Climate Change Deniers Debunked

[jc456]

You can refute any time now. Ready, set, refute.......
Defense.gov News Article DOD Wraps Climate Change Response into Master Plans

what the 'f' does this mean?

"John Conger, the acting deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment told American Forces Press Service the roadmap was completed in 2012 and published early this year.

The document “had us do a variety of things,” Conger said. “But the piece that I think is the crux of the report is, rather than creating a stovepipe within the DOD organizational structure to deal with climate change, [the document says] we are going to integrate climate change considerations into the normal processes, the day-to-day jobs of everybody.”

Such language is going to be integrated into various guidance documents, he added, “and we’ve already started doing that.”"
huh, what you think it is they're going to say in the documents? Be prepared for climate change? Again, wht the 'f' does that mean. That means jack crap.

So failed. Nice try though. BTW, US armed services don't do anything in the country, national guard does. Military is for defense of the country, so what are the defending against? Rain, snow, wind, volcanoes, oops that's not climate right, yet there is more issue today with that then climate. hahahaahahahaha, you bunch of sky fallers are fnn hilarious.

" US armed services don't do anything in the country.........."
You really don't know anything about anything......do you.

Ok genius what can the military do in the country? Defend borders? Hahahaha

 

[jc456]

Oh yeah follow jumbo jets

 

[flacaltenn]

Nothing to see here.
Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

this one is perhaps the best of the documents you presented, but it was done in Bush's time? No details other than to say they must be prepared. Good for them. The action they will take is limited to the fact they have no idea what the enemy is, so doing something will be difficult since there isn't any danger.

No danger? Sez you. Actually not even you, just whoever told you.

There's really no sense bragging about the National Archives if you can't think straight. Title of this thread is about Debunking Climate Deniers.

The argument is over facts and interpretations of data. The fact that every US Federal Agency has been REQUIRED to make comments about the Dangers of Global Warming -- does not apply to this argument. The projections and the claims made for GW are either good or bad, right or wrong. There is no authority that can fix that by "consensus" creation.

MAYBE -- I'd take your offered strategic Military more seriously IF the DEMAND to comment was accompanied by guidance on what the Climate will BE IN 2100 !!!

Tell us Limimal -- What temperature increase in 2100 will represent a strategic threat to the military operations of the USA? What were those Generals told EXACTLY about the predicated changes in Weather and Resources? Were they given the WORST CASE IPCC estimates? Or were they trusted to look it up on the internet and draw their own conclusions?

It's meaningless in terms of attempting to tar "deniers".

 

[jc456]

Nothing to see here.
Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

this one is perhaps the best of the documents you presented, but it was done in Bush's time? No details other than to say they must be prepared. Good for them. The action they will take is limited to the fact they have no idea what the enemy is, so doing something will be difficult since there isn't any danger.

No danger? Sez you. Actually not even you, just whoever told you.

There's really no sense bragging about the National Archives if you can't think straight. Title of this thread is about Debunking Climate Deniers.

The argument is over facts and interpretations of data. The fact that every US Federal Agency has been REQUIRED to make comments about the Dangers of Global Warming -- does not apply to this argument. The projections and the claims made for GW are either good or bad, right or wrong. There is no authority that can fix that by "consensus" creation.

MAYBE -- I'd take your offered strategic Military more seriously IF the DEMAND to comment was accompanied by guidance on what the Climate will BE IN 2100 !!!

Tell us Limimal -- What temperature increase in 2100 will represent a strategic threat to the military operations of the USA? What were those Generals told EXACTLY about the predicated changes in Weather and Resources? Were they given the WORST CASE IPCC estimates? Or were they trusted to look it up on the internet and draw their own conclusions?

It's meaningless in terms of attempting to tar "deniers".

That's all that dude is about

 

[Liminal]

Nothing to see here.
Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

this one is perhaps the best of the documents you presented, but it was done in Bush's time? No details other than to say they must be prepared. Good for them. The action they will take is limited to the fact they have no idea what the enemy is, so doing something will be difficult since there isn't any danger.

No danger? Sez you. Actually not even you, just whoever told you.

There's really no sense bragging about the National Archives if you can't think straight. Title of this thread is about Debunking Climate Deniers.

The argument is over facts and interpretations of data. The fact that every US Federal Agency has been REQUIRED to make comments about the Dangers of Global Warming -- does not apply to this argument. The projections and the claims made for GW are either good or bad, right or wrong. There is no authority that can fix that by "consensus" creation.

MAYBE -- I'd take your offered strategic Military more seriously IF the DEMAND to comment was accompanied by guidance on what the Climate will BE IN 2100 !!!

