Scientists and warnings.

[mamooth]

It was hijacked by Communists/New World Order zealots.

... who are out to steal your precious bodily fluids.

Remember, conservative men, you don't need to avoid women, but you must deny them your essence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It was hijacked by Communists/New World Order zealots.

... who are out to steal your precious bodily fluids.

Remember, conservative men, you don't need to avoid women, but you must deny them your essence.

Dr. Strangesock...er Strangelove

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So what is the average temperature of the earth 40, 60 72.8799 degrees

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Darkwind]

I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.

If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.

I would find it refreshing if you morons would drop the consensus talking point. It shows a third grade level of science understanding.

 

[Meister]

I suspect senility and maybe the onset of alzheimers.

Sadly, rocks works at a steel mill in Or. that has been busted in the past for emitting pollution. He is a hypocrite, with all of this global warming mantra....true story

Your story may be true (or not) but either way it is immaterial. First of all it is doubtful that Old Rocks makes the decisions regarding how pollution is handled at the plant. Second, for all we know he has worked there for years and there may not be any other jobs available in the area. Quitting may not be an option for him. And finally, he better than many might have a insight that the rest of us don't.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. He's a hypocrite, no more and no less.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Scientists used to claim the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us.

Pretty smart bunch eh

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you want to give up your car, air conditioning, heat, and electricity----go right ahead. Do it and save the planet.

You're the only one saying such things. We're not. You're lying by saying we said such a thing. So why did you choose to lie?

You don't have to answer that. We already know the answer. The science says you're full of shit, your idiot positions are wildly illogical and hypocritical, hence making crap up is the only alternative you have.

You might not be saying it, but the people you aren't paying attention to are.

 

[flacaltenn]

redfish, having to explain things to you on a third grade level will be embarrassing to you but I will do what I have to do.
The tobacco companies DID NOT want to admit that smoking was bad for a persons health. They knew it would cut into their profits. So, they hired PR firms to muddy the water and to put out false and misleading propaganda. They put out lovely commercials of actors in white coats wearing stethoscopes talking about how smoking wasn't dangerous. They purchased labs and had them do phony research proving smoking wasn't harmful. As more and more data came in they were eventually forced to admit that smoking had severe health risks associated with it. Even people who didn't smoke but were in rooms with smokers were at risk. Their ploy worked for a long time. The tobacco companies made billions and millions and millions died because they believed those tobacco companies.
Now, jump ahead to the turn of the century. The big energy companies DID NOT want to admit that their products produced green house gases that caused global warming. They knew it would cut into their profits. They wanted people to use more oil, coal, and gas. So, they hired PR firms to muddy the water and to put out false and misleading propaganda. The ads were lovely showing nature and wildlife and telling us that energy companies were really, really concerned about the environment. And like the tobacco lobby they hired scientists and labs to produce propaganda that could be used to fool people.
As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.
Do you understand it now? Gosh, I hope so. I don't believe I can make it any simpler unless I am forced to go to "Once upon a time there was this dinosaur who ....."

1 ---- Scientists are NOT saying that pollution causes GWarming.. Not 90%, not 3%.. The theory claims that CO2 is causing GW.. And CO2 is no a pollutant. No more than the DOMINANT GHouse gas which is water vapor..

2 -- The GW propaganda engine has purposely conflated CO2 with carbon to confuse simple people like you.. It's a term carefully crafted to AVOID discussion of the weaknesses in the GW predictions and science..

3 --- There is no list of epidemiological victims of CO2 -- unlike your tobacco analogy.. And the speculation about FUTURE costs of GW are based on exaggerations of the warming power of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even the GWarming zealots concede that CO2 will not cause the future apocalyptic warming, but is only the trigger that gets pulled causing the Earth to shoot itself in the head..

4 -- If you're gonna pick a science analogy to Gwarming out of history, you need a better one than tobacco.. You LIKE that one because it gives you an opportunity to bash corporations and business. Fact is -- that THROUGH THE 60s --- DOCTORS were regularly prescribing tobacco cigarrettes to asthma patients.. Men of Science. So it is a little stretch to cast the tobacco companies as lone whacko dissenters.

 

[westwall]

But every single Scientific Society, every single National Academy of Science, and every single major University states just the opposite.

So, who to believe, an ananymous poster on the internet, or virtually all the scientists in the world?

Hyperbole thy name is olfraud! I don't give a good gosh darn what the various societies say, they, like the charlatans of old, have a vested interest in continuing the fraud. And it is far, far from your claim of "virtually all the scientists in the world. That's just simple horse manure. There are more DOCUMENTED sceptics then there are koolaid drinkers. By over 10 to one.

