"can't do simple math" writhed in denials:

On Dec 2, 8:59 am, Harry Hope quoted from:

From The Associated Press, 12/1/09:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...st-decade.html

Climate's Lost Decade Now Leads to a 'Last' Decade

CHARLES J. HANLEY,
AP Special Correspondent

It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States.

And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s
will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.

Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.

Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around
the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere
under that warming sun faced one threat together:

the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger
of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching
seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself
over millennia.

As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and
premiers of almost 100 nations for a "climate summit" to take united
action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil
fuels.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had "a powerful
opportunity to get on the right side of history" at a year-ending
climate conference in Copenhagen.

Once again, however, disunity might keep the world's nations on this
side of making historic decisions.

"Deep down, we know that you are not really listening," the Maldives'
Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September's summit.

Nasheed's tiny homeland, a sprinkling of low-lying islands in the
Indian Ocean, will be one of the earliest victims of seas rising from
heat expansion and melting glaciers.

On remote islets of Papua New Guinea, on Pacific atolls, on bleak
Arctic shores, other coastal peoples in the 2000s were already making
plans, packing up, seeking shelter.

The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon
dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas in an overloaded atmosphere.

Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil
other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to
starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.

Over the decade's first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6
degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average,
NASA reported.

And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on
Earth.

The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever
before in modern times.

Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more mel****er
into the sea each year.

Every summer's thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost,
threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the
Earth.

More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing,
more methane released.

At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar
Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming.

Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away,
allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising
oceans.

On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking
future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South
Americans.

The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too, from higher
temperatures, evaporation and drought.

Across the temperate zones, flowers bloomed earlier, lakes froze
later, bark beetles bored their destructive way northward through
warmer forests.

In the Arctic, surprised Eskimos spotted the red breasts of southern
robins.

In the 2000s, all this was happening faster than anticipated,
scientists said.

So were other things:

By late in the decade, global emissions of carbon dioxide matched the
worst case among seven scenarios laid down in 2001 by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. scientific network
formed to peer into climate's future.

Almost 29 billion tons of the gas poured skyward annually — 23 percent
higher than at the decade's start.

By year-end 2008, the 2000s already included eight of the 10 warmest
years on record.

By 2060, that trajectory could push temperatures a dangerous 4 degrees
C (7 degrees F) or more higher than preindustrial levels, British
scientists said.

Early in the decade, the president of the United States, the biggest
emitter, blamed "incomplete" science for the U.S. stand against
rolling back emissions, as other industrial nations were trying to do.
As the decade wore on and emissions grew, American reasoning leaned
more toward the economic.

By 2009, with a new president and Congress, Washington seemed ready to
talk.

But in the front ranks of climate research — where they scale the
glaciers, drill into ocean sediments, monitor a changing Earth through
a web of satellite eyes — scientists feared they were running out of
time.

Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and
months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrhenius was the first to show
that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years.

The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use
of fossil fuels.

Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more
urgent story:

To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a
planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be
the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.

BULL****. NO emission reduction program can actually be viable
to in any way reduce atmospheric concentrations or increases.
Simple mathematical fact

Trouble with your claim is that it's not a simple mathematical problem..

Thus, your overly-simplistic pseudo-reasoning is simply wrong..

In the meantime, burden of proof can be met to prove this concept

Then you'd better study more physics before you embarrass yourself
again with your ambitious ignorance and failed political ideology..

--Because, you still really suck at math, Dithering_rage..

Peter Mule_Blower sniveled pointlessly, with regards to:

Man_of_Mind castigated the simple-minded blatherings posted by:

"can't do simple math" writhed in denials:

On Dec 2, 8:59 am, Harry Hope quoted from:

From The Associated Press, 12/1/09:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...st-decade.html

Climate's Lost Decade Now Leads to a 'Last' Decade

CHARLES J. HANLEY,
AP Special Correspondent

It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States.
And when the sun sets this New Year's Eve, the decade of the 2000s
will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.

Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.

Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around
the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere
under that warming sun faced one threat together:
the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger
of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching
seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself
over millennia.

As the decade neared its close, the U.N. gathered presidents and
premiers of almost 100 nations for a "climate summit" to take united
action, to sharply cut back the burning of coal and other fossil
fuels.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told them they had "a powerful
opportunity to get on the right side of history" at a year-ending
climate conference in Copenhagen.

Once again, however, disunity might keep the world's nations on this
side of making historic decisions.

"Deep down, we know that you are not really listening," the Maldives'
Mohamed Nasheed told fellow presidents at September's summit.

