I'm so sick of the rightwing denial of man made climate change

[Billy_Bob]

To the 97% lie we go....

"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."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Bull Shit!

John Cook looked at 11,946 papers over ten years. He threw out all but 76 papers and of those papers only two were dissenting. Cook mis-charactorized the majority of the papers and the authors real views.

When Dr. Legates looked into Cooks deception paper he found a whole host of discrepancies and falsifications. Only sixty four papers out of all of the papers stated that man caused the warming. JUST 64!

You dont have a clue about what you think you want or what is real and what is fantasy.. It is left wing idiots like you who are easily duped..

 

[jc456]

Oh my, did it ever occur to you that things do not change without reason? Things like the Milankovic Cycles, and the level GHGs in the atmosphere. Since we are raising the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere at a faster rate than any time in known geological history, you think that is not going to affect the temperature, and through that, the climate?

Did you find that experiment yet?

 

[Billy_Bob]

To the 97% lie we go....

"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."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Peer reviewed had become such a joke that the rules have to be changed.

For a great length of time scientists were allowed to choose who would be able to *cough* peer review their work and their findings.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, many scientists were actually able to *cough* peer review their own papers.

Publishing The peer-review scam Nature News Comment

Peer review is broken – Springer announces 64 papers retracted due to fake reviews

Retraction of articles from Springer journals

London | Heidelberg, 18 August 2015

Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports. After a thorough investigation we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across a number of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement. Springer has made COPE aware of the findings of its own internal investigations and has followed COPE’s recommendations, as outlined in their statement, for dealing with this issue. Springer will continue to participate and do whatever we can to support COPE’s efforts in this matter.

The fun of left wing idiots and liars crashing and burning is just beginning...

Source

 

[jc456]

I'm so sick of liberals and their never ending power grabs.

They think they own everything. Funny shit

Funny they tell everyone what is a valid site and what is not. They all, ate jack monkeys

 

[westwall]

To the 97% lie we go....

"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."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Peer reviewed had become such a joke that the rules have to be changed.

For a great length of time scientists were allowed to choose who would be able to *cough* peer review their work and their findings.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, many scientists were actually able to *cough* peer review their own papers.

Publishing The peer-review scam Nature News Comment

Peer review is broken – Springer announces 64 papers retracted due to fake reviews

Retraction of articles from Springer journals

London | Heidelberg, 18 August 2015

Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports. After a thorough investigation we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across a number of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement. Springer has made COPE aware of the findings of its own internal investigations and has followed COPE’s recommendations, as outlined in their statement, for dealing with this issue. Springer will continue to participate and do whatever we can to support COPE’s efforts in this matter.

The fun of left wing idiots and liars crashing and burning is just beginning...

Source

To be fair though, none of the retracted papers are climatology related and all seem to have Chinese authors. Biomedical is the field for the majority of them.

 

[RodISHI]

Oh my, did it ever occur to you that things do not change without reason? Things like the Milankovic Cycles, and the level GHGs in the atmosphere. Since we are raising the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere at a faster rate than any time in known geological history, you think that is not going to affect the temperature, and through that, the climate?

So how did mankind get the axi to rotate?
I recall the years of Mount Saint Helens, earth quakes as a child and how that all affected the weather. Methane releases in the ocean and on land volcanic activity cannot be controlled by humankind but the extreme pollution that some are causing can be.


In areas of Turkey it comes straight out of the rock cliffs


East Coast


Let us give more tax payer dollars to big agra for we can ruin the engines in our cars.


7/23/2015 -- West Coast LARGE Earthquake Warning -- USGS quote "any day now"
6/06/2015 -- Arizona Volcanic Plume COVERUP -- Main Stream Media + National Park Service RESPOND

Top ten most disgusting without Fukushima included
Top 10 Most Disgusting Things We've Done To Our Ocean

gas erupts in a pond caught on film
Crazy! Golfer Catches Exploding Pond As Methane Erupts In Canada
If you have ever done dozer work and buried the grass or organics and then plowed back into months later you can get an idea of how methane is created. Earth changes. From earth quakes and coal fires to volcano's along with actual manmade pollution earth does have problems but don't go enriching a few at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Billy_Bob]

To the 97% lie we go....

