone uses Nasa information. My point is they post the raw data and lie about what it means, when the truth is apparent to anyone who digs into it. They skew the data and shorten time frames in their charts to make it appear that rapid global warming and rising sea levels are extreme when in face we are experiencing miniscule increases which have been slowing down for the last 15 years, despite the alarmist climate agenda.
#145 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/18/2014) [-]
#148 - lean (09/18/2014) [-]
#151 - lean (09/18/2014) [-]
All these charts come direct from Berkely University's independent study of climate change. Here muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html
How about the last 400,000 years?
Sorry for the GIFs. Visit the page
#154 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/18/2014) [-]
"But the foundation for thinking that human effects will cause warming is substantial. Even if the recent rise in temperature is natural, human caused effects have a high probability of dominating in the near future, and within our lifetimes the temperature of the Earth could go higher than has ever seen previously by Homo sapiens."
From the link you just sent me. Not to mention that this is one scientist operating off of data from a single core sample from 1993. This is interesting, but what he said is still in line with what I said. Also, are you planning to respond to my other response at all? It addresses the point you are trying to address with these graphs in more detail.
#42 - ojollie (09/17/2014) [-]
Rather than quoting a couple articles, here's NASAs own webpage on the evidence for climate change: climate.nasa.gov/evidence/.
'Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.'
#70 - lean (09/17/2014) [-]
Even that graph is flawed to only show an insignificant portion of the life bearing period on this planet. It shows less than 1%.
The sea level rise is negligible in the last 10 years.
Global temperature hasn't risen in almost 20, even though CO2 has tripled. wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/
Oceanic warming is a theory in dispute.
The ice sheets are 17% greater than they were 10 years ago.
Arctic sea is is currently the largest it has been since satellite imagery.
Extreme events? The latest IPCC report suggests that a warming climate will precipitate a decline in overall extreme weather patterns.
Oceanic acidification has given rise to a veritable army of algaes that consume more CO2 than the remaining trees in the amazon.
#143 - lean (09/18/2014) [-]
Nasa is undoubtedly skewing information to make it look worse than it actually is. I am not denying climate change by any means, but it is not the apocalyptic eminent disaster that some would have you believe. Nasa is funded by the US gov, who by their own admission have stated that the hundreds of billions they spend on climate change control every year have an insignificant effect, but they still push it forward. What's the point?
|#314 - The Squalid Queen summons Velstadt because she is a child of d…||09/14/2014 on Is it thought?||0|
|#164 - Plague Dogs isn't that bad. Aside from the beginning scene, th…||09/13/2014 on not all animated movies are...||0|
|#66 - It's SUCH A BETTER ENDING TOO!! Like, in EVERYWAY. But they RE…||09/13/2014 on The most beautiful thing ever||+8|
|#133 - Picture||09/13/2014 on not all animated movies are...||-4|