Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 10:05:12 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 03:50:21 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I really haven't seen you post anything except opinions.

What's wrong with that? At least I back up my opinions with solid
reasoning.

No, you back up your opinions with more opinions, peterson.

“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.� -- Buddha

You're very obsessed with what other people have to say, aren't you?

Pot, meet kettle.

On Wed, 18 May 2016 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha

You're very obsessed with what other people have to say, aren't you?

Pot, meet kettle.

Whoosh. (As usual.)

Gary isn't stupid, he's just another delusional science denier. You on
the other hand...

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 10:32:52 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 07:30:01 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01wrote:

“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.� -- Buddha

You're very obsessed with what other people have to say, aren't you?

Pot, meet kettle.

Whoosh. (As usual.)

Gary isn't stupid, he's just another delusional science denier. You on
the other hand...

There you go again, peterson, supporting your opinions with other of your opinions.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 8:05:12 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2016 03:50:21 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

I really haven't seen you post anything except opinions.

What's wrong with that?

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires
no accountability, no understanding.� – Bill Bullard

At least I back up my opinions with solid reasoning.

"reasoning" isn't sufficient. You must back up your opinion with
EXPERIMENTAL evidence, and then you must demonstrate a causal connection.
More than one the "cause" came after the effect.

“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.� -- Buddha

You're very obsessed with what other people have to say, aren't you? A
weakness in your own thoughts, perhaps.

Can't you say ANYTHING without denigrating others? THAT is a weakness
in your CHARACTER. Perhaps your snipping this part of my post explains
what your problem really is:

“You never look good trying to make someone else look bad.�
-- TobyMac

And you are very obsessed about what (certain) other people say about AGW :-)

On Wed, 18 May 2016 08:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And you are very obsessed about what (certain) other people say about AGW :-)

Yes, I respect facts.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:17:44 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

And you [peterson] are very obsessed about what (certain) other people say about AGW :-)

peterson is highly obsessed about coercing others to cut back on CO2 emissions. To him, pollution is always the other guy's fault.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 08:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And you are very obsessed about what (certain) other people say about AGW :-)

Yes, I respect facts.

You have so very few facts to present, that you must really be quite awed by the facts that I and a few others here often present.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 9:37:22 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2016 08:17:42 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And you are very obsessed about what (certain) other people say about AGW :-)

Yes, I respect facts.

"Facts" are experimental evidences like "when A happens, B results." The
case for AGW is tenuous because the record shows that B often precedes A.
The PC explanation for that is highly suspect, IMO. Another disturbing
thing is that advocates use hyperbole such as "last year was the warmest
on record" when the amount of increase was an order of magnitude smaller
than the error bars. That's dishonest. And the solution is always "It's
human caused" when the CO2 level continues to rise steeply yet the
temperature rises insignificantly. The "solution" to these inconvenient
"facts" is to change the name of the phenomenon from "global warming" to
"climate change" so the powers-that-be can have their cake and eat it, too.
More dishonesty.

So when "climate change" causes the temperature to drop, is that "anthropic
global cooling"? No, it's still AGW!

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2" when the world
is on the edge of starvation and more CO2 helps plants grow better. But
wouldn't more plants help take up the excess CO2? And the oceans contain
60 times as much carbon as in the "pre-anthropogenic atmosphere":

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...olfEnclp07.pdf

Of course, packing more CO2 in the oceans may be a problem, but:

"Dissolving large amounts of carbon dioxide in the oceans is an unplanned
experiment whose effects will change the Earth in unknown ways."

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/cl...solve-co2.html

So "all the facts are in"? Get real! We know way too little and what one
age considers "facts" are often overturned by the next generation.

Yet, in spite of the troubling behavior of the AGW advocates, anyone who
points out these embarrassing details is attacked ad hominem. People
who mount such attacks do so because their factual arguments are weak.
They respect neither truth nor people.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 7:27:11 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2"

And yet the warmingistas continue to produce loads of CO2 when it suits THEM to do so. An example would be the use of a "big honkin' van" to carry luxury items from the Midwest to a trade show in the Northeast.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 04:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

And the solution is always "we gotta stop producing CO2" when the world
is on the edge of starvation and more CO2 helps plants grow better...

Yet another example of ideas based on complete rubbish (take a look a
the number of staple crops which have reduced yields when the amount
of CO2 increases).

Your views on AGW, which show extreme bias and a lack of information,
completely destroy your credibility as a commentator on any science at
all. Believing the world is flat is not a good way to represent
yourself.