Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming Predictions That HAUNT Liberals / Global Warming Nuts
- Thread starter easyt65
- Start date
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Why, yes, I will.Virtually every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science , and every major University in the world had policy statements that state that AGW is real and a clear and present dangerAnyone that ignores what nearly the totality of the scientists involved in the study of atmosphere and climate state, is an ignorant ass. Especially when they think the know much more than these scientists with just a GED to show for education.Anyone who thinks AGW is real, should have zero credibility...in a sane nation.Given your level of credibility, a link is in order. In context.
Virtually every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science , and every major University in the world had policy statements that state that AGW is real and a clear and present danger.
prove it. Post up those statements.
http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf
Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences. Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions. Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time.
The American Geophysical Union is one of the most respected Scientific Societies in the world.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change
Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015
Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.
Rationale
Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land- and satellite-based measurements.
The Geological Community are the people that make the most observations on the cryosphere and river systems around the world.
Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015
Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse-gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.
Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.
Rationale
Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground-station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land- and satellite-based measurements.
The Geological Community are the people that make the most observations on the cryosphere and river systems around the world.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/promote/globalclimatechange.html
“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)
This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.
Climate Change Impacts
The Earth’s climate is the product of complex, highly dynamic, and often nonlinear, interactions among physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring at many scales in the atmosphere; at terrestrial, fresh water and marine surfaces; and in the depths of the oceans and landforms. While recent research advances in Earth systems science have greatly strengthened our understanding of prior and current climate properties and processes, our ability to quantitatively predict how the future climate will respond to continued and increasing greenhouse-gas and fine-particle emissions is still limited. Even more limited is our ability to precisely predict how the Earth’s ecological and human systems will respond to climate changes.
Another highly respected Scientific Society states facts.
- American Chemical Society
- Advocacy
- ACS Positions on Policy Issues
- Sustainability & Science Policy
- Climate Change
“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)
This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.
Climate Change Impacts
The Earth’s climate is the product of complex, highly dynamic, and often nonlinear, interactions among physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring at many scales in the atmosphere; at terrestrial, fresh water and marine surfaces; and in the depths of the oceans and landforms. While recent research advances in Earth systems science have greatly strengthened our understanding of prior and current climate properties and processes, our ability to quantitatively predict how the future climate will respond to continued and increasing greenhouse-gas and fine-particle emissions is still limited. Even more limited is our ability to precisely predict how the Earth’s ecological and human systems will respond to climate changes.
Another highly respected Scientific Society states facts.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Climate change: evidence and causes
Project background
The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, offer this new publication as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate change science. The publication makes clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty. It is written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national science academies, as well as the newest climate change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Royal Society, the oldest Scientific Society in the world.
Project background
The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, offer this new publication as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate change science. The publication makes clear what is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still uncertainty. It is written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national science academies, as well as the newest climate change assessment from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Royal Society, the oldest Scientific Society in the world.
Here, I'll give you one too. The American Physical Society recently released a new stronger official policy statement calling for action on climate change
Statement on Earth's Changing Climate
Judith Curry and other deniers tried to stack the deck, joining APS specifically to sabotage the science. Worked at first, then the rational people noticed the scam and overruled them, due to mass popular demand from the APS membership, so now Curry is quitting.
---
On Climate Change:
Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.
On Climate Science:
As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more compelling than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.
On Climate Action:
The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.
---
Statement on Earth's Changing Climate
Judith Curry and other deniers tried to stack the deck, joining APS specifically to sabotage the science. Worked at first, then the rational people noticed the scam and overruled them, due to mass popular demand from the APS membership, so now Curry is quitting.
---
On Climate Change:
Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the actions taken over the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.
On Climate Science:
As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more compelling than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.
On Climate Action:
The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.
---
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
APS Physics | FPS | American Physics, Climate Change, and Energy
American Physics, Climate Change, and Energy
1). It is unusual for a scientific society to offer such unwavering policy advice to society, and several APS members, including a Nobel-prize winner, resigned in protest. Objections included the belief that man-made global warming is not real, that the APS should not put itself in the position of giving unsolicited advice to society and governments, and that while global warming may be a problem, we still need energy (2, 3, 4, www.sepp.org). The APS reconsidered but ultimately reaffirmed its original statement, adding a lengthy explanation.
