Global Warming. Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

[Flash]

Do YOU know the difference between sea ice and multi-year sea ice?

I bet you don't.

Do you know the difference between natural climate change and AGW, you stupid Moon Bat? It doesn't sound like you do.

You Moon Bat don't know anymore about Climate Science than you know about History, Economics, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm 58.

Not only do I remember the 70s...I STARTED MY UNDERGRADUATE in geology in the early 80's. So I'm EXTREMELY familiar with all of this topic.


Would you like to talk about Cenozoic glaciation? Would you like to talk about ocean currents? Would you like to talk about rocks? Would you like to talk about geochemistry? Coal? Petroleum? Anything in particular?

I’m wondering when James Bond is going to join this discussion as he also knows this topic cold.

 

[Billy_Bob]

30 years? Is that how long mankind has before mankind goes extinct from global warming?

Didn't Al Gore make that assessment 30 years ago? are we living on borrowed time now or did they just add thirty more years?

 

[Crick]

Didn't Al Gore make that assessment 30 years ago? are we living on borrowed time now or did they just add thirty more years?

I realize you don't have the intellectual wherewithal to address any of the actual science involved Billy Boy. But, given that, don't expect anyone to pay much attention to anything you've got to say. You and Ding just have a nice chit-chat by yourselves over in the corner. I hear the echoes are good there.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I’m wondering when James Bond is going to join this discussion as he also knows this topic cold.

What is your game? You keep asking me leading questions but you never really get to any point. Just curious is all.

May I ask what industry YOU work in? What YOUR age is? May I ask how much YOU know about the science?

Thanks.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Do you know the difference between natural climate change and AGW,

Better than you do.

you stupid Moon Bat?

At least I'm not an inbred toad.

It doesn't sound like you do.

I know more about this topic than you do. By a long shot. You uneducated dimwit.

You Moon Bat don't know anymore about Climate Science than you know about History, Economics, Biology, Ethics or the Constitution.

LOL. I'm sorry but I don't care what fuckwits who could barely make it through an associates degree (or whatever you need for your "career").

But thanks for the input, all the same.

Now go away little one.

 

[Indeependent]

What is your game? You keep asking me leading questions but you never really get to any point. Just curious is all.

May I ask what industry YOU work in? What YOUR age is? May I ask how much YOU know about the science?

Thanks.

I am 62 and the scientific world was in a Frozen Tundra Age frenzy in the 60s and the 70s, so I call bullshit on every university and business entity that forces scientists on a payroll to change their research results to push an agenda.
I’m also 100% sure that the scientists would rather tell the truth but they have to eat and pay other bills.

 

[Indeependent]

What is your game? You keep asking me leading questions but you never really get to any point. Just curious is all.

May I ask what industry YOU work in? What YOUR age is? May I ask how much YOU know about the science?

Thanks.

I’m so glad you keep forgetting that I had 2 Ecological Engineers do research.

 

[Flash]

Better than you do.



At least I'm not an inbred toad.




I know more about this topic than you do. By a long shot. You uneducated dimwit.



LOL. I'm sorry but I don't care what fuckwits who could barely make it through an associates degree (or whatever you need for your "career").

But thanks for the input, all the same.

Now go away little one.

You are confused Moon Bat.

There is absolutely no proof of AGW. Nada, Just a stupid ass correlation no better than the hight of women's skirts and the stock market, some shit in shit out computer programs and a whole lot of fraudulent and cherry picked data.

A scientist can be bought the same as a politician and the Environmental Wacko research funding buys a lot of stupidity from people that should know better. Just go read the emails exposed with Climategate and you will see how corrupt those Principle Scientist were. They blatantly admitted they were lying but they were doing it for "the good of humanity".

If this AGW bullshit was real the scientists getting paid for research would not have to lie, would they? Additionally one of their stupid prediction occasionally would come true but we have yet to see that.

Climate change is real but AGW is a nothing more than a scam by stupid Environmental Wackos. The same idiots that are gleeful now that the price of gas at the pump is $5/gal and Americans are suffering. That is exactly what the assholes wanted for a long tome and they got it when Potatohead stole the election.

 

[Crick]

You are confused Moon Bat.

There is absolutely no proof of AGW. Nada, Just a stupid ass correlation no better than the hight of women's skirts and the stock market, some shit in shit out computer programs and a whole lot of fraudulent and cherry picked data.

A scientist can be bought the same as a politician and the Environmental Wacko research funding buys a lot of stupidity from people that should know better. Just go read the emails exposed with Climategate and you will see how corrupt those Principle Scientist were. They blatantly admitted they were lying but they were doing it for "the good of humanity".

If this AGW bullshit was real the scientists getting paid for research would not have to lie, would they? Additionally one of their stupid prediction occasionally would come true but we have yet to see that.

Climate change is real but AGW is a nothing more than a scam by stupid Environmental Wackos. The same idiots that are gleeful now that the price of gas at the pump is $5/gal and Americans are suffering. That is exactly what the assholes wanted for a long tome and they got it when Potatohead stole the election.

