Weather-Manmade Global Warming Link Builds, Study Says

Nuclear winter has never happened..its totally hypothetical. Even when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...it didnt happen. So tell me again why you're even bringing it up?

Besides.. how long a period of weather does it have to be.. before it becomes climate in your book again? Another thing.. if a nuclear winter did happen we would only be affecting the climate.. not controlling it.

You got something better than "clown shoes" this time?

Toot wrote:Nuclear winter has never happened..its totally hypothetical. Even when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...it didnt happen. So tell me again why you're even bringing it up?

Besides.. how long a period of weather does it have to be.. before it becomes climate in your book again? Another thing.. if a nuclear winter did happen we would only be affecting the climate.. not controlling it. You got something better than "clown shoes" this time?

Set off enough nukes, the world's forests burn, the sun is blocked out for a period of years, most vegetation is killed... TADA! Climate change. Along with mass extinction. Similar effects to a comet hitting the earth. That isn't fantasy land, that is the calculated result of such an event. There's that pesky science again.

Again if you want to play funny word games on what the meaning of the word "control" is then go ahead, I have better things to do. Humans are capable of screwing the climate up in all sorts of ways. You can't deny that fact. I mean you can, but that would be foolish.

Im only talking about one defintion

Control

to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

Now using that definition... do you think we can control the climate? Im not playing word games..I want you to answer the question without playing word games

Toot wrote:Im only talking about one defintion

Control>>>

to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

Now using that definition... do you think we can control the climate?...im not playing word games. I want you to answer the question without playing word games

Dumbest line of discussion in the entire thread.

If I put a car in neutral and push it off a cliff, was I controlling that car? I exercised direction over it. If I set off a bunch of nukes on the planet and change the climate, did I exercise direction over it?

No word games here, humans can control the climate to some degree. Yes.

An admin trolling his own forum. Yeah!!

Look im not fucking trolling...geez!! I was only asking a simple question..Its obvious to me that you cannot debate this subject and keep your cool when there is someone playing offense..so I will end my "stupid and dumb" part of the debate here.

Toot wrote:Look im not fucking trolling...geez!! I was only asking a simple question..Its obvious to me that you cannot debate this subject and keep your cool when there is someone playing offense..so I will end my "stupid and dumb" part of the debate here.

Who is losing their cool? Not me.

Oh yeah I was the one doing all the name calling "Clown shoes" "Dumbest" "Troll"

Yeah It was me

You're getting too worked up lol. This line of discussion is dumb. It's as if you are trolling. Funny how clown shoes is so offensive to some people. Oh well.

Lolz

Im not worked up Stove...I just think the name calling is not needed in a scientific debate. When one resorts to name calling it usually means they are backed into a corner and thats all they got..but I digress.

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:Fair enough. What would it take for me to come off AGW? We'll as you know, I sort of tend to go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on this as these people are far more educated than I am on the subject. That's not to say that I can't think for myself. But I will continue to read the IPCC reports and other summaries of ongoing research and if the thinking on AGW changes among the scientific community I will go with it.

Scott Denning (agw supporting climate scientist), in a debate with Roy Spencer, said he would seriously question AGW if there were no real warming this decade. Would you agree with that?

Also you need to stop reading those IPCC reports, they are bad for your mental health. There have to be a lot more fun things to do like get a colonoscopy, read the Twilight series, etc. LOL.

Oooh, he making fun of Twilight.....

I love Toot in science debates. Brings back memories of the definition of theory and fact.

You guys might need another trip back up Brokeback Mountain to make up and hug it out bitch.

Toot wrote:Im only talking about one defintion

Control

to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Genesis 1:26

For better or for worse, I think we have the choice and the power to use and/or abuse the world as we see fit. We are already greedily drinking every drop of oil we can get our hands on, without regard for what we leave behind for future generations to use. We are selfish creatures, giving little thought or regard to what our actions cause. So, yeah, I think if not for the grace of God, we'd completely destroy the planet, just to satisfy our own needs.

snowdog wrote:You guys might need another trip back up Brokeback Mountain to make up and hug it out bitch.