Nasheed's tiny homeland, a sprinkling of low-lying islands in the
Indian Ocean, will be one of the earliest victims of seas rising from
heat expansion and melting glaciers.
On remote islets of Papua New Guinea, on Pacific atolls, on bleak
Arctic shores, other coastal peoples in the 2000s were already making
plans, packing up, seeking shelter.

The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon
dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas in an overloaded atmosphere.
Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil
other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to
starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.

Over the decade's first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6
degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average,
NASA reported.
And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on
Earth.

The decade's final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever
before in modern times.
Greenland's gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more mel****er
into the sea each year.
Every summer's thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost,
threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.

Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the
Earth.
More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing,
more methane released.

At the bottom of the world, late in the decade, International Polar
Year research found that Antarctica, too, was warming.
Floating ice shelves fringing its coast weakened, some breaking away,
allowing the glaciers behind them to push ice faster into the rising
oceans.

On six continents the glaciers retreated through the 2000s, shrinking
future water sources for countless millions of Indians, Chinese, South
Americans.
The great lakes of Africa were shrinking, too, from higher
temperatures, evaporation and drought.
Across the temperate zones, flowers bloomed earlier, lakes froze
later, bark beetles bored their destructive way northward through
warmer forests.
In the Arctic, surprised Eskimos spotted the red breasts of southern
robins.

In the 2000s, all this was happening faster than anticipated,
scientists said.
So were other things:
By late in the decade, global emissions of carbon dioxide matched the
worst case among seven scenarios laid down in 2001 by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. scientific network
formed to peer into climate's future.
Almost 29 billion tons of the gas poured skyward annually — 23 percent
higher than at the decade's start.

By year-end 2008, the 2000s already included eight of the 10 warmest
years on record.
By 2060, that trajectory could push temperatures a dangerous 4 degrees
C (7 degrees F) or more higher than preindustrial levels, British
scientists said.

Early in the decade, the president of the United States, the biggest
emitter, blamed "incomplete" science for the U.S. stand against
rolling back emissions, as other industrial nations were trying to do.
As the decade wore on and emissions grew, American reasoning leaned
more toward the economic.

By 2009, with a new president and Congress, Washington seemed ready to
talk.
But in the front ranks of climate research — where they scale the
glaciers, drill into ocean sediments, monitor a changing Earth through
a web of satellite eyes — scientists feared they were running out of
time.

Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and
months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrhenius was the first to show
that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years.
The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use
of fossil fuels.

Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more
urgent story:
To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a
planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be
the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.

BULL****. NO emission reduction program can actually be viable
to in any way reduce atmospheric concentrations or increases.
Simple mathematical fact

Trouble with your claim is that it's not a simple mathematical problem..

Thus, your overly-simplistic pseudo-reasoning is simply wrong..

It's a simple physical brain-teaser, which requires some math...

Which it appears to be to a simple minded brainless fool..

--But, it's self-evident that your generalization is false..

Peter Mule_Blower writhed in denials:

Men_of_Mind pointed out the fallacy argument posted by:

Peter Mule_Blower sniveled pointlessly, with regards to:

Man_of_Mind castigated the simple-minded blatherings posted by:

"can't do simple math" writhed in denials:

On Dec 2, 8:59 am, Harry Hope quoted from:

From The Associated Press, 12/1/09:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...st-decade.html
-----
Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and
months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrhenius was the first to show
that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years.
The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use
of fossil fuels.

Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more
urgent story:
To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a
planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be
the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.

BULL****. NO emission reduction program can actually be viable
to in any way reduce atmospheric concentrations or increases.
Simple mathematical fact

Trouble with your claim is that it's not a simple mathematical problem..

Thus, your overly-simplistic pseudo-reasoning is simply wrong..

It's a simple physical brain-teaser, which requires some math...

Which it appears to be to a simple minded brainless fool..

--But, it's self-evident that your generalization is false..

It's really curious that you don't persist on an answer.

I have no obligation to, other than point out your false
claims as the inane remarks posted by a fool..

--Comments?

Peter Mule_Blower set up his straw man:

Man_of_Mind was again amused by the childish pseudologia expressed by:

Peter Mule_Blower writhed in denials:

Men_of_Mind pointed out the fallacy argument posted by:

Peter Mule_Blower sniveled pointlessly, with regards to:

Man_of_Mind castigated the simple-minded blatherings posted by:

"can't do simple math" writhed in denials:

On Dec 2, 8:59 am, Harry Hope quoted from:

From The Associated Press, 12/1/09:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...st-decade.html
-------
Before the turn of the last century, with slide rule, pencil and
months of tedious calculation, Svante Arrhenius was the first to show
that carbon dioxide would warm the planet — in 3,000 years.
The brilliant Swede hadn't foreseen the 20th-century explosion in use
of fossil fuels.

