Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

Saying it is a mistake is a way to cover up their incompetence. This shows they are not believable or credible

 

No it shows that 10 year was used which means that for 10 years temp did not increase yet the GW propagandist claim it as warmest decade. Can't have it both ways

 

No the conjecture and assumptions are on the GW side with their lies and deceptions put out as truth.

They have to use September temps to claim hottest October

 

Debunked or more lies to claim debunked

 

When you can not see the politics in GW you are blind.

Obama just put a stick in your eye

http://michiganmessenger.com/52215/obama-stops-new-epa-smog-rules

 

It is politics look at the EPA

 

Kyoto was a big failure and shows why GW has no credibility

 

Your insanely if you think the epa is out to ruin the free market you can't make a mess at h home and expect to live there. Why are policy like you so scared of the epa its pathetic yeah government should stay out of things as much as possible but in the case of environment THE PLACES WHERE WE LIVE, regulations are necessary otherwise buisnesses who want to maximize profit will rape our living space in the name of being productive job producers. You don't foul the nest wtf duh

 

So then why has Obama stopped the EPA?

 

It is your argument in question, not mine. My question pertains directly to your argument. The answer to that question will render it either valid or invalid. The way this works is that you have to prove your argument to be true. Asking me to disprove your argument is a logical fallacy.

All this is irrelevant anyway because I went ahead and showed the study is talking about the 10 year trend and not each specific year (ie: proved my claim). You were wrong, plain and simple. Do I really need to quote it for the 4th time? Or are you going to accept you were wrong and stop flogging a dead horse?

Please try to keep up. This is petty.

 

What SPECIFIC actions has he taken to undermine the epa? And why do oppose the spa please do explain in detail. Respond to the claim that business would undermine our environment if left unchecked
Its been proven they have by the 60 s the living spaces in the usa were a nightmare in regards to air, soil, and water quality .

 

you do realise that the issue is global don't you?

do you even understand that you are speaking to people outside the US?

for many of us, the US is NOT the be all and end all - unlike for you.

 

The u.s. right wing movement likes to undermine things that they feel threaten them. And for what ever reason renewable energy independence and regulations that are quite clearly necessary due to the nature of capitalism. Its abouty saftey we would all be choking out on the air from autos and the coal plants if it wasn't got regulations duh. I've been to china the air is sickening. Yeah govt is so evil it wants to rule everything in horrible communist ways like stopping clearly detrimental practice that harm the general public.

 

Ptif how close is your nearest coal fired plant? ? Do you realize the conditions that would exist in your area without compulsory compliance I'm regards to plant and auto emissions? Even with these my area grades F in air quality and there is a quite visible smog line in the sky from coal fireds. Those who don't want to foul the nest don't aren't liberals by default lol we just have common sense, we don't all want soicalism geez its about putting a check and balance over those that have the potential to make drastic changes to the land air and water. Cancer alleys around super heavy petrol chemical industries are real. And one again, WITH large regulations. All about jobs my @$$ who cares about jobs if its dangerous to breath outside . Restrictions should not be lifted just because it hinders the big energies sector can't expand unchecked F them they want cash and power, not to employ the population out of good will lol. your a commie if you question unrestricted business! !!!! Crack heads...... your political ideologis are pathetic

 

we get them here as well ... and they are virtually always right wing, however there are many conservatives around the globe who also recognise AGW is a very real issue.

but yes - the big bad gubmint has done a lot of things to protect us from the fallout of industrial development ... and forced a few organisations to clean up after itself ...

I guess thats why conservatives like to call it the nanny state ...

they would prefer to live in a (*)(*)(*)(*) hole where nobody cleans up.

 

If our conservatives keep claiming sunspot activity is largely responsible, and ignore that the increase in greenhouse gases can only make things worse, they can only lose me.

Expect them to say the next hard winter after a record summer is global cooling and proof it is sunspots. I got time off from work in New Zealand once because of sunspots, so sunspots were the first thing I thought, but I am not stupid in thinking that such an increase in greenhouse gases can be ignored.

When the dog died I got my property taxes reduced from 26% increase (Zig Zag Zell's lowering of taxes) to a 6% increase per year, due to depreciation from the mom and pop that polluted the well water. The mom and pop's property taxes never went up, and they did not have to pay my water bill.

If one gets what was on the OSHA label after the defense contractor could not open the door on a hot day without violating EPA clean air regulations, would it be right to blame the EPA or blame those Tea Party types that want to do away with the insurance that was figured into the contract?

I have no intention of voting for Obama, it would make me sick, as I have never voted for a Democrat for president. If a candidate that does not believe in AGW, and thinks he can pray for rain and it worked in Texas, and wants less regulations and less insurance, gets the nomination of the Republicans...I know I will need some barf bags.

 

Yes Kyoto was politics. It is politics at work not science

 

Answer this. If all man CO2 was gone would Warming stop? How much would temp drop. Show proof

This means you should be able to show how much of warming is natural and how much from man.

 

There is no point. You constantly ignore or misinterpret any reply which does not fit your entrenched belief system.

 

I will take that as no one can prove how much co2 has raised temp. This means GW is a scam.

If it is as scientists say how much of the warming is natural and how much is caused by man.

If you can not answer you prove scientists can not answer because they can not prove how much man affects warming if at all

 

What? In all 187 countries? Sheesh but that is some politics there!! Usually you cannot get 187 people to agree to pass urine sometime in 12 hours let alone 187 countries agreeing to increase taxes on their countrymen - something that has always been welcomed in every country in the world (NOT!!)

 

Sorry but where have you been? There is reams of proof - going back over 100 years. Multiple different science streams from chemistry to physics to geology to astronomy to palaeontology to climatology

Hmmm - again lots of proof but very little listening by denialists

Oh! it can be proven - believe me it can

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

That is simply some of the most ridiculous logic I have ever seen.

If GW is natural, it exists, and therefore GW cannot be a scam. If GW is not natural, and we have GW, then it is man made.

If I cannot answer anything, I do not prove scientists cannot answer.

And proving greenhouse gases have increased is not hard. That is all they have to prove, increased greenhouse gases, for there to be the hypothesis that man made GW is above what is natural. Determining exactly how much is natural and how much is man made, down to the temps, is like asking someone to say how much the sheep were disturbed when we did a high power down at Christchurch.

You asked: "If all man CO2 was gone would Warming stop?"

"The last period of heightened solar activity was between 2000 and 2002. Within the past few months, sunspots have once again been seen on the face of the sun, Soltau said, which indicate the beginning of the 24th recorded solar cycle, meaning solar activity will increase over the next five years.

That activity means that by 2015, more charged particles from the sun will be interacting with the ionosphere in the Earth's upper atmosphere. This can lead to the ionosphere thickening and interfering with orbiting satellites, Soltau said." http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5323618,00.html

Doesn't look like it, but that does not mean that GW is a scam. NASA wouldn't be sending probes up to monitor the sun if all scientists thought that it was only man made.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_minimum09.html

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/09/scitech/main20090118.shtml

If natural, can Texas expect that by 2015 they will be really cooked?

When we are talking about greenhouse gases, we obviously are talking about the sun. If the sun was naturally heating us up, that does not mean that increased greenhouse gases, whether man made or natural, can be ignored and AGW is a scam.

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/proclamation/16038/

I will take that failure as no one can prove how much God raises temp. This means Rick Perry is a scam.

 

You show it is politics. It is taxes not Global Warming



Answer this. If all man CO2 was gone would Warming stop? How much would temp drop. Show proof

This means you should be able to show how much of warming is natural and how much from man.

 

Show proof how much of warming is natural and how much is caused by man