Tell us Limimal -- What temperature increase in 2100 will represent a strategic threat to the military operations of the USA? What were those Generals told EXACTLY about the predicated changes in Weather and Resources? Were they given the WORST CASE IPCC estimates? Or were they trusted to look it up on the internet and draw their own conclusions?

It's meaningless in terms of attempting to tar "deniers".

Well I certainly am fortunate to have someone of your caliber around to tell me how to think straight.

 

[Liminal]

Nothing to see here.
Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

this one is perhaps the best of the documents you presented, but it was done in Bush's time? No details other than to say they must be prepared. Good for them. The action they will take is limited to the fact they have no idea what the enemy is, so doing something will be difficult since there isn't any danger.

No danger? Sez you. Actually not even you, just whoever told you.

There's really no sense bragging about the National Archives if you can't think straight. Title of this thread is about Debunking Climate Deniers.

The argument is over facts and interpretations of data. The fact that every US Federal Agency has been REQUIRED to make comments about the Dangers of Global Warming -- does not apply to this argument. The projections and the claims made for GW are either good or bad, right or wrong. There is no authority that can fix that by "consensus" creation.

MAYBE -- I'd take your offered strategic Military more seriously IF the DEMAND to comment was accompanied by guidance on what the Climate will BE IN 2100 !!!

Tell us Limimal -- What temperature increase in 2100 will represent a strategic threat to the military operations of the USA? What were those Generals told EXACTLY about the predicated changes in Weather and Resources? Were they given the WORST CASE IPCC estimates? Or were they trusted to look it up on the internet and draw their own conclusions?

It's meaningless in terms of attempting to tar "deniers".

Why not ask Mitch McConnell? He knows as much about science as you or anyone else on this forum.

 

[jc456]

Let's hear what a prominent Republican leader has to say about climate change.

I really don't care what a republican leader says? I don't need them

That's nice, I really don't care about what you don't care about.

I don't care. Not sure what your end game is. You're just another schmuck on a message board who thinks his shit don't stink. Dude, you smell to high heaven! You've added zip to the OP!

 

[Liminal]

You can refute any time now. Ready, set, refute.......
Defense.gov News Article DOD Wraps Climate Change Response into Master Plans

what the 'f' does this mean?

"John Conger, the acting deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment told American Forces Press Service the roadmap was completed in 2012 and published early this year.

The document “had us do a variety of things,” Conger said. “But the piece that I think is the crux of the report is, rather than creating a stovepipe within the DOD organizational structure to deal with climate change, [the document says] we are going to integrate climate change considerations into the normal processes, the day-to-day jobs of everybody.”

Such language is going to be integrated into various guidance documents, he added, “and we’ve already started doing that.”"
huh, what you think it is they're going to say in the documents? Be prepared for climate change? Again, wht the 'f' does that mean. That means jack crap.

So failed. Nice try though. BTW, US armed services don't do anything in the country, national guard does. Military is for defense of the country, so what are the defending against? Rain, snow, wind, volcanoes, oops that's not climate right, yet there is more issue today with that then climate. hahahaahahahaha, you bunch of sky fallers are fnn hilarious.

" US armed services don't do anything in the country.........."
You really don't know anything about anything......do you.

Ok genius what can the military do in the country? Defend borders? Hahahaha

You shouldn't talk about subjects you obviously don't know anything about. I might just as well be discussing this nation's defense planning and operational capabilities with a German Shepherd....he barks and wags his tail, but he doesn't really understand.

 

[eagle1462010]

No.. Simply "deniers" are pointing out the exaggerations and claims that were DESIGNED to misleading in order to further a socio-political agenda. And it's really not hard to do.. For instance..

Do you know about IPCC? Have you read their simple "mission statement"? Do you think that they are a purveyor of OBJECTIVE Climate science with the obvious bias in their mission statement. The "agenda" ain't hidden. It's right there in your face. Every time that some politician declares that "the science is over".. The only thing that's over is the free ride these scientists have had being used and rewarded as political tools..

So then we are apparently supposed to believe that there exists an international conspiracy of scientists and governments to suppress the truth about global climate change. Is that right?

Of course !! It's not hidden. It's in your face. Now I'm gonna give you one data point. The significance of that data is the following. Once you read the quote below -- you can honestly claim to be totally ignorant of ANY statements admitting the true socio-political agenda behind the Global Warming Extravaganza.

The guy is a lead "investigator" for the IPCC. A "Climate Economics" specialist. And he sits in approval meetings for the scientific "consensus" statements coming out of that grand body..

Climate Talks or Wealth Redistribution Talks

NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Poof -- If youre honest -- you are innoculated from your innocent view of Global Warming hype.

