The Truth About Climate Change

[rdean]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

 

[daveman]

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?​

'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'

 

[HenryBHough]

Fact: Plant life required carbon dioxide to exist.

Fact: Plants emit oxygen, required for humans to live.

So, we do away with as much carbon dioxide as possible, killing (or at least weakening) plant life which return the favour by giving off less oxygen.

Hey, presto! We all die and Earth goes on as it always has.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fact: Plant life required carbon dioxide to exist.

Fact: Plants emit oxygen, required for humans to live.

So, we do away with as much carbon dioxide as possible, killing (or at least weakening) plant life which return the favour by giving off less oxygen.

Hey, presto! We all die and Earth goes on as it always has.

The longer they come, the dumber they get. Look, silly ass, the problem is that we have increased the atmospheric CO2 by 40%, and the CH4 by 150%.

Normal range for CO2 for the last 2 million years, 180 ppm to 300 ppm. Today we are at 390 ppm. We have not been at that level in the last 15 million years. Plus the CH4 level is far higher than it has been for many million years.

UCLA Researcher Finds CO2 at Highest Levels in 15 Million Years,  UCLA Climate Change Portal

 

[HenryBHough]

The longer they come, the dumber they get. Look, silly ass, the problem is that we have increased the atmospheric CO2 by 40%, and the CH4 by 150%.

Normal range for CO2 for the last 2 million years, 180 ppm to 300 ppm. Today we are at 390 ppm. We have not been at that level in the last 15 million years. Plus the CH4 level is far higher than it has been for many million years.

UCLA Researcher Finds CO2 at Highest Levels in 15 Million Years,* UCLA Climate Change Portal

So tell me, why are you so against plants getting ahead?

If we're going to have oil and coal for Earth's next occupants we need lots and lots of plants and we need them NOW!

Did you hate spinach (a plant) as a child? Broccoli? OK, poison ivy might give you legitimate reason.....

 

[MeBelle]

The longer they come, the dumber they get. Look, silly ass, the problem is that we have increased the atmospheric CO2 by 40%, and the CH4 by 150%.

Normal range for CO2 for the last 2 million years, 180 ppm to 300 ppm. Today we are at 390 ppm. We have not been at that level in the last 15 million years. Plus the CH4 level is far higher than it has been for many million years.

UCLA Researcher Finds CO2 at Highest Levels in 15 Million Years,* UCLA Climate Change Portal

So tell me, why are you so against plants getting ahead?

If we're going to have oil and coal for Earth's next occupants we need lots and lots of plants and we need them NOW!

Did you hate spinach (a plant) as a child? Broccoli? OK, poison ivy might give you legitimate reason.....

I could make a legit case for quashing arugula!

 

[Mr. H.]

Admittedly, I'm one of those "most citizens" who is lost on the debate.

I'm also one of those manufacturers who is quite concerned about the future of my business.

What do I think? Even without this particular issue on the table, I believe the world's future is pretty much fucked.

A burgeoning population, fanatical idiots controlling resources or impeding access to same, a self-perpetuating bureaucratic morass that does more harm than good, and an innate human quality characterized as "selfishness".

We always have been, and will remain, our own worst enemies.

And if that's not enough- I honestly believe that if Christ, Buddha, YHWH, Allah, Vishnu, or whomever/whatever... NEVER showed up - we'd be better off for it. Religion constitutes 3/4 of our miserable state of affairs.

 

[frazzledgear]

Global warming has become such a hotly debated issue that the country is polarized -- and most citizens get lost in the claims and counterclaims.

Manufacturers fear that these dire warnings will lead to more government regulation and anti-government factions believe that there is a climate conspiracy where top scientists have been caught cooking their books, falsifying temperature data, and excluding colleagues who disagreed.

Representative Michelle Bachman, whose Earth Day speech in 2009 was titled “An Ode to Carbon Dioxide,” made a claim that carbon dioxide levels are “a part of the regular cycle of the earth.” In pandering to her right-wing supporters it is easy for her to dismiss the problem because she won’t be around to see it happen.

