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.
You really dont know how science works do you?
Should we always take the lesser idea to make our decisions on?
You know medicine is a science right?
When you go to get a second and third opinion on your health do you take the opinion of the desenting Dr as your choice of treatment?
When you have a building built do you take the advice of an architect and build what two other architects told you was an unsound design?
There is just NO way arrround the fact that you on the right insist on taking your sceince from the third tier sceintists.
There is ONLY one reason you act in this fact adverse manner.
You need to find an expert to agree with your historically failed political ideas.
where has anyone told you that is what GW will produce?
Actually, he categorically stated that there was a +.12C warming per decade for the period 1995 to 2009 but the PERIOD OF TIME was not long enough to be statistically-significant, which is why you never post the WHOLE quote.Phil Jones categorically states there that since 1995 there is no statistically significant global warming. Just deal with it.
Again thank you for your dishonesty, as it discredits all deniers.
to some extent I agree with you. I would have more sympathy if you would admit there was not statistically significant warming since 1995 instead of claiming it doesnt matter. science has rules that cant be tossed aside just because you find them inconvenient.
Of course we have had no weather disasters in the last 12 months, now, have we. Pakistan, Russia, tornados, Mississippi Flood, Texas and Alberta burning. And the price of food is continueing to rise. Just an average year for weather disasters. LOL
are you really trying to say there were no weather disasters before we started burning fossil fuels? hahahaha
and how much of the increase in food prices is tied to the use of crops for sustainable fuels? as usual the law of unintended consequences has come down hard on those least able to afford it so that some ignorant people can feel superior in their quest to tell everyone else how to live.
Do you think the vast majority of scientists have not done just that?
They have looked at it and are trained in the fields and have determined the best evidence lies in the man made global warming camp.
You just refuse the vast majority of them have any brains.
OK, Code, you are serving your masters well. Lies and diversionary statements work when dealing with people who understand little of the science.
In simple terms. GHGs, like CO2 and CH4 absorb the normally reflected heat and warm the atmosphere. Or, in very simple terms, add energy to the atmosphere. By adding energy to the atmosphere, you create a more energetic atmosphere. One which evaporates and precipitates more H2O, one in which there are more and strongers storms. One is which the weather swings are wider and wilder.
Of course, if one wants to tell the really big lie, you simply deny that CO2 is a GHG. Or, if you wish to be more subtle, you flap yap about decreasing effectiviness with increasing concentration, and don't you dare look at Venus. But, most importantly, you have to make statements to the effect that all scientists are liars, and don't know anything anyway. Yes, Code, you serve your masters well.
OK, Code, you are serving your masters well. Lies and diversionary statements work when dealing with people who understand little of the science.
In simple terms. GHGs, like CO2 and CH4 absorb the normally reflected heat and warm the atmosphere. Or, in very simple terms, add energy to the atmosphere. By adding energy to the atmosphere, you create a more energetic atmosphere. One which evaporates and precipitates more H2O, one in which there are more and strongers storms. One is which the weather swings are wider and wilder.
Of course, if one wants to tell the really big lie, you simply deny that CO2 is a GHG. Or, if you wish to be more subtle, you flap yap about decreasing effectiviness with increasing concentration, and don't you dare look at Venus. But, most importantly, you have to make statements to the effect that all scientists are liars, and don't know anything anyway. Yes, Code, you serve your masters well.
The truth is very simple. Burning stuff is what civilization is founded upon. Without fire, or at least man made heat, there is no civilization.
If you have ever seen a crow eating the road kill on the highway, you have seen the state of humanity pre-fire. That is the simple reality of the world.
Fossil fuels are the more efficient and cheaper, less ecological catostrophic fuel alternative to wood.
Venus? You're kidding, right?
Are you saying that the GH effects of CO2 are not less and less effective as the concentration increases? Who's lying now?
I do not say that all scientists are liars. I only show that they are wrong and ask that you prove me wrong by showing me that they are right. Start with the Scenarios and the resulting predictions of Hansen that were wrong. Period. I've been waiting for some time for you to do so and you never have.
