Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What I find amusing is the number of progressives who act like complete children when they don't get their way. They pout, they whine, they snivel. These idiots have never grown up and become adults! The clown faces on here have run to momma and whined about some supposed terrible thing that I have done to them that it is truly funny. They demand we listen to them but they are nothing more than children.
they are sore losers, they are losing. Mamooth like organic man like to go crying to the mods on here. whiney little cry babies they are.What I find amusing is the number of progressives who act like complete children when they don't get their way. They pout, they whine, they snivel. These idiots have never grown up and become adults! The clown faces on here have run to momma and whined about some supposed terrible thing that I have done to them that it is truly funny. They demand we listen to them but they are nothing more than children.
Telling a Moon Bat the facts on this horseshit about AGW being a cruel scam is like trying to tell a seven year old child that there isn't a Santa Claus. They instinctively know you are right but they don't want to admit it because then they have to admit being duped all those years.
No, you do not need to repeat yourself. Just make yourself coherent. Solar and Wind use oil, they increase the use of oil. So you stated you do not support using solar and wind to create energy.We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.The GW fearist love of science is the love of believing what they are told without one ounce of thought. That is no more science then believing in the Easter Bunny.
So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.
No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.
Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.
And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?
As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?
If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.
No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?
No, you do not need to repeat yourself. Just make yourself coherent. Solar and Wind use oil, they increase the use of oil. So you stated you do not support using solar and wind to create energy.We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.So what you are saying is that every scientific organization on the planet is wrong, but you, an unknown poser on the internet, is right. I love reading these delusions of yours. They provide hours of laughter.
No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.
Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.
And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?
As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?
If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.
No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?
Westwall, now that is another one of your lies. Orogenic has stated from the start that he is a geologist. You are the one that claims a Phd in that subject, then consistently shows ignorance even in the science of geology. And you are the one that consistently calls scientists frauds.[
That is not what I said, but you new that already. Some conservatives do, in fact, have an understanding of the science, and despite pressure from the retardedright, agree that global warming is real, has a significant manmade component (what do you think pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every years is doing to it?), and a growing world problem. But they are a tiny minority of conservatives in this country, the only ones, in fact, that have the guts to man up and acknowledge the facts. So why don't you man up?
You scammers don't know much about science.
I am a geologist, actually. You?
flash said:You know little or nothing about how COs reacts in the atmosphere. What we have found out it that it does not react as the computer models show because the life cycle is much shorter. The ocean is a great buffer of CO2 not to mention that when CO2 levels rise plant life thrives and converts it into O2.
You have no idea what I know. Don't pretend that you can read minds over the internet, because you cannot. The ocean is a finite buffer. Ignore the increasing acidity of the world's oceans at the peril of everyone. You do realize, don't you, that many of the world's oceanic life lives under very restrictive pH conditions? You didn't know this? Huh.
flash said:Currently the atmosphere is only .039% CO2.
0.9% Argon
21% O2
78% N2
A few fractions of percentiles is not going to drastically alter the climate.
It already has.
flash said:Here is an historical data chart of temperature and CO2. The CO2 levels were rising long before the industrial age.
Those are not historical data charts. Try again, particularly as you have posted graphs from an uncited source.
How about these, from real sources:
A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11 300 Years
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/108.htm&ei=jKzaVLXeMsaqNr7HgMgK&usg=AFQjCNFGrXMo21stU74IJRF3OkvrtbL3_Q&sig2=2a-WgBS2z3UhEuZrViskeg
RealClimate Paleoclimate The End of the Holocene
Past Present and Future Temperatures the Hockeystick FAQ Union of Concerned Scientists
CO2 and Temperature Data
Climate Change
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=22&ved=0CCUQFjABOBQ&url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf&ei=667aVLToL4yXNvPngpAN&usg=AFQjCNHrT-lNrFdEO3p-1WM0gXV8e-3Img&sig2=oEyoTlPwr9KkdDaAjPUI4A
You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!
Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
OK, asshole, you hit me with a message about a post that was irrelevant to the subject being discussed, so what the hell is this post but totally irrelevant to the subject at hand?You keep changing your story. Next thing you'll be an atmospheric physicist!
Where have I changed my story? By the way, I do hope you accuse me of being someone else again like you have so many times in the past. I've already reported you to one of the administrators. Have a good evening.
Big deal. It's not against the rules to accuse someone of being a sock, olfraud.
