Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: global warming eh?

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 12:28 a.m. EST by owschico (295)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I bet the people pushing this CO2 warming Bull Shit are eating their words right now

157 Comments

157 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Dalton (194) 13 years ago

No, 'cos unlike the denialists they tend not to be mad or stupid.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

first of all to say the earth is warming is denning record winter snow fall last winter, and the earliest snow fall in New York History... Right Now. I could throw in snow in Las Vegas in 2010 as well. Sounds real warm I'm really worried :)

[-] 3 points by Banjarama (242) from Little Elm, TX 13 years ago

Global Warming changes weather patterns, silly. What you are saying goes to support the case.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

The earth changes its weather patterns!!!!

[-] 3 points by Banjarama (242) from Little Elm, TX 13 years ago

And develops holes in its ozone? And Over the course of 50 years this happens? That is a nano-second in the time-line since the world began. Also, it's not just the warming, its our water, air, food. If nothing else we are using the planet as though it has unlimited resources and this is unsustainable. Why do you want the world to crumble under the weight of the 7 billion parasites sucking off of it?

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

The earth can take it, As for a tax on my breathing no thank you. If i get more snow from the flat landers blowing all their hot air I'm fine with that

[-] 1 points by Banjarama (242) from Little Elm, TX 13 years ago

You're funny.

[-] 3 points by Dalton (194) 13 years ago

No, it isn't.

To say the Earth is warming is to say the Earth is warming.

To deny record winter snowfall last year is to deny record winter snowfall last year.

You see how these are two different things? 'Cos of not being the same?

Really, the things we have to explain to you guys.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

I'm loving the "climate change" if that means record winters!!!

[-] 2 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

How would you like it if the power to your home was out while it was freezing cold outside?

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

I use wood so DGAF

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 13 years ago

denial,. it is not just a river in egypt.

some facts are difficult to accept and some people live in denial,. thanks for letting us know you are one of them.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

Stop your breathing

[-] 2 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

The CO2 exhaled by animals and the CO2 taken in by plants has pretty much been in balance for thousands of years.

The billions of barrels of oil, millions of tons of coal, and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that humanity has burned in the last 100 years, actually most of it in the last 50 years, has thrown that balance out of wack.

As has already been said, the freakish snow storm that just hit the northeastern United States is exactly the kind of weather that we can expect to happen more frequently as part of global climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, and therefore, when it rains or snows, it really pours. The statement with which you began this topic of discussion was as inane as most of your subsequent comments.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

it is insane to say the earth is heating up so get ready for snow

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

Since you brought up the subject of sanity, I am curious about something.

Do you think it is a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas? If so, why? How can you be so sure? How do we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

[-] 3 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

Yes, a former climate change skeptic studied a dataset of over a billion temperature measurements, and found that average global temperatures are about 1 degree Celsius higher than they were in 1950.

Warmer air holds more moisture than cooler air. With warmer average global termperatures, greater amounts of snowfall are to be expected.

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas was discovered about 150 years ago. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is much higher today than 150 years ago, plus there is a related growing acidification of the oceans as they absorb much of that CO2. No one is "pushing this CO2 warming bullshit." It's a natural side effect of a civilization that is based on burning fossil fuels.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 13 years ago

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his [convenient, hedonistic lifestyle] depends on his not understanding it" -Upton Sinclair, paraphrased.

[-] 3 points by demonstrator (167) 13 years ago

ignorance is bliss.

[-] 0 points by MaxRommel (57) from Ridgefield Park, NJ 13 years ago

Speaking of burning fossil fuels, my BMW needs gas. I'll get some at halftime.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

two parts per billion increase is pretty small. Get your facts straight. Or better yet stop breathing if your so concerned, as for me I'm laughing at all you as your protest is snowed in. THe earliest snow fall in New York History!!! Its so warm i cant stand it

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Hope it's cool I'm copying your style. Good site.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

group think

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Is what happens at infowars.com.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Yes, I encourage people to read the entire article.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

bring on the ice age, I want more snow!!!

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

You haven't a clue little man. Keep playing your games. Alex Jones has you right where he wants you - the dark side.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

really? Sorry I'm not protesting the Earth! Don't stressing over THEORIES, learn to have fun.

[-] 2 points by demonstrator (167) 13 years ago

its not called global warming- any more- its world climate change- some areas will get hotter some colder (like us north east & Europe) some wetter (floods) and some dryer ( Texas & Australia).

but people like you will believe anything they want to- with complete disregard of the facts- and push there emotional agenda- with a closed mind and a open mouth.

