Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on August 01, 2014, 05:57:58 AM
-
Numbers released today by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center show that not only has July been abnormally cool in the USA, but so has 2014 in general. For the last 30 days, there have been 574 record highest temperatures in the USA, and 1,726 record lowest. A ratio of 3 to 1, indicating that July was very cool. But, the year so far has also been cool.
So far for the USA year to date, the numbers of record lows outpace the highs two to one.
This year, here have been been 12,644 daily record lowest temperatures versus 6,615 record highest temperatures in the USA, a ratio of 1.91 to 1.0.
For all types of high and low daily records for the year to date, there were 29,372 cold records versus 16,761 warm records, a ratio of 1.75 to 1.0
If all high and low daily record types are considered for the last 365 days, cold still outpaces warm. There are 46,712 cold records versus 36,650 warm records.
The ratios for monthly all time records also see cold records outpacing warm ones.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/31/so-far-in-2014-record-low-temperatures-outpace-record-highs-2-1/
-
Montgomery had the coolest July 30 since reliable record keeping began in 1872. Wednesday's low of 59 degrees shattered the previous low of 66 degrees set in 1889.
Although there were reports that Wednesday's temperature also set the record for the all-time low in July, National Weather Service meteorologist Michael Garrison said while it was the coolest temperature Montgomery had experienced in July, it didn't break the record.
"The temperature tied it, but it didn't break it," said the Birmingham meteorologist, adding that the previous all-time record was a low of 59 degrees that Montgomery experienced on July 20, 2009.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2014/07/31/quest-record-low-july-temperature-ends-tie/13396137/
-
INDIANAPOLIS - July 2014 will go into the record books as the coldest July since records began in Indianapolis.
Temperatures will stay slightly below normal Thursday, putting the monthly average at 70.1 degrees.
That's 0.5 degrees cooler than the previous July low of 70.6, set in 1947.
Indianapolis has not even topped 90 degrees so far this year.
http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/july-2014-coldest-on-record-in-indianapolis
-
The 3,151 days and counting with no Florida hurricane and no major U.S. hurricane shatters the previous records for hurricane "droughts," at least back to the turn of the previous century. In fact, from 1900 through 2013, the United States experienced a decrease in hurricane landfalls of more than 20%, and the strength of each year's landfalling storms has also decreased by more than 20%.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/06/09/hurricane-florida-climate-change-infrastructure-weather-column/10257787/
-
These are all evidence of climate change. You're shooting yourself in the foot here
-
Climate is too complex for man to fully understand all the factors that control it...but its pretty telling that libs have been saying how the sky is falling since the late 1980's, saying we were 'on the brink' continuously for a period of like 30 years and counting, and.....nothing has really happened at all.
People are starting to tune out their cries.
-
"Global" warming and all you're citing is weather in the USA? Am I missing something?
-
"Global" warming and all you're citing is weather in the USA? Am I missing something?
the USA is all that matters. shut up. 'merica
-
Climate is too complex for man to fully understand all the factors that control it...but its pretty telling that libs have been saying how the sky is falling since the late 1980's, saying we were 'on the brink' continuously for a period of like 30 years and counting, and.....nothing has really happened at all.
People are starting to tune out their cries.
Boy who cried wolf. Although I did watch a recent Obama speech where he was fear mongering on the climate again, and how he's been trying to save it.
I lol'd.
-
These are all evidence of climate change. You're shooting yourself in the foot here
Of course the climate changes. It's called "seasons". Dario is referring to all this BS that we're all going to get barbecued, unless we check our freedom at the door, give up fossil curls and drive juice boxes disguised as cars.
Forty years ago, we were going to freeze; now, we're going to fry.
All the while, the main peddler of this crap flies in jumbo jets, rolls in armored limos, has mansions that suck fuel like Lewinsky on this charlatan's former boss, and raked in über cash by selling his failed network to the biggest oil sheikhs on the planet.
-
Libs and RINOs bought into it. it wasn't a dem thing, nor a repub thing.
it was more of a pandering thing. When people were concerned, many politicians acted concerned.
Does anyone REALLY believe, if the tea party base believed in global warming, Palin and bachmann wouldn't be out there screaming about it? They supported it when it was hip, they changed when it was not.
-
Most idiotic fad I've heard of!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
Climate is too complex for man to fully understand all the factors that control it...but its pretty telling that libs have been saying how the sky is falling since the late 1980's, saying we were 'on the brink' continuously for a period of like 30 years and counting, and.....nothing has really happened at all.
People are starting to tune out their cries.
Not really, just too complex for you. the climatologist who have spent there entire lives studying can make some crazy predictions and have a pretty good handle on it. They are not retards making guesses.
Make no doubt, USA is not the world, so if you want to talk global warming using one country, one month is not going to get anyone anywhere.
-
Of course the climate changes. It's called "seasons". Dario is referring to all this BS that we're all going to get barbecued, unless we check our freedom at the door, give up fossil curls and drive juice boxes disguised as cars.
Forty years ago, we were going to freeze; now, we're going to fry.
All the while, the main peddler of this crap flies in jumbo jets, rolls in armored limos, has mansions that suck fuel like Lewinsky on this charlatan's former boss, and raked in über cash by selling his failed network to the biggest oil sheikhs on the planet.
What are you getting on with? No one is saying fuckng stop driving cars, jesus are you that simply that, that is the only option for you? what about hybrids? cleaning the air? you were probably one of the assholes saying lead in gas was fine.
-
Reproducible research................ ........................ ........................ ....
ROFL
-
in the late 70's and early early 80's experts were predicting another ice age...
-
in the late 70's and early early 80's experts were predicting another ice age...
Don't you dare question the "experts". :D
-
What are you getting on with? No one is saying fuckng stop driving cars, jesus are you that simply that, that is the only option for you? what about hybrids? cleaning the air? you were probably one of the assholes saying lead in gas was fine.
You don't read very well, do you, O imbecilic one?
What about hybrids? Half of them are basically junk. The point which you missed by a country mile is the main treehugging idiots who spew the same BS that a YOU do roll in the exact opposite fashion.
Not to mention the simple fact that you goofs can't get your facts straight.
-
Most idiotic fad I've heard of!!! ;D ;D ;D
All these poor little fellas on here wanted to believe it SO bad too!
Bless their little hearts! :D
-
I care about the planet - I do my bit to reduce emissions by driving a $100k car that runs on electricity generated by burning coal.
And the federal government gave me 7.5k back in tax breaks for buying a luxury vehicle, and I'm allowed to use the car pool lane while poor people in their cheap cars have to sit in traffic.
-
You don't read very well, do you, O imbecilic one?
What about hybrids? Half of them are basically junk. The point which you missed by a country mile is the main treehugging idiots who spew the same BS that a YOU do roll in the exact opposite fashion.
Not to mention the simple fact that you goofs can't get your facts straight.
Hybrids can never improve. Nothing can ever improve. Oil is the best there is and it has no rival. It makes tons of sense to use an non-renewable resource for all the worlds energy concerns, one that pollutes. Logic.
-
Drove a prius a few times recently. works fine.
Gore drives SUV's so all research must be bunk.
Its cold today in Cali, must b e global warming
Tomorrow when its hot it must be global cooling
-
Getbig=teh stupid.
-
The numbers are in and the verdict is that there has been no global warming for 17 years and 11 months, according to satellite data.
Satellite data prepared by Lord Christopher Monckton shows there has been no warming trend from October of 1996 to August of 2014 — 215 months. To put this in perspective, kids graduating from high school this year have not lived through any global warming in their lifetimes.
According to Monckton — the third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and a former policy adviser to U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — the rate of warming has been half of what climate scientists initially predicted in the early 1990s.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) first predicted in 1990 that global temperatures would rise at a rate of 2.8 degrees Celsius per century. But the temperature rise since the IPCC’s prediction has only been at a rate of 1.4 degrees Celsius per century.
The so-called “pause” in global warming has baffled climate scientists, as many climate models did not predict a prolonged period of little to no warming. While some climate scientists deny the “pause” in global warming even exists, others have looked to places ocean and wind patterns for answers as to why there has been no warming for nearly two decades.
There are now literally dozens of potential explanations for the global warming “pause,” ranging from increasing volcanic activity to Chinese coal-fired power plant emissions.
“The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with ‘substantial confidence’ that the science was settled and the debate over,” Monckton wrote in his climate analysis. “Nature had other ideas.”
“Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed,” Monckton added.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/08/report-no-global-warming-for-215-months/#ixzz3CovPMCQx
-
(http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/1711years.png)
-
You don't read very well, do you, O imbecilic one?
What about hybrids? Half of them are basically junk. The point which you missed by a country mile is the main treehugging idiots who spew the same BS that a YOU do roll in the exact opposite fashion.
Not to mention the simple fact that you goofs can't get your facts straight.
This is how stupid people think, hybrid's can't improve? Tesla isn't about to shit right in your mouth? free charging for your life too, lol. you are so short sighted it's embarrasing. If you were a scientists would you look at the issue and say, "hybrids aren't very good, lets quit". Germany is shitting on your concept of requiring fossil fuels, it's a stupid archaic form of energy. Nuclear is way better also, throium may be another boon but we are a ways from that.
It's ok if you don't like progress, I mean you live your life according to shit written by men thousands of years ago, I sure this all seems scary to you. Don't worry though, the "scientists" will take care of you.
-
This is how stupid people think, hybrid's can't improve? Tesla isn't about to shit right in your mouth? free charging for your life too, lol. you are so short sighted it's embarrasing. If you were a scientists would you look at the issue and say, "hybrids aren't very good, lets quit". Germany is shitting on your concept of requiring fossil fuels, it's a stupid archaic form of energy. Nuclear is way better also, throium may be another boon but we are a ways from that.
It's ok if you don't like progress, I mean you live your life according to shit written by men thousands of years ago, I sure this all seems scary to you. Don't worry though, the "scientists" will take care of you.
It's official. You really are this DUMB; it's not an act for my amusement.
The last thing that frightens me is progress. Of course, a bunch of raggedy cars which few are interested in buying hardly amounts to such. But, thanks for playing.
I don't have an issue with nuclear power, O goofy one. On the contrary, I'm all for them. It's treehuggers like YOU that keep nuclear power from being used in the USA.
Get this through that concrete skull of yours: FOSSIL FUELS AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE. They're here; they'll always be here; and they'll always be used to make either the USA or some other country RICH.
After all, the next time a treehugger has a failing enterprise (i.e. a left-winged TV network), he has to unload it on somebody to recoup his losses.
-
It's official. You really are this DUMB; it's not an act for my amusement.
The last thing that frightens me is progress. Of course, a bunch of raggedy cars which few are interested in buying hardly amounts to such. But, thanks for playing.
I don't have an issue with nuclear power, O goofy one. On the contrary, I'm all for them. It's treehuggers like YOU that keep nuclear power from being used in the USA.
Get this through that concrete skull of yours: FOSSIL FUELS AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE. They're here; they'll always be here; and they'll always be used to make either the USA or some other country RICH.
After all, the next time a treehugger has a failing enterprise (i.e. a left-winged TV network), he has to unload it on somebody to recoup his losses.
It's a finite resource moron, meaning it won;t be around forever, and it has clear drawbacks like having to fucking dig it up, drill etc oh and the pollutants.
However, back to the facts.
Are you suggesting that global warming is not occurring? yes or no? have some integrity for once and answer the question. If so what evidence do you have for either of those positions?
Do you then deny man is the primary driver of said climatic shift?
Do you know what a fact is?
-
It's a finite resource moron, meaning it won;t be around forever, and it has clear drawbacks like having to fucking dig it up, drill etc oh and the pollutants.
Earth to DOOFUS!! You'll be 10 generations removed (at least) before even closely reaching the HALF of all the fossil fuels that we have (and that's just in the United States). And, as more fossil fuels get discovered, the amount increases even greater. So, save that BS sob story for some brickhead like you whose clue switch burned out 20 years ago.
However, back to the facts.
Are you suggesting that global warming is not occurring? yes or no? have some integrity for once and answer the question. If so what evidence do you have for either of those positions?
For you to get "back to the facts", you actually have to start with them in the first place. Your gibberish disqualifies you from that category.
I'm not suggesting. I'm FLAT-OUT SAYING IT. Nearly 20 years and the planet has barely budged a half-degree.
Do you then deny man is the primary driver of said climatic shift?
Do you know what a fact is?
Man didn't start any "climatic shift" and he sure as heck can't stop it (should any occur), least of all by driving stupid-@$$ windup cars, powered by batteries....which need energy from FOSSIL FUELS to charge them anyway.....and which your favorite left-winged politicians and celebrities won't use en masse, anyway.
And like most PC lightweight, you're changing the language to "climatic shift", since both "global cooling" and "global warming" have been utterly shattered to pieces.
-
You don't read very well, do you, O imbecilic one?
What about hybrids? Half of them are basically junk. The point which you missed by a country mile is the main treehugging idiots who spew the same BS that a YOU do roll in the exact opposite fashion.
Not to mention the simple fact that you goofs can't get your facts straight.
-
That was COLD!!
-
;D
-
Earth to DOOFUS!! You'll be 10 generations removed (at least) before even closely reaching the HALF of all the fossil fuels that we have (and that's just in the United States). And, as more fossil fuels get discovered, the amount increases even greater. So, save that BS sob story for some brickhead like you whose clue switch burned out 20 years ago.
It won't be the future, it's a rudimentary and poor energy source simply because we lack the tech to harness other potential sources more so.
For you to get "back to the facts", you actually have to start with them in the first place. Your gibberish disqualifies you from that category.
What, like the overwhelming general consesus? that fact? the fact that only .5% of the literature contradicts global warming? those type of facts?
I'm not suggesting. I'm FLAT-OUT SAYING IT. Nearly 20 years and the planet has barely budged a half-degree.
Without context this is pointless, it sounds small to you so you are satisfied, it;s like saying usain bolt is lightyears faster then an 8.5 runner, context matters, you have no idea what you are talking about as usual.
Man didn't start any "climatic shift" and he sure as heck can't stop it (should any occur), least of all by driving stupid-@$$ windup card, powered by batteries....which need energy from FOSSIL FUELS to charge them anyway.....and which your favorite left-winged politicians and celebrities won't use en masse, anyway.
Do you have evidence for your assertions, I mean, MCWAY a fundy christian disputes the worlds climatologists. You also just showed your ass again, afraid of progress much? man can't do anything about it? how do you know? you are so lazy intellectually it's embarrasing.
And like most PC lightweight, you're changing the language to "climatic shift", since both "global cooling" and "global warming" have been utterly shattered to pieces.
Prove it.
Earth is not an energy source, jesus did you really just make that analogy? the SUN is renewable for all intents and purposes, as opposed to oil.
-
That was COLD!!
;D
-
Loco and Mcway,
Are you in denial the globe is heating up? yes or no. It should be quite simple to answer.
-
Loco and Mcway,
Are you in denial the globe is heating up? yes or no. It should be quite simple to answer.
Can you actually read, genius? I answered your question multiple times.
But since you lost your phonics tape, I'll say it yet again. I'll even put it in caps
I FLAT-OUT UNEQUIVOCALLY DENY IT.
-
Earth is not an energy source, jesus did you really just make that analogy? the SUN is renewable for all intents and purposes, as opposed to oil.
Get this through your brick head. Fossil fuels are the PAST, PRESENT, and the FUTURE.
They're not going anywhere, no matter what you and your clueless deluded treehugging brethren keep chirping.
As Dario has graciously done the legwork for me (punching holes in your "overwhelming general consensus"), I don't have to prove jack. With that said, There's the little matter of some ice caps which were to have melted 15 years ago but didn't (not even close). Heck, it's summer time in the Midwest and I'm shivering in weather that won't top 70 degrees today.
But, why believe the thermometer or these goosebumps on my arms?
There was "overwhelming general consensus" by alchemists that you could turn lead into gold. How did that turn out again?
You're daft enough to think that a supposed multi-billion-year-old planet is going to run out of fossil fuels in a few decades. And you take shots at my beliefs? It is to laugh.
-
Hybrids can never improve. Nothing can ever improve. Oil is the best there is and it has no rival. It makes tons of sense to use an non-renewable resource for all the worlds energy concerns, one that pollutes. Logic.
Hybrids suck NOW (and cost a fortune). IF (and I stress....IF) that ceases to be the case, then it may be worth the purchase.
-
Can you actually read, genius? I answered your question multiple times.
But since you lost your phonics tape, I'll say it yet again. I'll even put it in caps
I FLAT-OUT UNEQUIVOCALLY DENY IT.
Just wanted you to say it allowed so everyone could see how ridiculous you are.
-
Get this through your brick head. Fossil fuels are the PAST, PRESENT, and the FUTURE.
I couldn't disagree more, you prefer to harness unrenewables, fine. However, for true advancement they cannot meet our power needs.
They're not going anywhere, no matter what you and your clueless deluded treehugging brethren keep chirping.
You seem to know alot of facts others don't
As Dario has graciously done the legwork for me (punching holes in your "overwhelming general consensus"), I don't have to prove jack. With that said, There's the little matter of some ice caps which were to have melted 15 years ago but didn't (not even close). Heck, it's summer time in the Midwest and I'm shivering in weather that won't top 70 degrees today.
Oh my god it's cold out? nevermind all of the world's experts are wrong guys, dario did the legwork and all the ice that al gore showed me isn't gone
But, why believe the thermometer or these goosebumps on my arms?
Exactly, we don't.
There was "overwhelming general consensus" by alchemists that you could turn lead into gold. How did that turn out again?
That's like saying astrology is a science, I am sorry there are examples of pseudo science everywhere, what effect does that have on climatology? Alchemy isn't real. This is such a fallacy it's hard to believe you attempted to make this your argument. I suppose you will say something about the world being flat. PROGRESS has occurred, I know you hate it but we have advanced.
You're daft enough to think that a supposed multi-billion-year-old planet is going to run out of fossil fuels in a few decades. And you take shots at my beliefs? It is to laugh.
-
Just wanted you to say it allowed so everyone could see how ridiculous you are.
First, the word is "aloud", Einstein.
Second, I already said it. Were your brain the beneficiary of a hearty breakfast, you would have seen that long before now.
Here it is, summertime; yet, it's barely 60 degrees here in the metro KC area.
Yet, per the ramblings of a sense-deprived pine humper, we're on our way to barbecue city, unless we start driving cars that look as if they belong next to my son's PB&J sandwich, not on the road.
-
First, the word is "aloud", Einstein.
Second, I already said it. Were your brain the beneficiary of a hearty breakfast, you would have seen that long before now.
Here it is, summertime and it's barely 60 degrees here in the metro KC area.
Yet, per the ramblings of a sense-deprived pine humper, we're on our way to barbecue city, unless we start driving cars that look as if they belong next to my son's PB&J sandwich, not on the road.
;D
(http://www.sondrakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/progs-fredo-smart.jpg)
-
True achievement of WHAT? Do tell what you're trying to do that simply cannot be done unless fossil fuels are abandoned.
What climatologists (aka global warming nuts) have in common with alchemists is their insisting that people leave common sense and the blatantly obvious observations at the door to buy into their utter BS.
Said another way, " Who are you going to believe, us or your lying thermometers? Us or all this snow and cold weather that hasn't been seen or felt in decades?"
Or if you prefer, "If the facts don't match the theory, change the facts". After all, the "overwhelming general consensus" of Team Treehugger just can't be wrong.
-
True achievement of WHAT? Do tell what you're trying to do that simply cannot be done unless fossil fuels are abandoned.
What climatologists (aka global warming nuts) have in common with alchemists is their insisting that people leave common sense and the blatantly obvious observations at the door to buy into their utter BS.
Said another way, " Who are you going to believe, us or your lying thermometers? Us or all this snow and cold weather that hasn't been seen or felt in decades?"
Or if you prefer, "If the facts don't match the theory, change the facts". After all, the "overwhelming general consensus" of Team Treehugger just can't be wrong.
Necrosis with a "You're dumb" followed by another cut and paste in 3....2.....1....
-
Earth to DOOFUS!! You'll be 10 generations removed (at least) before even closely reaching the HALF of all the fossil fuels that we have (and that's just in the United States). And, as more fossil fuels get discovered, the amount increases even greater. So, save that BS sob story for some brickhead like you whose clue switch burned out 20 years ago.
For you to get "back to the facts", you actually have to start with them in the first place. Your gibberish disqualifies you from that category.
I'm not suggesting. I'm FLAT-OUT SAYING IT. Nearly 20 years and the planet has barely budged a half-degree.
Man didn't start any "climatic shift" and he sure as heck can't stop it (should any occur), least of all by driving stupid-@$$ windup cars, powered by batteries....which need energy from FOSSIL FUELS to charge them anyway.....and which your favorite left-winged politicians and celebrities won't use en masse, anyway.
And like most PC lightweight, you're changing the language to "climatic shift", since both "global cooling" and "global warming" have been utterly shattered to pieces.
You talk so like you are sure, we didn't do it and we can't stop it, keep going guys. As for the evidence let's get to it shall we? I mean you should be able to rebutt my points right? Also, how can you say the globe isn't heating up yet you state it has "barely increased half a degree", without me having to point it out to you are you aware this contradicts your whole position, it's even you rebutted yourself, awesome. That's what one should see when someon doesn't have an understanding or clear concise framework to spring from, you are just spouting bullshit.
We know greenhouse gases can destroy a planet, we have VENUS as a model, hence you assertion that we didn't or can't cause a shift is ridiculous. We are pumping out more and more greenhouse gases, at some point it will become runaway and we will all have to deal with it.
You are the one arguing peripheral issues such as semantics, I don't care about the terminology it's irrelevant to the facts and is a man made concept.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Here is NASA disagreeing with a fundamental christian who beleives noah's ark was real.
This would be enough for most people, see how the different lines of evidence point to the same thing? that's what happens when something is correct. everything is consistent with warming.
-
Get this through your brick head. Fossil fuels are the PAST, PRESENT, and the FUTURE.
They're not going anywhere, no matter what you and your clueless deluded treehugging brethren keep chirping.
That's what so much of the hysteria is over - fossil fuels. Those with vested interests in trying to destroy fossil fuels such as Tom Steyer or in trying to destroy American-based oil companies such as Soros have their flunkies whip everyone into a frenzy over the temperature rising a percent every ten thousand years or whatever. They fail to mention that scientists not in on the propaganda will tell you that cold temperatures are actually worse, and that there's no proof we're the cause anyway.
And then you have China and other countries who won't do anything to slow down pollution they're creating no matter what. There's no point in us destroying our economy by going to unreasonable and excessive levels of attempting to control our own pollution as long as they're not lowering theirs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenpeace-cofounder-patrick-moore-tells-us-senate-there-is-no-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-9159627.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/greenpeace-cofounder-patrick-moore-tells-us-senate-there-is-no-proof-humans-cause-climate-change-9159627.html)
As for American oil companies, the big boys actually put a great deal of time and money into alternative energies. Another myth perpetuated by those trying to destroy the oil companies is that oil companies are only into oil and want to destroy all other possible sources of energy. Exxon and Chevron have some of the smartest people on earth working for them.
An “all of the above” approach to energy is best, and is in fact what major oil / energy companies live by, believe it or not. It’s those on the far left who actually DON’T follow the “all of the above” – they want to take fossil fuels out of the equation.
It’s not practical at this time to abandon fossil fuels. Energy needs to be affordable, reliable, reasonably efficient, and able to be mass produced on a big enough level quickly enough to be able to serve our needs. When we have alternative energies that can do that, they will be in demand and “oil” companies and everyone else will be onboard.
Alternative forms of energy have to be good enough to survive in the free market. You cannot have big govt forcing such forms of energy on everyone, giving such companies special favors while deliberately trying to destroy oil companies, and bailing their chosen companies out with our tax dollars over and over when their products don’t work on a large scale the way they need to.
-
You talk so like you are sure, we didn't do it and we can't stop it, keep going guys. As for the evidence let's get to it shall we? I mean you should be able to rebutt my points right? Also, how can you say the globe isn't heating up yet you state it has "barely increased half a degree", without me having to point it out to you are you aware this contradicts your whole position, it's even you rebutted yourself, awesome. That's what one should see when someon doesn't have an understanding or clear concise framework to spring from, you are just spouting bullshit.
We know greenhouse gases can destroy a planet, we have VENUS as a model, hence you assertion that we didn't or can't cause a shift is ridiculous. We are pumping out more and more greenhouse gases, at some point it will become runaway and we will all have to deal with it.
You are the one arguing peripheral issues such as semantics, I don't care about the terminology it's irrelevant to the facts and is a man made concept.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Here is NASA disagreeing with a fundamental christian who beleives noah's ark was real.
This would be enough for most people, see how the different lines of evidence point to the same thing? that's what happens when something is correct. everything is consistent with warming.
The buffoonery continues. How is Venus a model on how greenhouse gases destroy a planet for humans WHEN THERE WERE NO HUMANS ON VENUS in the first place?
Venus is proof of man-made global warming.....how daft can you get? We couldn't create that much greenhouse gas if we tried, much less by accident or randomly.
Try again, genius.
-
First, the word is "aloud", Einstein.
Second, I already said it. Were your brain the beneficiary of a hearty breakfast, you would have seen that long before now.
Here it is, summertime; yet, it's barely 60 degrees here in the metro KC area.
Yet, per the ramblings of a sense-deprived pine humper, we're on our way to barbecue city, unless we start driving cars that look as if they belong next to my son's PB&J sandwich, not on the road.
weather has nothing to do with overall temperatures of the globe, how don;t you get this point? seriuosly, how don't you understand this?
-
The buffoonery continues. How is Venus a model on how greenhouse gases destroy a planet for humans WHEN THERE WERE NO HUMANS ON VENUS in the first place?
Venus is proof of man-made global warming.....how daft can you get? We couldn't create that much gas if we tried, much less by accident or randomly.
Try again, genius.
Because it has a runaway greenhouse effect, increased co2 leads to melting permafrost, increased methane leaks (like we are seeing) which speeds up the process creating a positive feedback loop leading to runaway greenhouse effects. If we continue to increase C02 to never before seen levels, this is the consequence. It's history also gives us some feedback on what is likely to occur, the etiology matters not, the effects are the same. Anything else?
I also did not say it was created by man, another lie from the professional liar.
"We know greenhouse gases can destroy a planet, we have VENUS as a model, hence you assertion that we didn't or can't cause a shift is ridiculous. We are pumping out more and more greenhouse gases, at some point it will become runaway and we will all have to deal with it."