"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."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Peer reviewed had become such a joke that the rules have to be changed.

For a great length of time scientists were allowed to choose who would be able to *cough* peer review their work and their findings.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, many scientists were actually able to *cough* peer review their own papers.

Publishing The peer-review scam Nature News Comment

Peer review is broken – Springer announces 64 papers retracted due to fake reviews

Retraction of articles from Springer journals

London | Heidelberg, 18 August 2015

Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports. After a thorough investigation we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across a number of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement. Springer has made COPE aware of the findings of its own internal investigations and has followed COPE’s recommendations, as outlined in their statement, for dealing with this issue. Springer will continue to participate and do whatever we can to support COPE’s efforts in this matter.

The fun of left wing idiots and liars crashing and burning is just beginning...

Source

To be fair though, none of the retracted papers are climatology related and all seem to have Chinese authors. Biomedical is the field for the majority of them.

But the problem is systemic. John Cooks 97% paper is one where he faked three emails to give his paper credit it did not deserve. I cant believe that it has not be forcefully retracted. The fact that it still stands in any journal or is used by anyone is testament to how badly broken the peer review system is. Springer publishing company publishes mostly climate and hard science journals and they have not released what their papers were yet.

Edit: Westwall was correct... Primarily bio-med..

 

[Billy000]

To the 97% lie we go....

"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."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Bull Shit!

John Cook looked at 11,946 papers over ten years. He threw out all but 76 papers and of those papers only two were dissenting. Cook mis-charactorized the majority of the papers and the authors real views.

When Dr. Legates looked into Cooks deception paper he found a whole host of discrepancies and falsifications. Only sixty four papers out of all of the papers stated that man caused the warming. JUST 64!

You dont have a clue about what you think you want or what is real and what is fantasy.. It is left wing idiots like you who are easily duped..

This graphic refers to a study that only examined the abstracts of all those papers. It was complete bullshit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

To the 97% lie we go....

"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."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Bull Shit!

John Cook looked at 11,946 papers over ten years. He threw out all but 76 papers and of those papers only two were dissenting. Cook mis-charactorized the majority of the papers and the authors real views.

When Dr. Legates looked into Cooks deception paper he found a whole host of discrepancies and falsifications. Only sixty four papers out of all of the papers stated that man caused the warming. JUST 64!

You dont have a clue about what you think you want or what is real and what is fantasy.. It is left wing idiots like you who are easily duped..

This graphic refers to a study that only examined the abstracts of all those papers. It was complete bullshit.

Please provide proof of your statement. Dr Legates and his staff reviewed all of the papers in question. Not just the abstracts. John Cook did the abstracts. You really should get your facts straight..

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh my, did it ever occur to you that things do not change without reason? Things like the Milankovic Cycles, and the level GHGs in the atmosphere. Since we are raising the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere at a faster rate than any time in known geological history, you think that is not going to affect the temperature, and through that, the climate?

So how did mankind get the axi to rotate?
I recall the years of Mount Saint Helens, earth quakes as a child and how that all affected the weather. Methane releases in the ocean and on land volcanic activity cannot be controlled by humankind but the extreme pollution that some are causing can be.


In areas of Turkey it comes straight out of the rock cliffs


East Coast


Let us give more tax payer dollars to big agra for we can ruin the engines in our cars.


7/23/2015 -- West Coast LARGE Earthquake Warning -- USGS quote "any day now"
6/06/2015 -- Arizona Volcanic Plume COVERUP -- Main Stream Media + National Park Service RESPOND

Top ten most disgusting without Fukushima included
Top 10 Most Disgusting Things We've Done To Our Ocean

gas erupts in a pond caught on film
Crazy! Golfer Catches Exploding Pond As Methane Erupts In Canada
If you have ever done dozer work and buried the grass or organics and then plowed back into months later you can get an idea of how methane is created. Earth changes. From earth quakes and coal fires to volcano's along with actual manmade pollution earth does have problems but don't go enriching a few at the expense of everyone else.