[-] -2 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

no its called La Nina that is why texas is dry and will be dry again this winter

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Notice it's a different argument everytime these infowars guys post?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

La Niña, sometimes informally called "anti-El Niño", is the opposite of El Niño, where the latter corresponds instead to a higher sea surface temperature by a deviation of at least 0.5 °C

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

They are both part of the chaotic southern oscillation, not to be confused with the pacific decadal oscillation.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

What ever its from I love um both. Record winters!!!! DGAF about climate change if the change means more snow!!!!

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

I think all the CO2 haters should keep exhaling all that hot air, I want bigger winters!!!!

[-] 2 points by HitGirl (2263) 13 years ago

Why would that be? Nations are plotting shipping routes through the melted arctic ice. Extreme weather due to the warming trend has claimed hundreds of lives. Are you really ignorant of all this?

[-] 1 points by chiconthemove (7) 13 years ago

I'm so tired of seeing this skepticalscience linkage. "dude, its on the internet so it has to be true. I heard someone say "open a book" yet, I'm not seeing you do that. Here's the thing; there are arguments for both sides, you will each come back with the most extreme article that backs your argument yet, both of you will be wrong and both of you will be right. It's pure insanity!! They'll always be an article by someone that debunks either theory you choose. Pesonally, I believe in climate-change and global warming, however, I do so with the knowledge that this is history repeating itself in different parts of the world at different times. Have a blast arguing!! At least it gets your brain exercised. LOL

[-] 1 points by blkflg (98) 13 years ago

The globe isn't warming but my house sure is....feels nice and toasty too...how r things at OWS?

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) 13 years ago

It's pretty obvious it's man made global warming. I dunno, I was a skeptic but the weather sure does suck these days. We do completely destroy environments, tear up whole forests and burn a sh*t load of fossil fuels.

What did we expect would happen? Obviously we are going to impact the environment. Look how much radioactive garbage is in the ocean, heading toward the Pacific coast.

[-] 1 points by WeUsAll (200) 13 years ago

Climate change; yea it's real.

[-] 1 points by fishlegs (21) 13 years ago

Climate Change!! Climate change means Co2 warming AND more rain where there was once drought....freezing temperatures where once warmer...get it? In addition to the fact that Weather modification is alive and well. Hmmm....huge Nor'Easter slams into NYC. Awfully ironic.

[-] 1 points by fishlegs (21) 13 years ago

It's not Global Warming...it's climate change you ignorant fool!

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

Tell me one time period in the earths history that "climate change" was not present? I'm so ignorant that I don't stress over a compound that makes up less than 1/2 a percent of our atmospheric air. DGAF

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 13 years ago

The problem is that its called global warming when it should be global environment destruction. If it was directed to this which is the real problem, governments were be forced to solve it. Since so much money was donated to it while they argue if global warming is our fault or not, the money doesn't address the real problem.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

]"The main atmospheric gases are carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Other chemical compounds are present only in trace amounts.[1]

It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. The runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7][8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

]"The main atmospheric gases are carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Other chemical compounds are present only in trace amounts.[1] Thank you for proving your ignorance

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

wiki is a fine resources that is backed by offsite links

those numbers represent reference links [0]

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

they are wrong, O2 is a gas and it makes up 21% of the atmospheric air CO2 is less than 1% and is not harmful

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

go fix that

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

not my job

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

anonymous will

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

Anyone using a wiki as foundation for their education should pick up a book

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago
[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

defend it all you want you just stated CO2 was one of the 2 main gases in our atmospheric atmosphere. That is WRONG, therefore YOU are WRONG

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

carbon dioxide is less than one percent of our atmosphere. O2 is around 21% and 78% nitrogen

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

i saw that

is there a loop where CO2 in the stratosphere could result in more CO2 being produced ?

"Methane can also be trapped by permafrost layers which over-lay lower unfrozen layers of vegetable material that is decaying and producing methane which remains trapped by the frozen permafrost on top. If the permafrost layer were to melt then the methane in the layers below would escape into the atmosphere. Given the vast areas of permafrost in northern latitudes there is a significant potential for methane to be trapped that would be released if the permafrost melted as a result of global warming."

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

Methane (CH4) is not the same as CO2. On a molecule to molecule comparison, methane is about 20 times as potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is much smaller than that for CO2, and CO2 persists in the atmosphere for much longer than methane.

What you are saying, MattLHolck, is basically correct. The global warming and thawing of the permafrost that is already happening with CO2 at 390 ppm could trigger a much larger release of greenhouse gases in the form of methane from northern latitudes.

