Triple OUCH! Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

Discussion in 'Environment' started by teapartysamurai, Sep 3, 2010.

  1. teapartysamurai
    Offline

    teapartysamurai Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    18,761
    Thanks Received:
    2,265
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,736
    Ooooo, the liberal global warming Ox is getting, ahem . . . Gored!



    Now this is NO SURPRISE to conservatives. We have been waying for two decades that global warming was a hoax and based on shoddy science.

    YET, liberals have insisted on "consensus" science as their "moral authority" for global warming.

    But, since the emails were released showing the shoddy and somtimes FRADULENT efforts made to "prove" global warming, that "consensus" is falling apart.

    Scientists are no longer afraid to be called a "global warming denier" (like some holocaust denier, so ridiculous) and are finding the voice to speak up.

    Global warming is not about "saving the planet," but about far left radicals who want to take CONTROL of the planet and force their radical ideas on YOU and I.

    Like Al Gore, they want us to practically live in grass huts to "reduce our carbon footprint" while THEY live the lives of jet setters.

    Watching this lie, finally fall apart is wonderful to see.

    Remember this when you vote in November. The Democrats are all for this and wanted to force CAP AND TRADE on you, BASED ON A COMPLETE LIE. ;)

    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:








     
  2. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,318
    Thanks Received:
    12,691
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,752
    You're trying too hard.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,508
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    That's all you got?
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,279
    First, the year 2035 was a typo, it was supposed to read 2350. It should have been caught in the proof reading.

    Second, the rest of Teabagger Wimp's drivel is just that, drivel.

    As far as the scientific consensus on AGW and it's dangers, read the policy statements of Scientific Societies, especially those that deal with physics, chemistry, geology, or biology. Then try to find any scientific society, anywhere in the world, that states differantly.

    What we have here is the Conservative attempt to denigrate science and scientists because they don't like to have to face up to reality.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. teapartysamurai
    Offline

    teapartysamurai Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    18,761
    Thanks Received:
    2,265
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,736
    Actually it's the liberals who are trying too hard to shut up anyone who challenges their lies.

    Yes, that is all they have. It's funny to watch their dreams of power melt before their eyes.

    ;)

    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
     
  6. teapartysamurai
    Offline

    teapartysamurai Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    18,761
    Thanks Received:
    2,265
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Ratings:
    +3,736
    What we have here is the typical Al Gore style screed of "consensus" science and how DARE anyone question that.

    You don't cite any facts to refute, you just scream.

    Too funny.

    :lol::lol::lol:
     
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,860
    Sure, 2350, that sounds right.

    Maybe they were talking about the Van Halen album and they meant 5150?

    Either way, there's no science at all backing the claim.
     
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,440
    The criticisms of the IPCC are about the upper management, not the majority of scientists working in the background. It is not the scientists fault that their research has been twisted into 'declaring the science settled' , when in fact it is not.

    Quite a few have bitterly complained when the information that they provided and signed their name to, was morphed into something else with the uncertainties removed by the time the IPCC reports were published.
     
  9. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,682



    Second off Pachauri was informed TWO months before the publication and did nothing about it...now it's fraud buckwheat. Who cares what political societies have to say. They derive their funding from supporting the fraud.

    Reaching a scientific consensus is an ongoing process that involves multiple datasets, lines of evidence, and repeated criticism and refinement of hypotheses. None of which the AGW alarmists engage in. They actively subvert criticism thereby corrupting the process at its beginning.

    They have reduced "scientific consensus" to a survey. That is a joke.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,279
    Come on, Walleyes. Scientific consensus, as in the vast majority of scientists that have looked at the evidence accept the theory that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. Why else would all the Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that in their policy statements?

    Surely, if the scientific consensus did not exist, you could find a scientific society in Outer Slobovia that would agree with your viewpoint.
     

Share This Page