Conservatives vs. Climate Zombie Caucus

[Mr. Shaman]

It appears Conservatives have just-about had ENOUGH of the dim-witted Teapottiers....​

"I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings."

 

[glew]

I served in Congress for 24 years.

That is the only thing I took from your post.

 

[Avatar4321]

Don't have to be determined to discredit distinguished scientists. They do that fine on their own when they ignore and manufacture data.

 

[The T]

I served in Congress for 24 years.

That is the only thing I took from your post.

Thanks I trust your judgement. means i don't have to suffer another leftist link by the OP.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, any link to real science is leftist. Typical ignoramous Conservative.

 

[loosecannon]

Ah yes, any link to real science is leftist. Typical ignoramous Conservative.

Global warming alarmism is NOT science, it is science fiction.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yep... 'thinkprogress' a whacko leftwing group claims that republicans don't like conservatives.

Dog bites man. News? nope. Yet another leftwing distortion.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I served in Congress for 24 years.

That is the only thing I took from your post.

Too-many big words, huh?

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Don't have to be determined to discredit distinguished scientists. They do that fine on their own when they ignore and manufacture data.

ooooooooooooooooooooo.....Helluva list o' manufactured data ya' got, there......

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ah yes, any link to real science is leftist. Typical ignoramous Conservative.

Global warming alarmism is NOT science, it is science fiction.

....But, a Virgin-Birth has GOTTA be legitimate, right?????

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Ah yes, any link to real science is leftist. Typical ignoramous Conservative.

Global warming alarmism is NOT science, it is science fiction.

....But, a Virgin-Birth has GOTTA be legitimate, right?????

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are equating the belief in global warming/man made climate change to a religion.

Good for you! you've finally caught on in one infinitesimally small way. Still, much neurosurgery and therapy is needed to get you up to just 'slow'.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Global warming alarmism is NOT science, it is science fiction.

....But, a Virgin-Birth has GOTTA be legitimate, right?????

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are equating the belief in global warming/man made climate change to a religion.

Gee.....comparing documented-Science to word-o'-mouth Fairy Tales.

Whatta conundrum......

​

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

I stole this post from Antagon over in the Environmental Forum..........this guy has come into the USMESSAGEBOARD and completely dominated the discussions.................

to clarify, i am a chemical engineer with a bachelors in bio. i make my living through my small construction firm, but we dig holes and remodel homes. i dont even build labs or stills (except for myself). while i've been afforded a reasonable background in the chemistry and functions of the atmosphere and the planet's systems of circulating energy and chemicals like CO2, i dont pretend to be any kind of expert like those which we might provide links to laying an argument.

that said, i remember the ideas on climate change which were prominent when i was in school. histories like that which you've linked to follow the trail with specific relation to the GH effect. the consensus you refer to has hyperfocused on the GH effect. the ideas that i remember from the late 90s revolved around the el nino 'crisis'. looking through the aip link, i was able to vindicate this fact, noting keeling's investigation into this specific matter.

the fact of the matter is that the atmosphere does retain heat energy. this cant be denied. the physics or chemistry of the earth indicates that the atmosphere is only a marginal player in retaining heat energy relative to the ocean. its not unreasonable to presume that a marginal change in the atmosphere's marginal heat capacity will have a nominal effect on the global balance of energy. for the avoidance of doubt, the climate change for the last 30 years does not correlate to any change in the atmosphere inasmuch time. on that basis the focus on GHGs in the atmosphere is not a focus on the impetus of climate change as we have observed such during the 'warming crisis' proceeding the 1970's 'cooling crisis'.

what makes it worse is that the investigation into the changes in the ocean's vastly dominant role in heat absorption, has been derailed by this GHG distraction, even though it is the mechanism which does correlate to the warming crisis features which drive this issue altogether. the physics as i see it indicates that the cyclical introduction of deeper, cooler seawater to the surface of the ocean used to regularly influence global climate. beginning in the late 70s these cycles began to wane. now i believe that every last one of them has virtually stagnated. because the temperature of water at the surface of the ocean is the most crucial component determining the climate of the planet - far more significant than changes in the atmosphere's constitution itself - this presents the most plausible causation for global warming. no additional sunlight or chemical change in the ocean is required to bring this about. changes in the chemistry or heat capacity of the atmosphere dont play in either. the moon's gravity and surface currents are instead implicated in these bipolar tides, among many other likely yet uninvestigated causes suffering from the shade cast by the GHG obsession.