You realize man isn't the only source of green house gases correct? there are many, much worse then Carbon dioxide. What you should of inferred is that greenhouse gases can create a runaway effect that can become very serious, it's a natural consequence of excessive gases that trap heat. Simple science. What does jesus say about climatology?
You should quite now to avoid further beat downs. How arrogant are you to think you know the outcomes without actually knowning climatology? I guess that arrogance stems from having all of the secrets of the universe.
-
Actually CO2 cools the atmosphere
-
Because it has a runaway greenhouse effect, increased co2 leads to melting permafrost, increased methane leaks (like we are seeing) which speeds up the process creating a positive feedback loop leading to runaway greenhouse effects. If we continue to increase C02 to never before seen levels, this is the consequence. It's history also gives us some feedback on what is likely to occur, the etiology matters not, the effects are the same. Anything else?
I also did not say it was created by man, another lie from the professional liar.
"We know greenhouse gases can destroy a planet, we have VENUS as a model, hence you assertion that we didn't or can't cause a shift is ridiculous. We are pumping out more and more greenhouse gases, at some point it will become runaway and we will all have to deal with it."
You realize man isn't the only source of green house gases correct? there are many, much worse then Carbon dioxide. What you should of inferred is that greenhouse gases can create a runaway effect that can become very serious, it's a natural consequence of excessive gases that trap heat. Simple science. What does jesus say about climatology?
You should quite now to avoid further beat downs. How arrogant are you to think you know the outcomes without actually knowning climatology? I guess that arrogance stems from having all of the secrets of the universe.
I never claimed man was the lone source of greenhouse gases, O goofy one.
You used a planet which never had human life to show that greenhouse gases will destroy a planet for human life. How dumb is that? OH! We're talking about Necrosis, here.
Since you have no idea how much greenhouse gases started with Venus, in the first place, your claim about "runaway" gases (which you keep harping are caused by man) falls apart.
As for avoiding your so-called beat downs, you couldn't beat an egg with an electric whisk. At this point, you make the case for toenails being among the basic food groups.
-
Actually CO2 cools the atmosphere
SHHHH! There you go with that common-sense and actual fact stuff.
Treehugging propaganda comes first, facts be damned.
-
I never claimed man was the lone source of greenhouse gases, O goofy one.
You used a planet which never had human life to show that greenhouse gases will destroy a planet for human life. How dumb is that? OH! We're talking about Necrosis, here.
Since you have no idea how much greenhouse gases started with Venus, in the first place, your claim about "runaway" gases (which you keep harping are caused by man) falls apart.
As for avoiding your so-called beat downs, you couldn't beat an egg with an electric whisk. At this point, you make the case for toenails being among the basic food groups.
Well you implied it by stating venus has no humans.
It's absolutely not dumb at all, planets behave similarly and we can learn about possible outcomes by studying them, only a moron would suggest otherwise. It;s done quite often actually, so you are showing your ass here.
I never claimed that runaway greenhouse effects on venus are caused by men, another lie from the resident liar.
Intellectually this is a massacre. you are left misrepresneting my position, arguing semantics, creating strawmen etc. you are flailing which makes sense since you side with the nutjobs and minority and haven't stated one pertinent fact yet.
-
SHHHH! There you go with that common-sense and actual fact stuff.
Treehugging propaganda comes first, facts be damned.
LOLOLOLOL.
your right increasing Co2 has the benefit of cooling the planet, case closed, problem solved. It's net effect is heating, to suggest otherwise is to be a retard.
-
LOLOLOLOL.
your right increasing Co2 has the benefit of cooling the planet, case closed, problem solved. It's net effect is heating, to suggest otherwise is to be a retard.
Didn't you say something about NASA, O mush-brained one?
http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/
Incidentally, the word is "you're", not "your".
-
Well you implied it by stating venus has no humans.
It's absolutely not dumb at all, planets behave similarly and we can learn about possible outcomes by studying them, only a moron would suggest otherwise. It;s done quite often actually, so you are showing your ass here.
I never claimed that runaway greenhouse effects on venus are caused by men, another lie from the resident liar.
Intellectually this is a massacre. you are left misrepresneting my position, arguing semantics, creating strawmen etc. you are flailing which makes sense since you side with the nutjobs and minority and haven't stated one pertinent fact yet.
Facts aren't based on consensus, Mr. Clueless. 2+2 = 4, no matter how many goobers think it's 5.
The facts say the planet hasn't warmed in nearly two decades (at least), regardless of all the chirping by treehugging goofs like you.
Polar caps were supposed to have melted a decade and a half ago; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Your bleating and wailing about fossil fuels is driven by the cracked mantra of man-caused global warming.
And try reading what I actually said, for once. I never cited you as blaming Venus' greenhouse gases on man. I pointed out your cracked-skull attempt to use a planet that never possessed human life as an example of "runaway" greenhouse gases, as if the gases on that planet as it is today isn't standard fare for it.
-
Didn't you say something about NASA, O mush-brained one?
http://iceagenow.info/2013/04/nasa-study-shows-co2-cools-atmosphere/
Incidentally, the word is "you're", not "your".
Oh i no you're, and know, and all of the bullshit you seem to care about. Glad you posted this article, this will be a beacon to all that Mcway can not critically appraise something, will believe anything to suit his position and is a liar.
"NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface"
Pay attention retard, it reflects solar radiation from the UPPER atomosphere, the exact same thing it does in the lower atmosphere, it traps (ie blocks) heat. This is exactly why it's a problem you INCREDIBLE FUCKING MORON.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
holy fuck you are stupid.
-
Facts aren't based on consensus, Mr. Clueless. 2+2 = 4, no matter how many goobers think it's 5.
The facts say the planet hasn't warmed in nearly two decades (at least), regardless of all the chirping by treehugging goofs like you.
Polar caps were supposed to have melted a decade and a half ago; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Your bleating and wailing about fossil fuels is driven by the cracked mantra of man-caused global warming.
And try reading what I actually said, for once. I never cited you as blaming Venus' greenhouse gases on man. I pointed out your cracked-skull attempt to use a planet that never possessed human life as an example of "runaway" greenhouse gases, as if the gases on that planet as it is today isn't standard fare for it.
Consensus in a scientific community is reached based on facts, they aren't on your side, otherwise more people would agree with you, not .1% of climatologists.
What polar caps? by how much? by when? who made this prediction? you realize they are rapidly melting in the antartic at a rapid rate, much faster then the artic, something that was predicted based on something climatologists call evidence.
With regards to Venus, just stop you have no idea what you are talking about, jesus, do a google search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Fuck I can't believe you exist. How do you function?
"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases."[8][9]
We have new evidence that liquid water was certainly on venus. In fact, we could live on venus if we could like a couple hundred kilometeres up, it's breathable, right temp, not caustic etc.
-
Facts aren't based on consensus, Mr. Clueless. 2+2 = 4, no matter how many goobers think it's 5.
The facts say the planet hasn't warmed in nearly two decades (at least), regardless of all the chirping by treehugging goofs like you.
Link?
Polar caps were supposed to have melted a decade and a half ago; IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Your bleating and wailing about fossil fuels is driven by the cracked mantra of man-caused global warming.
And try reading what I actually said, for once. I never cited you as blaming Venus' greenhouse gases on man. I pointed out your cracked-skull attempt to use a planet that never possessed human life as an example of "runaway" greenhouse gases, as if the gases on that planet as it is today isn't standard fare for it.
-
You are so stupid. I have posted links on this thread and many other threads PROVING that the planet has not warmed in over a decade. More and more scientists have confirmed this is true.
Idiots like you just choose to reject all of it because Al Gore infected your tiny brains with lies. You provide some evidence to the contrary. You can't. Period.
-
I thought libtards said that it was settled science?
It isn't and never will be BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MAN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.
Here are two more scientists that have come to their senses:
Leo vs. science: vanishing evidence for climate change
http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/
In the runup to the Sept. 23 UN Climate Summit in New York, Leonardo DiCaprio is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis.”
The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio says.
But he has identified the wrong monster. It is the climate scare itself that is the real threat to civilization.
DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled
Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
Yes, the “executive summary” of reports from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change continues to sound the alarm — but the summary is written by the politicians. The scientific bulk of the report, while still tinged with improper advocacy, has all but thrown in the towel.
And the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the supposed “consensus” model.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
Consider:
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
Link: http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
Consider:
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
Oh god, no dario is parroting another fraud like coach.
Mr. Gordon Fulks ladies and gentlemen, a physicist with no education in climatology has one hundred scientists on his side.
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/
"As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science."
This mother fucker hasn't published shit in the field ever, and the last time he did science was in 1975 you fucking moron.
He does no science and works at a right wing think tank. How stupid are you people? you will believe anything to suit your bias.
-
This dude was also canned from his job for being a raging moron. He supported this slideshow, which is all politics and fuckign conspiracy theories, he presnted these arguments as such was fired, namely for being un ethical.
http://www.slideshare.net/sholom770/global-warming-cracked-open
-
Consensus in a scientific community is reached based on facts, they aren't on your side, otherwise more people would agree with you, not .1% of climatologists.
What polar caps? by how much? by when? who made this prediction? you realize they are rapidly melting in the antartic at a rapid rate, much faster then the artic, something that was predicted based on something climatologists call evidence.
With regards to Venus, just stop you have no idea what you are talking about, jesus, do a google search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Fuck I can't believe you exist. How do you function?
"It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases."[8][9]
We have new evidence that liquid water was certainly on venus. In fact, we could live on venus if we could like a couple hundred kilometeres up, it's breathable, right temp, not caustic etc.
Once again, you leave your brain at the door and rely on a consensus of quacks, just like consensus of alchemists who swore lead could be turned to gold.
Notice the word, "speculated". It's just like the treehugging blather on global warming which has been rendered inconclusive at best or flat-out false at worst.
You can thank the global warming poster boy, Al Gore, for the polar cap debacle.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-gone-now
In fact, didn't some treehuggers get stuck in some ice (that wasn't supposed to be there) for a week ?
-
Once again, you leave your brain at the door and rely on a consensus of quacks, just like consensus of alchemists who swore lead could be turned to gold.
Notice the word, "speculated". It's just like the treehugging blather on global warming which has been rendered inconclusive at best or flat-out false at worst.
You can thank the global warming poster boy, Al Gore, for the polar cap debacle.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-gone-now
In fact, didn't some treehuggers get stuck in some ice (that wasn't supposed to be there) for a week ?
Gore got filthy stinkin' rich off global warming and also off insider trading based upon nonpublic info he was privy to as a senator as well. It was perfectly legal for congressmen to do such for many years. But if you or I had done the same thing ol' Al did when he did it, we'd have been put in jail and labeled criminals.
-
Once again, you leave your brain at the door and rely on a consensus of quacks, just like consensus of alchemists who swore lead could be turned to gold.
Notice the word, "speculated". It's just like the treehugging blather on global warming which has been rendered inconclusive at best or flat-out false at worst.
You can thank the global warming poster boy, Al Gore, for the polar cap debacle.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/08/31/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-gone-now
In fact, didn't some treehuggers get stuck in some ice (that wasn't supposed to be there) for a week ?
LOL.
Alchemy was as advanced as climatology with computer simulated models, massive data bases, multiple lines of evidence etc. Alchemy existed when things like religion were invented because facts didn't matter, like they don't to you.
You are being embarrassed moron, you posted a bullshit article takign a NASA news blip out context, then when raped you just moved to the next lie. Do you know deep down you are a liar and charlatan? is there any sense of shame left? how much can you lie?
-
Oh god, no dario is parroting another fraud like coach.
Mr. Gordon Fulks ladies and gentlemen, a physicist with no education in climatology has one hundred scientists on his side.
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/
"As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science."
This mother fucker hasn't published shit in the field ever, and the last time he did science was in 1975 you fucking moron.
He does no science and works at a right wing think tank. How stupid are you people? you will believe anything to suit your bias.
Where you at, Dario?
Did you do any reading about Gordon Fulks before you posted his words o' wisdom?
-
I live in the Pacific Northwest. We've had one of the hottest and longest summers since I moved here in 1966. The forests around Estacada are burning down right now. Scientist suggest this is our hottest summer on record....ever. -Doesn't seem like things are cooling down to me.
-
I live in the Pacific Northwest. We've had one of the hottest and longest summers since I moved here in 1966. The forests around Estacada are burning down right now. Scientist suggest this is our hottest summer on record....ever. -Doesn't seem like things are cooling down to me.
They aren't these people are using false data and outright lies like Dario is.
What boggles my mind is why? aburpt shifts in climate are NEVER good.
-
Oh god, no dario is parroting another fraud like coach.
Mr. Gordon Fulks ladies and gentlemen, a physicist with no education in climatology has one hundred scientists on his side.
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/gordon-j-fulks/
"As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science."
This mother fucker hasn't published shit in the field ever, and the last time he did science was in 1975 you fucking moron.
He does no science and works at a right wing think tank. How stupid are you people? you will believe anything to suit your bias.
And how does any of that contradict any of these facts, you nitwit?
According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
Where you at, Dario?
Did you do any reading about Gordon Fulks before you posted his words o' wisdom?
I am right here, sheeple.
This is how I responded. In other words prove these facts wrong instead of attacking the messenger, as you libtards like to do when the facts are not on your side. And these are not evidence created by Mr. Fulks.
And how does any of that contradict any of these facts, you nitwit?
According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
I am right here, sheeple.
This is how I responded. In other words prove these facts wrong instead of attacking the messenger, as you libtards like to do when the facts are not on your side. And these are not evidence created by Mr. Fulks.
Hey, you could be right that this guy who seems to be some sort of crackpot could be 100% right and other scientists with training & education that is much more current could be flat wrong. Who knows? It's a funny world sometimes.
But you're not answering the question so I'll ask again:
Did you know this negative stuff about Gordon Fulks before you made your post?
BTW, you should say, "THIS is not evidence" not "THESE is not evidence" -- Grammatically, "evidence" is a singular noun, my ESL-Getbig brotha.
-
I live in the Pacific Northwest. We've had one of the hottest and longest summers since I moved here in 1966. The forests around Estacada are burning down right now. Scientist suggest this is our hottest summer on record....ever. -Doesn't seem like things are cooling down to me.
Then I'll trade you. I live in the Midwest and this is the coldest it's been in decades. Last week, the temps were under 70 degrees. During my date with my wife Saturday night, it was freezing.
-
LOL.
Alchemy was as advanced as climatology with computer simulated models, massive data bases, multiple lines of evidence etc. Alchemy existed when things like religion were invented because facts didn't matter, like they don't to you.
You are being embarrassed moron, you posted a bullshit article takign a NASA news blip out context, then when raped you just moved to the next lie. Do you know deep down you are a liar and charlatan? is there any sense of shame left? how much can you lie?
Congratulations, Doofus! You're down to 4 toes.
Listen to what you just said: Computer-simulated models....not ACTUAL measures of temperatures but simulations, ones shown to be dead wrong time again.
And what's with this talk about rape? Is there something you wish to share with the class, not that there's anything wrong with that?
Of course, you ducked and dodged Gore's miserably failed predictions on the polar caps, not to mention the numbskulls stuck in the very ice that said melted away. To top it all off, they needed other ships, POWERED BY FOSSIL FUELS (gasp!!), to save their sorry behinds.
Alchemy and climatologists peddle BS, despite what actual facts and reality show.
Somewhere in that ill-used sponge of yours, disguised as a brain, there's a clue dying to be used.
-
Congratulations, Doofus! You're down to 4 toes.
Listen to what you just said: Computer-simulated models....not ACTUAL measures of temperatures but simulations, ones shown to be dead wrong time again.
Ahh no they haven't they have been ultra accurate moron. Hence the consensus across the globe only morons dispute it
And what's with this talk about rape? Is there something you wish to share with the class, not that there's anything wrong with that?
Of course, you ducked and dodged Gore's miserably failed predictions on the polar caps, not to mention the numbskulls stuck in the very ice that said melted away. To top it all off, they needed other ships, POWERED BY FOSSIL FUELS (gasp!!), to save their sorry behinds.
Gore is not a climatologist I have no idea what he claimed, I have never seen his stupid movie or anything else, again this has no bearing on the fact of climate change, even if true.
Alchemy and climatologists peddle BS, despite what actual facts and reality show.
So the worlds scientists are deluded? says the guy who believes in noahs ark and talking snakes.
Somewhere in that ill-used sponge of yours, disguised as a brain, there's a clue dying to be used.
Do I really need to keep going? you are a liar, how do you sleep at night knowing this?
-
Do I really need to keep going? you are a liar, how do you sleep at night knowing this?
Sleeping's easy for me, especially when you speak the truth.
The consensus among treehuggers has ZILCH to do with facts. It's about pushing a political and anti-capitalist agenda, as admitted by many green goofs. Of course, the anti-capitalist stuff is (as with many left-winged policies) for everyone ELSE. See Al Gore, who sucks up more fossil fuels than some small towns, who yaps about sharing wealth via high taxes for the rich (while trying to beat Obama's tax hike in 2012 by unloading Current TV before the end of the year).
You have no idea what Gore said? Ummmmm.....genius! I posted what he said. It's in black and white.
You're buying the global warming crap here; so apparently, you're the one believing in talking snakes who made you think you can save the planet by driving windup cars.
And like a good treehugger, you pull the usual bait-and-switch with terms, i.e. "climate change" vs. "global warming".
-
Sleeping's easy for me, especially when you speak the truth.
The consensus among treehuggers has ZILCH to do with facts. It's about pushing a political and anti-capitalist agenda, as admitted by many green goofs. Of course, the anti-capitalist stuff is (as with many left-winged policies) for everyone ELSE. See Al Gore, who sucks up more fossil fuels than some small towns, who yaps about sharing wealth via high taxes for the rich (while trying to beat Obama's tax hike in 2012 by unloading Current TV before the end of the year).
You have no idea what Gore said? Ummmmm.....genius! I posted what he said. It's in black and white.
You're buying the global warming crap here; so apparently, you're the one believing in talking snakes who made you think you can save the planet by driving windup cars.
So what you are suggesting is the 97% of the WORLDS climatologists despite different religious backgrounds, ethnicities and political leanings are all in on it. Conservatives who agree with rational folk are tree huggers, countries like China, all tree huggers. Listen just stick to lying to your kids about the origins of life and leave the thinking to people who aren't afraid to face reality.
I don't give a fuck about Al Gore, he has no bearing, listen I will grant you that Al Gore is wrong or whatever, it makes no fucking difference to the facts.
Why don't you reject all of science, un hook your computer, smash your cell phone, shun anti-biotics based on evolutionary theory etc you won't, but you are fine obfuscating the issues so that people who want to progress must drag your lazy ass along.
-
The penchant of people with little or no scientific background (save maybe a highschool course or two) to challenge a science they know nothing and to dismiss theories they cannot even articulate - much less understand - as bogus is endlessly amusing to me.
-
The penchant of people with little or no scientific background (save maybe a highschool course or two) to challenge a science they know nothing and to dismiss theories they cannot even articulate - much less understand - as bogus is endlessly amusing to me.
This fucking moron (mcway) doesn't have a sweet clue about what he is talking about, he posted the debunked out of context nasa paper and when challenged just keeps it moving.
-
This fucking moron (mcway) doesn't have a sweet clue about what he is talking about, he posted the debunked out of context nasa paper and when challenged just keeps it moving.
That honor falls on you, mushbrain, using a planet that never had human life to push this treehugging claptrap.
Did you just mention China? Oh brother! If there's one country that spite in the face of your green goofiness, it's that one.
Nearly two decades..... No warming, despite blathering to the contrary. And it's easy to see why you play dumb (for which you deserve an Oscar, if such is indeed an act) when it comes to Gore's miserably failed predictions, based on the very same "consensus" that you repeatedly and foolishly bleat.
-
That honor falls on you, mushbrain, using a planet that never had human life to push this treehugging claptrap.
Did you just mention China? Oh brother! If there's one country that spite in the face of your green goofiness, it's that one.
Nearly two decades..... No warming, despite blathering to the contrary. And it's easy to see why you play dumb (for which you deserve an Oscar, if such is indeed an act) when it comes to Gore's miserably failed predictions, based on the very same "consensus" that you repeatedly and foolishly bleat.
What is your credentials regarding climate change Mcway?
-
So what you are suggesting is the 97% of the WORLDS climatologists despite different religious backgrounds, ethnicities and political leanings are all in on it. Conservatives who agree with rational folk are tree huggers, countries like China, all tree huggers. Listen just stick to lying to your kids about the origins of life and leave the thinking to people who aren't afraid to face reality.
I don't give a fuck about Al Gore, he has no bearing, listen I will grant you that Al Gore is wrong or whatever, it makes no fucking difference to the facts.
Why don't you reject all of science, un hook your computer, smash your cell phone, shun anti-biotics based on evolutionary theory etc you won't, but you are fine obfuscating the issues so that people who want to progress must drag your lazy ass along.
When you give up drinking pasteurized dairy and swear off vaccinations (pioneered by a guy who skewered one of evolution's biggest tenets, spontaneous generation) you can run your mouth about my giving up my computer without looking more buffoonish than you currently do.
-
When you give up drinking pasteurized dairy and swear off vaccinations (pioneered by a guy who skewered one of evolution's biggest tenets, spontaneous generation) you can run your mouth about my giving up my computer without looking more buffoonish than you currently do.
The only thing Pasteur showed is that complex life does not spontaneously arise out of non-life in nature. Of course, the theory of evolution doesn't say that it does, so Pasteur's position on the topic is, in no way an attack in or challenge of the theory of evolution.
I know it's in vogue to claim that spontaneous generation is an issue with the theory because "shit, I ain't never seen mud turn into that there puppy-dog!" But it's a silly attack based on a silly premise.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
-
What is your credentials regarding climate change Mcway?
My "credentials" would be common sense, critical thinking, and the simple ability to read thermometers (and read, period).
As stated earlier, treehuggers can't make up their minds. 40 years ago, we were going to freeze to death. When that got torpedoed, then came "global warming", the lone cure for which (of course) was abandoning fossil fuels, driving crappy cars, getting hit with ridiculous taxes and regulations, and a systematic curtailing of liberty......even as the very champions of this green mess exempt themselves from what they impose on the common folk.
It's quite simple: If you predict the polar caps will melt away by the turn of the century but they don't, even a decade and a half later, your predictions are bogus. Same goes for wailing about warming, despite none happening in nearly two decades.
-
The only thing Pasteur showed is that complex life does not spontaneously arise out of non-life in nature. Of course, the theory of evolution doesn't say that it does, so Pasteur's position on the topic is, in no way an attack in or challenge of the theory of evolution.
Of course, it doesn't say that........NOW. Our evolutionist brethren had to jettison that one, thanks to old Louie
I know it's in vogue to claim that spontaneous generation is an issue with the theory because "shit, I ain't never seen mud turn into that there puppy-dog!" But it's a silly attack based on a silly premise.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Is it any sillier than the notion that one must forfeit technological advances, if he DARES disagree with the sacred cow of evolution?
-
My "credentials" would be common sense, critical thinking, and the simple ability to read thermometers (and read, period).
As stated earlier, treehuggers can't make up their minds. 40 years ago, we were going to freeze to death. When that got torpedoed, then came "global warming", the lone cure for which (of course) was abandoning fossil fuels, driving crappy cars, getting hit with ridiculous taxes and regulations, and a systematic curtailing of liberty......even as the very champions of this green mess exempt themselves from what they impose on the common folk.
It's quite simple: If you predict the polar caps will melt away by the turn of the century but they don't, even a decade and a half later, your predictions are bogus. Same goes for wailing about warming, despite none happening in nearly two decades.
That is impressive.
-
thermometers measure global temperature.
-
Of course, it doesn't say that........NOW. Our evolutionist brethren had to jettison that one, thanks to old Louie
The theory of evolution never asserted that complex life just arose. But even if it had, that's how science works: we observe something and we formulate a hypothesis. We then expand that hypothesis into a theory, which we can test by using to make predictions. If the theory can successfully predict outcomes our confidence in it is bolstered; if it doesn't, we can see if adjusting the theory based on our new understanding works. If it does, great - our theory now works better. If it doesn't, also great: we have gained new knowledge, and we can study to better understand the world around us.
I know this is a radical concept for you and you believe that science happens when a bunch of people get together wearing their white lab coats to scheme about new ways to confound you. And I am sorry to have to burst your bubble.
Is it any sillier than the notion that one must forfeit technological advances, if he DARES disagree with the sacred cow of evolution?
You can disagree all you want, but unless you can provide credible testable evidence that the theory of evolution fails in some critical, unknown and unexplainable way then you will be ignored. And no, your license to use technological advances won't be revoked, but you will be treated like the nutjob you are - and rightly so.
My "credentials" would be common sense, critical thinking, and the simple ability to read thermometers (and read, period).
You will forgive me, but your thinking hardly seems critical. Anytime you adopt the kind of attitude you have displayed in this thread, dismissing out-of-hand a theory you do not even understand based on a professed (and as yet unproven) ability to read thermometers you are showcasing the diametrical opposite of critical thinking.
Global warming isn't disputed because last winter was cold anymore than the earth being round isn't disputed because it looked flat last time you went up your local hill and looked around.
The evidence is pretty convincing that the earth is warming. What's up for debate are two things: first, whether the cause of the warming is caused by us (i.e. anthropogenic global warming) or merely the result of natural long-term warming and cooling cycles that are natural. Second, if it's caused by us whether we need to do anything and, if so, what that is.
Again, sorry to burst your bubble. If it's any consolation I'm sure that you'll go back to foaming at the mouth about some other topic on which your understanding is, let's be polite and say less than nuanced.
You may now, again, get back to your critical thinking.
-
Funniest thread I've read here in a while.
This might add to the funny:
-
As I thought NONE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE SHEEPLE WERE ABLE TO PROVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY MAN EVEN EXISTS.
I will continue bumping this thread until the morons can prove MAN MADE greenhouse effect or global warming or climate change or whatever it's name is now actually exists.
For now, these are the facts THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISPROVE:
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
As I thought NONE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE SHEEPLE WERE ABLE TO PROVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSED BY MAN EVEN EXISTS.
I will continue bumping this thread until the morons can prove MAN MADE greenhouse effect or global warming or climate change or whatever it's name is now actually exists.
For now, these are the facts THAT NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISPROVE:
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
I will entertain you one more time.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
As you can see from the graphs NASA indicates that global temperature is rising, at a rapid pace.
Also, according to NASA there is a 3.17mm/year increase in sea level, almost double the rate we saw in the 1800's.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You are posting lies, told by a liar.