More recently, the American Institute of Physics published two articles in a single issue of its flagship publication, Physics Today, which made the case that global warming is a scientific certainty and we must take immediate action to prevent catastrophe (5,6). For instance, Ref. 5 dismisses all doubt with statements such as: "Greenhouse warming today faces an even greater array of bogus counterarguments based on the uninformed interpretation of data from ice cores, erroneous views about natural carbon sources, alleged but unobserved alternative drivers of climate change, naive expectations of the time scales over which models and observations should match, and various forms of statistical chicanery and logical fallacy." The alarmism in Ref. 6 is apparent by quotes such as: "The urgency of taking action to limit manmade climate change combines subjective considerations with scientific ones," "Some recent research suggests that severe climate change, including very large sea-level rises, can occur even with a 2 °C ceiling," and "The science tells us that meeting the policy goals requires urgent action." Figure 1 shows Figure 5 of reference (6): the necessary future course of carbon input into the atmosphere if we are to keep the total CO2 emissions to 750 Gt over the period 2010-2050. In all cases, carbon input into the atmosphere must end in about 30 years.
The American Institute of Physics. The single largest Scientific Society in the world. How many more do you want me to post, jc?
American Physics, Climate Change, and Energy
1). It is unusual for a scientific society to offer such unwavering policy advice to society, and several APS members, including a Nobel-prize winner, resigned in protest. Objections included the belief that man-made global warming is not real, that the APS should not put itself in the position of giving unsolicited advice to society and governments, and that while global warming may be a problem, we still need energy (2, 3, 4, www.sepp.org). The APS reconsidered but ultimately reaffirmed its original statement, adding a lengthy explanation.
More recently, the American Institute of Physics published two articles in a single issue of its flagship publication, Physics Today, which made the case that global warming is a scientific certainty and we must take immediate action to prevent catastrophe (5,6). For instance, Ref. 5 dismisses all doubt with statements such as: "Greenhouse warming today faces an even greater array of bogus counterarguments based on the uninformed interpretation of data from ice cores, erroneous views about natural carbon sources, alleged but unobserved alternative drivers of climate change, naive expectations of the time scales over which models and observations should match, and various forms of statistical chicanery and logical fallacy." The alarmism in Ref. 6 is apparent by quotes such as: "The urgency of taking action to limit manmade climate change combines subjective considerations with scientific ones," "Some recent research suggests that severe climate change, including very large sea-level rises, can occur even with a 2 °C ceiling," and "The science tells us that meeting the policy goals requires urgent action." Figure 1 shows Figure 5 of reference (6): the necessary future course of carbon input into the atmosphere if we are to keep the total CO2 emissions to 750 Gt over the period 2010-2050. In all cases, carbon input into the atmosphere must end in about 30 years.
The American Institute of Physics. The single largest Scientific Society in the world. How many more do you want me to post, jc?
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,081
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #48
www.Dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/skeptical-scientists-debunk-white-house-global-warming-report/
The science Gore, Obama, and other Global Warming clowns are touting has been exposed, debunked! NOA, NASA...exposed... repeatedly.
The greatest threat we face ... says the guy who declared the day before the Paris attacks that he had contained ISIS ... the guy who said his ACA would not cost a dime, that it would pay for itself, and that if you liked your plan you can keep your plan ... who initially, falsely, blamed a video and non-existent protest for the death of 4 Americans.
The science Gore, Obama, and other Global Warming clowns are touting has been exposed, debunked! NOA, NASA...exposed... repeatedly.
The greatest threat we face ... says the guy who declared the day before the Paris attacks that he had contained ISIS ... the guy who said his ACA would not cost a dime, that it would pay for itself, and that if you liked your plan you can keep your plan ... who initially, falsely, blamed a video and non-existent protest for the death of 4 Americans.
Last edited:
None of these things haunt anybody. Who to believe? Right-wing/libertarian whackjobs who don't even know the science of climate change, or the 99.9 percent of climate scientists who say, not only is climate change happening, but humans are part of the problem....
