Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.
Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.
Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".
It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.
But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.
If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.
If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...
Shutup tool. It wasn't done in a dishonest way.
Any editing of someone else's words is inherently dishonest. It is surprising that there would be people intelligent enough to access a computer who don't grasp such a basic concept.
Please... Spare me.
It was done completely transparantly. Fitz doesn't think he was misrepresented, unless he's 'not intelligent enough to grasp such a basic concept.'
He just wants to exercise authority. Since he has none, I will change it only when a mod says to. As there was no intent to misrepresent, I feel it's within TOS.
If you're too dumb to recognize it was strictly tongue-in-cheek, that is your problem, not mine.
Ah Fritzy, unable to present any evidence for your position, simply resorting to flap yap.
All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a danger to our society.
But, of course, Knownothings like Fritzy have drugged out radio jocks, with barely a high school education, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen bloggers to depend on for their science.
We learned this past week that one of the most solid, bedrock constants in the most solid and bedrock of sciences, a science where every hypothesis is subjected to years of rigorous laboratory testing might not be as constant as believed.
The speed of light, c, might not be the upper limit for travel in the physical world, but the idea that mankind's almost imperceptible change in Earth atmosphere is causing "Global Warming" is "Settled science"?
Do you see why I laugh at the Warmers? Where do you find such arrogance and ignorance?
I don't laugh, I listen and I cringe sometimes more than not. There are sometimes things revealed about the deeper sciences within what is dubbed as hype. We are not yet in a position as a nation to be rebellious enough to completely discredit global warming theories. We are not independent of the powers that be that require us to support keeping the global mean temp down and the fossil fuels sacred.
The powers that be? The UN? The only power the UN has is what we give it. Their troops are mostly ours, their weapons we supply most of, their offices are here. They are only as powerful and mighty as we allow them to be. This is politics hijacking science and it will not hold up if the people do not support it. That would be me, you and the rest of us all. Politicians are there by election, the UN appointees are there by appointment from those elected politicians. As those politicians go so go their appointees.
The fact is opinions and policies are changing globally and by the day on this and they will continue to do so as more people begin to ask questions rather than blindly follow. As the people in each government wise up, the politicians and their policies will be forced to change as well. The UN in theory should represent the consensus view of the world, if they do not subject themselves to that condition they are NOT a justified entity.
Time to make this entertaining for me again..
You got nothin!
Get over being all butthurt over the plain-daylight 'quote altering' and answer my question!
How deep does the conspiracy go Fitz? How deep!?
Shall I gather then that you've no intention of answering?
Time to make this entertaining for me again..
Shall I gather then that you've no intention of answering?
Why bother. You have proven yourself to be a prevaricator and an example of the typical hypocritical silly person you claim everyone else is. You are a troll, have allways been a troll, and will allways be a troll. Now kindly climb back under your bridge with georgephillip.
Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.
Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".
It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.
But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.
If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.
If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...
No, silly person, the only thing is certain is that it would be a tremendous waste of money. THAT is certain. 76 trillion for possibly lowering the global temps by a degree is insane. You experience degree swings of greater then 20 degrees on a daily basis. How on earth can you think that a single degree is significant? Do you even have a brain?
So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.
Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.
Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".
It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.
But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.
If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.
If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...
So consider the repercussions if you're wrong vs. the repercussions if the rest of the world is wrong.
Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.
Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".
It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.
But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.
If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.
If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...
I think that the scientists at MIT have a far better grip on what is occuring concerning the increasing temperatures than the knownothing 'Consevatives' on this board.
M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C | ThinkProgress
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see, for instance, Hadley Center: Catastrophic 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current emissions path and below).
The Program issued a remarkable, though little-remarked-on, report in January, Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters, by over a dozen leading experts. They reanalyzed their models 2003 projections model using the latest data, and concluded:
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the models first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study.
Well, you're now admitting that cutting back on the co2 would reduce global temperatures a full degree. That means it does warm the planet! 20 degree's within one area from min to max is purely short term that has little to do with climate.
Oops. I used the wrong term. I meant MYTH, not religion.
Why is it a 'myth' that the whole world believes, except for a portion of a single political party; Which also happens to be the political party that most advocates for carbon-producing industries?
Tell us, how deep does the conspiracy go?
Shall I gather then that you've no intention of answering?
Why bother. You have proven yourself to be a prevaricator and an example of the typical hypocritical silly person you claim everyone else is. You are a troll, have allways been a troll, and will allways be a troll. Now kindly climb back under your bridge with georgephillip.