Feel free to explain how nearly every civilized nation on earth officially agrees with the science of global climate change. How did that happen? Did they all meet one day at Applebees to plan this diabolical conspiracy? Have the real scientists been silenced and the truth suppressed?

Nope.. They meet at the UN every few years to present ONLY the Climate science relevent to MAN-CAUSED Global Warming. Then they all try to mug the industrialized world for money.

These "position statements by professional society are never voted on by the membership. They are drafted by the front office to ADMIT their bias and pledge their loyalties to all their sponsors. Like the BILLIONS of research dollars available IF --- you can swallow your pride and make your work SOUND like their prepackaged conclusion that man is wrecking the planet and money and power is required to fix that.

In fact -- 2nd data pt. The Geological Society of Australia had a Global Warming/Climate Policy Statement for YEARS.. Revised several times all without input from the membership. Last time they tried to revise it -- the membership demanded to be involved. They no longer HAVE a policy statement on Climate Change. Worthless as a Congressional Investigation I tell you.. Not like in the movies where the society members all meet in the Old Harvard lecture hall and hammer out a proclamation of truth.

I sense you're not really interested in learning this kind of conflicting information. Seriously,

DID you really think those policy positions are NOT political?

That must be why the military planners of all the industrialized nations are making contingency plans based on global climate change scenarios. Maybe they just don't have anything better to do, you know since they aren't concerned about terrorism or Chinese expansionism, or Russian resurgence. They must be thinking about stuff like that because it's stylish and trendy. You know how liberal those military guys can be.

he he he ha ha ha ha

he haw he haw he haw...........

Military planning a attack on global warming................lol

 

[jc456]

Nothing to see here.
Does Our Military Know Something We Don t About Global Warming - Forbes

this one is perhaps the best of the documents you presented, but it was done in Bush's time? No details other than to say they must be prepared. Good for them. The action they will take is limited to the fact they have no idea what the enemy is, so doing something will be difficult since there isn't any danger.

No danger? Sez you. Actually not even you, just whoever told you.

There's really no sense bragging about the National Archives if you can't think straight. Title of this thread is about Debunking Climate Deniers.

The argument is over facts and interpretations of data. The fact that every US Federal Agency has been REQUIRED to make comments about the Dangers of Global Warming -- does not apply to this argument. The projections and the claims made for GW are either good or bad, right or wrong. There is no authority that can fix that by "consensus" creation.

MAYBE -- I'd take your offered strategic Military more seriously IF the DEMAND to comment was accompanied by guidance on what the Climate will BE IN 2100 !!!

Tell us Limimal -- What temperature increase in 2100 will represent a strategic threat to the military operations of the USA? What were those Generals told EXACTLY about the predicated changes in Weather and Resources? Were they given the WORST CASE IPCC estimates? Or were they trusted to look it up on the internet and draw their own conclusions?

It's meaningless in terms of attempting to tar "deniers".

Why not ask Mitch McConnell? He knows as much about science as you or anyone else on this forum.

Wow how insightful. Like obama

 

[jc456]

And every military leader!

 

[Crick]

Since it has been a denier fundamental that concern about AGW is a liberal, democratic hoax, bringing in a well known conservative's opinion on AGW is completely pertinent to the thread's theme. Certainly, jc, many, many times more pertinent than the VAST majority of meaningless drivel you post.

 

[jc456]

Since it has been a denier fundamental that concern about AGW is a liberal, democratic hoax, bringing in a well known conservative's opinion on AGW is completely pertinent to the thread's theme. Certainly, jc, many, many times more pertinent than the VAST majority of meaningless drivel you post.

Who's said that but you all, you know all you genius'

 

[Liminal]

Let's hear what a prominent Republican leader has to say about climate change.

I really don't care what a republican leader says? I don't need them

That's nice, I really don't care about what you don't care about.

I don't care. Not sure what your end game is. You're just another schmuck on a message board who thinks his shit don't stink. Dude, you smell to high heaven! You've added zip to the OP!

By contrast, you should be proud of your amazing mediocrity, your incredibly ordinary, undistinguished and unexceptional contributions set a standard for others to follow.

 

[jc456]

You can refute any time now. Ready, set, refute.......
Defense.gov News Article DOD Wraps Climate Change Response into Master Plans

what the 'f' does this mean?

"John Conger, the acting deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment told American Forces Press Service the roadmap was completed in 2012 and published early this year.

The document “had us do a variety of things,” Conger said. “But the piece that I think is the crux of the report is, rather than creating a stovepipe within the DOD organizational structure to deal with climate change, [the document says] we are going to integrate climate change considerations into the normal processes, the day-to-day jobs of everybody.”