look through the properties and interactions in the link which you've highlighted in red. compound the role of the sea with the fact that the el nino, pacific decadal osc., indian ocean dipole, arctic dipole anomaly... have all coincided in their warm cycles, and are persisting in this way for some unfortunate reason. figure in the fact that sea surface temps have risen several degrees since the 70s according to the noaa, in what i argue is obviously a result of the fact that deeper waters are not forced to the surface cyclically to the extent they have been before.

there's so many basic physics considerations which favor the oceans role in climate change to that of the atmosphere. they work together, but one is dramatically leveraged to be the impetus, and the other, the atmosphere, the effect. the proposals of 'forcing' are disingenuous for the extent which they contradict such basic understandings as the second law of thermodynamics and the relative heat capacity of water and atmosphere.

i could go on and on about the details supporting my perspective. the issue is that such a consensus as is existent over the cause of global warming should first exclude the observations which make it clear that changes in the operation of the earth's oceans are the cause. actually, i feel they should be embraced. instead, as is overwhelmingly clear, the elephant in the room is being drown out of history in favor of an economically expedient perspective that CO2 from taxable industrial sources is to blame.

Its hysterical...........the k00ks over there continue to post up the same nonsense links 100 times over and this guy Antagon just comes in and decimates them with substance = THERE IS NO FCUKKING CONSENSUS AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN

 

[skookerasbil]

"SCIENCE" is physics............"SCIENCE" is chemistry..............

Science becomes science when a theory becomes a 100% certainty. Right now........theres dozens of theories out there, its just alot of people stand to lose alot by not perpetuating one of those theories: the man made global warming crusader assholes.


but ummmm...................see photo above.

 

[Big Fitz]

....But, a Virgin-Birth has GOTTA be legitimate, right?????

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are equating the belief in global warming/man made climate change to a religion.

Gee.....comparing documented-Science to word-o'-mouth Fairy Tales.

Whatta conundrum......

​

oooOOOOoooo documented 'Science' like the Hockeystick graph? You know the one they were caught rigging the program with 3 specific trees as samples, and pre defined increases with no scientific evidence? How about the 'hard scientific evidence' of the Himalayan glaciers melting the IPCC touted. Then over the summer they admitted there was no science behind it and it was based on articles by activists and students gathering anecdotal evidence.

The courts in England decreed that before showing Algore's fantasy "An Inconvenient Falsehood" they must list off the 14 lies it states and correct the data.

Yeah. Lots of fantasy going on... but not from where you believe.

Oh and please, explain, how does CO2 which is less than 1/100th of the quantity of water vapor, and is a far less potent greenhouse gas become the bogeyman of the 21st century without fantasy being the foundation of the theory?

In skiing, we call that a face plant.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ah yes, any link to real science is leftist. Typical ignoramous Conservative.

Global warming alarmism is NOT science, it is science fiction.

unless you're a scientist, you wouldn't know...

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So you are equating the belief in global warming/man made climate change to a religion.

Gee.....comparing documented-Science to word-o'-mouth Fairy Tales.

Whatta conundrum......

​

oooOOOOoooo documented 'Science' like the Hockeystick graph? You know the one they were caught rigging the program with 3 specific trees as samples, and pre defined increases with no scientific evidence?

.....But, you were unable to post that data/resource, for some reason, huh?

​

 

[loosecannon]

Ah yes, any link to real science is leftist. Typical ignoramous Conservative.

Global warming alarmism is NOT science, it is science fiction.

unless you're a scientist, you wouldn't know...

Bullshit. Even if everything that the Global warming alarmists asserted concerning global warming was true there is no reason to fear warming. Odds are better than not that that a warmer planet is a better planet.

It is definitely a more normal planet. Glaciation is a freak event. Atmospheric CO2 is nearly at an all time low. Global cooling is a reality over the last 4 million years and short periods of slight warming are what caused man to suddenly advance.

The science fiction of global warming alarmism is a fear campaign designed to create a revenue stream to combat poverty according to the UN anyway. They say so right here UN panel suggests new international taxes to help fund development

And it is a way to trick the world's little people into using fewer fossil fuels because we are running out of cheap easy petro fuels.

And it is a trick to con the little people into managing their environmental footprint. No more SUV's nomatta how bitchen they look in your driveway.

The little people can't be bothered to do the right thing unless they are brainwashed. But once the little people are brainwashed they will believe anything and do the most absurd imaginable things fully convinced that it is God's (or Giai's) will.

YOU are one of those little people. Global warming is a behavior control mechanism designed to control you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Do a search on Climategate. Be your own research monkey. I've better things to do with my life than be your google search. The point is the world knows you're bullshit religion of global destruction is a fantasy of your own creating in an attempt to create ecofascism worldwide.

Suck on that, bitch. You're still fail laden.