Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You

[flacaltenn]

My goodness, IR can only penetrate a few microns into the steel gears we heat shrink onto shafts, but the sure do heat up fast from the torch whose heat is only penetrating a few microns deep.

Simple physics test olfraud. In which direction does heat travel. Up? Or down? Here's a hint...

--- that's just magic or so they said when they first saw one of these. But you can also conduct heat in circles. I've seen that on old stovetops and broilers.. Maybe there's some magic in that also..

 

[Programmer]

Well? is GloBULL warming AKA "Climate change" a hoax, scam on the people to gain power over them?

from the article:
when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

SNIP:
World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man's combustion of fossil fuels.

Included among these is a new documentary "inspired" by Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate." If the title isn't enough to give away Klein's motives for attacking the climate "crisis," then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

"So here's the big question," says Klein. "What if global warming isn't only a crisis? What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?"

Then comes the threat:

"Change, or be changed."

Klein says she "spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there." Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It's just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein's statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists' goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," Figueres said in Brussels last winter.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

Klein also calls up the specter of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who, as Obama chief of staff, said in 2009 that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


ALL of the article here with comments
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/100815-774738-another-climate-alarmist-admits-what-warming-scare-is-all-about.htm#ixzz3qSPTQzM1
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

This post has a familiar pattern: attack what is imagined to be the ideological motive of the person disagreed with, ignore the evidence, skip the logic of the presentation. Characterize the author as sinister with a hidden objective. Ignore the evidence, focus on the imagined character of the author. Go for heat, not light.

This has become the standard approach of the fringe right as, one by one, the pillars of its political program, every thing from supply side economics to the 6,000 year old Earth and the inferiority of non-White people has crumbled under the burden of modern information technology and the scientific method. It would be funny if they weren't intent on dragging the rest of us down with them.

The attack isn't "imagined" -- it's right out in the open .. All those UN climate weirding conferences end up in a scuffle as to when the poorer nations can expect the big checks from the larger ones. It's in the statements of the LEADERS of the UN movement that are quoted in the OP. DOZENS of "in your face" admissions that it's about wrecking the "old system" and bringing in the social justice revolution crowd to make a new one..

My take is that the old system in Europe is trying to cheat the new system in the US and China into buying their stupid carbon credits after they rig emissions tests on all their cars and facilities.

Reverend Tutu and the people loosing their island are a sideshow act.

 

[mamooth]

The problem with that theory is the scientific community KNOWS (not consensus mind you, this is a fact, huuuuge difference) that the oceans are the heat engines of the world. The Sun emits IR and UV radiation. The UV radiation can penetrate hundreds of meters into the oceans to warm them up (and lo and behold that has been happening for billions of years) IR radiation on the other hand can only penetrate a few MICRONS deep into the water. Thus the theory fails in its very first test.

Ah, the Westwall "conservation of energy only holds when I want it to" theory. In his world, IR radiation strikes the oceans, and then the energy from it just vanishes.

The real science is quite simple. Energy doesn't vanish. The IR radiation strikes the ocean, and instead of magically disappearing, the energy gets absorbed by the oceans.

(And no, the surface layer of ocean is not constantly boiling away, so I hope no one throws out that crazy theory.)

 

[westwall]

The problem with that theory is the scientific community KNOWS (not consensus mind you, this is a fact, huuuuge difference) that the oceans are the heat engines of the world. The Sun emits IR and UV radiation. The UV radiation can penetrate hundreds of meters into the oceans to warm them up (and lo and behold that has been happening for billions of years) IR radiation on the other hand can only penetrate a few MICRONS deep into the water. Thus the theory fails in its very first test.

Ah, the Westwall "conservation of energy only holds when I want it to" theory. In his world, IR radiation strikes the oceans, and then the energy from it just vanishes.

The real science is quite simple. Energy doesn't vanish. The IR radiation strikes the ocean, and instead of magically disappearing, the energy gets absorbed by the oceans.

(And no, the surface layer of ocean is not constantly boiling away, so I hope no one throws out that crazy theory.)

