Global warming in action....right before our eyes

[Pumpkin Row]

[

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

So, I'm an Infidel then?

Say, when DOES Hale-Bopp pass by again? Do you have your black tennies?

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

It's funny because most other religions don't have a God that can be bought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, dumbass, whole world.

Even for you, you're being remarkably stupid and dishonest.

Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other, and what does CO2 have to do with that??


LOL!!!!

Why?

 

[Uncensored2008]

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

It's funny because most other religions don't have a God that can be bought.

Science is a methodology, it is a means of discovery. The basic foundation of real science is the null hypothesis which is falsified mathematically to warrant pursuit of the alternate hypothesis. Without falsification, there can be no science.

AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with actual science, no more than Scientology does. AGW does not follow the scientific method and allows no dissent from dogma, it is purely religion, based on faith rather than legitimate research.

A clear clue is that the moment a dissenter is declared a "heretic," you know that you are not dealing with science.

 

[LaDexter]

Why?

I thought your CHOSEN rear had all the answers. I have a full topic on this subject below. Perhaps you should read it and learn how full of @@@@ your rabbi is on this issue...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

It's funny because most other religions don't have a God that can be bought.

Science is a methodology, it is a means of discovery. The basic foundation of real science is the null hypothesis which is falsified mathematically to warrant pursuit of the alternate hypothesis. Without falsification, there can be no science.

AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with actual science, no more than Scientology does. AGW does not follow the scientific method and allows no dissent from dogma, it is purely religion, based on faith rather than legitimate research.

A clear clue is that the moment a dissenter is declared a "heretic," you know that you are not dealing with science.

Oh, I agree. That's why I used quotes around the word. There just tends to be less and less actual science required for these sheep to follow it fanatically. At this point, they follow every word, whether there's evidence or not.

 

[RollingThunder]

Science is a methodology, it is a means of discovery. The basic foundation of real science is the null hypothesis which is falsified mathematically to warrant pursuit of the alternate hypothesis. Without falsification, there can be no science.

AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with actual science, no more than Scientology does. AGW does not follow the scientific method and allows no dissent from dogma, it is purely religion, based on faith rather than legitimate research.

And the anti-science denier cult troll, UnHinged, once again idiotically imagines that he knows more about science than ALL of the actual scientists. Clearly a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (and severe retardation).

In the real world....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[1]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it. I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government.

 

[Dale Smith]

Don't let facts get in the way of a good fear mongering.....eh?

Your denier cult motto is "Don't let facts get in the way of being a good rightwingnut reality-denying nutjob".

Here is what is causing your "Global Warming"......courtesy of the military industrial complex.


Is Climate Engineering Real? Square Cloud Formations Are Undeniable Proof

 

[Uncensored2008]

Science is a methodology, it is a means of discovery. The basic foundation of real science is the null hypothesis which is falsified mathematically to warrant pursuit of the alternate hypothesis. Without falsification, there can be no science.

AGW is a religion, it has nothing to do with actual science, no more than Scientology does. AGW does not follow the scientific method and allows no dissent from dogma, it is purely religion, based on faith rather than legitimate research.

And the anti-science denier cult troll, UnHinged, once again idiotically imagines that he knows more about science than ALL of the actual scientists. Clearly a victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (and severe retardation).

In the real world....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia
The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[1]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

More religious nonsene.

Your "proof" is that there is "consensus" among the priests who's fortunes depend on the perpetuation of their fraud.

The SECOND one points to "consensus" as the basis of a hypothesis, one is not dealing in science.

 

[RollingThunder]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it. I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government.

Read post #107 again, little retard, and then get back to me with something sane....if you even can....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why?

I thought your CHOSEN rear had all the answers. I have a full topic on this subject below. Perhaps you should read it and learn how full of @@@@ your rabbi is on this issue...

I know you're a moron and stuff, but I'm not Jewish.

Just because 99% of the people beating your ass on USMB are smarter than you doesn't mean they're all Jewish.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

What propaganda shit for brains??????


Again where is all this godamn propaganda the past 50 years from the fossil fuel industry aimed at the General public....


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

What propaganda shit for brains??????


Again where is all this godamn propaganda the past 50 years from the fossil fuel industry aimed at the General public....


.

This propaganda?????



BP Energy Outlook 2030: The World's Energy Future…:

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

What propaganda shit for brains??????


Again where is all this godamn propaganda the past 50 years from the fossil fuel industry aimed at the General public....


.

Again where is the propaganda? Is it this 1972 shell pro environment commercial?



1972 Shell Oil and Gasoline commercial featuring …:

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

What propaganda shit for brains??????


Again where is all this godamn propaganda the past 50 years from the fossil fuel industry aimed at the General public....


.

This 1979 Texaco commercial?



Gasohol Television Commercial 1979 Texaco:

 

[Dale Smith]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it. I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government.

Read post #107 again, little retard, and then get back to me with something sane....if you even can....

Still waiting on you to explain to me how there can be a benchmark for the temperature since they have been spraying the upper atmosphere with nano-particulutes of heavy metals. Unless you figure it that variable, all the other bullshit "U.N" funded junk science, no one really knows what the temperature is. This is "man made" alright but one damn thing is for sure is that it's not for the reasons you think or the cause thereof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it. I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government.

Read post #107 again, little retard, and then get back to me with something sane....if you even can....

Still waiting on you to explain to me how there can be a benchmark for the temperature since they have been spraying the upper atmosphere with nano-particulutes of heavy metals. Unless you figure it that variable, all the other bullshit "U.N" funded junk science, no one really knows what the temperature is. This is "man made" alright but one damn thing is for sure is that it's not for the reasons you think or the cause thereof.

Still waiting on you to explain to me how there can be a benchmark for the temperature since they have been spraying the upper atmosphere with nano-particulutes of heavy metals.

You've got a rich fantasy life.

 

[boedicca]

Ahhh....another sniveling shit denier cult dingbat, wandering, lost and confused and completely blinded by his crackpot rightwingnut ideologies, in an insane fantasy world of his own creation.

We're apparently heathens, because we don't believe the Liberal's God of 'Science'~

Nope! You are apparently a total retard because you "don't believe" in science as a good and accurate method for understanding the physical universe. You are apparently a clueless twit because you fall for the dumbshit propaganda pumped out by the fossil fuel industry.

I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it. I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government.

Read post #107 again, little retard, and then get back to me with something sane....if you even can....

Wow. What a Convincing Retort.

 

[mamooth]

I believe in science, of course, but only when there's actual science behind a claim. There's a difference between believing in the scientific method, and believing the scientists claiming to have used it.

If you could demonstrate where the scientists have gone wrong, you wouldn't come across as such a mindless cultist. All you do is repeat your mantras as if they were sacred scripture, because that's what religious cultists do.

I don't trust people, especially ones employed by the government.

Your paranoid nature and your inability to reason is not our problem. It is obviuosly the reason why you were so easily suckered by your cult masters

Sadly for you, things never turn out well for cultists, especially once the cult starts dying, as yours is. To avoid suffering the fate of the Jonestown cultists, you deniers need to start quietly slipping away into the jungle now, before some fellow cultists with guns escort you to the koolaid vat.