-
Getbig=teh stupid.
hahahahaha
-
I will entertain you one more time.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
As you can see from the graphs NASA indicates that global temperature is rising, at a rapid pace.
Also, according to NASA there is a 3.17mm/year increase in sea level, almost double the rate we saw in the 1800's.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You are posting lies, told by a liar.
You are posting BS that has already been shown to be incorrect.
Again. The most up to date information is this:
Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
It is a fact that the earth has not seen in 15 years the rise in temperature that global warming morons predicted.
Man made global warming or climate change is a myth.
-
I will entertain you one more time.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
As you can see from the graphs NASA indicates that global temperature is rising, at a rapid pace.
Also, according to NASA there is a 3.17mm/year increase in sea level, almost double the rate we saw in the 1800's.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You are posting lies, told by a liar.
Again you are posting BS.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record
Despite the alarmist “climate” claims made in an official press conference, the latest temperature data from two U.S. government bureaucracies actually show that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming that began some 17 years ago is still ongoing. The findings for last year, unveiled to reporters by NASA and NOAA on January 21, also showed that Antarctic sea ice extent in September of 2013 was the highest ever documented since records began.
The establishment media and the taxpayer-funded climate alarmists, as usual, tried to avoid the troublesome issues — or they at least tried to confuse the public by citing dubious theories purporting to explain the conflict between reality and the climate predictions. However, experts said the latest temperature data offered further evidence that United Nations theories and forecasts surrounding alleged catastrophic man-made global warming are simply wrong.
Perhaps the most broadly overlooked element in the latest data presented by NOAA and NASA is the fact that, as The New American has been reporting for months, Antarctic sea ice extent was at never-before-seen highs throughout much of 2013. In March of last year, meanwhile, ice coverage was the second largest on record. The previous record highs were set in 2012, only to be overtaken in 2013.
-
HEHEHEEHEHE!!
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
-
I will entertain you one more time.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
As you can see from the graphs NASA indicates that global temperature is rising, at a rapid pace.
Also, according to NASA there is a 3.17mm/year increase in sea level, almost double the rate we saw in the 1800's.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
You are posting lies, told by a liar.
This crap you posted has already been proven to be a lie.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA
Scientists at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been caught out manipulating temperature data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".
The evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments.
When the raw data is used, there is little if any evidence of global warming and some evidence of global cooling. However, once the data has been adjusted - ie [size20pt]fabricated by computer models [/size] - 20th century 'global warming' suddenly looks much more dramatic.
This is especially noticeable on the US temperature records. Before 2000, it was generally accepted - even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s.
As Hansen himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.
However, Hansen subsequently changed his tune when, sometime after 2000, the temperatures were adjusted to accord with the climate alarmists' fashionable "global warming" narrative. By cooling the record-breaking year of 1934, and promoting 1998 as the hottest year in US history, the scientists who made the adjustments were able suddenly to show 20th century temperatures shooting up - where before they looked either flat or declining.
But as Goddard notes, the Environmental Protection Agency's heatwave record makes a mockery of these adjustments. It quite clearly shows that the US heat waves of the 1930s were of an order of magnitude greater than anything experienced at any other time during the century - far more severe than those in the 1980s or 1990s which were no worse than those in the 1950s.
These adjustments, however, are not limited to the US temperature data sets. Similar fabrications have taken place everywhere from Iceland to Australia.
-
Darn it, dario! Use a bigger font. I can't see your posts.
-
HEHEHEEHEHE!!
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
And, darn it to heck, them polar caps keep growing.
http://m.thenewamerican.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenewamerican.com%2Ftech%2Fenvironment%2Fitem%2F19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/#2703
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/
-
And, darn it to heck, them polar caps keep growing.
No, no, no!
You are supposed to ignore the real world simply because NASA, an agency who gets its funding from a government made up mostly of libtards that keep pushing the environmentalist agenda, tells you so.
-
No, no, no!
You are supposed to ignore the real world simply because NASA, an agency who gets its funding from a government made up mostly of libtards that keep pushing the environmentalist agenda, tells you so.
You people are so fucking amusing...
-
It's like a bizzaro world or some shit. These morons keep posting false articles that are opinion pieces of people with no education in the field. For example right there in the NASA link you can see the amt of ice melt in different regions. Either NASA has incorrect info or MCWAY is lying, wonder which one it is. Let's see, people who dedicate their lives to studying climate or a bible thumping right wing nut case?
-
No, no, no!
You are supposed to ignore the real world simply because NASA, an agency who gets its funding from a government made up mostly of libtards that keep pushing the environmentalist agenda, tells you so.
Yes the fossil fuel industry is broke and powerless with no influence at all were as the enviromentalist's is controling everything.
Try thinking instead of just repeating what they tell you on your favorite tv shows.
-
You people are so fucking amusing...
We could say the same for you and your fellow pine lover, Necrosis.
Listening to you two chirp about BS that repeatedly gets chopped down with each passing year has had me in stitches. I won't speak for Dario; but if I had a guess, I'd say he's equally as tickled by your blind devotion to treehugging tripe.
It's like a bizzaro world or some shit. These morons keep posting false articles that are opinion pieces of people with no education in the field. For example right there in the NASA link you can see the amt of ice melt in different regions. Either NASA has incorrect info or MCWAY is lying, wonder which one it is. Let's see, people who dedicate their lives to studying climate or a bible thumping right wing nut case?
Speaking of buffoonery personified, here he is.
It is bizarro world. Treehuggers say ice is supposed to have melted away. Ice is still there and increasing in volume.....Bizarro world goofies still claim global warming is melting that ice away.
Once again, the projection by your treehugging buddies continue to come up false. And like the clue-bereft simpleton that you are, you attack the source, when you can't refute the actual facts.
Explain why, for the umpteenth time, these polar caps are "baffling" to the green goofballs who swore up and down that they were to have melted away.
Now what should I believe, the caps that are there in increasing size, or an environmental pine-humping imbecile who checked his brain at the door to believe foolishness, driven by POLITICAL ideology not actual (and literally, in this case) cold-hard FACTS?
-
No, no, no!
You are supposed to ignore the real world simply because NASA, an agency who gets its funding from a government made up mostly of libtards that keep pushing the environmentalist agenda, tells you so.
You mean like those guys who got stuck in the very ice, that they swore before God and four more white people, wasn't supposed to be there and had melted away?
-
We could say the same for you and your fellow pine lover, Necrosis.
Listening to you two chirp about BS that repeatedly gets chopped down with each passing year has had me in stitches. I won't speak for Dario; but if I had a guess, I'd say he's equally as tickled by your blind devotion to treehugging tripe.
My "blind devotion to treehugging tripe"? Please, do point out exactly what I said to make you suspect I am a treehugger, much less a blindly devoted one. I'm waiting asshole.
-
We could say the same for you and your fellow pine lover, Necrosis.
Listening to you two chirp about BS that repeatedly gets chopped down with each passing year has had me in stitches. I won't speak for Dario; but if I had a guess, I'd say he's equally as tickled by your blind devotion to treehugging tripe.
The evidence has only gotten stronger, hence the 97% consensus across the globe. Only idiots like you indoctrinated by right wing propaganda without the ability to think question it.
It is bizarro world. Treehuggers say ice is supposed to have melted away. Ice is still there and increasing in volume.....Bizarro world goofies still claim global warming is melting that ice away.
Tons of ice has melted, the antartic is crippled, for the first time in history the ice sheet is collapsing, green land is losing ice at an alarming rate, the artic has increased in density due to packing, with an overall loss. We both can't be right, you rely on your distrust for al gore, and I will rely on satellite images and intense scientific analysis ::)
Once again, the projection by your treehugging buddies continue to come up false. And like the clue-bereft simpleton that you are, you attack the source, when you can't refute the actual facts.
Explain why, for the umpteenth time, these polar caps are "baffling" to the green goofballs who swore up and down that they were to have melted away.
That was never said, in fact look at the new predictions for ice loss, no one with any education would say anything so stupid, sounds like you get your information from political sources.
Now what should I believe, the caps that are there in increasing size, or an environmental pine-humping imbecile who checked his brain at the door to believe foolishness, driven by POLITICAL ideology not actual (and literally, in this case) cold-hard FACTS?
What do you mean in size? increasing the amt of ice? that's not happening at all, you are a liar.
Again you are a fucking liar.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php
"Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline steepened after the turn of the twenty-first century. In September 2002, the summer minimum ice extent was the lowest it had been since 1979. Although the September 2002 low was only slightly below previous lows (from the 1990s), it was the beginning of a series of record or near-record lows in the Arctic.
The new lows, combined with poor wintertime recoveries from 2004 to 2007, heralded a sharpening in the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice. Since 2002, ice extent at the summer minimum has not returned to anything approaching the long-term average (1979-2000)."
This is where any facts you can come up with orginated, that is NASA controls the sattelites etc any major measuring was done by them, so I am to believe that they are lying and that your right wing nutjob links are right?
Want more liar?
"In the summer of 2007, Arctic sea ice extent set a record low in early August—more than a month before the end of the melt season. That September, the preferred northern navigation route through the Northwest Passage opened. In the following years, summer sea ice had some relatively higher extents, though nothing approaching normal conditions. Then in 2012, a new record low was set—more than 700,000 square kilometers below the 2007 minimum"
Growing huh?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/19/doubling-of-antarctic-ice-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite
"Antarctica is shedding 160 billion tonnes a year of ice into the ocean, twice the amount of a few years ago, according to new satellite observations. The ice loss is adding to the rising sea levels driven by climate change and even east Antarctica is now losing ice.
The new revelations follows the announcement last week that the collapse of the western Antarctica ice sheet has already begun and is unstoppable, although it may take many centuries to complete."
Can you post that neat link about c02 cooling the atmosphere again? that was really interesting ::) Seriously stop, you are being manhandled because you are a liar. I would just leave now, the thread is already bad enough. You posting fake info, retardedly mis-represented info, supporting known frauds etc.
-
The evidence has only gotten stronger, hence the 97% consensus across the globe. Only idiots like you indoctrinated by right wing propaganda without the ability to think question it.
If the evidence had been getting stronger, the treehugger crew wouldn't have been busted falsifying data; NOR would they find it "baffling" as to why ice keeps increasing in spots where they swear it's supposed to be gone.
But, like most sheep, you equate consensus with accuracy. That's yypical of left-winged propaganda minus the ability to think or question or see the blatantly obvious, as is chiding someone of using right-wing propaganda while using left-wing propaganda.
Tons of ice has melted, the antartic is crippled, for the first time in history the ice sheet is collapsing, green land is losing ice at an alarming rate, the artic has increased in density due to packing, with an overall loss. We both can't be right, you rely on your distrust for al gore, and I will rely on satellite images and intense scientific analysis ::)
Al Gore relies on the same CRAP that you do. And, like you, he contiues to spew that nonense, despite the facts to the contrary.
That was never said, in fact look at the new predictions for ice loss, no one with any education would say anything so stupid, sounds like you get your information from political sources.
Oh, it's been said. That's why they keep scramlbling for excuses as to why those pesky caps aint cooperating with their predictions.
What do you mean in size? increasing the amt of ice? that's not happening at all, you are a liar.
Again you are a fucking liar.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php
"Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline steepened after the turn of the twenty-first century. In September 2002, the summer minimum ice extent was the lowest it had been since 1979. Although the September 2002 low was only slightly below previous lows (from the 1990s), it was the beginning of a series of record or near-record lows in the Arctic.
The new lows, combined with poor wintertime recoveries from 2004 to 2007, heralded a sharpening in the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice. Since 2002, ice extent at the summer minimum has not returned to anything approaching the long-term average (1979-2000)."
This is where any facts you can come up with orginated, that is NASA controls the sattelites etc any major measuring was done by them, so I am to believe that they are lying and that your right wing nutjob links are right?
I don't care what you believe, Einstein. The facts are what they are. Your screaming "liar" like a pentulant child doesn't change that.
Want more liar?
"In the summer of 2007, Arctic sea ice extent set a record low in early August—more than a month before the end of the melt season. That September, the preferred northern navigation route through the Northwest Passage opened. In the following years, summer sea ice had some relatively higher extents, though nothing approaching normal conditions. Then in 2012, a new record low was set—more than 700,000 square kilometers below the 2007 minimum"
Bring whatever you got, goofball.
Growing huh?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/19/doubling-of-antarctic-ice-loss-revealed-by-european-satellite
"Antarctica is shedding 160 billion tonnes a year of ice into the ocean, twice the amount of a few years ago, according to new satellite observations. The ice loss is adding to the rising sea levels driven by climate change and even east Antarctica is now losing ice.
The new revelations follows the announcement last week that the collapse of the western Antarctica ice sheet has already begun and is unstoppable, although it may take many centuries to complete."
Can you post that neat link about c02 cooling the atmosphere again? that was really interesting ::) Seriously stop, you are being manhandled because you are a liar. I would just leave now, the thread is already bad enough. You posting fake info, retardedly mis-represented info, supporting known frauds etc.
YEP!! GROWING!!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/05/15/someone-tell-record-polar-ice-cap-it-should-be-melting
Here's more of that so-called melting ice on which you can chew.
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-second-all-time-record-in-a-week/
-
My "blind devotion to treehugging tripe"? Please, do point out exactly what I said to make you suspect I am a treehugger, much less a blindly devoted one. I'm waiting asshole.
You mean other than THIS?
Global warming isn't disputed because last winter was cold anymore than the earth being round isn't disputed because it looked flat last time you went up your local hill and looked around.
The evidence is pretty convincing that the earth is warming. What's up for debate are two things: first, whether the cause of the warming is caused by us (i.e. anthropogenic global warming) or merely the result of natural long-term warming and cooling cycles that are natural. Second, if it's caused by us whether we need to do anything and, if so, what that is.
-
If the evidence had been getting stronger, the treehugger crew wouldn't have been busted falsifying data; NOR would they find it "baffling" as to why ice keeps increasing in spots where they swear it's supposed to be gone.
But, like most sheep, you equate consensus with accuracy. That's yypical of left-winged propaganda minus the ability to think or question or see the blatantly obvious, as is chiding someone of using right-wing propaganda while using left-wing propaganda.
Al Gore relies on the same CRAP that you do. And, like you, he contiues to spew that nonense, despite the facts to the contrary.
Oh, it's been said. That's why they keep scramlbling for excuses as to why those pesky caps aint cooperating with their predictions.
I don't care what you believe, Einstein. The facts are what they are. Your screaming "liar" like a pentulant child doesn't change that.
Bring whatever you got, goofball.
YEP!! GROWING!!
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/05/15/someone-tell-record-polar-ice-cap-it-should-be-melting
Here's more of that so-called melting ice on which you can chew.
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-second-all-time-record-in-a-week/
I literally just posted data and direct quotes from NASA (the same info this moron is using) that completely contradicts you. Nice try with your opinion articles on one month of ice (cherry pick much?) written by a moron. Seriously just stop, you are obviously incorrect, NASA itself is refuting you, you are a moron with no education.
The heartland institute? really?
You mean the James L Taylor that has repeatdly been caught lying and mis representing research? odd you keep selecting frauds, might be because you are on the side of faith not fact, emotions not reason.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/
I also want you to get this through your stupid fucking head.
"A recent literature review found that out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate science studies since 1991, only 24 reject human-caused global warming."
No one agrees with you expect your nut case big oil buddies moron. Oil and gas is literally the only one fighting this, the debate is done, it's settled, the only people that matter have made a conclusion, it's warming up and it's us.
-
I literally just posted data and direct quotes from NASA (the same info this moron is using) that completely contradicts you. Nice try with your opinion articles on one month of ice (cherry pick much?) written by a moron. Seriously just stop, you are obviously incorrect, NASA itself is refuting you, you are a moron with no education.
Tell that to my Bachelor's degree in engineering, goofy one.
The heartland institute? really?
Yes, really. Attacking the source, as usual, because it doesn't match your treehugging tripe. Oh, I guess 2+2 isn't 4 anymore, beause the Heartland Institute reported it as such.
You mean the James L Taylor that has repeatdly been caught lying and mis representing research? odd you keep selecting frauds, might be because you are on the side of faith not fact, emotions not reason.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/
I also want you to get this through your stupid fucking head.
"A recent literature review found that out of 13,950 peer-reviewed climate science studies since 1991, only 24 reject human-caused global warming."
No one agrees with you expect your nut case big oil buddies moron. Oil and gas is literally the only one fighting this, the debate is done, it's settled, the only people that matter have made a conclusion, it's warming up and it's us.
I don't depend on consensus to determine what is and isn't accurate. I leave that to brickheads like you.
There's no debate settled, no matter how much you squeal like a stuck pig that it is. And perenially wathcing treehuggers like you twist themselves in knots, trying to explain why caps that were to have melted havent, why temperature have been neutral for decades, etc., just make for more slapstick entertainment with those with common sense.
Incidentally (and unfortunately) I don't have any buddies in "big oil". But, just to further skwere this gibberish of yours.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/
-
You mean other than THIS?
Ah yes. Except, that statement doesn't make me a tree-hugger in any way, shape or form. In fact, I challenge you to point out a single non-factual statement in that quote, and if you can't I'm kindly suggesting that you shut the fuck up. And just to make your job easier, let me expand on that statement:
The facts are the facts: there is an observed and well-documented warming trend. That it was colder in your neck of the woods, doesn't mean there isn't a warming trend globally, anymore than the fact that you, for example, lost weight doesn't mean the the average weight in the U.S. hasn't increased. Similarly, that it was an unusually cold winter across the whole Western Hemisphere doesn't mean there isn't a warming trend globally either: a trend is, by definition, composed of multiple samples and outliers are entirely possible in the samples without necessarily affecting the trend.
What's at issue - and the source of much debate - is whether the trend is caused by humans and our activities (e.g. burning hydrocarbons) or is part of a natural warming/cooling cycle, akin to what has previously happened on the planet according to indirect evidence. That has not been established and so calling for changes in our behavior based solely on the fact that there's a warming trend is silly. There may be other reasons to change some of our behaviors - some legitimate, some not and some silly and some serious - but "because it causes global warming" isn't one of those reasons yet. Could it become one? It's possible - the jury's still out on that and I'll wait until there's enough evidence before reaching a conclusion. Because you see, I, unlike you, am a scientist and I know how to read models, examine the evidence and reach rational conclusions.
Again, if you think that anything in the above paragraphs is false or incorrect, point it out explicitly and provide a reference to back up your assertion. Don't just flap your gums in my general direction (or button-mash your keyboard as the case may be) and pretend that you are forming a cogent argument based on evidence and good science.
-
Why do issues of this type always exampled by folks from the extreme opposite sides? Some possibly over zealous environmentalist site situations which suggest the world will come to and end soon if we don't take drastic measures to change things. On the other side, we have folks who believe nothing has changed and everything suggesting otherwise is hogwash.
Over the last 4,600,000,000 years of the history of this world, the climate has undergone many changes, from inferno to ice age, from oceans of water to vast deserts. Obviously most of this happened without the influence of humans. Clearly humans didn't cause the ice age nor did we make great bodies of water and continents disappear since we didn't even exist.
There is every logical reason to believe that the mere existence of 7 billion people on this planet has an effect on the environment. Add to this the advances we've made since the stone age in the use of "tools" to enhance our existence and there is bound to be some negative impact on the planet. What is a little amusing is when humans think they can control natural events, especially those which happen over a very long period of time.
If we are headed for global warming, it probably isn't all due to human's misuse of the earths resources. Some of this is undoubtedly natural occurrence. I find it difficult to accept that an increase in hurricanes is a prime example of our negative impact on the planet. Is it not possible that the weather shifts overtime? When we have an El Nino year, is this solely because we've abused the earth in someway that affects weather patterns? I suspect not.
7 billion people chopping at the earth's resources or just being here taking up space is bound to have an effect. Without much doubt, I believe the continuing immergence of new and sometimes deadly viruses is a direct result of overpopulation. Could it be nature's way of fighting back? Possibly. All one has to do is look at what happens when other species overpopulate to understand that this often produces very negative results such as disease and petulance.
On a personal level, I make a weak attempt at being conservative in my use of the earth's resources. I doubt shutting off unneeded lights, not driving unnecessarily and in general watching my consumption has much effect on the world, but it makes me feel good to be doing something.
-
Tell that to my Bachelor's degree in engineering, goofy one.
Yes, really. Attacking the source, as usual, because it doesn't match your treehugging tripe. Oh, I guess 2+2 isn't 4 anymore, beause the Heartland Institute reported it as such.
I don't depend on consensus to determine what is and isn't accurate. I leave that to brickheads like you.
There's no debate settled, no matter how much you squeal like a stuck pig that it is. And perenially wathcing treehuggers like you twist themselves in knots, trying to explain why caps that were to have melted havent, why temperature have been neutral for decades, etc., just make for more slapstick entertainment with those with common sense.
Incidentally (and unfortunately) I don't have any buddies in "big oil". But, just to further skwere this gibberish of yours.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/
LOL you are getting dominated :D
You just keep moving to more bullshit spewed by idiots. The man you are quoting has no education in climatology, he is a known liar etc. I will certainly attack the source of the info if it's a known right wing thinktank with a history of telling lies.
So you are comfortable with all the lies you have told in this thread? you didn't even address the fact that you are supporting frauds, you just google another fucking nut jobs non sense.
The title alone indicates how biased the fucking article is. He mentions Obamacare, al gore, random insult, conspiracy theories, eugenics etc you are a fucking non-critically thinking moron.
The author Peter Ferrara is a lawyer, is this who you take your climate science from? Lawyers? if you are a engineer would you have sociologists build something? Fucking moron.
Heartland is funded by big oil. That is a fact as well, you don't mind these biases? of course you don't you believe what feels good to you, like baby jesus.
Just look at some of the nutty shit this guy says.
http://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ferrara
You are a shitty person.
-
Tell that to my Bachelor's degree in engineering, goofy one.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/
How does a Bachelor's degree in engineering qualify you as an expert in climatology? ::)
-
How does a Bachelor's degree in engineering qualify you as an expert in climatology? ::)
Earlier in this thread Mcway called himself an expert, based on the fact that he owns a thermometer so....
-
How does a Bachelor's degree in engineering qualify you as an expert in climatology? ::)
I never claimed it did. But, our resident treehugger claimed I had no education. My bachelors' degree would say otherwise.
Earlier in this thread Mcway called himself an expert, based on the fact that he owns a thermometer so....
Ummm....NOOOOOOOO!!! I never called myself an expert. Try that one again.
Why do issues of this type always exampled by folks from the extreme opposite sides? Some possibly over zealous environmentalist site situations which suggest the world will come to and end soon if we don't take drastic measures to change things. On the other side, we have folks who believe nothing has changed and everything suggesting otherwise is hogwash.
Over the last 4,600,000,000 years of the history of this world, the climate has undergone many changes, from inferno to ice age, from oceans of water to vast deserts. Obviously most of this happened without the influence of humans. Clearly humans didn't cause the ice age nor did we make great bodies of water and continents disappear since we didn't even exist.
There is every logical reason to believe that the mere existence of 7 billion people on this planet has an effect on the environment. Add to this the advances we've made since the stone age in the use of "tools" to enhance our existence and there is bound to be some negative impact on the planet. What is a little amusing is when humans think they can control natural events, especially those which happen over a very long period of time.
If we are headed for global warming, it probably isn't all due to human's misuse of the earths resources. Some of this is undoubtedly natural occurrence. I find it difficult to accept that an increase in hurricanes is a prime example of our negative impact on the planet. Is it not possible that the weather shifts overtime? When we have an El Nino year, is this solely because we've abused the earth in someway that affects weather patterns? I suspect not.
7 billion people chopping at the earth's resources or just being here taking up space is bound to have an effect. Without much doubt, I believe the continuing immergence of new and sometimes deadly viruses is a direct result of overpopulation. Could it be nature's way of fighting back? Possibly. All one has to do is look at what happens when other species overpopulate to understand that this often produces very negative results such as disease and petulance.
On a personal level, I make a weak attempt at being conservative in my use of the earth's resources. I doubt shutting off unneeded lights, not driving unnecessarily and in general watching my consumption has much effect on the world, but it makes me feel good to be doing something.
And THERE IT IS, the cruz of all this global warming mess: Making you feel good about doing something. And, per certain politicians and celebrities, you'd feel even better if you drove juice boxes disguised as cars, have toilet paper rationed to you, and let Uncle Sam determine when (or if) you can drive, and (of course) higher taxes to pay for all this stuff.
What you do, in terms of lights and gas, is just common sense (to say nothing of saving you money on your fuel and electric bills).
As for global warming, the operative word you mentioned is "IF". There's a huge difference between stating that such is a possibility and proclaiming that we're going to fry or freeze (depending on which decades you cach certain treehuggers), if we don't do X, Y, Or Z whihc again usually involves surrendering one's freedoms, tax dollars, and use of fossil fuels....all while the aforementioned treehuggers blatantly consume those very items.
-
Ah yes. Except, that statement doesn't make me a tree-hugger in any way, shape or form. In fact, I challenge you to point out a single non-factual statement in that quote, and if you can't I'm kindly suggesting that you shut the fuck up. And just to make your job easier, let me expand on that statement:
The facts are the facts: there is an observed and well-documented warming trend. That it was colder in your neck of the woods, doesn't mean there isn't a warming trend globally, anymore than the fact that you, for example, lost weight doesn't mean the the average weight in the U.S. hasn't increased. Similarly, that it was an unusually cold winter across the whole Western Hemisphere doesn't mean there isn't a warming trend globally either: a trend is, by definition, composed of multiple samples and outliers are entirely possible in the samples without necessarily affecting the trend.
To borrow from the immortal words of Mr. T's Clubber Lang character from Rocky III, "I reject the challenge, because Avxo is NO challenge. But, I'll be more than happy to beat on him some more". ;D
A well-documented warming trend is questionable to say the least, especially given the last 20 years or so. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
As The New American reported last month, virtually every falsifiable prediction made by climate theorists — both the global-cooling mongers of a few decades ago and the warming alarmists more recently — has proven to be spectacularly wrong. In many cases, the opposite of what they forecasted took place. But perhaps nowhere have the failed global-warming doom and gloom predictions been more pronounced than in the Antarctic, where sea-ice levels have continued smashing through previous records. For each of the last three years, ice cover has hit a new record high.