There is evidence that something like this has happened before, prior to human civilization, and could happen again.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

it doesn't seem likely our atmosphere will end up like Venus

[-] 2 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

Agreed. If planet Earth reverts to a condition more like it was 15 million years ago, with the oceans 100 feet higher than now, that would be bad enough. Measures of the ratio of boron to calcium in the shells of ancient marine algae indicate that the last time our planet had a concentration of atmospheric CO2 as high as today was 15 million years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 13 years ago

I'd bet if venus was further from the sun the atmosphere would be different

[-] 1 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

Peace, brother.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago
[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

i see people on this forum don't like facts

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JenLynn (692) 13 years ago

Hey cold happens, it's not one day or even one winter that's important, it's the trend of rising temp. that is the issue. Temperatures have been going up, on average. The argument is over why, natural cycle or man.

[-] 2 points by JenLynn (692) 13 years ago

Thanks for the link, read it before, just wasn't looking to get into an argument about who or what is to blame. Point was it doesn't matter if you believe or not, one cold day doesn't mean anything as far as average temperatures is concerned.

[-] 0 points by nomorewarnomore (14) 13 years ago

Hello?Climategate anyone?Or do you all have amnesia?

[-] 0 points by RichardGates (1529) 13 years ago

you really can't dictate fact just by wanting or saying it. reality is reality, weather you choose to live in it or not is your choice.

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

[-] 0 points by LazyJealousAnarchist (144) 13 years ago

You are a complete fucking imbecile.

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

Pragmatically speaking, what does it matter if AGW exists or not.... the chinese are kicking out CO2 like there is no tomorrow. Good luck getting them to stop.

And if anything, look at North Dakota. Since the oil boom, they have an unemployment rate at 5% or under. Pick and choose. Burn fossil fuels and people get jobs, or don't burn fossil fuels and don't get jobs.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Hmm. China is kicking our butts in renewable energy investment, and are willing to sign treaties we are not.

Also:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-investment-kills-jobs.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

you do realize that they have a monopoly of cheap labor

good luck getting that kind of manufacturing to happen in the US at union wages

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 13 years ago

You do realize that a New Deal-type program to power a new Manhattan/Apollo project for green energy would be stimulative to the entire economy and cost pennies on the dollar of trying to do it in the private sphere, right?

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

too bad that it was WW2 that brought the US out of the great depression and not the new deal.

also, i wish i lived in the same fantasy world as you, where some mystical government subsidy would get us out of this mess, when government subsidies is what brought us here.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 13 years ago

You do realize that a.) WWII was a government spending program, just like the New Deal, and b.) the policies of the New Deal decreased unemployment and increased the GDP every year between 1932-1940 save 1938, when the GOP made him try to balance the budget and cut back on spending?

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

I love you progressives. As long as it is your special interest, then the government can not spend enough. As long as tyranny is in your favor, then it is not tyranny at all.

You should be ashamed of yourself, a 1%er masquerading as the common man.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 13 years ago

My special interest being the welfare of the American middle class and a prosperous economy for all? Tool.

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

We have heard these things from liberalism and the democrat party for YEARS. You'd have welfare for all just to maintain power.

You sicken me, sir.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 13 years ago

The Democrats sicken me too, because they've followed Reagan into neoliberal hell. The only liberal Democrat these days is actually a "socialist" named Bernie Sanders. That's the whole point of the other thread, that it's neoliberalism that's failed - we liberals haven't had the reins since, well, Nixon and Carter really. Goodbye.

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 13 years ago

Carter's presidency was a failure. It was worse when Carter left the White House than it is now. Lets hope that liberals are never in charge again.

I did google greece and neo liberalism. My conclusion still remains the same, that government governs best when it governs least. Giving it more power only allows for a greater fall from (inevitable) corruption.

In the end of the day, even if your philosopher king becomes president and your utopia realized and it happens through lost liberties and through big government, what do you do when another Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, etc, comes to power and undermines all that has been achieved? What if it is then even worse due to the new powers that you would give government?

That is where liberalism fails. The totalitarianism that you need to bring about a utopia can also bring about the next USSR.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 13 years ago

You didn't get the point; Carter was the last (and yes, pretty failed) in the line of liberals that went something like:

Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter. The progressives of the turn of the century, followed by the liberal consensus of the 40s-70s (notice it crossed party lines - and look here if you don't believe me: http://bit.ly/16aXf9). After that, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all been neoliberals.

Liberalism is the most anti-utopian of all the ideologies. Communism and libertarianism are utopian (what do you think your ideal perfect free state is?).

There's nothing totalitarian about it, and it doesn't rely on perfect presidents. It's just about controlling the corrupting influence of wealth which the liberal consensus did for half a century, until Friedman got his hooks into folks like Goldwater and Reagan (really during the 70s it started to change) and deregulation and tax and labor policy started to shift to favor capital (supply side). Think about it.

