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

[Old Rocks]

As scam that treats a dynamic ecosystem, with literally millions of variables, as a static system in a vacuum??

Say it ain't so!!!

Fellow, you yap a lot, without a singe referance. So this is a subject dealing with science. Trot out some real science to support your position. All I have to support my postition on this subject is every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. And you have what?

And it has been debunked as a scam Old Rocks.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will never become the truth. And you have repeated that lie endlessly. But here are the real facts.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
In the past few years, scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and whether it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Old Rocks]

SAN FRANCISCO — The world's largest general scientific society on Sunday joined the concern over global climate change, calling it a "growing threat to society."

It is the first consensus statement of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on climate change. It comes just weeks after the International Panel on Climate Change issued its most recent report on human-induced warming.

"The evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now and is a growing threat to society," the AAAS said at its annual meeting.

"Scientists are observing the rapid melting of glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, rising sea levels, shifts in species ranges and increased frequency of weather extremes," said John P. Holdren, director of the Woods Hole Research Center and AAAS president.
FOXNews.com - Top Science Organization: Global Warming Is 'Threat to Society' - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

 

[Oddball]

Wow!!...A link to Fakes News!!

That'll learn us!!!

 

[Oddball]

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Consensus isn't science, it's politics.

I don't need a "consensus" to prove, beyond any doubt, that rising warm moist air forms cumulus clouds. Unlike the anthropogenic global warming hoax, I can repeatedly prove that, and debunk any and every possible alternative explanation.

 

[Meister]

Fellow, you yap a lot, without a singe referance. So this is a subject dealing with science. Trot out some real science to support your position. All I have to support my postition on this subject is every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. And you have what?

And it has been debunked as a scam Old Rocks.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will never become the truth. And you have repeated that lie endlessly. But here are the real facts.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Old Rocks, you are the liar. Your UN IPCC has been proven to be as much of a fraud as you have. Like in my earlier post which you of course ignored showed that 14,000 letters were sent in for the global climate change, only 948 were used for their study. Now that is science only you would believe in. So when you go tell your story full of your lies, just remember you have been debunked and exposed for the liar that you are....you little twit

 

[Chris]

It's a scam? Wow, it's just a coincidence that in the last 150 years since the industrial revolution ( and all that resultant CO2) that the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle? A scam that wealthy countries (the ones that produced all that CO2) cooked up just to sell carbon credits to exploit the poor? OK, prove it. Perhaps, you are wrong. Perhaps, all that mumbo jumbo about volcanoes and all that is correct, or perhaps, it's flat wrong. Perhaps we should gamble our future on speculation and for fleeting profit, and if you are wrong, so what. Let's roll the dice and gamble with the future. Is that a better alternative?

This general warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. Is it your contention that the CO2 released following 1850 caused the warming that started in 1700?

Do you really need to ask this question?

The warming effect of atmospheric CO2 operates within the context of the sun's activity.

I have a question for you.

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

 

[KittenKoder]

It's a scam? Wow, it's just a coincidence that in the last 150 years since the industrial revolution ( and all that resultant CO2) that the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle? A scam that wealthy countries (the ones that produced all that CO2) cooked up just to sell carbon credits to exploit the poor? OK, prove it. Perhaps, you are wrong. Perhaps, all that mumbo jumbo about volcanoes and all that is correct, or perhaps, it's flat wrong. Perhaps we should gamble our future on speculation and for fleeting profit, and if you are wrong, so what. Let's roll the dice and gamble with the future. Is that a better alternative?

This general warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. Is it your contention that the CO2 released following 1850 caused the warming that started in 1700?

Do you really need to ask this question?

The warming effect of atmospheric CO2 operates within the context of the sun's activity.

I have a question for you.

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

Yet you ignoring the fact that it's because plants can't process CO2 when there isn't enough solar energy ... thus ... still not caused by humans.

 

[Chris]

This general warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. Is it your contention that the CO2 released following 1850 caused the warming that started in 1700?

Do you really need to ask this question?

