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

[KittenKoder]

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.

Um ... yeah, perhaps they did happen, but we survived, the planet survived, and it was natural ... now if it happens, goodbye 99% of the population ... since we no longer have the resources to survive because they were wasted on all this "green" shit. So yeah, thanks again for destroying humanity, I'm sure the planet will love you for wiping out it's pride and joy.

 

[Oddball]

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

You forgot "heretic"!!

Actually, it was when I did my research that I moved from being an environmentalist whacko lemming, back in the late '80s and early '90s, to someone who has discovered them to be the biggest crackpots since the Malthusian declinists and Luddites.

I found that the more that you apply methods that have been accepted scientific acid tests for centuries -reproducibility and falsifiability for starters- the more the junk science of the anthropogenic climate change hoaxers comes apart at the seams.

 

[Old Rocks]

"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.

Um ... yeah, perhaps they did happen, but we survived, the planet survived, and it was natural ... now if it happens, goodbye 99% of the population ... since we no longer have the resources to survive because they were wasted on all this "green" shit. So yeah, thanks again for destroying humanity, I'm sure the planet will love you for wiping out it's pride and joy.

Silly girl, we did not "survive" either event. We, Homo Sap, have only been here for about 200,000 years. As far as the planet goes, of course it will survive. But the civilization we enjoy so much will not. Mankind probably will. Lovejoy, ever the optimist, believes even in the worst case, the population, worldwide, will not go below 500 million.

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

Um ... yeah, perhaps they did happen, but we survived, the planet survived, and it was natural ... now if it happens, goodbye 99% of the population ... since we no longer have the resources to survive because they were wasted on all this "green" shit. So yeah, thanks again for destroying humanity, I'm sure the planet will love you for wiping out it's pride and joy.

Silly girl, we did not "survive" either event. We, Homo Sap, have only been here for about 200,000 years. As far as the planet goes, of course it will survive. But the civilization we enjoy so much will not. Mankind probably will. Lovejoy, ever the optimist, believes even in the worst case, the population, worldwide, will not go below 500 million.

But in order for us to be here, our ancestors, thus us, would have had to survive. Survival of the fittest is the rule of law in nature.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

You forgot "heretic"!!

Actually, it was when I did my research that I moved from being an environmentalist whacko lemming, back in the late '80s and early '90s, to someone who has discovered them to be the biggest crackpots since the Malthusian declinists and Luddites.

I found that the more that you apply methods that have been accepted scientific acid tests for centuries -reproducibility and falsifiability for starters- the more the junk science of the anthropogenic climate change hoaxers comes apart at the seams.

Thus far, much verbage and absolutely nothing backing that verbage. So you despise "environmentalists". And that has to do with the effect of CO2 and other GHGs how? Ever bother to read the history of the research on GHGs? Published by the American Institute of Physics?

 

[Old Rocks]

Um ... yeah, perhaps they did happen, but we survived, the planet survived, and it was natural ... now if it happens, goodbye 99% of the population ... since we no longer have the resources to survive because they were wasted on all this "green" shit. So yeah, thanks again for destroying humanity, I'm sure the planet will love you for wiping out it's pride and joy.

Silly girl, we did not "survive" either event. We, Homo Sap, have only been here for about 200,000 years. As far as the planet goes, of course it will survive. But the civilization we enjoy so much will not. Mankind probably will. Lovejoy, ever the optimist, believes even in the worst case, the population, worldwide, will not go below 500 million.

But in order for us to be here, our ancestors, thus us, would have had to survive. Survival of the fittest is the rule of law in nature.

If you truly understood the nature of Extinction Events, you would realize that the rule is the survival of the luckiest.

 

[KittenKoder]

Silly girl, we did not "survive" either event. We, Homo Sap, have only been here for about 200,000 years. As far as the planet goes, of course it will survive. But the civilization we enjoy so much will not. Mankind probably will. Lovejoy, ever the optimist, believes even in the worst case, the population, worldwide, will not go below 500 million.

But in order for us to be here, our ancestors, thus us, would have had to survive. Survival of the fittest is the rule of law in nature.

If you truly understood the nature of Extinction Events, you would realize that the rule is the survival of the luckiest.

Tell that to the cheetah.

 

[Oddball]

Thus far, much verbage and absolutely nothing backing that verbage. So you despise "environmentalists". And that has to do with the effect of CO2 and other GHGs how? Ever bother to read the history of the research on GHGs? Published by the American Institute of Physics?

Yeah....And I've read The Revelation, too.

I don't despise environmentalist whackos...I merely find their "thinking" (for lack of a better term) linear and severely arrested.

Of course, the aforementioned Luddites, Malthusians, not to forget the modern-day prophets of doom and gloom, J.K. Galbraith and Paul Erlich, had reams of data and the same kinds of "peer review" to back their apocalyptic fantasies.

 

[Meister]

Old Rocks, the Un formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as you well know. The group asked Climatologists, meteorologists, bio-scientists, and Earth scientists from all over the world to submit papers addressing evidence and the effects of global warming. Did you know that over 14,000 papers were submitted, and they only accepted 948? Those 948 had only one theme, and you know the theme is what you worshipped. Roughly 1 out of 14 were accepted. I have to wonder what all those other papers had to say....I bet you don't wonder about it, though.
When these scientists found out how their work was being misrepresented they started pulling away. Did you know that out of the 948 scientists that had been picked, only 191 still remain?
Last month the US Senate released a 255 page "Minority Report On Manmade Global Warming" Over 650 scientists and many from the IPCC researchers debunk the man caused global warming.