Really? So why have not these scientists changed to policy statements of their societies? Oh wait, one has. The American Association of Petroleum Engineers had a policy statement that flat out denied AGW. And so many members threatoned to quit the society that they changed their statement. See, the scientists can change the policy statements of a scientfic society.

Ummmmmm BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY FROM IT YOU MORON!

 

[westwall]

You talk about proof as if absolutlely ironclad proof is necessary. In many, if not most things, it isn't. If there is sufficient evidence pointing in one direction, scientists develope a theory and THEN attempt to disprove it or eliminate it as a possible cause. In the process, they will look at other factors for some kind of correlation or possible causation. If they don't find any, they may very well be able to eliminate those other factors as being a cause. That's exactly what scientists have been doing for several decades.

As a result, the OVERWHELMING evidence found by thousands and thousands of scientist all around the world working in different areas of their respective disciplines have found that increased greenhouse gases which have previously been trapped in the ground for millions of years and have been recently released by human beings within the last 150 years is the causal link to the increased greenhouse gases in the environment which IS driving the climate change we are currently experiencing and will CONTINUE to experience for decades.

It's not a question of having changed. It IS changing now!

Frankly, ignorance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is people who wear their ignorance as a badge of honor.

OK dude, pay attention. I am not going to say this again.

The climate of earth is changing, it has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now, man is a pimple on a gnat on an elephant's ass when it comes to the climate of planet earth. We should stop polluting our planet, but pollution does not cause climate change.

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

Typical progressive drone non-sequitur bullcrap. Come back when you have some new material, you idiots have been flogging that dead horse for over a decade.

 

[westwall]

I suspect senility and maybe the onset of alzheimers.

Sadly, rocks works at a steel mill in Or. that has been busted in the past for emitting pollution. He is a hypocrite, with all of this global warming mantra....true story

Your story may be true (or not) but either way it is immaterial. First of all it is doubtful that Old Rocks makes the decisions regarding how pollution is handled at the plant. Second, for all we know he has worked there for years and there may not be any other jobs available in the area. Quitting may not be an option for him. And finally, he better than many might have a insight that the rest of us don't.

Oh, it's very true, olfraud works for EVRAZ and that company is well known for polluting every place it has a footprint. It's a multinational RUSSIAN corporation (why are we not surprised that olfraud works for a commie company) and has had to pay fines all over the place.

Had olfraud cared to do the slightest iota of research he would have seen what type of company they are. Further, the steel industry is a notorious polluter period. So olfraud feels it's A-OK for him to work at a company that pollutes his neighbors homes and poisons their children and he has said on more than one occasion that they are a great company.

in other words...just like the rest of the progressive enviro Nazi's he's a political whore who lives a lie.... In other words he's a fraud with a capitol F

 

[westwall]

Hummmm ...."... pollution does not cause climate change"
Here is another one that is a favorite of mine: "Tobacco does not cause lung cancer." That little phrase was brought to us courtesy of the tobacco lobby during the 40's, 50's, 60's, and into the 70's. They spent billions selling that lie. Because of that lie millions and millions of people died and the tobacco lobby made a bunch of money on the deaths of others.
Did you know that the energy lobby is using some of the same techniques as the tobacco lobby. They have even purchased scientists and labs much like the tobacco industry.
Here is a thought, 'big anything' will do whatever it takes to remain "big." If that means lying and putting out false propaganda they will do so. They love people like you who refuse to question and accept facts. They really do. You make their job easy. As for me, I will remember what the tobacco lobby did and I will accept the research of 90+% of climate scientists who say pollution causes climate change.
You, on the other hand, can stick with the less that 10% of climate scientists who are bought and paid for by big energy. Hopefully when it dawns on you and the rest of the deniers it will not be to late.

I think you mean too late. but too late for what? If you want to give up your car, air conditioning, heat, and electricity----go right ahead. Do it and save the planet.

My gawd but you libs are stupid and gullible.

Just like that, IT STRUCK ME!!!! You don't have any imagination!!!!! It never dawned on you that what needs to be done is work to uncover/create new renewable energy sources. You are perfectly ready to accept whatever lie the big energy community wants you to believe.
What needs to be done is that new energy sources need to be researched and put in place. However, THIS IS THE LAST THING BIG ENERGY WANTS! What big energy wants is for people to use more gas, oil, and goal so they can make bigger profits. They also want bigger dummies who will not question them and push for alternate energy sources they can not control or profit from.

Actually it's the other way around. It's you progressive drones with no imagination. Especially you. Your claim to be a "converted Republican" is laughable, my grandfather was a card carrying member of the American Communist Party (who do you think I got that commie newspaper from?), and you sound just like him... a bitter ignorant oaf, with no imagination...just a hatred of all who are smarter and more accomplished than you.

