Gullible Warming Hoaxers Pimp CNBC

[manifold]

No matter what political claims are made to the contrary - the question is not "IF" it is "how much."

In absolute terms I can't argue with this. However, if the "how much" is so small it's insignificant, then where does that leave you on the IF?

the science does not support the characterization "insignificant." But the science itself is certainly not infalliable. It's just a matter of whether or not you want to base public policy on the best information available or with the unscientific opinions of the stakeholders.

I've made my choice (subject to change as more evidence becomes available) and of course everyone else is free to make their own as well.

Right, in science lingo, the term would be not statistically significant.

I'm not sure what choice you think you've made. Do you still drive a car with an internal combustion engine? Do you still have a gas/oil burning furnace in your home? Do you still buy products manufactured by companies with a large "carbon footprint?" Do you still buy or use anything with plastic in it or in it's packaging (in case you don't know, plastic is made from petroleum byproducts).

 

[saveliberty]

REAL scientists submit their work for peer review - political hacks submit op-ed pieces to political organs.

I'm STILL waiting.

REAL Scientist work for NASA and they say the place is getting cooler for the last three years and part of an overall cooling trend. I'd repost my sources from the last time you brought this up, but it did no good for you then, so I'll guess the same results for this time.

 

[Tech_Esq]

No matter what political claims are made to the contrary - the question is not "IF" it is "how much."

Until some "scientitist" can submit some dissenting work to the rigors of peer review, the dissenters will have to satisfy themselves with op-ed "science" - Right next to the birthers, the truthers, and the alien abductees.

You'll pardon the rest of us if we are underwhelmed.

They have, of course, and your denial of that fact is indicative of the despicable dishonesty on the part of the control freak left on this and other issues.

There is no practice that is too dishonest for you to advance your political control agenda. The is no amount of prevarication that is too great to mislead the people to get more control of their lives for your nefarious purposes.

Sorry, but the emperor has no clothes and you'll pardon us for noticing your embarrassing nudity. You can continue to try to hide behind the ever shrinking fig leaf of the fact the big government money has bribed a large number of so-called scientists into calling religion science and misrepresenting and creating "science" to "prove" something that they do not have adequate data nor data-models to prove.

 

[midcan5]

Oh happy days, when the deniers move downwind or swim in these places they can then .... oh, sorry that would kill them and that just wouldn't be very nice.

pollution pictures - Google Images

 

[Tech_Esq]

No matter what political claims are made to the contrary - the question is not "IF" it is "how much."

In absolute terms I can't argue with this. However, if the "how much" is so small it's insignificant, then where does that leave you on the IF?

the science does not support the characterization "insignificant." But the science itself is certainly not infalliable. It's just a matter of whether or not you want to base public policy on the best information available or with the unscientific opinions of the stakeholders.

I've made my choice (subject to change as more evidence becomes available) and of course everyone else is free to make their own as well.

You don't actually mean your last sentence. If you did you would not persist in demeaning people who have made that choice. Just sayin'

 

[manifold]

Oh happy days, when the deniers move downwind or swim in these places they can then .... oh, sorry that would kill them and that just wouldn't be very nice.

pollution pictures - Google Images

This is an excellent point and speaks to my biggest issue with the whole climate change debate to begin with. There are real, tangible pollution issues that we should be addressing with more vigor than we currently are. But instead, everyone seems distracted by the climate change boogey-man that we're not really sure is even a real problem.

 

[Godboy]

NBC is no longer a credible Media Outlet and i think more & more people are figuring that out.

Americans rate NBC higher in believability than Fox among broadcast outlets.

Provide rock solid proof please, or you can suck my balls.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Oh happy days, when the deniers move downwind or swim in these places they can then .... oh, sorry that would kill them and that just wouldn't be very nice.

pollution pictures - Google Images

Wow, are you really going to pull out the old pollution ploy? This crap argument was passe 10 years ago. But I guess if that's the best you can do.....feel free.

Nobody is against cleaning up or preventing pollution. People are against calling something pollution that isn't. It distracts from actually cleaning up POLLUTION.

Calling CO2 a pollutant is a distraction from cleaning up pollution.

 

[manifold]

As an aside...

When I go to the beach and swim out and take a piss, there is no question as to "IF" my urine is in the ocean, but rather "how much."


Just sayin...

 

[Tech_Esq]

Oh happy days, when the deniers move downwind or swim in these places they can then .... oh, sorry that would kill them and that just wouldn't be very nice.

pollution pictures - Google Images

This is an excellent point and speaks to my biggest issue with the whole climate change debate to begin with. There are real, tangible pollution issues that we should be addressing with more vigor than we currently are. But instead, everyone seems distracted by the climate change boogey-man that we're not really sure is even a real problem.

Wow, we didn't even talk to each other before we posted.....

 

[saveliberty]

Oh happy days, when the deniers move downwind or swim in these places they can then .... oh, sorry that would kill them and that just wouldn't be very nice.

pollution pictures - Google Images

Let me get this straight. YOU want to KILL ME??? Sort of throws water on the theory we conservatives are the haters.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The serious debate is no longer "if" human activity is contributing, it is "how much."