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,081
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #50
www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/559929
Moore pointed out “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years,” arguing that “perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record.
He told the committee: “When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when carbon dioxide was 10 times higher than today.”
-----------
"Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCC’s climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases."
----------------
"Moore warns that, “The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment. In a warmer world we can produce more food."
------------------
Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a “pseudoscience” that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis, and “then only looks for items which appear to support it,” while ignoring ample contrary evidence.
Tragically, that pseudoscience does greatest injustice to those who can least afford it."
--------------------
So wow, who to believe? Nobel Prize winning scientists, the field's most acclaimed experts, or Community Organizers and debunked scientists playing on fear and emotion to drive policy designed to make money for people/groups/investors like Solyndra and the other 12 FAILED green energy companies to whom Obama gave MILLIONS of our tax dollars and whom stand to make millions more if the debunked, science-less 'cult' is successfully pushed?!
Hmmmmm.....
Moore pointed out “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years,” arguing that “perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record.
He told the committee: “When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when carbon dioxide was 10 times higher than today.”
-----------
"Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCC’s climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases."
----------------
"Moore warns that, “The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment. In a warmer world we can produce more food."
------------------
Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a “pseudoscience” that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis, and “then only looks for items which appear to support it,” while ignoring ample contrary evidence.
Tragically, that pseudoscience does greatest injustice to those who can least afford it."
--------------------
So wow, who to believe? Nobel Prize winning scientists, the field's most acclaimed experts, or Community Organizers and debunked scientists playing on fear and emotion to drive policy designed to make money for people/groups/investors like Solyndra and the other 12 FAILED green energy companies to whom Obama gave MILLIONS of our tax dollars and whom stand to make millions more if the debunked, science-less 'cult' is successfully pushed?!
Hmmmmm.....
Last edited:
So wow, who to believe?
The scientists, who almost all say you're a brainwashed cult nutter, a pseudoscience babbling crank, a pathologically dishonest political cultist.
Dr. Giaver has zero experience in climate science, and seems kind of senile, being how he brainlessly repeats some stupid denier babbling, making mistakes that should embarrass a middle schooler.
Dr. Moore also has zero climate science experience, has been a longtime paid shill for polluters, and also lies about being a Greenpeace Founder. He left Greenpeace when he found better profits elsewhere.
So, great sources you found there. That certainly refutes all of the world's science.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,081
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #52
So you are saying you know more then Nobel Prize Winners and experts in their fields, that we trust you and the community organizer instead?! 
There is no 'all the world's science' because as explianed in numerous sources by numerous experts that pseudo-science has been debunked. You have fear and emotion and skewed / altered date.
Instead of 'follow the data' people need to 'follow the money' behind this 'cult' - wgo will profit.
Libs get pissed, once their science gets debunked, and demand the govt arrest / punish non-believers. Can't win on facts then bully, intimidate, use fear and emotion. Classic scam...
There is no 'all the world's science' because as explianed in numerous sources by numerous experts that pseudo-science has been debunked. You have fear and emotion and skewed / altered date.
Instead of 'follow the data' people need to 'follow the money' behind this 'cult' - wgo will profit.
Libs get pissed, once their science gets debunked, and demand the govt arrest / punish non-believers. Can't win on facts then bully, intimidate, use fear and emotion. Classic scam...
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
My, my, what a lot of flap-yap with zero to back it up. All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policies that state that AGW is real and clear and present danger.
So why would anyone of reasonable intelligence listen to some ignorant uneducated fool flap his silly yap about things that he knows absolutely nothing about?
So why would anyone of reasonable intelligence listen to some ignorant uneducated fool flap his silly yap about things that he knows absolutely nothing about?
Didn't Obama get the Nobel prize simply for winning the election?So you are saying you know more then Nobel Prize Winners and experts in their fields, that we trust you and the community organizer instead?!
There is no 'all the world's science' because as explianed in numerous sources by numerous experts that pseudo-science has been debunked. You have fear and emotion and skewed / altered date.
Instead of 'follow the data' people need to 'follow the money' behind this 'cult' - wgo will profit.