 

[bripat9643]

Sadly, rocks works at a steel mill in Or. that has been busted in the past for emitting pollution. He is a hypocrite, with all of this global warming mantra....true story

Your story may be true (or not) but either way it is immaterial. First of all it is doubtful that Old Rocks makes the decisions regarding how pollution is handled at the plant. Second, for all we know he has worked there for years and there may not be any other jobs available in the area. Quitting may not be an option for him. And finally, he better than many might have a insight that the rest of us don't.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. He's a hypocrite, no more and no less.

Since when have environmental wackos ever given a shit about people losing their jobs as a result of their imbecile schemes? Thousands of coal miners are losing their jobs as we post on this forum.

 

[Wildman]

human caused climate change, globull warming as the liberfools see it is a total farce, has the Earth been warming ? YES.., damnit ! and it has been since the last ice age and humans did not have a fucking thing to do with it. humans have contributed less than .001% since GOD put us on this great Earth.., our home.

Climate Change Reconsidered

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

Yellowstone Supervolcano: Will It Erupt During Our Lives?

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

about 52 years ago i experienced a drastic climate change, i was in Flagstaff Arizona, in February, it was 25* and snowing to beat hell with over 3 feet of snow on the ground, i drove to Phoenix, a 2 hr. 15 min drive, pulled into a service station a few miles west of Phoenix, there i saw a thermometer that showed 97*, that was a +72* rise in a temp. change in climate.

that is my climate change story, what is yours Mr. & Mrs. liberfools ?

 

[BlindBoo]

NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with you.

Hey you forgot to link to those guys. Allow me. Opps, they don't seem to say what you think they say.

Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown | NASA

http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_gov_GlobalWarming_FAQ_15Aug13.pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

IPCC report: global warming to increase heatwaves, flooding and conflict - Telegraph

So, what exactly does this mean?

............................ "Despite Recent Slowdown"

From YOUR link... I rest my case....

That was of course in the title. But here is what the article defined it as.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade"

 

[westwall]

Hey you forgot to link to those guys. Allow me. Opps, they don't seem to say what you think they say.

Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown | NASA

http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_gov_GlobalWarming_FAQ_15Aug13.pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

IPCC report: global warming to increase heatwaves, flooding and conflict - Telegraph

So, what exactly does this mean?

............................ "Despite Recent Slowdown"

From YOUR link... I rest my case....

That was of course in the title. But here is what the article defined it as.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade"

Which, if you ever bothered to read the literature, is a number below the ability of the instruments to measure...which means it's a fictitious number which means it's a lie.

Speaking of lies...here's a peer reviewed paper where the authors make the claim that it is OK to lie about the climate.

How's that for a peer reviewed study!


Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements



Abstract

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.






Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

 

[paulitician]

'Global Warming' = A Communist/New World Order Globalist Scam.

It's as simple as that. And more & more people are realizing it. So it's time to turn the page on this one. Time to move onto the next Globalist fear mongering scam.

 

[Redfish]

Hey you forgot to link to those guys. Allow me. Opps, they don't seem to say what you think they say.

Long-Term Warming Likely to Be Significant Despite Recent Slowdown | NASA

http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/Climate_gov_GlobalWarming_FAQ_15Aug13.pdf

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF

IPCC report: global warming to increase heatwaves, flooding and conflict - Telegraph

So, what exactly does this mean?

............................ "Despite Recent Slowdown"

From YOUR link... I rest my case....

That was of course in the title. But here is what the article defined it as.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade"

.22 of a degree in 10 years????????? can that even be measured? two tenths of a degree-----------

are a total fricken loon?

 

[paulitician]

More Americans need to start thinking about Communist/New World Order Globalism. Do they really want what the Globalists are forcing on them? More Government intervention and control of their lives? Is that really what most Americans want? Because it's not gonna end with 'Global Warming.' The Globalists have many other fear mongering agendas planned. Hopefully more Americans will wake up to the real threat. And here's a hint...it's not 'Global Warming.'

 

[BlindBoo]

So, what exactly does this mean?

............................ "Despite Recent Slowdown"

From YOUR link... I rest my case....

That was of course in the title. But here is what the article defined it as.

"Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade"

Which, if you ever bothered to read the literature, is a number below the ability of the instruments to measure...which means it's a fictitious number which means it's a lie.

Speaking of lies...here's a peer reviewed paper where the authors make the claim that it is OK to lie about the climate.

How's that for a peer reviewed study!


Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements



Abstract

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.






Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

Whatever you want to pole vault to next I guess. I still waiting for you to prove that NASA, NOAA, The UK's Met Office and the IPCC all disagree with me.