Radical Environmentalism

[bripat9643]

Let's see, given a choice between taking your talking points from an industry-sponsored lobbyist/"journalist" or 97% of the world's experts on a scientific question, you chose the former and I chose the latter. Do you actually expect me to be embarrassed by that point?

Don't be an ass.

Your 97% figure is discredited bullshit, and why should anyone take the word of some "climate -scientists" whose career depends on supporting the scam?

 

[American_Jihad]

...

Liberal Media Ecstatic Over Paris Climate Deal
"This agreement represents the best chance we have to save the one planet that we've got."
12.13.2015
News
Caleb Howe

n Saturday a deal, theoretically regarding climate change, was reached by delegates in Paris. The nations involved must still sign and ratify the deal, but that didn't stop an absolutely absurd emotional release on the part of climate fear-mongers around the world and especially in the media.

For just one example, in the clip above, an MSNBC reporter climaxes early, even before the deal is actually agreed upon. If this is our "moon shot" moment, this period of American and world history is even more pathetic that one might think. A global deal that is long on socialism and virtually void of science is no moon landing. Embarrassing.

Apparently the rest of the media caught a case of "I'll have what he's having" and joined in the grotesque display, as seen in this clip via The Right Scoop.

...

If even two of the people in that clip have any inkling of what climate change is actually about beyond their liberal talking point that smart people want to fight it and dumb people don't, we'd be shocked.

If there is any doubt as to what the deal actually is - a barely concealed effort to topple America from the seat of world power and "spread the wealth around" - look no further than their own words. They call it "climate justice" these days, and that is not a coincidence - it reminds you of social justice. Under the left's principles of intersectionality, climate legislation is absolutely about "social justice." They are nothing if not masters of deceptive names.

But don't take our word for it, just read this "news" item from Reuters, tellingly titled "Paris climate deal throws 'frayed lifeline' to the poor":

...

Seriously, do they read what they type before they put it in print? Then again, it's no different from what the President of the United States said after the deal:

"This agreement represents the best chance we have to save the one planet that we've got."

Support Obama's global redistribution of wealth, or the world will literally come to an end.

But remember, Republicans are the fear-mongers.

Liberal Media Ecstatic Over Paris Climate Deal

 

[Crick]

But remember, Republicans are the fear-mongers.

That's a fact.

 

[American_Jihad]

But remember, Republicans are the fear-mongers.

That's a fact.

...

 

[Crick]

You believe all the world's climate scientists are members of a perfect conspiracy to defraud us and destroy the world's economies or simply capitalism outright. You cannot produce one shred of evidence to support that fantasy, but you push it relentlessly never the less. You alternate between there is no warming, there is warming but it's not caused by human activity and there is warming but who cares whose responsible because it can't be fixed. Which you pick seems to depend on whether 0, 1 or 2 testicles have descended that morning.

You could simplify your sig by just replacing all that pretty colored scribble with

RACIST NAZI BIGOT

Sorry, I forgot the point communicated by you pointing a gun at all of us via your avatar

RACIST NAZI BIGOT COWARD

 

[jc456]

Dumb fuck, the primary source of lead and mercury are coal fired generation plants. Shut those down and you solve much of the GHG increase and, at the same time, almost completely shut down the primary source of lead and mercury in this nation.

sure get that new energy on line. Oh that's right there isn't any. We're spending trillions trying to stop the sun from shining.

 

[jc456]

You believe all the world's climate scientists are members of a perfect conspiracy to defraud us and destroy the world's economies or simply capitalism outright. You cannot produce one shred of evidence to support that fantasy, but you push it relentlessly never the less. You alternate between there is no warming, there is warming but it's not caused by human activity and there is warming but who cares whose responsible because it can't be fixed. Which you pick seems to depend on whether 0, 1 or 2 testicles have descended that morning.

You could simplify your sig by just replacing all that pretty colored scribble with

RACIST NAZI BIGOT

Sorry, I forgot the point communicated by you pointing a gun at all of us via your avatar

RACIST NAZI BIGOT COWARD

actually the gun isn't pointed at you, but you wouldn't know that would you?