Such language is going to be integrated into various guidance documents, he added, “and we’ve already started doing that.”"
huh, what you think it is they're going to say in the documents? Be prepared for climate change? Again, wht the 'f' does that mean. That means jack crap.

So failed. Nice try though. BTW, US armed services don't do anything in the country, national guard does. Military is for defense of the country, so what are the defending against? Rain, snow, wind, volcanoes, oops that's not climate right, yet there is more issue today with that then climate. hahahaahahahaha, you bunch of sky fallers are fnn hilarious.

" US armed services don't do anything in the country.........."
You really don't know anything about anything......do you.

Ok genius what can the military do in the country? Defend borders? Hahahaha

You shouldn't talk about subjects you obviously don't know anything about. I might just as well be discussing this nation's defense planning and operational capabilities with a German Shepherd....he barks and wags his tail, but he doesn't really understand.

He/she would bury you

 

[Crick]

Since it has been a denier fundamental that concern about AGW is a liberal, democratic hoax, bringing in a well known conservative's opinion on AGW is completely pertinent to the thread's theme. Certainly, jc, many, many times more pertinent than the VAST majority of meaningless drivel you post.

Who's said that but you all, you know all you genius'

You haven't noticed anyone on your side of this argument making comments about liberals? Really?

 

[jc456]

Let's hear what a prominent Republican leader has to say about climate change.

I really don't care what a republican leader says? I don't need them

That's nice, I really don't care about what you don't care about.

I don't care. Not sure what your end game is. You're just another schmuck on a message board who thinks his shit don't stink. Dude, you smell to high heaven! You've added zip to the OP!

By contrast, you should be proud of your amazing mediocrity, your incredibly ordinary, undistinguished and unexceptional contributions set a standard for others to follow.

I don't need the likes of you to tell me anything

 

[jc456]

Since it has been a denier fundamental that concern about AGW is a liberal, democratic hoax, bringing in a well known conservative's opinion on AGW is completely pertinent to the thread's theme. Certainly, jc, many, many times more pertinent than the VAST majority of meaningless drivel you post.

Who's said that but you all, you know all you genius'

You haven't noticed anyone on your side of this argument making comments about liberals? Really?

Yeah so?

 

[jc456]

You are truly a short sided guy

 

[jc456]

So then we are apparently supposed to believe that there exists an international conspiracy of scientists and governments to suppress the truth about global climate change. Is that right?

Of course !! It's not hidden. It's in your face. Now I'm gonna give you one data point. The significance of that data is the following. Once you read the quote below -- you can honestly claim to be totally ignorant of ANY statements admitting the true socio-political agenda behind the Global Warming Extravaganza.

The guy is a lead "investigator" for the IPCC. A "Climate Economics" specialist. And he sits in approval meetings for the scientific "consensus" statements coming out of that grand body..

Climate Talks or Wealth Redistribution Talks

NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

Edenhofer: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Poof -- If youre honest -- you are innoculated from your innocent view of Global Warming hype.

Feel free to explain how nearly every civilized nation on earth officially agrees with the science of global climate change. How did that happen? Did they all meet one day at Applebees to plan this diabolical conspiracy? Have the real scientists been silenced and the truth suppressed?

Nope.. They meet at the UN every few years to present ONLY the Climate science relevent to MAN-CAUSED Global Warming. Then they all try to mug the industrialized world for money.

These "position statements by professional society are never voted on by the membership. They are drafted by the front office to ADMIT their bias and pledge their loyalties to all their sponsors. Like the BILLIONS of research dollars available IF --- you can swallow your pride and make your work SOUND like their prepackaged conclusion that man is wrecking the planet and money and power is required to fix that.

In fact -- 2nd data pt. The Geological Society of Australia had a Global Warming/Climate Policy Statement for YEARS.. Revised several times all without input from the membership. Last time they tried to revise it -- the membership demanded to be involved. They no longer HAVE a policy statement on Climate Change. Worthless as a Congressional Investigation I tell you.. Not like in the movies where the society members all meet in the Old Harvard lecture hall and hammer out a proclamation of truth.

I sense you're not really interested in learning this kind of conflicting information. Seriously,

DID you really think those policy positions are NOT political?

That must be why the military planners of all the industrialized nations are making contingency plans based on global climate change scenarios. Maybe they just don't have anything better to do, you know since they aren't concerned about terrorism or Chinese expansionism, or Russian resurgence. They must be thinking about stuff like that because it's stylish and trendy. You know how liberal those military guys can be.

he he he ha ha ha ha

he haw he haw he haw...........

Military planning a attack on global warming................lol

I know, right?Still unclear what it has to do with the OP