The most recent data show that the Antarctic is currently surrounded by more sea ice than at any other point since records began. In all, there are right now about 20 million square kilometers of frozen sea area surrounding the Antarctic continent. That is 170,000 square kilometers more than last year’s previous all-time record, and more than 1.2 million square kilometers above the 1981-to-2010 mean, according to researchers.
“This is an area covered by sea ice which we've never seen from space before,” meteorologist and sea ice scientist Jan Lieser with the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) told Australia’s ABC. “Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area. That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.”
Despite having predicted less ice — not more — as a result of alleged man-made global warming, some alarmists have comically tried to blame the record ice on “global warming.” Indeed, in a bizarre attempt to explain away the latest findings, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC boss Tony Worby tried to blame “the depletion of ozone” and the “warming atmosphere” for the phenomenal growth in sea ice — contradicting previous forecasts by warming alarmists, who warned that ice would decrease as temperatures rose along with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Every year, it seems, we get the usual song-and-dance as to why the planet ain't cooperating with these models.
What's at issue - and the source of much debate - is whether the trend is caused by humans and our activities (e.g. burning hydrocarbons) or is part of a natural warming/cooling cycle, akin to what has previously happened on the planet according to indirect evidence. That has not been established and so calling for changes in our behavior based solely on the fact that there's a warming trend is silly. There may be other reasons to change some of our behaviors - some legitimate, some not and some silly and some serious - but "because it causes global warming" isn't one of those reasons yet. Could it become one? It's possible - the jury's still out on that and I'll wait until there's enough evidence before reaching a conclusion. Because you see, I, unlike you, am a scientist and I know how to read models, examine the evidence and reach rational conclusions.
Again, if you think that anything in the above paragraphs is false or incorrect, point it out explicitly and provide a reference to back up your assertion. Don't just flap your gums in my general direction (or button-mash your keyboard as the case may be) and pretend that you are forming a cogent argument based on evidence and good science.
I've alreadly pointed that out (so has Dario) and provided the references for it. The facts don't match the models. The ice that was supposed to have melted hasn't. And, considering that climatologists were screaming the exact opposite (that this planet was going to freeze us all to death, which was also supposedly man's fault) just a few decades ago, this allegedly settled science is anything but that.
-
LOL you are getting dominated :D
You just keep moving to more bullshit spewed by idiots. The man you are quoting has no education in climatology, he is a known liar etc. I will certainly attack the source of the info if it's a known right wing thinktank with a history of telling lies.
So you are comfortable with all the lies you have told in this thread? you didn't even address the fact that you are supporting frauds, you just google another fucking nut jobs non sense.
The title alone indicates how biased the fucking article is. He mentions Obamacare, al gore, random insult, conspiracy theories, eugenics etc you are a fucking non-critically thinking moron.
The author Peter Ferrara is a lawyer, is this who you take your climate science from? Lawyers? if you are a engineer would you have sociologists build something? Fucking moron.
Heartland is funded by big oil. That is a fact as well, you don't mind these biases? of course you don't you believe what feels good to you, like baby jesus.
Just look at some of the nutty shit this guy says.
http://www.desmogblog.com/peter-ferrara
You are a shitty person.
Yet again, when you can't refute the facts, you attack the source, as if screaming "liar" is going to make those ice caps that ain't supposed to be there just disappear.
And considering the stuff you've posted from left-winged sources, funded by people that are knee-deep in either so-called green energy or pushing an anti-capitalistic agenda, you're hardly in a position to talk about who funds what. So, your labeing someone a fraud holds as much weight as Richard Simmons at a World's-Strongest-Man contest.
You do realize that people who report on such topics (on both sides of the aisles) aren't necessarily "experts". That's why they give the references which you can check for yourself.
Of course, that ultmately has to bounce against reality. And with climatologists repeatedly showing up with egg on their faces (i.e. the guys stuck in supposedly non-existing ice, trying to prove that ice should have mented), that reality is becoming a beast for Team Treehugger.
Courtesy of "The New American":
In an ironic incident that sparked laughter around the world, a team of “climate scientists” who set out to show how Antarctic ice was supposedly melting ended up getting their ship trapped in record-setting ice — in the summer! Millions of taxpayer dollars and massive quantities of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions were required to rescue the stranded and embarrassed warming alarmists after their misguided adventure.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
Here's more of that "settled science" again:
As the United Nations prepares to release its latest report on “climate change,” leaked documents obtained recently by the Associated Press show the Obama administration and other governments are pressuring the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to cover up the fact that “global warming” essentially has been stopped for the last 16 years. The explosive revelations, already being described as “ClimateGate II” in the press, come amid a coordinated bid to revive the failing effort to adopt an international carbon regime in the coming years.
According to analysts, the leaked documents confirm once again that the global body’s alarmism about alleged “man-made global warming” is really a political ploy, rather than an issue of “science.” As The New American reported last week, with the ongoing UN climate deception once again re-emerging in the global media, experts and scientists are lashing out at what they see as the corruption of science — a dangerous trend for humanity. The latest revelations only add further weight to the concerns.
Drafts of the upcoming UN IPCC report leaked to sympathetic “journalists” ahead of the official release tried to dance around an inconvenient truth that has been plaguing alarmists in the climate debate for quite some time — for the last decade and a half, the Earth has not been warming. The planetary entity’s supposed “scientists” and computer models had all been frantically warning of “catastrophic” temperature increases as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. When it did not happen, however, the UN and its allies in the media and national governments were left with egg on their faces, to put it mildly.
Instead of admitting the major blunder or outright deception, the UN doubled down, claiming to now be more confident than ever that human emissions of CO2 were to blame for “climate change” — 95 percent sure, to be precise. UN IPCC “experts,” though, struggled hard to come up with a credible excuse for a lack of warming, leaked draft reports show. Everything from volcanic ash and declining sun activity to natural variability and heat supposedly being trapped somewhere in the deep oceans was implausibly cited to explain away the lack of warming in defiance of all the predictions.
For national governments, though, that was not enough, the leaked documents obtained by the AP revealed. In comments to the UN IPCC, several governments “objected” to how the lack of warming was addressed. German authorities, for example, called for the reference to the global-warming “slowdown,” as the UN puts it, to be deleted from the report entirely. Officials claimed that a timespan of 10 to 15 years was “misleading” because “climate change” is measured over “decades and centuries.”
The Obama administration, meanwhile, which is trying to bypass Congress by lawlessly imposing global-warming decrees on the American people, while waging a witch-hunt on “climate deniers,” also had some comments for the UN. According to the documents obtained by AP, the U.S. government called on the IPCC to include the so-called leading hypothesis — the notion that the lack of warming is linked to the heat supposedly being transferred to the depths of the oceans. Of course, the deeply controversial theory remains unproven by actual observation.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16599-obama-allies-tell-un-to-cover-for-lack-of-global-warming
-
Yet again, when you can't refute the facts, you attack the source, as if screaming "liar" is going to make those ice caps that ain't supposed to be there just disappear.
And considering the stuff you've posted from left-winged sources, funded by people that are knee-deep in either so-called green energy or pushing an anti-capitalistic agenda, you're hardly in a position to talk about who funds what. So, your labeing someone a fraud holds as much weight as Richard Simmons at a World's-Strongest-Man contest.
You do realize that people who report on such topics (on both sides of the aisles) aren't necessarily "experts". That's why they give the references which you can check for yourself.
Of course, that ultmately has to bounce against reality. And with climatologists repeatedly showing up with egg on their faces (i.e. the guys stuck in supposedly non-existing ice, trying to prove that ice should have mented), that reality is becoming a beast for Team Treehugger.
Courtesy of "The New American":
In an ironic incident that sparked laughter around the world, a team of “climate scientists” who set out to show how Antarctic ice was supposedly melting ended up getting their ship trapped in record-setting ice — in the summer! Millions of taxpayer dollars and massive quantities of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions were required to rescue the stranded and embarrassed warming alarmists after their misguided adventure.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
Here's more of that "settled science" again:
As the United Nations prepares to release its latest report on “climate change,” leaked documents obtained recently by the Associated Press show the Obama administration and other governments are pressuring the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to cover up the fact that “global warming” essentially has been stopped for the last 16 years. The explosive revelations, already being described as “ClimateGate II” in the press, come amid a coordinated bid to revive the failing effort to adopt an international carbon regime in the coming years.
According to analysts, the leaked documents confirm once again that the global body’s alarmism about alleged “man-made global warming” is really a political ploy, rather than an issue of “science.” As The New American reported last week, with the ongoing UN climate deception once again re-emerging in the global media, experts and scientists are lashing out at what they see as the corruption of science — a dangerous trend for humanity. The latest revelations only add further weight to the concerns.
Drafts of the upcoming UN IPCC report leaked to sympathetic “journalists” ahead of the official release tried to dance around an inconvenient truth that has been plaguing alarmists in the climate debate for quite some time — for the last decade and a half, the Earth has not been warming. The planetary entity’s supposed “scientists” and computer models had all been frantically warning of “catastrophic” temperature increases as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. When it did not happen, however, the UN and its allies in the media and national governments were left with egg on their faces, to put it mildly.
Instead of admitting the major blunder or outright deception, the UN doubled down, claiming to now be more confident than ever that human emissions of CO2 were to blame for “climate change” — 95 percent sure, to be precise. UN IPCC “experts,” though, struggled hard to come up with a credible excuse for a lack of warming, leaked draft reports show. Everything from volcanic ash and declining sun activity to natural variability and heat supposedly being trapped somewhere in the deep oceans was implausibly cited to explain away the lack of warming in defiance of all the predictions.
For national governments, though, that was not enough, the leaked documents obtained by the AP revealed. In comments to the UN IPCC, several governments “objected” to how the lack of warming was addressed. German authorities, for example, called for the reference to the global-warming “slowdown,” as the UN puts it, to be deleted from the report entirely. Officials claimed that a timespan of 10 to 15 years was “misleading” because “climate change” is measured over “decades and centuries.”
The Obama administration, meanwhile, which is trying to bypass Congress by lawlessly imposing global-warming decrees on the American people, while waging a witch-hunt on “climate deniers,” also had some comments for the UN. According to the documents obtained by AP, the U.S. government called on the IPCC to include the so-called leading hypothesis — the notion that the lack of warming is linked to the heat supposedly being transferred to the depths of the oceans. Of course, the deeply controversial theory remains unproven by actual observation.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16599-obama-allies-tell-un-to-cover-for-lack-of-global-warming
From a leaked report, we found Obama is begging the world to hide the fact that ice hasn't been melting despite it melting. Everything you post is pure non-sense, why the fuck are you mentioning Obama? he has nothing to do with it, this is science you incredible fucking moron.
Did that last line acutally say that heat isn't stored in the oceans? that it hasn't been proven? I mean how can I take you seriously, you literally believe there is a world wide consipracy, which is highlighted by your 'leaked documents" articles full of bullshit just like your life.
Its ok to attack the source if the source is a lawyer, again do you hire kinesiologists to design things for you? of course not, just like I don;t give a fuck what this moron has to say. I also refuted your bullshit with links from NASA moron, you can't skirt the fucking issue anymore. You can't just copy and paste conspiracy theories blaming Obama for the world's decision, you are a simpleton like the rest of your ilk.
Thanks for Alex Newman;s opinon bro, what is his education again? you sure he isn't politically biased, he literally can't stop mentioning Obama.
For example
"Later this month, climate “dignitaries” will be meeting in New York to forge an international agreement in the face of no global warming for nearly two decades, record ice levels, and growing public skepticism about the alleged “science” underpinning “climate change” alarmism. "
This IS A LIE. I just posted the data showing that NASA has confirmed heating you fucking moron. We can't both be right. Any more bullshit articles written by lawyers around? anymore leaked documents and scandals? anymore conspiracy theories?
Keep going liar.
-
To borrow from the immortal words of Mr. T's Clubber Lang character from Rocky III, "I reject the challenge, because Avxo is NO challenge. But, I'll be more than happy to beat on him some more". ;D
A well-documented warming trend is questionable to say the least, especially given the last 20 years or so. But don't take my word for it:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
As The New American reported last month, virtually every falsifiable prediction made by climate theorists — both the global-cooling mongers of a few decades ago and the warming alarmists more recently — has proven to be spectacularly wrong. In many cases, the opposite of what they forecasted took place. But perhaps nowhere have the failed global-warming doom and gloom predictions been more pronounced than in the Antarctic, where sea-ice levels have continued smashing through previous records. For each of the last three years, ice cover has hit a new record high.
The most recent data show that the Antarctic is currently surrounded by more sea ice than at any other point since records began. In all, there are right now about 20 million square kilometers of frozen sea area surrounding the Antarctic continent. That is 170,000 square kilometers more than last year’s previous all-time record, and more than 1.2 million square kilometers above the 1981-to-2010 mean, according to researchers.
“This is an area covered by sea ice which we've never seen from space before,” meteorologist and sea ice scientist Jan Lieser with the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) told Australia’s ABC. “Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area. That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.”
Despite having predicted less ice — not more — as a result of alleged man-made global warming, some alarmists have comically tried to blame the record ice on “global warming.” Indeed, in a bizarre attempt to explain away the latest findings, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC boss Tony Worby tried to blame “the depletion of ozone” and the “warming atmosphere” for the phenomenal growth in sea ice — contradicting previous forecasts by warming alarmists, who warned that ice would decrease as temperatures rose along with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Every year, it seems, we get the usual song-and-dance as to why the planet ain't cooperating with these models.
I've alreadly pointed that out (so has Dario) and provided the references for it. The facts don't match the models. The ice that was supposed to have melted hasn't. And, considering that climatologists were screaming the exact opposite (that this planet was going to freeze us all to death, which was also supposedly man's fault) just a few decades ago, this allegedly settled science is anything but that.
Dude I literally posted this lord monckton's fraudulent non-sense, yet you still post articles by him? you can make up shit all you want but usually when you are supporting a known liar and fraud you don't do so twice in the same thread, particularly after being called out on it. Or did you forget what bullshit you posted earlier?
Again you are a liar and shitty human, let's look at the evidence. remember you have now posted this moron's stuff twice even after being smacked down. He isn't even a lord in any sense of the term, fucking hack.
This guy is a real jack of all trades, he is a physician as well it seems.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
"Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath."
" Monckton claimed to be a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC because he supposedly sent the IPCC a letter pointing out something that needed to be corrected in a draft report. At one point he said the claim to be a Nobel laureate was all a joke, but it continued to be posted by Monckton in his bio at the Science and Public Policy Institute until early 2012, and the sorts of people who believe Monckton have often repeated the claim with a straight face. (This brings up an important question. On whom was Monckton playing the joke?)"
"Monckton cited statistics about variations in the amount of incoming solar radiation to come to exactly the opposite conclusion from the authors he cited."
"Lord Monckton really wants the Medieval Warm Period to have been warmer than today, and will latch onto any piece of “evidence” that seems to support this. For example, he wrote that “There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.” He apparently got this claim from Gavin Menzies, but it has been shown to be complete garbage."
Lord Monckton made up data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature that he claimed were IPCC predictions. The CO2 projections were similar to the real ones, but significantly corrupted, and the temperature projections were the product of inputting the corrupted data into an equation not meant for this purpose. This has been addressed several times by Gavin Schmidt, John Nielsen-Gammon, Lucia Liljegren, and me. After I posted my critique, Monckton issued a blanket response to all those who criticized him for this, in which he claimed he was justified in attributing the fake projections to the IPCC, because that’s what they SHOULD HAVE gotten if they had done theirs right. I’m not kidding.
Are we done yet? is it starting to sink it that you live a life of fantasy and self serving biases? can you find me another amusing liar to destroy?
-
From a leaked report, we found Obama is begging the world to hide the fact that ice hasn't been melting despite it melting. Everything you post is pure non-sense, why the fuck are you mentioning Obama? he has nothing to do with it, this is science you incredible fucking moron.
Hey imbecile, even in this economy, clues are cheap. This "science" is loaded with political propaganda. Obama has a lot to do with it, as he is pushing this mess in the United States.
Did that last line acutally say that heat isn't stored in the oceans? that it hasn't been proven? I mean how can I take you seriously, you literally believe there is a world wide consipracy, which is highlighted by your 'leaked documents" articles full of bullshit just like your life.
My life is just fine: Wife, healthy kids, a great gym in which to pump iron, etc. Of course, that has ZILCH to do with this topic. But, in mushbrain fashion, this is to be expected of you, since your pap continues to show itself.
Its ok to attack the source if the source is a lawyer, again do you hire kinesiologists to design things for you? of course not, just like I don;t give a fuck what this moron has to say. I also refuted your bullshit with links from NASA moron, you can't skirt the fucking issue anymore. You can't just copy and paste conspiracy theories blaming Obama for the world's decision, you are a simpleton like the rest of your ilk.
When that lawyer cites scientific sources that counter your treehugging claptrap, and such can be verrified, your pathetic source attack simply exposes your buffoonery for God and country to see.
Thanks for Alex Newman;s opinon bro, what is his education again? you sure he isn't politically biased, he literally can't stop mentioning Obama.
For example
"Later this month, climate “dignitaries” will be meeting in New York to forge an international agreement in the face of no global warming for nearly two decades, record ice levels, and growing public skepticism about the alleged “science” underpinning “climate change” alarmism. "
This IS A LIE. I just posted the data showing that NASA has confirmed heating you fucking moron. We can't both be right. Any more bullshit articles written by lawyers around? anymore leaked documents and scandals? anymore conspiracy theories?
Keep going liar.
It's the truth and your infantile foot-stamping and screaming 'liar' hardly changes that, any more than the screams of climatologists who got stuck in the very ice they swore wasn't supposed to be there makes that ice go away.
Oh, but that didn't really happen because Newman's a lawyer. The planet hasn't warmed in 18 years, as confirmed by.....But, that doesn't count because a lawyer reported it.
Even by your pea-brained standards, this is utterly pathetic.
-
Dude I literally posted this lord monckton's fraudulent non-sense, yet you still post articles by him? you can make up shit all you want but usually when you are supporting a known liar and fraud you don't do so twice in the same thread, particularly after being called out on it. Or did you forget what bullshit you posted earlier?
Again you are a liar and shitty human, let's look at the evidence. remember you have now posted this moron's stuff twice even after being smacked down. He isn't even a lord in any sense of the term, fucking hack.
This guy is a real jack of all trades, he is a physician as well it seems.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
"Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath."
" Monckton claimed to be a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC because he supposedly sent the IPCC a letter pointing out something that needed to be corrected in a draft report. At one point he said the claim to be a Nobel laureate was all a joke, but it continued to be posted by Monckton in his bio at the Science and Public Policy Institute until early 2012, and the sorts of people who believe Monckton have often repeated the claim with a straight face. (This brings up an important question. On whom was Monckton playing the joke?)"
"Monckton cited statistics about variations in the amount of incoming solar radiation to come to exactly the opposite conclusion from the authors he cited."
"Lord Monckton really wants the Medieval Warm Period to have been warmer than today, and will latch onto any piece of “evidence” that seems to support this. For example, he wrote that “There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.” He apparently got this claim from Gavin Menzies, but it has been shown to be complete garbage."
Lord Monckton made up data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature that he claimed were IPCC predictions. The CO2 projections were similar to the real ones, but significantly corrupted, and the temperature projections were the product of inputting the corrupted data into an equation not meant for this purpose. This has been addressed several times by Gavin Schmidt, John Nielsen-Gammon, Lucia Liljegren, and me. After I posted my critique, Monckton issued a blanket response to all those who criticized him for this, in which he claimed he was justified in attributing the fake projections to the IPCC, because that’s what they SHOULD HAVE gotten if they had done theirs right. I’m not kidding.
Are we done yet? is it starting to sink it that you live a life of fantasy and self serving biases? can you find me another amusing liar to destroy?
The only thing you've destroyed is the ability to run your mouth without sticking your own foot into it.
Again, we see the excuses fly as to why ice that was supposed to have melted hasn't, as well as lack of warming going on two decades (despite bleats and wails to the contrary).
Yet, you duck and dodge those well-documated facts and snip at those who report them.
But, in case you need more Grey Poupon with those toes of yours....:
“After the very high melt rates of the 2007-2012 period, the trend reversed in 2013 and especially in 2014 when the melt fell below the long-term average,” explained German professor and environment expert Fritz Vahrenholt, adding that the heat content of the North Atlantic was also plummeting. “In other words: The 21st century climate catastrophe is not taking place.”
And there's more,
However, with the latest data suggesting that increased levels of CO2 has not led to the “expected” warming, experts say it is time for the UN and its cohorts to re-think their controversial theories. Even the mainstream press in some countries — longtime bastions of climate alarmism — has finally started to report on the potential for global cooling. Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, for example, ran an explosive article on August 7 about the lack of warming over the last 15 years featuring experts who suggested the earth may actually be entering another “little ice age.”
Reminding readers that the most recent ice age ended just over a century ago, the article was headlined “The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age.” Among other experts, the piece quoted Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who warned that “we may be on the path to a new little ice age,” very low solar activity, and “some very cold winters.” Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, meanwhile, explained that from the 1940s to about the turn of the century, “we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years.” The last time the sun was so active, Svensmark added, was during the Medieval Warm Period, which climate alarmists consistently downplay or ignore because it does not fit with their “theories.”
“This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease,” the expert continued, adding that "many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun.” As far as the upcoming IPCC report goes, Svensmark said the UN body “is very one-sided,” so he does not believe there will be “anything reasonable in the next report.” The prominent Danish astrophysicist concludes by noting that despite claims about the ocean absorbing the supposed global warming, “several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.” (IMAGINE THAT!!! Someone using THERMOMETERS to disprove 'global warming' ;D ).
Earlier this month, meanwhile, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its “State of the Climate in 2012” showing that last year was among the coldest so far this century. According to analysts, despite the government agency’s wildly misleading attempts to spin the findings and drum up unwarranted hysteria, the data actually confirm that the globe has stopped warming for the last 15 years. The report also exposes the bogus “climate models” that predicted major warming based on increasing CO2 levels as wrong, which credible scientists have been arguing all along.
“The stagnation of the last 15 years defies all computer model projections, thus confirming that the models all exaggerated CO2 climate sensitivity,” explained prominent climate skeptic Pierre Gosselin, who was educated in mechanical engineering but now spends time ripping apart climate hysteria. “In order for the models to be correct, the global temperature over the last 6 years would have to be 0.2 to 0.3°F warmer.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling
-
The only thing you've destroyed is the ability to run your mouth without sticking your own foot into it.
Again, we see the excuses fly as to why ice that was supposed to have melted hasn't, as well as lack of warming going on two decades (despite bleats and wails to the contrary).
Yet, you duck and dodge those well-documated facts and snip at those who report them.
But, in case you need more Grey Poupon with those toes of yours....:
“After the very high melt rates of the 2007-2012 period, the trend reversed in 2013 and especially in 2014 when the melt fell below the long-term average,” explained German professor and environment expert Fritz Vahrenholt, adding that the heat content of the North Atlantic was also plummeting. “In other words: The 21st century climate catastrophe is not taking place.”
And there's more,
However, with the latest data suggesting that increased levels of CO2 has not led to the “expected” warming, experts say it is time for the UN and its cohorts to re-think their controversial theories. Even the mainstream press in some countries — longtime bastions of climate alarmism — has finally started to report on the potential for global cooling. Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, for example, ran an explosive article on August 7 about the lack of warming over the last 15 years featuring experts who suggested the earth may actually be entering another “little ice age.”
Reminding readers that the most recent ice age ended just over a century ago, the article was headlined “The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age.” Among other experts, the piece quoted Irish solar specialist Ian Elliott, who warned that “we may be on the path to a new little ice age,” very low solar activity, and “some very cold winters.” Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark, meanwhile, explained that from the 1940s to about the turn of the century, “we have had the highest solar activity in 1000 years.” The last time the sun was so active, Svensmark added, was during the Medieval Warm Period, which climate alarmists consistently downplay or ignore because it does not fit with their “theories.”
“This could mean that the temperature will not rise for the next 30 years or maybe begin to decrease,” the expert continued, adding that "many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun.” As far as the upcoming IPCC report goes, Svensmark said the UN body “is very one-sided,” so he does not believe there will be “anything reasonable in the next report.” The prominent Danish astrophysicist concludes by noting that despite claims about the ocean absorbing the supposed global warming, “several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.” (IMAGINE THAT!!! Someone using THERMOMETERS to disprove 'global warming' ;D ).
Earlier this month, meanwhile, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its “State of the Climate in 2012” showing that last year was among the coldest so far this century. According to analysts, despite the government agency’s wildly misleading attempts to spin the findings and drum up unwarranted hysteria, the data actually confirm that the globe has stopped warming for the last 15 years. The report also exposes the bogus “climate models” that predicted major warming based on increasing CO2 levels as wrong, which credible scientists have been arguing all along.
“The stagnation of the last 15 years defies all computer model projections, thus confirming that the models all exaggerated CO2 climate sensitivity,” explained prominent climate skeptic Pierre Gosselin, who was educated in mechanical engineering but now spends time ripping apart climate hysteria. “In order for the models to be correct, the global temperature over the last 6 years would have to be 0.2 to 0.3°F warmer.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling
You want to keep going? lol ok then. Even after posting constant lies you feel it's best for you to continue? you are showing your ass like a cheap whore here. A person who cares about you on here should PM you to stop this.
I love how your articles rail against using data from decades, when it requires centuries according to these hacks, yet they use one month in one year as evidence.
This guy is literally referencing himself as support for his arguments.
These are called facts, pay attention moron
http://climate.nasa.gov/
3.17MM increase in sea level per year (they haven't rose according to you) this is double last centuries rates, again you are a liar. the fucking numbers are at the top of the page. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade ever recorded, again you claim no warming, liar.
Since you like the IPCC so much here is a quote for ya.
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." do you know what that word means stupid?
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I even find it humurous that AVXO is claiming that man made influences are unproven, that's completely incorrect also.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
There is literally moutains of evidence showing it's anthropogenic, mountains. The other known variables do not account for it, it's us.
-
You want to keep going? lol ok then. Even after posting constant lies you feel it's best for you to continue? you are showing your ass like a cheap whore here. A person who cares about you on here should PM you to stop this.
I love how your articles rail against using data from decades, when it requires centuries according to these hacks, yet they use one month in one year as evidence.
This guy is literally referencing himself as support for his arguments.
These are called facts, pay attention moron
http://climate.nasa.gov/
3.17MM increase in sea level per year (they haven't rose according to you) this is double last centuries rates, again you are a liar. the fucking numbers are at the top of the page. 2000-2009 was the warmest decade ever recorded, again you claim no warming, liar.