[-] 0 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

exactly

[-] 0 points by nomorewarnomore (14) 13 years ago

yeah I am 37 and they told us at school the world was getting cooler.Then when I was in my late teens early twentys they said the opposite.They told us London wold be under 3 feet of water by 2012.lol.How about a carbon tax which basically means you have to PAY to breathe?Did you know that you along with all animals on this panet are creating toxins?lol.Plant life excells in high concentrations of co2.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

exactly, don't tell people their air is composed of 78% nitrogen. THey might have to pull another dihydrogen monoxide scare

[-] -1 points by NachoCheese (268) 13 years ago

dihydrogen monoxide... I love using that one to lol at the ignorant fucks.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 13 years ago

You gotta know that about 80% of the fear hype in all media, internet included, is there to distract. For that reason, all that matters is stopping the nwo with Article 5.---

Congress is very afraid of an Article 5 because congress has no control IF 3/4 of the states are ratifying Meaning, we need to stay in our states and make the demand for an article 5. We only need 2 more states then congress is in OBVIOUS violation of the constitution and the military, YES, the military will have to defend the constitution. -

If the state won't, apply, you are looking at a state controlled at key points by the nwo- jack up the pressure! talk about "lawful government" a lot and cite violations of laws on a federal level that impair the states constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution "Congress acted preemptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention."

Our first right in our contract is Article V, the right to have congress convene delgates when 2/3 of the states have applied for an amendatory convention.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.-------

A effort each evening to create a web conference to discuss Article 5 is beginning.--

http://www.articlevmeeting.info/

Comprehensive strategy.---

http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

Have fun with hypothermia, i think you just need more CO2

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Yes, I encourage people to read the entire article.

[-] -1 points by owschico (295) 13 years ago

Bigger winter!! Don't stop climate change!!! KEEP it Coming!!!!!

[-] -1 points by gr57 (457) 13 years ago

Global warming is real. The cave men started it and that's why it Ice Age ended.

[-] -1 points by Uriah (218) 13 years ago

When I was growing up it was global cooling, we were waiting on the next ice age, and I'm in my 40s. So, I trust none of it.

[-] -1 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 13 years ago

dont worry, all those glacers the size of New Jesery breaking off from the north and south poles must just mean nothing.

After all Global warming is actually a cooling effect. As the Glacers melt they put tons of fresh water into the salt water causing the Atantlic belt to shut down.
Our last ice ages were caused by this and welp... Its happening again.. You think its getting cold now. heh.. wait until your 60 or 70 and your grandchildren are fighting for survival because of our stupidty.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

Ummm.... You do realize that saying that the same thing caused the last ice age kinda blows your whole argument completely out of the water right? lol

[-] 0 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 13 years ago

nope, not really. considering our pollution which traps sunlight is causing gas to buildup breaking the glacers apart faster. What is happening is natural, the rate it is happening is unnatural

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

So how much man-caused global warming was there prior to the last ice age to cause them to break up then? ; )

[-] 2 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 13 years ago

again that was natural and happened over 10 thousand years. We are causing it to occur in less than several hundred.

[-] -1 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

Actually not, but even in that case the only variable would be the speed of change. What caused the change?

[-] 1 points by morriden (128) from Burton, MI 13 years ago

In the last ice age? The holecne event (sorry bad at spelling)

[-] -1 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

Don't bother with that tired pop science stuff. I've taken post-grad meterology and climatology courses and have followed the global warming for probably 20+ years now. Yes, it existed before Al Gore "discovered" it. lol

[-] 2 points by jkintree (84) 13 years ago

Yes, the issue of global warming was not discovered by Al Gore. It was John Tyndall who discovered about 150 years ago that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It was a former teacher of Al Gore's who was the first to begin measuring the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Those measurements, and the measurements of other scientists, confirm that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen sharply in the last fifty years along with humanity's growing rate of burning fossil fuels. We are in for a bumpy ride.

[-] -2 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 13 years ago

Just because it's hot somewhere and cold somewhere else, you can't use the "it's hot right now so it must be true" or "it's snowing in October so it must be a lie"

Really, who knows for certain if it's true or not? Is the Earth going through changes? Yes, depending on who you talk to. Does the Earth naturally go through changes? Yes. Has the Earth gone through way worse than 6 Billion ants spraying aqua net? Yes. We occupy such a small blip on the timeline of Earths "life"... We really aren't that important. The dinosaurs ruled the Earth for hundreds of millions of years.

Let's get some perspective shall we?