A scientist can be bought. The hundred thousand scientists that would have to be bought and bought for DECADES to pull off what you're all claiming... that's a different matter altogether. And, they'd have to have been bought off well before anyone had ever heard of AGW.

I'll tell you what makes a lot more sense and is a lot more likely. The fossil fuel industry sees AGW as an existential threat. Do you know what that means? It means that for them its life and and death. All their well paid jobs and government subisidies and billions in profits could just fucking vanish. Do you think THAT might convince a few of them to be dishonest? A few of them to pay off some scientists to lean their results in their direction? To get just the sort of manufactured 'controversy' that the tobacco industry provided the paid-off politicians to keep themselves going for 20 years longer than they should have been able to do. Maybe? I can understand that someone without much of a science education (and face it, that's most of the country) might have trouble understanding how a trace gas could fuck us as royally as it has. It's a lot easier to convince someone that AGW is a liberal fraud. That its the democrats that have been paying off the scientists because the democrats want to control the world and then destroy the world. Right. You already hate them and you're already stupid so its pretty easy to convince you of nonsense like that. Confirmation bias, right. Worked pretty well, didn't it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They were burning coal long before we started using oil in a big way.

How much coal?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A scientist can be bought. The hundred thousand scientists that would have to be bought and bought for DECADES to pull off what you're all claiming... that's a different matter altogether. And, they'd have to have been bought off well before anyone had ever heard of AGW.

I'll tell you what makes a lot more sense and is a lot more likely. The fossil fuel industry sees AGW as an existential threat. Do you know what that means? It means that for them its life and and death. All their well paid jobs and government subisidies and billions in profits could just fucking vanish. Do you think THAT might convince a few of them to be dishonest? A few of them to pay off some scientists to lean their results in their direction? To get just the sort of manufactured 'controversy' that the tobacco industry provided the paid-off politicians to keep themselves going for 20 years longer than they should have been able to do. Maybe? I can understand that someone without much of a science education (and face it, that's most of the country) might have trouble understanding how a trace gas could fuck us as royally as it has. It's a lot easier to convince someone that AGW is a liberal fraud. That its the democrats that have been paying off the scientists because the democrats want to control the world and then destroy the world. Right. You already hate them and you're already stupid so its pretty easy to convince you of nonsense like that. Confirmation bias, right. Worked pretty well, didn't it.

Hide the decline and Mann's Nature trick are already over a decade old!

How much climate "science" is coming from the East Angelia Data Inventing and Fudging Research Facility?

 

[Meister]

I disagree

Color me surprised.

 

[Larry Johnson]

Color me surprised.

Don't be surprised. I am a cornucopia of information

 

[Sunsettommy]

WOW! I didn't think the EPA could be that full of shit. Try this website on for size.

discover.hubpages.com › education › How-Methane-GasHow Methane Gas Releases Due To Global Warming Could Cause ...

The EPA only posted AMERICAN CH4 emissions, YOU post a GLOBAL CH4 emissions next time try to think as you read.

CH4 warm forcing number is BELOW 1 W/m2 that is a negligible number your ignorance is painfully clear here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Well, stick this in your pipe and smoke it.

climate.nasa.gov › vital-signs › ice-sheetsIce Sheets - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The losses are negligible compared to estimated total mass.

Alarmists keep posting scary-looking graphs of the loss of polar ice, like this one of Antarctica.

===

 

[toobfreak]

Your time is short. How short exactly is hard to say. I would give it 20 to 30 years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

In the 1960's to the 1970's the number of peer reviewed science articles predicting WARMING outnumbered those predicting COOLING 6 to 1.

Don't believe me?

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists...

journals.ametsoc.org

Now, in the 1960's to 1970's the scientists were actually learning more about the Milankovich Cycles which drive the ice ages (well the Cenozoic glaciation events if you will) so of course they were going to talk about that, but that was unrelated to AGW.

From the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's the northern hemisphere was actually showing a "cooling trend" which most now believe was due to human-produced sulfate aerosols which caused the "Mid-century cooling". Once we cleaned up the air a bit the warming started up again because we were still pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmopshere.

Don't believe me?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028031

What most people are thinking of are a couple of articles in Time and Newsweek. Not the actual science of the times.

They left out several hundred published paper to make that LIE.

285 Papers 70s Cooling 1

285 Papers 70s Cooling 2

285 Papers 70s Cooling 3​

 

[Sunsettommy]

Do YOU know the difference between sea ice and multi-year sea ice?

I bet you don't.

You didn't try to address the article at all, that is called DEFLECTION.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'll tell you what "the discussion is all about." Look at my thread. Look at all the graphs I posted.

I replied to your CO2 charts with my replies on science research over CO2 changes which you have yet to reply about them then my latest reply made you look ignorant which is now 100% confirmed.

You have no idea what happened here, but many people seeing your idiotic deflecting replies are at you.