And, to state a fact, name one scientist not paid by government money that thinks AGW is real. Name one.

 

[Crick]

You believe all the world's climate scientists are members of a perfect conspiracy to defraud us and destroy the world's economies or simply capitalism outright. You cannot produce one shred of evidence to support that fantasy, but you push it relentlessly never the less. You alternate between there is no warming, there is warming but it's not caused by human activity and there is warming but who cares whose responsible because it can't be fixed. Which you pick seems to depend on whether 0, 1 or 2 testicles have descended that morning.

You could simplify your sig by just replacing all that pretty colored scribble with

RACIST NAZI BIGOT

Sorry, I forgot the point communicated by you pointing a gun at all of us via your avatar

RACIST NAZI BIGOT COWARD

actually the gun isn't pointed at you, but you wouldn't know that would you?

Well, it's also pointed at you.

And, to state a fact, name one scientist not paid by government money that thinks AGW is real. Name one.

Very close to EVERY climate scientist on this planet has been convinced by the evidence that they and their fellow climate scientists have been gathering for the last several decades. I find that a great deal more convincing that any point you're capable of making about government money.

 

[skookerasbil]

You believe all the world's climate scientists are members of a perfect conspiracy to defraud us and destroy the world's economies or simply capitalism outright. You cannot produce one shred of evidence to support that fantasy, but you push it relentlessly never the less. You alternate between there is no warming, there is warming but it's not caused by human activity and there is warming but who cares whose responsible because it can't be fixed. Which you pick seems to depend on whether 0, 1 or 2 testicles have descended that morning.

You could simplify your sig by just replacing all that pretty colored scribble with

RACIST NAZI BIGOT

Sorry, I forgot the point communicated by you pointing a gun at all of us via your avatar

RACIST NAZI BIGOT COWARD

s0n.....you gotta buckle up your chinstrap. Make it a '16 New Years resolution. Virtually every word uttered in here by somebody who doesn't see the world like you do is considered "a racist bigot". My God...you wouldnt last a week in most industries being so hypersensitive about shit. Indeed.........many would say that you are one of those political correctness Nazi's...........the most dangerous fucks in our country. A domestic terrorist...........

 

[American_Jihad]

January 6, 2016
More misrepresentation on climate
By Jim Whiting

Freeman Dyson (the smartest man in the world, still) published a reproof in the Boston Globe, chiding the Paris Conference and attendees for believing that "the science is settled":

The IPCC believes climate change is harmful; that the science of climate change is settled and understood; that climate change is largely due to human activities, particularly the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by industrial societies; and that there is an urgent need to fight climate change by reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide.

Ten days later, the Globe published a scolding reply to Dyson by two MIT professors, co-signed by another six. This alleged that "o much more is understood about climate change than skeptic admits," expressing their dismay at the ignorance and naiveté of Dyson, poor clod.

The following questions should be addressed to the MIT chaps, and there are footnotes for those less specialized:

1. If the surface temperature of Venus is completely explained by the adiabatic lapse rate (1) of its atmosphere, 92 times thicker than ours, then why isn't our surface temperature explained the same way? If you replace our atmosphere with 100% nitrogen, the math works out the same.

2. Granted that water vapor and the other GHGs have some effect (2), why don't they correlate – at all – with the major swings in climate over the past 3 million years? The end-Ordovician (Hirnantian) Ice Age, 440 million years ago, began when CO2 was around 4,000 ppm and lasted a few million years. At the end of that time, with 85% of marine life extinct, when the frigid oceans had gobbled up atmospheric CO2 to around 3,000 ppm, the globe suddenly began to warm up, getting back to the previous 22°C with astonishing speed. You haven't the faintest idea why it cooled so fast and so far, or why it warmed so fast and so far. After all, that was the time of the cool(er) young(er) sun. It's not just The Pause that doesn't fit your model.

3. The Earth has spent half of the previous 600 million years around 22°C, which makes it look as though there's a tight lid at that number. Why doesn't that entail strong negative feedback and no "tipping point"?

4. We don't know why the P-T extinction (3) warming (to at least 28°C) occurred so fast, nor why it was so brief. What brought the temperature down to 22°C again? Why didn't it "run away"?