Senate Minority Report: MAN-MADE Global Warming Fraud exposed by 650 Scientists - total_truth_sciences | Google Groups

Facts debunk global warming alarmism | The Australian

 

[Old Rocks]

Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...)

The Senate's proudest global-warming skeptic, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, recently released a list of "MORE THAN 650 INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS" who "DISSENT OVER MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS." Exciting! Let's take a look.

First, a bit of background: In January, Inhofe posted his initial list of more than 400 "prominent scientists" who, he claimed, disputed that man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for rising global temperatures. Trouble is, when people started sifting through the names, they found that many experts on the list were actually weathermen, economists, and people with no real background in climate science. Worse still, when Andrew Dessler started contacting some of the actual climate scientists listed, many of them expressed first shock, then horror, and then e-mailed Inhofe's staff and demanded to be taken off, since they didn't disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change at all.
Inhofe's 650 "Dissenters" (Make That 649... 648...) - Environment and Energy

 

[Oddball]

Mmmm-hmmmm...

When the U.N. scaremonger moonbats cherry pick their sources, that's "science". When someone else takes into account those whose opinions were ignored by those alarmists, the well is poisoned.

Nope....Didn't see that one coming!!

 

[Political Junky]

It is called "Earth Cyclical Climate change". This "Global Warming" is all a big scam , aimed at
extracting carbon monoxide money from third world nations, and slowing their development.

The Earth has gone through these cycles many times over, during its billions year history.
"Global Warming" is nothing but an elaborate scam , that is being implemented by the industrialized nations of the world.

Volcanoes, and the ocean, all release more CO2, and Methane, than humans have ever produced. These natural emissions , have been affecting the temperature on Earth , weather hot or cold , for many millions of years.

Wow, didn't your source tell you that they earth is only 4,000 years old?

 

[Tech_Esq]

It is called "Earth Cyclical Climate change". This "Global Warming" is all a big scam , aimed at
extracting carbon monoxide money from third world nations, and slowing their development.

The Earth has gone through these cycles many times over, during its billions year history.
"Global Warming" is nothing but an elaborate scam , that is being implemented by the industrialized nations of the world.

Volcanoes, and the ocean, all release more CO2, and Methane, than humans have ever produced. These natural emissions , have been affecting the temperature on Earth , weather hot or cold , for many millions of years.

So you have a PhD in atmoshpheric physics or chemistry, and do original peer reviewed research on the topic?

No????


So, are you just parroting then what you heard on Fox News, or from a rightwing think tank that doesn't actually do any of their own research on the topic?

And neither do you so.....

 

[Chris]

Mmmm-hmmmm...

When the U.N. scaremonger moonbats cherry pick their sources, that's "science". When someone else takes into account those whose opinions were ignored by those alarmists, the well is poisoned.

Nope....Didn't see that one coming!!

Atmospheric CO2 has increased 40% in the last 200 years. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and the ice cap and the glaciers are melting in spite of the fact that the sun's activity is at its lowest level in 80 years.

You are the moonbat.

 

[Oddball]

Mindless repetition of AGW scaremonger anecdotes and boilerplate doesn't make them any truer. Nor does it make that claimed 40% number any more significant, statistically or otherwise, when we're talking about an element that compromises a mere .04% of the atmosphere. Nor does it prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, causality.

The only moonbats here are you and the rest of the AGW cargo cult.

 

[Chris]

Mindless repetition of AGW scaremonger anecdotes and boilerplate doesn't make them any truer. Nor does it make that claimed 40% number any more significant, statistically or otherwise, when we're talking about an element that compromises a mere .04% of the atmosphere. Nor does it prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, causality.

The only moonbats here are you and the rest of the AGW cargo cult.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1959.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

 

[Oddball]

So does water vapor, which comprises significantly more of the total atmosphere than CO2.

Want to try and control how many clouds are "allowed" form next??

 

[Oddball]

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Stupid example....Mercury has NO atmosphere.

Any atmosphere is going to retain more heat than none at all.

 

[Chris]

So does water vapor, which comprises significantly more of the total atmosphere than CO2.

Want to try and control how many clouds are "allowed" form next??

Nice try at changing the subject.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. You know that as well as I do.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is causing the earth to warm.

You don't think it has much effect, yet the ice cap and the glaciers are melting in spite of the fact that the sun's activity is at its lowest level in 80 years.

If the sun's activity is at its lowest level in 80 years, why is the ice still melting?

 

[Oddball]

Guess what , Sparky......I used to believe that crap and mindlessly spouted those same boilerplate yammering points over and over and over and over again, just like you.

Then something happened....I let an analytical thought into my head.

The sun isn't the only variable.......The magnetosphere is ever-shifting and is weaker than it has been in decades. SOURCE

Also, your holy ice cores have shown that CO2 is a LAGGING statistic viz. temperature spikes, not a leading indicator.

Moreover, you cannot reproduce ANY of the purported "evidence" in the context of a dynamic ecosystem.....If you cannot reproduce it, it ain't science.

Likewise, you cannot falsify AGW junk science...If you cannot disprove ALL other possible explanations, it ain't science.

Science isn't about proving yourself right, it's about disproving ALL possible alternatives.....Which neither you nor any other AGW cultist have come anywhere near doing.