30 Years And Counting!

[Wyatt earp]

For thirty years we've been hearing about the impending doom from Iran having nukes...Yet we wait....

And out of the blue you post another defense of Bill Clinton's NK deal...what is wrong with you ?

You gleaned NK from Iran....You'll never make it in the crossword puzzle section..

What does your post have to do with AGW how much meth have you been smoking ?

D: None of the above.

Your drunk , smoking meth or something..

You're not right today..

 

[Old Rocks]

Old rocks we are leaving another ice age , this was a fluke in history, just like WWII was a fluke in history that let the middle class grow in America with no competition..


My personal opinion God had everything to do with it...

So your personal God allowed 50 million of his children to be killed so you personally could be a greedy asshole. Quite a God you have there.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And you're about as smart as those boulders.

The fact that forest fires have occurred naturally does not stop human from starting forest fires.

The fact that species have gone extinct naturally does not stop humans from causing extinctions.

The fact that climate has shifted naturally does not stop humans from changing climate.

The fact that something has happened naturally does not stop humans from changing it. A second-grader can grasp such a thing, but most deniers can't. Deniers, as a whole, are just not very smart.

That's your retort? You want to ignore the entire north USA was under a mile of ice ?

Come on tell us Einstein..how much?

100%

75%

50%

25%

10%

5%

How much does man contribute compared to natural ?

Over 100% retard.

So now you are telling us man caused this over 100% ?


Give us a link..

Don't have to, shit for brains. Look at the graph in post #101. The rise in temperatures is from about 1880. So the 1.8 F rise is the 100%. However the graph clearly shows that had we not started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and massively cutting our forests, the temperature would have continued on a downward track. So it would have been colder now than it was in 1880. That is 100% + however colder it would have been. Of course such logic is beyond you, so I don't expect you to be able to follow beyond the first sentence.

And tell us once again old rocks, some old guys using bifocals in the 1880s was accurate you clown?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Old rocks we are leaving another ice age , this was a fluke in history, just like WWII was a fluke in history that let the middle class grow in America with no competition..


My personal opinion God had everything to do with it...

So your personal God allowed 50 million of his children to be killed so you personally could be a greedy asshole. Quite a God you have there.

Yup 50 million dead potential liberal voters killed by abortion is a good thing



No?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Old rocks we are leaving another ice age , this was a fluke in history, just like WWII was a fluke in history that let the middle class grow in America with no competition..


My personal opinion God had everything to do with it...

So your personal God allowed 50 million of his children to be killed so you personally could be a greedy asshole. Quite a God you have there.

And btw I believe what Einstein said ...there is no personal god..but there is a god

 

[BULLDOG]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

After 30 years, more people every day are convinced of the facts supported by every credible climate study organization in the world.

You are the human equivalent of Chicken Little as live and breath.

Did you hear that at one of your conspiracy theory meetings, or did you come up with it yourself?

 

[Wyatt earp]

This has becoming a fools game....

Retards that can't handle snow melting and want to do something about it



and adults saying ..


Saying say what?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

After 30 years, more people every day are convinced of the facts supported by every credible climate study organization in the world.

You are the human equivalent of Chicken Little as live and breath.

Did you hear that at one of your conspiracy theory meetings, or did you come up with it yourself?

You still want to deny this ?

 

[edthecynic]

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

Who claimed global warming ended 12 years ago?

And you are a dunce, playing stupid...

PAPER: Global warming ended 15 years ago; 'mini-ice age' next...

based on 30,000 temperature reading stations global warming stopped 1997

Global warming over the last 16 years

Global Warming stopped in 1996

 

[BULLDOG]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

After 30 years, more people every day are convinced of the facts supported by every credible climate study organization in the world.

You are the human equivalent of Chicken Little as live and breath.

Did you hear that at one of your conspiracy theory meetings, or did you come up with it yourself?

You still want to deny this ?


View attachment 162714

Yes. Everybody knows there were glaciers. Are you claiming that is an actual picture of one?

 

[edthecynic]

It was a change of term. Since they had changed it to global warming, they had to change it back when this cooling trend started again. If you don’t recognize their pattern of deceit, what can I say?

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

BULLSHIT!!!

Climate Change vs. Global Warming: How Politics Created a New Term

 

[gipper]

Yup!

For 30 years Chicken Little has been clucking about our impending doom!!!!

And....the dolts are still in fine fettle here, on the board.

1. "After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

2. ....scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

3. The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

[giggle, giggle....]


4. ...civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”




5. ....a list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year....“soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote."
After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

The leaders of the Church of Warmers has been screaming the sky is falling like Chicken Little for three decades, yet they can still dupe millions of people. That truly amazes me. How can they be so gullible?

After 30 years, more people every day are convinced of the facts supported by every credible climate study organization in the world.

You are the human equivalent of Chicken Little as live and breath.

Did you hear that at one of your conspiracy theory meetings, or did you come up with it yourself?

I suggest you and OldCock change your screen names to Chicken Little I and II. How perfect would that be?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup!

Nope. Scientists have been correctly predicting warming for over 40 years now. Only denier liars pretend otherwise. Even in the 1970s, most scientists were predicting warming.

