The Die Off

[Sunsettommy]

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

Here's a guy who missed the lecture on osmosis.

Well good for you Sparky....you get to stand in front of a big old billboard and take bows for the rest of your life! Happy now!!

We on the right couldn't be happier....seeing an army of climate crusaders spiking the football in front of a banner and letting Tom Steyer wage the war on his own. How's that been working out for ya?

Too many recent massively cold winters have a way of penetrating voters minds as they see and feel the reality that Cold weather is still very much real.

But....but....but....the science says.....

You mean Modeled science...……………….

No, you meant to say "computer derived fiction".

Fiction that reality can't support.

 

[sparky]

Science is not fiction, never was

Science is quite emperical and defined.

Deniers threw that all under the bus

Anthropogenics are a proven phenomenon

Your corporate sponsors want you to believe otherwise

~S~

 

[Sunsettommy]

Science is not fiction, never was

Science is quite emperical and defined.

Deniers threw that all under the bus

Anthropogenics are a proven phenomenon

Your corporate sponsors want you to believe otherwise

~S~

Another boring rant...…...

 

[sparky]

i'm here all week sunny

~S~

 

[Sunsettommy]

i'm here all week sunny

~S~

With nothing to say...…

Listen and learn:

 

[9thIDdoc]

The planet does not care one way or the other about civilizations.
Civilizations exist to make life better. The better life is; the the more the size of the population increases. Energy use has little , if anything, to do with that basic equation.

 

[westwall]

Science is not fiction, never was

Science is quite emperical and defined.

Deniers threw that all under the bus

Anthropogenics are a proven phenomenon

Your corporate sponsors want you to believe otherwise

~S~

Agreed. However climate science relies on studies that are almost entirely fiction. They use "simple" (their description) climate models as their laboratories. In other words, they have no labs, they merely have computer derived fiction to support their claims. Which is probably why no claim they have ever made, has actually occurred.

 

[westwall]

i'm here all week sunny

~S~

With nothing to say...…

Listen and learn:

BINGO! I use that video often to show them that Appeals to Authority are the last refuge of the incompetent.

 

[Votto]

90% reduction in population is mandatory, within 60 years and there's a way to get it. Just sterilize all women of childbearing age, everywhere, for 20 years. Skip an entire generation. Then, by lottery, let 10% of women have one kid, before sterilizing them, too. in 60 years, you'll have the populaiton reduced to the point that the Earth MIGHT be able to give them all a decent life

currently, 1/4 of the world tries to live on $1000 USD per year. half on 2k US per year, 3/4 on 4k per year or less and 90% on 10k US per year. Try that sometime! even in the third world, 10k a year is nothing.

In the interim, allow drugs to run rampant in society, killing off over a 100 people a day, push abortion, gay sex, birth control, and keep people eating crap that is killing them as corporate America makes a "killing" selling them processed foods.

Just for giggles, start war after war, after war to kill more off.

Oh, and a subpar public education is key. No one need know what is really happening to them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

In that case, you are an utter moron.

Climate "science" is 70% religion, 30% politics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Science is not fiction, never was

Science is quite emperical and defined.

Deniers threw that all under the bus

Anthropogenics are a proven phenomenon

Your corporate sponsors want you to believe otherwise

~S~

No sparky.

Your religion is not science. Nor is your religion proven.

 

[Uncensored2008]

i'm here all week sunny

~S~

And you are ignorant all century, sploogy.

You follow an absurd religion designed for the ignorant and gullible.

 

[SSDD]

Which are you?

One who does not equate the sciences to some politized belief system

thx

~S~

And you think climate models are highly advanced and accurate? So if you aren't stupd, or policially blind, exactly how did you come to believe that climate models are worth the time it took to code them? Certainly not based on the observed record of their performance which demonstrates beyond argument that they are useless....so if you aren't stupid or politically blind, what do you base your belief that they are worth a crap on?

 

[SSDD]

Anthropogenics are a proven phenomenon

Really? Can you show us a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability? Just one? My bet is that you can't....which leads one to question your claim that anthropogenic influence on the global climate is a proven phenomenon. I mean, if you can't even provide a single piece of evidence that supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis over natural variability, what sort of "proof" could there possibly be?

Clearly you are a dupe and dupes fall in the realm of stupid because they don't bother to check to see if what they are falling for is the truth. You are making claims based on what you have been told as if it were the truth...but when asked, you can't provide the first piece of evidence that supports the claim that what we are seeing in the cliamte is anything other than natural variability.

dupe
noun

1. a person who is easily deceived
2. a person who unwittingly serves as the tool of another person or power

 

[Crick]

The isotopic signature of all the CO2 above 280 ppm identifies it as the product of fossil fuel combustion.

CO2's greenhouse effect is a well demonstrated fact.

The correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 150 years is exceedingly tight.

No other cause has ever been identified for the observed warming

What else would you like?

 

[SSDD]

CO2's greenhouse effect is a well demonstrated fact.

Really? Show me a single bit of observed measured data which proves a greenhouse effect from CO2. Since radiation does not warm the air...and convection dominates energy movement in the troposphere, the idea of a radiative greenhouse effect is just laughable.

The correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 150 years is exceedingly tight.

Pure bullshit..and only the most abject moron would even suggest such a thing.

1850 – 1910: -0.1°C Cooling with +15 ppm CO2
1910 – 1940: +0.45°C Warming with +11 ppm CO2
1940 – 1977: -0.1°C Cooling with +23 ppm CO2
1977 – 2001: +0.35°C Warming with +37 ppm CO2
2001 – 2014: -0.04°C Cooling with +27 ppm CO2

Only a witchdoctor, or a deliberate fraud, or a complete idiot, could see a "tight" correlation between CO2 and temperature.

No other cause has ever been identified for the observed warming

Since it looks just like natural variability what else could be the cause...what, now you are claiming that global warming is indistinguishable from natural variability? Typical skidmark...typical.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Crick, doesn't allow for the reality of Per Decade modeling, or missing "hot spot" failures to sink in because he is too heavily invested in climate change baloney.

 

[SSDD]

Crick, doesn't allow for the reality of Per Decade modeling, or missing "hot spot" failures to sink in because he is too heavily invested in climate change baloney.

Crick is just plain stupid. He gobbles up whatever bullshit m.mann et al feed him and regurgitates it whenever a skeptic speaks like some sort of weird Pavlov experiment. The thought that he is being fed bullshit has never occurred to him so he never bothers to check. Look how often he makes proclamations based on an article when one could check the article in about 2 minutes to determine whether it presented the facts or not. Example, that chevron lawsuit article. He made the claim that it wasn't against environmentalists...a quick check revealed that the judgement was against an activist lawyer, the president of an environmental organization, an environmental organization itself and a business that is so shady that it must be a shell, fronting for someone else. And crick says, and I am sure he believed it that the judgement wasn't against environmentalists. He is just plain stupid.

 

[Crick]

I guess I had forgotten that the world environmental movement was headquartered in Ecuador.

 

[SSDD]

I guess I had forgotten that the world environmental movement was headquartered in Ecuador.

No one said that the judgement was against whatever environmental movement you think is "THE" world environmental movement… The statement was that the judgment went against environmentalists...and it did....and you simply didn't have a clue.

You know skidmark, you could save more face by simply walking away from all the instances where your abject ignorance is pointed out rather than putting up some lame assed, impotent attempt at showing that you aren't a goob….which just reinforces the fact that you are a goob.