The Truth About Climate Change

Apparently another liberal idiot who isn't aware of the fact that life cannot exist at all on this planet without CARBON DIOXIDE! And clearly not aware of the carbon cycle and where carbon dioxide fits in that cycle. So in your haste to pretend Bachmann made some kind of major gaffe here -you only revealed your own IGNORANCE you moron. (And seriously, do you really figure if the word "truth" is in the title of your link it somehow means it IS "truth" and gives it greater credibility somehow? ROFLMAO)

Aside from the fact life cannot exist at all on this planet without carbon dioxide, it is a critical part of the carbon cycle on this planet as it goes through our soil, water and air in in the form of various compounds, broken down and reformed to other compounds in order to continue that critically necessary cycle. There are not equal amounts in the soil, water and air and those levels change over time in accordance with that cycle -and because there aren't equal amounts in the soil, water and air -this cycle can be identified, traced and measured.

9(r) The Carbon Cycle Very basic explanation of this cycle.

For every link you can post (because you have a NEED for this theory to be believed and worshiped by all as the new religion) -I can find three that explain why yours is full of shit and nothing but flawed and falsified "science". You really should have gotten a big clue when you heard some of the major players in this scam posing as the leading scientists admitted to having destroyed their raw data. Not even going to mention the numerous admissions of having falsified their raw data -let's just focus on the destruction of raw data because this is actually a really, really big deal. BIG.

There is only ONE reason to destroy the raw data. And every legitimate scientist will tell you the same thing. It is NEVER EVER NEVER EVER done and there is NEVER any legitimate reason for doing so. As in NEVER. So if you destroy your raw data you might as well take out a headline in your local newspaper that reads "I MADE IT ALL UP". The only way to confirm the findings of another scientist is by means of their RAW DATA. And the only reason to destroy it is so they CAN'T.

THIS was a scam -built on a flimsy house of cards and it all came tumbling down after the first card was pulled out of it -and that first card was an admission by scientists at the UEA to having destroyed much of their raw data. Scientists claiming to be the leaders in this field -yet destroyed their raw data. THAT tells you all the basics you really need to know about "global warming". The fact that the known pathological liar Al Gore was involved tells you all the rest.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. You cannot live without some salt in your diet. It is absolutely essential. So here, eat a whole quart of it right down. Has to be good for you, right?

Frazzle, you are an idiot.

 

[SofiaY]

looking forward to a great change

 

[wirebender]

And the wait continues for climate science or any of its usefull idiots to present any hard, observable, repeatable experimental evidence that provides an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate.

The models are wrong, the projections don't match the observations, the laws of science don't support it, and the money trail screams fraud. At this point, anyone who actually believes that CO2 can alter the temperature of the earth is a cultist.

OK rocks, now you can now post your link to your scripture even though you remain completely and totally unable to point to any part of it that represents proof of anything in spite of the fact that you have been asked over and over which part you believe represents proof.

Just be advised that I am going to ask again which part you believe is proof of anything and again, you will have to just ignore the request and look stupid all over again in your admission that you don't know which part is supposed to be proof of anything. It's just scripture to you and doesn't have to prove anything to you. You believe.

 

[wirebender]

And if that's not enough- I honestly believe that if Christ, Buddha, YHWH, Allah, Vishnu, or whomever/whatever... NEVER showed up - we'd be better off for it. Religion constitutes 3/4 of our miserable state of affairs.

The religion of environment and the sub cult of climate change and AGW are among the most dangerous religions yet.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk.........yuk..........yuk............69% Say It


"Because winning is the greatest feeling in the world!!"


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNKfFKVzPBU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNKfFKVzPBU[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

I'll get my "truth" about climate change from the science, not some op-ed.

 

[Old Rocks]

A23A

 

[Mad Scientist]

Manufacturing.net is a good place to post all the global warming stuff seeing as how it's all manufactured.

 

[wirebender]

A23A

So which part of that do you believe constitutes hard observable repeatable proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. Just list the time marker and I will be happy to go back to that point. I listened to the whole crock of crap and neither heard, nor saw anything that established any sort of proof that CO2 drives the climate or alters the temperature, much less that manmade CO2 is responsible.

If your scripture doesn't constitute proof, what makes you think a priest reciting scripture will make it proof? Here is the status of your religion rocks:

Your priests claim that CO2 levels directly control global temperatures --- they don't
Your priests predicted accelerated warming --- not happening
Your priests claimed that the warming was unprecedented --- it wasn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was unequivocal - it wasn't
Your priests claimed that sea level rises would accelerate --- they didn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was global --- it isn't
Your priests claimed that severe weather would increase --- it didn't
Your priests claimed that weather disasters are the worst in history --- they aren't
Your priests claimed that the climate and its impacts could be predicted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that the climate models could be trusted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that 97% of scientists agreed with them --- they don't
Your priests claimed that there was a scientific consensus on global warming --- there wasn 't.