5. Why is the lowest temperature around 12°C? When "snowball Earth" occurs, with glaciers almost down to the equator, why doesn't the albedo (4) force more cooling, more ice, more reflectance, and more cooling down to the Stefan-Boltzmann equilibrium (5) of 255°K (0°F)?

6. In other words, why has the Earth's temperature been so stable, ranging from 285°K to 295°K since the end of the Hadean Age 3 billion years ago? That's a median of 290°K (62°F), ±2%. Climate stability needs an answer, not climate change.

7. If CO2 is close to saturated right now, and its effectiveness declines logarithmically, why is it dangerous to produce more? After all, it's currently close to the lowest it's been for the last 600 million years.

...


Read more: Blog: More misrepresentation on climate
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[jc456]

You believe all the world's climate scientists are members of a perfect conspiracy to defraud us and destroy the world's economies or simply capitalism outright. You cannot produce one shred of evidence to support that fantasy, but you push it relentlessly never the less. You alternate between there is no warming, there is warming but it's not caused by human activity and there is warming but who cares whose responsible because it can't be fixed. Which you pick seems to depend on whether 0, 1 or 2 testicles have descended that morning.

You could simplify your sig by just replacing all that pretty colored scribble with

RACIST NAZI BIGOT

Sorry, I forgot the point communicated by you pointing a gun at all of us via your avatar

RACIST NAZI BIGOT COWARD

actually the gun isn't pointed at you, but you wouldn't know that would you?

Well, it's also pointed at you.

And, to state a fact, name one scientist not paid by government money that thinks AGW is real. Name one.

Very close to EVERY climate scientist on this planet has been convinced by the evidence that they and their fellow climate scientists have been gathering for the last several decades. I find that a great deal more convincing that any point you're capable of making about government money.

no the photo isn't pointing at you. holy crap do you view things cross-eyed?

Second:
I asked you to name one scientist which I see you can't. I predicted you wouldn't. You are a lost soul my friend. I feel bad for you. You have this illusion that somehow you're this great science genius, and yet you can't post one experiment or provide one scientist when asked. You're a failure at this game called debating.

 

[Crick]

Since I reject your premise concerning scientists working with government grant money, you can take your "name one scientist" demand and pack it where the sun don't shine.

Show us a poll less than 5 years old that indicates anything less than 90% of publishing climate scientists accept the IPCC conclusions.

If you can't do THAT, you really don't have SHIT.

 

[9aces]

Since I reject your premise concerning scientists working with government grant money, you can take your "name one scientist" demand and pack it where the sun don't shine.

Show us a poll less than 5 years old that indicates anything less than 90% of publishing climate scientists accept the IPCC conclusions.

If you can't do THAT, you really don't have SHIT.

So what? You can't prove they're right. In fact it's easier to prove they're wrong.

 

[Maggdy]

Yes, that's ridiculous.

It will be really radical, if the government creates laws and are required by law and punishable.

"No More New Gas-Powered Cars by 2050, Say Eight States and Five Countries.
Governments, that want to ban sales of new gas- and diesel-powered cars within 35 years. " No More New Gas-Powered Cars by 2050, Say Eight States and Five Countries

They will say: "We are the world's most advanced civilization."

 

[Crick]

Since I reject your premise concerning scientists working with government grant money, you can take your "name one scientist" demand and pack it where the sun don't shine.

Show us a poll less than 5 years old that indicates anything less than 90% of publishing climate scientists accept the IPCC conclusions.

If you can't do THAT, you really don't have SHIT.

So what? You can't prove they're right. In fact it's easier to prove they're wrong.

A true consensus among the true experts indicates that the IPCC conclusion are the likeliest theory to be correct. No one can prove they are right because the natural sciences are not based on proofs. You could falsify their theories if their theories were wrong, but no one has managed to do that, have they.

So, as I said, you really don't have SHIT.

 

[American_Jihad]

Climate change just a liberal scam to make money...

F/Y
...
January 29, 2016
Climate Change: The Burden of Proof
ByS. Fred Singer

This article is based on a Heartland Panel talk [Dec7, 2015, at Hotel California, Paris].

