Its called"Earth Cyclical Climate Change,"Global warming is a scam.!

[elvis]

Meh, if they just babbled I wouldn't care about them. They are pushing laws into effect though, and dooming us because now we don't have the resources to help when something really bad naturally happens. The environuts simply don't care about life, only money.

Clearly you misunderstood.

You are describing the environazis. I was describing the tools of same. Like oldnut here, chris, some others. They aren't the actual dangerous ones, they are simply the mindless little yapping ankle biter kickme mangy mongrel mutts of the deal. Who continue to yap, undaunted on message boards throughout the web. No matter how thoroughly they get the shit kicked out of them.

Dream on, old fool. You have yet to post a reasonable response to the fact that the overwhelming scientific consensus states that I am fingering Al Gore's anus. See, I can play the game, too.

But back at the ranch, the science still says all you state is nonsense.

fixed it for ya.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

But back at the ranch, the science still says all you state is nonsense.

Science agrees with me. That IF the environazis ever achieved their stated goal -- greatly reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases -- we would not have a green planet, but a brown, cold bare one.

Therefore logic says that their stated goal isn't the true goal.

It's really just that simple. The goal isn't "saving the planet" at all.

And like a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, they use mostly emotion and squelching of dissenting voices to make this stupid shit law.

Because it IS a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, and you're a mindless tool of it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Many have stated here that there is a 'conspiracy' by scientists to silence those dissenting concerning global warming. Quite on the contrary, it has been the other way. To the point that the AMS made this statement a few years ago.

American Meteorological Society statement on freedom of scientific expression
Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006


In the wake of recent media coverage of the problem of political interference with public communication by federal climate scientists, the AMS Council on February 17 adopted a statement that says, in part: “The ability of scientists to present their findings to the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative.” The AMS should follow up by monitoring whether media and public communications policies for climate scientists at NASA and NOAA are consistent with the statement.



The AMS statement:


Freedom of Scientific Expression

(Adopted by AMS Council on 17 February 2006) Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 87
“Advances in science and the benefits of science to policy, technological progress, and society as a whole depend upon the free exchange of scientific data and information as well as on open debate. The ability of scientists to present their findings to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative. With the specific limited exception of proprietary information or constraints arising from national security, scientists must be permitted unfettered communication of scientific results. In return, it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate their findings in ways that portray their results and the results of others, objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts.
“These principles matter most—and at the same time are most vulnerable to violation—precisely when science has its greatest bearing on society. Earth sciences and their applications have growing implications for public health and safety, economic development, protection of the environment and ecosystems, and national security. Thus, scientists, policy makers, and their supporting institutions share a special responsibility at this time for guarding and promoting the freedom of responsible scientific expression.”

This is a good first step for AMS in addressing the situation involving federal climate scientists that appears to have prompted the AMS Council to adopt this statement at this time. Now, to exercise responsibility for ongoing oversight, the AMS Council should monitor NASA to ensure that reforms put into practice the principles of freedom of expression articulated in the AMS statement—and that egregious attempts at censorship, such as those that have been directed at Jim Hansen, are not repeated.

In addition, AMS could look into the NOAA media policy for scientists and whether it was used in 2005 to put forward a selective and misleading presentation of the state of science on the relationship between hurricane intensity and global warming. As we move toward the 2006 hurricane season, the AMS should have a keen interest in whether NOAA is allowing, and fostering, freedom of expression in scientists’ communication with policymakers, the media, and the public on these issues.

American Meteorological Society statement on freedom of scientific expression (posting from Climate Science Watch)

 

[Old Rocks]

But back at the ranch, the science still says all you state is nonsense.

Science agrees with me. That IF the environazis ever achieved their stated goal -- greatly reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases -- we would not have a green planet, but a brown, cold bare one.

Therefore logic says that their stated goal isn't the true goal.

It's really just that simple. The goal isn't "saving the planet" at all.

And like a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, they use mostly emotion and squelching of dissenting voices to make this stupid shit law.

Because it IS a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, and you're a mindless tool of it.

What science and whom? Your babbling is hardly to be taken seriously without real backing. And that you have yet to post. Just another troll, like so many here.

 

[KittenKoder]

If those of us who do not follow Gore around kissing his ass and handing him money are suppressing the GW hoaxers then we really do suck ... at conspiring.

 

[elvis]

But back at the ranch, the science still says all you state is nonsense.

Science agrees with me. That IF the environazis ever achieved their stated goal -- greatly reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases -- we would not have a green planet, but a brown, cold bare one.

Therefore logic says that their stated goal isn't the true goal.

It's really just that simple. The goal isn't "saving the planet" at all.

And like a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, they use mostly emotion and squelching of dissenting voices to make this stupid shit law.

Because it IS a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, and you're a mindless tool of it.

What science and whom? Your babbling is hardly to be taken seriously without real backing. And that you have yet to post. Just another troll, like so many here.

right. the only people on here who are not trolls are you, chris, and red dawn, right fuckhead?

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, propaganda that is melting ice in the worlds glaciers and ice caps by the tens of cubic miles. That is some effective propaganda.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science agrees with me. That IF the environazis ever achieved their stated goal -- greatly reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases -- we would not have a green planet, but a brown, cold bare one.

Therefore logic says that their stated goal isn't the true goal.