Since you like the IPCC so much here is a quote for ya.
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." do you know what that word means stupid?
Indeed I do know what the word means. I'm sure if you ask some alchemists, they would have said the same thing about lead turning into gold....unequivocially.
In the same vein, those guys who got trapped in that ice thought the ice was "unequivocally" supposed to be melted.
Using big words and actually being accurate are two different things. Try to keep up, genius.
As for Newman's referencing himself? Ummm... I wasn't aware that Alex Newman also wenty by the name Fritz Vahrenholt....or Ian Elliot.....or Pierre Gosselin.
Even other treehuggers are contorting themselves for another explanation as to why the facts don't match the models.
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.
According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html#ixzz3Dy5mRKtO
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I even find it humurous that AVXO is claiming that man made influences are unproven, that's completely incorrect also.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
There is literally moutains of evidence showing it's anthropogenic, mountains. The other known variables do not account for it, it's us.
Would this be the same IPCC caught fudging the numbers again?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
-
Indeed I do know what the word means. I'm sure if you ask some alchemists, they would have said the same thing about lead turning into gold....unequivocially.
In the same vein, those guys who got trapped in that ice thought the ice was "unequivocally" supposed to be melted.
Using big words and actually being accurate are two different things. Try to keep up, genius.
As for Newman's referencing himself? Ummm... I wasn't aware that Alex Newman also wenty by the name Fritz Vahrenholt....or Ian Elliot.....or Pierre Gosselin.
Even other treehuggers are contorting themselves for another explanation as to why the facts don't match the models.
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.
According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html#ixzz3Dy5mRKtO
Would this be the same IPCC caught fudging the numbers again?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
You are right I admit defeat, the climate depot is the spot with lord monckton and his facts. you are still pushing articles written by him? LMAO are you just to stupid to understand he isn't credible?
So now IPCC are lying, yet you are using their data to refute them? lol.
Dr. Hawkins, hmm another liar?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hawkins-hiatus-gif.html
the simulations predict numerous slow downs moron, you aren't doing anything but showing how little you know. They match the actual trend nearly flawlessly, so again where are these incorrect predictions?
How many more copy and pasted articles are you going to post? you won't save any face here because you are lying.
I am posting NASA articles you are posting stuff from lord (not even a lord lol) monckton from the climate depot.
Shall we keep going?
-
Indeed I do know what the word means. I'm sure if you ask some alchemists, they would have said the same thing about lead turning into gold....unequivocially.
In the same vein, those guys who got trapped in that ice thought the ice was "unequivocally" supposed to be melted.
Using big words and actually being accurate are two different things. Try to keep up, genius.
As for Newman's referencing himself? Ummm... I wasn't aware that Alex Newman also wenty by the name Fritz Vahrenholt....or Ian Elliot.....or Pierre Gosselin.
Even other treehuggers are contorting themselves for another explanation as to why the facts don't match the models.
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.
According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html#ixzz3Dy5mRKtO
Would this be the same IPCC caught fudging the numbers again?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
Absolutely no one said the ice would be melted, the ice sheet will take centuries to dissipate moron, of course they found ice in the artic are you actually that stupid? is that the type of evidence you accept?
Alchemy is a philosophy you moron, fuck you are soooooo stupid. It resembles science in no manner, makes sense you would equate feelings with facts and philosophy with science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
"Though alchemy played a significant role in the development of early modern science,[1] it differs significantly from modern science in its inclusion of Hermetic principles and practices related to mythology, magic, religion, and spirituality. It is recognized as a protoscience that contributed to the development of modern chemistry and medicine. Alchemists developed a structure of basic laboratory techniques, theory, terminology, and experimental method, some of which are still in use today. However, alchemists predated modern foundations of chemistry, such as scientific skepticism, atomic theory, the modern understanding of a chemical element and a chemical substance, the periodic table and conservation of mass and stoichiometry. Instead, they believed in four elements and phlogiston, and cryptic symbolism and mysticism was an integral part of alchemical work."
are you aware that you are stupid or are you oblivious? it relied on mythology (your favorite!), magic LOL. It resembles modern science in no way. I laugh at your religion like I laugh at alchemy, both vestiges of stupidity.
"the creation of the fabled philosopher's stone; the ability to transmute base metals into the noble metals (gold or silver); and development of an elixir of life, which would confer youth and longevity."
Ya that sounds like science, harry potters philosophers stone and the fountain of youth, great work moron, these climatologists also use magic ::)
-
You are right I admit defeat, the climate depot is the spot with lord monckton and his facts. you are still pushing articles written by him? LMAO are you just to stupid to understand he isn't credible?
So now IPCC are lying, yet you are using their data to refute them? lol.
Dr. Hawkins, hmm another liar?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/hawkins-hiatus-gif.html
the simulations predict numerous slow downs moron, you aren't doing anything but showing how little you know. They match the actual trend nearly flawlessly, so again where are these incorrect predictions?
How many more copy and pasted articles are you going to post? you won't save any face here because you are lying.
I am posting NASA articles you are posting stuff from lord (not even a lord lol) monckton from the climate depot.
Shall we keep going?
Save face from whom? I guess you missed the memo here. I post what I see fit to post, regardless of whether you or anyone else agrees with it.
And lost in all of your blubbering is the issue of the actual facts differing from IPCC models. Did I mention that whole ice thing....and the guys who got stuck in what wasn't supposed to be there.
You can post NASA articles until the cows come home. It still doesn't change that their so-called numbers don't crunch.
And BTW, thanks for the Wikipedia thing on alchemy. It just further makes my point on global warming, as both it and alchemy intermingle political and philosophical mess with science to push agendas and ideas, that were and are ultimately shows to be utter BS.
-
Absolutely no one said the ice would be melted, the ice sheet will take centuries to dissipate moron, of course they found ice in the artic are you actually that stupid? is that the type of evidence you accept?
Oh really!!?
The leader of a scientific expedition whose ship remains stranded in Antarctic ice says the team, which set out to prove climate change, is "stuck in our own experiment."
But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/
And, then there's this guy:
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
-
Save face from whom? I guess you missed the memo here. I post what I see fit to post, regardless of whether you or anyone else agrees with it.
And lost in all of your blubbering is the issue of the actual facts differing from IPCC models. Did I mention that whole ice thing....and the guys who got stuck in what wasn't supposed to be there.
You can post NASA articles until the cows come home. It still doesn't change that their so-called numbers don't crunch.
And BTW, thanks for the Wikipedia thing on alchemy. It just further makes my point on global warming, as both it and alchemy intermingle political and philosophical mess with science to push agendas and ideas, that were and are ultimately shows to be utter BS.
The facts don't differ, I just posted them perhaps you are too stupid to understand them, it's the only explanation left. They are right there in front of you from NASA and IPCC the man you quoted has been caught making up data, claiming to cure cancer etc you are a charlatan liar.
LOL at alchemy, you are stuck in the middle ages dude, you are the only person I know of that continually mentions things like the earth being flat, alchemy, louie pasteur etc you are a fraud.
-
Oh really!!?
The leader of a scientific expedition whose ship remains stranded in Antarctic ice says the team, which set out to prove climate change, is "stuck in our own experiment."
But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/
And, then there's this guy:
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
AL GORE again? are you that stupid? he is a politician, you can't honestly be this dumb right?
From your article.
"We're stuck in our own experiment," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We ... are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.
It was the ant artic you fucking moron, which is far different then the artic, there is nuance there, one has land, the other does not, do you not understand why this creates issues like ice burgs, drifts, varying densities etc? no you don't because you just posted a fox article as if it was science. . So the whole world is as well? NASA, the IPCC? every other country in the world also?
It;s laughable, you have lied repeatedly, been caught yet keep moving with your lies. you don;t even understand how CO2 works in the atmosphere, what hope do you have of understanding global climate? none.
so again I ask mister engineer, do you ask gym teachers to build things? to engineer? of course you don;t just like I don;t give a fuck what al gore thinks, or obama thinks or you think. None of you matter, the facts do and the people who understand them have spoken.
You have no self awareness, you are a lying fraud who has been exposed.
-
The facts don't differ, I just posted them perhaps you are too stupid to understand them, it's the only explanation left. They are right there in front of you from NASA and IPCC the man you quoted has been caught making up data, claiming to cure cancer etc you are a charlatan liar.
LOL at alchemy, you are stuck in the middle ages dude, you are the only person I know of that continually mentions things like the earth being flat, alchemy, louie pasteur etc you are a fraud.
Hey doofus, I never claimed the Earth to be flat. As for alchemy, I mentioned that to make the point. It is utter BS, just like your treehugging mantra of global warming.
But, just to show yet more examples of the environmental goofies, continuing to shoot themselves in the feet.
First there was this:
Americans who lived through the 1960s and ’70s may remember the dire global-cooling predictions that were hyped and given great credibility by Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and numerous other mainstream media outlets. According to the man-made global-cooling theories of the time, billions of people should be dead by now owing to cooling-linked crop failures and starvation.
“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and the world did not get 11 degrees colder. No ice age arrived, either.
In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.
To combat the alleged man-made cooling, “experts” suggested all sorts of grandiose schemes, including some that in retrospect appear almost too comical to be real. “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects,” reported Newsweek in its 1975 article “The Cooling World,” which claimed that Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities. Some of the “more spectacular solutions” proposed by the cooling theorists at the time included “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” Newsweek reported.
Of course, the big alleged threat hyped in recent decades has been global warming, not global cooling. But the accuracy of the climate-change predictions since the cooling fears melted away has hardly improved.
30+ years later, our treehugging brethren switched to THIS:
No More Snow?
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardian newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
In early 2004, the CRU’s Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,” Viner told The Guardian. Another “expert,” Adam Watson with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the paper that the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go. Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed. “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow,” reported OnTheSnow.com on January 4, 2013. Ironically, by 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades. It also reported that the Nevis Range ski resort could not operate some of its lifts because they were “still buried under unprecedented amounts of snow.”
The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.
Blame Global Warming?
After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.
The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science “Czar” John Holdren. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,” he claimed.
That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN “settled science” IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” Ironically, perhaps, Holdren warned decades ago that human CO2 emissions would lead to a billion deaths due to global warming-fueled global cooling — yes, cooling, which he said would lead to a new ice age by 2020.
Ridiculous forecasts have been made by other “climate scientists” who, like Holdren, continue to reap huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars in salaries, grants, and benefits despite being consistently wrong. James Hansen, for instance, who headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for three decades before taking a post at Columbia University, is one of the best known “climatologists” in the world — despite his long and embarrassing record of bad forecasting spanning decades
.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
I know; I know. He's a lawyer. So pointing out how the pine pumpers went from global cooling in the 70s and 80s to global warming in the 90s and 2000s doesn't count.
Darn this blasted planet!!
-
AL GORE again? are you that stupid? he is a politician, you can't honestly be this dumb right?
From your article.
"We're stuck in our own experiment," the Australasian Antarctic Expedition said in a statement. We came to Antarctica to study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by trapping ice. We ... are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.
It was the ant artic you fucking moron, which is far different then the artic, there is nuance there, one has land, the other does not, do you not understand why this creates issues like ice burgs, drifts, varying densities etc? no you don't because you just posted a fox article as if it was science. . So the whole world is as well? NASA, the IPCC? every other country in the world also?
It;s laughable, you have lied repeatedly, been caught yet keep moving with your lies. you don;t even understand how CO2 works in the atmosphere, what hope do you have of understanding global climate? none.
so again I ask mister engineer, do you ask gym teachers to build things? to engineer? of course you don;t just like I don;t give a fuck what al gore thinks, or obama thinks or you think. None of you matter, the facts do and the people who understand them have spoken.
You have no self awareness, you are a lying fraud who has been exposed.
Earth to numbskull!! Why did they get trapped again? They got trapped in ice they thought wasn't supposed to be there. Also from that article:
He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas. So what does he believe: His theories, or the ACTUAL ICE that trapped him and six dozens of his buddies?
Furthermore....
In a failed effort to raise funds for the scheme from the public, the climate alarmists promised potential donors that they would investigate and share information about “environmental changes” taking place in Antarctica. “Crucially this pristine southern polar region is uniquely placed to monitor the health of our planet,” Turley and his associates said. The team also vowed to seek out information on the intersection between “global climate” and the region, claiming — somewhat ironically, in retrospect — that changes were “threatening the stability of Antarctic ice.”
“The Southern Ocean plays a crucial role in global climate and the carbon cycle,” the climate alarmists wrote, adding that “90% of the world’s excess heat trapped by the atmosphere is going into the ocean and changing circulation patterns, threatening to turn the region into a source of carbon, exaggerating future warming.” The expedition, the team leaders continued, would “make detailed measurements on the passage south (e.g. temperature, salinity, carbon) to determine just how sensitive the Southern Ocean is to change.”
As if it could not get any more embarrassing, a video about the trip featuring Turney explained that the “Australasian Antarctic Expedition” — named after another expedition a century ago by the same name led by Sir Douglas Mawson — “will re-trace the route of its namesake to discover just how much has changed over the last 100 years.” Of course, when the video was produced, the “climate scientists,” rather than being stuck in ice, almost certainly had much different “changes” in mind. A hundred years ago, even without modern technology, Mawson’s expedition did just fine.
“We're stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition admitted in a statement quoted in media reports, almost comically insisting that ice in the region really is melting despite all of the objective and anecdotal data literally all around them. “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.” In reality, sea ice in the Arctic is up 50 percent above last year, and in Antarctica, this year saw a new record — the largest sea-ice covering since records began.
As has become typical in everything “climate,” the establishment press has largely refused to tell the truth about the purpose of the expedition — either ignoring the facts altogether, or claiming it was merely a “research” trip. A few have casually mentioned the “climate” connection in passing near the bottom of articles. The avoidance of reality is especially ironic considering that there are taxpayer-funded “journalists” from the alarmist BBC and the Australian ABC, as well as from the almost comically hysterical U.K. Guardian, onboard the ship hoping to capture “evidence” of “global warming.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17277-global-warming-alarmists-stuck-in-antarctic-sea-ice
I know how you so dearly wish to distance yourself from Gore (who could blame you). But, the fact remains he's been the poster boy of all this crap you keep spewing. Such isn't lost on the public. So when his doom-and-gloom predictions go up in smoke, he tends to get clowned.....as do you.
So when Gore supposedly follows the science, which has been shown to be less than accurate (in essence, doing the same thing YOU are doing), no one is supposed to call him or YOU on it. I see.
-
To borrow from the immortal words of Mr. T's Clubber Lang character from Rocky III, "I reject the challenge, because Avxo is NO challenge. But, I'll be more than happy to beat on him some more". ;D
But as you may recall, Clubber Lang gets brutally beaten by Rocky Balboa and loses.
A well-documented warming trend is questionable to say the least, especially given the last 20 years or so.
Except that the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet span thousands of years. When we're talking about that time frame, twenty years are, effectively, an outlier. As someone with a Bachelor's degree in Engineering you should have at least taken basic introductory statistics... no?
But don't take my word for it:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19121-with-ice-growing-at-both-poles-global-warming-theories-implode
As The New American reported last month, virtually every falsifiable prediction made by climate theorists — both the global-cooling mongers of a few decades ago and the warming alarmists more recently — has proven to be spectacularly wrong. In many cases, the opposite of what they forecasted took place. But perhaps nowhere have the failed global-warming doom and gloom predictions been more pronounced than in the Antarctic, where sea-ice levels have continued smashing through previous records. For each of the last three years, ice cover has hit a new record high.
The most recent data show that the Antarctic is currently surrounded by more sea ice than at any other point since records began. In all, there are right now about 20 million square kilometers of frozen sea area surrounding the Antarctic continent. That is 170,000 square kilometers more than last year’s previous all-time record, and more than 1.2 million square kilometers above the 1981-to-2010 mean, according to researchers.
“This is an area covered by sea ice which we've never seen from space before,” meteorologist and sea ice scientist Jan Lieser with the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) told Australia’s ABC. “Thirty-five years ago the first satellites went up which were reliably telling us what area, two dimensional area, of sea ice was covered and we've never seen that before, that much area. That is roughly double the size of the Antarctic continent and about three times the size of Australia.”
Despite having predicted less ice — not more — as a result of alleged man-made global warming, some alarmists have comically tried to blame the record ice on “global warming.” Indeed, in a bizarre attempt to explain away the latest findings, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC boss Tony Worby tried to blame “the depletion of ozone” and the “warming atmosphere” for the phenomenal growth in sea ice — contradicting previous forecasts by warming alarmists, who warned that ice would decrease as temperatures rose along with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Even if every bit of that is true, I fail to see how it addresses the main thrust of my post or can be used to challenge anything I wrote. I never said anything about Antarctic ice, the ozone layer, hydrocarbons, CO2, tax credits or whatever else. I spoke about the fact that the earth naturally goes through long-term warming and cooling cycles and nobody disputes this. I also said that the evidence we have from the past hundred or so years suggests that we are presently in a warming cycle and again, this is something that nobody disputes. If you're feeling up to it, you may want to read up on topics like North African climate cycles.
Every year, it seems, we get the usual song-and-dance as to why the planet ain't cooperating with these models.
Some models are more successful than others at making predictions and some are less. And considering how big the system being modeled is and how many variables are independent, is that any surprise?
I've alreadly pointed that out (so has Dario) and provided the references for it. The facts don't match the models. The ice that was supposed to have melted hasn't. And, considering that climatologists were screaming the exact opposite (that this planet was going to freeze us all to death, which was also supposedly man's fault) just a few decades ago, this allegedly settled science is anything but that.
For an engineer, your thought process is ridiculously muddled. But, I guess, it's not unlike Clubber Lang's punching - it became erratic and desperate as the rounds dragged on. Getting a beatdown will do that to you. I'll try to be gentle: first of all, you are attacking a position that I do not hold. Beyond that, you are ignoring things on which there is broad and deep consensus - such as long-term warming and cooling cycles on millenial timescales - and claiming that a 20 year move in the opposite direction proves them wrong. Your arguments - such as they are - would be laughable if you weren't actually serious.
-
I even find it humurous that AVXO is claiming that man made influences are unproven, that's completely incorrect also.
I don't dispute that we could change the climate; it's not even't particularly difficult: a couple of big nuclear bombs and we could change it pretty radically. I just don't know that our influence is as large as is claimed.
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
There is literally moutains of evidence showing it's anthropogenic, mountains. The other known variables do not account for it, it's us.
The other known variables may not account for it, but there may also be unknown variables. I'm just not too quick to jump on the bandwagon and I am not convinced that human activities have the effect that is claimed in this case. To be sure they have some effect (see hydrofluorocarbons, for example) and considering that this is the only planet on which we are currently capable of surviving, it would be smart to take steps to protect it for reason other than the purely selfish one of helping ensure that it can continue to foster our survival.
-
But as you may recall, Clubber Lang gets brutally beaten by Rocky Balboa and loses.
I know that. I just dig the line. The one difference between the Lang character and myself is that my opponent (if you will) doesn't have an an Apollo to get him ready.
Except that the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet span thousands of years. When we're talking about that time frame, twenty years are, effectively, an outlier. As someone with a Bachelor's degree in Engineering you should have at least taken basic introductory statistics... no?
For that you would need thousands of years of data, no? Besides, it was the climatologists who made the predictions regarding the last 20 years and they basically goofed that on up.
Even if every bit of that is true, I fail to see how it addresses the main thrust of my post or can be used to challenge anything I wrote. I never said anything about Antarctic ice, the ozone layer, hydrocarbons, CO2, tax credits or whatever else. I spoke about the fact that the earth naturally goes through long-term warming and cooling cycles and nobody disputes this. I also said that the evidence we have from the past hundred or so years suggests that we are presently in a warming cycle and again, this is something that nobody disputes. If you're feeling up to it, you may want to read up on topics like North African climate cycles.
But, that's not the gist of this issue. It's this bilge about the planet warming/cooling and mankind going to fry/freeze, because of man-made global warming. You will recall I sayd something to the tune of "Man didn't start it and man can't stop it".
Some models are more successful than others at making predictions and some are less. And considering how big the system being modeled is and how many variables are independent, is that any surprise?
And, as a scientist, you know that you junk those that don't work. You don't keep insisting that they do, espeically with evidence to the contrary piling on the scene.
For an engineer, your thought process is ridiculously muddled. But, I guess, it's not unlike Clubber Lang's punching - it became erratic and desperate as the rounds dragged on. Getting a beatdown will do that to you. I'll try to be gentle: first of all, you are attacking a position that I do not hold. Beyond that, you are ignoring things on which there is broad and deep consensus - such as long-term warming and cooling cycles on millenial timescales - and claiming that a 20 year move in the opposite direction proves them wrong. Your arguments - such as they are - would be laughable if you weren't actually serious.
How is it muddled? Somebody makes a prediction, based on a model. The time is up; the prediction doesn't come to pass; you scrap the model.
That's not what's happening, though. The models keep getting pushed and the agenda that man is responsible for warming (that isn't actually happening) gets spewed.
-
Earth to numbskull!! Why did they get trapped again? They got trapped in ice they thought wasn't supposed to be there. Also from that article:
He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas. So what does he believe: His theories, or the ACTUAL ICE that trapped him and six dozens of his buddies?
Furthermore....
In a failed effort to raise funds for the scheme from the public, the climate alarmists promised potential donors that they would investigate and share information about “environmental changes” taking place in Antarctica. “Crucially this pristine southern polar region is uniquely placed to monitor the health of our planet,” Turley and his associates said. The team also vowed to seek out information on the intersection between “global climate” and the region, claiming — somewhat ironically, in retrospect — that changes were “threatening the stability of Antarctic ice.”
“The Southern Ocean plays a crucial role in global climate and the carbon cycle,” the climate alarmists wrote, adding that “90% of the world’s excess heat trapped by the atmosphere is going into the ocean and changing circulation patterns, threatening to turn the region into a source of carbon, exaggerating future warming.” The expedition, the team leaders continued, would “make detailed measurements on the passage south (e.g. temperature, salinity, carbon) to determine just how sensitive the Southern Ocean is to change.”
As if it could not get any more embarrassing, a video about the trip featuring Turney explained that the “Australasian Antarctic Expedition” — named after another expedition a century ago by the same name led by Sir Douglas Mawson — “will re-trace the route of its namesake to discover just how much has changed over the last 100 years.” Of course, when the video was produced, the “climate scientists,” rather than being stuck in ice, almost certainly had much different “changes” in mind. A hundred years ago, even without modern technology, Mawson’s expedition did just fine.
“We're stuck in our own experiment,” the Australasian Antarctic Expedition admitted in a statement quoted in media reports, almost comically insisting that ice in the region really is melting despite all of the objective and anecdotal data literally all around them. “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.” In reality, sea ice in the Arctic is up 50 percent above last year, and in Antarctica, this year saw a new record — the largest sea-ice covering since records began.
As has become typical in everything “climate,” the establishment press has largely refused to tell the truth about the purpose of the expedition — either ignoring the facts altogether, or claiming it was merely a “research” trip. A few have casually mentioned the “climate” connection in passing near the bottom of articles. The avoidance of reality is especially ironic considering that there are taxpayer-funded “journalists” from the alarmist BBC and the Australian ABC, as well as from the almost comically hysterical U.K. Guardian, onboard the ship hoping to capture “evidence” of “global warming.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17277-global-warming-alarmists-stuck-in-antarctic-sea-ice
I know how you so dearly wish to distance yourself from Gore (who could blame you). But, the fact remains he's been the poster boy of all this crap you keep spewing. Such isn't lost on the public. So when his doom-and-gloom predictions go up in smoke, he tends to get clowned.....as do you.
So when Gore supposedly follows the science, which has been shown to be less than accurate (in essence, doing the same thing YOU are doing), no one is supposed to call him or YOU on it. I see.
I don;t care about al gore, the article states the word melting not melted moron, the melting caused massive icebergs which participated in trapping ice as they do. This was the issue you fucking moron. No one said all the ice would be melted no one, it's melting at an alarming rate. You can keep trying to misrepresent the "alarmists"(97% of the climatologists in the world, lol) position of crazy extremes.
The ice sheet is collapsing how the fuck is the ice expanding, I don't even need to refute the lies in your bullshit the data is all there moron.
would you ask a sociologists to do engineering work? yes or no?
so ice melting in your world=NO ICE. solid logic. the other shit is just outright lies like your poster boy LORD MONCKTON who can cure CANCER and rebut the worlds leading authorities lol. This guy is a fraud like you.
-
Oh really!!?
The leader of a scientific expedition whose ship remains stranded in Antarctic ice says the team, which set out to prove climate change, is "stuck in our own experiment."
But Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at Australia’s University of New South Wales, said it was “silly” to suggest he and 73 others aboard the MV Akademic Shokalskiy were trapped in ice they’d sought to prove had melted. He remained adamant that sea ice is melting, even as the boat remained trapped in frozen seas.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/30/stuck-in-our-own-experiment-leader-trapped-team-insists-polar-ice-is-melting/
And, then there's this guy:
The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’
Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.
But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html
Again a politician, I DONT GIVE A FUCK. are you that stupid that you dont understand that no one in the actual scientific community (the only people who matter) cares about al gore, do you think his predictions are based on advanced models, years of training and field work?
Seriously stop posting bullshit opinions from al gore to lord fuckign monckton, you don't understand teh difference between opinion and fact. None of these people are authorities as such I don't give a fuck what they said, try again.
-
Indeed I do know what the word means. I'm sure if you ask some alchemists, they would have said the same thing about lead turning into gold....unequivocially.
In the same vein, those guys who got trapped in that ice thought the ice was "unequivocally" supposed to be melted.
Using big words and actually being accurate are two different things. Try to keep up, genius.
As for Newman's referencing himself? Ummm... I wasn't aware that Alex Newman also wenty by the name Fritz Vahrenholt....or Ian Elliot.....or Pierre Gosselin.
Even other treehuggers are contorting themselves for another explanation as to why the facts don't match the models.
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.
According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html#ixzz3Dy5mRKtO
Would this be the same IPCC caught fudging the numbers again?
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
Dude I just showed you teh person who writes for this bullshit website has claimed to cure cancer, has been caught making up data and isn't even a lord, yet you post another article?
you must be coach it's the only explanation for this stupidity. I won't look at that site it is tarnished, it has been shown to be biased and fine with false hoods, it can be brushed aside now. Try another source without a history of lying and funded solely by big oil.
You are a laughable human in every way.