Yes, buried organics are a source of methane. In the Arctic, we have giga-tons of buried organics, safe as long as the permafrost does not thaw. However, due to our adding massive amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere, it is thawing. And, even worse, there is even more CH4 in the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And we are seeing them start to emit.

Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[Billy_Bob]

To the 97% lie we go....

"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."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Bull Shit!

John Cook looked at 11,946 papers over ten years. He threw out all but 76 papers and of those papers only two were dissenting. Cook mis-charactorized the majority of the papers and the authors real views.

When Dr. Legates looked into Cooks deception paper he found a whole host of discrepancies and falsifications. Only sixty four papers out of all of the papers stated that man caused the warming. JUST 64!

You dont have a clue about what you think you want or what is real and what is fantasy.. It is left wing idiots like you who are easily duped..

This graphic refers to a study that only examined the abstracts of all those papers. It was complete bullshit.

NO.. The only Bull Shit here is you and you believing that John Cook and Skeptical Science is a reliable blog and source of information.

You know what, I am really tired of left wing fools trying to push their socialist ideology on the rest of the world by using the climate change LIE...

 

[RodISHI]

Yes, buried organics are a source of methane. In the Arctic, we have giga-tons of buried organics, safe as long as the permafrost does not thaw. However, due to our adding massive amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere, it is thawing. And, even worse, there is even more CH4 in the clathrates in the Arctic Ocean. And we are seeing them start to emit.

Methane Hydrates and Contemporary Climate Change | Learn Science at Scitable

Species adapt
Grolar Bears and Narlugas: Rise of the Arctic Hybrids | OnEarth Magazine
Ice forms in other locations
britain covered in ice - Google Search

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh my, did it ever occur to you that things do not change without reason? Things like the Milankovic Cycles, and the level GHGs in the atmosphere. Since we are raising the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere at a faster rate than any time in known geological history, you think that is not going to affect the temperature, and through that, the climate?

there are other possibilities other than "for no reason". Like "we don't quite understand it yet" or "we haven't a good enough historical record of it to call it an anomaly.. Like for instance... We might know approximately what the CO2 levels were back a million years ago -- but contrary to your assertion above.. We have NO Fucking clue as to 40 or 60 yr rates of change in temperature or CO2..

Anyone who is panicking over the 1/3 of degree change in their lifetimes (actually less in the Con. US) and believing that every news event and enviro problem is BECAUSE of that change, is frankly a little over-strung.

Your daily temperatures over any season swing +/- 10degF variance. It's hardly ever normal or average. And a storm doesn't give a damn about a uniform 0.3deg change in it's enviro..

 

[Hossfly]

The ONLY reason why the RW base has chosen not to believe in this phenomenon is because republicans told them not to. Al Gore just had to get involved so of course repubs through a tantrum over it to defend the interests of oil companies. Because the RW base are pawns, they buy into it.

RW clowns: Save your cherry picked "studies" that are NOT peer reviewed and are likely funded by big oil that argue against human caused climate change. Youre wasting your life over them. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies from AROUND THE WORLD confirm it to be real. The science is settled. I don't give a shit what democrats or Obama say about it. I listen to the actual experts.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Don't you think the sun might have something to do with global warming? You know, that bright little yellow ball in the sky.

Do you think? Period?

Ever consider that you are one of the more ignorant posters here? Now why don't you look up what the TSI is all about. And consider that it has declined in recent years, yet these have been the warmest years on record.

Thanks for the insults, Captain Knowledge. We went through global cooling in the 80s. Now it's global warming. I'm waiting to push global flooding.

 

[skookerasbil]

drip....................drip...................drip....................

Alarmists need a Plan B. Lets face it........in 2015, nobody is caring. People just saw the Arctic ice double in size in 2013........alarmists had promised us it'd be gone. Time to hit the re-set button s0ns because nobodys impressed.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm so sick of liberals and their never ending power grabs.