The problem with Climate scientists and shills who quote the scientists of Climate Science is that it only works in their computer models. In the real world, not so much.
I don't have masters in this. If the results were there to fulfill their predictions, I would believe their predictions. Right now, we are cooler than Hansen predicted we would be and the world still exists. No unusual warming and no end of the world.
Two religions that have let down their sheep.
May 21, 2011 Judgment Day! Tract - eBible Fellowship
OK, Code, you are serving your masters well. Lies and diversionary statements work when dealing with people who understand little of the science.
In simple terms. GHGs, like CO2 and CH4 absorb the normally reflected heat and warm the atmosphere. Or, in very simple terms, add energy to the atmosphere. By adding energy to the atmosphere, you create a more energetic atmosphere. One which evaporates and precipitates more H2O, one in which there are more and strongers storms. One is which the weather swings are wider and wilder.
Of course, if one wants to tell the really big lie, you simply deny that CO2 is a GHG. Or, if you wish to be more subtle, you flap yap about decreasing effectiviness with increasing concentration, and don't you dare look at Venus. But, most importantly, you have to make statements to the effect that all scientists are liars, and don't know anything anyway. Yes, Code, you serve your masters well.
The truth is very simple. Burning stuff is what civilization is founded upon. Without fire, or at least man made heat, there is no civilization.
If you have ever seen a crow eating the road kill on the highway, you have seen the state of humanity pre-fire. That is the simple reality of the world.
Fossil fuels are the more efficient and cheaper, less ecological catostrophic fuel alternative to wood.
Venus? You're kidding, right?
Are you saying that the GH effects of CO2 are not less and less effective as the concentration increases? Who's lying now?
I do not say that all scientists are liars. I only show that they are wrong and ask that you prove me wrong by showing me that they are right. Start with the Scenarios and the resulting predictions of Hansen that were wrong. Period. I've been waiting for some time for you to do so and you never have.
The problem with Climate scientists and shills who quote the scientists of Climate Science is that it only works in their computer models. In the real world, not so much.
I don't have masters in this. If the results were there to fulfill their predictions, I would believe their predictions. Right now, we are cooler than Hansen predicted we would be and the world still exists. No unusual warming and no end of the world.
Two religions that have let down their sheep.
May 21, 2011 Judgment Day! Tract - eBible Fellowship
It doesn't even work in their climate models unless they really fudge the data they claim. So far, none of the climate models have been able to input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past and get their models to produce a good forecast for the weather/climate of now. And with the recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted that they have omitted mitigating data in order to keep the radical environmentalist Bible intact, there is plenty of room for skepticism and incentive to look for better information.
It boggles the mind that so many are willing to hand over their freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities to politically motivated foreign groups, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart. And they are willing to do this on information that is steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed.
Do you think the vast majority of scientists have not done just that?
They have looked at it and are trained in the fields and have determined the best evidence lies in the man made global warming camp.
You just refuse the vast majority of them have any brains.
For some reason I'm thinking of professor Henry Higgins talking about Eliza Doolittle when he said:
"Not a word in her mouth or a thought in her head that I didn't put there..."
Does the hand up your back moving your mouth ever become annoying?
Why should the warming trend CONTINUING through the 00s signal a rethinking????The truth is very simple. Burning stuff is what civilization is founded upon. Without fire, or at least man made heat, there is no civilization.
If you have ever seen a crow eating the road kill on the highway, you have seen the state of humanity pre-fire. That is the simple reality of the world.
Fossil fuels are the more efficient and cheaper, less ecological catostrophic fuel alternative to wood.
Venus? You're kidding, right?
Are you saying that the GH effects of CO2 are not less and less effective as the concentration increases? Who's lying now?
I do not say that all scientists are liars. I only show that they are wrong and ask that you prove me wrong by showing me that they are right. Start with the Scenarios and the resulting predictions of Hansen that were wrong. Period. I've been waiting for some time for you to do so and you never have.
The problem with Climate scientists and shills who quote the scientists of Climate Science is that it only works in their computer models. In the real world, not so much.
