So what they're saying is the wacko environmentalism is causing global warming? Morons, the whole lot.
I'm glad to see we now have the "consensus" admitting there's been no "global warming" for the past decade, even if they did have to come up with another ad hoc boogeyman to explain it. And, though coal consumption grew very rapidly in China in the decade 1998-2008, worldwide coal production didn't change much. In other words, the world was consuming about the same amount it had been for decades. Source: http://www.peakoil.org.au/ff.data.charts.htm
But stupid article is condemning prosperity! Shouldn't you be behind that 100%, with your Che Guevara flag and your Joseph Stalin flag waving while you piss yourself with joy at another chance to indict those more successful than you are for their success? Wherever there is any person "unjustly" not suffering, Prick will be there. Wherever there is any individual or group getting ahead in spite of leftist dogma that says that's impossible, Prick will be there! Wherever the indomitable force of the individual will rears its blasphemous head against the righteous truth of uniform suffering, Prick will be there to stomp it back down into the muck and the shit of collective misery! Right, Prick?
Uhhh things like this have been discussed for a long time, I remember seeing a documentary on it 7 or 8 years ago. Large particulate pollution filters light and causes localised slight cooling events. These effects could well be masking any warming that might be occurring. One event of major note was Sept11, when the planes were all landed the continental US warmed by 1 deg C just because of the lack of con trails. Its thought that the more advanced a society or country or continent is the less effect it has on global dimming, because large particulate emissions and aerosol emissions are usually the first to be cleaned up as society advances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Yeah, don't bother to try to actually refute what I posted, you pansy-ass little child, just condemn it -- against the overwhelming evidence of history.
Uhh you didnt actually 'say' anything that is refutable or not, you just ranted some random bullshit.
You must have lost your link to the lefty hive-mind, because I certainly did say something; the problem is, you're unprepared to respond coherently to what was said. Ricky is claiming that global temperatures did not increase between 1998-2008. But the pet AGW causes to which he most assuredly ascribes claim that they did. His reason, therefore, for claiming that they did not is that he is loathe to ascribe any positive effect to capitalist economies. There is no other plausible reason for him to throw the AGW scam under the bus that way, except to advance the bigger and pre-existing scam of socialism, to which he readily and openly avows his adherence.
Did they? Based on what? Already debunked "data" manipulated by the GRU to arrive at a prejudicial conclusion?
Before we go on, let me make this clear: You're wrong. In consequence of that fact, I'm not here to debate you, fairly or otherwise. I'm here to anger you so severely that you soil yourself. I'm not here to play by your rules; I'm going to make you play by mine. And I'm going to change my rules, rapidly and without notice. If you debate me, you will lose. At minimum, you'll lose the argument, but I'm aiming for 'at maximum', in which you'll lose your mind. Ready? Go.
You already sound less coherent. It's because you're losing your sanity, bit by bit, already. I do believe I can have you restrained in a special recliner at your nearest "adult care facility" within a few days at most. Please do continue.
One thing we see from this graph is that a major war heats up the world, but a Cold War cools it down, at least for a couple of decades. It makes sense, when you think about it...
And yet you don't say who that's from... But the link does. "Earth Policy dot org..." So... people with an agenda. People who want everyone (else) to live a certain way. What does it feel like to shoot yourself in the foot, Prick?
God, you're a dumbass. Go to www.earthpolicy.org and look for yourself at their data since you trust them so much. Better yet, I'll show you myself: Year Temperature (°C) 1998 14.56 1999 14.32 2000 14.33 2001 14.47 2002 14.56 2003 14.55 2004 14.48 2005 14.62 2006 14.55 2007 14.58 2008 14.44 So, from 1998 to 2008 global temperatures decreased .12 degrees Celsius. Tell me, Rick, how does it feel to be bitch-slapped by data from your own source?
You're new here, but you'll figure this out: he doesn't care. He's never going to care. You can beat him across the face with the truth as much as you want, but you really should do it only with the objective of amusement and stress relief in mind, because no objective fact is ever going to sway him from the belief that restriction of personal freedom of movement for the purpose of forcing people to live the way he thinks they ought to is anything other than absolute righteousness.
The source is NASA. It even says so on the graph. The trend is one of rising temperatures. Selectively plucking two years from the data and concluding that because the first is higher than the second that there was a "halt in warming" as stated here betrays either a deliberate dishonesty or a complete ignorance of statistics.
IOW: "The fact that the temperatures went down means the temperatures went up! Mehhhhhh! Mnnnnyehhhhhhh!" You do realize, don't you, that the more you scream and rail and stamp your little feet at the figures, the less it means when you point at the figures -- don't you? If you'll only accept them when they point one way and not the other, it shows very, very clearly that you have a biased conclusion preference, and basically eliminates you from any serious discussion on the subject. Just so you know.
Hey, dude. Your source. Your assertion that temperatures went up from 1998 to 2008. Don't get all pissy and shove those goalposts back a few more feet when someone calls you on a lie. Temperatures went up five times and down five times in the year range specified. Somehow, in your retarded little head, that represents a "warming trend."
No goalposts have been moved. If you are unable to comprehend that a warming trend does not entail a linear increase every year, then that is your problem. Whose dual are you anyway?