Lol...Why do I have to be a bitch for?

Toot wrote:Im not worked up Stove...I just think the name calling is not needed in a scientific debate. When one resorts to name calling it usually means they are backed into a corner and thats all they got..but I digress.

Toot Toot Toot, you should know by now that anyone that wanders into this thread has to be prepared for snark. I thought you had thicker skin, I'll be more sensitive next time and bring some lube. Even with that snark I wasn't saying YOU are dumb, I said the line of discussion is dumb. You pick the silliest things to argue about. Sixteen pages in, you finally decide to take a stand on something and it's about what the meaning of the word "control" is. You're just inviting some fun poking with that.

As far as being backed in a corner, ok. You got me. Men can't control the climate by adjusting knobs on the climometer deep inside their secret lair. You win. I'll let you argue that with somebody else. I have more interesting things to do tonight like clipping my toenails and watching tomato plants grow.

The Brokeback Mountain post resulted in a nice ice tea bath for my sinuses, LMFAO!

WxFreak wrote:

Toot wrote:Im only talking about one defintion

Control

to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Genesis 1:26

For better or for worse, I think we have the choice and the power to use and/or abuse the world as we see fit. We are already greedily drinking every drop of oil we can get our hands on, without regard for what we leave behind for future generations to use. We are selfish creatures, giving little thought or regard to what our actions cause. So, yeah, I think if not for the grace of God, we'd completely destroy the planet, just to satisfy our own needs.

We finally lured JC into this cluster fark of a thread. We should fight more often! Good post and I agree.

Stovepipe wrote:I have more interesting things to do tonight like clipping my toenails and watching tomato plants grow.

Fixed it for ya...I have more interesting things to do tonight like clipping my toenails and watching tomato plants grow and reading the IPCC report for the 10th time and starting the Twilight series (one more dig just for Carrie).

snowdog wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:I have more interesting things to do tonight like clipping my toenails and watching tomato plants grow.

Fixed it for ya...I have more interesting things to do tonight like clipping my toenails and watching tomato plants grow and reading the IPCC report for the 10th time and starting the Twilight series (one more dig just for Carrie).

My copy is leather bound and signed by Hansen himself, it'd be a shame not to thumb through it's sweet sweet pages at least once per night. It is my religion, my faith, my mission in life! Why do you persecute me so?

Stovepipe wrote:
Toot Toot Toot, you should know by now that anyone that wanders into this thread has to be prepared for snark. I thought you had thicker skin, I'll be more sensitive next time and bring some lube. Even with that snark I wasn't saying YOU are dumb, I said the line of discussion is dumb. You pick the silliest things to argue about. Sixteen pages in, you finally decide to take a stand on something and it's about what the meaning of the word "control" is. You're just inviting some fun poking with that.

Whatevs!!...Maybe I was being to critical of the guy... but he could have easily placed a different word where he used control. We dont control any aspect of how our planet works..we are just part of it.

I just cant bring myself to see how people can think otherwise. We dont control any of it...we do affect smaller scale parts of it sometimes.. but in recorded history we have never drastically changed any large scale aspect of any function of this planet and we never will.

We are just a flea on the earth's ass...until the agw crowd wakes up and realizes that... we will continue to waste money on the study of something that dont exist.

One way we humans alter the environment:

de·sert·i·fi·ca·tion
   [dih-zur-tuh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA

noun Ecology .
1.
the processes by which an area becomes a desert.

2.
the rapid depletion of plant life and the loss of topsoil at desert boundaries and in semiarid regions, usually caused by a combination of drought and the overexploitation of grasses and other vegetation by people.