I don't have masters in this. If the results were there to fulfill their predictions, I would believe their predictions. Right now, we are cooler than Hansen predicted we would be and the world still exists. No unusual warming and no end of the world.
Two religions that have let down their sheep.
May 21, 2011 Judgment Day! Tract - eBible Fellowship
It doesn't even work in their climate models unless they really fudge the data they claim. So far, none of the climate models have been able to input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past and get their models to produce a good forecast for the weather/climate of now. And with the recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted that they have omitted mitigating data in order to keep the radical environmentalist Bible intact, there is plenty of room for skepticism and incentive to look for better information.
It boggles the mind that so many are willing to hand over their freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities to politically motivated foreign groups, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart. And they are willing to do this on information that is steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed.
in the 80s and 90s most of the evidence was trending to support AGW and many scientists and laymen crystalized their decision to support it. unfortunately the 00s produced data and new understandings that should have been a clear signal that a rethinking of the theory is in order. climate scientists in particular have made ever more strained rationalizations to keep a deeply flawed theory accepted as 'consensus'. never underestimate the need to save face in the human psyche.
Do you think the vast majority of scientists have not done just that?
They have looked at it and are trained in the fields and have determined the best evidence lies in the man made global warming camp.
You just refuse the vast majority of them have any brains.
For some reason I'm thinking of professor Henry Higgins talking about Eliza Doolittle when he said:
"Not a word in her mouth or a thought in her head that I didn't put there..."
Does the hand up your back moving your mouth ever become annoying?
So you think agreeing with the handful of corporate paid scientists makes you smarter than the vast majority of the experts trained in their fields?
Look you can hate sceince all you want and only believe the few who will say JUST WHAT YOU NEED TO HEAR to retain your historically failed ideas if you like.
It doesnt make you look very smart though.
if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?
-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.
-warming has led to historical lows in hurricanes
-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world
I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.
For some reason I'm thinking of professor Henry Higgins talking about Eliza Doolittle when he said:
"Not a word in her mouth or a thought in her head that I didn't put there..."
Does the hand up your back moving your mouth ever become annoying?
So you think agreeing with the handful of corporate paid scientists makes you smarter than the vast majority of the experts trained in their fields?
Look you can hate sceince all you want and only believe the few who will say JUST WHAT YOU NEED TO HEAR to retain your historically failed ideas if you like.
It doesnt make you look very smart though.
Fearless? I asked you to post one (1) repeatable lab experiment showing us how a 60PPM increase does all the things these "scientists" you love say it does.
Did you forget?
if warming and more plentiful CO2 was considered a good thing instead of the present fad of thinking it is bad what sort of media stories would we see?
-more cultivatable land leads to record food crops.
-warming has led to historical lows in hurricanes
-cheap energy leds to improved conditions everywhere but especially the third world
I could go on but my point is that almost all the evidence is equivical and can be spun in any direction. it just depends on who is telling the story.
Except that CO2 is a "bad thing" after an initial growth "spurt". Crops end up "poor quality" and "less nutritious".
2010 had 12 hurricanes, the 2nd most ever in one season.
Did anyone see that tornado with the base over a mile wide that traveled over 300 miles. It's been called the worst natural disaster since Katrina.
Sure glad it had nothing to do with "climate change". Just ask right wingers. I feel safe knowing how much they are in to "science".
It doesn't even work in their climate models unless they really fudge the data they claim. So far, none of the climate models have been able to input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past and get their models to produce a good forecast for the weather/climate of now. And with the recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted that they have omitted mitigating data in order to keep the radical environmentalist Bible intact, there is plenty of room for skepticism and incentive to look for better information.
It boggles the mind that so many are willing to hand over their freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities to politically motivated foreign groups, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart. And they are willing to do this on information that is steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed.
It doesn't even work in their climate models unless they really fudge the data they claim. So far, none of the climate models have been able to input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past and get their models to produce a good forecast for the weather/climate of now. And with the recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted that they have omitted mitigating data in order to keep the radical environmentalist Bible intact, there is plenty of room for skepticism and incentive to look for better information.