It's a simple physics question mammy. My nine year old KNOWS the answer....which direction does heat travel? Up or down? How EXACTLY is the ocean supposed to "absorb" the energy when the very energy can't penetrate the skin of the water?

Riddle me that....admiral...

 

[mamooth]

It's a simple physics question mammy. My nine year old KNOWS the answer....which direction does heat travel? Up or down?

That has nothing to do with the issue, that issue being how your claims contradict conservation of energy and common sense.

How EXACTLY is the ocean supposed to "absorb" the energy when the very energy can't penetrate the skin of the water?

I see. You're saying the ocean skin is an absolute thermal barrier to heat transfer. Interesting. Can you point us to other research that supports your theory?

Riddle me that....admiral...

According to The Westwall Theory, it's not possible for pavement to get warm in the sunlight, being that the whole spectrum of solar radiation can barely penetrate into it.

Can you expand on your vanishing energy theory? Exactly how far of a distance must radiation penetrate into an object before it stays in the object instead of vanishing?

 

[westwall]

It's a simple physics question mammy. My nine year old KNOWS the answer....which direction does heat travel? Up or down?

That has nothing to do with the issue, that issue being how your claims contradict conservation of energy and common sense.

How EXACTLY is the ocean supposed to "absorb" the energy when the very energy can't penetrate the skin of the water?

I see. You're saying the ocean skin is an absolute thermal barrier to heat transfer. Interesting. Can you point us to other research that supports your theory?

Riddle me that....admiral...

According to The Westwall Theory, it's not possible for pavement to get warm in the sunlight, being that the whole spectrum of solar radiation can barely penetrate into it.

Can you expand on your vanishing energy theory? Exactly how far of a distance must radiation penetrate into an object before it stays in the object instead of vanishing?

Where do they come up with these clowns? No, I said that the skin of the water is impervious to long wave IR. Now, little parrot boy, how does that effect your theory of IR radiation warming the planet?

 

[mamooth]

Where do they come up with clowns?

Please stick with the topic, which is your very peculiar theory that the law of conservation of energy doesn't apply in those cases when you say it doesn't apply.

No, I said that the skin of the water is impervious to long wave IR.

Yet the IR energy penetrates into it, and therefore delivers the energy into it, energy which then warms the rest of the ocean.

Now, little parrot boy, how does that effect your theory of IR radiation warming the planet?

Given that IR radiation is clearly absorbed by the oceans and warms the oceans, the theory that the whole world uses isn't having any problems.

You, OTOH, still need to explain where the energy goes. According to your theory, the IR energy strikes the oceans and then vanishes without a trace. Can you explain the physical mechanism that causes the energy to vanish?

 

[westwall]

Where do they come up with clowns?

Please stick with the topic, which is your very peculiar theory that the law of conservation of energy doesn't apply in those cases when you say it doesn't apply.

No, I said that the skin of the water is impervious to long wave IR.

Yet the IR energy penetrates into it, and therefore delivers the energy into it, energy which then warms the rest of the ocean.

Now, little parrot boy, how does that effect your theory of IR radiation warming the planet?

Given that IR radiation is clearly absorbed by the oceans and warms the oceans, the theory that the whole world uses isn't having any problems.

You, OTOH, still need to explain where the energy goes. According to your theory, the IR energy strikes the oceans and then vanishes without a trace. Can you explain the physical mechanism that causes the energy to vanish?

How is IR radiation absorbed by the oceans when it can't penetrate the skin of the water. Tell us how you work that particular magic.

 

[mamooth]

The short but not-really-correct version: "IR is absorbed by the skin and conducts into the rest of the ocean." Nope, the real world is more complicated than that.

The longer correct version:

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The short but not-really-correct version: "IR is absorbed by the skin and conducts into the rest of the ocean." Nope, the real world is more complicated than that.

The longer correct version:

This is the temperature profile of most spots in the ocean. Note the vertical scale is sort of logarithmic.

The bulk of solar energy penetrates deeply and warms the water. Convection causes warmer water to rise, so the oceans get warmer as they get shallower.

However, that trend reverses at the skin layer. The atmosphere is usually colder than the ocean below, so the ocean at the surface loses heat to the cooler atmosphere, which lowers the temperature of the skin layer by about 1C.

The amount of heat flowing out the oceans depends on the delta-T across that skin layer. Heat conducts from hot to cold, linearly proportionally to the temperature difference. With more of a temperature gradient, more heat flows out of the oceans. Less of a gradient, less outflow.

Enter the IR radiation. It heats the skin layer, decreasing the delta-T across the skin layer, so less heat flows out of the oceans. The IR doesn't heat the deeper ocean directly. It reduces the heat flow out of the deeper ocean, so more heat stays in the deeper ocean, so the IR indirectly warms the deeper ocean.

Too funny.. your aware the wave lengths your talking about is primarily at 10um (10 microns). Right? You understand that? And the majority of heat is at or below 1 micron in size during down welling solar irradience..

Your own graph shows that you have no clue what it is your talking about...

 

[flacaltenn]

Well? is GloBULL warming AKA "Climate change" a hoax, scam on the people to gain power over them?

from the article:
when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

SNIP:
World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man's combustion of fossil fuels.

Included among these is a new documentary "inspired" by Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate." If the title isn't enough to give away Klein's motives for attacking the climate "crisis," then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

"So here's the big question," says Klein. "What if global warming isn't only a crisis? What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?"

Then comes the threat:

"Change, or be changed."

Klein says she "spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there." Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It's just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein's statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists' goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," Figueres said in Brussels last winter.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

Klein also calls up the specter of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who, as Obama chief of staff, said in 2009 that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


ALL of the article here with comments
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/100815-774738-another-climate-alarmist-admits-what-warming-scare-is-all-about.htm#ixzz3qSPTQzM1
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

This post has a familiar pattern: attack what is imagined to be the ideological motive of the person disagreed with, ignore the evidence, skip the logic of the presentation. Characterize the author as sinister with a hidden objective. Ignore the evidence, focus on the imagined character of the author. Go for heat, not light.

This has become the standard approach of the fringe right as, one by one, the pillars of its political program, every thing from supply side economics to the 6,000 year old Earth and the inferiority of non-White people has crumbled under the burden of modern information technology and the scientific method. It would be funny if they weren't intent on dragging the rest of us down with them.

The attack isn't "imagined" -- it's right out in the open .. All those UN climate weirding conferences end up in a scuffle as to when the poorer nations can expect the big checks from the larger ones. It's in the statements of the LEADERS of the UN movement that are quoted in the OP. DOZENS of "in your face" admissions that it's about wrecking the "old system" and bringing in the social justice revolution crowd to make a new one..

My take is that the old system in Europe is trying to cheat the new system in the US and China into buying their stupid carbon credits after they rig emissions tests on all their cars and facilities.

Reverend Tutu and the people loosing their island are a sideshow act.

Those "islanders" and Zimbabwes have more votes in the UN than Europe does. BUT -- you're probably right. They've "invested" so much cash into worthless Green Stocks, that their only hope of NOT becoming beggars and whiners is to make it into a pyramid scheme and they need NEW franchises like crazy..

 

[Programmer]

Well? is GloBULL warming AKA "Climate change" a hoax, scam on the people to gain power over them?

from the article:
when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

SNIP:
World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man's combustion of fossil fuels.

Included among these is a new documentary "inspired" by Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate." If the title isn't enough to give away Klein's motives for attacking the climate "crisis," then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

"So here's the big question," says Klein. "What if global warming isn't only a crisis? What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?"

Then comes the threat:

"Change, or be changed."

Klein says she "spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there." Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It's just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein's statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists' goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," Figueres said in Brussels last winter.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

Klein also calls up the specter of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who, as Obama chief of staff, said in 2009 that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste."


ALL of the article here with comments
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/100815-774738-another-climate-alarmist-admits-what-warming-scare-is-all-about.htm#ixzz3qSPTQzM1
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

This post has a familiar pattern: attack what is imagined to be the ideological motive of the person disagreed with, ignore the evidence, skip the logic of the presentation. Characterize the author as sinister with a hidden objective. Ignore the evidence, focus on the imagined character of the author. Go for heat, not light.

This has become the standard approach of the fringe right as, one by one, the pillars of its political program, every thing from supply side economics to the 6,000 year old Earth and the inferiority of non-White people has crumbled under the burden of modern information technology and the scientific method. It would be funny if they weren't intent on dragging the rest of us down with them.

The attack isn't "imagined" -- it's right out in the open .. All those UN climate weirding conferences end up in a scuffle as to when the poorer nations can expect the big checks from the larger ones. It's in the statements of the LEADERS of the UN movement that are quoted in the OP. DOZENS of "in your face" admissions that it's about wrecking the "old system" and bringing in the social justice revolution crowd to make a new one..

My take is that the old system in Europe is trying to cheat the new system in the US and China into buying their stupid carbon credits after they rig emissions tests on all their cars and facilities.

Reverend Tutu and the people loosing their island are a sideshow act.

Those "islanders" and Zimbabwes have more votes in the UN than Europe does. BUT -- you're probably right. They've "invested" so much cash into worthless Green Stocks, that their only hope of NOT becoming beggars and whiners is to make it into a pyramid scheme and they need NEW franchises like crazy..

Because these victim countries wont have any skin in the cap and trade game, they're used as posterchildren, not the adults at the table. The solution was designed before the problem was discovered. Its a trap targeting coal based power production by its nature. Their ponzi's not even for real without the US and/or China signing on.

I suspect one reason we're coming around on the issue isn't Obama's new environmental devotion, but our natural gas boom.

 

[IanC]

The short but not-really-correct version: "IR is absorbed by the skin and conducts into the rest of the ocean."

not just 'not-really-correct' but absolutely incorrect. conduction and convection are vastly more efficient at moving energy than radiation is. if visible solar and UV solar were not able to deposit energy into the depths of the oceans they would be frozen. as it stands, there is a staggering amount of energy trapped in the heatsinks of ocean currents that transport energy from the tropics (net absorbers) to the poles (net emitters).

on a local level convection counteracts conduction because warm water is lighter and therefore rises towards the surface.

the boundary between the surface and the atmosphere is where things get complicated. conduction is reduced because the density of particles between air and water is so different. without an alternate pathway for energy to escape the surface would be much, much hotter.

luckily there is an alternate pathway, evaporation. the skin is constantly losing the fastest moving (eg highest temperature) molecules into the air, taking the energy away from the oceans and reducing the ocean's temp. once in the air the evaporated water, water vapour, produces convection because 1. warmer air is lighter, and 2. water vapour is lighter than the other main constituents of the atmosphere.

this forms a cooling cycle because the atmosphere becomes less dense with altitude, therefore by definition cooler, the water vapour condenses into clouds and precipitation releasing the energy that originally turned it into a gas. the energy has been moved to the cloudtops and the water returns to the surface to start the cycle over again.

what does this have to do with CO2 capturing IR photons and returning them to the surface? (they dont really but that is another story). baby steps.

earth without an atmosphere would be like the moon. warming a lot in the sunshine and cooling a lot in the night. the only heatsinks to moderate the temperature is what the rocky surface would store.

earth with an atmosphere that contained no GHGs would moderate the temperature swings at the surface because the atmosphere would be a heatsink (conduction from the surface, little convection, some solar) and it would be the air that suffered the large temperature changes but the surface less so because it is now somewhat insulated. also the atmosphere would give off blackbody radiation because of the molecular collisions, some of which would return to the surface. the average surface temperature would be warmer than the no atmosphere earth.

earth with a GHG atmosphere is warmer still. with no GHGs the surface IR radiation directly leaves into space. with GHGs a portion is retained and warms the atmosphere, which in turn radiates itself sending some of its radiation back to the surface. there is much more returning to the surface because the atmosphere is much warmer than without GHGs. the average surface temperature is warmer than the no GHGs example.

no atmosphere- all surface energy escapes directly into space as IR radiation, at a rate that matches solar input
non GHG atmosphere- much surface energy directly leaves as IR but some is used to heat the atmosphere by conduction, and a portion returns to the surface. a higher surface temp is required to 'push' the same amount of outgoing IR into space to match solar input.
GHG atmosphere- most surface IR is blocked close to the surface/atm boundary. evaporation/convection and conduction lift the energy to the cloudtop, and IR starts to escape as the atmosphere thins. a much higher surface temperature is required to 'push' the same amount of outgoing IR into space to match solar input. the surface radiates 400w/m2. 40w directly escapes, 25w 'pinballs' through leaving 335w being swapped back and forth between the surface and the atmosphere. of that 335w of available energy, 100w is carried aloft by evaporation/convection. 40w +25w + 100w = the 165w of solar input received at the surface. where does the other 235w go? nowhere, it is the heatsink that insulates the surface and provides an inhabitable place for us to live. stored energy that was accumulated from the solar input on the way to equilibrium. if the Sun dimmed it would continue to keep us warm at least for a little while as the stored energy in the heatsink was released.

 

[IanC]

the slayers and PSI ers like to loudly proclaim that the atmosphere itself is sufficient to determine the surface temperature. and it is true to a very general extent. but the reason it is true is because of the energy being held as a heatsink. no solar, the atmosphere is a thin frozen crust on the surface. even with our present solar input the atmosphere puffs up and relaxes as we go from day to night and back again.

 

[oldsoul]

Wow, that sounds like the last mid term. Remember, "Ebola", "Isis", "dangerous refugee children"? Remember when Obama was going to close Guantanamo and Republicans said he was going to release al Qaeda into your back yard?

Wow, you really are giving the GOP alot of credit. Last I checked, they didn't start any of those problems, mearly warned of them.

 

[oldsoul]

And finally some honesty from the left, My "...type should die."

Given you started with the "you should just die" crap, and that I was clearly mocking you by pointing out how it really applied to you, the degree of your dishonesty here is kind of shocking.

I also see you're using that phony outrage charade as an excuse to cut and run from my debunking of all the fake facts that you brainlessly parroted, right after you whined that nobody was addressing your nonsense.

It certainly didn't take long for you to reveal what you're made of. Disappointing. New denier cultists usually last a little longer with me before their inevitable meltdown.

First of all, I accually have what most people call a life, and therefore do not have unlimited time to dispel myths, and false "science" on the internet.

Second, my outrage is not phony, I am very outraged that people, like yourself, are taking things at face value. There is and always has been a clear political motivation behind the "science". I refer back to a challenge from an earlier poster: Find one scientist, funded by government or the UN, that disagrees with your "science", or maybe you can find one scientist, not funded by government or the UN, that agrees. I seroiusly doubt you can find either.

Lastly, as I stated above, I do not have the time or the inclination to educate those unwilling, or unable to look deeper that the "skin" of an issue.

 

[jc456]

And finally some honesty from the left, My "...type should die."

Given you started with the "you should just die" crap, and that I was clearly mocking you by pointing out how it really applied to you, the degree of your dishonesty here is kind of shocking.

I also see you're using that phony outrage charade as an excuse to cut and run from my debunking of all the fake facts that you brainlessly parroted, right after you whined that nobody was addressing your nonsense.

It certainly didn't take long for you to reveal what you're made of. Disappointing. New denier cultists usually last a little longer with me before their inevitable meltdown.

First of all, I accually have what most people call a life, and therefore do not have unlimited time to dispel myths, and false "science" on the internet.

Second, my outrage is not phony, I am very outraged that people, like yourself, are taking things at face value. There is and always has been a clear political motivation behind the "science". I refer back to a challenge from an earlier poster: Find one scientist, funded by government or the UN, that disagrees with your "science", or maybe you can find one scientist, not funded by government or the UN, that agrees. I seroiusly doubt you can find either.

Lastly, as I stated above, I do not have the time or the inclination to educate those unwilling, or unable to look deeper that the "skin" of an issue.

my questions were never answered. As they most never are. Funny stuff, these folks come in here talking and talking and then a question is asked and silence, crickets. Their sole intent is to scare someone. Not going to be anyone in here, but they think they have all of this power. Scare about climate is so out of date.