In contrast, almost all deniers have been and are still predicting an ice age. Denialism is an Ice Age Cult. That promised ice age never arrives, but that inconvenient fact doesn't bother them. The denier cult says the HolyIceAge will arrive RealSoonNow, so all deniers have faith.

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

No, they didn't rant about politics. Only you do that, because you're a political cult acolyte, along with all the other deniers.

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells

My God, you mean _the_ David Wallace-Wells?

Couldn't find any actual scientists, eh kook? You had to grab a journalist that nobody has heard of, because all the science says you're just making crap up.

Anyways, shouldn't you be on your knees praying to your IceAgeGod along with all the other denier cultists?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Judith curry, the rest are paid off hacks

In Bizzarro Universe, where everything is the opposite of our reality, that's true. However, in this universe, Curry is a paid shill, while the climate scientists are honest.

She also gets every fact wrong. However, to denier cultists, Curry getting every single thing wrong gives her more credibility, because their cult worships failure. If someone doesn't fail completely, deniers cast them out of the cult.

"....denier cultists,..."

cult
kəlt/
noun

1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

Wouldn't that be you dolts who continue even as every one of your predictions....as shown in this thread....


....at totally, absolutely, incontrovertibly......wrong?


Please....don't ever change; this is better than SNL.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yup!

Nope. Scientists have been correctly predicting warming for over 40 years now. Only denier liars pretend otherwise. Even in the 1970s, most scientists were predicting warming.

In contrast, almost all deniers have been and are still predicting an ice age. Denialism is an Ice Age Cult. That promised ice age never arrives, but that inconvenient fact doesn't bother them. The denier cult says the HolyIceAge will arrive RealSoonNow, so all deniers have faith.

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

No, they didn't rant about politics. Only you do that, because you're a political cult acolyte, along with all the other deniers.

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells

My God, you mean _the_ David Wallace-Wells?

Couldn't find any actual scientists, eh kook? You had to grab a journalist that nobody has heard of, because all the science says you're just making crap up.

Anyways, shouldn't you be on your knees praying to your IceAgeGod along with all the other denier cultists?

"The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By

JOSEPH BAST And



ROY SPENCER

May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Secretary of State John Kerry recently warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem."

——

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

 

[Wyatt earp]

It was a change of term. Since they had changed it to global warming, they had to change it back when this cooling trend started again. If you don’t recognize their pattern of deceit, what can I say?

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

BULLSHIT!!!

Climate Change vs. Global Warming: How Politics Created a New Term

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2017_v6-1.jpg

That is 38 years of data. And it shows a very hard trend to warming. Especially the last 18 years. And the anamoly in the last 4 months is more than interesting.

The OISM Petition Project. LOL Started by a bunch of kooks down in the woods in Southwestern Washington. 32,000 scientists? A great many of the signatures were by people that were in no way scientists. Dentists, MD's, and some signatures not valid at all. And it remains that every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science of every nation that has one, and every major University in the world have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. That represents several tens of millions of scientists.

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson’s group co-published the infamous “Oregon Petition” claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren’t, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

Also attached to the petition was an apparent “research paper” titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy’s prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson’s son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”

 

[Old Rocks]

An Unverifiable Mess

Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

For example,

“Munawwar M. Akhtar” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Fred A. Allehoff” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Ernest J. Andberg” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Joseph J. Arx” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Adolph L. Amundson” - a paper by Amundson on the “London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage.” [PDF]

“Henry W. Apfelbach” - an Orthopedic Surgeon

“Joe R. Arechavaleta” - runs an Architect and Engineering company.

And this is only names I picked in the “A’s.” I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn’t stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that “global warming is a hoax” completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost

Essentially a petition of lies, the same kind that the people that use it tell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

An Unverifiable Mess

Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you’ll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.

For example,

“Munawwar M. Akhtar” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Fred A. Allehoff” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Ernest J. Andberg” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Joseph J. Arx” - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.

“Adolph L. Amundson” - a paper by Amundson on the “London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage.” [PDF]

“Henry W. Apfelbach” - an Orthopedic Surgeon

“Joe R. Arechavaleta” - runs an Architect and Engineering company.

And this is only names I picked in the “A’s.” I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn’t stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.

Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that “global warming is a hoax” completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.

Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda | HuffPost

Essentially a petition of lies, the same kind that the people that use it tell.

I understand that at your age and degree of indoctrination, this is beyond your ken....

But these are the hermeneutic facts necessary to understand the global governance scam:


1. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."



2. It is not an accident that the greatest supporter of 'global warming' is the organization created by Joseph Stalin: the United Nations.

"The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.

Stalin's spy, Alger Hiss was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. (His death came only ten weeks later). At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.


.... three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union."
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_doesnt_want_you_to_know.htm

 

[edthecynic]

It was a change of term. Since they had changed it to global warming, they had to change it back when this cooling trend started again. If you don’t recognize their pattern of deceit, what can I say?

Didn't the Right say that "climate change" is a NEW term coined just recently because global warming allegedly ended 12 years ago?

BULLSHIT!!!

Climate Change vs. Global Warming: How Politics Created a New Term

View attachment 162743

Thank you for proving my point.