Libs get pissed, once their science gets debunked, and demand the govt arrest / punish non-believers. Can't win on facts then bully, intimidate, use fear and emotion. Classic scam...
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #55
Didn't Obama get the Nobel prize simply for winning the election?So you are saying you know more then Nobel Prize Winners and experts in their fields, that we trust you and the community organizer instead?!
There is no 'all the world's science' because as explianed in numerous sources by numerous experts that pseudo-science has been debunked. You have fear and emotion and skewed / altered date.
Instead of 'follow the data' people need to 'follow the money' behind this 'cult' - wgo will profit.
Libs get pissed, once their science gets debunked, and demand the govt arrest / punish non-believers. Can't win on facts then bully, intimidate, use fear and emotion. Classic scam...
There's a big fucking difference between the peace price and the noble for science. The science noble you need to spend a life time and advance science!
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,081
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #56
My, my, what a lot of flap-yap with zero to back it up. All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policies that state that AGW is real and clear and present danger.
So why would anyone of reasonable intelligence listen to some ignorant uneducated fool flap his silly yap about things that he knows absolutely nothing about?
Except, as I pointed out, their claims have been debunked, and many of the scientists from those orgs you mentioned have now come out against AGW....
Sorry, I will stick with a Nobel Prize Award Winning Scientist over Un-Deserved Nobel Peace Prize receiving Community Organizer.
How about showing us what mainstream scientific claims re AGW have been "debunked"? And, since the proportion of climate scientists who agree with the IPCC central contention: that human activity is the primary cause of the warming observed over the last 150 years, and particularly over the last 50, is in excess of 97%, those who "have now come out against AGW" is vanishingly small.
If you have some valid reference material that says anything different,I'd love to see it
If you have some valid reference material that says anything different,I'd love to see it
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Really? Are you such an ignorant fuck that you don't know what the Laureates just recently stated?My, my, what a lot of flap-yap with zero to back it up. All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policies that state that AGW is real and clear and present danger.
So why would anyone of reasonable intelligence listen to some ignorant uneducated fool flap his silly yap about things that he knows absolutely nothing about?
Except, as I pointed out, their claims have been debunked, and many of the scientists from those orgs you mentioned have now come out against AGW....
Sorry, I will stick with a Nobel Prize Award Winning Scientist over Un-Deserved Nobel Peace Prize receiving Community Organizer.
Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists Call For Action To ‘Minimize The Substantial Risks Of Climate Change’
Sixty years ago, Nobel laureates gathered on a tiny island in Western Europe and warned the world of the dangerous effects of nuclear weapons.
Last Friday, on the same island, 36 Nobel Prize winners took up another cause: climate change, which they said poses a “threat of comparable magnitude” to nuclear war.
“If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy,” the Nobel laureates’ declaration reads. “Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity.”
The declaration marked the culmination of the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, a week-long gathering of 65 Nobel laureates held on Mainau Island, a small island in Lake Constance that borders Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
“Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change,” the declaration continues, highlighting the 2015 United Nation Climate Change Conference in Paris as a chance to take steps toward international climate action.
Looks to me that we have a far greater number that feel that the issue is important and real.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
No, what you will do is stick with 'Conservative' willful ignorance and stupidity, lies and half lies over reality.My, my, what a lot of flap-yap with zero to back it up. All the Scientific Societies, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policies that state that AGW is real and clear and present danger.
So why would anyone of reasonable intelligence listen to some ignorant uneducated fool flap his silly yap about things that he knows absolutely nothing about?
Except, as I pointed out, their claims have been debunked, and many of the scientists from those orgs you mentioned have now come out against AGW....
Sorry, I will stick with a Nobel Prize Award Winning Scientist over Un-Deserved Nobel Peace Prize receiving Community Organizer.
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
Empirical evidence lays the Hottest Ev'a mantra waste...
Not even the El Nino is doing squat..
The empirical evidence shows the alarmist fools to be fools...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 324
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 489
- Replies
- 264
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 162
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 169
- Views
- 968
- Replies
- 297
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 836
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 42
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8060
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 470
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-