Simply removing native vegetation nearly caused this to happen in the Plains during the Dust Bowl years. Yes, there was a drought. But it's widely accepted that our own misuse of the land perpetuated the problem. By removing native grasses, and using poor farming practices, a "normal" drought for the Plains became a hellish nightmare. If not for improved farming techniques, and attempts at soil conservation, land degradation would have continued to the point our "bread basket" would be an empty basket (or at least half-empty). Now this same thing is occuring in China--for much the same reason.

Being from Kentucky, I've also seen what our coal mining operations can do to the land. Whole watersheds can be destroyed to the point people can't use their wells anymore. Considering this, do I think we should go back to the dark ages, and stop all energy use, and use candles for light? Of course not. But I also believe that we ignore this issue, and any other environmental issue, at our own peril.

This is simply my opinion on the matter. I'm not here to offend, or be offended, but simply state what I believe. Carry on. I'm going back to my red wine.

Now I think I understand why Noah got drunk after the great flood.

Toot wrote:

Stovepipe wrote:
Toot Toot Toot, you should know by now that anyone that wanders into this thread has to be prepared for snark. I thought you had thicker skin, I'll be more sensitive next time and bring some lube. Even with that snark I wasn't saying YOU are dumb, I said the line of discussion is dumb. You pick the silliest things to argue about. Sixteen pages in, you finally decide to take a stand on something and it's about what the meaning of the word "control" is. You're just inviting some fun poking with that.

Whatevs!!...Maybe I was being to critical of the guy... but he could have easily placed a different word where he used control. We dont control any aspect of how our planet works..we are just part of it.

I just cant bring myself to see how people can think otherwise. We dont control any of it...we do affect smaller scale parts of it sometimes.. but in recorded history we have never drastically changed any large scale aspect of any function of this planet and we never will.

We are just a flea on the earth's ass...until the agw crowd wakes up and realizes that... we will continue to waste money on the study of something that dont exist.

What James Hansen said:

If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth’s history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control.

I'm not inside the man's head, but it seems pretty obvious to me that he is saying that if carbon concentrations rise above 500 p.p.m that there will be nothing our children can do to offset it. He's not saying we have control of the climate. He is saying there are things we can do now to lower carbon emissions to curb the warming but beyond a certain point there is no hope of that.

You are focusing on one word, taking it out of context, and running buck wild with it. Or at least it seems that way.

WxFreak wrote:One way we humans alter the environment:

de·sert·i·fi·ca·tion
   [dih-zur-tuh-fi-key-shuhn] Show IPA

noun Ecology .
1.
the processes by which an area becomes a desert.

2.
the rapid depletion of plant life and the loss of topsoil at desert boundaries and in semiarid regions, usually caused by a combination of drought and the overexploitation of grasses and other vegetation by people.

Simply removing native vegetation nearly caused this to happen in the Plains during the Dust Bowl years. Yes, there was a drought. But it's widely accepted that our own misuse of the land perpetuated the problem. By removing native grasses, and using poor farming practices, a "normal" drought for the Plains became a hellish nightmare. If not for improved farming techniques, and attempts at soil conservation, land degradation would have continued to the point our "bread basket" would be an empty basket (or at least half-empty). Now this same thing is occuring in China--for much the same reason.

Being from Kentucky, I've also seen what our coal mining operations can do to the land. Whole watersheds can be destroyed to the point people can't use their wells anymore. Considering this, do I think we should go back to the dark ages, and stop all energy use, and use candles for light? Of course not. But I also believe that we ignore this issue, and any other environmental issue, at our own peril.

This is simply my opinion on the matter. I'm not here to offend, or be offended, but simply state what I believe. Carry on. I'm going back to my red wine.

Now I think I understand why Noah got drunk after the great flood.

People take agriculture for granted in this country, but it wouldn't take a whole heck of a lot to throw a wrench in it.

There is and never will be anything we can do to offset any aspect of large scale climate...thats my whole point Stovie.

Toot wrote:There is and never will be anything we can do to offset any aspect of large scale climate...thats my whole point Stovie.

Since you like words, how about "affect" climate? Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that there is nothing humans can do to affect the climate on this planet?