Today their supercomputers tell his scientific heirs a much more
urgent story:
To halt and reverse that explosion of emissions, to head off a
planetary climate crisis, the 10 years that dawn this Jan. 1 will be
the fateful years, the final chance, the last decade.

BULL****. NO emission reduction program can actually be viable
to in any way reduce atmospheric concentrations or increases.
Simple mathematical fact

Trouble with your claim is that it's not a simple mathematical problem..

Thus, your overly-simplistic pseudo-reasoning is simply wrong..

It's a simple physical brain-teaser, which requires some math...

Which it appears to be to a simple minded brainless fool..

--But, it's self-evident that your generalization is false..

It's really curious that you don't persist on an answer.

I have no obligation to, other than point out your false
claims as the inane remarks posted by a fool..

--Comments?

No. Your agenda doen't allow another answer

How would you know what my supposed 'agenda' is?

--Or did your fallacy 'appeals' fall flat again?

Peter Mule_Blower falsely appealed to:

Man_of_Mind was amused by the illogic and emotional appeals of:

Peter Mule_Blower set up his straw man:

Man_of_Mind was again amused by the childish pseudologia expressed by:

Peter Mule_Blower writhed in denials:

Men_of_Mind pointed out the fallacy argument posted by:

Peter Mule_Blower sniveled pointlessly, with regards to:

Man_of_Mind castigated the simple-minded blatherings posted by:

"can't do simple math" writhed in denials:

On Dec 2, 8:59 am, Harry Hope quoted from:

From The Associated Press, 12/1/09:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...st-decade.html
---------
BULL****. NO emission reduction program can actually be viable
to in any way reduce atmospheric concentrations or increases.
Simple mathematical fact

Trouble with your claim is that it's not a simple mathematical problem..

Thus, your overly-simplistic pseudo-reasoning is simply wrong..

It's a simple physical brain-teaser, which requires some math...

Which it appears to be to a simple minded brainless fool..

--But, it's self-evident that your generalization is false..

It's really curious that you don't persist on an answer.

I have no obligation to, other than point out your false
claims as the inane remarks posted by a fool..

--Comments?

No. Your agenda doen't allow another answer

How would you know what my supposed 'agenda' is?

--Or did your fallacy 'appeals' fall flat again?

Come on, we know you long enough

You know very little about me, and your fallacy argument,
an appeal to some belief of yours, however inflated, was
simply nonsense..

Examples follow..

Take some other for a ride.
Your runaround leads to nowhere.

Your excuses for your crude illogic and lack of critical
reasoning will always be your undoing, Mule_Blower..

--See subject header for important clue..

Peter Mule_Blower falsely appealed again:

Man_of_Mind pointed out the fallacy argument posted by:

Peter Mule_Blower falsely appealed to:

Man_of_Mind was amused by the illogic and emotional appeals of:

Peter Mule_Blower set up his straw man:

Man_of_Mind was again amused by the childish pseudologia expressed by:

Peter Mule_Blower writhed in denials:

Men_of_Mind pointed out the fallacy argument posted by:

Peter Mule_Blower sniveled pointlessly, with regards to:

Man_of_Mind castigated the simple-minded blatherings posted by:

"can't do simple math" writhed in denials:

On Dec 2, 8:59 am, Harry Hope quoted from:

From The Associated Press, 12/1/09:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...st-decade.html
-----------
BULL****. NO emission reduction program can actually be viable
to in any way reduce atmospheric concentrations or increases.
Simple mathematical fact

Trouble with your claim is that it's not a simple mathematical problem..

Thus, your overly-simplistic pseudo-reasoning is simply wrong..

It's a simple physical brain-teaser, which requires some math...

Which it appears to be to a simple minded brainless fool..

--But, it's self-evident that your generalization is false..

It's really curious that you don't persist on an answer.

I have no obligation to, other than point out your false
claims as the inane remarks posted by a fool..

--Comments?

No. Your agenda doen't allow another answer

How would you know what my supposed 'agenda' is?

--Or did your fallacy 'appeals' fall flat again?

Come on, we know you long enough

You know very little about me, and your fallacy argument,
an appeal to some belief of yours, however inflated, was
simply nonsense..

Examples follow..

Take some other for a ride.
Your runaround leads to nowhere.

Your excuses for your crude illogic and lack of critical
reasoning will always be your undoing, Mule_Blower..

--See subject header for important clue..

As I told before, we know you long enough.

As I excoriated you previously, you're setting up a straw man..

This is your typical defense.

You're the one that's unable to discuss the subject of
global warming in any direct, honest manner. Why is that?

When running out of arguments

You resort to fallacy pseudo-logic..

--Thanks for proving that again..