-
Hey doofus, I never claimed the Earth to be flat. As for alchemy, I mentioned that to make the point. It is utter BS, just like your treehugging mantra of global warming.
But, just to show yet more examples of the environmental goofies, continuing to shoot themselves in the feet.
First there was this:
Americans who lived through the 1960s and ’70s may remember the dire global-cooling predictions that were hyped and given great credibility by Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and numerous other mainstream media outlets. According to the man-made global-cooling theories of the time, billions of people should be dead by now owing to cooling-linked crop failures and starvation.
“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000,” claimed ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California in 1970. “This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Of course, 2000 came and went, and the world did not get 11 degrees colder. No ice age arrived, either.
In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.” Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.
To combat the alleged man-made cooling, “experts” suggested all sorts of grandiose schemes, including some that in retrospect appear almost too comical to be real. “Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay its effects,” reported Newsweek in its 1975 article “The Cooling World,” which claimed that Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities. Some of the “more spectacular solutions” proposed by the cooling theorists at the time included “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” Newsweek reported.
Of course, the big alleged threat hyped in recent decades has been global warming, not global cooling. But the accuracy of the climate-change predictions since the cooling fears melted away has hardly improved.
30+ years later, our treehugging brethren switched to THIS:
No More Snow?
For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardian newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since records began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.
In early 2004, the CRU’s Viner and other self-styled “experts” warned that skiing in Scotland would soon become just a memory, thanks to alleged global warming. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry,” Viner told The Guardian. Another “expert,” Adam Watson with the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the paper that the skiing industry in Scotland had less than two decades left to go. Yet in 2013, too much snow kept many Scottish resorts closed. “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow,” reported OnTheSnow.com on January 4, 2013. Ironically, by 2014, the BBC, citing experts, reported that the Scottish hills had more snow than at any point in seven decades. It also reported that the Nevis Range ski resort could not operate some of its lifts because they were “still buried under unprecedented amounts of snow.”
The IPCC has also been relentlessly hyping the snowless winter scare, along with gullible or agenda-driven politicians. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The year 2013, the last year for which complete data is available, featured the fourth-highest levels on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. Spring snow cover was the highest in a decade, while data for the fall indicate that it was the fifth highest ever recorded. Last December, meanwhile, brought with it a new high record in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, Global Snow Lab data show.
Blame Global Warming?
After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming. Get it? Good.
The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science “Czar” John Holdren. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,” he claimed.
That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN “settled science” IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” Ironically, perhaps, Holdren warned decades ago that human CO2 emissions would lead to a billion deaths due to global warming-fueled global cooling — yes, cooling, which he said would lead to a new ice age by 2020.
Ridiculous forecasts have been made by other “climate scientists” who, like Holdren, continue to reap huge amounts of U.S. taxpayer dollars in salaries, grants, and benefits despite being consistently wrong. James Hansen, for instance, who headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for three decades before taking a post at Columbia University, is one of the best known “climatologists” in the world — despite his long and embarrassing record of bad forecasting spanning decades
.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
I know; I know. He's a lawyer. So pointing out how the pine pumpers went from global cooling in the 70s and 80s to global warming in the 90s and 2000s doesn't count.
Darn this blasted planet!!
No his opinion on climate science does not count. No one cares about it, no one expect nutjobs like you. I wouldn't ask a climatologist for legal advice, can you understand this?
again you are lying and taking information on climate from a lawyer, you even admit it, this shows how stupid you are.
-
Again a politician, I DONT GIVE A FUCK. are you that stupid that you dont understand that no one in the actual scientific community (the only people who matter) cares about al gore, do you think his predictions are based on advanced models, years of training and field work?
Wrong again! They care, as Gore helps get them publicity and (more importantly) grant money.
Seriously stop posting bullshit opinions from al gore to lord fuckign monckton, you don't understand teh difference between opinion and fact. None of these people are authorities as such I don't give a fuck what they said, try again.
I'll post whatever I please, especially when it has the goods to knock down this global warming crap. Gore got his "bull--- opinions" from the very 'scientific community' you espouse. Yet, when he (and thus they) are shown to be inaacurate, you bleat and wail, trying to dismiss the former VP, as if their agendas aren't hand-in-hand.
-
No his opinion on climate science does not count. No one cares about it, no one expect nutjobs like you. I wouldn't ask a climatologist for legal advice, can you understand this?
again you are lying and taking information on climate from a lawyer, you even admit it, this shows how stupid you are.
This isn't asking about legal advice, O blockheaded one. It's documentation of facts that shoot your treehugging tripe to pieces, which is why you resort to attacking the messenger (as most mushbrained liberals tend to do). He can report on this issue, as long as he has the facts and sources that back him up. And that's what burns your biscuits. That's what writers do. Otherwise, we'd have no journalism of any type, Einstein.
Reporting the history of the treehuggers' flip-flopping from global cooling to global warming reflects on the treehuggers', not those who actually report their past and present blatherings about how our planet is supposedly doomed to either fry or freeze, because of man-made causes.
-
I don't dispute that we could change the climate; it's not even't particularly difficult: a couple of big nuclear bombs and we could change it pretty radically. I just don't know that our influence is as large as is claimed.
The other known variables may not account for it, but there may also be unknown variables. I'm just not too quick to jump on the bandwagon and I am not convinced that human activities have the effect that is claimed in this case. To be sure they have some effect (see hydrofluorocarbons, for example) and considering that this is the only planet on which we are currently capable of surviving, it would be smart to take steps to protect it for reason other than the purely selfish one of helping ensure that it can continue to foster our survival.
Again the world;s climatologists have said it is us, there was a paper released recently that put your (unknown variables) to bed, the chance of it not being humans was lower then .01 and as you know in stats, that's it, the finding is significant. There is no unknown variable and if there is the chance is so small that it's meaningless, hence that's not a valid argument. You could make that argument about anything, however, in stats alpha levels of .05-.01 are the standard, it's been met and then some. What possible variables could explain all this? give me some examples, if not, it's simply you not having enough information on the subject. I have yet to hear one valid argument, anywhere. Where is the literature?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “very likely” statement that anthropogenic emissions are affecting climate is based on a statistical detection and attribution methodology that strongly depends on the characterization of internal climate variability. In this paper, the authors test the robustness of this statement in the case of global mean surface air temperature, under different representations of such variability. The contributions of the different natural and anthropogenic forcings to the global mean surface air temperature response are computed using a box diffusion model. Representations of internal climate variability are explored using simple stochastic models that nevertheless span a representative range of plausible temporal autocorrelation structures, including the short-memory first-order autoregressive [AR(1)] process and the long-memory fractionally differencing process. The authors find that, independently of the representation chosen, the greenhouse gas signal remains statistically significant under the detection model employed in this paper. The results support the robustness of the IPCC detection and attribution statement for global mean temperature change under different characterizations of internal variability, but they also suggest that a wider variety of robustness tests, other than simple comparisons of residual variance, should be performed when dealing with other climate variables and/or different spatial scales."
2014 was the warmest summer in history, ever recorded or hinted at. Mcway wants you to interpret this data as cooling though.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8
Those fucking japs, tree hugging liberals.
"NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency agree that August was the warmest on record. NASA puts August’s global temperature at 0.7 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average, while the JMA, which compares temperatures to a more recent period, reports August was 0.32 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average."
This summer was a record for heat, EVER.
The cause is increase CO2, Fact. It doesn't need more evidence, the models we use make accurate predictions, they showed slowing winds, earlier storms, record cold and hot months in the same year, ocean acidification, ice sheet collapsing. They take into account the sun, the wind, the ocean, the movement of the earth, the natural cycles.
Also, this natural cycle bullshit needs to go. When you see saw up and down in weight, it's not natural cycles, it's glycogen and water depletion, calories intake etc this create the "natural cycle", we know the variables, hence we know the natural cycle. I mean if you aren't satisfied with a .01 or greater then %95 confidence interval then you are holding climatology to an unfair standard.
-
Wrong again! They care, as Gore helps get them publicity and (more importantly) grant money.
I'll post whatever I please, especially when it has the goods to knock down this global warming crap. Gore got his "bull--- opinions" from the very 'scientific community' you espouse. Yet, when he (and thus they) are shown to be inaacurate, you bleat and wail, trying to dismiss the former VP, as if their agendas aren't hand-in-hand.
Again Al gores claims mean nothing, he is not a scientist, he is a lying politician. I have never seen his faggy movie so I don't give a fuck.
-
This isn't asking about legal advice, O blockheaded one. It's documentation of facts that shoot your treehugging tripe to pieces, which is why you resort to attacking the messenger (as most mushbrained liberals tend to do). He can report on this issue, as long as he has the facts and sources that back him up. And that's what burns your biscuits. That's what writers do. Otherwise, we'd have no journalism of any type, Einstein.
If this isn't about legal advice why are you listening to a lawyer? nothing burns me up, you are losing the debate little fella, you have posted lies told by known liars. Notice how Dario has stopped? he backs a liar, and like him, you want me to refute his lies, the more you can throw out the better. So I am telling you that no I don't care what liars say, like you, I won't even consider your opinion on any matter, you have shown your ass, you are a liar.
Once someone's credibility is lost they no longer have the right to be responded to in a serious manner. He has been caught being intelletually dishonest, you see this as a minor detail, perhaps why you live your life fearing a sky daddy. Facts are no big deal to you, TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! lol.
-
Again the world;s climatologists have said it is us, there was a paper released recently that put your (unknown variables) to bed, the chance of it not being humans was lower then .01 and as you know in stats, that's it, the finding is significant. There is no unknown variable and if there is the chance is so small that it's meaningless, hence that's not a valid argument. You could make that argument about anything, however, in stats alpha levels of .05-.01 are the standard, it's been met and then some. What possible variables could explain all this? give me some examples, if not, it's simply you not having enough information on the subject. I have yet to hear one valid argument, anywhere. Where is the literature?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00622.1
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “very likely” statement that anthropogenic emissions are affecting climate is based on a statistical detection and attribution methodology that strongly depends on the characterization of internal climate variability. In this paper, the authors test the robustness of this statement in the case of global mean surface air temperature, under different representations of such variability. The contributions of the different natural and anthropogenic forcings to the global mean surface air temperature response are computed using a box diffusion model. Representations of internal climate variability are explored using simple stochastic models that nevertheless span a representative range of plausible temporal autocorrelation structures, including the short-memory first-order autoregressive [AR(1)] process and the long-memory fractionally differencing process. The authors find that, independently of the representation chosen, the greenhouse gas signal remains statistically significant under the detection model employed in this paper. The results support the robustness of the IPCC detection and attribution statement for global mean temperature change under different characterizations of internal variability, but they also suggest that a wider variety of robustness tests, other than simple comparisons of residual variance, should be performed when dealing with other climate variables and/or different spatial scales."
2014 was the warmest summer in history, ever recorded or hinted at. Mcway wants you to interpret this data as cooling though.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/8
No, try interpeting actual tempatures. The results tend to tell a different story.
NOAA seems to know something about that.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/
Those fucking japs, tree hugging liberals.
"NASA and the Japan Meteorological Agency agree that August was the warmest on record. NASA puts August’s global temperature at 0.7 degrees Celsius above the 1951-1980 average, while the JMA, which compares temperatures to a more recent period, reports August was 0.32 degrees Celsius above the 1981-2010 average."
This summer was a record for heat, EVER.
The cause is increase CO2, Fact. It doesn't need more evidence, the models we use make accurate predictions, they showed slowing winds, earlier storms, record cold and hot months in the same year, ocean acidification, ice sheet collapsing. They take into account the sun, the wind, the ocean, the movement of the earth, the natural cycles.
Also, this natural cycle bullshit needs to go. When you see saw up and down in weight, it's not natural cycles, it's glycogen and water depletion, calories intake etc this create the "natural cycle", we know the variables, hence we know the natural cycle. I mean if you aren't satisfied with a .01 or greater then %95 confidence interval then you are holding climatology to an unfair standard.
So, on top of being a treehugging sap, you're apparently a racist.
Again Al gores claims mean nothing, he is not a scientist, he is a lying politician. I have never seen his faggy movie so I don't give a fuck.
Indeed he is a lying politician. And his pushing this global warming crap is a prime eample of such.
-
If this isn't about legal advice why are you listening to a lawyer? nothing burns me up, you are losing the debate little fella, you have posted lies told by known liars. Notice how Dario has stopped? he backs a liar, and like him, you want me to refute his lies, the more you can throw out the better. So I am telling you that no I don't care what liars say, like you, I won't even consider your opinion on any matter, you have shown your ass, you are a liar.
Why are you talking my hind quarters? Is there something you wish to share with the class?
Last time I checked, this was Dario's thread. He'll respond to your buffoonery in due time.
As for why I listen to a "lawyer", it's because this "lawyer" is also a journalist, the likes of whom tend to report news and information. Just like those YOU cited from the likes of The Guardian.
Once someone's credibility is lost they no longer have the right to be responded to in a serious manner. He has been caught being intelletually dishonest, you see this as a minor detail, perhaps why you live your life fearing a sky daddy. Facts are no big deal to you, TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! lol.
You don't determine who has the right to what, especially spewing the nonsense you have been. And par your infantile course, you dredge up religion, which has ZILCH to do with the topic at hand. Fearing a "sky daddy"? That's tough talk from a fool, worrying about being barbecued unless he drives windup cars to help save the planet.
-
No, try interpeting actual tempatures. The results tend to tell a different story.
NOAA seems to know something about that.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/
So, on top of being a treehugging sap, you're apparently a racist.
Indeed he is a lying politician. And his pushing this global warming crap is a prime eample of such.
Did you just play the racism card? LOL. what does treehugging have to do with this ? I don't give a fuck about that nor the trees, I care about life existing without to much difficulty. I don't care about hybrid cars or solar panels, I don't care about Barack Obama or left or right or al gore.
Did you not see the abstract I posted? it literally makes you eat shit.
No he is a politician who has no sway on the actual data nor reality, only idiots like you who fall for such shit.
-
And THERE IT IS, the cruz of all this global warming mess: Making you feel good about doing something. And, per certain politicians and celebrities, you'd feel even better if you drove juice boxes disguised as cars, have toilet paper rationed to you, and let Uncle Sam determine when (or if) you can drive, and (of course) higher taxes to pay for all this stuff.
What you do, in terms of lights and gas, is just common sense (to say nothing of saving you money on your fuel and electric bills).
As for global warming, the operative word you mentioned is "IF". There's a huge difference between stating that such is a possibility and proclaiming that we're going to fry or freeze (depending on which decades you cach certain treehuggers), if we don't do X, Y, Or Z whihc again usually involves surrendering one's freedoms, tax dollars, and use of fossil fuels....all while the aforementioned treehuggers blatantly consume those very items.
Your repeated use of the term "tree huggers" suggests that you missed my point. Not that there is anything wrong with being a tree hugger if that's what interests a person. It is just that many people think of tree huggers as being extreme environmentalist and perhaps a little off kilter. My point was most people are not the extreme end of one side or the other when it comes to environmental issues. Where do you stand?
There is nothing wrong with choosing to drive a hybrid car, which uses less fossil fuel and perhaps produces less negative impact on the
environment, while saving the owner some money on fuel. Several folks in my neighborhood have recently bought all electric cars, some as their second car which they use for short jaunts. I presume folks spending the money for a Tesla, use it as their primary vehicle.
I considered installing solar panels on my roof to offset the cost of electricity. Unfortunately, I have a shake roof which still has some life left so factoring in the cost of a new roof rendered this idea not profitable at this time. I check the energy star ratings on appliances before purchasing new ones. How efficient an appliance is, is a consideration. We recycle as much as possible rather then throwing everything in the trash, but we aren't obsessive about this. Being a financially conservative person, I admit these choices are driven more because of possible cost savings then by a desire to be environmentally conscious.
Everyone who considers their impact on the environment is not a tree hugger. Some of us are just regular people who try to make intelligent choices, which may or may not have a positive effect on the environment.
-
Your repeated use of the term "tree huggers" suggests that you missed my point. Not that there is anything wrong with being a tree hugger if that's what interests a person. It is just that many people think of tree huggers as being extreme environmentalist and perhaps a little off kilter. My point was most people are not the extreme end of one side or the other when it comes to environmental issues. Where do you stand?
There is nothing wrong with choosing to drive a hybrid car, which uses less fossil fuel and perhaps produces less negative impact on the
environment, while saving the owner some money on fuel. Several folks in my neighborhood have recently bought all electric cars, some as their second car which they use for short jaunts. I presume folks spending the money for a Tesla, use it as their primary vehicle.
I considered installing solar panels on my roof to offset the cost of electricity. Unfortunately, I have a shake roof which still has some life left so factoring in the cost of a new roof rendered this idea not profitable at this time. I check the energy star ratings on appliances before purchasing new ones. How efficient an appliance is, is a consideration. We recycle as much as possible rather then throwing everything in the trash, but we aren't obsessive about this. Being a financially conservative person, I admit these choices are driven more because of possible cost savings then by a desire to be environmentally conscious.
Everyone who considers their impact on the environment is not a tree hugger. Some of us are just people who try to make intelligent choices, which may or may not have a positive effect on the environment.
I won't have this shit. This is a well reasoned obviously old man post. You must speak to people like Mcway in a negative fashion, he is a blight, as are his ilk. He is ISIS to the intellect.
-
I won't have this shit. This is a well reasoned obviously old man post. You must speak to people like Mcway in a negative fashion, he is a blight, as are his ilk. He is ISIS to the intellect.
How you choose to address folks is your choice. How I choose to is mine. Many people speak from a reasoned perspective, whether young or old, but thanks for complimenting me on my age, wisdom and sense of reason anyway.
Like I said, speak as you wish, but realize that being offensive to people often produces negative results. Chances are Mcway will simply tune you out. I know I do when someone comes at me from a negative fashion.
-
How you choose to address folks is your choice. How I choose to is mine. Many people speak from a reasoned perspective, whether young or old, but thanks for complimenting me on my age, wisdom and sense of reason anyway.
Like I said, speak as you wish, but realize that being offensive to people often produces negative results. Chances are Mcway will simply tune you out. I know I do when someone comes at me from a negative fashion.
I am aware of this fully, I go at some people like I just joked and complimented you, then I go at morons in a different manner. The truth is positive or negative tone MCWAY will tune out any conflicting information, as such, tone matters not. Thus I choose to humilate and lambast him as he is a useless human, a closed minded one.
critical and negative feedback is far more valuable then positive however, a negative approach has merits.
-
Your repeated use of the term "tree huggers" suggests that you missed my point. Not that there is anything wrong with being a tree hugger if that's what interests a person. It is just that many people think of tree huggers as being extreme environmentalist and perhaps a little off kilter. My point was most people are not the extreme end of one side or the other when it comes to environmental issues. Where do you stand?
Where I stand is this: It's common sense, not to mention (from Judeo-Christian standpoint) Biblical to take care of and have dominion over the Earth.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to drive a hybrid car, which uses less fossil fuel and perhaps produces less negative impact on the
environment, while saving the owner some money on fuel. Several folks in my neighborhood have recently bought all electric cars, some as their second car which they use for short jaunts. I presume folks spending the money for a Tesla, use it as their primary vehicle.
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong. But, there's a big difference between having such a car as a viable OPTION and attempting to mandate that all drive such cars, because otherwise, they're harming the planet. Some people like cars like the Tesla; others think they suck. your mileage may vary.
I considered installing solar panels on my roof to offset the cost of electricity. Unfortunately, I have a shake roof which still has some life left so factoring in the cost of a new roof rendered this idea not profitable at this time. I check the energy star ratings on appliances before purchasing new ones. How efficient an appliance is, is a consideration. We recycle as much as possible rather then throwing everything in the trash, but we aren't obsessive about this. Being a financially conservative person, I admit these choices are driven more because of possible cost savings then by a desire to be environmentally conscious.
I've recycled since I was a kid. In fact, I remember saving up cans to get change to buy flips (frozen Kool-aid in Styrofoam cups, for those who didn't grow up in the South), candy, and cookies. My son (now that he's 4) has taking cans and bottles to the recycling bin as a chore of his. I'm financially conservative, and socially too. To me the two go hand in hand But again, your mileage may vary.
Everyone who considers their impact on the environment is not a tree hugger. Some of us are just regular people who try to make intelligent choices, which may or may not have a positive effect on the environment.
Considering your impact on the environment is one thing. Attempting to curtail political freedom and economic prosperity by dismantling fossil fuel sources (costing people their jobs and livelihoods, especially in the Midwest) and jacking up their energy costs (all the while, the very people who do so live high on the hog, using those very same resrouces) tends to bug me.
It's more upsetting when you find out such is being done, based on utter garbage, by people cooking the books to push their own agenda, at the average man's expense. Hearing these folks yelp about our causing the planet to burn up, when these same groups of people said the exact opposite less than 40 years ago (i.e. we'd be human popsicles) simply tells me these people are loaded with bull, with the end-goal of stripping folks of liberty and money.
Every left-winged politician, celebrity, scientist, and lobbyist will make darn sure that he/she is exempt from the very standards that would be imposed on you and me. It's no coincidence that many "treehuggers", as I call them just happen to be anti-capitalists and communists.
I heard a joke that these folks are like watermelons: Green on the outside; RED on the inside.
-
I am aware of this fully, I go at some people like I just joked and complimented you, then I go at morons in a different manner. The truth is positive or negative tone MCWAY will tune out any conflicting information, as such, tone matters not. Thus I choose to humilate and lambast him as he is a useless human, a closed minded one.
critical and negative feedback is far more valuable then positive however, a negative approach has merits.
If you believe Mcway will tune out any conflicting information, why do you bother conversing with him at all?
I've frequently found constructive criticism to be very productive in good communications with a great variety of people.
-
If you believe Mcway will tune out any conflicting information, why do you bother conversing with him at all?
I've frequently found constructive criticism to be very productive in good communications with a great variety of people.
Necrosis is one of those goofs who thinks shouting down and cursing out anyone who disagrees with him will get them to clam up or back down.
I've encountered this with liberals, long before him. He's no different and I'll deal with him, just as I have everyone else that spouts the same crap that he does.
-
If you believe Mcway will tune out any conflicting information, why do you bother conversing with him at all?
I've frequently found constructive criticism to be very productive in good communications with a great variety of people.
Because there are people like you reading this thread observing his bullshit and the bullshit people like him spew being smashed to pieces.
-
If you believe Mcway will tune out any conflicting information, why do you bother conversing with him at all?
I've frequently found constructive criticism to be very productive in good communications with a great variety of people.
negative feedback is most important for me.
-
Who deleted my comment? I can't insult him? how many times in this very thread has he insulted me? this is a two way street, he is playing victim now. He has lied, played the racism card and made me out to look like a bully. Is this a grown man or a petulant child? lol.
Grow some balls.
-
Where I stand is this: It's common sense, not to mention (from Judeo-Christian standpoint) Biblical to take care of and have dominion over the Earth.
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong. But, there's a big difference between having such a car as a viable OPTION and attempting to mandate that all drive such cars, because otherwise, they're harming the planet. Some people like cars like the Tesla; others think they suck. your mileage may vary.
I've recycled since I was a kid. In fact, I remember saving up cans to get change to buy flips (frozen Kool-aid in Styrofoam cups, for those who didn't grow up in the South), candy, and cookies. My son (now that he's 4) has taking cans and bottles to the recycling bin as a chore of his. I'm financially conservative, and socially too. To me the two go hand in hand But again, your mileage may vary.
Considering your impact on the environment is one thing. Attempting to curtail political freedom and economic prosperity by dismantling fossil fuel sources (costing people their jobs and livelihoods, especially in the Midwest) and jacking up their energy costs (all the while, the very people who do so live high on the hog, using those very same resrouces) tends to bug me.
It's more upsetting when you find out such is being done, based on utter garbage, by people cooking the books to push their own agenda, at the average man's expense. Hearing these folks yelp about our causing the planet to burn up, when these same groups of people said the exact opposite less than 40 years ago (i.e. we'd be human popsicles) simply tells me these people are loaded with bull, with the end-goal of stripping folks of liberty and money.
Every left-winged politician, celebrity, scientist, and lobbyist will make darn sure that he/she is exempt from the very standards that would be imposed on you and me. It's no coincidence that many "treehuggers", as I call them just happen to be anti-capitalists and communists.
I heard a joke that these folks are like watermelons: Green on the outside; RED on the inside.
Most of your response is very reasonable and rationale. I am not sure who "these folks" are. Personally, I dislike stereotyping people and it seems like you are headed in that direction with tree huggers.
I recently spent time in Germany, visiting my son and his family. Around where they live in Bavaria, there are giant windmills and fields of solar panels everywhere you look. I hadn't noticed them on previous visits, so I asked my son what had changed. Seems that after the recent mishaps with nuclear power plants around the world, Germany is working on finding other resources to produce energy. Gasoline is about $9 a gallon there. Understandably, many people buy cars that get good mileage. There is no better incentive then saving money.
I live in Oregon. Up around Hood River and in Eastern Oregon, there are wind fields (quantities of windmills in a given area) generating electricity. Near where I live in West Linn, there is a large array of solar panels just off the freeway. How viable these alternative power sources are here at this point is questionable, but then it is just beginning. Hanford nuclear power plant shut down many years ago because it was in disrepair and supposedly a threat to the environment. No doubt, many people lost their jobs when this happened. Times change.
Do you suppose automobile manufacturers would be building vehicles which use less fuel if there was no governmental pressure to do so? Is there a movement to mandate which vehicles we drive? Although, a few people seem to be interested in environmentally friendly vehicles, there are still plenty of gas guzzling SUV's and monster trucks around. I am all for people having choices. In fact, I have spoken out against some of the seat belt laws because I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me my not wearing one jeopardizes others. I do think they should be enforced for children though. My gripe is laws that seem only to protect me from harming myself.
To finish this reply on a positive note, I read in the Oregonian where the cost of gas is expected to decline in Oregon, Washington and California this fall to a little over $3 a gallon. It has been up around $4 since last spring. Seems the west coast refineries are running smoothly for a change, the special summer fuel mix ends for the year and there crude oil prices are down worldwide. It was also mentioned in the article that with the increase in vehicles which use less fuel, consumption is down from what it was a few years ago.
-
Necrosis is one of those goofs who thinks shouting down and cursing out anyone who disagrees with him will get them to clam up or back down.
I've encountered this with liberals, long before him. He's no different and I'll deal with him, just as I have everyone else that spouts the same crap that he does.
Hmm. Most of the liberal thinking people I know are relatively mild mannered and not particularly aggressive acting. Are you suggesting most liberals tend to be shouters and cursers? Perhaps the folks I know who call themselves liberal are really just moderates.
