Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet

[FAST]

And here I was thinking you were really stupid and couldn't pick up anything.

OH I see,...I'm stupid because you and your band of UNEMPLOYABLEs,...cherry pic 25 years for a reference.
And I ask you to explain climatic events covering 75 years,...and because you can't,...you accuse me of cherry picking,...what a fricken loser.

The information you want is right here:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

And lets not have one of your useless posts not include a lie,...that just wouldn't be footer,...would it.
It obviously not there,...is it,...liar.

That's really fucking stupid.
So you now claim that 97% of climatologists are faking results in order to 'keep their jobs'.
Which means you think that the conspiracy has to include not only 97% of climatologists over decades of research, but their employers, who are largely government funded agencies.
Now your conspiracy is so big it includes thousands of scientists, over decades, from over 100 countries and the governments of over 100 countries in the world.

And the ones to pick this out are a plucky band of billionaire oil tycoons and their hired lobbyists?
Its settled, you are just really fucking stupid.

1st,...you STILL either don't understand,...or just dumb,….probably both.

As you just stated,...the UNEMPLOYABLEs all belong you a very few government funded clubs,...are you dumb enough to actually think some free thinking climatologists in NOAA or IPCC will disagree with the majority of the UNEMPLOYABLEs in those clubs of UNEMPLOYABLEs,...I guess you are really that dumb.
As for the 97% figure,…bull shit.
Plus,…we all know that you would prefer governments run EVERYTHING,…but anything governments run,... is always fucked up.
Decades of research has proven one thing,… for each theory created,…the next decade proves it to be BULL SHIT.

The UNEMPLOYABLEs in these few select clubs,…depend on perpetuating the lie,…for their very existence.

And be truthful for ONCE,…you really don’t give a shit about the climate,…as others have pegged you,…you are simply a frustrated Marxist,…that is against ANYTHING related to the free market/capitalism economic system.

Oh and nice graph in your last post,...confirming the so called "global warming" has paused,...good work.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

FAST, can you go back, take a remedial English course and try to write that post over again in proper English.
It really makes no sense and is totally unreadable.


Hey, the Star had a couple of articles on climate change and its impact on coastal property.
I think for you hard core deniers, who are so certain they are wrong, you should really take advantage of this and leverage yourself heavily in coastal property.
If you're right, there is so much opportunity in profits from the rest of society, which is realistically worried.
http://www.thestar.com/business/201...-estate-and-the-impact-of-climate-change.html
http://www.thestar.com/business/201...tate-is-being-impacted-by-climate-change.html

 

[Moviefan-2]

No, I make the occasional mistake, that's all.

The met uses 1960-1990 average as their base, and they have the global anomaly since then as around 0.6ºC, which again is close to the quarter mark for the 100 year projection.

The Met Office numbers on your graph confirm what I said yesterday -- a temperature increase of about 1ºC over 135 years.

The issue isn't that you made a mistake. We all make mistakes.

The issue here is that you didn't understand the alarmist rubbish you were posting -- yet you still insisted we should all be terribly worried about it. If you had actually understood the stuff you were copying and pasting, you wouldn't have mistaken a 135-year time frame with 25 years.

 

[FAST]

FAST, can you go back, take a remedial English course and try to write that post over again in proper English.
It really makes no sense and is totally unreadable.


Hey, the Star had a couple of articles on climate change and its impact on coastal property.
I think for you hard core deniers, who are so certain they are wrong, you should really take advantage of this and leverage yourself heavily in coastal property.
If you're right, there is so much opportunity in profits from the rest of society, which is realistically worried.
http://www.thestar.com/business/201...-estate-and-the-impact-of-climate-change.html
http://www.thestar.com/business/201...tate-is-being-impacted-by-climate-change.html

Sorry I can't dumb it down enough for YA.

Either way,...you loose.

And you just keep on on missing the point,...

But I will give you one more chance,...what caused the steep rise and then gradual decline over a 70 year period from 1910 thru 1980,...???

If you don't know,...get out of the debate,...because you have NO credibility to back up your clubs of UNEMPLOYABLEs random choice of 30 years for a reference.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Sorry I can't dumb it down enough for YA.

Either way,...you loose.

And you just keep on on missing the point,...

But I will give you one more chance,...what caused the steep rise and then gradual decline over a 70 year period from 1910 thru 1980,...???

