January to June 2012 warmest first half of any year on record

MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
In this case, that the average temperature was higher 100 million years ago has no bearing on today.
Click to expand...
Because YOU say so?

So the fact the earth is 20,000 years (time since the last ice-age) into a possible 50,000 year warming cycle shouldn't be considered relevant? Why? Because it makes the warming over the last couple hundred years insignificant and completely anniahalates the MMGW hysteria?
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so several months ago? compare that with muyloco's usage of 'liberal lemmings' and 'eco loons'. :lol:
Click to expand...
Why would I stop using the terms?

The libs on here keep living up to them and making them perfectly appropriate. Or do you think I need to stop because YOU don't like them? Tuuuuuuuffffff shit.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Because YOU say so?

So the fact the earth is 20,000 years (time since the last ice-age) into a possible 50,000 year warming cycle shouldn't be considered relevant? Why? Because it makes the warming over the last couple hundred years insignificant and completely anniahalates the MMGW hysteria?
Click to expand...
Well yeah, exactly. Its much easier to win the argument when its on your terms.

Example: Show me one time where the temperature in North Carolina on a Wednesday was purple. If you can't do it then you must concede that Londonfog's theory that Government subsidies cause global warming and cleft lips is correct.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Why would I stop using the terms?

The libs on here keep living up to them and making them perfectly appropriate. Or do you think I need to stop because YOU don't like them? Tuuuuuuuffffff shit.
Click to expand...
just goes to show your level of intellect and originality.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Because YOU say so?

So the fact the earth is 20,000 years (time since the last ice-age) into a possible 50,000 year warming cycle shouldn't be considered relevant? Why? Because it makes the warming over the last couple hundred years insignificant and completely anniahalates the MMGW hysteria?
Click to expand...
50,000 years is not 100 million. If there are the cycles you say (there must be) then again, anything beyond 50,000 years has no bearing, as I said.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
50,000 years is not 100 million. If there are the cycles you say (there must be) then again, anything beyond 50,000 years has no bearing, as I said.
Click to expand...
Does that mean a cycle longer than 50,000 years or comes around less often than that is IMPOSSIBLE on a planet that's around 4.5 BILLION years old? We need to get you a Nobel prize, this is shocking, breakthrough shit being revealed here. Science with blinders on is fucking awesome.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
Neither does londons question about subsidies...
Click to expand...
diary subsidies given to cow farmers..U.S. spends $4 billion a year on dairy subsidies. That means more cows out on the farm, which means a whole lot more methane in our air. burp and fart...ahhhhhh love the smell of methane in the morning
 
kelly4

kelly4

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
diary subsidies given to cow farmers..U.S. spends $4 billion a year on dairy subsidies. That means more cows out on the farm, which means a whole lot more methane in our air. burp and fart...ahhhhhh love the smell of methane in the morning
Click to expand...
Maybe OBAMA should outlaw cows!
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
diary subsidies given to cow farmers..U.S. spends $4 billion a year on dairy subsidies. That means more cows out on the farm, which means a whole lot more methane in our air. burp and fart...ahhhhhh love the smell of methane in the morning
Click to expand...
So now its the cows that are the global warming contributor flavor of the month?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Does that mean a cycle longer than 50,000 years or comes around less often than that is IMPOSSIBLE on a planet that's around 4.5 BILLION years old? We need to get you a Nobel prize, this is shocking, breakthrough shit being revealed here. Science with blinders on is fucking awesome.
Click to expand...

"Sure, I killed someone but look at this on the grand scale - everyone dies and lots of times people kill each other". This is akin to your posts. I am talking exclusively about CO2 levels which are higher than they have been in the times we can examine - I recall it being about 3 million or so. That should be plenty of time to encompass all of the cycles that have any bearing. What you are saying is that we happen to have been on the cusp of a major cycle just as the industrial revolution got started - now of course this is possible but bringing occums razor to bear, the more simple answer is likely the more correct one - we had something to do with the rise in CO2 levels.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
kelly4 said:
If there wasn't a sun, there would be no cows.

The sun fucks us again...:cuss:
Click to expand...
do you even understand what agricultura methane gas is and does ???? Do you even know how much of this gas ONE cow produces in a year...Please feel free to google then get back with me..Thank you
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
do you even understand what agricultura methane gas is and does ???? Do you even know how much of this gas ONE cow produces in a year...Please feel free to google then get back with me..Thank you
Click to expand...
I looked it up and it says the amount of gas produced is:
"A shit load!"

LMAO LOL HAHAHA

Kill the cows!!! The cows are responsible!!! eeerrr no, Government subsidies are responsible!!!! Kill Government subsidies, BURN THEM BURN THEM!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top