The warming effect of atmospheric CO2 operates within the context of the sun's activity.

I have a question for you.

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

Yet you ignoring the fact that it's because plants can't process CO2 when there isn't enough solar energy ... thus ... still not caused by humans.

You didn't answer the question.

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

 

[KittenKoder]

Do you really need to ask this question?

The warming effect of atmospheric CO2 operates within the context of the sun's activity.

I have a question for you.

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

Yet you ignoring the fact that it's because plants can't process CO2 when there isn't enough solar energy ... thus ... still not caused by humans.

You didn't answer the question.

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

Because ice melts sometimes ...

 

[code1211]

It's a scam? Wow, it's just a coincidence that in the last 150 years since the industrial revolution ( and all that resultant CO2) that the Earth is going through a natural warming cycle? A scam that wealthy countries (the ones that produced all that CO2) cooked up just to sell carbon credits to exploit the poor? OK, prove it. Perhaps, you are wrong. Perhaps, all that mumbo jumbo about volcanoes and all that is correct, or perhaps, it's flat wrong. Perhaps we should gamble our future on speculation and for fleeting profit, and if you are wrong, so what. Let's roll the dice and gamble with the future. Is that a better alternative?

This general warming trend started before the Industrial Revolution. Is it your contention that the CO2 released following 1850 caused the warming that started in 1700?

Do you really need to ask this question?

The warming effect of atmospheric CO2 operates within the context of the sun's activity.

I have a question for you.

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

That's an excellent question and one that should be asked. The short answer is that the rate of melting has slowed. A longer answer is that even with increased CO2 in the air, we have cooled for the last 6 or so years. The melting of the Artic Sea ice has returened to a level that is right in the middle of the range established over the last 30 or so years.

My guess is that Ocean Currents have far more to do with this the surface air temperatures which are pretty much always below freezing at the poles.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090504_Figure2.png

Using a wider range of TSI considerations, though, we have flattened out at a relatively high level of TSI over the last 50 or so years.

http://biocab.org/Amplitude_SI_Lean_s_Database.jpg

If we use a 10 point scale of heating compared to the TSI since about 1700, we were at about 0 before 1700 and we are in the 7-10 range over the last 50 years.

The Global Climate has pretty much followed the intensity of the TSI and departed from the rise of CO2 every time that TSI did the same. Go figure. It would appear to some that the heat from the Sun affects the climate on our planet.

 

[52ndStreet]

To all of you, Methane is now being released from the ocean , and melting Ice , and from Siberian permafrost, this gas heats up the Earth a lot faster than CO2,.Humans are not releasing this Methane,
nature is doing this naturally.As I said at the beginning of this post, it is called,"Earth Cyclical Climate Change" , human Global warming is all false, an elaborate scam. Created by the Wealthy industrialized nations of the west, to extort money from the developing third world nations.

 

[jeffrockit]

To paraphrase a Geo. Carlin rant; those claiming global warming have the arrogance to think that man has any real affect on the earth. Earth has been around billions of years and will be around billions of years after man. To think we have changed the climate and then to also think we can slow the perceived changes is insanity.
GW is nothing more than enviro nuts trying to change our way of life because they see themselves smarter than anyone else...again arrogance pure and simple. The sheep buying into the sky is falling hysteria makes it even more laughable though I stop laughing when they affect policy changes based on this hoax.

Come on, idiot, find someone with real credentials to back up you hypothesis that you can add nearly 40% more CO2, and over 250% more CH4 to the atmosphere and not affect the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains.

More braindead maunderings from the willfully ignorant.

More name calling. I don't debate with those who write as if they are still in high school (maybe you are). You have much "keyboard courage". I seriously doubt you would use the name calling if the person was standing in front of you. If you did, I seriously doubt you would have any teeth left.
Speaking of ignorant, buying into this hoax is the height of ignorance.
Goodbye

 

[Chris]

To all of you, Methane is now being released from the ocean , and melting Ice , and from Siberian permafrost, this gas heats up the Earth a lot faster than CO2,.Humans are not releasing this Methane,
nature is doing this naturally.As I said at the beginning of this post, it is called,"Earth Cyclical Climate Change" , human Global warming is all false, an elaborate scam. Created by the Wealthy industrialized nations of the west, to extort money from the developing third world nations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is having the effect of melting the permafrost and releasing methane. This will have a multiplier effect on global warming.