-
Because there are people like you reading this thread observing his bullshit and the bullshit people like him spew being smashed to pieces.
Is there no middle ground? It seems to me, the future is in folks coming together on issues. Compromise has great value.
-
Because there are people like you reading this thread observing his bullshit and the bullshit people like him spew being smashed to pieces.
I don't believe the folks at either end of the spectrum think of their views as bullshit. If they did, they would abandon them.
We live in the information age. It is possible for anyone to defend whatever position they take and to cite "proof" of said position. Unfortunately, not all the information we find is accurate....a lot of it is manipulated to prove a point. This is why I keep referring to the middle ground. The further one goes to the extremes, the more likely there is some "bullshit" involved.
-
Is there no middle ground? It seems to me, the future is in folks coming together on issues. Compromise has great value.
Sure, not on matters of fact.
-
Who deleted my comment? I can't insult him? how many times in this very thread has he insulted me? this is a two way street, he is playing victim now. He has lied, played the racism card and made me out to look like a bully. Is this a grown man or a petulant child? lol.
Grow some balls.
I have no idea who deleted your post. So, save that wailing for someone else. I didn't go to any moderator. The last post I did here yesterday was my reply to Primemuscle.
Did YOU used another racial slur (or at least, what the mods deem such) in your foolish attempt to mock me and got popped for it? If you did, don't bleat and whine about it.
-
Because there are people like you reading this thread observing his bullshit and the bullshit people like him spew being smashed to pieces.
Dream on, Necrosis. They see you throwing a hissy fit, because you can't browbeat people with your treehugging bilge.
-
Most of your response is very reasonable and rationale. I am not sure who "these folks" are. Personally, I dislike stereotyping people and it seems like you are headed in that direction with tree huggers.
I recently spent time in Germany, visiting my son and his family. Around where they live in Bavaria, there are giant windmills and fields of solar panels everywhere you look. I hadn't noticed them on previous visits, so I asked my son what had changed. Seems that after the recent mishaps with nuclear power plants around the world, Germany is working on finding other resources to produce energy. Gasoline is about $9 a gallon there. Understandably, many people buy cars that get good mileage. There is no better incentive then saving money.
I live in Oregon. Up around Hood River and in Eastern Oregon, there are wind fields (quantities of windmills in a given area) generating electricity. Near where I live in West Linn, there is a large array of solar panels just off the freeway. How viable these alternative power sources are here at this point is questionable, but then it is just beginning. Hanford nuclear power plant shut down many years ago because it was in disrepair and supposedly a threat to the environment. No doubt, many people lost their jobs when this happened. Times change.
Do you suppose automobile manufacturers would be building vehicles which use less fuel if there was no governmental pressure to do so? Is there a movement to mandate which vehicles we drive? Although, a few people seem to be interested in environmentally friendly vehicles, there are still plenty of gas guzzling SUV's and monster trucks around. I am all for people having choices. In fact, I have spoken out against some of the seat belt laws because I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me my not wearing one jeopardizes others. I do think they should be enforced for children though. My gripe is laws that seem only to protect me from harming myself.
To finish this reply on a positive note, I read in the Oregonian where the cost of gas is expected to decline in Oregon, Washington and California this fall to a little over $3 a gallon. It has been up around $4 since last spring. Seems the west coast refineries are running smoothly for a change, the special summer fuel mix ends for the year and there crude oil prices are down worldwide. It was also mentioned in the article that with the increase in vehicles which use less fuel, consumption is down from what it was a few years ago.
Thanks. If there were any doubt as to what I said about this mess being more political than about actually saving the planet, check this treehugging hoedown in New York City.
You'll see signs like "Capitalism is the disease; Socialism is the cure."
And, as I've said from the start, these folks want everyone ELSE to surrender their freedom and wealth.....WHILE THEY HOLD ON TO THEIRS!
Case in point: Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Leonardo DiCaprio Notice his response when asked if he plans on giving up his goodies to help the planet from being baked.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/watch_rfk_jr_lose_it_at_climate_change_march_when_confronted_about_his_hypocrisy.html
Did I mention the "F--- the Police" songs or the facts that these green guys who are oh-so-concerned about the planet LEFT THE PLACE AN ABSOLUTE MESS?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/21/f-the-police-communists-radicals-spotted-throughout-climate-march-in-new-york-city-demand-revolution-nothing-less/
I didn't mean to ignore your question. I believe that car companies would make more fuel-efficient cars, if/when the see their competitors doing the same and making money, hand over fist.
SUVs went big because they were seen as He-Man luxury vehicles, fuel consumption be damned. Besides, gas in the early 2000s was cheap. I remember when I briefly lived in Georgia that gas was $0.87 a gallon (back in 2002)
-
I have no idea who deleted your post. So, save that wailing for someone else. I didn't go to any moderator. The last post I did here yesterday was my reply to Primemuscle.
YOU used a racial slur (or at least, what the mods deem such) in your foolish attempt to mock me and got popped for it. So don't bleat and whine about it.
I asked who deleted my post, I know you cannot so why you took it like that I dont know.
japs? we took back the word, we use it in the street now when talking to each other. Get a life. My post telling you to watch your tone bitch had no racial slurs.
-
Dream on, Necrosis. They see you throwing a hissy fit, because you can't browbeat people with your treehugging bilge.
Oh you're beat down alright. you have been exposed as intellectually dishonest.
-
Thanks. If there were any doubt as to what I said about this mess being more political than about actually saving the planet, check this treehugging hoedown in New York City.
You'll see signs like "Capitalism is the disease; Socialism is the cure."
And, as I've said from the start, these folks want everyone ELSE to surrender their freedom and wealth.....WHILE THEY HOLD ON TO THEIRS!
Case in point: Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Leonardo DiCaprio Notice his response when asked if he plans on giving up his goodies to help the planet from being baked.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/watch_rfk_jr_lose_it_at_climate_change_march_when_confronted_about_his_hypocrisy.html
Did I mention the "F--- the Police" songs or the facts that these green guys who are oh-so-concerned about the planet LEFT THE PLACE AN ABSOLUTE MESS?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/21/f-the-police-communists-radicals-spotted-throughout-climate-march-in-new-york-city-demand-revolution-nothing-less/
I didn't mean to ignore your a uestion. I believe that car companies would make more fuel-efficient cars, if/when the see their competitors doing the same and making money, hand over fist.
SUVs went big because they were seen as He-Man luxury vehicles, fuel consumption be damned. Besides, gas in the early 2000s was cheap. I remember when I briefly lived in Georgia that gas was $0.87 a gallon (back in 2002)
again, what the fuck do they have to do with anything? communists? lololololol.
the answer isn't stop using everything it's to figure out how to continue on without incidence, any sane person would agree with this. The answer has to come from the top down.
-
I asked who deleted my post, I know you cannot so why you took it like that I dont know.
japs? we took back the word, we use it in the street now when talking to each other. Get a life. My post telling you to watch your tone bitch had no racial slurs.
And what are you going to do if I don't watch my tone, hold your breath until you turn blue?
Not invite me to your birthday party?
Unleash you treehugging wrath upon me with anger and furious silliness?
-
Oh you're beat down alright. you have been exposed as intellectually dishonest.
Not even close. You're the one, throwing tantrums and getting your posts deleted.
Again, what are you going to do if I don't "watch my tone"?
-
Global Warming is for losers ;)
-
Thanks. If there were any doubt as to what I said about this mess being more political than about actually saving the planet, check this treehugging hoedown in New York City.
You'll see signs like "Capitalism is the disease; Socialism is the cure."
And, as I've said from the start, these folks want everyone ELSE to surrender their freedom and wealth.....WHILE THEY HOLD ON TO THEIRS!
Case in point: Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Leonardo DiCaprio Notice his response when asked if he plans on giving up his goodies to help the planet from being baked.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/09/watch_rfk_jr_lose_it_at_climate_change_march_when_confronted_about_his_hypocrisy.html
Did I mention the "F--- the Police" songs or the facts that these green guys who are oh-so-concerned about the planet LEFT THE PLACE AN ABSOLUTE MESS?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/21/f-the-police-communists-radicals-spotted-throughout-climate-march-in-new-york-city-demand-revolution-nothing-less/
I didn't mean to ignore your a uestion. I believe that car companies would make more fuel-efficient cars, if/when the see their competitors doing the same and making money, hand over fist.
SUVs went big because they were seen as He-Man luxury vehicles, fuel consumption be damned. Besides, gas in the early 2000s was cheap. I remember when I briefly lived in Georgia that gas was $0.87 a gallon (back in 2002)
I agree that some causes attract the worst of society. Case in point, the 99% who camped in a Portland park across from city hall for months until the mayor finally found a way to evict them. The clean-up cost the city and the tax payers dearly. On top of that, some of those people who were actually homeless (and likely not because they had been foreclosed on, but rather because homelessness was their lifestyle), have moved to a homeless camp created by the city to accommodate them. Often when people would lose their homes due to unpaid mortgages, homeless squatters calling themselves the 99% moved into the vacant properties and turned them into a squalor. This is still happening today and the economy has supposedly turned around.
When these things happen, it is a shame and the point of the cause gets lost. The mortgage industry is at least somewhat responsible for our economy have gone tits up. People who over-extended their credit are also to blame. Throughout the housing boom, houses kept getting larger and more luxurious. People foolishly bought into the idea that everyone is entitled to live large whether they could afford it or not. It was a gamble and lots of folks lost. Rather than accept responsibility, they looked for others to blame. Not taking responsibility for one's choices seems to be engrained in today's culture, unfortunately.
-
again, what the fuck do they have to do with anything? communists? lololololol.
the answer isn't stop using everything it's to figure out how to continue on without incidence, any sane person would agree with this. The answer has to come from the top down.
Try investing in Reader Rabbit; you could use it.
Of course, the "answer" isn't to stop using everything, O senseless one.
The point, which you missed by a country mile, is the very treehuggers who want others to stop using fossil fuels CONSUME those very fuels (in massive amounts) themselves.
These goofs supposedly hate capitalism.... While those among their ranks hock T-Shirts and hats and mSke a killing. And of course, there's the socialism routine. The poor treehuggers think they'll benefit by taking other people's money; the rich ones think they'll be exempt from being bilked by their broke brethren.
BTW, if they loathe the greedy rich and fossil fuel over consumers so much, why are Kennedy and DiCaprio still upright? Why aren't the hoarded masses picking them clean?
-
Global Warming is for losers ;)
Brilliant! ::)
-
Global Warming is for losers ;)
Treehuggers who care about the environment, leaving downtown NYC in utter filth.
They hate evil rich people, especially those born into privilege.....all while marching and yelping with RFK Jr., the poster child for so-called "white privilege"
You can't make this stuff up if you tried.
-
Treehuggers who care about the environment, leaving downtown NYC in utter filth.
They hate evil rich people, especially those born into privilege.....all while marching and yelping with RFK Jr., the poster child for so-called "white privilege"
You can't make this stuff up if you tried.
I live here - F them!
-
I live here - F them!
If you stand the stench, can you get some pics of these goofs, particularly the ones who get beat up by the cops for vandalizing and bowing up to the police?
-
Brilliant! ::)
It is - only far left lib socialist whackos buy into this bs any more
-
It is - only far left lib socialist whackos buy into this bs any more
You are absolutely dazzling me with your brilliance! There is such insight and depth in what you post. How do you come up with these little gems? ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
You are absolutely dazzling me with your brilliance! There is such insight and depth in what you post. How do you come up with these little gems? ::) ::) ::) ::)
Who gives a damn really? Are you going to stop driving or shut your AC off?
-
Who gives a damn really? Are you going to stop driving or shut your AC off?
While I do drive less lately(since retiring from work), we recently added AC. Lucky too, because it has been beastly hot this summer. One of the hottest on record for Oregon. Global warming perhaps? I wait on calling it that until I see an ongoing trend. My guess is we will probably have one of the coldest and wettest winters on record this year.....reporting these phenomena keeps the weathermen employed, whether it's factual or not.
-
Who gives a damn really? Are you going to stop driving or shut your AC off?
Of course not.
Like so many other issues it's just an exercise in self-esteem with these guys.
Bitching about the Global Warming while running up 300 or 400 dollar electricity bills every month and "Marching For the Environment" while leaving trash everywhere afterwards.
But they did feel good about themselves for those 2 hours they were standing with their signs in the air.
-
Of course not.
Like so many other issues it's just an exercise in self-esteem with these guys.
Bitching about the Global Warming while running up 300 or 400 dollar electricity bills every month and "Marching For the Environment" while leaving trash everywhere afterwards.
But they did feel good about themselves for those 2 hours they were standing with their signs in the air.
-Explains why I have intentionally avoided all demonstrations, rallies and parades. Also, I have a phobia about being in crowds.
-
Treehuggers who care about the environment, leaving downtown NYC in utter filth.
They hate evil rich people, especially those born into privilege.....all while marching and yelping with RFK Jr., the poster child for so-called "white privilege"
You can't make this stuff up if you tried.
All while waving around iPhones, iPad and stopping in quirky coffee shops drinking organic lattes posting their activities on Facebook. They're bigger capitalist whores than the average person. The very thing they rage against
Unfortunately you can never explain that to Stupid.
Global Warming will go away one day. I don't remember reading anything in the news for months, even years. It's played out. The Copenhagen meeting shambles put an end to it. Now Ebola is the new best seller.
-
All while waving around iPhones, iPad and stopping in quirky coffee shops drinking organic lattes posting their activities on Facebook. They're bigger capitalist whores than the average person. The very thing they rage against
Unfortunately you can never explain that to Stupid.
Global Warming will go away one day. I don't remember reading anything in the news for months, even years. It's played out. The Copenhagen meeting shambles put an end to it. Now Ebola is the new best seller.
Let's not forget the numerous products they use, derived from that EEEEEEVVVVIIIIIILLLLL petroleum stuff and other fossil fuels.
And they would silence anyone who doesn't subscribe to their treehugging doctrine. Kennedy is a prime example, referring to those who don't believe this mess as committing treason.
They're really communists, because they aren't really "liberal" about anything else, except sex, drugs, and spending other people's money.
-
Will I see what you're saying about some folks being hypocrites, but there are others who honestly work to find ways to lessen their footprint on the world with varying success. There is nothing wrong with trying to be conservative and trying to be environmentally conscious.
I would buy a hybrid car if I actually needed a new car. At this point, it seems more reasonable to keep my old ones, which run well but are probably not worth much. When I had some landscaping done and they took out some trees which were too close to the house, I replaced them with other trees that were better suited to our lot and house. There are other ways in which I attempt to be careful about my impact on the environment. But I probably do some things which would seem carelessly wasteful to others, like going for a long drive in the country if I need time to think or am upset about something, or living in a too big house because I like having extra space. I don't believe this makes me a hypocrite though, because I don't preach to others how they should act.
-
Will I see what you're saying about some folks being hypocrites, but there are others who honestly work to find ways to lessen their footprint on the world with varying success. There is nothing wrong with trying to be conservative and trying to be environmentally conscious.
Indeed. That's why I mentioned what I did as a kid and what I do with my kids now.
Again, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, God entrusted man with dominion and care of this planet, to learn of its greatness, and unleash its bounty.
I would buy a hybrid car if I actually needed a new car. At this point, it seems more reasonable to keep my old ones, which run well but are probably not worth much. When I had some landscaping done and they took out some trees which were too close to the house, I replaced them with other trees that were better suited to our lot and house. There are other ways in which I attempt to be careful about my impact on the environment. But I probably do some things which would seem carelessly wasteful to others, like going for a long drive in the country if I need time to think or am upset about something, or living in a too big house because I like having extra space. I don't believe this makes me a hypocrite though, because I don't preach to others how they should act.
I'd hardly call you a hypocrite in that sense. You aren't trying to impose restrictions and policies onto others, while exempting yourself and indulging in what you've banned from others.
You don't need to apologize for enjoying the fruits of your labor, earned from the sweat of your brow. That's what is so detestable about the communist treehuggers. They think somebody owes them something just because they suck wind.
This global warming crap is nothing but old communism with an environmental mask. Hence, they wish to impose their ideology on the masses against their will and silence any and all dissent.
Some Christians claim this mess is 21st-century Baal worship. Whatever it is, almost NONE of it is necessary to care for this planet.
-
Indeed. That's why I mentioned what I did as a kid and what I do with my kids now.
Again, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, God entrusted man with dominion and care of this planet, to learn of its greatness, and unleash its bounty.
I'd hardly call you a hypocrite in that sense. You aren't trying to impose restrictions and policies onto others, while exempting yourself and indulging in what you've banned from others.
You don't need to apologize for enjoying the fruits of your labor, earned from the sweat of your brow. That's what is so detestable about the communist treehuggers. They think somebody owes them something just because they suck wind.
This global warming crap is nothing but old communism with an environmental mask. Hence, they wish to impose their ideology on the masses against their will and silence any and all dissent.
Some Christians claim this mess is 21st-century Baal worship. Whatever it is, almost NONE of it is necessary to care for this planet.
So arrogant, you think you are that important in this massive multiverse? there was once running water on Mars so did god destroy that planet too?
-
So arrogant, you think you are that important in this massive multiverse? there was once running water on Mars so did god destroy that planet too?
No - humans with SUVs and the AC on did. ;) ;) ;)
-
So arrogant, you think you are that important in this massive multiverse? there was once running water on Mars so did god destroy that planet too?
What the?? Your arguments get dumber by the second. Quit now, idiot.
-
Chief Meteorologist At Weatherbell Analytics: Organizers Of People’s Climate March Were ‘Prostituting The Weather And Climate’
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/09/22/chief-meteorologist-at-weatherbell-analytics-organizers-of-peoples-climate-march-were-prostituting-the-weather-and-climate/
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Dom Giordano talked to Joe Bastardi, from Weatherbell Analytics, on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT to discuss the People’s Climate March in New York City.
Bastardi said that people are not causing climate change and expects scientific data to eventually back that up.
“The debate on what is going on is over. It is over. Now we just have to see what happens when the Atlantic flips into its cold cycle and the cyclical nature of the sun, whether we return to the temperatures we were in the late seventies as measured by objective satellite readings.”
He commented that the protestors at the climate march were more concerned with their political agenda than climate science.
“If you really paid attention to what happened, the mask is off, and I appreciate that those people that organized this came out and let us know who they were. If you look at the list of people, Communist Party USA, Socialists. Fine, if you want to have that debate, that debate should be done at the polling place and should be done in the halls of Congress or try to change laws. It shouldn’t be prostituting the weather and climate for your own needs.”
Bastardi stated there are technical disagreements that can be addressed among scientists, but really doesn’t rise to any level of concern for the general public.
“This is ridiculous. This should be two weather geeks arguing over a chess game with a cup of tea or whatever you want to drink. The whole thing is blown out, it’s one of the weirdest arguments I’ve ever been involved with, because in the end, there is nothing new under the sun, and nature, not man, rules the climate system.”
-
Consider:
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
Consider:
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
Are you just going to keep posting the same lies? This is made up shit meatbag. alarmists have suggested and it's on NASA's site that 3.17mm per year in sea level, so again you are a liar. I like how they put "adjusted" lol.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26243-world-on-track-for-worstcase-warming-scenario.html?cmpid=RSS%7CNSNS%7C2012-GLOBAL%7Conline-news#.VCF_Z_ldUUR
Like do you ever feel bad about being wrong? who is this from lord monckton?
-
More globalist cult warming alarmism. STFU w that quackery already. No one gives a shit about the cult of climate crisis any more.
-
Chief Meteorologist At Weatherbell Analytics: Organizers Of People’s Climate March Were ‘Prostituting The Weather And Climate’
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/09/22/chief-meteorologist-at-weatherbell-analytics-organizers-of-peoples-climate-march-were-prostituting-the-weather-and-climate/
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Dom Giordano talked to Joe Bastardi, from Weatherbell Analytics, on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT to discuss the People’s Climate March in New York City.
Bastardi said that people are not causing climate change and expects scientific data to eventually back that up.
“The debate on what is going on is over. It is over. Now we just have to see what happens when the Atlantic flips into its cold cycle and the cyclical nature of the sun, whether we return to the temperatures we were in the late seventies as measured by objective satellite readings.”
He commented that the protestors at the climate march were more concerned with their political agenda than climate science.
“If you really paid attention to what happened, the mask is off, and I appreciate that those people that organized this came out and let us know who they were. If you look at the list of people, Communist Party USA, Socialists. Fine, if you want to have that debate, that debate should be done at the polling place and should be done in the halls of Congress or try to change laws. It shouldn’t be prostituting the weather and climate for your own needs.”
Bastardi stated there are technical disagreements that can be addressed among scientists, but really doesn’t rise to any level of concern for the general public.
“This is ridiculous. This should be two weather geeks arguing over a chess game with a cup of tea or whatever you want to drink. The whole thing is blown out, it’s one of the weirdest arguments I’ve ever been involved with, because in the end, there is nothing new under the sun, and nature, not man, rules the climate system.”
Bastardi, hmm let;s have a look at this nutjob.
http://www.desmogblog.com/joe-bastardi
So he has a bachelor in science (meterology), so he isn't qualified to speak on the subject as he is nor has he published research ever, EVER.
“We will get our answer in the next 20 to 30 years. And we don't have to panic. We don't have to rush around because if I'm right, the earth's temperature is going to cool a degree to a degree and a half Fahrenheit the next 20 to 30 years. And if it does, then that's a game, set, match. You know [CO2] is not the driver that people say.”
Ya buddy let's wait around while you take wild guesses, he doesn't even offer his fucking alternative.
“Common sense dictates that a trace gas needed for life on the planet would not be the cause for destroying life on the planet. Common sense dictates that what has happened before without man can happen again with man. Common sense would dictate that you not believe me, or any one else, but go look for YOURSELF."
Common sense? common sense dictates that water shouldn't kill people when they consume it. Water is needed for life, how could it killl someone? fucking stupid as fuck.
HOLY FUCK THIS IS THE WINNER.
“CO2 cannot cause global warming. I'll tell you why. It doesn't mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot – it literally cannot cause global warming.”
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAH AHAAH, tell that to Venus. He sounds like a creationist, if the moon is moving away shouldn't it be by mars now?
“I might point out that Bastardi's background is in weather forecasting, not climate science. Asking him to comment on the science of climate change is rather like asking a country doctor to comment on the latest developments in biomedical research. The media really ought to know better.”
you don't hire a fucking plumber to do your math homework, just because all the real experts disagree with you doesn;t mean these idiots get to have a say as well.
He hasn't had one correct prediction, he stated that sea ice would be at it's peak in 2005, we know how that went, in the complete opposite direction. That's what one would expect when someone is lying.
Go find another moron for me to grill.
-
We are all gonna die
-
I heard Leonardo Di Caprio was out there marching for the environment as well.
I wonder if he flew in on his private jet or simply pulled in on his yacht and took a limo from the dock to the event? ???
-
We are all gonna die
Definitely not, but it's not going to be pretty for many species, ones we depend on.
I would prefer it be warm and sunny lol, that's just not what occurs when these shift occur. We are speeding it up 100 fold, some species will thrive, most will slowly die out as we are seeing. We are currently seeing the most rapid die off of species in the last couple million years, coincidence?
-
Definitely not, but it's not going to be pretty for many species, ones we depend on.
I would prefer it be warm and sunny lol, that's just not what occurs when these shift occur. We are speeding it up 100 fold, some species will thrive, most will slowly die out as we are seeing. We are currently seeing the most rapid die off of species in the last couple million years, coincidence?
Like the Dinosaurs?
-
I heard Leonardo Di Caprio was out there marching for the environment as well.
I wonder if he flew in on his private jet or simply pulled in on his yacht and took a limo from the dock to the event? ???
-
One thing is certain; change is inevitable.
-
So arrogant, you think you are that important in this massive multiverse? there was once running water on Mars so did god destroy that planet too?
Not arrogant, just confident! ;D
And what makes you think Mars was "destroyed" in the first place?
Lost in all this drivel of yours is your ducking the point. This treehugging crap is simply communist BS hiding under the guise of "saving the planet".
You go hug your tree and blubber and worry about Mars. I'll worry about my family and neighborhood.
-
On par with when Matt Damon speaks out against guns meanwhile blasting people left and right in his action movies.
-
Not arrogant, just confident! ;D
And what makes you think Mars was "destroyed" in the first place?
Lost in all this drivel of yours is your ducking the point. This treehugging crap is simply communist BS hiding under the guise of "saving the planet".
You go hug your tree and blubber and worry about Mars. I'll worry about my family and neighborhood.
If mars had running water and an atmosphere which is appearing more likely then it's been decimated somehow, how I don't know.
Did you say communist? LOLOLOL. you are out to lunch man.
-
You must not understand, it won't make a difference if the directives do not come from the top down. Leo driving a fucking hybrid (he does) won't make one ioata of difference as he elucidated, there has to be internal change and new infrastructure.
-
If mars had running water and an atmosphere which is appearing more likely then it's been decimated somehow, how I don't know.
Did you say communist? LOLOLOL. you are out to lunch man.
Must be those SUV drivers who ruined Mars.
Or Obama's fat pig wife blowing out so much hot air from her ass
-
Must be those SUV drivers who ruined Mars.
Or Obama's fat pig wife blowing out so much hot air from her ass
You miss the point. The point is a planet can undergo massive change and end life as we know it, other planets exhibit this long before we were around. To think that the massive amts of C02 has no bearing on the climate is absurd. You literally are fighting against facts for some reason. This is an open and shut case mr Lawyer, the globe is heating.
-
You miss the point. The point is a planet can undergo massive change and end life as we know it, other planets exhibit this long before we were around. To think that the massive amts of C02 has no bearing on the climate is absurd. You literally are fighting against facts for some reason. This is an open and shut case mr Lawyer, the globe is heating.
Ban FARTS!
-
You miss the point. The point is a planet can undergo massive change and end life as we know it, other planets exhibit this long before we were around. To think that the massive amts of C02 has no bearing on the climate is absurd. You literally are fighting against facts for some reason. This is an open and shut case mr Lawyer, the globe is heating.
Necrosis, from a secular scientific point of view, if humanity is meant to go extinct just like the many species that already have, why fight it? It inevitable, right? If not climate change, it will be an asteroid or a virus.
-
You must not understand, it won't make a difference if the directives do not come from the top down. Leo driving a fucking hybrid (he does) won't make one ioata of difference as he elucidated, there has to be internal change and new infrastructure.
