SHAME: Senate Confirms Climate Change Denier To Lead NASA

[bripat9643]

Ummm, it is you AGW supporters who are the ones demanding that no discussion be allowed about the so called global warming crisis. Remember, "consensus" is a POLITICAL term, it resides NOWHERE within the definition of the Scientific Method.

You have your list of cliche excuses that soothe your psyche so you can continue in your make believe world. Don't let me spoil it for you.

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

How could anyone possibly decide.

You mean 10,000 douchebags who depend on the AGW theory being true for the salaries, prestige and social position. Facts are facts, and contradictions are contradictions. The AGW cult has made numerous claims that directly contradict each other. Furtrhermore, all their predictions turned out to be wrong. That isn't science. It's Voo Doo.

 

[IsaacNewton]

You have your list of cliche excuses that soothe your psyche so you can continue in your make believe world. Don't let me spoil it for you.

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

How could anyone possibly decide.

You mean 10,000 douchebags who depend on the AGW theory being true for the salaries, prestige and social position. Facts are facts, and contradictions are contradictions. The AGW cult has made numerous claims that directly contradict each other. Furtrhermore, all their predictions turned out to be wrong. That isn't science. It's Voo Doo.

So you actually believe you are more informed and educated than one PH.D let alone thousands who all agree.

And for you the world is flat and it's 'obvious' to everyone that isn't a PH.D.

 

[Snouter]

Please do not deny climate changes. It should be exactly the same every season, every year! Burning leaves must be outlawed! (Coldest fucking spring in the Northeast in years).

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ummm, it is you AGW supporters who are the ones demanding that no discussion be allowed about the so called global warming crisis. Remember, "consensus" is a POLITICAL term, it resides NOWHERE within the definition of the Scientific Method.

You have your list of cliche excuses that soothe your psyche so you can continue in your make believe world. Don't let me spoil it for you.

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

How could anyone possibly decide.

Well seeing that out of 23, only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, as well as they each have their own climatology degrees, it reveals the issue to be more “politics” than science. Especially when a Climatologist serving as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report, detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

Now based on the views of those various scientific experts serving among the IPCC, if you want to be “that derp on the message board”, I can’t help you.

 

[Leo123]

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) will take over control of the space agency after seven-month standoff.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday narrowly confirmed Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), a former Navy pilot with no scientific credentials and who doesn’t believe humans are primarily to blame for the global climate crisis, to lead NASA.

Bridenstine will become the first elected official to hold the NASA administrator job. He joins a Cabinet already loaded with people who question the near-universal scientific consensus that climate change is real and that human activity is the primary cause.

The final vote ― which was 50-49 along party lines ― came one day after the Senate narrowly advanced Bridenstine’s nomination, thanks to an about-face from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and a key vote from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Rubio, who in September told Politico that he worried about Bridenstine’s nomination “could be devastating for the space program,” said in a statement Wednesday that he decided to support the nominee in order to avoid “a gaping leadership void” at NASA.

More: Senate Confirms Climate Change Denier To Lead NASA

This is sad. It will take Democrats decades to clean up this mess. What do you think?

Finally some common sense about time

 

[martybegan]

Forcing people to buy LED bulbs is making a better world?

Forcing people to use reusable shopping bags is making a better world?

yep

How about you lead by example and hope people follow it instead of holding the government gun to their head?

Fucking fascist.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

How could anyone possibly decide.

You mean 10,000 douchebags who depend on the AGW theory being true for the salaries, prestige and social position. Facts are facts, and contradictions are contradictions. The AGW cult has made numerous claims that directly contradict each other. Furtrhermore, all their predictions turned out to be wrong. That isn't science. It's Voo Doo.

So you actually believe you are more informed and educated than one PH.D let alone thousands who all agree.

And for you the world is flat and it's 'obvious' to everyone that isn't a PH.D.

Tell us again when the Congo or Cuba launched weather sattelites ??


Once again who do those thousands of scientist rely on where they get their data and information from?

 

[Flash]

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) will take over control of the space agency after seven-month standoff.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday narrowly confirmed Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), a former Navy pilot with no scientific credentials and who doesn’t believe humans are primarily to blame for the global climate crisis, to lead NASA.

Bridenstine will become the first elected official to hold the NASA administrator job. He joins a Cabinet already loaded with people who question the near-universal scientific consensus that climate change is real and that human activity is the primary cause.

The final vote ― which was 50-49 along party lines ― came one day after the Senate narrowly advanced Bridenstine’s nomination, thanks to an about-face from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and a key vote from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Rubio, who in September told Politico that he worried about Bridenstine’s nomination “could be devastating for the space program,” said in a statement Wednesday that he decided to support the nominee in order to avoid “a gaping leadership void” at NASA.

More: Senate Confirms Climate Change Denier To Lead NASA

This is sad. It will take Democrats decades to clean up this mess. What do you think?

 

[Flash]

That asshole Obama corrupted many government agencies like the FBI, IRS, EPA and also corrupted NASA and NOAA with stupid AGW scammers. Scammers that used those agencies to create false data to further the Moon Bat lie of AGW.

Good for Trump in undoing that damage. MAGA baby!

 

[Muhammed]

There are many scientists that don't buy the global warming climate change leftist lie.

Can you give some examples of those real scientists that aren't on the payroll of people with a vested interest in convincing the public it's a hoax?

Only scientists who're on the payroll of people with a vested interest in convincing the public it's real count?

