"Snowfall Will Be a Thing of the Past"-2012 Warmists

Why people take these warmest losers seriously is beyond me. I also can't believe that people voted for hisloserness, again. The depth of brain washed stupidity is deeper and wider than I thought possible.

 

And from the "willing suspense of disbelief" we get this little gem.

 

• How about Denisova hominin and Neanderthal? They were 2 Homos that were close to us and died out.

One more time! No one is suggesting we control the climate! We do not have the technology to control the climate. To change the temperature of the atmosphere is prohibitively expensive. The goal, the only goal, is to reduce atmospheric CO2 back to 350ppm; not to 0; not by stopping the burning of all coal; not by stopping the use of all FFs. But by reducing, (NOT STOPPING) the use of FF using more efficient cars, incorporating alternative energies (INCORPORATING, NOT REPLACING!) into the power generation methods.
So get rid of the strawmen the RW pseudo-scientist blogs are building and actually address the reality and the goals of the AGW proponents!

And if you really are a skeptic, then learn about the science of global warming.
http://www.scienceofdoom.com instead of the pseudo-scientific opinions of the blogs.

 

Bullcrap. It is not through "genetc mutation" that this is known, or traced. It is through dominant genes prevailing. See "Gregor Mendel".

 

You are arguing from a point of ignorance, so yes, I will ignore your criticism. Any and all concerns you have are irrational creatures of the mind.

 

You may want to take some reading comprehension classes

Through Genetic Mutations, every man can trace their genetic heritage back to one man: Y-chromosomal Adam
Through Genetic Mutations, every woman can trace their genetic heritage back to one woman : Mitochondrial Eve

You can jump up and down and claim its bullcrap all you wish, but you are wrong.

 

Except that is it through the EXACT OPPOSITE of genetic mutations, that such a line can be discerned.

Other than being COMPLETELY WRONG, you have it.

Your Faith in the Religion of Evolution is touching; no surprise that you accept on Faith as well, the equally UNPROVEN CLAIMS of the Warmist Religion, as well.

 

Mother Nature. God's mom, wife, or daughter?
And why does she hate america? Cuz we drive cars? Have coal fired plants?
Wasn't Camille the largest hurricane to hit the US? 50 yrs ago, before all of this?

 

Because you don't have any answers you haven't been fed by your handlers.

 

Want some more of the IDIOCY of your "religion"?

How about the "NEW" claims,that "350 ppm" (.000350), WOULD BE "JUST FINE" for the CLIMATE, according to Warmist NUMBSKULLS, embarassed that people are actually realizing how COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS their claims about CO2 are, now try to mount a FULL RETREAT.

The "Goal" for Humanity and CO2, is NOW "385 ppm"; IOW ABOUT FORTY PPM (.00004)is "too much", AND IS CAUSING "CLIMATE CHANGE" ..how STUPID can the WARMISTS GET?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?


Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you FRIGGIN' KIDDING ME?? A difference of .00004 is causing "climate change"?

Now, all of a sudden reducing the ALREADY MINISCULE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by a RIDICULOUSLY MINISCULE .00004, will "save the climate".

Is anyone paying attention to this LUNACY???

 

Oh yes!! The Gaia cries tears of acid....as her water nymphs frolic amid turbulent seas...while unicorn riders soar...the spirits of the wood fairies roam free...

 

The opposite of a genetic mutation would be no mutation!

Ohhhh this is good.

 

Nothing but personal attacks eh?

I guess when you cant BS your way out, you must resort to ad homs....how quaint.

 

Wow look at this record breaking snowfall, all normal for deniers.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chicago-1st-inch-snowfall-breaking-record-18315571
Chicago didn't get much snow Friday, but it was record-breaking nonetheless.

The 1.1 inches that settled on Windy City streets and sidewalks marked the latest first seasonal snowfall of at least an inch in the Midwest metropolis since at least 1884, when records were first kept, National Weather Service forecaster Matt Friedlein said. The previous record was set on Jan. 17, 1899.

 

Me thinks you miss the point. To a skeptic its just weather. Snow or no snow its just weather. To a warmmonger any kind of weather is proof of global warming.

 

Record breaking weather is okay for skeptics.

 

Somewhere there is always record breaking weather. Its just weather.

Since temperatures have stalled warmmongers are reduced to complaining about the weather.

 

What can I say about posts like this except that they are exemplified by this ad

[video=youtube;ml3ybCxxMRk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml3ybCxxMRk[/video]

 

Exactly. The passing of mitochondrial DNA from a sinlge female source,as well as the passing of y-chromosomal DNA from a single male source, involved NO MUTATION whatsoever. It involved the OPPOSITE of mutation: an UNBROKEN, SUCCESSFUL line of genetic heritage.

Failed to cover basic genetics in "sociology", did they?

"Oh, this is good"

- - - Updated - - -

Only when one excludes the post I was sarcastically responding to... which was this:

 

Meanwhile, we now know that, after being pressed by people concerned with the SPECIFICS of "climate change", the Warmists have DECREED the Ideal CO2 Level:

350 PPM ( .000350 ).

Except that CURRENT CO2 atmospheric levels are 385 PPM, (.000385) , ONLYW 35 PPM (.000035) HIGHER than the "OPTIMAL ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVEL.

So, we are supposed to believe, that 35 PPM "too much" " (.000035) of atmospheric CO2, is what is CHANGING THE CLIMATE.


Good time to change your Religion, Warmists, before it gets ANYMORE EMBARASSING.....

 

Scientific proof abounds. Most of the world's scientists have agreed on that now for years.

The only "controversy" is on Fox New and American right wing talk radio.

 

what they "agree on" is that the climate of the planet is changing BFD. the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years. There is no agreement that man has ever had anything to do with it-----------but you go right ahead and send money to your prophet algore so he can consume the energy of 100 normal people.

 

"Agreement" is not PROOF= the entire problem with the ridiculous Warmist Religion, whose Doctrines now tell us that "35 PPm 'too much' " ( .000035), atmospheric CO2, is causing Climate Change.

350 PPM atmospheric CO2= "Just fine"

385 PPM atmospheric CO2= "Changing the Climate.

COMPLETE IDIOCY,and a CHEMICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.


Good time to BAIL Warmists, before this asinine idiocy gets any more embarassing...

 

There you go; redefining terms a gain to match your fantasy. Even I knew the problem with your definition.
"Because mtDNA is not highly conserved and has a rapid mutation rate, it is useful for studying the evolutionary relationships - phylogeny - of organisms" source
Did you learn your basic genetics from the Discovery Institute? Is that also where you got your BS in chemistry?

 

You clearly have no idea how Evolution works with the above statement.

Since you clearly do not understand Evolution and scientific methods...you have zero credibility on Global Warming.

Please quit while you are way behind.