The coming Ice Age

[CHOP SHOP]

The Earth has had CO2 levels higher that 3000ppm without humans here.

Humans DONT EXIST in an atmosphere of 3000, PPM.

 

[CHOP SHOP]

If the church does not support evolution, then why do YOU support devolution?

 

[CrustyJeep]

Humans DONT EXIST in an atmosphere of 3000, PPM.

I had to know. 3000ppm is fine for us peeps.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

 

[CHOP SHOP]

I had to know. 3000ppm is fine for us peeps.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

I thought I remembered reading MSHA stuff when I worked at the mine that had mentioned a CO2 alarm being set at 3000 for humans and over that being unsafe for long term exposure.

I didnt think a atmosphere with that high of levels would kill you like the tests reinforce, but say living in that kinda concentration for 24 hours a day for ever is not my first choice.

I gonna stay outta this one.:;

 

[zig80toy]

So, now what?
Whether the earth warms from mankind's doing or mother nature, let's just say its getting warmer.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Buy a boat :D

 

[ZedMikey]

http://www.gibbstech.com/event/index.html

 

[ZedMikey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/s...limate-teaching.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science

Heartland

 

[WHITE TRASH1]

Ice age is correct but its not due to global climate conspiracy. It's happening because I just spent the better part of two days polishing my wheels. :booo:

 

[ZedMikey]

Ice age is correct but its not due to global climate conspiracy. It's happening because I just spent the better part of two days polishing my wheels. :booo:

I'm helping contribute to the precipitation, too. It's rained every day since I bought my new (to me) motorcycle... it'll stop as soon as my rain gear gets here on Thursday.

 

[ShaftyVonHelmet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/s...limate-teaching.html?pagewanted=1&ref=science




Good ol' Heartland Institute... because high school is the right place to discuss the merits/flaws of cutting-edge science. :rolleyes:

That money should go to wheeler forum's... because that's the right place to discuss the merits/flaws of cutting-edge science. :rolleyes:

 

[whatthe?]

:haha: Students need to be taught that government funded science is always correct until it isn't but that eventually it will be. Just believe.:awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

That money should go to wheeler forum's... because that's the right place to discuss the merits/flaws of cutting-edge science. :rolleyes:

This isn't a publicly funded educational institution. We can discuss whatever the hell we want. :awesomework:

 

[ZedMikey]

:haha: Students need to be taught that government funded science is always correct until it isn't but that eventually it will be. Just believe.:awesomework:

No, they just need to be taught that YOU are always wrong. :fawkdancesmiley:

 

[CrustyJeep]

No, they just need to be taught that YOU are always wrong. :fawkdancesmiley:

No need to spend money teaching the obvious :flipoff:

 

[whatthe?]

This isn't a publicly funded educational institution. We can discuss whatever the hell we want. :awesomework:

As long as Crash says so.:D ZM and Crusty, Goebbels would have loved you both.

 

[ZedMikey]

ZM and Crusty, Goebbels would have loved you both.

:rolleyes:...:looser:

 

[whatthe?]

Right now Crusty is googling Goebbels. It's ok Crusty, I understand you were educated in the public system.

 

[RusM]

Bwahahahah! :haha::fawkdancesmiley: Peter Gleick FTW! :haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

Bwahahahah! :haha::fawkdancesmiley: Peter Gleick FTW! :haha:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

 

[CrustyJeep]

So where'd Jay go? He's far too argumentative to just let this go like this :lol:

 

[RusM]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

Oh come on, the ethics chair of the whatever (AGU?) lies about his credentials to a rival organization and creates a false identity? :haha::fawkdancesmiley:

 

[Jaydog]

So where'd Jay go? He's far too argumentative to just let this go like this :lol:

Sorry, I've been swamped lately, and haven't been on lately, I did like the Peter Gleick story, and like true science the truth always comes out in the end :fawkdancesmiley:

It kinda sums up my whole argument, why would anyone falsify data, or lie if they had credible data to back up their argument.

 

[ZedMikey]

Sorry, I've been swamped lately, and haven't been on lately, I did like the Peter Gleick story, and like true science the truth always comes out in the end :fawkdancesmiley:

It kinda sums up my whole argument, why would anyone falsify data, or lie if they had credible data to back up their argument.

You must have missed the part where Peter Gleick lied about his IDENTITY to gain access to proprietary files... not about any scientific data.

 

[Jaydog]

You must have missed the part where Peter Gleick lied about his IDENTITY to gain access to proprietary files... not about any scientific data.

I was referring to the whole argument in general, that scientists have lied about data, Peter just lied about his Identity and he or someone involved with him forged some documents. Why would he pull off this stunt if data supported his position? Because it is a religion/ideology more than science. In any case, Peter doesn't really help your cause much.

 

[Jaydog]

And just in case you have missed the exodus of scientists leaving the global warming side because of falsified data trying to "hide the decline" that has also been in the news this week.

Fakegate: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...armists_try_to_hide_their_decline_113225.html

Here is a blog signed by 16 scientists in WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

 

[ZedMikey]

Here is a blog signed by 16 scientists in WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

As usual, my question for you, Jay... did you not read this, or just not understand it? Not to mention the factual inaccuracies in the blog (all of which I've pointed out before in similar posts of yours), they are simply saying,

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

They are not "leaving the global warming side." They are saying we need more data before we enact drastic measures that might do more harm to the economy than good to the climate.

I agree with them.

 

[whatthe?]

You must have missed the part where Peter Gleick lied about his IDENTITY to gain access to proprietary files... not about any scientific data.

If someone would lie about their ID there's no way they'd lie about their science. It's just too precious.:haha::haha:

 

[ZedMikey]

If someone would lie about their ID there's no way they'd lie about their science. It's just too precious.:haha::haha:

:rolleyes:

I should invest in a good pitchfork. All you two ever do is throw straw men into this thread.

 

[Jaydog]

Another Straw man.....New report out that 10m years ago the Earth was warmer and Co2 levels were lower

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11200.