You remember how tobacco companies hired scientists to say smoking isn't harmful? Same situation with climate change deniers.

You are simply repeating what your feeble mind was brainwashed to believe by Al Gore.

Climategate deniers are idiots who cannot think for themselves.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Ummm, it is you AGW supporters who are the ones demanding that no discussion be allowed about the so called global warming crisis. Remember, "consensus" is a POLITICAL term, it resides NOWHERE within the definition of the Scientific Method.

You have your list of cliche excuses that soothe your psyche so you can continue in your make believe world. Don't let me spoil it for you.

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

How could anyone possibly decide.

Yes, why don't you accept the research of thousands of PhD's and acknowdge manmade Gorebal Warming is a myth?

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

How could anyone possibly decide.

You mean 10,000 douchebags who depend on the AGW theory being true for the salaries, prestige and social position. Facts are facts, and contradictions are contradictions. The AGW cult has made numerous claims that directly contradict each other. Furtrhermore, all their predictions turned out to be wrong. That isn't science. It's Voo Doo.

So you actually believe you are more informed and educated than one PH.D let alone thousands who all agree.

And for you the world is flat and it's 'obvious' to everyone that isn't a PH.D.

I'm informed by facts, not bullshit.

 

[Muhammed]

Ummm, it is you AGW supporters who are the ones demanding that no discussion be allowed about the so called global warming crisis. Remember, "consensus" is a POLITICAL term, it resides NOWHERE within the definition of the Scientific Method.

You have your list of cliche excuses that soothe your psyche so you can continue in your make believe world. Don't let me spoil it for you.

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

You have presented an appeal to authority fallacy and a false dilemma fallacy.

And the most often cited articles by the global warming alarmists are fraudulent.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There are many scientists that don't buy the global warming climate change leftist lie.

Can you give some examples of those real scientists that aren't on the payroll of people with a vested interest in convincing the public it's a hoax?

Read this.
Climate Change: No, It’s Not a 97 Percent Consensus | [site:name] | National Review

97% do not believe that it's an urgent problem. 97% do believe that humans are having some level of impact on the environment. A majority still believe that it's an urgent problem. The right loves to talk about how the 97% thing has been debunked, but really it hasn't if you actually understand it.

Your consensus belief, doesn't help you.

 

[harmonica]

doesn't climate change even everything out?
as the midwest/north get milder, they are using less heat/cooling?

 

[DrLove]

"Decades" to clean up Trump's mess may be an understatement -

First thing this dude will do is end NASA's role in studying any and all climate science.

Sigh ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) will take over control of the space agency after seven-month standoff.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday narrowly confirmed Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.), a former Navy pilot with no scientific credentials and who doesn’t believe humans are primarily to blame for the global climate crisis, to lead NASA.

Bridenstine will become the first elected official to hold the NASA administrator job. He joins a Cabinet already loaded with people who question the near-universal scientific consensus that climate change is real and that human activity is the primary cause.

The final vote ― which was 50-49 along party lines ― came one day after the Senate narrowly advanced Bridenstine’s nomination, thanks to an about-face from Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and a key vote from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). Rubio, who in September told Politico that he worried about Bridenstine’s nomination “could be devastating for the space program,” said in a statement Wednesday that he decided to support the nominee in order to avoid “a gaping leadership void” at NASA.

More: Senate Confirms Climate Change Denier To Lead NASA

This is sad. It will take Democrats decades to clean up this mess. What do you think?

/----/ WTF does the global warming scam have to do with NASA?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

NASA (GISS specifically) was ground zero in pushing the Global Warming scam, with Dr. Hansen in the drivers seat, aided by then Senator Gore and Senator Timothy Wirth.

Where have you been in the last 30 years?

 

[DrLove]

Forcing people to buy LED bulbs is making a better world?

Forcing people to use reusable shopping bags is making a better world?

Yes and Yes .. any more questions?

 

[bripat9643]

"Decades" to clean up Trump's mess may be an understatement -

First thing this dude will do is end NASA's role in studying any and all climate science.

Sigh ...

Good. That isn't why NASA was created.

What "mess" are you referring to?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Unfortunate for you I can provide informative fact on the issue from researchers and scientists familiar with the global climate change agenda. I’d like to see you do as much.



“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.


“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.


“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.


Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.


Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.

The Flat Earth Society

They also think they make 'an argument'. But like them you've convinced yourself that fantasy is reality. You are to be ignored and brushed aside as arguing for a Flat Earth as well.

You win the tin foil hat award of the day though!

View attachment 188976

Man made global warming is the fantasy, douchebag. Cult members like you have claimed every kind of weather imaginable is caused by global warming. You also state that a blizzard is weather, not climate and in the next sentence you will claim a drought or a heat wave is proof of man made global warming.

The stupidity is beyond belief.

Yeah, whether to accept the research and evidence of 10,000 PH.D's around the world in every field, or a derp on a message board.

How could anyone possibly decide.

You mean 10,000 douchebags who depend on the AGW theory being true for the salaries, prestige and social position. Facts are facts, and contradictions are contradictions. The AGW cult has made numerous claims that directly contradict each other. Furtrhermore, all their predictions turned out to be wrong. That isn't science. It's Voo Doo.

So you actually believe you are more informed and educated than one PH.D let alone thousands who all agree.

And for you the world is flat and it's 'obvious' to everyone that isn't a PH.D.

Your consensus defense is dumb and boring. You have posted similar many times in the thread, with ZERO content.

When are you going to get beyond the Consensus fallacy?