Paving the highway or paying the police is now a power grab...Archaist are weird people.

All we fund is roads and police? Sober up and try again.

 

[Iceweasel]

The ONLY reason why the RW base has chosen not to believe in this phenomenon is because republicans told them not to. Al Gore just had to get involved so of course repubs through a tantrum over it to defend the interests of oil companies. Because the RW base are pawns, they buy into it.

RW clowns: Save your cherry picked "studies" that are NOT peer reviewed and are likely funded by big oil that argue against human caused climate change. Youre wasting your life over them. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies from AROUND THE WORLD confirm it to be real. The science is settled. I don't give a shit what democrats or Obama say about it. I listen to the actual experts.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Don't you think the sun might have something to do with global warming? You know, that bright little yellow ball in the sky.

Do you think? Period?

Ever consider that you are one of the more ignorant posters here? Now why don't you look up what the TSI is all about. And consider that it has declined in recent years, yet these have been the warmest years on record.

Thanks for the insults, Captain Knowledge. We went through global cooling in the 80s. Now it's global warming. I'm waiting to push global flooding.

"Climate change" covers the turf pretty well. If the Warmers ever shut their yaps the Earth would cool at least a full degree.

 

[Abishai100]

Network Nylons

Imagine that in UCSD (University of California-San Diego), a number of students send their mothers affectionate emails on Mother's Day. This activity ironically saves a lot of paper which would otherwise have been used for paper-mail Mother's Day letters had it not been for the convenient and satisfying invention of email.

The Pony Express changed the way we could transmit information in the early days of America. When the telephone became popular, communication became instant. When email was invented, communication was not only instant but also discreet.

As Internet transmissions become stabilized (and free from the influence of hackers), methodology of networking changes the way we look at labor and materials.

Enter the eco-conscious comic book avatar: Captain America, Poison Ivy, Aquaman, Ra's al Ghul, etc.

These avatars have become popular since the latter half of the 20th Century. Today, comic book adapted Hollywood (USA) movies are all the rage.

Ra's al Ghul (DC Comics), for example, is a nefarious nemesis of the caped crusader Batman. Ra's al Ghul is a diabolical fascist with schemes of deadly eco-terrorism meant to subvert standard expectations of civics and jurisprudence in Batman's fictional home called Gotham City, a place seething with criminality and mania.

As feminists and liberals pick up on the philosophical value of these pop culture art avatars --- Poison Ivy, for example, is a radical female eco-terrorist --- we have to wonder about how populism marketing affects layman politics.




Ra's al Ghul

 

[Wyatt earp]

Network Nylons

Imagine that in UCSD (University of California-San Diego), a number of students send their mothers affectionate emails on Mother's Day. This activity ironically saves a lot of paper which would otherwise have been used for paper-mail Mother's Day letters had it not been for the convenient and satisfying invention of email.

The Pony Express changed the way we could transmit information in the early days of America. When the telephone became popular, communication became instant. When email was invented, communication was not only instant but also discreet.

As Internet transmissions become stabilized (and free from the influence of hackers), methodology of networking changes the way we look at labor and materials.

Enter the eco-conscious comic book avatar: Captain America, Poison Ivy, Aquaman, Ra's al Ghul, etc.

These avatars have become popular since the latter half of the 20th Century. Today, comic book adapted Hollywood (USA) movies are all the rage.

Ra's al Ghul (DC Comics), for example, is a nefarious nemesis of the caped crusader Batman. Ra's al Ghul is a diabolical fascist with schemes of deadly eco-terrorism meant to subvert standard expectations of civics and jurisprudence in Batman's fictional home called Gotham City, a place seething with criminality and mania.

As feminists and liberals pick up on the philosophical value of these pop culture art avatars --- Poison Ivy, for example, is a radical female eco-terrorist --- we have to wonder about how populism marketing affects layman politics.




Ra's al Ghul

View attachment 48142

Mmmm k