When you do it over and over again, it is called harassment. And THAT is against the rules.
OH GAWD
WTF??!!! How the fcuk to these people end up becoming such pronounced limpwristers?
Somehow......progressives learned to succumb in life at every turn. Its fascinating. Let me tell you something........if you are ever in a fox hole with one of these people, kick them the fuck out immediately!
What I find amusing is the number of progressives who act like complete children when they don't get their way. They pout, they whine, they snivel. These idiots have never grown up and become adults! The clown faces on here have run to momma and whined about some supposed terrible thing that I have done to them that it is truly funny. They demand we listen to them but they are nothing more than children.
Read it all here: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
And what will liberals respond with? The very "fiddled data" that this article addresses that somehow "proves" global warming.
I figured out this was a scam more than 30 years ago. It became obvious after they switched from the "coming ice age" to global warming.
On top of that, they used global warming to attack the United States. Far bigger polluters like China and the Soviet Union got nary a mention.
It was just too obvious the entire thing was a political scam, not to save the environment, but to attack capitalism and the United States.
Now, like eugenics before this, this "settled science" is being exposed for the fraud it is. Oh, the "true believers" (aka those making money from this fraud and their useful idiots) will cling to this long after it's obvious it's a fraud.
Like spiritualism, the "true believers" just don't want to admit they were scammed. Everyone else will be laughing, and wondering why, in the evidence of cold winters how anyone believed this nonsense.
You really are a moron...Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.SO NOT exposing fraud, waste and abuse are ok with you..
If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.
bb said:I recognized the foul elitist stench long ago. I find it very disheartening that some one claiming to be a scientist would hang his hat on manufactured data from the CRU and those around them. Rewriting the climate record and then dumping the original empirical data for the manufactured one..
That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.
Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.
Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.
gawd.... left wits are so gullible...
And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
So? How about querying the weather stations about the data? Bet they have it.You really are a moron...Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.If that were what you people are doing, it would be a different story. But since you are not and have not, non-sequitur.
That's only because you are scientifically illiterate. Not my problem.
Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.
Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.
gawd.... left wits are so gullible...
And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.
Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself looking for the data..
Hillary is a clueless wench... Given the mill stone around her neck there is no way in hell she will be president..Read it all here: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
And what will liberals respond with? The very "fiddled data" that this article addresses that somehow "proves" global warming.
I figured out this was a scam more than 30 years ago. It became obvious after they switched from the "coming ice age" to global warming.
On top of that, they used global warming to attack the United States. Far bigger polluters like China and the Soviet Union got nary a mention.
It was just too obvious the entire thing was a political scam, not to save the environment, but to attack capitalism and the United States.
Now, like eugenics before this, this "settled science" is being exposed for the fraud it is. Oh, the "true believers" (aka those making money from this fraud and their useful idiots) will cling to this long after it's obvious it's a fraud.
Like spiritualism, the "true believers" just don't want to admit they were scammed. Everyone else will be laughing, and wondering why, in the evidence of cold winters how anyone believed this nonsense.
I dare whoever the GOP nominee dare says this to Hillary in a debate. They won't though. They won't even ask.
Probably a 'keyboard scientist' he is. These deniers claim they have more knowledge regarding earth science by piecing up various conspiracy theories one after the other. Even denying the fact that our current dependence on fossil fuels causes harm to the environment and considering alternative sources of energy to be unsustainable and more harmful.
Seriously, did you checked your science background?
Indeed, I can cite many reasons aside from AGW why we should be weaning ourselves off of oil as an energy source. But they won't even acknowledge those simple facts, such as that it is the most polluting substance in use today and should for that reason alone, be phased out.
So? How about querying the weather stations about the data? Bet they have it.You really are a moron...Please provide for me the CRU Meta Data file for the climate record prior to 2010. I wont wait as I know that it has been deleted by the direct admission of Kieth Briffa PHD and Philip Jones PHD. I am laughing at you for being an ignorant fool.
Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.
Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.
gawd.... left wits are so gullible...
And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.
Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself looking for the data..