It boggles the mind that so many are willing to hand over their freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities to politically motivated foreign groups, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart. And they are willing to do this on information that is steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed.
And another clueless denier cultist with his head full of propaganda and misinformation peeps up with more denier cult myths.
In reality, the climate models are tested by what is called 'hindcasting' where they do, in fact, "input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past" and see if the model results match the historical record of what actually happened.
In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.
Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]
Another denier cult myth is the one you spew here with this nonsense: "recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted". Sorry bucko, but that's one of your myths, not reality. All of the trumped up "scandals" were debunked by a variety of official investigations that found no substance to the rather absurd allegations raised by the stooges for the fossil fuel industry.
Your post makes it clear that you have no idea what is going on with the world's climate or with the field of climate science. The scientific data that unequivocally shows global warming beyond the bounds of natural variability is not "steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed" as your denier cult myths tell you, rather it is steadily being verified and shown to be accurate and reflective of a very real crisis that threatens the future of our civilization and the Earth's ecosystems.
It doesn't even work in their climate models unless they really fudge the data they claim. So far, none of the climate models have been able to input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past and get their models to produce a good forecast for the weather/climate of now. And with the recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted that they have omitted mitigating data in order to keep the radical environmentalist Bible intact, there is plenty of room for skepticism and incentive to look for better information.
It boggles the mind that so many are willing to hand over their freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities to politically motivated foreign groups, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart. And they are willing to do this on information that is steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed.
And another clueless denier cultist with his head full of propaganda and misinformation peeps up with more denier cult myths.
In reality, the climate models are tested by what is called 'hindcasting' where they do, in fact, "input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past" and see if the model results match the historical record of what actually happened.
In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.
Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]
Another denier cult myth is the one you spew here with this nonsense: "recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted". Sorry bucko, but that's one of your myths, not reality. All of the trumped up "scandals" were debunked by a variety of official investigations that found no substance to the rather absurd allegations raised by the stooges for the fossil fuel industry.
Your post makes it clear that you have no idea what is going on with the world's climate or with the field of climate science. The scientific data that unequivocally shows global warming beyond the bounds of natural variability is not "steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed" as your denier cult myths tell you, rather it is steadily being verified and shown to be accurate and reflective of a very real crisis that threatens the future of our civilization and the Earth's ecosystems.
It doesn't even work in their climate models unless they really fudge the data they claim. So far, none of the climate models have been able to input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past and get their models to produce a good forecast for the weather/climate of now. And with the recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted that they have omitted mitigating data in order to keep the radical environmentalist Bible intact, there is plenty of room for skepticism and incentive to look for better information.
It boggles the mind that so many are willing to hand over their freedoms, options, choices, and opportunities to politically motivated foreign groups, many of whom don't like us very much and don't have our best interests at heart. And they are willing to do this on information that is steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed.
And another clueless denier cultist with his head full of propaganda and misinformation peeps up with more denier cult myths.
In reality, the climate models are tested by what is called 'hindcasting' where they do, in fact, "input the KNOWN weather/climate from the past" and see if the model results match the historical record of what actually happened.
In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.
Source: IPCC AR4 WG1 Figures [PPT file]
Another denier cult myth is the one you spew here with this nonsense: "recent scandals in which prominent scientists have finally admitted". Sorry bucko, but that's one of your myths, not reality. All of the trumped up "scandals" were debunked by a variety of official investigations that found no substance to the rather absurd allegations raised by the stooges for the fossil fuel industry.
Your post makes it clear that you have no idea what is going on with the world's climate or with the field of climate science. The scientific data that unequivocally shows global warming beyond the bounds of natural variability is not "steadily being proved to be questionable or flawed" as your denier cult myths tell you, rather it is steadily being verified and shown to be accurate and reflective of a very real crisis that threatens the future of our civilization and the Earth's ecosystems.
B'loney, and completely irrelevant on a global scale over millenia.
The models are biased and cooked for the Green is the New Red anti-human agenda.