Shouldn't they be the ones setting the example, of all people? They should be more like George W. Bush with his eco-friendly ranch:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
-
Ban FARTS!
lol :D
-
Necrosis, from a secular scientific point of view, if humanity is meant to go extinct just like the many species that already have, why fight it? It inevitable, right? If not climate change, it will be an asteroid or a virus.
I object to the word "meant".
-
I object to the word "meant".
Destined? Better?
-
Definitely not, but it's not going to be pretty for many species, ones we depend on.
I would prefer it be warm and sunny lol, that's just not what occurs when these shift occur. We are speeding it up 100 fold, some species will thrive, most will slowly die out as we are seeing. We are currently seeing the most rapid die off of species in the last couple million years, coincidence?
I see you've picked your preferred part of the issue and now defending it to your heart's content. Do you know how stupid that is? YOU have done NO personal research or came to independent conclusions. You're merely towing a line. Nothing more, nothing less. You've picked sides on an issue you have no personal knowledge of, just have a preference for, and oh my Lord, the passion you show on an issue you know nothing about :D
You'll be alright kid. But try and convert some of that passion into healthy scepticism. Remember, it was once conclusive that we were in fact the centre of the universe and the Earth were flat. We don't have it all figured out then, nor do we now. In 100 years our great grandchildren would laugh at our foolish beliefs, as unlikely as that may seem now.
TLDR;
You don't know shit.
-
I see you've picked your preferred part of the issue and now defending it to your heart's content. Do you know how stupid that is? YOU have done NO personal research or came to independent conclusions. You're merely towing a line. Nothing more, nothing less. You've picked sides on an issue you have no personal knowledge of, just have a preference for, and oh my Lord, the passion you show on an issue you know nothing about :D
You'll be alright kid. But try and convert some of that passion into healthy scepticism. Remember, it was once conclusive that we were in fact the centre of the universe and the Earth were flat. We don't have it all figured out then, nor do we now. In 100 years our great grandchildren would laugh at our foolish believes, as unlikely as that may seem now.
TLDR;
You don't know shit.
;D
-
One thing is certain; change is inevitable.
That it is, everything else is half chance. Everything.
-
I just learned something facinating... the earth..get this... is 4.54 billion years old.. I know, crazy right?! With all these people determining global warming is a myth based on what happened in _____ this year is kind of ludicrous when you really really really think about it..
-
I just learned something facinating... the earth..get this... is 4.54 billion years old.. I know, crazy right?! With all these people determining global warming is a myth based on what happened in _____ this year is kind of ludicrous when you really really really think about it..
LMFAO - read what you posted again - and again - and again - and now you realize why globullshit warming cultists and fearmongers are a joke.
-
LMFAO - read what you posted again - and again - and again - and now you realize why globullshit warming cultists and fearmongers are a joke.
What I know about Global Warming you can fit in your thong. So I have to rely on people who spend their lives studying it. But at the end of the day, I have perhaps 40 good years left on this earth, so it's hardly worth getting worked up about either way to me
-
What I know about Global Warming you can fit in your thong. So I have to rely on people who spend their lives studying it. But at the end of the day, I have perhaps 40 good years left on this earth, so it's hardly worth getting worked up about either way to me
The earth is always changing, always had, always will, regardless of what we do before we were hear, while we are hear, and long after we are gone.
No need to tax ourselves into poverty, stop driving, using heat and electric - all because of the Climate Cult
-
The earth is always changing, always had, always will, regardless of what we do before we were hear, while we are hear, and long after we are gone.
No need to tax ourselves into poverty, stop driving, using heat and electric - all because of the Climate Cult
That the choice? Do nothing.. or tax ourselves into poverty, stop driving, stop using heat and electricity?
-
I just learned something facinating... the earth..get this... is 4.54 billion years old.. I know, crazy right?! With all these people determining global warming is a myth based on what happened in _____ this year is kind of ludicrous when you really really really think about it..
I agree. Pretty silly.
-
That the choice? Do nothing.. or tax ourselves into poverty, stop driving, stop using heat and electricity?
Those are the only choices put forward by the Climate Doomsday Cult - Cap n Trade, taxes, regulation, shut of the electric, rolling black outs, mandated shitty toilets and appliances, banning light bulbs, surcharges, etc.
-
What I know about Global Warming you can fit in your thong. So I have to rely on people who spend their lives studying it. But at the end of the day, I have perhaps 40 good years left on this earth, so it's hardly worth getting worked up about either way to me
That's probably 20 or 10 more years than I have. If there is something worth getting worked up about, meaning something where I can actually make a difference, I'll do it. I'll do it because I have four grandchildren who, hopefully, have long lives ahead of them which might include some great-grandchildren.
-
That's probably 20 or 10 more years than I have. If there is something worth getting worked up about, meaning something where I can actually make a difference, I'll do it. I'll do it because I have four grandchildren who, hopefully, have long lives ahead of them which might include some great-grandchildren.
I thought ahead... no grandchildren.. just couldn't do that to them..
-
I thought ahead... no grandchildren.. just couldn't do that to them..
Do what to them? Again - us actually living is not harming them whatsoever. If you are so afraid of it - kill yourself and spare them the agony of your present existence harming them decades from now,. ;)
-
Do what to them? Again - us actually living is not harming them whatsoever. If you are so afraid of it - kill yourself and spare them the agony of your present existence harming them decades from now,. ;)
I'm eco friendly...
-
That's probably 20 or 10 more years than I have. If there is something worth getting worked up about, meaning something where I can actually make a difference, I'll do it. I'll do it because I have four grandchildren who, hopefully, have long lives ahead of them which might include some great-grandchildren.
Awesome. Congrats. :)
-
I thought ahead... no grandchildren.. just couldn't do that to them..
You got snipped? :o
-
No that hurts.
-
I thought ahead... no grandchildren.. just couldn't do that to them..
I assume you mean no children which would insure no grandchildren. Having children is many things. First off it is a choice. Second, it is a big responsibility. It can be a blessing. It often is rewarding and when you get to be my age, if they're good people like mine are, it is very comforting.
-
I assume you mean no children which would insure no grandchildren. Having children is many things. First off it is a choice. Second, it is a big responsibility. It can be a blessing. It often is rewarding and when you get to be my age, if they're good people like mine are, it is very comforting.
Words of wisdom...
-
Necrosis, from a secular scientific point of view, if humanity is meant to go extinct just like the many species that already have, why fight it? It inevitable, right? If not climate change, it will be an asteroid or a virus.
Humanity isn't meant to do anything, you are the one who thinks there is meaning behind all this, not me.
-
Humanity isn't meant to do anything, you are the one who thinks there is meaning behind all this, not me.
Why in the world are you and avxo so hung up on my use of the word "meant"? Is the rest of my question invalid?
Allow me to rephrase my question:
From a secular, scientific point of view, if humanity is just as likely to go extinct as the majority of species that ever existed and have already gone extinct, why fight it? The earth has been around for billions of years, while humans have only been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, right? Human extinction is inevitable, right? If not climate change, it will be an asteroid or a virus.
-
You must not understand, it won't make a difference if the directives do not come from the top down. Leo driving a fucking hybrid (he does) won't make one ioata of difference as he elucidated, there has to be internal change and new infrastructure.
Shouldn't they be the ones setting the example, of all people? They should be more like George W. Bush with his eco-friendly ranch:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
-
Why in the world are you and avxo so hung up on my use of the word "meant"? Is the rest of my question invalid?
Allow me to rephrase my question:
From a secular, scientific point of view, if humanity is just as likely to go extinct as the majority of species that ever existed and have already gone extinct, why fight it? It inevitable, right? If not climate change, it will be an asteroid or a virus.
I didn't see any of avxo's post on the topic but meant is a big word. Also, you are making the assumption that we are just as likely to go extinct, which is absolutely false, we have removed ourselves from natural selection and have actually kept sick individuals alive and well unlike the animal kingdom. I also don't agree it's inevitable, we can and will colonize mars and then other planets. I envision humanity as intergalatic travellers if we make it that far.
Put another way, you are going to die for sure, it's certainly invevitable currently, why don't you just kill yourself now?
-
I didn't see any of avxo's post on the topic but meant is a big word. Also, you are making the assumption that we are just as likely to go extinct, which is absolutely false, we have removed ourselves from natural selection and have actually kept sick individuals alive and well unlike the animal kingdom. I also don't agree it's inevitable, we can and will colonize mars and then other planets. I envision humanity as intergalatic travellers if we make it that far.
Put another way, you are going to die for sure, it's certainly invevitable currently, why don't you just kill yourself now?
You disagree that a virus or an asteroid could wipe out humanity before all those dreams come true?
I don't understand your question about why not kill myself.
-
You disagree that a virus or an asteroid could wipe out humanity before all those dreams come true?
I don't understand your question about why not kill myself.
Necrosis is a buffoon. He/she/it even compares Earth to Mars and proceeds to make ridiculous assumptions due to his/her/its lack of facts, logic and common sense.
His/her/its questions make even less sense. He/her/it has to be on medications, if not, he/her/it needs to be.
-
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html
West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes
Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found.
The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time. The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Natural, wind-driven climate patterns in the Pacific Ocean, such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, are already known to exert a powerful influence on sea and land temperatures over years and even decades.
This latest research shows that similar changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation can drive trends that last a century or longer, overshadowing the effects of human-generated increase in greenhouse gases, the study's authors said.
"Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term," said study leader James Johnstone, an independent climatologist who did most of the work when he was at the University of Washington's Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean.
When coastal wind speeds weaken, they result in less evaporation from the sea surface and unusually low pressure that alters ocean currents and causes temperatures to rise over time.
The study found that weakening winds accounted for more than 80% of the warming trend along the Pacific Northwest coast between Washington and Northern California. In Southern California, weaker winds were responsible for about 60% of the increased warming.
If global warming had been the most powerful influence on land and sea temperatures, those temperatures would have been different, the study's authors said. Most of the warming in the region occurred before 1940, when greenhouse gas concentrations were lower and winds were weaker, the study found. In contrast, winds have strengthened since 1980 and coastal ocean cooled, even as the rise in greenhouse gases has accelerated.
-
You disagree that a virus or an asteroid could wipe out humanity before all those dreams come true?
I don't understand your question about why not kill myself.
I do not disagree, we could never be hit by a asteroid for all I know, so it's pure speculation, a virus perhaps, I highly doubt it would have a 100% mortality rate particularly with the advances we are seeing in medicine.
The question about killing yourself was in juxtaposition with your statement "From a secular, scientific point of view, if humanity is just as likely to go extinct as the majority of species that ever existed and have already gone extinct, why fight it? It inevitable, right? If not climate change, it will be an asteroid or a virus."
Why fight it? why not kill yourself now? it meets all the criteria you are placing on humanity. Your death is the only certainty, humanity could live on forever.
-
Necrosis is a buffoon. He/she/it even compares Earth to Mars and proceeds to make ridiculous assumptions due to his/her/its lack of facts, logic and common sense.
His/her/its questions make even less sense. He/her/it has to be on medications, if not, he/her/it needs to be.
This coming from a man who has been caught posting lies and supporting known frauds. No one cares what you think, you are ignored.
-
I do not disagree, we could never be hit by a asteroid for all I know, so it's pure speculation, a virus perhaps, I highly doubt it would have a 100% mortality rate particularly with the advances we are seeing in medicine.
The question about killing yourself was in juxtaposition with your statement "From a secular, scientific point of view, if humanity is just as likely to go extinct as the majority of species that ever existed and have already gone extinct, why fight it? It inevitable, right? If not climate change, it will be an asteroid or a virus."
Why fight it? why not kill yourself now? it meets all the criteria you are placing on humanity. Your death is the only certainty, humanity could live on forever.
I asked "Why fight it?" I did not ask "why not nuke and destroy the planet already." So your question about why not kill myself does not apply. I won't kill myself because I love life and I am surrounded by people I love who love me too.
Anyway, by telling me your opinion and hopes for the future of humanity, you answered my question "why fight it?" Fair enough!
September 7, 2014
"Sometimes, though, space rocks sneak by the scientists and amateur astronomers who track them. On February 15, 2013, a nearly 60-foot-wide meteor plunged into Earth's atmosphere and exploded over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk with the force of about 30 nuclear bombs. The blast injured about 1,500 people."
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/07/tech/innovation/asteroid-flying-close-to-earth/
9/23/2014
"The longer the Ebola outbreak rages, the more likely it is that the disease will mutate into an even more dangerous form. Scott Gottlieb, who served as a top FDA official under President George W. Bush, believes that at least several cases of Ebola will come to America, and has warned that there’s even a chance that the disease could go airborne."
(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/dandiamond/files/2014/09/Ebola.png)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/09/23/ebola-epidemic-could-top-1-4-million-cases-in-africa-but-is-ebola-coming-to-america/
-
If all of the libs who are climate cultists committed suicide - we can start to heal the plan et
-
I asked "Why fight it?" I did not ask "why not nuke and destroy the planet already." So your question about why not kill myself does not apply. I won't kill myself because I love life and I am surrounded by people I love who love me too.
Anyway, by telling me your opinion and hopes for the future of humanity, you answered my question "why fight it?" Fair enough!
September 7, 2014
"Sometimes, though, space rocks sneak by the scientists and amateur astronomers who track them. On February 15, 2013, a nearly 60-foot-wide meteor plunged into Earth's atmosphere and exploded over the Russian city of Chelyabinsk with the force of about 30 nuclear bombs. The blast injured about 1,500 people."
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/07/tech/innovation/asteroid-flying-close-to-earth/
9/23/2014
"The longer the Ebola outbreak rages, the more likely it is that the disease will mutate into an even more dangerous form. Scott Gottlieb, who served as a top FDA official under President George W. Bush, believes that at least several cases of Ebola will come to America, and has warned that there’s even a chance that the disease could go airborne."
(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/dandiamond/files/2014/09/Ebola.png)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/09/23/ebola-epidemic-could-top-1-4-million-cases-in-africa-but-is-ebola-coming-to-america/
why feed yourself? why fight it? dying that is? it's a silly notion that one should not attempt to avoid his demise. The whole premise is absurd. I control my life, not fate, not god, no one but me so I would certainly avoid dying as it's undesirable. I am not sure how one could answer this question. it's a loaded question that doesn't make sense.
The disease could go airborne, however, had you done further digging you would see the death rate of the current pandemic is roughly 55% as opposed to the 90%, it won't wipe us, there will be people who are immune to it as well.
-
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html
West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes
Naturally occurring changes in winds, not human-caused climate change, are responsible for most of the warming on land and in the sea along the West Coast of North America over the last century, a study has found.
The analysis challenges assumptions that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been a significant driver of the increase in temperatures observed over many decades in the ocean and along the coastline from Alaska to California.
Changes in ocean circulation as a result of weaker winds were the main cause of about 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming in the northeast Pacific Ocean and nearby coastal land between 1900 and 2012, according to the analysis of ocean and air temperatures over that time. The study, conducted by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington, was published Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Natural, wind-driven climate patterns in the Pacific Ocean, such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, are already known to exert a powerful influence on sea and land temperatures over years and even decades.
This latest research shows that similar changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation can drive trends that last a century or longer, overshadowing the effects of human-generated increase in greenhouse gases, the study's authors said.
"Changing winds appear to explain a very large fraction of the warming from year to year, decade to decade and the long-term," said study leader James Johnstone, an independent climatologist who did most of the work when he was at the University of Washington's Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean.
When coastal wind speeds weaken, they result in less evaporation from the sea surface and unusually low pressure that alters ocean currents and causes temperatures to rise over time.
The study found that weakening winds accounted for more than 80% of the warming trend along the Pacific Northwest coast between Washington and Northern California. In Southern California, weaker winds were responsible for about 60% of the increased warming.
If global warming had been the most powerful influence on land and sea temperatures, those temperatures would have been different, the study's authors said. Most of the warming in the region occurred before 1940, when greenhouse gas concentrations were lower and winds were weaker, the study found. In contrast, winds have strengthened since 1980 and coastal ocean cooled, even as the rise in greenhouse gases has accelerated.
The fact that you think the pacific northwest between washington and cali is the world, or globe is hilarious. This is one of the variables we account for, el nino/nina it can wreck havoc like the polar vortex, again in the very article the people state it has no bearing on GLOBAL WARMING moron, the article contradicts your assertion. Nice try though. Anymore bullshit you can dig up?
-
why feed yourself? why fight it? dying that is? it's a silly notion that one should not attempt to avoid his demise. The whole premise is absurd. I control my life, not fate, not god, no one but me so I would certainly avoid dying as it's undesirable. I am not sure how one could answer this question. it's a loaded question that doesn't make sense.
The disease could go airborne, however, had you done further digging you would see the death rate of the current pandemic is roughly 55% as opposed to the 90%, it won't wipe us, there will be people who are immune to it as well.
Does the earth need to be fed? Your analogy still doesn't apply. What is it with you lately and killing? You wanna kill people who disagree with you(comment you made about Man of Steel), you want people who disagree with you about the climate to kill themselves? I don't get it.
The question "why fight it" was assuming you agreed with the secular scientific point of view that humans are very likely to go extinct just as most species already have. You said you don't agree with that, and neither do I. But that was the reason for my question.
The current Ebola outbreak is only an example. If not airborne Ebola, it could be another virus in the near future we haven't even heard of yet.
-
Does the earth need to be fed? Your analogy still doesn't apply. What is it with you lately and killing? You wanna kill people who disagrees with you(comment you made about Man of Steel), you want people who disagree with you about the climate to kill themselves? I don't get it.
The question "why fight it" was assuming you agreed with the secular scientific point of view that humans are very likely to go extinct just as most species already have. You said you don't agree with that, and neither do I. But that was the reason for my question.
The current Ebola outbreak is only an example. If not airborne Ebola, it could be another virus in the near future we haven't even heard of yet.
Huh? what secular viewpoint are you expousing, it's not mine so I am not sure why you want me to defend this ludicris position. We are not as likely to go extinct, I have already said that, your premise is false.It's a perfect analogy, you are saying why should HUMAN's avoid extinction if it is likely, death is certainly likely, so as HUMAN you could just go ahead and kill yourself. If you won't and think it's absurd then you know why I find your question absurd. You were talking about the planet causing us to go extinct, so your charge about the planet needing food etc is non sensical.
Why fight your inevitable death? why eat? why sustain yourself, you will die, this analogy is the one you are applying to our extinction and it's out to lunch. I can fathom a person holding this position to be honest.
The killing yourself thing was to highlight the ridiculousness of your position, why fight it? it is a perfect analogy. I also didn't say I want to kill anyone, where did I say that? I said kill yourself as an analogy, don't get emo on me.
-
Huh? what secular viewpoint are you expousing, it's not mine so I am not sure why you want me to defend this ludicris position. We are not as likely to go extinct, I have already said that, your premise is false.It's a perfect analogy, you are saying why should HUMAN's avoid extinction if it is likely, death is certainly likely, so as HUMAN you could just go ahead and kill yourself. If you won't and think it's absurd then you know why I find your question absurd. You were talking about the planet causing us to go extinct, so your charge about the planet needing food etc is non sensical.
Why fight your inevitable death? why eat? why sustain yourself, you will die, this analogy is the one you are applying to our extinction and it's out to lunch. I can fathom a person holding this position to be honest.
The killing yourself thing was to highlight the ridiculousness of your position, why fight it? it is a perfect analogy. I also didn't say I want to kill anyone, where did I say that? I said kill yourself as an analogy, don't get emo on me.
Necrosis, I have nothing against you and I was trying to have a friendly discussion, but you really went off on a tangent there. You obviously are obsessed with killing. I give up. You win. Global Warming is fact. Ban fossil fuels. Ban gasoline. Ban plasma TVs and incandescent bulbs.
-
Necrosis, I have nothing against you and I was trying to have a friendly discussion, but you really went off on a tangent there. You obviously are obsessed with killing. I give up. You win. Global Warming is fact. Ban fossil fuels. Ban gasoline. Ban plasma TVs and incandescent bulbs.
He's towing a line. He knows fuck all about AGW. He picked a side of the argument and now defend it as fact.
That's really all that's happening here.
-
Necrosis, I have nothing against you and I was trying to have a friendly discussion, but you really went off on a tangent there. You obviously are obsessed with killing. I give up. You win. Global Warming is fact. Ban fossil fuels. Ban gasoline. Ban plasma TVs and incandescent bulbs.
Nothing unfriendly about my comment, you are taking it out of context, I like you despite completely disagreeing with your ideologies. I also didn't say ban fossil fuels, ban gasoline etc. you brought up the killing thing by talking about humans going extinct (ie dying), sorry if my analogy upsets you for some reason, I just used human death as an analogy because you brought up extinction, if you think that is me saying I want to kill you or I am obssessed with killing so be it,lol, it's a bit out there. It was a simple analogy nothing more, you are reading to much into it bro.
-
He's towing a line. He knows fuck all about AGW. He picked a side of the argument and now defend it as fact.
That's really all that's happening here.
Ya I picked the side of reason and facts like the REST OF THE WORLD. This whole thread is full of people posting false shit, supporting known frauds etc. I do not like people that do this, it's dishonest and self serving.
-
Ya I picked the side of reason and facts like the REST OF THE WORLD. This whole thread is full of people posting false shit, supporting known frauds etc. I do not like people that do this, it's dishonest and self serving.
So you're saying it's undeniable, the Earth IS warming up?
-
Nothing unfriendly about my comment, you are taking it out of context, I like you despite completely disagreeing with your ideologies. I also didn't say ban fossil fuels, ban gasoline etc. you brought up the killing thing by talking about humans going extinct (ie dying), sorry if my analogy upsets you for some reason, I just used human death as an analogy because you brought up extinction, if you think that is me saying I want to kill you or I am obssessed with killing so be it,lol, it's a bit out there. It was a simple analogy nothing more, you are reading to much into it bro.
I thought there was a consensus among main stream scientists and educated secular people that humans were as likely to go extinct as most species that ever existed on earth already have. My question "why fight it?" was sincere and out of curiosity to know how you would answer, since you are so passionate about global warming.
You are telling me that I am incorrect about such consensus among main stream scientists and secular people regarding human extinction. That makes the question "why fight it?" and its answer irrelevant. Fare enough.
Personally, I don't believe that humans are likely to go extinct, and I do believe in fighting for survival. I also believe in taking care of the earth, while at the same time enjoying what the earth has to offer to make our lives easier and more enjoyable, such as fossil fuels...and tasty animals.
-
I thought there was a consensus among main stream scientists and educated secular people that humans were as likely to go extinct as most species that ever existed on earth already have. My question "why fight it?" was sincere and out of curiosity to know how you would answer, since you are so passionate about global warming.
You are telling me that I am incorrect about such consensus among main stream scientists and secular people regarding human extinction. That makes the question "why fight it?" and its answer irrelevant. Fare enough.
Personally, I don't believe that humans are likely to go extinct, and I do believe in fighting for survival. I also believe in taking care of the earth, while at the same time enjoying what the earth has to offer to make our lives easier and more enjoyable, such as fossil fuels...and tasty animals.
I am unsure if there is a consensus as it would span several disciplines, cosmologists would calculate the chances of an asteriod, geologists a super volcano etc an extinction level event is inevitable per se, but I think humans can counter it, namely by becoming multi planetary, something elon musk will accomplish imo. The universe will cease and the sun will ballon out and devour us whole, that will happen but not for a very very long time. This is an extinction level event for many species. For example, polar bears are fucked, crows are not. Crows live with humans, they evolved to live with humans, rats etc. it's just not good what's going on.
I have no idea what the solution is, it's not stopping gasoline etc the economy needs it etc but we should be trying to create techonology to combat it like co2 absorbing materials, weather machines (nasa has some shit that can makes clouds) , new materials etc I don't know but it has to be fromt he top down such. China is raping earth so me riding a bike won't do much good. There has to be a shift in thinking.
-
So you're saying it's undeniable, the Earth IS warming up?
it is, at least that;s what every bit of good data says. We do have accurate records, ice cores can give us close to 500k years in data that is very accurate.
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser
'Where's the global warming?' Expert says public are growing sceptical of climate change
THE PUBLIC are becoming ever more sceptical of climate change as they begin to ask 'where is the global warming we were promised?', a leading scientist has claimed.
This week saw the 18th anniversary since the Earth's temperature last rose - something that Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum, says experts are struggling to understand.
He explains that we are now in the midst of a "crisis of credibility" because the global warming - and accompanied 'Doomsday' effects - that we were once warned about has not happened.
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade - but are now baffled by the fact our planet's temperature has not increased for almost two decades
Speaking exclusively to Express.co.uk, Dr Peiser said: "What has happened is that the public has become more sceptical because they were told we are facing Doomsday, and suddenly they realise ‘Where is the warming that we were promised?’"
"They say we can predict the climate and the reality is that they can’t."
MORE CLIMATE CHANGE LIES EXPOSED HERE
Because of this so-called "global warming hiatus", Dr Peiser says climate change is not as pressing of an issue as it once was, a fact that should be embraced by the scientific community.
"Climate change used to be a top priority but it has dropped quite significantly - other issues are more important for international meetings," he said.
"The reality is that they are quite relieved in a way, and we should all be relieved that it isn’t such a big problem at present.
"We might have much more time than many people once told us."
However, the reason behind the current pause in rising temperatures remains a mystery, and there are said to be more than 30 theories attempting to decipher what caused this stability.
Some scientists suggest the heat may have gone into the ocean, but Dr Peiser remains unconvinced by this theory.
"Something is clearly balancing out the warming effect of the CO2 [carbon dioxide]," he explained.
"It might be natural factors, it might be the ocean, no one knows for sure.
-
it is, at least that;s what every bit of good data says. We do have accurate records, ice cores can give us close to 500k years in data that is very accurate.
YOU LIE!!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser
'Where's the global warming?' Expert says public are growing sceptical of climate change
THE PUBLIC are becoming ever more sceptical of climate change as they begin to ask 'where is the global warming we were promised?', a leading scientist has claimed.
This week saw the 18th anniversary since the Earth's temperature last rose - something that Dr Benny Peiser, from the Global Warming Policy Forum, says experts are struggling to understand.
He explains that we are now in the midst of a "crisis of credibility" because the global warming - and accompanied 'Doomsday' effects - that we were once warned about has not happened.
Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 degrees per decade - but are now baffled by the fact our planet's temperature has not increased for almost two decades
-
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
-
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
You just copy and pasted the same arguments that were shown to be lies from lord monckton the lying expert. good job.