Hey, Global Warming Fanatics: How Does It Feel To Be Lied To?

You are a fucking liar. I showed where you quoted the Daily Mail. Anyone here can see that. I don't know what more proof you could possibly want.

You realize you've been shown to be a liar. I can't believe you're denying it; I've shown you the proof. Simply admit it and move on.

 

No you didn't you little delusional fuck. What I realize is that you double down on your own lies every time. Grow up asshole.

 

You are a stupid fucking moron! You're dumber than I ever realized!! This is the link you quoted verbatim in this thread when you used the screen name Moen1305. Here's a screen shot of the webpage you quoted. Now, what does that say at the top of the webpage? It says "DAILY MAIL.com" (just in case you're blind):

 

Blah Blah Blah bullshit! A screen shot proves nothin idiot. Screen shot me quoting it moron.

 

Click the link, fool. I've provided it to you (see above). Anyway, I'm through discussing this matter with you. You're a fucking liar. A thick-skulled, fucking liar who is also a complete loser who has been wrong about everything.

 

You mean like this?

 

For those who don't like to read, there is a video explaining some of the problems with the Mail on Sunday article by David Rose.

 

66 degrees in the middle of February in Northern Illinois and Wisconsin. Probably nothing to do with climate change. Absolutely nothing. Just because I have no memory of this type of February in my entire life means nothing of course. February, being normally the coldest month of the year, suddenly acting like May or June. Hum?

The point being, that if one colder than normal day is enough to convince the Reich-wing idiots that climate change is a hoax, then an entire weekend of temps in the 60's and 70's in the middle of February should lead them to the opposite conclusion. Right? Hardly, evidence that is contrary to their ideology is quickly ignored. That's what makes them so stupid. That and heredity.

 

So would you consider this Spring-like weather in February a positive or negative affect of Climate Change? Which do you prefer - a bitter cold February or a Spring-like February? Personally - I like Spring-like weather better than bitter cold.

 

My personal weather preferences are not nearly as important as the damage we are doing to our living environment. As I've said before, the planet will go on with or without people. Another preference I have is that it goes on WITH people. Nearly everyone I encountered this weekend said that they loved the weather but it made them feel uneasy. 70 degrees in February is a bit strange to say the least. A week of it is unheard of. I don't worry so much about warmer winters as I do about much stronger storms, droughts, floods, rising sea levels, crop failures, mass extinctions, and the rest of the consequences of climate change.

My point was that if every time @CoinOKC posts the temperature when it is below normal in Michigan to moronically try and dig at @IQless1, and he does so over and over, why does he not then see weeks like this as proof of man-made climate change? It just seems to me that if you are going to use the below normal temperature on one day to underscore your argument, why is it that when the temperature is well above normal you wouldn't use it underscore the opposite argument? Kind makes no sense, but then none of his arguments ever do.

 

Here's a few articles that are alarming:

Source: Scientific American

Source: National Geographic

Source: Wikipedia, Anoxic Event

 

Somebody tell me how bulbs sprouting 5" high in the middle February is "normal" in the Midwest. They shouldn't be seen until at least April.

 

For the sake of argument assuming this is a result of climate change. Is this a positive outcome or negative outcome relating to the affects of climate change? Is a Spring like February a negative outcome or positive outcome relating to the affects of climate change?

 

Perhaps you missed my earlier reply. For the sake of argument, please consider it first.

 

As with all change there will be positive outcomes and there will be negative outcomes. It is no different for climate change. It certainly is not the human life extinction event you insinuated in a prior post. Either way it goes we will still have a planet that supports human life. So that is actually a non issue.

When it comes to the climate change debate - I am of the opinion
The negative outcomes are way overstated
The positive outcomes are ignored and given no weight
The solutions being promoted will have nominal affect
The solutions being promoted carry way greater cost than the benefit obtained
The resources and costs directed at preventing and controlling climate change serve us better if used for preparing for the change.

 

I agree with all those assessments.

I might add that I believe there is climate change occurring but, as you say, it's way overstated. So, who is overstating it and why? Well, of course, it's the liberals who are overstating it and they're doing it to further their political agenda. That's the problem I have with all the "sky is falling" liberals. They will try to use anything to their advantage and they will flat-out lie in order push their agenda. It's sickening.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Socialism_and_global_warming

http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/...ange-argument-ruse-socialist-agenda/70239234/

https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/9/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/

 

A simple way to ask that question is just what temperature is correct? I have heard that question more than once, but no one has ever given an answer.

And another "benefit" of carbon dioxide is plant growth. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow. If we reduced our CO2 levels to those of the 1700's, plant growth would be at least halved. For proof, just look at old growth tree rings. But is the growth rate were halved, just how could we feed our population?

 

Overstated? We already know what the effects of raising global temperature a mere few degrees will be. There is no debate on the world-wide effects that an increase in average temperature will bring about. It has been modeled out quite effectively. I detailed those consequences above and will not bother to do so here.

Those effects by the way, will cost untold trillions of dollars while entire coastlines are erased, crops fail year after year, the ocean currents are irrevocable altered with the addition of so much fresh water from melting polar ice caps, and never mind the world-wide species die-offs, the human toll in poorer countries and our own.

These are just a few of the consequences that we know about, imagine the ones we have no idea about that could end life as we know it. 2/3 of your oxygen is provided by small organizes in the sea. Try living without oxygen for a while. Wouldn't you rather act now to avoid some of the worst of these environmental catastrophes instead of waiting until we are on the edge of survival with no good options? More importantly, aren't your children and grandchildren the more likely recipients of your indifference to their futures?

I have never seen a conservative practice forward thinking. This suggests that they will never be open to the consequences of climate change science. If burying your head in the sand lets you sleep at night, so be it. All I suggest is that you lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way of those with the foresight to act responsibly.

P.S. It's 72 degrees here today.

 

Just a few post ago you insinuated global warming was a human life exxtintion event. Now you suggest all the oxygen is going to be sucked from the atmosphere. Now convince me the affects of global warming are not overstated.

 

http://oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-deoxygenation