You don't think spending over 10 trillion dollars to build the largest structures in the world increases the use of Oil?No, you do not need to repeat yourself. Just make yourself coherent. Solar and Wind use oil, they increase the use of oil. So you stated you do not support using solar and wind to create energy.We should not be using Oil as a source of energy? Solar and Wind are only possible by using Oil as a source of energy. Solar and Wind increase the demand of Oil. Solar and Wind consume Oil.No, it is not everyone as you imply. They told us we were heading for an ice age back in the 70s. They told us we would be out of oil way before now. They said the Earth couldn't support the population we have 20 years ago. They told us a lot of things and sold a lot of books doing so. Sorry that even if there is GW it is not that large and certainly would be a blessing to most, at least in the colder climates.
Oh please! A handful of scientists looked at the milankovitch cycles and suggested that we were due for an ice age. The problem was that very few people were looking at the climate data. And when they did they discovered that it didn't indicate that an ice age was looming, because the planet was actually warming up. You really need to get your ducks in line before you attempt to teach this to anyone in a classroom. Because, damn.
And make no mistake. We will run out of oil. And we should not be using it as an energy source. it is far more valuable for other purposes, such as medicines and plastics. When it runs out, we will have other sources of energy, but will not have alternative sources for medicines and plastics. And where will we be then?
As for population dynamics, there are very few ecosystems on this planet that are not in decline. How long do you think it will take before we see it having serious impacts on human population growth? Do you even care?
If we can not use Oil as a source of Oil, the biggest user, Solar and Wind would not be built.
No we should not be using oil as an energy source. Do I need to repeat myself?
Solar and wind uses components fabricated from a petroleum-base. To operate, they don't need oil. They don't even need coal. They just do their thing and supply electricity to the grid. To suggest that they increase the use of oil is ludicrous. And once again (I do hate repeating myself so listen up), we need oil. It is a vital lubricant and raw ingredient for many critical products. We should NOT be using it as an energy source because 1) it is finite in quantity, and so when it is gone, it is gone; 2) It is a very dirty fuel source that not only increases the concentration of ghgs in the atmosphere, but emits carcenogens, mutagens, and toxic heavy metals into the environment with its use, transport, and storage. Considering that there are current cleaner alternatives and many more to come in the near future, it is high time we let technology wean us off of it.
So? How about querying the weather stations about the data? Bet they have it.You really are a moron...Excuse me? If you want access to CRU data I suggest you fill out a FOIA request and submit it to them (not that I believe any of your would ever break a nail trying to do that, but that's not my problem). I'm not your friggin secretary.
Because the data NO LONGER EXISTS! It was dumped as Dr Jones put it because their was no need for the empirical evidence once the made up crap was completed... Its taken over 5 years for many of my colleges to obtain the data records from the original station sites to recreate the file. Many were given to the CRU and are no longer accessible to any one even after FOIA requests up the wazzoo.
gawd.... left wits are so gullible...
And you have contacted the CRU personally and verified what the clam bakers at Watt Inc. have lead you to believe, right? Look, you don't have to rely on anyone's compiled second-hand data. You can contact all of the original sources for that data and ask for it yourself (you may have to pay a fee, but hey, so does everyone else). For instance, if you want original climate data from the State of Kentucky, it is freely available online, at no cost to you. You know, you people really make me laugh. None of you ever bother to do any real independent research of your own all the while criticizing those who do, and then expect the rest of us to believe that you are credible. Simply laughable.
Climate Change Scientists Admit Dumping Data.
Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself looking for the data..
Just try getting the data when the originals were given to the CRU... They were destroyed you moron!
Wanna bet? Think about all the poor women who will show up because they want to see the first woman president. Even a lot of your wives will secretly vote for Hillary.Hillary is a clueless wench... Given the mill stone around her neck there is no way in hell she will be president..Read it all here: The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph
And what will liberals respond with? The very "fiddled data" that this article addresses that somehow "proves" global warming.
I figured out this was a scam more than 30 years ago. It became obvious after they switched from the "coming ice age" to global warming.
On top of that, they used global warming to attack the United States. Far bigger polluters like China and the Soviet Union got nary a mention.
It was just too obvious the entire thing was a political scam, not to save the environment, but to attack capitalism and the United States.
Now, like eugenics before this, this "settled science" is being exposed for the fraud it is. Oh, the "true believers" (aka those making money from this fraud and their useful idiots) will cling to this long after it's obvious it's a fraud.
Like spiritualism, the "true believers" just don't want to admit they were scammed. Everyone else will be laughing, and wondering why, in the evidence of cold winters how anyone believed this nonsense.
I dare whoever the GOP nominee dare says this to Hillary in a debate. They won't though. They won't even ask.