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. The real threat to humanity comes not from any (trivial) greenhouse warming but from cooling periods creating food shortages and famines.

Burden of proof

Climate change has been going on for millions of years -- long before humans existed on this planet. Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin and not anthropogenic. There is no reason to think that these natural causes have suddenly stopped. For example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. We cannot model these natural climate-forcings precisely and therefore cannot anticipate what they will be in the future.

But let’s call this the “Null hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof falls upon alarmists to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data. In other words, alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They must do this by detailed comparison of the data with climate models. This is of course extremely difficult and virtually impossible since one cannot specify these natural influences precisely.

We’re not aware of such detailed comparisons, only of anecdotal evidence -- although we must admit that ACC is plausible; after all, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its level has been rising mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels.

Yet when we compare greenhouse models to past observations (“hindcasting”), it appears that ACC is much smaller than predicted by the models. There’s even a time interval ofnosignificantwarming (“pause” or “hiatus”) during the past 18 years or so -- in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

There seems to be at present no generally accepted explanation for this discrepancy between models and observations, mainly during the 21stcentury. The five IPCC reports [1900 to 2014] insist that there is no “gap.” Yet strangely, as this gap grows larger and larger, their claimed certainty that there is no gap becomes ever greater. Successive IPCC reports give 50%, 66%, 90%, 95%, and 99% for this certainty.

...

Read more:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html#ixzz3yhzpqTfc
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter|AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more:http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html#ixzz3yhz8PHUv
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter|AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[basquebromance]

 

[American_Jihad]

Supremes Halt Obama's Global Warming Plan
Say carbon emission plans must be put on hold
2.9.2016
News
Brian Lilley

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled that the Obama administration can push it's global warming agenda -- yet.

According to the Associated Press, the highest court in the land ruled Tuesday that the president's plan to deal with greenhouse gases cannot be enforced until opposing arguments are heard.

...

Supremes Halt Obama's Global Warming Plan

 

[jc456]

Fucking bullshit. The outflow of the Mississippi still has enough chemicals used in agriculture to cause a huge dead spot in the Gulf. We are still putting too much lead and mercury in the air from coal fired generation plants. And each advance in technology brings a whole new set of pollutants to be taken care of.

Without the environmentalists, our rivers would still be open sewers, and corperations would still poison our children with lead and mercury.

so is there a dead spot at the mouth of the old mississippi?

 

[American_Jihad]

February 29, 2016
The Current State of Climate Alarmism
By Ari Halperin


America’s affliction with climate alarmism is shaped by two facts:

First, the main instigators have crossed the Rubicon and have no choice but to fight. How has this happened? Nature was one cause: the short-term natural warming in 1978-1998 was mistaken for anthropogenic warming through the confirmation bias. Natural cooling from 1999 onward has canceled the expected anthropogenic warming (which is small, beneficial, and caused by a variety of factors -- not just carbon dioxide release).

But other causes were entirely manmade. In hindsight, it is clear that for almost two decades (approximately 1988 -- 2004) multiple groups of climate “scientists” have been fabricating results in parallel, unaware that others were doing the same. Mann with his hockey stick got the most fame, but he was just one among many. Computer models, descriptions of the carbon cycle, and even instrumental temperature records were forged to exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, to hide past climate variations, to argue that carbon dioxide release is irreversible, etc. The environmental movement, encouraging and encouraged by this perversion of science, made global warming its central theme. And so did many mainstream politicians. Al Gore was the towering figure among them. He used his two terms as vice president to gut American science, replacing scientists with environmentalists and lawyers (see the book Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking, which contains essays by William Happer, Bernard Cohen, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and other scientists who experienced or witnessed this process). A vicious spiral developed: alarmist politicians handpicked scientists supporting the alarm, then they believed their claims, and so it went. A hardened core of climate alarmism was formed from such politicians and their quasi-scientists. This core attracted multiple layers of followers, ranging from ordinary profiteers and leftist extremists to totally innocent duped believers.

...

Read more: Articles: The Current State of Climate Alarmism