It's really just that simple. The goal isn't "saving the planet" at all.

And like a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, they use mostly emotion and squelching of dissenting voices to make this stupid shit law.

Because it IS a Goebbels-style propaganda campaign based on a big lie, and you're a mindless tool of it.

What science and whom? Your babbling is hardly to be taken seriously without real backing. And that you have yet to post. Just another troll, like so many here.

right. the only people on here who are not trolls are you, chris, and red dawn, right fuckhead?

Oh my, ol' Elvis is showing his class again.

 

[elvis]

Ah yes, propaganda that is melting ice in the worlds glaciers and ice caps by the tens of cubic miles. That is some effective propaganda.

Now, you can see that from your house, right?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Elvis, have you ever read a book? Now, the Playboy magazine does not count. Did you actually finish the seventh grade?

 

[KittenKoder]

Ah yes, propaganda that is melting ice in the worlds glaciers and ice caps by the tens of cubic miles. That is some effective propaganda.

Thanks for admitting you are better than us at spreading propaganda.

 

[Old Rocks]

Poor Elvis, reduces to childish insults in leiu of intelligent conversation. However, it does take intellect to have an intelligent conversation, so we understand.

 

[elvis]

Hey Elvis, have you ever read a book? Now, the Playboy magazine does not count. Did you actually finish the seventh grade?

oh you prefer playgirl, do ya?

 

[elvis]

Poor Elvis, reduces to childish insults in leiu of intelligent conversation. However, it does take intellect to have an intelligent conversation, so we understand.

yeah if only I were a carpenter, I could be at your level. what a pity.

 

[KittenKoder]

Poor Elvis, reduces to childish insults in leiu of intelligent conversation. However, it does take intellect to have an intelligent conversation, so we understand.

It's better than parroting the same crap over and over again even after being shown it was wrong ... and even if it wasn't, it's less than 1% of the science involved ... so yeah ... Elvis is making this thread more entertaining than you are.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

What science and whom? Your babbling is hardly to be taken seriously without real backing.

"Real" backing like, the "Hockey Stick?"

You deny that greatly decreased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would result in a brown world instead of a green one?

Post after post myself and others have linked you to and quoted scientist after scientist, peer reviewed and all, who call this shit what it is, bunk. You merely flee such threads, only to go to others continuing to mindlessly parrot and babble.

And, you're really weak at it to boot!

 

[Oddball]

Many have stated here that there is a 'conspiracy' by scientists to silence those dissenting concerning global warming. Quite on the contrary, it has been the other way. To the point that the AMS made this statement a few years ago.

It's no conspiracy...It's business as usual for people of like political minds to sit around and give each other awards and positive "peer reviews", while they mock and deride all who question their "wisdom"........Kinda like holocaust deniers.

 

[Old Rocks]

What science and whom? Your babbling is hardly to be taken seriously without real backing.

"Real" backing like, the "Hockey Stick?"

You deny that greatly decreased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would result in a brown world instead of a green one?

Post after post myself and others have linked you to and quoted scientist after scientist, peer reviewed and all, who call this shit what it is, bunk. You merely flee such threads, only to go to others continuing to mindlessly parrot and babble.

And, you're really weak at it to boot!

Silly ass. A greatly reduced CO2 content in the atmosphere has happened in the past. And we had a near "Snowball" world. As has a greatly increased CO2 and CH4 content. Then we had the P-T event, and the PETM.

As pointed out, old man, only one peer reviewed article was pointed out. The rest were from wingnut sites.

 

[Old Rocks]

Many have stated here that there is a 'conspiracy' by scientists to silence those dissenting concerning global warming. Quite on the contrary, it has been the other way. To the point that the AMS made this statement a few years ago.

It's no conspiracy...It's business as usual for people of like political minds to sit around and give each other awards and positive "peer reviews", while they mock and deride all who question their "wisdom"........Kinda like holocaust deniers.

Kinda like willfully ignorant trolls that never do any real research.

 

[Old Rocks]

MADISON, WI, APRIL 10, 2007 -- The 11,000 members of three scientific societies with its roots in agriculture have been closely watching the reports coming out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It is the IPCCs 4th Assessment Report released on April 6, "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" that points to the direct consequences of climate change. Leading scientists from all over the world contributed to the latest installment of this report that attributes ecosystem changes to human-induced global warming. Following the release of the report, the presidents of the American society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science society of America (SSSA) issued this statement today:

"The Climate Change report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underscores the need to drastically improve the way we manage our agricultural resources. While the impacts of climate change will be positive in some areas of the world, such as those gaining longer growing seasons and those with sufficient water resources, other areas will be adversely impacted, and it is these areas that will need improved soil and water management practices. society member scientists are poised to conduct further research into how we can effectively manage plant, soil, and water resources and how we can adapt our current knowledge and research to reduce these negative impacts."

The three scientific society presidents are:

ASA President Dr. Jerry Hatfield, Ames, IA
CSSA President Dr. Henry L. Shands, Fort Collins, CO
SSSA President Dr. Rattan Lal, Columbus, OH

The Societies applaud the work of the IPCC and the more than 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries who have spent six years working on the report, which was unveiled at a meeting in Brussels, Belgium last Friday. Several member scientists of ASA-
3 scientific societies applaud climate cha...( MADISON WI APRIL 10 2007 -- The 11...)