Awwww gosh Walleyes, you're gonna hurt my feelings. You want that on your conscience?
I guess you haven't the balls to answer the question either, eh?
It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.
But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.
If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.
If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...
No, silly person, the only thing is certain is that it would be a tremendous waste of money. THAT is certain. 76 trillion for possibly lowering the global temps by a degree is insane. You experience degree swings of greater then 20 degrees on a daily basis. How on earth can you think that a single degree is significant? Do you even have a brain?
Well, you're now admitting that cutting back on the co2 would reduce global temperatures a full degree. That means it does warm the planet! 20 degree's within one area from min to max is purely short term that has little to do with climate.
Climate is a avg of many highs and lows that make up a + or - anomaly. The global anomaly is that on a global scale.
Consider the repurcussions of what will occur if the IPCC gets to piss away 76 trillion dollars to possibly lower the global temperature one degree at the end of 100 years....maybe.
Now imagine what could be accomplished were that 76 trillion actually invested in something real. Something tangible, something that doesn't rely on a "maybe".
It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.
But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.
If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.
If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...
American Republicans, the scientists of CERN, those who collect data for NOAA, HADcrut, RSS and UAH and just about anyone else who demands to see actual proof and not just a re-run of the "The Blob".
Not the remake. The one with Steve McQueen.
If the trend over the last 8 years is cooling, what does this tell us about CO2? Is it out of work, too? How in the world can we depend on anything if CO2 has stopped working?
You'll have to link or otherwise direct me to all the data you're referring to.
-Googled 'cooling trend' and the only thing that came up climate change-related was Alex Jones' website.
I knew someone else would figure it out.Ah Fritzy, unable to present any evidence for your position, simply resorting to flap yap.
All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a danger to our society.
But, of course, Knownothings like Fritzy have drugged out radio jocks, with barely a high school education, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen bloggers to depend on for their science.
No, just exposing you for the arrogant law breaking elitist pricks you are
You'll have to link or otherwise direct me to all the data you're referring to.
-Googled 'cooling trend' and the only thing that came up climate change-related was Alex Jones' website.
It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.
But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.
If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.
If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...
No, silly person, the only thing is certain is that it would be a tremendous waste of money. THAT is certain. 76 trillion for possibly lowering the global temps by a degree is insane. You experience degree swings of greater then 20 degrees on a daily basis. How on earth can you think that a single degree is significant? Do you even have a brain?
Well, you're now admitting that cutting back on the co2 would reduce global temperatures a full degree. That means it does warm the planet! 20 degree's within one area from min to max is purely short term that has little to do with climate.
Climate is a avg of many highs and lows that make up a + or - anomaly. The global anomaly is that on a global scale.
No, silly person, the only thing is certain is that it would be a tremendous waste of money. THAT is certain. 76 trillion for possibly lowering the global temps by a degree is insane. You experience degree swings of greater then 20 degrees on a daily basis. How on earth can you think that a single degree is significant? Do you even have a brain?
Well, you're now admitting that cutting back on the co2 would reduce global temperatures a full degree. That means it does warm the planet! 20 degree's within one area from min to max is purely short term that has little to do with climate.
Climate is a avg of many highs and lows that make up a + or - anomaly. The global anomaly is that on a global scale.
An anomaly is something out of a norm.
Anomaly | Define Anomaly at Dictionary.com
a·nom·a·ly
1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
2. someone or something anomalous: With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.
3. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
4. an incongruity or inconsistency.
5. Astronomy . a quantity measured in degrees, defining the position of an orbiting body with respect to the point at which it is nearest to or farthest from its primary.
6. Meteorology . the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.
7. Grammar . irregularity.
A Series of highs and lows make a deviation. An average would be somewhere in the middle of the deviations.
An anomaly is something out of the ordinary, as in anomalous readings and so on. Matt you really shouldn't laugh at someone else when you are this wrong about what you are making fun of..
I pointed out before why they (the IPCC, NOAA, etc.) continually post charts for anomalies and try and pass them off as something relevant to over all climate. Its a scam and advanced hucksterism. Anomalies charts are simply that, anomalous readings that defy the norm or average for a given time and place. The NOAA particularly loves to post these charts, and they do so to keep the actual warming or cooling vague and frighten people into a false assumption. Also its hard to prove assumptions made from anomalies wrong or right for that matter. They do not represent an average either long or short term but rather odd readings that do not follow an expected course or outcome.