Tell me rocks, doesn't your religion have anything to say about following false prophets?

 

[IanC]

A23A

So which part of that do you believe constitutes hard observable repeatable proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. Just list the time marker and I will be happy to go back to that point. I listened to the whole crock of crap and neither heard, nor saw anything that established any sort of proof that CO2 drives the climate or alters the temperature, much less that manmade CO2 is responsible.

If your scripture doesn't constitute proof, what makes you think a priest reciting scripture will make it proof? Here is the status of your religion rocks:

Your priests claim that CO2 levels directly control global temperatures --- they don't
Your priests predicted accelerated warming --- not happening
Your priests claimed that the warming was unprecedented --- it wasn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was unequivocal - it wasn't
Your priests claimed that sea level rises would accelerate --- they didn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was global --- it isn't
Your priests claimed that severe weather would increase --- it didn't
Your priests claimed that weather disasters are the worst in history --- they aren't
Your priests claimed that the climate and its impacts could be predicted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that the climate models could be trusted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that 97% of scientists agreed with them --- they don't
Your priests claimed that there was a scientific consensus on global warming --- there wasn 't.

Tell me rocks, doesn't your religion have anything to say about following false prophets?

excellent post. pointing out the false prophecies, group intimidations, 'ad homs' and 'non sequiturs' of the CAGWers is much better than the hypocrisy of doing the same thing for the other side.

 

[konradv]

A23A

So which part of that do you believe constitutes hard observable repeatable proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. Just list the time marker and I will be happy to go back to that point. I listened to the whole crock of crap and neither heard, nor saw anything that established any sort of proof that CO2 drives the climate or alters the temperature, much less that manmade CO2 is responsible.

If your scripture doesn't constitute proof, what makes you think a priest reciting scripture will make it proof? Here is the status of your religion rocks:

Your priests claim that CO2 levels directly control global temperatures --- they don't
Your priests predicted accelerated warming --- not happening
Your priests claimed that the warming was unprecedented --- it wasn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was unequivocal - it wasn't
Your priests claimed that sea level rises would accelerate --- they didn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was global --- it isn't
Your priests claimed that severe weather would increase --- it didn't
Your priests claimed that weather disasters are the worst in history --- they aren't
Your priests claimed that the climate and its impacts could be predicted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that the climate models could be trusted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that 97% of scientists agreed with them --- they don't
Your priests claimed that there was a scientific consensus on global warming --- there wasn 't.

Tell me rocks, doesn't your religion have anything to say about following false prophets?

Your post is worthless, because you used the word 'priest'. It just proves you'd rather sling any old bullshit to see what sticks, than argue the science like a normal person. Thanks?!?! For what? It's those with the "faith" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth, who follow the Priests of De Nile!!!

 

[IanC]

A23A

So which part of that do you believe constitutes hard observable repeatable proof that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. Just list the time marker and I will be happy to go back to that point. I listened to the whole crock of crap and neither heard, nor saw anything that established any sort of proof that CO2 drives the climate or alters the temperature, much less that manmade CO2 is responsible.

If your scripture doesn't constitute proof, what makes you think a priest reciting scripture will make it proof? Here is the status of your religion rocks:

Your priests claim that CO2 levels directly control global temperatures --- they don't
Your priests predicted accelerated warming --- not happening
Your priests claimed that the warming was unprecedented --- it wasn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was unequivocal - it wasn't
Your priests claimed that sea level rises would accelerate --- they didn't
Your priests claimed that the warming was global --- it isn't
Your priests claimed that severe weather would increase --- it didn't
Your priests claimed that weather disasters are the worst in history --- they aren't
Your priests claimed that the climate and its impacts could be predicted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that the climate models could be trusted --- they can't
Your priests claimed that 97% of scientists agreed with them --- they don't
Your priests claimed that there was a scientific consensus on global warming --- there wasn 't.

Tell me rocks, doesn't your religion have anything to say about following false prophets?

Your post is worthless, because you used the word 'priest'. It just proves you'd rather sling any old bullshit to see what sticks, than argue the science like a normal person. Thanks?!?! For what? It's those with the "faith" that we can't possibly be doing anything to the climate of something as large as Earth, who follow the Priests of De Nile!!!

actually konradv many climate scientists and their affiliates are doing untold damage by making proclaimations and projections that are unsubstantiated because of huge undisclosed uncertainties and often unsupported by real life data. even worse, they are spending the banked trust and authority of science in a dishonest way by making political statements cloak in the guise of science.