If you don't know,...get out of the debate,...because you have NO credibility to back up your clubs of UNEMPLOYABLEs random choice of 30 years for a reference.

FAST

Don't worry, you dumb it down too far already.

For your basic question, I'll give you a basic answer.

what caused the steep rise and then gradual decline over a 70 year period from 1910 thru 1980,...???

Increases in CO2 caused the rises, the decline in the 1940's was caused by an increase in aerosols, particles that absorbed the heat of sunlight.

Those aerosols were created largely by two sources, one was the increase in industrialization after WWII and the other was the increase in volcanic activity, which threw up a lot of ash into the atmosphere and temporarily slowed climate change.

Is that dumbed down enough for you to understand?

 

[FAST]

Don't worry, you dumb it down too far already.

For your basic question, I'll give you a basic answer.

This infomercial is brought to you by your friendly neighborhood UNEMPLOYABLEs CLUB,...IPCC

Increases in CO2 caused the rises, the decline in the 1940's was caused by an increase in aerosols, particles that absorbed the heat of sunlight.

Those aerosols were created largely by two sources, one was the increase in industrialization after WWII and the other was the increase in volcanic activity, which threw up a lot of ash into the atmosphere and temporarily slowed climate change.

Why don't you ask the Pope if he believes in religion,...

You really do have a talent here,...just remember to stand up.

Is that dumbed down enough for you to understand?

And yes,...that was really dumb.

But you do bring up a some good points that further discounts everything that your UNEMPLOYABLEs clubs publish,...

There was no increase in CO2 in 1910 that can be attributed to man,...AND since these temp. variations are therefore natural,...why does your bunch of leaches use this to backup their bull shit that man is controlling the climate,...???

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Why don't you ask the Pope if he believes in religion,...

You really do have a talent here,...just remember to stand up.

I gave you an answer and that's all you've got as a reply?

Lets be clear here.
You aren't raising any legit counter arguments, you are just trying to be dismissive.
You have no interest in either learning anything new or accepting anything that doesn't confirm your pre-conceived biases.

I expect you still listen to the music you first heard in high school, wear similar clothes and haven't stepped out of your comfort zone in decades.
That's your type, eh?

 

[FAST]

I gave you an answer and that's all you've got as a reply?

Lets be clear here.
You aren't raising any legit counter arguments, you are just trying to be dismissive.
You have no interest in either learning anything new or accepting anything that doesn't confirm your pre-conceived biases.

I expect you still listen to the music you first heard in high school, wear similar clothes and haven't stepped out of your comfort zone in decades.
That's your type, eh?

My god you are thick.

Do you actually "believe" that IPCC, or any other such government funded organization answerable to NO ONE,...would not create a theory for the rise and fall of global temps for 70 years,...other than one that supports their overriding theory of the so called "global warming".

There are numerous apposing theories that appose IPCC's "theory" on why temps rose quickly from 1910,...when man clearly could NOT have had any effect.
But the simple fact that your UNEMPLOYABLEs club,...IPCC's theory that the rise in 1910 was man made,...and backing the hockey stick lie,...leaves them with the credibility of a bunch as a tax leaches.

I actually did give you a counter argument,...but you are blinded by your overriding hatred of our FREE economic system to comprehend.
And make no mistake,...your economic/government views are what is really driving your view point on climate gate,...has NOTHING to do with what the climate is doing,...NOTHING.

And no,...I am NOT going to waste my time linking apposing arguments,...because you aren't intelligent enough to realize that when you go to the same source for theory's,...is well,...unintelligent.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

My god you are thick.

Do you actually "believe" that IPCC, or any other such government funded organization answerable to NO ONE,...would not create a theory for the rise and fall of global temps for 70 years,...other than one that supports their overriding theory of the so called "global warming".

This is crazy talk.
Wingnut madness, conspiracy ideas.

To claim that an organization representing thousands of scientists from over 100 countries over 3 decades all got together to 'create a theory' purely to push some kind of 'ulterior motive' hidden agenda is just crazier then then the 9/11 threads.

Its pure nutso.

And just to show how nutso it is, you're crazy views are supported by about 2% of Canada.
2%.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...s-deny-climate-change-suggests-poll-1.1157215

How can you not understand you're a kook?