Only in your tiny, uninformed and closed mind.

I've been listening to this shit in one form or another for 40 years... we're gonna burn up.. we're gonna freeze.. we're running outta water.. there's gonna be too much water. They're always wrong about EVERYTHING. It's laughable. Have fun with it.. go get you a Prius and some stupid curly q lightbulbs.

 

[Oddball]

As an aside...

When I go to the beach and swim out and take a piss, there is no question as to "IF" my urine is in the ocean, but rather "how much."


Just sayin...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to manifold again.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Now the argument begins to be shifted by the Global Warming cult members. No one i know is Pro-Pollution. That is a completely separate argument. Who actually supports more pollution? I think we can all agree that pollution is not a good thing for the Planet. So now these people are calling it "Climate Change" and really are trying to change the discussion at this point. Obviously there is climate change going on. That has been going on long before we were here and will go on long after we're gone.

In the end more & more credible Scientists are concluding that it is the Sun which influences Climate Change most. More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere simply will not be the death of us all. In fact more Carbon Dioxide will actually make the Planet Greener which is great for crop growth which will in turn feed more people. These same Scientists are actually beginning to worry much more about possible Global Cooling in the future. Global Cooling is far more catastrophic for the Planet and its inhabitants. Massive crop failure would likely result from Global Cooling and that would lead to mass starvation around the Globe. Much more needs to be studied on this so-called "Global Warming" issue before we can pronounce the problem solved. We need more open minds and not more closed ones. That's how i see it anyway.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

According to that dunderhead Ted Danson, we were supposed to have frozen to death in 1998. Gee.. WTF????? Who the hell takes any of this serious anymore?

 

[Oddball]

Oh happy days, when the deniers move downwind or swim in these places they can then .... oh, sorry that would kill them and that just wouldn't be very nice.

pollution pictures - Google Images

Non sequitur of the month, right there.

 

[ABikerSailor]

As an aside...

When I go to the beach and swim out and take a piss, there is no question as to "IF" my urine is in the ocean, but rather "how much."


Just sayin...

Urine is sterile, pollution isn't.

As far as this global warming thing, and that we've only increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by 3 percent or less? Well........let's look at something..........

Anyone remember NASA and their experiments on the BioSphere? Additionally, remember that everything had to be kept in perfect balance, otherwise it would have an avalanche effect on the rest of the space?

Now.......about balance.........

Imagine 2 kids on a see saw. Both are equal distance away, both weigh exactly the same, and the board is balanced. It may tilt from side to side a bit, but as long as the balance is maintained, it will remain level.

Now, imagine those kids weigh 100 lbs each. You then take a 3 lb ball (3 percent) and give it to one without giving the other kid one. The see saw will tilt out of balance, resulting in the child with the 3 lb ball in their hand settling to the ground.

Now.......just like an avalanche starts off slow, same with climate change. If the ocean currents stop (like they think they might due to warming which doesn't allow the water to circulate), then the oceans will become swamps.

It's also started to happen in the Mediterranean. It seems that there are plankton which form little round blobs of mucus. Most of the time, they are only about 1-3 inches around, and lots of divers see them.

The ones in the Med have measured up to 150 miles.

Not a big deal you say? Well, the plankton and algae have blossomed due to the fact that the water is warmer, resulting in more growth. One of the side products of these plankton is that their mucus is actually more like glue than anything else. If something swims in there, it dies of suffocation, the fish decays, and the plankton has more food, resulting in more growth.

Try again. It's real.

Something else to think about............if you are sending a satellite to Mars, and you miscalculate the trajectory by just 3 degrees, you will miss the entire planet.

 

[Oddball]

Irrelevant examples.

The CO2 is in a dynamic system, not a static one.

 

[edthecynic]

Fox Business News (FBN) loves this one. They are right behind CNBC and are gaining on them fast. Look for Fox Business News to overtake CNBC and be #1 in ratings in the near future. NBC is no longer a credible Media Outlet and i think more & more people are figuring that out. More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing for the Planet anyway. Many credible scientists point this out all the time. It's all boiling down to (excuse the pun) the Sun. The Sun's activities such as Sun Spots are the main cause of "Global Warming" and Global Cooling. More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will actually create a Greener Planet. Most credible scientists are much more worried about possible Global Cooling in the future. Global Cooling will cause catastrophic crop failure which will lead to mass starvation. So if you're going to panic and worry everyday about this stuff then go ahead and worry about Global Cooling instead of "Global Warming." The Global Warming crowd has become nothing more than a gigantic hysterical Doomsday Cult at this point.

BALONEY!
You CON$ just make this crap up!!!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

To put it more blunt...Carbon Dioxide is hardly the evil Boogeyman the Global Warming fanatics have made it out to be. It really wont be killing off mankind. In fact we'll probably just end up with a Greener Planet. Now Global Cooling on the other hand? This could be something to worry about in the future. I'm just not the hysterical panicking type so i wont be following the herd on that one either. We're just not here very long so i suggest that you simply live life to the fullest and quit all the panicking. Well that's what i'm doing anyway.