Nice delusional conspiracy theory, though.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Consensus isn't science, it's politics.

I don't need a "consensus" to prove, beyond any doubt, that rising warm moist air forms cumulus clouds. Unlike the anthropogenic global warming hoax, I can repeatedly prove that, and debunk any and every possible alternative explanation.

So you state. Yet you post nothing but verbage. Methinks you know nothing at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

[/B]

And it has been debunked as a scam Old Rocks.

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will never become the truth. And you have repeated that lie endlessly. But here are the real facts.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Old Rocks, you are the liar. Your UN IPCC has been proven to be as much of a fraud as you have. Like in my earlier post which you of course ignored showed that 14,000 letters were sent in for the global climate change, only 948 were used for their study. Now that is science only you would believe in. So when you go tell your story full of your lies, just remember you have been debunked and exposed for the liar that you are....you little twit

Yap, yap, yap, little puppy. I have posted sites from the scientific societies around the world. And scientific research organizations, both governmental and private. You post from shitheat wingnut sites like the Cato Institute. A political site, zero scientific standing.

Get back to us when you have something that is actually real.

 

[Old Rocks]

To paraphrase a Geo. Carlin rant; those claiming global warming have the arrogance to think that man has any real affect on the earth. Earth has been around billions of years and will be around billions of years after man. To think we have changed the climate and then to also think we can slow the perceived changes is insanity.
GW is nothing more than enviro nuts trying to change our way of life because they see themselves smarter than anyone else...again arrogance pure and simple. The sheep buying into the sky is falling hysteria makes it even more laughable though I stop laughing when they affect policy changes based on this hoax.

Come on, idiot, find someone with real credentials to back up you hypothesis that you can add nearly 40% more CO2, and over 250% more CH4 to the atmosphere and not affect the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains.

More braindead maunderings from the willfully ignorant.

More name calling. I don't debate with those who write as if they are still in high school (maybe you are). You have much "keyboard courage". I seriously doubt you would use the name calling if the person was standing in front of you. If you did, I seriously doubt you would have any teeth left.
Speaking of ignorant, buying into this hoax is the height of ignorance.
Goodbye

Goodbye, don't let the door hit you in the ass. And, yes, I have so stated to people standing in front of me. Apparently they chose not to do what you suggested, for I still have my teeth.

 

[elvis]

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will never become the truth. And you have repeated that lie endlessly. But here are the real facts.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Old Rocks, you are the liar. Your UN IPCC has been proven to be as much of a fraud as you have. Like in my earlier post which you of course ignored showed that 14,000 letters were sent in for the global climate change, only 948 were used for their study. Now that is science only you would believe in. So when you go tell your story full of your lies, just remember you have been debunked and exposed for the liar that you are....you little twit

Yap, yap, yap, little puppy. I have posted sites from the scientific societies around the world. And scientific research organizations, both governmental and private. You post from shitheat wingnut sites like the Cato Institute. A political site, zero scientific standing.

Get back to us when you have something that is actually real.

for Roxy,
scientific standing=those who agree with Al gore.

 

[elvis]

My agreement with you in one relatively minor area is incidental....It's known as the law of averages.

40% change of .04% of the total is still statistically insignificant, viz. that total.

Re-re-re-re-re-repeating your extremely limited menu of scaremonger talking points doesn't make them any more true or statistically significant.

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

you won't get chrissy to show his work. he will repeat the same shit over and over again.

 

[Chris]

My agreement with you in one relatively minor area is incidental....It's known as the law of averages.

40% change of .04% of the total is still statistically insignificant, viz. that total.

Re-re-re-re-re-repeating your extremely limited menu of scaremonger talking points doesn't make them any more true or statistically significant.

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters