Are humans changning planet Earth?

[skookerasbil]

Yeah, I did. But AGW IS political....no getting around that. Too many scientists do say the science is't settled. There are the scientists that are jumping off the warmist band wagon.

The science is manifestly not political. Any policies related to it have become political by pundants, most of whom don't actually understand the science. Now, to you care to discuss the videos, or are you going to troll?

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it trolling. And, yes it is political. When there is the redistribution of wealth on the global scale, it becomes political....no matter what your talking points are.

Exactly.......he just doesn't like getting pwned.


He put up some nonsense implying that the weather is getting more extreme and posted up a recent photo ( like every good AGW nut does ) and I respond with hundreds of extreme weather events over the past several hundred years. That completely blows the shit out of the whole extreme weather ruse these dicks have been playing for a few years now.......decimates the shit out of it.




Are the far left limpwristers not the most predictable assholes walking the planet? They missed the memo about having to buckle up your chinstrap in life once in awhile. Fairies.......

 

[skookerasbil]

And by the way........and this one makes me laugh........69% of Americans think that the science is doctored >>>>


69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?

 

[Meister]

By David Attenborough:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51mWYhVmek

Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 “Climategate” e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda.
In 2006, Lovelock, one of the world’s most famous environmentalist gurus, asserted that due to global warming “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” He now says his predictions were “alarmist,” and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a “green religion.” Lovelock also endorses nuclear power and expanded development of natural gas through hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” But his ultimate heresy is his withering rejection of so-called “renewable energy,” especially wind power, as a viable replacement for carbon-based fuels.

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is another recent green heretic.
“The CO2 Lie: Renowned team of scientists claim the climate catastrophe is fear-mongering by politics.” Bild followed up with a series of stories on Vahrenholt’s defection and the mounting evidence of massive fraud from the climate alarmists.
Vahrenholt faults the IPCC for, among other things, treating the solar influence on our climate as negligible. Current research by many scientists, he points out, indicates “it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years.”
» ?Climate Science? in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

The fanatical proponents of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming, or AGW, have powerful supporters with deep pockets who keep resuscitating them. They have a massive institutional base among Big Government, Big Media, Big Foundations, Big Business, and Big Green, all of which have huge incentives to perpetuate AGW alarmism. No matter how many times the AGW fearmongers’ predictions are shot down, they are resurrected and sent back to frighten more voters/taxpayers into submission to global policies, taxes, and controls. Utilizing brute power and deception, they intend to reverse de La Rochefoucauld’s prediction and see the facts murdered by their own triumphant theory.
Climate ?Consensus? Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report

A large number of noted climatologists, paleoclimatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers, geologists, and scientists in virtually every field has been challenging the claims of the UN’s IPCC and vigorously denouncing the politicization of IPCC “science” to promote costly and draconian global policies. Some of the IPCC’s most severe critics are scientists who have served as lead authors and expert reviewers of IPCC reports and have witnessed from the inside the blatant bias and politics masquerading as science. Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC’s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as:

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;

Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA;

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas;

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences;

Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher;

Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway;

Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans.

The above-mentioned IPCC experts represent only a tiny subset of the scientists involved in the climate debate who take serious issue with the alarmist claims. More than 31,000 scientists in the United States have signed a petition urging the U.S. government to reject the kinds of AGW policies proposed by the UN and environmental extremists. The Petition Project, organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refutes claims that there is any kind of “consensus” regarding man-made global warming as a crisis or existential threat.
?Climate Science? in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda - Coalition to Govern America | Govern America with Darren Weeks & Nancy Levant

Oh, and I know how you like YOUTUBE, so here ya go:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Y9EZDdpUw]Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses - YouTube[/ame]

I hope that you now can see that there is more to the picture than meets the eye, O.

I know, I know all of this is bogus and your guy is the ONE.

 

[skookerasbil]

Meister bringing it...........

Post of the year right there above ^^^



And isn't it funny to see these dopes spiking the football on their "settled science" and meanwhile, the congress has not lifted a finger on climate change in years and years. We have about 10% of the population that is angst 24/7 about stoopid shit like global warming. The rest of the people couldn't give a rats ass. Nobody is calling their representative and the most recent PEW poll in voters concerns had global warming off the grid ( wasn't in the top 20 ). Yuk......yuk......

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah, I did. But AGW IS political....no getting around that. Too many scientists do say the science is't settled. There are the scientists that are jumping off the warmist band wagon.

The science is manifestly not political. Any policies related to it have become political by pundants, most of whom don't actually understand the science. Now, to you care to discuss the videos, or are you going to troll?

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it trolling. And, yes it is political. When there is the redistribution of wealth on the global scale, it becomes political....no matter what your talking points are.

Again, you are talking policy, not the science.

 

[Meister]

The science is manifestly not political. Any policies related to it have become political by pundants, most of whom don't actually understand the science. Now, to you care to discuss the videos, or are you going to troll?

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it trolling. And, yes it is political. When there is the redistribution of wealth on the global scale, it becomes political....no matter what your talking points are.

Again, you are talking policy, not the science.

Actually.....read further down to my next post, ok?

 

[SwimExpert]

Humans are not changing the planet. Mother Nature is changing the planet.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am not interested in your political views. I am interested in scientific appraisals of the David Attenborough videos I've posted here. Did you even watch them?

Yeah, I did. But AGW IS political....no getting around that. Too many scientists do say the science is't settled. There are the scientists that are jumping off the warmist band wagon.

The science is manifestly not political. Any policies related to it have become political by pundants, most of whom don't actually understand the science. Now, to you care to discuss the videos, or are you going to troll?

Politics have harmed science greatly...Turning the people sour against science. Makes me sad....

 

[orogenicman]

Humans are not changing the planet. Mother Nature is changing the planet.

Right. Humans are NOT changing the planet. You should show these pictures to your grandchildren, and watch their expression when you tell them that humans are not changing the planet. Choke on it, asshole. Unfucking-believeable:

 

[Old Rocks]

Just because you don't like reality doesn't make it trolling. And, yes it is political. When there is the redistribution of wealth on the global scale, it becomes political....no matter what your talking points are.

Again, you are talking policy, not the science.

Actually.....read further down to my next post, ok?

OK. So you have a few whores in the scientific community. I mean, Lindzen is a real catch, testified that tobacco is harmless in front of Congress. He has tenure at MIT, and damned little else. No scientfic credibility left.

In the meantime, what scientific society supports your point of view? Give me one, even in Outer Slobovia. Same for National Academies of Science for the various nations. How about major Universities. There is as complete of a consensus among scientists on AGW as there is on evolution.

 

[SwimExpert]

Right. Humans are NOT changing the planet. You should show these pictures to your grandchildren, and watch their expression when you tell them that humans are not changing the planet.

Humans are animals just like any other in the world. When a beaver dams a body of water, does anyone say that he is changing the planet? Of course not. We call that nature.

A few years ago some biologists were observing a pride of Lions in Africa when they collected the body of a female who had died shortly after a hunt after being attacked by Wildebeest. The scientists did an thorough examination on the body, including DNA tests. And in the process decided to do a DNA test on the fresh meal in the cat's stomach. The lioness had picked off calf and partially ate it shortly before the cat's death. And that's when something interesting turned up.

It wasn't recognized initially. Matter of fact, it almost wasn't recognized at all. But about 6 months after the DNA test was done, one particular expert heard about the test and decided to review the results for the sake of academic curiosity. To his amazement he discovered that there was a gene sequence that was not right. It couldn't be right. This particular gene sequence is universal among Wildebeest. Since nobody has thus far mapped their genome, nobody is positive what this particular gene does. All they know is that there's never been a Wildebeest whose DNA has been extracted who did not have this precisely matched gene sequence. That is, until it was found in the belly of a dead lion.

The discovery was a pretty big deal. Experts believe that it was a random mutation with evolutionary implications if the calf had survived. Again, not knowing what the gene in question does in the first place, it's impossible to guess whether this new mutation would ever spread through the gene pool. Nonetheless, it is a singularly observed deviation from a genetic marker which otherwise has been considered the single definitive identifier for an entire species. And whatever the future evolution of its species may have been, it ended when that Wildebeest calf was torn apart by a lion.

So I ask you: Are lions changing the world? Or is Mother Nature changing the world?

Choke on it, asshole. Unfucking-believeable

I'm not sure which is more incomprehensible. The fact that you're having an emotional temper tantrum over nothing. Or the fact that you bothered to ask a question but are taking such irrational exception to anyone not providing the precise answer you wish.

 

[Old Rocks]

Right. Humans are NOT changing the planet. You should show these pictures to your grandchildren, and watch their expression when you tell them that humans are not changing the planet.

Humans are animals just like any other in the world. When a beaver dams a body of water, does anyone say that he is changing the planet? Of course not. We call that nature.

A few years ago some biologists were observing a pride of Lions in Africa when they collected the body of a female who had died shortly after a hunt after being attacked by Wildebeest. The scientists did an thorough examination on the body, including DNA tests. And in the process decided to do a DNA test on the fresh meal in the cat's stomach. The lioness had picked off calf and partially ate it shortly before the cat's death. And that's when something interesting turned up.

It wasn't recognized initially. Matter of fact, it almost wasn't recognized at all. But about 6 months after the DNA test was done, one particular expert heard about the test and decided to review the results for the sake of academic curiosity. To his amazement he discovered that there was a gene sequence that was not right. It couldn't be right. This particular gene sequence is universal among Wildebeest. Since nobody has thus far mapped their genome, nobody is positive what this particular gene does. All they know is that there's never been a Wildebeest whose DNA has been extracted who did not have this precisely matched gene sequence. That is, until it was found in the belly of a dead lion.

The discovery was a pretty big deal. Experts believe that it was a random mutation with evolutionary implications if the calf had survived. Again, not knowing what the gene in question does in the first place, it's impossible to guess whether this new mutation would ever spread through the gene pool. Nonetheless, it is a singularly observed deviation from a genetic marker which otherwise has been considered the single definitive identifier for an entire species. And whatever the future evolution of its species may have been, it ended when that Wildebeest calf was torn apart by a lion.

So I ask you: Are lions changing the world? Or is Mother Nature changing the world?

Choke on it, asshole. Unfucking-believeable

I'm not sure which is more incomprehensible. The fact that you're having an emotional temper tantrum over nothing. Or the fact that you bothered to ask a question but are taking such irrational exception to anyone not providing the precise answer you wish.

Nice story, utterly meaningless concering the subject at hand.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nice story, utterly meaningless concering the subject at hand.

No, it's a different perspective than the one you want to focus on.

 

[orogenicman]

Again, you are talking policy, not the science.

Actually.....read further down to my next post, ok?

OK. So you have a few whores in the scientific community. I mean, Lindzen is a real catch, testified that tobacco is harmless in front of Congress. He has tenure at MIT, and damned little else. No scientfic credibility left.

In the meantime, what scientific society supports your point of view? Give me one, even in Outer Slobovia. Same for National Academies of Science for the various nations. How about major Universities. There is as complete of a consensus among scientists on AGW as there is on evolution.

A company I worked for about 15 years ago used to have an MIT graduate P.E. in it's employ. He's was dumber than a brick. He eventually proved it to everyone in the company, and was fired. So when someone tells me they went to school at MIT, I am NOT automatically impressed.

 

[orogenicman]

Right. Humans are NOT changing the planet. You should show these pictures to your grandchildren, and watch their expression when you tell them that humans are not changing the planet.

Humans are animals just like any other in the world. When a beaver dams a body of water, does anyone say that he is changing the planet? Of course not. We call that nature.

A few years ago some biologists were observing a pride of Lions in Africa when they collected the body of a female who had died shortly after a hunt after being attacked by Wildebeest. The scientists did an thorough examination on the body, including DNA tests. And in the process decided to do a DNA test on the fresh meal in the cat's stomach. The lioness had picked off calf and partially ate it shortly before the cat's death. And that's when something interesting turned up.

It wasn't recognized initially. Matter of fact, it almost wasn't recognized at all. But about 6 months after the DNA test was done, one particular expert heard about the test and decided to review the results for the sake of academic curiosity. To his amazement he discovered that there was a gene sequence that was not right. It couldn't be right. This particular gene sequence is universal among Wildebeest. Since nobody has thus far mapped their genome, nobody is positive what this particular gene does. All they know is that there's never been a Wildebeest whose DNA has been extracted who did not have this precisely matched gene sequence. That is, until it was found in the belly of a dead lion.

The discovery was a pretty big deal. Experts believe that it was a random mutation with evolutionary implications if the calf had survived. Again, not knowing what the gene in question does in the first place, it's impossible to guess whether this new mutation would ever spread through the gene pool. Nonetheless, it is a singularly observed deviation from a genetic marker which otherwise has been considered the single definitive identifier for an entire species. And whatever the future evolution of its species may have been, it ended when that Wildebeest calf was torn apart by a lion.

So I ask you: Are lions changing the world? Or is Mother Nature changing the world?

Choke on it, asshole. Unfucking-believeable

I'm not sure which is more incomprehensible. The fact that you're having an emotional temper tantrum over nothing. Or the fact that you bothered to ask a question but are taking such irrational exception to anyone not providing the precise answer you wish.

Wow, misdirection of the year. You really should show those pictures to your children and grandchildren and explain your rationale for your claim that man is NOT changing the world. Then take a bottle of Xanax, because, damn!

 

[SwimExpert]

Once again, the fruit loops crowd demonstrates their inability to confront intelligent discussion.

 

[Meister]

Right. Humans are NOT changing the planet. You should show these pictures to your grandchildren, and watch their expression when you tell them that humans are not changing the planet.

Humans are animals just like any other in the world. When a beaver dams a body of water, does anyone say that he is changing the planet? Of course not. We call that nature.

A few years ago some biologists were observing a pride of Lions in Africa when they collected the body of a female who had died shortly after a hunt after being attacked by Wildebeest. The scientists did an thorough examination on the body, including DNA tests. And in the process decided to do a DNA test on the fresh meal in the cat's stomach. The lioness had picked off calf and partially ate it shortly before the cat's death. And that's when something interesting turned up.

It wasn't recognized initially. Matter of fact, it almost wasn't recognized at all. But about 6 months after the DNA test was done, one particular expert heard about the test and decided to review the results for the sake of academic curiosity. To his amazement he discovered that there was a gene sequence that was not right. It couldn't be right. This particular gene sequence is universal among Wildebeest. Since nobody has thus far mapped their genome, nobody is positive what this particular gene does. All they know is that there's never been a Wildebeest whose DNA has been extracted who did not have this precisely matched gene sequence. That is, until it was found in the belly of a dead lion.

The discovery was a pretty big deal. Experts believe that it was a random mutation with evolutionary implications if the calf had survived. Again, not knowing what the gene in question does in the first place, it's impossible to guess whether this new mutation would ever spread through the gene pool. Nonetheless, it is a singularly observed deviation from a genetic marker which otherwise has been considered the single definitive identifier for an entire species. And whatever the future evolution of its species may have been, it ended when that Wildebeest calf was torn apart by a lion.

So I ask you: Are lions changing the world? Or is Mother Nature changing the world?

Choke on it, asshole. Unfucking-believeable

I'm not sure which is more incomprehensible. The fact that you're having an emotional temper tantrum over nothing. Or the fact that you bothered to ask a question but are taking such irrational exception to anyone not providing the precise answer you wish.

Wow, misdirection of the year. You really should show those pictures to your children and grandchildren and explain your rationale for your claim that man is NOT changing the world. Then take a bottle of Xanax, because, damn!

The premise of your thread is vague if you're going down this trail, C. Highways, cities,parking lots, cutting trees, and mining, etc have changed this planet.

 

[orogenicman]

Humans are animals just like any other in the world. When a beaver dams a body of water, does anyone say that he is changing the planet? Of course not. We call that nature.

A few years ago some biologists were observing a pride of Lions in Africa when they collected the body of a female who had died shortly after a hunt after being attacked by Wildebeest. The scientists did an thorough examination on the body, including DNA tests. And in the process decided to do a DNA test on the fresh meal in the cat's stomach. The lioness had picked off calf and partially ate it shortly before the cat's death. And that's when something interesting turned up.

It wasn't recognized initially. Matter of fact, it almost wasn't recognized at all. But about 6 months after the DNA test was done, one particular expert heard about the test and decided to review the results for the sake of academic curiosity. To his amazement he discovered that there was a gene sequence that was not right. It couldn't be right. This particular gene sequence is universal among Wildebeest. Since nobody has thus far mapped their genome, nobody is positive what this particular gene does. All they know is that there's never been a Wildebeest whose DNA has been extracted who did not have this precisely matched gene sequence. That is, until it was found in the belly of a dead lion.

The discovery was a pretty big deal. Experts believe that it was a random mutation with evolutionary implications if the calf had survived. Again, not knowing what the gene in question does in the first place, it's impossible to guess whether this new mutation would ever spread through the gene pool. Nonetheless, it is a singularly observed deviation from a genetic marker which otherwise has been considered the single definitive identifier for an entire species. And whatever the future evolution of its species may have been, it ended when that Wildebeest calf was torn apart by a lion.

So I ask you: Are lions changing the world? Or is Mother Nature changing the world?

I'm not sure which is more incomprehensible. The fact that you're having an emotional temper tantrum over nothing. Or the fact that you bothered to ask a question but are taking such irrational exception to anyone not providing the precise answer you wish.

Wow, misdirection of the year. You really should show those pictures to your children and grandchildren and explain your rationale for your claim that man is NOT changing the world. Then take a bottle of Xanax, because, damn!

The premise of your thread is vague if you're going down this trail, C. Highways, cities,parking lots, cutting trees, and mining, etc have changed this planet.

More misdirection. The premise of the thread is very specific, and is presented in the video in the OP. You do recall the OP, right?

 

[Mr. H.]

More misdirection. The premise of the thread is very specific, and is presented in the video in the OP. You do recall the OP, right?

A 58:24 treatise about how humans don't belong on earth but since they're here anyway they have no other purpose than to fuck it up?

Save this nonsense for the tabloids.

And while you're at it, please quit shitting. It musses up the earth - which, BTW is a no-exhale zone.

Please snuff yourself at the door.

 

[Mr. H.]

Hey, oreometimucil, where does your shit go once it leaves your ass?

Just askin'.